Olympia Snowe

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.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Fiscal Year 2001 military construction appropriations bill and to commend my colleagues Senator Stevens, Senator Byrd, Senator Burns, and Senator Murray for their leadership in bringing this most important spending bill before the Senate. This bill provides critical funding for military construction projects as well as Department of Defense related emergency supplemental funding for fiscal year 2000. Other colleagues have already spoken on the merits of the military construction aspect of this bill and the importance of those projects to the men and women of our armed forces and their families. So today, I am going to focus my remarks on the critical provisions contained in the Byrd-Warner amendment and why I believe those provisions are as important to these same men and women and their families. By including emergency supplemental funding in this bill, and fast tracking its passage, the Congress will be supporting the loyal men and women of our armed forces who are participating in contingency operations overseas. But, Mr. President, support of our troops is not always ``sending money,'' sometimes we support them best by ensuring that they are not overextended in missions that appear to have no end. And that is why I commend Senator Byrd and Senator Warner for their leadership by including these provisions that will force the debate about open-ended obligations. For example, on May 1, 2000, the top U.S. commander in Kosovo, Brigadier General Ricardo Sanchez told reporters that he predicts that NATO peacekeepers will have to remain in the Balkans for ``at least a generation.'' In testimony before the Senate just this last April, Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen acknowledged that U.S. troops may not be pulled out during his final months in his cabinet position, and possibly not during the time of his predecessor. Our airmen performed superbly during the 78-day air war. Now, a year has passed and we have more than 5,500 troops on the ground in Kosovo, having spent more than $2 billion on the air campaign, and by September of this year estimates are that the U.S. will spend upwards of $5.9 billion in support of stabilizing the peace in Kosovo. And, as the policy currently stands, there is no end in sight. We have learned through our experience in Bosnia that rhetoric alone will not expedite mission accomplishment and bring our troops home. In 1996, the U.S. sent 22,500 soldiers to the Balkans, in support of the Dayton Accords for an operation that was to last until December 16th of that year. We have made great progress there, but, four years later, the U.S. still has a significant force there and no deadline for withdrawal. So here we are Mr. President, four and one half years since the signing of the Dayton Accords in Bosnia, we have more than 4,300 troops in Bosnia and another 3,000 support personnel committed in the region and no deadline for withdrawal, no end in sight. In Kosovo we won the peace in June 1999 with our air campaign and a year later we are providing more then 5,500 troops to support an operation that is becoming increasingly more threatening. In this bill, Mr. President, with the leadership of Senator Byrd and Senator Warner, the Senate is taking action to establish some way of getting to an end in Kosovo. Provisions in this bill provide a limitation of funds for U.S. ground combat troops in Kosovo. Section 2410 of this bill terminates funding for the U.S. presence in Kosovo after July 1, 2001, unless and until the President submits a report to Congress containing a request to specifically authorize continued U.S. ground troop deployment and Congress enacts a joint resolution specifically authorizing such continued deployment. I must note, that this provision does continue the support of non-combat troops in Kosovo who can provide limited support to the continued NATO peacekeeping operation. The provision further requires the President to develop a plan, in consultation with appropriate foreign governments, by which NATO member countries, with the exception of the U.S., and other non-NATO countries will provide all ground combat troops necessary to execute peacekeeping operations in Kosovo. Again, we are looking for a plan--something that this Administration has not been able to do. The plan is to establish a schedule or target dates, at three month intervals, for achieving an orderly transition to a non-U.S. force in Kosovo. Mr. President, it is also in this spirit that I must express my disappointment in the lack of support for operations in Kosovo by the European Commission, the European Union, and the European member nations of NATO and why I strongly support the provisions of the Byrd- Warner amendment. In Kosovo, the U.S. has taken the lead toward ending the ethnic violence and establishing civil law with the intention of turning the responsibility for long term development and revitalization over to the European community. However, the European community has not stepped forward as a unified body to assume this responsibility, and appears unwilling to take a leadership role. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 29th, General Clark, then Commander-In-Chief of the U.S. European Command stated that ``despite our progress in missions assigned to the military, civil implementation has been slow and in Kosovo today, civil government structures are lacking.'' He further stated that ``the pace of contributions to the manning and resources of UNMIK [United Nations Mission in Kosovo] have resulted in sporadic and uneven progress toward civil implementation goals'' and concluded his testimony by saying ``the hardest part of securing peace in Kosovo lies ahead.'' A well-publicized area where the lack of European support for civil implementation is readily apparent is the European's lack of support for the Kosovo Police Force. The United Nations has stated the requirement for 4,718 police and at this point the United States has provided 97% of the 550 police we have pledged, yet our European partners have only mustered 63% of the 1288 police they had pledged. Mr. President, I call on the leadership of our allies to meet their commitments! Let me remind my colleagues that in the last decade we anticipated reaping the benefits of the peace dividend. Many touted that the end of the Cold War would allow us to draw down our military forces and spend less money on defense. Well we have drawn our forces down, and they are deployed more now than ever anticipated in the post-cold-war era, and we are paying for it. In the period 1999 through 1999, U.S. taxpayers will have spent more than $23.6 billion for contingency operations. Mr. President, we just cannot afford to unilaterally deploy troops and provide monetary support to each global hot spot for an indefinite period of time, with tepid and inconsistent support from the UN, NATO, and our other allies. In the four years of the Bosnia Operation, more Army reservists have been activated than in the entire Vietnam War, and I am concerned that our involvement in Kosovo will mirror our involvement in Bosnia. I tell you this first hand, because these reservists include men and women of the 112th Medical Company from the Army National Guard and members of the 101st Air Refueling Wing from my home state of Maine who were called up or volunteered to serve in Bosnia. And we are paying for these extended deployments in more than just dollars. At a time when the Department of Defense is meeting only 92 percent of its active duty recruiting goal, 88 percent of its Reserve recruiting goal and is struggling to retain the highly trained people that are currently serving, we in Congress and in the Administration need to be mindful of the message that we are sending to the American people. They need to know that we are aware that we are closely watching, and that we are ready to step in to protect the best interests of the U.S. and our men and women in uniform. Although military members reference the high operational tempo as a consideration for leaving the military, it is difficult to quantify the exact effect those contingency operations have had on the recruiting and retention of personnel. It is, however, easy to determine the monetary effect. As we marked-up the Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Authorization Act, we were forced to look for ways to find money to fund new equipment to modernize our forces, money to improve housing and the quality of life, and money to improve healthcare for our men and women in uniform, as well as their families and our often forgotten retirees. We continue to uphold our commitments, just as we are upholding our commitment to this operation in Kosovo--to the detriment of our readiness to fight and win if there was a major theater war--while our European allies remain in the shadows. Now this Senate is considering the addition of $1.85 billion in supplemental appropriations to support overseas contingency operations. But this bill is different in that the Byrd-Warner amendment limits the amount that can be obligated to 75 percent of the total Kosovo appropriation until the President certifies that four specific conditions have been met; at which time the remaining 25 percent would be released. These conditions stipulate that the European Commission, the European Union and the European member nations of NATO must provide a third of the assistance for reconstruction that they pledged, 75 percent of the funds promised for humanitarian assistance, 75 percent of the amount pledged for the Kosovo consolidated budget, and 75 percent of the personnel pledged for the Kosovo Police Force. These provisions provide specific, tangible steps toward the fulfillment of the commitment promised by these countries. This does not require these countries to provide something that they do not have or something that they are not capable of supporting. It is merely a means of holding them accountable for that to which they have already committed. If, however, our allies continue to go back on their pledged commitment, and the President cannot certify that those four conditions have been met by July 15th of this year, then the remaining funds must be used for the planned, phased, and safe withdrawal of U.S. troops from Kosovo. The details and time line for this withdrawal will be left to the President and his advisers, with these plans to be fully developed by the 30th of September. So, as our troops in Kosovo valiantly conduct 1,321 security patrols each week and provide around the clock security at 48 checkpoints and 62 key facilities, we must support them in every way, beginning with holding our allies in Europe to the fiscal and personnel support they pledged to provide when the U.S. decided to support the air offensive in Kosovo. I know, that as a result of the leadership of Senators Stevens, Byrd, Burns, and Murray, the FY2001 military construction appropriations bill is good legislation that provides our men and women in the armed forces the support they need as they go about their business of protecting our long-term national interests.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President. I rise today to speak about S. 2557, the National Energy Security Act of 2000. First of all, I want to thank the Republican leader, Senator Lott, who pulled together a task force to address the serious problem of the lack of a national energy policy, and also Senator Murkowski, Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. From my viewpoint on the Task Force, I was representing a State that appeared to be the proverbial canary in the coal mine as Maine was one of the early Northeast states not only to bear the brunt of low oil inventories during this past winter that was 20 degrees below normal in January, but a state that also experienced some of the highest prices in the country for home heating oil, kerosene and propane. Prices doubled and remained high throughout the winter months only then to be followed this spring by the highest prices in over two decades at the gas pump. And, this week, prices at the pump are once again on their way up, jumping more than 12 cents overnight. The entire episode has pointed out just how vulnerable--and unprepared--the Federal Government is when it comes to a workable energy policy. As we found out, there was no short term policy to follow. The Administration, as Secretary Richardson stated at an oil crisis summit in Bangor last February, was caught napping. So, the goal of the task force was to come up with legislation that would decrease the country's dependency on foreign oil to 50 percent by the year 2010 through the enhancement of the use of renewable energy resources and includes the extension of tax credits for the production of energy from biomass, including wood waste; increases eligibility to the federal Weatherization Program, an outreach program to encourage consumers to take actions to avoid seasonal price increases through a summer fill and fuel budgeting program; and provides tax credits for residential use of solar power. The bill enhances domestic energy production oil by offering tax relief for oil and gas produced from small marginal wells--wells that produce less than 15 barrels a day--that have already been drilled but have been capped when oil prices hit rock bottom over the past few years. Bringing these marginal wells back into domestic production also has the benefit of producing more U.S. jobs. I am particularly pleased that the bill authorizes the Secretary of Energy to establish a Northeast Heating Oil Reserve to be used when home heating oil inventories fall dangerously low and prices escalate. The Reserve would store two million barrels of refined home heating oil within a day's delivery to Northeast states if supplies run dangerously low because of a sudden demand due to cold winter weather. Mr. President, I would have liked to have been a cosponsor of S. 2557, because we need a comprehensive policy and the National Energy Security Act was an effort to start down that road. I cannot, however, because the bill also calls for the opening up of the Arctic Coastal Plain, which would allow for oil and gas exploration and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I continue to believe that ANWR should remain protected and there are a number of other steps that can be taken to increase or conserve our domestic supply. Now that this legislation has been introduced, potential solutions to our Nation's energy policy--or lack of it--can at least be considered and debated.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation designed to promote growth in the domestic cruise ship industry and at the same time enable U.S. shipyards to compete for cruise ship orders. The legislation would require that at least two U.S.-built ships be ordered for each foreign-built ship permitted to operate in the U.S. market, and provide tax incentives for U.S. cruise ship construction and operation. Current law prohibits non-U.S. vessels from carrying passengers between U.S. ports. As such, today's domestic cruise market is very limited. The cruise industry consists predominantly of foreign vessels which must sail to and from foreign ports. The vast majority of cruise passengers are Americans, but most of the revenues now go to foreign destinations. That is because the high cost of building and operating U.S.-flag cruise ships and competition from modern, foreign-flag cruise ships have deterred growth in the domestic cruise ship trade. By some estimates, a single port call by a cruise vessel generates between $300,000 and $500,000 in economic benefits. This is a very lucrative market, and I would like to see U.S. companies and American workers benefit from this untapped potential. However, domestic ship builders and cruise operations face a very difficult, up-hill battle against unfair competition from foreign cruise lines and foreign shipyards. Foreign cruise lines, for example, pay no corporate income tax. Nor are they held to the same demanding ship construction and operating standards imposed on U.S.-flag vessel operators. Foreign cruise lines are also free from the need to comply with many U.S. labor and environmental protection laws, and U.S. health, safety, and sanitation laws do not apply to the foreign ships. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to level the playing field between the U.S. cruise industry and the international cruise industry. It requires that at least two U.S.-built ships be ordered for each foreign-built ship permitted to operate on a temporary basis in the U.S. market, and provide tax incentive for U.S. cruise ship construction and operation. For example, it provides that a shipyard will pay taxes on the construction or overhaul of a cruise ship of 20,000 gross tons or greater only after the delivery of the ship. Under my bill, a U.S. company operating a cruise ship of 20,000 grt and greater may depreciate that vessel over a five-year period rather than the current 10-year depreciation period. The bill would also repeal the $2,500 business tax deduction limit for a convention on a cruise ship to provide a tax deduction limit equal to that provided to conventions held at shore-side hotels. The measure would authorize a 20-percent tax credit for fuel operating costs associated with environmentally clean gas turbine engines manufactured in the U.S., and also allows use of investment of Capital Construction Funds to include not only the non-contiguous trades, but also the domestic point-to- point trades and ``cruise to nowhere.'' Finally, the bill provides that a foreign-built ship may be brought into the U.S. trades only after the owner or buyer of such vessel has entered into a binding contract for the construction of at least two cruise ships of equal or greater size in the U.S. The interim foreign- built ship must be documented in the U.S. The contract must require that the first ship constructed in the U.S. be delivered no later than four years from the date of entering the binding contract with the delivery of a second ship within five years, and that the foreign-built ship must exit the U.S. trade within 12 months of the delivery of the last ship, provided there is no longer than a 24-month elapse between delivery of second and subsequent ships, should the contract provide for construction of more than two ships. Mr. President. I truly believe that this legislation would jumpstart the domestic cruise trade, benefit U.S. workers and companies, and promote economic growth in our ports. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in a strong show of support for this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Jeffords, Wellstone, and Collins today as an original cosponsor of the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2000. There is no doubt that providing access to affordable prescription drugs for American consumers is a very important policy issue. It seems that everywhere we turn--from ``60 Minutes'' to Newsweek--we are hearing stories that our nation's patients face dramatically higher prices for their prescription medication than do our neighbors to the North. In my view, a solution to the pressing problem of prescription drug coverage can't come soon enough. In 1998, drug costs grew more than any other category of health care--skyrocketing by 15.4 percent in a single year. And that's a special burden for seniors, who pay half the cost associated with their prescriptions as opposed to those under 65 who pay just a third. Seniors are reeling from the burden of their prescription drug expenses. The March/April 2000 edition of Health Affairs reports that the average senior now spends $1,100 every year on medications. And with the latest HCFA estimates putting the number of seniors without drug coverage at around 31 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries--or about 13 out of nearly 40 million Americans--it's not hard to see why we can no longer wait to provide a solution. In fact, nearly 86 percent of Medicare beneficiaries must use at least one prescription drug every day. Who are these seniors who don't have prescription drug coverage? Who are the ones traveling by the busload to Canada to buy their prescription drugs? They are people caught in the middle--most of whom are neither wealthy enough to afford their own coverage nor poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. In fact, we know that seniors between 100 percent and 200 percent of the federal poverty have the lowest levels of prescription drug coverage. And these seniors who are just over the poverty level are the least likely to have access to either employer- based coverage or Medicaid. But even Medicaid is not the answer. According to the Urban Institute, in 1996, 63 percent of beneficiaries eligible for QMB (Qualified Medicare Beneficiary) protections--that is, those under the federal poverty level--actually receive those protections, while only 10 percent of those between 100 and 120 percent of the poverty level-- those eligible for SLMB (Specified Low-Income Medicare Beneficiary) protections--are receiving that coverage. And only 16 states--including my home state of Maine--have their own drug assistance programs. The high cost of prescription medications in the United States is forcing many of our nation's seniors to make unthinkable decisions that are harmful to their health and well-being. It is simply unacceptable that any person should have to choose between filling a prescription or buying groceries. It is fundamentally unfair that a senior in Maine, Vermont, or Minnesota must drive across the Canadian border to be able to afford to buy his or her prescription medications. And while it is illegal for Americans to go to Canada and purchase drugs to be brought back to the United States, we know that this happens on a daily basis. Mr. President, we are in a time of unparalleled prosperity. Almost daily, it seems, we learn of astounding new breakthroughs in biomedical research and in new prescription medications. And there is no question in anyone's mind that we have the best--the very best--health care in the entire world. But yet what does it say when our seniors are forced to go to Canada to purchase their prescription medications? Mr. President, the legislation introduced today by Senator Jeffords will allow Americans to legally purchase in Canada a limited amount of their medication for personal use. This will enable American patients to purchase their medications at the lower prices. In addition, pharmacists and wholesalers will be allowed to reimport prescription drugs that were made in the U.S. or in FDA-approved facilities. Mr. President, I support this bill and believe that Senator Jeffords has written a sound piece of legislation. But the fact of the matter is that addressing the issue of seniors crossing the border to purchase drugs is really only an interim approach--the real issue for America's seniors is the lack of comprehensive prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. This is why last August I introduced the Seniors Prescription Insurance Coverage Equity (SPICE) Act, S. 1480, with Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. Our plan will give seniors coverage options similar to those enjoyed by Members of Congress and other federal employees, through a choice of competing comprehensive drug plans. SPICE will prescribe prescription drug coverage for all Medicare-eligible seniors, with the federal government covering all or part of the premiums on a sliding scale. SPICE has the advantage of working with or without Medicare reform-- something I've heard time and again is important to seniors, because it means that they don't have to wait for meaningful prescription drug coverage. The SPICE gives us the best of all possible worlds--a system that can exist outside of Medicare reform, co-exist with a new Medicare regime when it comes, and actually serve as a downpayment on comprehensive reform. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Jeffords as an original cosponsor of this bill. He has written a bill with the needs of American consumers in mind, and he is ensuring that Americans will have access to safe and affordable prescription medications while Congress works to devise a long-term solution to this very serious problem. Thank you, I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Osteoporosis Measurement Act. Three years ago Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In doing so, we dramatically expanded coverage of osteoporosis screening through bone mass measurements for Medicare beneficiaries. Since we passed this law, we have learned that under the current Medicare law, it is very difficult for a man to be reimbursed for a bone mass measurement test. The bill I am introducing today, the Medicare Osteoporosis Measurement Act, would help all individuals enrolled in Medicare to receive the necessary tests if they are at risk for osteoporosis. Currently, Medicare guidelines allow for testing in five categories of individuals--and most ``at risk'' men do not fall into any of them. The first category in the guidelines is for ``an estrogen-deficient woman at clinical risk for osteoporosis.'' The bill I am introducing today changes this guideline to say that ``an individual, including an estrogen-deficient woman, at clinical risk for osteoporosis'' will be eligible for bone mass measurement. This change--of just a few words-- will vastly increase the opportunities for men to be covered for the important test. Osteoporosis is a major public health problem affecting 28 million Americans, who either have the disease or are at risk due to low bone mass. Today, two million American men have osteoporosis, and another three million are at risk of this disease. Osteoporosis causes 1.5 million fractures annually at a cost of $13.8 billion--$38 million per day--in direct medical expenses. In their lifetime, one in two women and one in eight men over the age of 50 will fracture a bone due to osteoporosis. Each year, men suffer one-third of all the hip fractures that occur, and one-third of these men will not survive more than a year. In addition to hip fracture, men also experience painful and debilitating fractures of the spine, wrist, and other bones due to osteoporosis. Osteoporosis is largely preventable and thousands of fractures could be avoided if low bone mass were detected early and treated. Though we now have drugs that promise to reduce fractures by 50 percent and new drugs have been proven to actually rebuild bone mass, a bone mass measurement is needed to diagnose osteoporosis and determine one's risk for future fractures. And we have learned that there are some prominent risk facts: age, gender, race, a family history of bone fractures, early menopause, risky health behaviors such as smoking and excessive alcohol consumption, and some medications all have been identified as contributing factors to bone loss. But identification of risk factors alone cannot predict how much bone a person has and how strong bone is. Mr. President, we know that osteoporosis is highly preventable, but only if it is discovered in time. There is simply no substitute for early detection. My legislation will ensure that all Medicare beneficiaries at risk for osteoporosis will be able to be tested for osteoporosis.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Jeffords, Wellstone, and Collins today as an original cosponsor of the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2000. There is no doubt that providing access to affordable prescription drugs for American consumers is a very important policy issue. It seems that everywhere we turn--from ``60 Minutes'' to Newsweek--we are hearing stories that our nation's patients face dramatically higher prices for their prescription medication than do our neighbors to the North. In my view, a solution to the pressing problem of prescription drug coverage can't come soon enough. In 1998, drug costs grew more than any other category of health care--skyrocketing by 15.4 percent in a single year. And that's a special burden for seniors, who pay half the cost associated with their prescriptions as opposed to those under 65 who pay just a third. Seniors are reeling from the burden of their prescription drug expenses. The March/April 2000 edition of Health Affairs reports that the average senior now spends $1,100 every year on medications. And with the latest HCFA estimates putting the number of seniors without drug coverage at around 31 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries--or about 13 out of nearly 40 million Americans--it's not hard to see why we can no longer wait to provide a solution. In fact, nearly 86 percent of Medicare beneficiaries must use at least one prescription drug every day. Who are these seniors who don't have prescription drug coverage? Who are the ones traveling by the busload to Canada to buy their prescription drugs? They are people caught in the middle--most of whom are neither wealthy enough to afford their own coverage nor poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. In fact, we know that seniors between 100 percent and 200 percent of the federal poverty have the lowest levels of prescription drug coverage. And these seniors who are just over the poverty level are the least likely to have access to either employer- based coverage or Medicaid. But even Medicaid is not the answer. According to the Urban Institute, in 1996, 63 percent of beneficiaries eligible for QMB (Qualified Medicare Beneficiary) protections--that is, those under the federal poverty level--actually receive those protections, while only 10 percent of those between 100 and 120 percent of the poverty level-- those eligible for SLMB (Specified Low-Income Medicare Beneficiary) protections--are receiving that coverage. And only 16 states--including my home state of Maine--have their own drug assistance programs. The high cost of prescription medications in the United States is forcing many of our nation's seniors to make unthinkable decisions that are harmful to their health and well-being. It is simply unacceptable that any person should have to choose between filling a prescription or buying groceries. It is fundamentally unfair that a senior in Maine, Vermont, or Minnesota must drive across the Canadian border to be able to afford to buy his or her prescription medications. And while it is illegal for Americans to go to Canada and purchase drugs to be brought back to the United States, we know that this happens on a daily basis. Mr. President, we are in a time of unparalleled prosperity. Almost daily, it seems, we learn of astounding new breakthroughs in biomedical research and in new prescription medications. And there is no question in anyone's mind that we have the best--the very best--health care in the entire world. But yet what does it say when our seniors are forced to go to Canada to purchase their prescription medications? Mr. President, the legislation introduced today by Senator Jeffords will allow Americans to legally purchase in Canada a limited amount of their medication for personal use. This will enable American patients to purchase their medications at the lower prices. In addition, pharmacists and wholesalers will be allowed to reimport prescription drugs that were made in the U.S. or in FDA-approved facilities. Mr. President, I support this bill and believe that Senator Jeffords has written a sound piece of legislation. But the fact of the matter is that addressing the issue of seniors crossing the border to purchase drugs is really only an interim approach--the real issue for America's seniors is the lack of comprehensive prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. This is why last August I introduced the Seniors Prescription Insurance Coverage Equity (SPICE) Act, S. 1480, with Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. Our plan will give seniors coverage options similar to those enjoyed by Members of Congress and other federal employees, through a choice of competing comprehensive drug plans. SPICE will prescribe prescription drug coverage for all Medicare-eligible seniors, with the federal government covering all or part of the premiums on a sliding scale. SPICE has the advantage of working with or without Medicare reform-- something I've heard time and again is important to seniors, because it means that they don't have to wait for meaningful prescription drug coverage. The SPICE gives us the best of all possible worlds--a system that can exist outside of Medicare reform, co-exist with a new Medicare regime when it comes, and actually serve as a downpayment on comprehensive reform. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Jeffords as an original cosponsor of this bill. He has written a bill with the needs of American consumers in mind, and he is ensuring that Americans will have access to safe and affordable prescription medications while Congress works to devise a long-term solution to this very serious problem. Thank you, I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Osteoporosis Measurement Act. Three years ago Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In doing so, we dramatically expanded coverage of osteoporosis screening through bone mass measurements for Medicare beneficiaries. Since we passed this law, we have learned that under the current Medicare law, it is very difficult for a man to be reimbursed for a bone mass measurement test. The bill I am introducing today, the Medicare Osteoporosis Measurement Act, would help all individuals enrolled in Medicare to receive the necessary tests if they are at risk for osteoporosis. Currently, Medicare guidelines allow for testing in five categories of individuals--and most ``at risk'' men do not fall into any of them. The first category in the guidelines is for ``an estrogen-deficient woman at clinical risk for osteoporosis.'' The bill I am introducing today changes this guideline to say that ``an individual, including an estrogen-deficient woman, at clinical risk for osteoporosis'' will be eligible for bone mass measurement. This change--of just a few words-- will vastly increase the opportunities for men to be covered for the important test. Osteoporosis is a major public health problem affecting 28 million Americans, who either have the disease or are at risk due to low bone mass. Today, two million American men have osteoporosis, and another three million are at risk of this disease. Osteoporosis causes 1.5 million fractures annually at a cost of $13.8 billion--$38 million per day--in direct medical expenses. In their lifetime, one in two women and one in eight men over the age of 50 will fracture a bone due to osteoporosis. Each year, men suffer one-third of all the hip fractures that occur, and one-third of these men will not survive more than a year. In addition to hip fracture, men also experience painful and debilitating fractures of the spine, wrist, and other bones due to osteoporosis. Osteoporosis is largely preventable and thousands of fractures could be avoided if low bone mass were detected early and treated. Though we now have drugs that promise to reduce fractures by 50 percent and new drugs have been proven to actually rebuild bone mass, a bone mass measurement is needed to diagnose osteoporosis and determine one's risk for future fractures. And we have learned that there are some prominent risk facts: age, gender, race, a family history of bone fractures, early menopause, risky health behaviors such as smoking and excessive alcohol consumption, and some medications all have been identified as contributing factors to bone loss. But identification of risk factors alone cannot predict how much bone a person has and how strong bone is. Mr. President, we know that osteoporosis is highly preventable, but only if it is discovered in time. There is simply no substitute for early detection. My legislation will ensure that all Medicare beneficiaries at risk for osteoporosis will be able to be tested for osteoporosis.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, to introduce a bill that will enhance an already successful program and have a significant impact on women owned businesses. The purpose of the Snowe-Warner bill is to include women-owned businesses as eligible participants in the Department of Defense's Mentor-Protege Program. In 1990, the Congress established the DoD Mentor-Protege Pilot Program to provide incentives for major defense contractors to furnish disadvantaged small business concerns with assistance. That act also established a participation goal of 5% for those small disadvantaged businesses; however, women-owned businesses were not covered under that legislation. The overall results of that legislation were impressive. According to the GAO, from Fiscal Year 1992 through Fiscal Year 1998, appropriated mentor-protege funding of about $233 million was obligated through cooperative agreements, separate contracts, or line items in DOD contracts. And, according to the Department of Defense, between 1994 and 1997 there was a net gain of 3,342 jobs within protege firms; there was a net revenue gain in excess of $276 million within the protege firms; and mentors reported an additional $695 million in subcontract awards to small disadvantaged businesses during this period. So, clearly, our legislation had a beneficial impact on the hundreds of small and disadvantaged businesses that now have the opportunity to compete and win Defense contracts under this program. Then, in 1994, we passed Public Law 103-355, otherwise known as the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, which, among other provisions, amended Section 15 of the Small Business Act to establish a 5% annual goal for women-owned business enterprise participation in federal prime contracts and subcontracts. The Act also amended Section 8 of the Small Business Act to give women-owned businesses equal standing with small and small disadvantaged businesses in the subcontracting plans of federal prime contractors. And, again, the results were significant. In Fiscal Year 1997 the government reported that women-owned businesses received 2.5% ($5.6 billion) of the $225 billion prime and subcontract dollars spent, up from 1.3% in Fiscal Year 1991 when data by gender was first collected. And in the latest data from Fiscal Year 1999, women-owned businesses accounted for 2.42% or $4.6 billion of the total $190 billion federal contract dollars. The percentage of Federal agencies that awarded at least 5% of their prime contract dollars to women-owned businesses was 37.9% in Fiscal Year 1997, up from 20.4% in Fiscal Year 1987. In Fiscal Year 1997 some 5,722 women-owned businesses were involved in 446,332 federal prime contract actions amounting to $3.3 billion while another $2.3 billion was awarded to women-owned businesses in subcontract actions. At that time, women-owned businesses comprised 8.3% of Federal prime contractors, were involved in 4.1% of the prime contract actions and received 2.1% of Federal prime contract awards. Why is this important? Women-owned federal contractors own much more substantial enterprises than the typical woman-owned firm. The average number of employees in women-owned federal contractor firms was 52.2 compared to just 2.3 among all full-time women-owned firms. Women-owned firms involved in Federal procurement have, on average, 1,742% higher sales and employ 23 times more employees than the average woman-owned firm. Despite the resounding success of these initiatives, I must ask the question, ``Are we there yet?'' Not quite. Although all Executive Branch departments operate Mentor-Protege programs, the three agencies, Defense, Energy, and GSA, that account for the most contract dollars have never met the 5 percent goal. While Defense, the largest federal purchaser, provided $2.3 billion or 50% of all federal contracts going to women-owned businesses in Fiscal Year 1999, that amount represented only 1.92% of total Defense contracts. The other two agencies together provided 16.4% of all federal contracts to women-owned businesses in fiscal year 1999 but, again, that funding only represented 3.1% of their combined contract funding. Of the three agencies, the GSA came closest to meeting the 5% goal with 4.75% of its contract dollars going to women-owned firms. Some agencies, however, are doing very well at meeting the 5% goal. Housing and Urban Development sent 14.95% of its 1999 contracts to women-owned businesses, Veteran's Affairs sent 5.59%, and appropriately, the Small Business Administration spent 15.29% of their contract dollars at women-owned firms. Mr. President, women-owned businesses are capable of doing more and they want to do more. Surveys indicate that when asked if the availability of mentor-protege programs would make them more interested in entering the government procurement market, 33% of women business owners responded favorably. Similarly, 30% of women with businesses more than 20 years old were among those most interested in taking part in a mentor-protege program. When Section 831 of Public Law 101-510 establishing the DoD Mentor- Protege Pilot Program to provide incentives for major defense contractors to furnish disadvantaged small business concerns with assistance was drafted, it defined disadvantaged small business concerns as those owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, Indian tribes, Hawaiians and those that employ the severely disabled. It did not specifically provide for the participation by women-owned businesses, those firms that are at least 51% owned and whose management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more women. Mr. President, very simply, this bill will correct that, and I, therefore, urge my colleagues in the Senate to support the passage of the Snowe-Warner bill that allows us to forge two pieces good legislation into one better piece of legislation that benefits American business women and, by extension, America.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, to introduce a bill that will enhance an already successful program and have a significant impact on women owned businesses. The purpose of the Snowe-Warner bill is to include women-owned businesses as eligible participants in the Department of Defense's Mentor-Protege Program. In 1990, the Congress established the DoD Mentor-Protege Pilot Program to provide incentives for major defense contractors to furnish disadvantaged small business concerns with assistance. That act also established a participation goal of 5% for those small disadvantaged businesses; however, women-owned businesses were not covered under that legislation. The overall results of that legislation were impressive. According to the GAO, from Fiscal Year 1992 through Fiscal Year 1998, appropriated mentor-protege funding of about $233 million was obligated through cooperative agreements, separate contracts, or line items in DOD contracts. And, according to the Department of Defense, between 1994 and 1997 there was a net gain of 3,342 jobs within protege firms; there was a net revenue gain in excess of $276 million within the protege firms; and mentors reported an additional $695 million in subcontract awards to small disadvantaged businesses during this period. So, clearly, our legislation had a beneficial impact on the hundreds of small and disadvantaged businesses that now have the opportunity to compete and win Defense contracts under this program. Then, in 1994, we passed Public Law 103-355, otherwise known as the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, which, among other provisions, amended Section 15 of the Small Business Act to establish a 5% annual goal for women-owned business enterprise participation in federal prime contracts and subcontracts. The Act also amended Section 8 of the Small Business Act to give women-owned businesses equal standing with small and small disadvantaged businesses in the subcontracting plans of federal prime contractors. And, again, the results were significant. In Fiscal Year 1997 the government reported that women-owned businesses received 2.5% ($5.6 billion) of the $225 billion prime and subcontract dollars spent, up from 1.3% in Fiscal Year 1991 when data by gender was first collected. And in the latest data from Fiscal Year 1999, women-owned businesses accounted for 2.42% or $4.6 billion of the total $190 billion federal contract dollars. The percentage of Federal agencies that awarded at least 5% of their prime contract dollars to women-owned businesses was 37.9% in Fiscal Year 1997, up from 20.4% in Fiscal Year 1987. In Fiscal Year 1997 some 5,722 women-owned businesses were involved in 446,332 federal prime contract actions amounting to $3.3 billion while another $2.3 billion was awarded to women-owned businesses in subcontract actions. At that time, women-owned businesses comprised 8.3% of Federal prime contractors, were involved in 4.1% of the prime contract actions and received 2.1% of Federal prime contract awards. Why is this important? Women-owned federal contractors own much more substantial enterprises than the typical woman-owned firm. The average number of employees in women-owned federal contractor firms was 52.2 compared to just 2.3 among all full-time women-owned firms. Women-owned firms involved in Federal procurement have, on average, 1,742% higher sales and employ 23 times more employees than the average woman-owned firm. Despite the resounding success of these initiatives, I must ask the question, ``Are we there yet?'' Not quite. Although all Executive Branch departments operate Mentor-Protege programs, the three agencies, Defense, Energy, and GSA, that account for the most contract dollars have never met the 5 percent goal. While Defense, the largest federal purchaser, provided $2.3 billion or 50% of all federal contracts going to women-owned businesses in Fiscal Year 1999, that amount represented only 1.92% of total Defense contracts. The other two agencies together provided 16.4% of all federal contracts to women-owned businesses in fiscal year 1999 but, again, that funding only represented 3.1% of their combined contract funding. Of the three agencies, the GSA came closest to meeting the 5% goal with 4.75% of its contract dollars going to women-owned firms. Some agencies, however, are doing very well at meeting the 5% goal. Housing and Urban Development sent 14.95% of its 1999 contracts to women-owned businesses, Veteran's Affairs sent 5.59%, and appropriately, the Small Business Administration spent 15.29% of their contract dollars at women-owned firms. Mr. President, women-owned businesses are capable of doing more and they want to do more. Surveys indicate that when asked if the availability of mentor-protege programs would make them more interested in entering the government procurement market, 33% of women business owners responded favorably. Similarly, 30% of women with businesses more than 20 years old were among those most interested in taking part in a mentor-protege program. When Section 831 of Public Law 101-510 establishing the DoD Mentor- Protege Pilot Program to provide incentives for major defense contractors to furnish disadvantaged small business concerns with assistance was drafted, it defined disadvantaged small business concerns as those owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, Indian tribes, Hawaiians and those that employ the severely disabled. It did not specifically provide for the participation by women-owned businesses, those firms that are at least 51% owned and whose management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more women. Mr. President, very simply, this bill will correct that, and I, therefore, urge my colleagues in the Senate to support the passage of the Snowe-Warner bill that allows us to forge two pieces good legislation into one better piece of legislation that benefits American business women and, by extension, America.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions, to introduce legislation that will improve Department of Defense business practices as well as assist the DoD in its ability to estimate cost savings, a process that has significant impact in the DoD's budget process. This legislation will also result in improved readiness by adding a more realistic approach to the DoD's cost estimating process by eliminating the unknowns that the DoD faces in projecting its budget. Today the Department of Defense is using arbitrary cost saving objectives of up to $11.2 billion in its budget for Fiscal Years 2001 to 2005. These cost savings are projected efficiencies expected to be realized through processes such as outsourcing and the OMB Circular A- 76 process. Unfortunately, both the Government Accounting Office and the Naval Audit Service have published reports stating that these savings are inflated and overly optimistic. The greatest cause of concern however, is the self-inflicting damage caused by these overestimated savings. Once the individual services within the Department of Defense establish these arbitrary savings goals, they reduce the future operating budget estimates to take into account the estimated savings. But, when these predicted savings are not achieved, it is the readiness accounts and modernization programs that end up paying the price. None of us would run our personal home finances in such a manner, and no business could proceed using such an accounting method. So that is what Senator Sessions, my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, and I want to address in this legislation. We want to establish better business practices, so that DoD is not setting itself up for failure. DoD needs to take a more realistic approach in the way it estimates projected savings and how it establishes performance standards to measure the impact of workforce changes. The DoD and the American taxpayer need to understand the potential impact to the readiness of our armed forces. This legislation has four basic provisions that will provide improved business practices. First, this legislation requires the Department of Defense to establish a system to track the costs and savings incurred through managed competitions, efficient reorganizations, and the streamlining of other functions currently being performed by the government through the A-76 process or other re-engineering of a federal activity. The data collected through the establishment of this system will serve two purposes. It will be compiled into a report the Department of Defense is required to submit to Congress each year, so that Congress will have the information necessary to provide oversight of the A-76 process and other cost saving reorganizing process. The data will also be used to establish a metric of current performance and current costs prior to outsourcing, to serve as a standard for future performance and future cost comparisons--so that the leaders within the Department of Defense will be able to validate the actual savings achieved and evaluate the maintenance of performance standards. Second, this legislation requires that the cost and savings incurred through out-sourcing, strategic sourcing, or re-organizing each position currently staffed by federal personnel, be projected over the Future Years Defense Program. This requirement will improve savings estimates by including both the short and long term costs associated with outsourcing, or contracting out a function. The third provision of this legislation requires the Secretary of Defense to certify that the function analysis and decision to outsource, strategically source, or to maintain the current federal force was not based on unfair personnel constraints that may prevent the current federal organization from operating efficiently. This will ensure that our federal workers are provided a fair chance in any process and will provide the Department of Defense the most efficient work force for the actual task at hand. As part of the A-76 process, the Department of Defense is required to conduct an evaluation of the impact on local economies and communities if the decision is made to convert functions currently being performed by government workers to the private sector. The fourth provision of this legislation requires the Department of Defense to submit a statement of the potential economic impact on each affected local community. This notification will provide Congress and our constituents the opportunity to better understand these impacts. Mr. President, in the short term, this legislation will require significant changes in the way the Department of Defense conducts its processes. But in the long term this legislation will yield significant benefit. These four provisions are based on the recommendations of experts in the U.S. General Accounting Office and the Naval Audit Service. By enforcing better business practices--which is what this legislation effectively does--the long term effects will benefit the Department of Defense by improving the accuracy of cost and savings estimates, stabilizing the budget, and protecting modernization programs. Additionally, the benefits will extend to the current federal workforce, who will be guaranteed the opportunity to compete on an equal basis, and the local communities surrounding these agencies will be able to better understand the impact of any decisions that are made. Mr. President, I firmly believe that this legislation supports the best interests of the Department of Defense and the federal work force. I urge my colleagues to review this legislation--and I am confident that they will see it's merits and join me and support this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions, to introduce legislation that will improve Department of Defense business practices as well as assist the DoD in its ability to estimate cost savings, a process that has significant impact in the DoD's budget process. This legislation will also result in improved readiness by adding a more realistic approach to the DoD's cost estimating process by eliminating the unknowns that the DoD faces in projecting its budget. Today the Department of Defense is using arbitrary cost saving objectives of up to $11.2 billion in its budget for Fiscal Years 2001 to 2005. These cost savings are projected efficiencies expected to be realized through processes such as outsourcing and the OMB Circular A- 76 process. Unfortunately, both the Government Accounting Office and the Naval Audit Service have published reports stating that these savings are inflated and overly optimistic. The greatest cause of concern however, is the self-inflicting damage caused by these overestimated savings. Once the individual services within the Department of Defense establish these arbitrary savings goals, they reduce the future operating budget estimates to take into account the estimated savings. But, when these predicted savings are not achieved, it is the readiness accounts and modernization programs that end up paying the price. None of us would run our personal home finances in such a manner, and no business could proceed using such an accounting method. So that is what Senator Sessions, my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, and I want to address in this legislation. We want to establish better business practices, so that DoD is not setting itself up for failure. DoD needs to take a more realistic approach in the way it estimates projected savings and how it establishes performance standards to measure the impact of workforce changes. The DoD and the American taxpayer need to understand the potential impact to the readiness of our armed forces. This legislation has four basic provisions that will provide improved business practices. First, this legislation requires the Department of Defense to establish a system to track the costs and savings incurred through managed competitions, efficient reorganizations, and the streamlining of other functions currently being performed by the government through the A-76 process or other re-engineering of a federal activity. The data collected through the establishment of this system will serve two purposes. It will be compiled into a report the Department of Defense is required to submit to Congress each year, so that Congress will have the information necessary to provide oversight of the A-76 process and other cost saving reorganizing process. The data will also be used to establish a metric of current performance and current costs prior to outsourcing, to serve as a standard for future performance and future cost comparisons--so that the leaders within the Department of Defense will be able to validate the actual savings achieved and evaluate the maintenance of performance standards. Second, this legislation requires that the cost and savings incurred through out-sourcing, strategic sourcing, or re-organizing each position currently staffed by federal personnel, be projected over the Future Years Defense Program. This requirement will improve savings estimates by including both the short and long term costs associated with outsourcing, or contracting out a function. The third provision of this legislation requires the Secretary of Defense to certify that the function analysis and decision to outsource, strategically source, or to maintain the current federal force was not based on unfair personnel constraints that may prevent the current federal organization from operating efficiently. This will ensure that our federal workers are provided a fair chance in any process and will provide the Department of Defense the most efficient work force for the actual task at hand. As part of the A-76 process, the Department of Defense is required to conduct an evaluation of the impact on local economies and communities if the decision is made to convert functions currently being performed by government workers to the private sector. The fourth provision of this legislation requires the Department of Defense to submit a statement of the potential economic impact on each affected local community. This notification will provide Congress and our constituents the opportunity to better understand these impacts. Mr. President, in the short term, this legislation will require significant changes in the way the Department of Defense conducts its processes. But in the long term this legislation will yield significant benefit. These four provisions are based on the recommendations of experts in the U.S. General Accounting Office and the Naval Audit Service. By enforcing better business practices--which is what this legislation effectively does--the long term effects will benefit the Department of Defense by improving the accuracy of cost and savings estimates, stabilizing the budget, and protecting modernization programs. Additionally, the benefits will extend to the current federal workforce, who will be guaranteed the opportunity to compete on an equal basis, and the local communities surrounding these agencies will be able to better understand the impact of any decisions that are made. Mr. President, I firmly believe that this legislation supports the best interests of the Department of Defense and the federal work force. I urge my colleagues to review this legislation--and I am confident that they will see it's merits and join me and support this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation, the Small Business Employment and Education Act of 2000, which is designed to enhance federal efforts to facilitate the involvement of small business owners and entrepreneurs in state and local initiatives to improve the quality of education programs for our young people. Mr. President, last year, the Small Business Committee, of which I am a member, held a hearing on the challenges facing the small business community as a result of the failure of many of our educational institutions to teach students the basic skills that are necessary to succeed in today's work environment. The committee heard testimony from a number of small businesses and organizations about this growing problem. And just how big is the problem? A 1999 American Management Association survey on workplace testing found that approximately 36 percent of employees tested for basic skills were found to be deficient in these skills, and small businesses reported deficiency rates well above the national average. Sixty percent of AMA-member companies reported that the availability of skilled manpower was scarce, and 67 percent believe that the shortages will continue. A 1999 NFIB report found that 18 percent of NFIB members report that finding qualified labor is the single most important problem facing their business today. Likewise, a 1999 poll of U.S. Chambers of Commerce found that 83 percent reported the ability--or lack thereof--to find qualified workers was among their biggest concerns, and 53 percent said education is the single most pressing public policy issue to them. This information clearly illustrates that the business community, and small businesses in particular, have an important stake in the education of our youth. One of the most fundamental needs that any growing business faces is the need for employees with basic skills, and concerns have been expressed by the small business community that many students are not graduating with the basic skills in reading, writing, mathematics, and science--skills that need to succeed in today's workplace or become the entrepreneurs of tomorrow. The fact of the matter is, Mr. President, the growth of high-skilled jobs is outpacing growth in all other fields. We must not allow basic skills to slip away if we are to remain competitive in an increasingly aggressive and technology-based global market. Small business is the driving force behind our economy, and as we authorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we must take into account the needs of businesses, and small businesses in particular. To that end, locally-driven initiatives are crucial. In order to create jobs, we must encourage small business expansion and foster small business entrepreneurship, and I believe that education initiatives are key to this. Under the Small Business Employment and Education Enhancement Act, the Department of Education would disseminate information and facilitate the sharing of information designed to assist small businesses in working with school systems to improve our education institutions. For example, the agency would publish guidance materials, best practices, checklists and other materials on the World Wide Web, in Department of Education publications and articles, letters, links to related World Wide Web sites, public service announcements, and through other means at the Department's disposal. The Department of Education would establish a centralized database of materials and act as a clearinghouse for information on initiatives that have proven successful. The Secretary of the Department of Education would also establish an Office of Small Business Education to promote efforts to address the needs of small businesses through education programs. This division would work to remove any existing impediments to partnerships between school systems and small businesses, and propose solutions to education-related problems facing small businesses. The goal of the bill I am introducing today is to facilitate partnerships between communities and businesses. I believe it should be easy for communities that are interested in designing business/school partnerships to get the information they need on how to do so. With access to kinds of sources envisioned in this legislation, communities would be able to model a program after a proven approach. In addition, my bill authorizes technical assistance to be administered by the Office of Small Business Education to be used to provide guidance to small businesses, small business organizations, schools systems, and communities working cooperatively to enhance the teaching of basic skills. The bill would also establish tax credits to encourage companies to provide work study, internship, or fellowship opportunities for students and teachers. Finally, the bill includes a provision directing the Department of Education to conduct a study and report to Congress on the challenges facing small businesses in obtaining workers with adequate skills; an assessment of the impact on small businesses of the skills shortage; the costs to small businesses associated with this shortage; and the recommendations for the Secretary on how to address these challenges. Mr. President, I hope this legislation will provide a foundation for cooperative initiatives between small businesses and school systems, and I look forward to working with the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and others as we prepare to reauthorize the elementary and secondary education act.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act.'' I am pleased to be joined by my good friends, Senators Rockefeller, DeWine, and Dodd on this exciting new proposal. Mr. President, this bill is an enormously important piece of legislation. It provides the means for states to support some of our most vulnerable families--families who are struggling with alcohol and drug abuse, and the children who are being raised in these abusive homes. It is obvious, both anecdotally and statistically, that child welfare is significantly impacted by parental substance abuse. And it makes a lot of sense to fund state programs to address these two issues in tandem. The real question in designing and supporting child welfare programs is how can we--public policy makers, government officials, welfare agencies--honestly expect to improve child welfare without appropriately and adequately addressing the root problems affecting these children's lives? We know that substance abuse is the primary ingredient in child abuse and neglect. Most studies find that between one-third and two-thirds-- and some say as high as 80 percent to 90 percent--of children in the child welfare system come from families where parental substance abuse is a contributing factor. The Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act of 2000 creates a new five-year $1.9 billion state block grant program to address the connection between substance abuse and child welfare. Payments would be made to promote joint activities among federal, state, and local public child welfare and alcohol and drug prevention and treatment agencies. Our underlying belief, and the point of this bill, is to encourage existing agencies to work together to keep children safe. HHS will award grants to States and Indian tribes to encourage programs for families who are known to the child welfare system and have alcohol and drug abuse problems. These grants will forge new and necessary partnerships between the child protection agencies and the alcohol and drug prevention and treatment agencies in States so they will work together to provide services for this unique population. The program is designed to increase the capacity of both the child welfare and alcohol and drug systems to comprehensively address the needs of these families to improve child safety, family stability, and permanence, and to promote recovery from alcohol and drug problems. Statistics paint an unhappy picture for children of substance abusing parents: a 1998 report by the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse found that 36 states reported that parental substance abuse and poverty are the top two problems exhibited by families reported for child maltreatment. And a 1997 survey conducted by the Child Welfare League of America found that at least 52 percent of placements into out-of- home care were due in part to parental substance abuse. Children whose parents abuse alcohol and other drugs are almost three times likelier to be abused and more than four times likelier to be neglected than children of parents who are not substance abusers. Children in alcohol-abusing families were nearly four times more likely to be maltreated overall, almost five times more likely to be physically neglected, and 10 times more likely to be emotionally neglected than children in families without alcohol problems. A 1994 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that children prenatally exposed to substances have been found to be two to three times more likely to be abused than non-exposed children. And as many as 80 percent of prenatally drug exposed infants will come to the attention of child welfare before their first birthday. Abused and neglected children under age six face the risk of more severe damage than older children because their brains and neurological systems are still developing. Unfortunately, child welfare agencies estimate that only a third of the 67 percent of the parents who need drug or alcohol prevention and treatment services actually get help today. Mr. President, this bill is about preventing problems. Senators Rockefeller, DeWine, Dodd, and I know that what is most important here is the safety and well-being of America's children. We expect much of our youth because they are the future of our nation. In turn, we must be willing to give them the support they need to learn and grow, so that they can lead healthy and productive lives. In 1997 Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act, authored by the late Senator John Chafee. The 1997 Adoption law promotes safety, stability, and permanence for all abused and neglected children and requires timely decision-making in all proceedings to determine whether children can safely return home, or whether they should be moved to permanent, adoptive homes. Specifically, the law requires a State to ensure that services are provided to the families of children who are at risk, so that children can remain safely with their families or return home after being in foster care. The bill we are introducing today identifies a very specific area in which families and children need services--substance abuse. And it will ensure that states have the funding necessary to provide services as required under the Adoption and Safe Families Act. I encourage my colleagues to take a serious look at our bill, to think seriously about the future for kids in their states, and to work with us in passing this very important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the conference report on the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution and to highlight a reserve fund that Senator Domenici has been referring to with respect to a new prescription drug benefit. In advance, I would like to thank the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee for his unwavering commitment to a balanced budget and fiscally responsible decisionmaking over the years. Thanks to his leadership and efforts, the turbulent waves of annual deficits and mounting debt have certainly been calmed. And if we adhere to the principles as contained in this year's budget resolution, and retain these principles in the years to come, clearly, we will have provided security for many generations. The conference report we are now considering not only maintains fiscal discipline but it also ensures that critical priorities are protected in fiscal year 2001 and beyond, which is the purpose of the balanced budget: to be able to provide a constraint on Federal spending but at the same time determine how best to invest in the future. I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee for having taken the step last year to protect every dollar that belongs to the Social Security trust fund and devoting it solely to reducing the publicly held debt. Ultimately, this commitment and this conference report will ensure that we reduce the publicly-held debt by approximately $1 trillion over the next 5 years and eliminate it entirely by the year 2013. Clearly, it is a paradigm shift, not only with respect to the fact we are no longer using surpluses that belong to Social Security, but also the fact that we are able to reduce the publicly held debt and make a commitment to protecting Social Security. The second issue in this budget that is critically important is that we are making investments where we should be making investments for the future--in education, health care, child care, and defense. In addition, this budget provides modest tax relief. The American people do deserve tax relief, given the burdens they have faced over the years to achieve debt reduction, and the constraints we have had to adhere to over this last decade. Certainly they deserve to have a piece of that pie through the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, through a deduction for college tuition expenses and a credit for the interest paid on student loans. Those are the priorities that could be accommodated in this conference report that the American people deserve. I think they are the right priorities. Third, as the chairman of the committee has indicated, we have now included and have taken a giant step forward in ensuring our Nation's seniors have a prescription drug benefit program. Senator Wyden, Senator Smith, and I offered an amendment in the committee that would have laid out a bifurcated approach that would provide a down-payment of $20 billion for a new benefit in the first 3 years, and $20 billion in years 2004 and 2005 contingent on Congress moving forward on Medicare reform. Of importance, the initial down-payment of $20 billion would allow us to move forward in creating a new benefit this year with or without Medicare reform--and that structure has been retained in this conference report. We also included a date certain by which the Senate Finance Committee would be required to report a new prescription drug benefit bill. If that date was not met, we would be able to proceed with the stand-alone prescription drug benefit on the floor. That time certain was dropped. But the fact of the matter is, the conference report retains the reserve fund language, and we still have the ability to create a stand- alone prescription drug benefit this year. As a result, the Senate Finance Committee still has $20 billion available to develop a prescription drug benefit program for our Nation's seniors that is not contingent on Medicare reform or other legislation--and an additional $20 billion will be made available if they proceed with broader Medicare reform. Accordingly, I thank Chairman Domenici for his efforts in ensuring that provision would be included in the conference report. The significance of it is twofold. One is that we have $20 billion that would be immediately available for such a benefit. As a result, this reserve fund gives us the opening we need to consider and pass a prescription drug benefit program this year. Furthermore, it not only provides a downpayment for such a benefit over the next 5 years, but it also provides an additional $20 billion if we move forward reach a consensus on Medicare reform. This total allotment of $40 billion over the coming five years is more than was contained in the Chairman's mark, and even more than was provided in the President's own budget proposal for a prescription drug benefit. There are no caveats, there are no conditions. The Senate Finance Committee has the ability to proceed with a comprehensive Medicare reform package. But in the event they cannot grapple with this issue, if they fail to reach a consensus and Congress fails to reach a consensus, we can proceed and enact a prescription drug benefit program. So the overall structure of this fund is the same as it was when we offered it as an amendment during the markup, as it was supported unanimously by Republicans and Democrats on the Budget Committee. As a result, it provides the Finance Committee with both the means and the motivation to act on this legislation in a timely manner. In conclusion, I again applaud the efforts of the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, for preserving the essential structure of this reserve fund which enables the Senate and the Congress to create a prescription drug benefit in a timely fashion. I congratulate him because this is a significant step forward and gives us the opportunity, for the first time in a very long time, to enact this very significant and critical benefit for our Nation's seniors. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act.'' I am pleased to be joined by my good friends, Senators Rockefeller, DeWine, and Dodd on this exciting new proposal. Mr. President, this bill is an enormously important piece of legislation. It provides the means for states to support some of our most vulnerable families--families who are struggling with alcohol and drug abuse, and the children who are being raised in these abusive homes. It is obvious, both anecdotally and statistically, that child welfare is significantly impacted by parental substance abuse. And it makes a lot of sense to fund state programs to address these two issues in tandem. The real question in designing and supporting child welfare programs is how can we--public policy makers, government officials, welfare agencies--honestly expect to improve child welfare without appropriately and adequately addressing the root problems affecting these children's lives? We know that substance abuse is the primary ingredient in child abuse and neglect. Most studies find that between one-third and two-thirds-- and some say as high as 80 percent to 90 percent--of children in the child welfare system come from families where parental substance abuse is a contributing factor. The Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act of 2000 creates a new five-year $1.9 billion state block grant program to address the connection between substance abuse and child welfare. Payments would be made to promote joint activities among federal, state, and local public child welfare and alcohol and drug prevention and treatment agencies. Our underlying belief, and the point of this bill, is to encourage existing agencies to work together to keep children safe. HHS will award grants to States and Indian tribes to encourage programs for families who are known to the child welfare system and have alcohol and drug abuse problems. These grants will forge new and necessary partnerships between the child protection agencies and the alcohol and drug prevention and treatment agencies in States so they will work together to provide services for this unique population. The program is designed to increase the capacity of both the child welfare and alcohol and drug systems to comprehensively address the needs of these families to improve child safety, family stability, and permanence, and to promote recovery from alcohol and drug problems. Statistics paint an unhappy picture for children of substance abusing parents: a 1998 report by the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse found that 36 states reported that parental substance abuse and poverty are the top two problems exhibited by families reported for child maltreatment. And a 1997 survey conducted by the Child Welfare League of America found that at least 52 percent of placements into out-of- home care were due in part to parental substance abuse. Children whose parents abuse alcohol and other drugs are almost three times likelier to be abused and more than four times likelier to be neglected than children of parents who are not substance abusers. Children in alcohol-abusing families were nearly four times more likely to be maltreated overall, almost five times more likely to be physically neglected, and 10 times more likely to be emotionally neglected than children in families without alcohol problems. A 1994 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that children prenatally exposed to substances have been found to be two to three times more likely to be abused than non-exposed children. And as many as 80 percent of prenatally drug exposed infants will come to the attention of child welfare before their first birthday. Abused and neglected children under age six face the risk of more severe damage than older children because their brains and neurological systems are still developing. Unfortunately, child welfare agencies estimate that only a third of the 67 percent of the parents who need drug or alcohol prevention and treatment services actually get help today. Mr. President, this bill is about preventing problems. Senators Rockefeller, DeWine, Dodd, and I know that what is most important here is the safety and well-being of America's children. We expect much of our youth because they are the future of our nation. In turn, we must be willing to give them the support they need to learn and grow, so that they can lead healthy and productive lives. In 1997 Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act, authored by the late Senator John Chafee. The 1997 Adoption law promotes safety, stability, and permanence for all abused and neglected children and requires timely decision-making in all proceedings to determine whether children can safely return home, or whether they should be moved to permanent, adoptive homes. Specifically, the law requires a State to ensure that services are provided to the families of children who are at risk, so that children can remain safely with their families or return home after being in foster care. The bill we are introducing today identifies a very specific area in which families and children need services--substance abuse. And it will ensure that states have the funding necessary to provide services as required under the Adoption and Safe Families Act. I encourage my colleagues to take a serious look at our bill, to think seriously about the future for kids in their states, and to work with us in passing this very important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the S. 2346-- legislation that would dramatically reduce one of the most insidious aspects of the tax code: the marriage penalty. Mr. President, as my colleagues are aware, there are several primary causes of the ``marriage penalty"within the tax code, including different tax rate schedules and different standard deductions for joint filers versus single filers. In terms of the impact of these differing tax provisions, the marriage penalty is most pronounced for two-earner couples in which the husband and wife have nearly equal incomes. While this may not have been as noticeable in society 30 or 40 years ago, the demographic changes that have occurred since the 1960s--with more married women entering the workforce to help support their families--has led to a significant increase in the share of couples who suffer from the marriage penalty. Mr. President, make no mistake, the impact of the marriage penalty is severe. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 42% of married couples incur marriage penalties that average nearly $1,400. When measured by income category, fully 12% of couples with incomes below $20,000 incurred a marriage penalty in 1996; 44% of couples with incomes of $20,000 to $50,0000; and 55% of couples with incomes above $50,000. In addition, according to CBO, empirical evidence suggests that the marriage penalty may affect work patterns, particularly for a couple's second earner. Specifically, because filing a joint return often imposes a substantially higher tax rate on a couple's second earner, the higher rate reduces the second earner's after-tax wage and may cause that individual to work fewer hours or not at all. As a result, economic efficiency is harmed in the overall economy. Furthermore, while I would hope that the tax code would not be a factor in a couple's decision to marry or stay single, the simple fact is that a couple's tax status could worsen if married and could, therefore, impact a couple's decision to marry. Therefore, we should eliminate this potential barrier to marriage and ensure that couples make one of life's biggest decisions based on their values and beliefs--not on the federal tax code. Mr. President, as a strong opponent of the marriage penalty, I am an original cosponsor of S. 15, legislation introduced by Senator Hutchison that eliminates the marriage penalty through a proposal known as ``income splitting.'' Under this approach, a married couple would add up all their income and then split it in half. Each spouse would then file as a single individual and pay taxes on his or her half of the total income, with exemptions, deductions and credits being split evenly between the two spouses. Last year, to advance this legislation or any other proposal that would provide marriage penalty relief, I offered an amendment during the markup of the FY 2000 budget resolution that ensured a significant reduction in--or the outright elimination of--the marriage penalty would be a central component of any tax cut package adopted during last year's reconciliation process. Later that summer, in accordance with my budget amendment, the $792 billion tax cut reconciliation package that was passed by the Senate last summer included such relief, as did the final House-Senate conference report. However, just as President Clinton vetoed the tax bill in 1995 that included marriage penalty relief, last year's tax bill was vetoed as well. In an effort to address this issue outside a broader tax package, the House of Representatives passed legislation earlier this year--by a bipartisan vote of 268 to 158--that would reduce the marriage penalty. Now, in the Senate, we are considering stand-alone legislation that would dramatically reduce the marriage penalty by doubling the standard deduction for married couples relative to single filers; expanding the 15 percent and 28 percent income tax brackets for married couples to twice the size of the corresponding tax brackets for single filers; increasing the phase-out range of the Earned Income Credit (EIC) for couples filing joint returns; and permanently exempting family tax credits from the individual Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Mr. President, it is my hope that, by considering this package of marriage penalty relief proposals as a stand-alone bill--and not as part of a broader, and potentially controversial, tax cut package--we will not only pass this legislation prior to ``tax day'' on April 17, but ultimately send a bill to the President that he will sign for the benefit of all married couples. The bottom line is that we should not condone or accept a tax code that penalizes married couples or discourages marriage, and this bill provides the Senate with the opportunity to correct this inequity in a straightforward manner. Ultimately, this bill is not simply about providing the American people with a reasonable and rational tax cut--rather, it is about correcting a gross discrepancy in the tax code that unfairly impacts married couples. Accordingly, even though individual members of this body disagree on a wide variety of tax cuts policies, I would hope we would all agree that the act of marriage should not be penalized by the Internal Revenue Code--and would support the proposal before us accordingly. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Worker Economic Employment Opportunity Act. Mr. President, every time we turn around it seems that we hear about how strong our nation's economy is right now--and how America's workers are daily facing new- found employment opportunities. We are in a period of almost unprecedented prosperity and sustained economic growth. And the bill we are voting on today is a direct consequence of that growth. It wasn't long ago that benefits such as stock options were available only to the upper levels of management. Companies are now offering stock options as a way not only to attract, but to retain quality employees at all levels. This is a way of providing fairness to our nations workers--the ones who manage the daily ins-and-outs of the business, the ones who have quite literally built today's economy. S. 2323 will clarify that providing stock options will not be counted toward overtime pay for hourly employees. The vitality of our economy is a tribute to the hard work and creativity of these workers. Accordingly, it is unacceptable that the Fair Labor Standards Act would be interpreted in a manner that would effectively preclude the offering of this valuable benefit to hourly employees who form the backbone of American business. The Fair Labor Standards Act already exempts some employee benefits such as discretionary bonuses, health insurance, and retirement savings plans from overtime calculations. We do this to encourage employers to provide these critically needed benefits and incentives for their employees--stock options should be no different. We should not hinder the ability of our nation's workers to participate in the economic success of the companies they are helping to building. If employers choose to offer profit-sharing options, they should not be penalized when calculating over-time wages. Mr. President, I support this critical clarification of the Fair Labor Standards Act and I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the motion to proceed to invoke cloture on S. 2285, the Federal Fuels Tax Holiday Act of 2000, a bill introduced by Senator Lott, which I have been pleased to cosponsor. This legislation will repeal, until the end of this year, the 4.3 cent-per-gallon increase to the federal excise tax on gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and aviation fuel added by the Clinton Administration in 1993. At the same time, both the Highway Trust Fund and the Airport and Airways Trust Fund are held completely harmless. It is a bogus argument that the Trust Funds will be impacted by giving consumers a tax break at the gas pump. The progress of important highway and airport projects will not be affected because the impact would be zero. This legislation allows for reimbursement of the Trust Funds that are financed by the gasoline and aviation fuel taxes. For both of these funds, any lost revenues to be replaced from the budget surplus. Also, our legislation is set up so that should the national average for regular unleaded gasoline prices breach the $2 mark, it would also repeal, until the end of the year, the 18.3 cent-per-gallon federal gasoline tax; the 24.3 cent-per-gallon excise tax on highway diesel fuel and kerosene; the 4.3 cents per-gallon railroad diesel fuel; the 24.3 cent-per-gallon excise tax on inland waterway fuel; the 19.3 cent- per-gallon for noncommercial aviation gasoline; the 21.8 cent-per- gallon for noncommercial jet fuel; and 4.3 cents-per-gallon for commercial aviation fuel. This will provide the nation with a vital ``circuit breaker'' in the midst of the very real possibility of high fuel costs as America takes to the road this summer--and the legislation ensures that any savings will truly be passed on to consumers and not pocketed before customers can benefit from any savings at the pump. Some of my colleagues say that repealing the 4.3 cent per gallon gas tax will not amount to enough savings for the consumers to even care about. Well, I guess people in Maine think differently, especially after a winter of paying the highest prices in decades for both home heating oil and for fuel at the pump. This past week, the Maine legislature, both the Senate by a vote of 26-9, and the House, by a vote of 94-54, endorsed a bill that allows for rebates to truckers for the state diesel fuel taxes they paid between February 1 and March 15 when diesel fuel prices skyrocketed to over $2.00 per gallon. While the funding decision now rests with the appropriators, the Maine legislature has spoken clearly that they know it makes a difference, especially where the trucking industry is concerned. I am aware of a trucking company in Maine that has lost at least $200,000 in the last three months because of the failed energy policy of this Administration that caused diesel prices to spike. How can an owner buy equipment, hire people, keep his trucks rolling, and function within a set budget for the year with losses such as these? Tell him that temporary repeal of the federal 4.3 cent tax on diesel fuel won't make a difference. Well, let's run the numbers. This company has a fleet of about 50 trucks that take 200 gallons of diesel every time you fill them up, and since these large rigs get no more than five miles to the gallon, they get filled up quite regularly. So, if we temporarily repeal even just the 4.3 cent federal gas tax, every time the fleet of trucks gets filled up, the company will be able to save at least $430, adding up to thousands of dollars a month. No wonder hundreds of truckers drove their rigs to Washington, D.C. to protest on two different occasions in the past month. Tell them that a temporary repeal of 4.3 cents per gallon diesel fuel tax won't make a difference. Look to your own states--California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New York, Wisconsin--all around the country state legislatures are considering their own responses to the rise in all fuel prices. In California, there is a proposal for a four-month suspension of the 15 cent per gallon state tax. In Connecticut, the Legislature's Finance Committee unanimously approved a seven cent per gallon state gasoline tax over a three-year period. In New York, both parties have called for some sort of state gas tax relief. In Illinois, the State Senate has approved an elimination of the five percent sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. Lawmakers in Wisconsin have proposed both repealing or temporarily suspending the state gas tax. In Florida, the Republican House Speaker has proposed a 10 cents per gallon tax cut, saying, ``If the federal government is not going to help the people of Florida, then we need to''. What this legislation before you today does is take a concrete step toward more reasonable fuel prices for everyone, helping to serve as a buffer for consumers and businesses who are already reeling from the high cost of gasoline and other fuels. Of course, I hope the provisions for temporary repeal of the full tax will not be necessary. But if they are, they will provide immediate relief to taxpayers and ensure that, if prices are skyrocketing, any savings in fuel costs will be passed on to the purchasers of the gasoline products. The retail price we pay for refined petroleum products for gasoline, diesel fuel, and home heating oil, for instance, substantially depends upon the cost of crude oil to refiners. We have seen a barrel of crude oil climb to over $34.00 recently from a price of $10.50 in February of 1999. That is a 145 percent increase. While OPEC agreed last month to only very modest increases in crude oil production, White House officials say that the cost of gasoline at the pump will now decline in the coming months, even though their own Economic Advisor Gene Sperling was quoted in the Washington Post on March 29, as warning that ``there is still significant and inherent uncertainty in the oil market, particularly with such low inventories, and we will continue to monitor the situation very closely''. While the Administration has ``monitored'' the situation, crude oil prices have gone up and up, and our inventories have gone down and down. As a matter of fact, the Administration admits that it was ``caught napping'' after OPEC decided to decrease production in March of 1999--and while they napped through a long winter's sleep, prices for crude climbed as temperatures and inventories plummeted. The effect on gasoline, diesel and home heating oil was predictable, and in fact was predicted. Last October--a half a year ago--the Department of Energy, in its 1999-2000 Winter Fuels Outlook, projected a 44 percent increase in home heating oil bills. In a severe winter, the agency estimated, an additional 28 percent increase in costs could be felt for residential customers. In other words, the Department of Energy itself predicted an increase of over 70 percent, but did nothing. In actuality, home heating oil costs jumped from a fairly consistent national of 86 cents per gallon in the winter of 1998-99 to as high as $2.08 per gallon in Maine early last month--an increase of well over 100 percent. In that same time frame, conventional gasoline prices rose 70 percent or higher. So now the Administration tells us that gasoline prices will most likely go down by this summer because of the small production increases agreed to by OPEC. Even with an increase in OPEC quotas, there will still be a shortfall in meeting worldwide demand for crude oil. Approximately 76.3 million barrels per day are needed to meet demand, but the anticipated new OPEC production is estimated to be only 75.3 million barrels per day. So you'll have to excuse me if I'm a little hesitant accepting estimates from an Administration that seems to make predictions while their gauge is on empty. The Administration's projections of an average of $1.46 per gallon for gasoline this summer--which is still 25 percent higher than last summer I might add--does not presume production disruptions at the refinery. I would like to point out that one of the reasons prices went up and supply ran dangerously low a few months ago was the unexpected shutdown of four different refineries that serve the Northeast. Just last week, DOE's Energy Information Administration stated that, ``. . . motor gasoline markets are projected to exhibit an extraordinarily tight supply/demand balance.'' Against this backdrop, we cannot depend upon the Administration's predictions turning into fact, when they have so far been so incorrect. Now is the time for Congress to act, even if the Administration refuses to. I want to at least make sure that American businesspeople and consumers have in their pockets what they would have otherwise paid in fuel taxes if the Administration is underestimating prices once again and gasoline hits $2.00 a gallon. Beyond the pump, consumers are getting hit with extra costs directly attributable to high fuel costs. If you've paid to send an overnight package lately, you probably noted that you were charged a surcharge--a fuel fee--because their cost of diesel fuel has increased by about 60 percent over the past year. And with a 150 percent increase in jet fuel, that airline ticket you buy today will probably include something you've never seen before--a fuel charge of $20.00. How long will it be before costs of other products will also be passed on the consumer? Consider the impacts to the nations' farmers. In some locations, the planting season has begun. The New York Times reported two weeks ago that a farmer paying 40 cents a gallon more this year to fuel his diesel tractors and combines, will be adding as much as $240 a day to his harvesting costs. In my home State of Maine, we are at the peak season for moving last year's potato crop out of storage and to the large Eastern markets. But the industry still can't get truckers to come into the State to move the potatoes because they are discouraged by the particularly higher price of diesel in Maine. The only help the potato industry has had recently in getting their product to market was certainly not due to the energy policy of this Administration, but to local truckers who turned to hauling potatoes because wet weather kept them away from taking timber out of the Maine woods. Soon, we will enter the summer months, when tourism is particularly important to the economy of New England and to Maine in particular. With the high price of gasoline, we need relief now, and that's what this bill provides. As a matter of fact, we could have used the relief in Northern Maine a few months ago--that's a big tourist season for them as snowmobilers from all over the East head to Maine to use the hundreds of miles of trails throughout the northern part of the State. The choices are clear--do nothing for the taxpayers who are being gouged by failed energy policies, or do something by supporting legislation that gives some relief at the gas pump right now. We should temporarily repeal the 4.3 cent per gallon gas tax and support a bill that also acts as a circuit breaker, giving citizens a break at the gas pump if gas goes over $2.00 a gallon while protecting the Trust Funds that build our highways and airports. I urge my colleagues to support this bill by voting for cloture.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today marks an historic point for the Senate. Not only did the Federal Government last year experience a balanced Federal budget without the use of the Social Security surplus for the first time since 1960, but we are now considering a budget resolution that will ensure we have a balanced Federal budget without the use of the Social Security surplus for three consecutive years--the first time this has happened since 1947 to 1949--and that takes us one step further on the path to actually eliminating our Nation's publicly- held debt by the year 2013. Needless to say, such a change in the way the Government does business is not only a significant step for the Senate and the Congress, but a welcome relief to a generation of Americans who have become all too accustomed to the terms ``deficit'' and ``debt.'' Mr. President, in light of the non-Social Security budget surpluses we are now enjoying, I thank the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Pete Domenici, for his unwavering commitment to a balanced budget and fiscally responsible decision-making over the years. Thanks, in part, to his leadership and efforts, the turbulent waves of annual deficits and mounting debt have been temporarily calmed. And, if we are willing to adhere to these principles in this year's budget resolution and others yet to come, we may be able to maintain the current budgetary calm for many years in the future. The budget resolution reported by the Senate Budget Committee--and that we are now considering on the floor--not only maintains fiscal discipline, but it also ensures that critical priorities are protected and addressed in fiscal year 2001 and beyond. Specifically, the Senate budget resolution contains the following key provisions: First, it protects every penny of the Social Security surplus in upcoming years by devoting it solely to reducing publicly-held debt. Second, through an amendment I offered in the Budget Committee markup with Senator Wyden and Senator Smith (OR), provides a ``down-payment'' for a new Medicare prescription drug benefit, while ensuring a strong impetus for much-needed, comprehensive Medicare reforms. Third, it provides a fiscally responsible increase in Federal spending, while targeting funds for critically needed priorities including education and defense. Fourth, it provides tax relief for Americans at a time when the typical family's tax burden exceeds the cost of food, clothing, and shelter combined. And as a result of another amendment I offered during markup, it places tax relief for higher education tuition paid and for interest paid on student loans as a top priority in any tax cut package that is ultimately crafted. When considering that the cost of college has risen twice as fast as inflation and eight times as fast as median household incomes over the past 20 years--and students borrowed more during the 1990s than during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s combined--I can think of no tax cut that would be more appropriate in any upcoming tax package. Collectively, I believe these principles and priorities reflect those of most Americans--especially the protection of Social Security's monies. Accordingly, I believe this resolution deserves broad bipartisan support in the Senate and, ultimately, by the entire Congress. To truly appreciate what is contained in this budget resolution, I believe it is appropriate to compare it with the only other major proposal on the table: the budget proposal put forth by President Clinton in early-February. Specifically, as we have learned from CBO's analysis of his budget, President Clinton has proposed $1.3 trillion in new spending over the coming 10 years. This new spending--of which $866 billion would be for discretionary spending program--would utilize 70 percent of the projected on-budget surpluses over this period of time. Furthermore, despite his initial claim of providing working Americans with a tax cut of $250 billion over the coming 10 years, we now know that the President's budget not only increases taxes by $5 billion in FY 2001, but he only cuts taxes by $4 billion over the coming five years and $146 billion over 10 years, representing eight percent of the projected on-budget surpluses, and the net result is far below his original proposal of a $250 billion tax cut! In contrast, the Senate budget resolution provides a strong, but fiscally-responsible, increase in discretionary spending of $27 billion next year--a 4.6 percent increase from the current fiscal year--and $125 billion over the coming five years. Furthermore, the resolution also provides a tax cut of up to $13 billion in FY 2001 and up to $150 billion over the coming five years--an amount that ensures for every dollar in tax relief, there will be $13 in debt reduction. Finally, the Senate resolution contains a provision I authored with Senators Wyden and Smith (OR) that will be critical to our efforts to move forward on an issue of critical importance to our nation's seniors: a reserve fund that will provide up to $40 billion for a new Medicare prescription drug benefit. In contrast, the President's budget would provide less than $30 billion for such a benefit over the coming five years. As my colleagues are aware, the need for a new Medicare prescription drug benefit could not be more clear. When Medicare was created in 1965 it followed the private health insurance model of the time--inpatient health care. Today, thirty-five years later it is sadly out of date and it is time to bring Medicare back to the future by providing our seniors with prescription drug coverage. The lack of a prescription drug coverage benefit is the biggest hole--a black hole really--in the Medicare system. HCFA will tell you that up to 69 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have drug coverage from other sources--but that number simply doesn't tell the whole story. Specifically, ten percent of Medicare beneficiaries get drug coverage from one of the three Medigap policies that cover drugs. Two of these policies require a $250 deductible and then only cover 50 percent of the cost of the drug with a $1,250 cap. You can run up that cap pretty fast with today's drug prices. The third policy provides a cap of $3,000 but the premium ranges anywhere from $1,699 to $3,171 depending on where you live. That is a significant amount of money for someone living on a fixed income. An estimated 8 percent get drug coverage from participating in Medicare HMOs and another 11 percent receive coverage from Medicaid. Of course to do that, they must be very low-income to begin with and may have to spend a great deal out of pocket for their drugs--what we commonly refer to as spending down--before they are eligible in a given year for coverage. Finally there are those lucky enough--31 percent--to have employer sponsored drug coverage through their retiree program. In my view, a solution to the pressing problem of prescription drug coverage can't come soon enough. Drug coverage should be part and parcel of the Medicare system, not a patchwork system where some get coverage and some don't. Prescription drug coverage shouldn't be a ``fringe benefit'' available only to those wealthy enough or poor enough to obtain coverage, it should be part and parcel of the Medicare system that will see today's seniors, and tomorrow's into the 21st Century. Accordingly, during the markup of the Senate budget resolution, I offered an amendment--along with Senators Wyden and Gordon Smith--that ensures the Congress can move forward in creating a prescription drug benefit before we adjourn this fall, while still providing a strong impetus for comprehensive Medicare reform. Specifically, the reserve fund we offered not only provides a ``down-payment'' of $20 billion for such a benefit over the coming three years, but it provides an additional $20 billion in years four and five if Congress moves forward on legislation that extends the solvency of the Medicare program without any gimmicks. Furthermore, it ensures that the Finance Committee has ample time--until September 1, to be exact--to craft a new benefit that utilizes the $20 billion ``down-payment'' prior to these monies being freed-up for stand-alone proposals on the floor. Why is this reserve fund and its structure so important? Put simply, by providing a ``down-payment'' on a new prescription drug benefit over the coming three years--but by linking the long-term funding of the benefit to substantive reforms--my amendment ensures that a benefit can be crafted immediately without undercutting the long-term reform effort. In fact, by linking the extension of this new benefit to actual reforms, my amendment serves as a strong impetus for reform as no member of Congress would want to risk having such a benefit expire due to a failure to act on broader reforms. Ultimately, I believe this reserve fund--which was adopted by voice vote in the Budget Committee--will serve as a catalyst for the most important changes to the Medicare program since its inception, both in terms of creating a much-needed new benefit and in terms of enacting comprehensive reforms. By maintaining fiscal discipline, protecting Social Security surpluses, buying down debt, providing funds for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and enhancing funding for shared priorities such as education, I believe the Senate budget resolution deserves strong support by the full Senate. Ultimately, while Members from either side of the aisle may disagree with specific provisions in the resolution that has been crafted, the simple fact is that this is a budget framework--or ``blueprint''--that establishes parameters and priorities, but is not the final word on these individual decisions. Rather, specific spending and tax decisions will initially be made in the Appropriations and Finance Committees, and ultimately by Members on the floor. Therefore, I am hopeful that amendments offered to this framework do not harm the broad and reasoned parameters that have been set, and commend the Chairman Domenici, again, for his efforts in crafting this balanced resolution.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the motion to proceed to invoke cloture on S. 2285, the Federal Fuels Tax Holiday Act of 2000, a bill introduced by Senator Lott which I have been pleased to cosponsor. This legislation will repeal, until the end of this year, the 4.3 cent-per-gallon increase to the federal excise tax on gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and aviation fuel added by the Clinton Administration in 1993. Also, our legislation is set up so that should the national average for regular unleaded gasoline prices breach the $2 mark, it would also repeal, until the end of the year, the 18.3 cent-per-gallon federal gasoline tax; the 24.3 cent-per-gallon excise tax on highway diesel fuel and kerosene; the 4.3 cents per-gallon railroad diesel fuel; the 24.3 cent-per-gallon excise tax on inland waterway fuel; the 19.3 cent- per-gallon for noncommercial aviation gasoline; the 21.8 cent-per- gallon for noncommercial jet fuel; and 4.3 cents-per-gallon for commercial aviation fuel. This will provide the nation with a vital ``circuit breaker'' in the midst of the very real possibility of skyrocketing fuel costs as America takes to the road this summer--and the legislation ensures that any savings will truly be passed on to consumers and not pocketed before customers can benefit from the savings at the pump. Some of my colleagues say this will not amount to enough savings for the consumers to even care about. Well, I guess my constituents in Maine are more thrifty than others, especially after a winter of paying the highest prices in decades for both home heating oil and high gas prices at the pump. At the same time, it allows reimbursement of the Highway Trust Fund, which is financed by the gasoline tax, and the Airport and Airways Trust Fund, financed by the aviation fuel tax. Both these funds are held completely harmless, with any lost revenues to be replaced from the budget surplus. No one should have any concerns about the impact this bill would have on the progress of important highway and airport projects because the impact would be zero. This legislation takes a concrete step toward more reasonable fuel prices, helping to serve as a buffer for consumers who are already reeling from the high cost of gasoline and other fuels. Of course, I hope the provisions for temporary repeal of the full tax will not be necessary. But if they are, they will provide immediate relief to taxpayers and ensure that, if prices are skyrocketing, any savings in fuel costs will be passed on to consumers. The retail price we pay for refined petroleum products for gasoline, diesel fuel, and home heating oil, for instance, substantially depends upon the cost of crude oil to refiners. We have seen a barrel of crude oil climb to over $35.00 recently from a price of $10.50 in February of 1999. That is a 145 percent increase. And while OPEC agreed this week to only very modest increases in crude oil production, White House officials say that the cost of gasoline at the pump will now decline in the coming months, even though their own Economic Advisor Gene Sperling was quoted in the Washington Post on March 29, as warning that ``there is still significant and inherent uncertainty in the oil market, particularly with such low inventories, and we will continue to monitor the situation very closely''. Mr. President, while the Administration has ``monitored'' the situation, crude oil prices have gone up and up, and our inventories went down. As a matter of fact, the Administration admits that it was ``caught napping'' after OPEC decided to decrease production in March of 1999--and while they napped through a long winter's sleep, prices for crude climbed as temperatures plummeted. The effect on gasoline, diesel and home heating oil was predictable, and in fact was predicted. Last October--a half a year ago--the Department of Energy, in its 1999-2000 Winter Fuels Outlook, projected a 44 percent increase in home heating oil bills. In a severe winter, the agency estimated, an additional 28 percent increase in costs could be felt for residential customers. In other words, the Department of Energy itself predicted an increase of over 70 percent, but did nothing. In actuality, home heating oil costs jumped from a fairly consistent national of 86 cents per gallon in the winter of 1998-99 to as high as $2.08 per gallon in Maine early last month--an increase of well over 100 percent. And, in that same time frame, conventional gasoline prices have risen 70 percent or higher. So now the Administration tells us that gasoline prices will most likely go down by this summer because of the small production increases agreed to by OPEC. Well, even with an increase in OPEC quotas, there will still be a shortfall in meeting worldwide demand for crude oil. Approximately 76.3 million barrels per day are needed to meet demand, but the anticipated new OPEC production is estimated to be only 75.3 million barrels per day. So you'll have to excuse me if I'm a little hesitant accepting estimates from an Administration that seems to make predictions by gazing into a crystal ball. I want to at least make sure that Americans have in their pockets what they would have otherwise paid in fuel taxes if the Administration underestimates prices once again and gasoline hits $2.00 a gallon. Beyond the pump, consumers are getting hit with extra costs directly attributable to high fuel costs. If you've paid to send an overnight package lately, you probably noted that you were charged a fuel fee, because their cost of diesel fuel has increased by about 60 percent over the past year. And with a 150 percent increase in jet fuel, that airline ticket you buy today will probably include something you've never seen before--a fuel charge of $20.00. How long will it be before costs of other products will also be passed on the consumer? And, consider the impacts to the nations' farmers. The New York Times reported just this past Wednesday that a farmer paying 40 cents a gallon more this year to fuel his diesel tractors and combines is adding as much as $240 a day to his harvesting costs. In my home state of Maine, we are at the peak season for moving last year's potato crop out of storage and to the large Eastern markets. But the industry can't get truckers to come into the State to move the potatoes because they are discouraged by the particularly high price of diesel in Maine. The only help the potato industry has had recently in getting their product to market has certainly not been due to the energy policy of this Administration, but to local truckers who have turned to hauling potatoes because the recent wet weather has kept them away from taking timber out of the Maine woods. Soon, we will enter the summer months, when tourism is particularly important to the economy of New England and to Maine in particular. With gas prices climbing even higher, we need relief now, and that's what this bill provides. Mr. President, the choices are clear--do nothing for the taxpayers who are being gouged by failed energy policies, or do something by supporting legislation that acts as a circuit breaker that gives citizens a break at the gas pump, protects the Trust Funds that build our highways and airports, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor of S.J. Res. 14, I am proud to rise in support of the proposed constitutional amendment granting Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. Last June, the House of Representatives passed an identical resolution by the requisite two-thirds vote margin, so I urge that my colleagues in the Senate also pass this resolution with similar bipartisan support and send the proposed amendment to the states for ratification. Our flag occupies a truly unique place in the hearts of millions of citizens as a cherished symbol of freedom and democracy. As a national emblem of the world's greatest democracy, the American flag should be treated with respect and care. Our free speech rights do not entitle us to simply consider the flag as ``personal property'', which can be treated any way we see fit including physically desecrating it as a legitimate form of political protest. We debate this issue at a very special and important time in our nation's history. This year marks the 55th anniversary of the allies' victory in the Second World War. And, fifty-nine years ago, Japanese planes launched an attack on Pearl Harbor that would begin American participation in the Second World War. During that conflict, our proud marines climbed to the top of Mount Suribachi in one of the most bloody battles of the war. No less than 6,855 men died to put our American flag on the mountain. The sacrifice of the brave American soldiers who gave their life on behalf of their country can never be forgotten. This honor and dedication to country, duty, freedom and justice is enshrined in the symbol of our Nation--the American flag. The flag is not just a visual symbol to us--it is a symbol whose pattern and colors tell a story that rings true for each and every American. The 50 stars and 13 stripes on the flag are a reminder that our nation is built on the unity and harmony of 50 states. And the colors of our flag were not chosen randomly: red was selected because it represents courage, bravery, and the willingness of the American people to give their life for their country and its principles of freedom and democracy; white was selected because it represents integrity and purity; and blue because it represents vigilance, perseverance, and justice. Thus, this flag has become a source of inspiration to every American wherever it is displayed. For these reasons and many others, a great majority of Americans believe--as I strongly do--that the American flag should be treated with dignity, respect and care--and nothing less. Unfortunately, not everyone shares this view. In June of 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that the Flag Protection Act of 1989, legislation adopted by the Congress in 1989 generally prohibiting physical defilement or desecration of the flag, was unconstitutional. This decision, a 5-4 ruling in U.S. v. Eichman, held that burning the flag as a political protest was constitutionally- protected free speech. The Flag Protection Act had originally been adopted by the 101st Congress after the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson that existing Federal and state laws prohibiting flag-burning were unconstitutional because they violated the first amendment's provisions regarding free speech. I profoundly disagreed with both rulings the Supreme Court made on this issue. In our modern society, there are still many different forums in our mass media, television, newspapers and radio and the like, through which citizens can freely and fully exercise their legitimate, constitutional right to free speech, even if what they have to say is overwhelmingly unpopular with a majority of American citizens. Accordingly, in 1995, I also joined as an original cosponsor of a proposed constitutional amendment granting Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. Although the House of Representatives easily passed that resolution by the necessary two-thirds vote margin, the Senate fell a mere three votes short. I am hopeful that today's effort will deliver the three additional votes that are needed to send this proposed amendment to the states for ratification. Of note, prior to the Supreme Court's 1989 Texas v. Johnson ruling, 48 states, including my own state of Maine, and the Federal government, had anti-flag burning laws on their books for years--so it's time the Congress gave the states the opportunity to speak on this issue directly. Mr. President, whether our flag is flying over a ball park, a military base, a school or on a flag pole on Main Street, our national standard has always represented the ideals and values that are the foundation this great nation was built on. And our flag has come not only to represent the glories of our nation's past, but it has also come to stand as a symbol for hope for our nation's future. Let me just state that I am extremely committed to defending and protecting our Constitution--from the first amendment in the Bill of Rights to the 27th amendment. I do not believe that this amendment would be a departure from first amendment doctrine. I strongly urge my colleagues to uphold the great symbol of our nationhood by supporting the flag amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join many of my colleagues in expressing my deepest concern about the problem concerning energy and the cost of energy to many working Americans, and certainly to my constituents in the State of Maine. We have been plagued by a significant surge in increases at the pump--certainly during the wintertime in the State of Maine concerning oil prices, home heating oil prices that more than doubled within a 1- month period, not to mention the gasoline prices we are seeing and the tremendous spike in those prices, as well. And, even according to the Department of Energy's own information, we will not expect an abatement of those prices by the end of the year. In fact, we can expect to have continuously high prices in terms of gasoline. We know that the OPEC countries are going to be meeting on Monday, 4 days from now. We hope the administration and the Congress sends an unequivocal message that they rethink their unconscionable policy of keeping a very low level of production when it comes to petroleum products. We know that a year ago in October they made a decision to limit production when it came to oil. The administration was well aware of the fact that the OPEC cartel had made a deliberate and concerted decision to limit the production of oil. Even last fall, the Department of Energy's own report indicated that we could expect a 40-percent rise in home heating oil prices, and if it was a severe winter, a 30-percent rise in home heating oil prices. That was more than a 70-percent increase projected by the Department of Energy with respect to home heating oil prices. That was anticipated by our own Department of Energy last October. In fact, my constituents in the State of Maine faced a 100-percent increase in home heating oil prices--a 100-percent increase. Yet we had silence from the administration--silence when the OPEC cartel made this decision to limit the production of oil without any apparent reason, and without any rationale. Then the Department of Energy anticipated we could have up toward a 70-percent increase in home heating oil prices. In fact, we face a 100- percent increase. Yet there was a deafening silence from the administration when it came to the types of policies that could mitigate the burden the surging prices imposed on working Americans. Here we are today anticipating what might or might not happen on Monday, the kinds of decisions made by the OPEC cartel. I hope the administration is working very hard to send a strong message that the OPEC cartel should reconsider its policy. Its policy is all the more shocking when we consider the men and women all across this country who defended the freedom of democracy for countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, that the United States lost 147 American lives, 458 were wounded, and 23 were taken prisoner in the struggle during the Persian Gulf war. I think it is entirely appropriate for Congress and the administration to press OPEC in terms of the kind of decision they should be making on Monday. The administration also should consider predicating foreign assistance to some of these foreign countries that are part of the decisionmaking of the OPEC cartel, such as Mexico, whom we bailed out 5 years ago when it came to the peso crisis to the tune of $13.5 billion. We were prepared to bail them out up to the tune of $20 billion to ease the economic hardship imposed on their people. It is no different now. Or Indonesia and Nigeria, for whom the President is proposing $256 million in economic assistance because these are countries in transition. Again, our assistance should be predicated on their cooperation. Those are the kinds of issues we must confront. In the short term, we have to deal with the reality of what is happening at the gas pump. I hope Congress will give consideration to recommendations that will be made by many who have been working on this issue to suspend the 4.3- cent gas tax which many Members opposed back in 1993 because we didn't think this was a hardship we should impose on the American people. Beyond that, if the price of gasoline is going to surge upwards of $2--which it is already doing in California--we should clearly suspend all of the taxes on diesel and gasoline because it is that important to our economy and to Americans in all parts of the country, not just in one region; it will be in all regions. When the Department of Energy says it would undoubtedly be too late to deflect domestic gasoline prices on their way to record nominal levels and may be too little to reduce prices much by the end of the year 2000, clearly we have something to be concerned about. No one really knows even if OPEC will make a positive decision on Monday. I am concerned about the decision they will make on Monday or if they decide to have other meetings. What does that all mean if this does not translate into lower prices at the gas pump this summer? We clearly will have problems. I know my State will have problems. It is a tourist State. We rely on tourism. It is the second biggest industry in the State of Maine. I think we have to be prepared. I hope we do fashion a policy that is contingent upon what the price might be, irrespective of the decision made by OPEC. That is a decision the administration is not prepared to make, and they are not even prepared to take a step forward in any direction. The President announced last week: We will do a reserve in the Northeast but we need to do an environmental impact study; it needs legislation from Congress. Senator Dodd introduced legislation in which many joined because we think it is a prudent policy to set up a reserve in the Northeast to mitigate the impact of high price increases or an interruption in oil supply. What is so difficult about that? The President can't even take that step. He says there are a lot of contingencies involved. In effect, we don't have anything from this administration to address this problem. We don't have an energy policy. Congress is going to have to take the concerted steps necessary to address these problems in the short term to be sure these are short- term solutions. We also have to look at the long term. I did support the CAFE standard issue that Senator Gorton addressed today as well. Obviously, the costs have been significant to this country in terms of transportation. We need to get better fuel efficiency with respect to automobiles and minivans. We also should look at providing some incentives for the marginal producers in this country, the small producers, about which Senator Hutchison has also talked, as well. Congress will have to take the lead because it is clear that this administration is not intending to in any respect. Beyond anticipating we will have this problem this year, the administration has been virtually silent. I hope they make the message very clear to the OPEC countries about how important their decision will be on Monday. Beyond that, we also have to be prepared for any contingencies in the future that these prices might not decline in the short term or for the reminder of this year. Frankly, it is not just my word, it is the word of the Department of Energy. Again, I hope we will be taking actions in the next few days irrespective of what the decision might be from the OPEC nations.

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

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sole Community Hospital Fair Payment Act. This legislation will correct an unintended drafting error involving Medicare reimbursements for the Sole Community Hospital program, enacted last year as part of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act (P.L. 106- 113). Medicare designates Sole Community Hospitals based on factors such as isolated location, weather or travel conditions, or the absence of other hospitals within a 35 road-mile radius. These hospitals are considered the only source of inpatient services that are reasonably available in a geographic area. Sole Community Hospitals are reimbursed for services on either a federal national standardized amount or on a hospital-specific target amount that is based on either updated FY 1982 or updated FY 1987 costs. Last year, Congress passed legislation updating the federal rate reimbursement level to costs based on Fiscal Year 1996. A drafting error in the bill, however, unintentionally updated the reimbursements for hospitals that are paid on a specific rate--leaving out 327 hospitals across the country that Congress intended to help. If this error had not been made America's rural hospitals would be expecting an additional $600 million over five years. Without correction, the error could cost four hospitals just in my state approximately $2.84 million annually that had been anticipated from this legislation. These hospitals--Mayo Regional Hospital in Dover- Foxcroft, Down East Community Hospital in Machias, Northern Maine Medical Center in fort Kent, and Rumford Community Hospital in Rumford--are a vital part of their communities and had expected these additional funds. Small hospitals across the country are facing an increasingly uncertain future, and we cannot afford to lose any more of our rural health care providers. This funding is critical to these small hospitals and the communities they serve. These facilities and the patients they serve should not be penalized for a mistake made by Congress I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and I urge the Senate to pass this technical correction bill immediately.