Olympia Snowe

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.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a remarkable man and cherished member of the community of Lewiston- Auburn, Maine who sadly passed away in December at the age of 86. When I learned of the passing of George Orestis, I was stricken by the news. George was quite honestly one of the finest people I have ever had the privilege to know--a remarkable man and true gentleman who cared deeply about the community he loved, and was a devoted leader of my church, Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church of Lewiston, Maine. He was one of those rare individuals who could make you feel a better person just for having met him. Indeed, by always seeing the best in people, he helped others to see the best in themselves--and his compassion for humankind has left an indelible mark on all those whose hearts he touched. My memories of George go back to my earliest days, and they are fond ones. He was a wonderful and dear friend, whose generous spirit I will feel fortunate to carry with me throughout my days. His loss is especially difficult for all of us in Maine's Greek-American community--his kindness and spirituality formed the heart and soul of our Church, and his devotion was the bedrock upon which Holy Trinity Church was quite literally built. As the Church's chanter for over two decades, he expressed his faith with soaring eloquence and brought us all closer to God. His words reached out to us in a warm embrace, comforting us in our darkest days. George was always there for us, and today we know that he is now in the company of angels, dwelling forever in the glow of God's eternal love. George Bernard Shaw once said, ``Life is no brief candle to me--it is like a splendid torch which I have hold of for the moment, and I want it to burn as brightly as possible before handing it over to the next generation.'' For 86 years, George Orestis shined as brightly as any mortal being could, and his is a light that will never be diminished for any of us who knew and loved him. In particular, I know what a special and loving relationship he and his wife Toni shared. My thoughts and prayers continue to be with Toni and her entire family--my love is with them always. With his values and beliefs--in the way he conducted his life--George was as close to God as one could ever hope to be. We will miss you, George, more than words have the power to convey. We were so very grateful to have you in our lives--now, you belong to God. Mr. President, I request that the following article from the Lewiston Sun Journal regarding the life of George Orestis be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Lewiston Sun Journal, Dec. 14, 1999] Leader of the Bank--Friends Recall George Orestis as `A Backbone' (By Michael Gordon) Auburn--George Orestis had a politician's love for the microphone--but he spoke much better. William Hathaway acknowledges it. He remembers the night three decades ago that Orestis outshined both him and Sen. Edward ``Ted'' Kennedy at the dais. Hathaway had recently been elected to the U.S. House, and he brought the Democratic senator from Massachusetts to Lewiston for a fund-raiser to pay off some campaign debts. Orestis was Hathaway's campaign treasurer. All three men addressed the audience, and ``George made a better speech than both of us,'' Hathaway said Monday. Orestis was a natural in front of an audience, smooth, charming, a skill he'd honed in the 1930s as the leader of Rudy Vallee's band, the Fenton Brothers Orchestra. He loved to entertain. Just as much, Orestis loved to stand up and tell people's stories, to celebrate their accomplishments, to sing their praises. ``He remembered everything about you,'' said George Simones, a lifelong friend. On Monday, it was Simones, Hathaway and others who were doing the talking, the remembering, about a good man and a good friend. On Sunday, 10 days after his 86th birthday, Orestis died at Central Maine Medical Center in Lewiston. His funeral will be at 11 a.m. Wednesday at the Greek Orthodox Church of the Holy Trinity on Hogan Road in Lewiston; The Most Rev. Metropolitan Mothodies of Boston will preside. A son of Greek immigrants, Orestis took great pride in his heritage and was ``a backbone'' of the local church, said its priest, Harry Politis. Orestis led the fund drive to build the church, and was its chanter for 27 years. ``He was a great singer, even when he was losing his hearing. He never missed a note,'' said George Simones, Jr., who sang in the choir Orestis directed. His service to the Orthodox church had no bounds. He served on the executive councils of both the National Archdiocese and the New England Archdiocese. Twice he was awarded the Cross of St. Andrew. The poor and handicapped knew his kindness. Orestis established the area's first Good Will store. As a Kiwanian, he led the organization's effort to help the mentally retarded. ``George had a great respect for every human being,'' Politis said. ``He was able to confront every situation. He had a very realistic point of view.'' ``Whatever life dealt, he would say those are the circumstances,'' said Orestis' nephew, George. He was named for his uncle. ``That's kind of a Greek expression,'' he said. ``When things are not going so well, you sort of say, `Well, circumstances.' and get on with it.'' ``He'd break into song, he'd tell jokes; he was very personable. I think what was responsible for all the affection others had for him was he was so approachable,'' his nephew said. Born in Nashua, N.H., Orestis grew up in Lewiston and went to school there. Simmons remembers him as a leader even then among the boys of the Greek neighborhood. Orestis attended Bates College, and studied composing, conducting and arranging with Rupert Neily of Portland. In 1929, he landed the job leading the Fenton Brothers Orchestra. It turned into a 12-year gig. At one point, Simones said, the band made the top 10 in the ``Lucky Strike Parade.'' When America went to war, Orestis joined the U.S. Army. Commissioned as a second lieutenant, he was assigned to the medical corps. When the fighting was over, he came home, not to the sound of waltzes but of washing machines. He ran the family's laundry business, American Linen, from 1947 to 1961. When I think of my uncle, I think of the four brothers in the laundry, how a small immigrant family took a business and made it a big success. That's the sort of thing Uncle George would do,'' his nephew said. He said the family sold the company in the mid-1960s. In 1962, Orestis married Antoinette ``Toni'' Marois. They later became the owners of her family's restaurant on Lisbon Street. On Monday night, Simmons held a Christmas party there for his own employees. He wanted to reschedule, out of respect for the Orestis family, but he said Toni Orestis insisted it be held. ``She said, `George would always say, the show must go on.' And she's right,'' he said. Now living in McLean, Va., Hathaway was a lawyer in Lewiston when he met Orestis around 1953. Hathaway lived on Webster Avenue and sent his laundry to American Linen. He and Orestis would meet for lunch. When the lawyer decided to run for Congress, Orestis offered his help. ``I don't think George was too much for politics,'' Simones recalled. Hathaway agreed. But he capitalized on his friend's skill as an orator. He said Orestis could give a five-minute impromptu speech better than most people who prepared one. Orestis later used that talent in helping his nephew, John, get elected as the mayor of Lewiston. In 1975, Gov. James Longley, also a Lewiston native, appointed George Orestis as the first director of the Maine State Lottery. He served for four years. Orestis never liked gambling, Simones noted. Smiling, he said his friend ``always wanted the sure thing. To his many friends, Orestis was a sure thing. ``Anything you wanted, he was there,'' Simones said. ``There isn't enough you could do for George. He's one in a million.''

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Foster Care Independence Act. I am a cosponsor of the foster care bill that was originally introduced in the Senate by our colleague, the late Senator John Chafee. Mr. President, this bill is an enormously important piece of legislation. It provides the means for States to support some of our most vulnerable children--teens who are facing the tenuous position of being dropped from foster care support for the simple reason that they are turning 18. For many young people, the transition to adulthood is an exciting time of newfound independence. These young people navigate this challenging time with the help and support of their parents and family, secure in the knowledge that a ``safety net'' awaits them at home. This momentous transition can be much more daunting, however, for the 20,000 foster children who make the difficult shift from foster care to independence and adulthood. Research has shown that these children--who average four homes in the final 7 years of their foster care--face many challenges when their benefits end and they are left on their own at the age of 18. Today, there are more than 500,000 children in foster care throughout the United States--young people wrenched from the security of their homes by death, abuse, or other tragedy. For these children, foster parents offer the only support they know, and the abrupt end of care can make transition to adulthood all the more important. We are asking these teens to move out of their foster care and immediately become productive members of society--yet we forget that older foster kids face the same growing pains faced by teens in more stable homes. They are struggling with growing up, struggling with establishing their independence, and struggling to mature and develop their personal identity. But this struggle is made exponentially more difficult when the teens must also face the struggle of housing, poverty, and unemployment. In 1986, Congress created the Independent Living Program to address the transitional needs of foster children as they reach the age when they are asked to live independently. Studies of teens who are forced to abruptly leave foster care have found that they have a significantly higher-than-normal rate of school dropouts, out-of-wedlock births, homelessness, health and mental health problems, poverty, and unemployment. One 1998 study of former foster care youth by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that more than 40 percent of interviewed youth had been homeless, incarcerated, or had received public assistance since leaving State care. This same study found that during the 12- to 18-month period after leaving care, 44 percent of former care youths had difficulty obtaining medical care due to a lack of medical insurance and the high cost of care. These foster children deserve a safe, stable, and nurturing environment in order for them to become productive, self-sufficient members of society. The Foster Care Independence Act will expand Independent Living Program services to provide this support for foster children who are 18 to 21 years old and are still learning valuable life skills. This bill will enable teens between the ages of 18 and 21 to successfully shift from foster families into independent adulthood. This bill will help teens during this important transition by doubling Independent Living Program funding and expanding access to Medicaid health care and mental health services through their 21st birthday. Foster children frequently lack a sense of permanency and the skills that are essential to becoming self-reliant and productive adults. Through State-administered Independent Living Programs, foster children will be able to obtain mentoring and personal support. The expanded program will assist older foster care adolescents in obtaining a high school diploma and/or secondary education; career exploration; and preventative health services. They may also use this program to develop vital daily living skills such as budgeting, locating and maintaining housing, and financial planning. 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, grow, and transition to productive and stable adult lives. The Foster Care Independence Act provides these crucial services for America's older foster children. As Congress works to conclude the first session of the 106th Congress, it is essential that the Senate echo the broad, bipartisan support given to this bill by the U.S. House of Representatives--which recently passed a companion bill by a vote of 380-67--and give these older foster children the stability they deserve. Mr. President, we have all heard the old adage ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound a cure.'' Surely this rings true for helping our older foster children in their transition to adulthood. I can think of no better tribute to Senator Chafee, in tribute to his memory and to his life's work as an advocate of America's children, to name this bill in honor of him. And for this reason I rise today in support of the bill and I ask my colleagues to vote for this tremendously important piece of legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, last Wednesday, the Senate confirmed Governor Joseph E. Brennan as a commissioner on the Federal Maritime Commission, and this week Governor Brennan was sworn in for a term to expire in 2003. Governor Brennan, who formerly served as a Member of Congress for four years, where he was a member of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, and Governor of Maine for eight years prior to that, is eminently qualified to confront the challenges facing the maritime community. With his broad experience at both the state and federal level, Governor Brennan is an outstanding choice to serve as a Commissioner on the FMC. His service in Congress gave him first-hand knowledge of federal maritime issues as a member of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee that will be invaluable on the Maritime Commission. Established in 1961, the Federal Maritime Commission--FMC--is an independent regulatory agency charged with administering laws relating to shipping and the waterborne domestic and offshore commerce of the U.S. The FMC's jurisdiction encompasses many facets of the maritime industry. The Chairman and four Commissioners of the FMC are responsible for protecting shippers, carriers and others engaged in foreign commerce from restrictive rules and regulations of foreign governments and from the practices of foreign-flag carriers that have an adverse effect on shipping in U.S. trades. The FMC also reviews and monitors agreements under shipping law, reviews and approves or rejects tariff filings, issues licenses for ocean freight activities, administers passenger indemnity laws, reviews alleged or suspected violations of shipping statutes, and promulgates rules and regulations on shipping laws. The maritime sector is vitally important to our economy, and the FMC's responsibilities are fundamental to sustaining U.S. competitiveness in this area. As a Senator from Maine, a state with a rich maritime heritage, I am keenly aware that our nation has always been dependent upon the sea and has thus enjoyed a rich maritime tradition. To this day, our merchant marine remains an integral part of our culture and our economy. Today, one out of every six jobs in the United States is marine related. America's ports support more than 95 percent of all our overseas foreign trade, and within the U.S., more than one billion tons of commercial cargo is transported by ship each year. We must do all that we can to preserve our maritime legacy for future generations, and the FMC plays a key role in the commercial component of this legacy. Mr. President, I would also like to recognize Senator McCain, Chairman of the Commerce Committee, for his leadership, and for making it possible to move the nominations of both Governor Brennan and Anthony Merck prior to adjournment. I am grateful to Senator McCain and to Majority Leader Lott for their efforts to move this nomination expeditiously--and to my colleagues for their support. Finally, I would like to offer my heartfelt congratulations to Governor Brennan. I am very pleased that the President recognized that he would make a valuable contribution to the FMC. As senior Senator from Maine and a member of the Commerce Committee, I look forward to working with Governor Brennan on maritime issues in the years to come. Mr. President, once again, I would like to thank Chairman McCain Majority Leader Lott, and my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I reiterate my support for the two year extension of the very successful Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. And after all I have read recently--not that one should believe everything they read--I feel compelled to set the record straight on this issue one more time. The Northeast Dairy Compact has addressed the needs of states in New England who compacted together within their region to determine fair prices for locally produced supplies of fresh milk. All six legislatures and all six governors in New England approved the Compact. In fact, in 1989-1990, the Vermont House passed it unanimously and the Senate passed it 29 to 1. The Maine House passed it 114 to 1 and it was unanimously adopted by the Senate. The legislatures in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island adopted it overwhelmingly in 1993. I would also note that despite the varying views, party affiliations and economic philosophies, this is one issue where the entire New England Congressional Delegation is united. And that, in and of itself, is quite a feat. Let me tell you why New England is united behind the Dairy Compact. We want our family farmers. This way of life is threatened for a number of reasons including the encroachment of development which leads to the increased cost of land. I think one Mainer summed it up quite nicely in a letter to the editor. In this letter she noted that it was okay to be against the Compact ``. . . if you think we will be better off having subdivisions where our farms once stood, if you believe it's to our advantage to say good-bye to the last family farms and hello to big business controlling the production, distribution and pricing . . . .'' In my own state of Maine we have lost 31 percent of our dairy farms in the last 10 years. We have 485 dairy farms left and they average 80 milking cows and provide 2100 related jobs. They allow the continuation of a rural way of life that is fast disappearing not only in New England but throughout the country. And it is a way of life that we will not give up without a fight. The men and women who own our dairy farms are doing it because it is in their blood--their parents did it, their grandparents did it and in many cases their great grandparents did it. You don't go into dairy farming to make money--you go into it because it is in your blood, it is what you know and what you love. And the Compact is the only thing standing between many of these families and the loss of not only their farm but their way of life. In Maine we have a saying that you are ``from away'' if you are not from Maine. Let me assure you that if you told a Maine dairy farmer that he was part of a price fixing cartel, as several newspapers have claimed, he would immediately know that you were from away . . . far, far away. The beauty of the Compact is that it reflects the New England way of life--self-reliance--we don't ask the federal government for one penny. Instead, New Englanders pay a few cents more for milk to support the Compact--a very small price to pay to protect our rural way of life. Let me repeat that--we are not asking the federal taxpayer in Wisconsin or Texas or Minnesota to subsidize our farmers--although I might add that New England's taxpayers have historically subsidized farmers in other parts of the country. The Compact has proven to be an effective approach to address farm insecurity. The Compact has protected New England against the loss of their small family dairy farms and the consumers against a decrease in the fresh local supply of milk. The Compact has stabilized the dairy industry in this entire region and protected farmers and consumers against volatile price swings. Over ninety-seven percent of the fluid milk market in New England is self-contained within the area, and fluid milk markets are local due to the demand for freshness and because of high transportation costs, so any complaints raised in other areas about unfair competition are quite disingenuous. All we are asking, Mr. President, is the continuation of the Northeast Dairy Compact, the existence of which does not threaten or financially harm any other dairy farmer in the country. Let there be no mistake, the Northeast Dairy Compact does not stand alone in the Omnibus bill. Additional dairy language is included in the bill that restores the existing federal program, the Milk Marketing Order system, which fixes the price of milk in different regions across the country, and is initiated and approved by producers in specific areas. The USDA adopted a final Rule on Milk Marketing Orders in March, a rule I might add that favors dairy farmers in the Upper Midwest at the expense of the rest of the country. On September 22, the House expressed its opposition to this rule when they voted 285-140 to restore the current system by placing a moratorium on the Final Rule. So, this is not one region of the country speaking--although some apparently believe that New England's family farmers make a good scapegoat--as 65 percent of the House of Representatives voted to pass the moratorium language. The New England Compact adds about two cents a gallon to the consumer--not 20 cents as the Wall Street Journal would have you believe. They seem to be under the impression that the farmers set the price for the milk you buy at the store--the fact is that the prices, as we all know, are set by the retailer. Under the Compact, New England retail milk prices have been among the lowest and the most stable in the country. The opposition has tried to make the argument that interstate dairy compacts increase milk prices. This is just not so as milk prices around the U.S. have shown time and again that prices elsewhere are much higher and experience much wider price shifts than in the Northeast Compact states. Just take a look at dairy prices around the country for a gallon of milk. The price in Bangor and Augusta, Maine ranged from $2.89 to $2.99 per gallon from February to April of 1999 and has remained stable at $2.89 for the last several months. In the Boston, Massachusetts market, the price stayed perfectly stable--at $2.89--from February to April of 1999. The price in Seattle ranged from $3.39 to $3.56 over the same time period. Washington State is not in a compact, yet their milk was approximately 50 cents higher per gallon than in Maine. The range in Los Angeles was from $3.19 to $3.29. In San Diego, the range was from $3.10 to $3.62. California is not in a compact. Las Vegas prices were $2.99 all the way up to $3.62. Not much price stability there, but then, Nevada is not in a compact. In Philadelphia, the range was $2.78 to $3.01 per gallon--not as wide a shift as Nevada but a much wider price shift than the Northeast Compact states. It's no wonder Pennsylvania dairy farmers want to join us. How about Denver--Colorado is not in a compact. A gallon of milk in Denver has cost consumers anywhere from $3.45 to $3.59 over the past few months, over one half of a dollar more than in New England. So, the Northeast Dairy Compact has not resulted in higher milk prices in New England, but the milk prices are among the lowest in the country--and are among the most stable. Only the consumers and the processors in the New England region pay a few cents extra for milk that already costs less than just about anywhere else in the country--to provide for a fairer return to the area's family dairy farmers and to protect a way of life important to the people of the Northeast. Also, where is the consumer outrage from the Compact states for spending a few extra pennies for fresh fluid milk so as to ensure a safety net for dairy farmers so that they can continue an important way of life? I have not heard any swell of outrage of consumer complaints over the last three years. Why, because the consumers also realize this initial pilot project, whose costs are borne entirely by the New England consumers and processors, has been a huge success. So, I ask my colleagues to look at the facts, not the fables being spread by those who have simply chosen not to let the facts get in their way.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the chairman once again, and I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. I commend my colleague, Senator Specter, chairman of the Senate Veteran's Affairs Committee, for the remarkably responsive and skillful manner in which he managed the progress of H.R. 2116. This bill means a lot to veterans throughout the nation, and especially in my home state of Maine. I applaud Senator Specter's leadership on issues of importance to veterans. I have only one point of clarification. Does the transition clause of Section 207(c) of the bill mean, that for all state home grant applications covered by the transition clause and otherwise in compliance with applicable law and regulations in effect on November 10, 1999, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall award grants first to all unfunded applications remaining for fiscal year 1999 priority one projects? And that following those projects, the Secretary shall next fund those FY 2000 applications and which both meet the criteria set forth in the bill and which were accorded priority one status for FY 2000? And that the Secretary would fund these projects in the order in which they would appear on the fiscal year 2000 priority one list, prior to awarding grants to any other applications?

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 2116, the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999. I would like to begin by thanking my colleague, Senator Specter, chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, for his leadership on issues of importance to veterans. H.R. 2116 contains a number of provisions that will benefit veterans in Maine and elsewhere because of his strong leadership. I applaud Senator Specter for his efforts. I would especially like to thank the chairman for his efforts to address a concern I had about a specific provision in the House-passed version of the bill, which would have jeopardized millions of dollars in grant funding for the Maine State Veterans Homes system. H.R. 2116 contains a provision which fundamentally reorders the manner in which VA construction grants will be awarded in the future, placing the focus on renovation of existing facilities so that maintenance projects will take precedence in grant awards over proposals to construct new facilities. The House-passed version of the bill would have made Maine veterans homes and state homes in a number of states ineligible for funding, even through they had already prepared and filed grant applications under existing law and regulations. In an effort to address this concern, I worked closely with Senator Specter to craft a transition provision balancing the need to treat current state home applicants fairly and not change the rules in the middle of the game, while at the same time implementing the new rules as soon as possible. I am very pleased that the conference for H.R. 2116 agreed to the measure I helped author that grandfathers proposals already filed by veterans homes, thereby exempting them from new criteria in the bill that would have precluded funding in this and coming fiscal years. I believe this compromise remains true to the intent of the new criteria included in the House-passed version of the bill, while at the same time protecting the interests of states that had already submitted applications for funding. In addition to work with Senator Specter personally, I wrote a letter to the chairman in September alerting him to my concerns, followed by a letter to my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins. In addition, last month, I spearheaded a letter with 14 other Senators urging modification of the House construction grant provision to grandfather proposals made by Maine and other states under existing law, so that it would not change the methodology in the middle of the current fiscal year--after applications have been filed; after architectural, engineering, and legal fees have been incurred, and after local matching funds have been appropriated or borrowed by states for these projects. If the House-passed provision had been enacted without this change, many states veterans homes would have lost their positions for Fiscal Year 2000 grants because these applications would have been judged according to a new set of criteria. In Maine, this would have jeopardized funding for the entire Maine Veterans Homes system, which earlier this year applied for about $9.3 million in grant funding, and is seeking to construct new veterans' residential care facilities in Augusta, Bangor, Caribou, and Scarborough. In their applications, the Maine Veterans Home System notes that more than half of Maine's veterans population is reaching the age where long-term nursing care or domicillary care is typically required. Since 1991, the number of Maine veterans aged 75-79 has doubled, from 6,000 to 12,500. Over the same time period, the numbers of veterans aged 80-84 has doubled from 2,400 to 6,000; and veterans over the age of 85 has increased by 50 percent from 1,200 to 1,800. I would also like to thank Senator Specter for supporting another provision in H.R. 2116 based on legislation I introduced in the Senate, S. 1579, the Veterans Sexual Trauma Treatment Act. S. 1579 extends a VA program that offers counseling and medical treatment to veterans who were sexually abused while serving in the military, and requires a VA mental health professional to determine when counseling is necessary. Currently, the VA Secretary makes this determination. The bill also calls for the dissemination of information concerning the availability of counseling services to veterans through public service announcements. According to the Department of Defense, at least 55 percent of active duty women and 14 percent of active duty men have been subjected to sexual harassment. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I credit the DoD with working to reduce the prevalence of sexual harassment in the military. However, as long as there is harassment in the military, it is vital that victims have access to treatment, and H.R. 2116 provides the tools to do this. Finally, I would like to commend the Senate and House Veterans' Affairs Committees and the conferees for H.R. 2116 for their efforts to expand a whole range of benefits for veterans in this conference report. For example, the bill expands long-term care for veterans, and will increase home and community-based care and assisted-living options for veterans. It expands mental health services, and requires the VA to enhance specialized services for PTSD and drug abuse disorders. It provides coverage for uninsured veterans who need care but who do not have access to a VA facility. It expands VA authority to provide services to homeless veterans. It improves Montgomery GI bill benefits by providing benefits for students in preparatory courses and to those whose enlistment is interrupted to attend officers training school. And these are just a few of the important provisions in this bill. Mr. President, this is a strong bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in a strong show of support. I yield the floor. Section 207

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Building, Renovating, Improving, and Constructing Kids' Schools (BRICKS) Act''-- legislation that would address our nation's burgeoning need for K-12 school construction, renovation, and repair. The legislation would accomplish this in a fiscally-responsible manner while seeking to find the middle ground between those who support a very direct, active federal role in school construction, and those who are concerned about an expanded federal role in what has been--and remains--a state and local responsibility. Mr. President, the condition of many of our nation's existing public schools is abysmal even as the need for additional schools and classroom space grows. Specifically, according to reports issued by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in 1995 and 1996, fully one-third of all public schools needing extensive repair or replacement. As further evidence of this problem, an issue brief prepared by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in 1999 stated that the average public school in America is 42 years old, with school buildings beginning rapid deterioration after 40 years. In addition, the NCES brief found that 29 percent of all public schools are in the ``oldest condition,'' which means that they were built prior to 1970 and have either never been renovated or were renovated prior to 1980. Not only are our nation's schools in need of repair and renovation, but there is a growing demand for additional schools and classrooms due to an ongoing surge in student enrollment. Specifically, according to the NCES, at least 2,400 new public schools will need to be built by the year 2003 to accommodate our nation's burgeoning school rolls, which will grow from a record 52.7 million children today to 54.3 million by 2008. Needless to say, the cost of addressing our nation's need for school renovations and construction is enormous. In fact, according to the General Accounting Office (GAO), it will cost $112 billion just to bring our nation's schools into good overall condition. Nowhere is this cost better understood than in my home state of Maine, where a recently-completed study by the Maine Department of Education and the State Board of Education determined that the cost of addressing the state's school building and construction needs stood at $637 million. Mr. President, we simply cannot allow our nation's schools to fall into utter disrepair and obsolescence with children sitting in classrooms that have leaky ceilings or rotting walls. We cannot ignore the need for new schools as the record number of children enrolled in K-12 schools continues to grow. Accordingly, because the cost of repairing and building these facilities may prove to be more than many state and local governments can bear in a short period of time, I believe the federal government can and should assist Maine and other state and local governments in addressing this growing national crisis. Admittedly, not all members support strong federal intervention in what has been historically a state and local responsibility. In fact, many argue with merit that the best form of federal assistance for school construction or other local educational needs would be for the federal government to fulfill its commitment to fund 40 percent of the cost of special education. This long-standing commitment was made when the Individuals with Disabilities Education (IDEA) Act was signed into law more than 20 years ago, but the federal government has fallen woefully short in upholding its end of the bargain, only recently increasing its share to approximately 10 percent. Needless to say, I strongly agree with those who argue that the federal government's failure to fulfill this mandate represents nothing less than a raid on the pocketbook of every state and local government. Accordingly, I am pleased that recent efforts in the Congress have increased federal funding for IDEA by a full 85 percent over the past three years, and I support ongoing efforts to achieve the 40 percent federal commitment in the near future. Yet, even as we work to fulfill this long-standing commitment and thereby free up local resources to address local needs, I believe the federal government can do more to assist state and local governments in addressing their school construction needs without infringing on local control. Mr. President, the legislation I am offering today--the ``BRICKS Act''--will do just that . Specifically, it addresses our nation's school construction needs in a responsible fiscal manner while bridging the gap between those who advocate a more activist federal role in school construction and those who do not. First, my legislation will provide $20 billion in federal loans to support school construction, renovation, and repair at the local level. By designating that these loans may only be used to pay the interests owed to bondholders on new, 15-year school construction bonds that are issued by state and local governments through the year 2002, the federal government will leverage the issuing of new bonds by states and localities that would not otherwise be made. Of importance, these loan moneys--which will be distributed on an annual basis using the Title I distribution formula--will become available to each state at the request of a Governor. While the federal loans can only be used to support bond issues that will supplement, and not supplant, the amount of school construction that would have occurred in the absence of the loans, there will be no requirement that states engage in a lengthy application process that does not even assure them of their rightful share of the $20 billion pot. Second, my bill ensures that these loans are made by the federal government in a fiscally responsible manner that does not cut into the Social Security surplus or claim a portion of non-Social Security surpluses that may prove ephemeral in the future. Specifically, my bill would make these loans to states from the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF)--a fund that was created through the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 and has grown to hold more than $40 billion in assets. The principal activity of the fund--which is controlled solely by the Secretary of the Treasury--is foreign exchange intervention that is intended to limit fluctuations in exchange rates. However, the fund has also been used to provide stabilization loans to foreign countries, including a $20 billion line of credit to Mexico in 1995 to support the peso. In light of the controversial manner in which the ESF has been used, some have argued that additional constraints should be placed on the fund. Still others--including former Federal Reserve Board Governor Lawrence B. Lindsey--have stated that, for various reasons, the fund should be liquidated. Regardless of how one feels about exercising greater constraint over the ESF or liquidating it, I believe that if this $40 billion fund can be used to bailout foreign currencies, it certainly can be used to help America's schools. Accordingly, I believe it is appropriate that the $20 billion in loans provided by my legislation will be made from the ESF--an amount identical to the line of credit that was extended to Mexico by the Secretary of the Treasury in 1995. Of importance, these loans will be made from the ESF on a progressive, annual basis--not in a sudden or immediate manner. Furthermore, these monies will be repaid to the fund with interest, to ensure that the ESF is compensated for the loans it makes. Although the ESF will recoup all of the monies it lends plus interest, it should also be noted that my proposal ensures that state and local governments will not be forced to pay excessive interest--or that they will be forced to repay over an unreasonable time line. Specifically, my bill sets the interest rate for the loans at the average prime lending rate for the year in which the bonds are issued, with a cap of 4.5 percent--an amount that is lower than the prime lending rate in any of the previous 15 years. Furthermore, no payments will be owed--and no interest will accrue--until 2005, unless the federal government fulfills its commitment to fund 40 percent of the cost of special education prior to that time. Combined, these provisions will minimize the cost of these loans to the states, and maximize the utilization of these loans for school construction, renovation, and repair. Mr. President, by providing low-interest loans to states and local governments to support school construction, I believe that my bill represents a fiscally-responsible, centrist solution to a national problem. For those who support a direct, active federal role in school construction, my bill provides substantial federal assistance by dedicating $20 billion to leverage a significant amount of new school construction bonds. For those who are concerned about the federal government becoming overly-engaged in an historically state and local responsibility--and thereby stepping on local control--my bill directs that the monies provided to states will be repaid with interest, and that no onerous applications or demands are placed on states to receive their share of these monies. Mr. President, I urge that my colleagues support the ``BRICKS Act''--legislation that is intended to bridge the gap between competing philosophies on the federal role in school construction. Ultimately, if we work together, we can make a tangible difference in the condition of America's schools without turning it into a partisan or ideological battle that is better suited to sound bites than actual solutions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Building, Renovating, Improving, and Constructing Kids' Schools (BRICKS) Act''-- legislation that would address our nation's burgeoning need for K-12 school construction, renovation, and repair. The legislation would accomplish this in a fiscally-responsible manner while seeking to find the middle ground between those who support a very direct, active federal role in school construction, and those who are concerned about an expanded federal role in what has been--and remains--a state and local responsibility. Mr. President, the condition of many of our nation's existing public schools is abysmal even as the need for additional schools and classroom space grows. Specifically, according to reports issued by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in 1995 and 1996, fully one-third of all public schools needing extensive repair or replacement. As further evidence of this problem, an issue brief prepared by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in 1999 stated that the average public school in America is 42 years old, with school buildings beginning rapid deterioration after 40 years. In addition, the NCES brief found that 29 percent of all public schools are in the ``oldest condition,'' which means that they were built prior to 1970 and have either never been renovated or were renovated prior to 1980. Not only are our nation's schools in need of repair and renovation, but there is a growing demand for additional schools and classrooms due to an ongoing surge in student enrollment. Specifically, according to the NCES, at least 2,400 new public schools will need to be built by the year 2003 to accommodate our nation's burgeoning school rolls, which will grow from a record 52.7 million children today to 54.3 million by 2008. Needless to say, the cost of addressing our nation's need for school renovations and construction is enormous. In fact, according to the General Accounting Office (GAO), it will cost $112 billion just to bring our nation's schools into good overall condition. Nowhere is this cost better understood than in my home state of Maine, where a recently-completed study by the Maine Department of Education and the State Board of Education determined that the cost of addressing the state's school building and construction needs stood at $637 million. Mr. President, we simply cannot allow our nation's schools to fall into utter disrepair and obsolescence with children sitting in classrooms that have leaky ceilings or rotting walls. We cannot ignore the need for new schools as the record number of children enrolled in K-12 schools continues to grow. Accordingly, because the cost of repairing and building these facilities may prove to be more than many state and local governments can bear in a short period of time, I believe the federal government can and should assist Maine and other state and local governments in addressing this growing national crisis. Admittedly, not all members support strong federal intervention in what has been historically a state and local responsibility. In fact, many argue with merit that the best form of federal assistance for school construction or other local educational needs would be for the federal government to fulfill its commitment to fund 40 percent of the cost of special education. This long-standing commitment was made when the Individuals with Disabilities Education (IDEA) Act was signed into law more than 20 years ago, but the federal government has fallen woefully short in upholding its end of the bargain, only recently increasing its share to approximately 10 percent. Needless to say, I strongly agree with those who argue that the federal government's failure to fulfill this mandate represents nothing less than a raid on the pocketbook of every state and local government. Accordingly, I am pleased that recent efforts in the Congress have increased federal funding for IDEA by a full 85 percent over the past three years, and I support ongoing efforts to achieve the 40 percent federal commitment in the near future. Yet, even as we work to fulfill this long-standing commitment and thereby free up local resources to address local needs, I believe the federal government can do more to assist state and local governments in addressing their school construction needs without infringing on local control. Mr. President, the legislation I am offering today--the ``BRICKS Act''--will do just that . Specifically, it addresses our nation's school construction needs in a responsible fiscal manner while bridging the gap between those who advocate a more activist federal role in school construction and those who do not. First, my legislation will provide $20 billion in federal loans to support school construction, renovation, and repair at the local level. By designating that these loans may only be used to pay the interests owed to bondholders on new, 15-year school construction bonds that are issued by state and local governments through the year 2002, the federal government will leverage the issuing of new bonds by states and localities that would not otherwise be made. Of importance, these loan moneys--which will be distributed on an annual basis using the Title I distribution formula--will become available to each state at the request of a Governor. While the federal loans can only be used to support bond issues that will supplement, and not supplant, the amount of school construction that would have occurred in the absence of the loans, there will be no requirement that states engage in a lengthy application process that does not even assure them of their rightful share of the $20 billion pot. Second, my bill ensures that these loans are made by the federal government in a fiscally responsible manner that does not cut into the Social Security surplus or claim a portion of non-Social Security surpluses that may prove ephemeral in the future. Specifically, my bill would make these loans to states from the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF)--a fund that was created through the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 and has grown to hold more than $40 billion in assets. The principal activity of the fund--which is controlled solely by the Secretary of the Treasury--is foreign exchange intervention that is intended to limit fluctuations in exchange rates. However, the fund has also been used to provide stabilization loans to foreign countries, including a $20 billion line of credit to Mexico in 1995 to support the peso. In light of the controversial manner in which the ESF has been used, some have argued that additional constraints should be placed on the fund. Still others--including former Federal Reserve Board Governor Lawrence B. Lindsey--have stated that, for various reasons, the fund should be liquidated. Regardless of how one feels about exercising greater constraint over the ESF or liquidating it, I believe that if this $40 billion fund can be used to bailout foreign currencies, it certainly can be used to help America's schools. Accordingly, I believe it is appropriate that the $20 billion in loans provided by my legislation will be made from the ESF--an amount identical to the line of credit that was extended to Mexico by the Secretary of the Treasury in 1995. Of importance, these loans will be made from the ESF on a progressive, annual basis--not in a sudden or immediate manner. Furthermore, these monies will be repaid to the fund with interest, to ensure that the ESF is compensated for the loans it makes. Although the ESF will recoup all of the monies it lends plus interest, it should also be noted that my proposal ensures that state and local governments will not be forced to pay excessive interest--or that they will be forced to repay over an unreasonable time line. Specifically, my bill sets the interest rate for the loans at the average prime lending rate for the year in which the bonds are issued, with a cap of 4.5 percent--an amount that is lower than the prime lending rate in any of the previous 15 years. Furthermore, no payments will be owed--and no interest will accrue--until 2005, unless the federal government fulfills its commitment to fund 40 percent of the cost of special education prior to that time. Combined, these provisions will minimize the cost of these loans to the states, and maximize the utilization of these loans for school construction, renovation, and repair. Mr. President, by providing low-interest loans to states and local governments to support school construction, I believe that my bill represents a fiscally-responsible, centrist solution to a national problem. For those who support a direct, active federal role in school construction, my bill provides substantial federal assistance by dedicating $20 billion to leverage a significant amount of new school construction bonds. For those who are concerned about the federal government becoming overly-engaged in an historically state and local responsibility--and thereby stepping on local control--my bill directs that the monies provided to states will be repaid with interest, and that no onerous applications or demands are placed on states to receive their share of these monies. Mr. President, I urge that my colleagues support the ``BRICKS Act''--legislation that is intended to bridge the gap between competing philosophies on the federal role in school construction. Ultimately, if we work together, we can make a tangible difference in the condition of America's schools without turning it into a partisan or ideological battle that is better suited to sound bites than actual solutions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans Health Care Quality Assurance Act of 1999. This legislation contains a number of proposals designed to ensure that access to high quality medical services for our veterans is not compromised as the Department of Veterans Affairs--the VA--strives to increase efficiency in its nationwide network of veterans hospitals. Mr. President, the VA administers the largest health care network in the U.S., including 172 hospitals, 73 home care programs, over 800 community-based outpatient clinics, and numerous other specialized care facilities. Moreover, there are approximately 25 million veterans in the U.S., including approximately 19.3 million wartime veterans, and the number of veterans seeking medical care in VA hospitals is increasing. The FY99 VA medical care caseload was projected to increase by 160,000 veterans over the FY98 level, and is projected to increase by an additional 54,000 in FY00, reaching a total of 3.6 million veterans, an increase from 2.7 million in FY97. In FY00, outpatient visits at VA medical facilities are projected to increase by 2.5 million to 38.3 million. The average age of veterans is increasing as well, and this is expected to result in additional demands for health care services, including more frequent and long-term health needs. The VA is attempting to meet this unprecedented demand for health care services without substantial increases in funding, largely through efforts to increase efficiency. Not surprisingly, these seemingly competing objectives are generating serious concerns about the possibility that quality of care and/or patient satisfaction are being sacrificed. Mr. President, many VA regional networks and medical center directors report that timely access to high quality health care is being jeopardized, and that is why I am introducing the Veterans Health Care Quality Assurance Act, legislation which seeks to ensure that no veteran's hospital is targeted unfairly for cuts, and that efforts to ``streamline'' and increase efficiency are not followed by the unintended consequence of undermining quality of care or patient satisfaction. I believe that all veterans hospitals should be held to the same equitable VA-wide standards, and that quality and satisfaction must be guaranteed. Toward that end, the Veterans Health Care Quality Assurance Act calls for audits of every VA hospital every three years. This will ensure that each facility is subject to an outside, independent review of its operations on a regular basis, and each audit will include findings on how to improve services to our veterans. The legislation will also establish an Office of Quality Assurance within the VA to ensure that steps taken to increase efficiency in VA medical programs do not undermine quality or patient satisfaction. This office will collect and disseminate information on efforts that have proven to successfully increase efficiency and resource utilization without undermining quality or patient satisfaction. The director of this new Office of Quality Assurance should be an advocate for veterans and would be placed in the appropriate position in the VA command structure to ensure that he or she is consulted by the VA Secretary and Under Secretary for Veterans Health on matters that impact quality or satisfaction. The bill would require an initial report to Congress within six months of enactment, which would include a survey of each VA regional network and a report on each network's efforts to increase efficiency, as well as an assessment of the extent to which each network and VA hospital is or is not implementing the same uniform, VA-wide policies to increase efficiency. Under the bill's reporting requirement, the VA would also be required to publish--annually--an overview of VA-wide efficiency goals and quality/satisfaction standards that each veterans facility should be held to. Further, the VA would be required to report to Congress on each hospital's standing in relation to efficiency, quality, and satisfaction criteria, and how each facility compares to the VA-wide average. In an effort to encourage innovation in efforts to increase efficiency within the agency, the bill would encourage the dissemination and sharing of information throughout the VA in order to facilitate implementation of uniform, equitable efficiency standards. Finally, Mr. President, the bill includes provisions calling for sharing of information on efforts to maximize resources and increase efficiency without compromising quality of care and patient satisfaction; exchange and mentoring initiatives among and between networks in order to facilitate sharing of such information; incentives for networks to increase efficiency and meet uniform quality/patient satisfaction targets; and formal oversight by the VA to ensure that all networks are meeting uniform efficiency criteria and that efforts to increase efficiency are equitable between networks and medical facilities. Last week America celebrated Veterans Day 1999--81 years after the Armistice was signed in France that silenced the guns and ended the carnage of World War I. World War I was supposed to be ``the war to end all wars'' . . . the war that made the world safe for democracy. Sadly, that was not to be, and America has been repeatedly reminded that the defense of democracy is an on-going duty. Mr. President, keeping our promise to our veterans is also an ongoing duty. The debt of gratitude we owe to our veterans can never be fully repaid. What we can and must do for our veterans is repay the financial debt we owe to them. Central to that solemn duty is ensuring that the benefits we promised our veterans when they enlisted are there for them when they need them. I consider it a great honor to represent veterans, these brave Americans. So many of them continue to make contributions in our communities upon their transition from military to civilian life-- through youth activities and scholarship programs, homeless assistance initiatives, efforts to reach out to fellow veterans in need, and national leadership on issues of importance to veterans and all Americans. The least we can do is make good on our promise, such as the promise of access to high quality health care. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who have served their country, and this legislation is but a small tribute to the men and women and their families who have served this country with courage, honor and distinction. They answered the call to duty when their country needed them, and this is a component of my on-going effort to ensure that we, as elected officials, answer their call when they need us. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans Health Care Quality Assurance Act of 1999. This legislation contains a number of proposals designed to ensure that access to high quality medical services for our veterans is not compromised as the Department of Veterans Affairs--the VA--strives to increase efficiency in its nationwide network of veterans hospitals. Mr. President, the VA administers the largest health care network in the U.S., including 172 hospitals, 73 home care programs, over 800 community-based outpatient clinics, and numerous other specialized care facilities. Moreover, there are approximately 25 million veterans in the U.S., including approximately 19.3 million wartime veterans, and the number of veterans seeking medical care in VA hospitals is increasing. The FY99 VA medical care caseload was projected to increase by 160,000 veterans over the FY98 level, and is projected to increase by an additional 54,000 in FY00, reaching a total of 3.6 million veterans, an increase from 2.7 million in FY97. In FY00, outpatient visits at VA medical facilities are projected to increase by 2.5 million to 38.3 million. The average age of veterans is increasing as well, and this is expected to result in additional demands for health care services, including more frequent and long-term health needs. The VA is attempting to meet this unprecedented demand for health care services without substantial increases in funding, largely through efforts to increase efficiency. Not surprisingly, these seemingly competing objectives are generating serious concerns about the possibility that quality of care and/or patient satisfaction are being sacrificed. Mr. President, many VA regional networks and medical center directors report that timely access to high quality health care is being jeopardized, and that is why I am introducing the Veterans Health Care Quality Assurance Act, legislation which seeks to ensure that no veteran's hospital is targeted unfairly for cuts, and that efforts to ``streamline'' and increase efficiency are not followed by the unintended consequence of undermining quality of care or patient satisfaction. I believe that all veterans hospitals should be held to the same equitable VA-wide standards, and that quality and satisfaction must be guaranteed. Toward that end, the Veterans Health Care Quality Assurance Act calls for audits of every VA hospital every three years. This will ensure that each facility is subject to an outside, independent review of its operations on a regular basis, and each audit will include findings on how to improve services to our veterans. The legislation will also establish an Office of Quality Assurance within the VA to ensure that steps taken to increase efficiency in VA medical programs do not undermine quality or patient satisfaction. This office will collect and disseminate information on efforts that have proven to successfully increase efficiency and resource utilization without undermining quality or patient satisfaction. The director of this new Office of Quality Assurance should be an advocate for veterans and would be placed in the appropriate position in the VA command structure to ensure that he or she is consulted by the VA Secretary and Under Secretary for Veterans Health on matters that impact quality or satisfaction. The bill would require an initial report to Congress within six months of enactment, which would include a survey of each VA regional network and a report on each network's efforts to increase efficiency, as well as an assessment of the extent to which each network and VA hospital is or is not implementing the same uniform, VA-wide policies to increase efficiency. Under the bill's reporting requirement, the VA would also be required to publish--annually--an overview of VA-wide efficiency goals and quality/satisfaction standards that each veterans facility should be held to. Further, the VA would be required to report to Congress on each hospital's standing in relation to efficiency, quality, and satisfaction criteria, and how each facility compares to the VA-wide average. In an effort to encourage innovation in efforts to increase efficiency within the agency, the bill would encourage the dissemination and sharing of information throughout the VA in order to facilitate implementation of uniform, equitable efficiency standards. Finally, Mr. President, the bill includes provisions calling for sharing of information on efforts to maximize resources and increase efficiency without compromising quality of care and patient satisfaction; exchange and mentoring initiatives among and between networks in order to facilitate sharing of such information; incentives for networks to increase efficiency and meet uniform quality/patient satisfaction targets; and formal oversight by the VA to ensure that all networks are meeting uniform efficiency criteria and that efforts to increase efficiency are equitable between networks and medical facilities. Last week America celebrated Veterans Day 1999--81 years after the Armistice was signed in France that silenced the guns and ended the carnage of World War I. World War I was supposed to be ``the war to end all wars'' . . . the war that made the world safe for democracy. Sadly, that was not to be, and America has been repeatedly reminded that the defense of democracy is an on-going duty. Mr. President, keeping our promise to our veterans is also an ongoing duty. The debt of gratitude we owe to our veterans can never be fully repaid. What we can and must do for our veterans is repay the financial debt we owe to them. Central to that solemn duty is ensuring that the benefits we promised our veterans when they enlisted are there for them when they need them. I consider it a great honor to represent veterans, these brave Americans. So many of them continue to make contributions in our communities upon their transition from military to civilian life-- through youth activities and scholarship programs, homeless assistance initiatives, efforts to reach out to fellow veterans in need, and national leadership on issues of importance to veterans and all Americans. The least we can do is make good on our promise, such as the promise of access to high quality health care. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who have served their country, and this legislation is but a small tribute to the men and women and their families who have served this country with courage, honor and distinction. They answered the call to duty when their country needed them, and this is a component of my on-going effort to ensure that we, as elected officials, answer their call when they need us. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that a series of commemorative postage stamps should be issued honoring veterans service organizations across the United States. As we near Veterans Day--81 years after the Armistice was signed in France that silenced the guns and ended the carnage of World War I-- this legislation calls upon the United States Postal Service to issue a series of commemorative postage stamps honoring the legacy and the continuing contributions of veterans to our country. World War I was supposed to be ``the war to end all wars'' * * * the war that made the world safe for democracy. Sadly, that was not to be, and America has been repeatedly reminded that the defense of democracy is an on-going duty. That is why this is such an opportune moment to recognize those brave Americans who fought to defend the freedoms we cherish. Mr. President, when many of us think about war veterans, we think about the tremendous sacrifices these defenders of freedom made. From the War for Independence, through the Persian Gulf War, Bosnia, and Kosovo--more than two hundred years later--Americans have answered their country's call to duty to safeguard our freedoms. Of those who have worn our nation's uniform, more than a million never returned. They made the ultimate sacrifice so that those who followed could enjoy the blessings of liberty. The debt of gratitude we owe to our veterans can never be fully repaid. What we can and must do for our veterans is to keep alive the values of freedom and democracy they have defended, and honor them as the guardians of those ideals. Elmer Runyon once wrote that: ``We will remain the home of the free only as long as we are also the home of the brave''. Today, America and the world is basking in the shine of freedom because of yesterday's and today's service men and women--who offer nobly to sacrifice in war so that others may live in peace. These are America's true heroes. After all, winning freedom is not the same as keeping it. The cost of safeguarding freedom is high. It requires vigilance and sacrifice. Time and again when freedom has been threatened, American men and women have emerged as heroes. America's veterans have served our country and the world ably in times of need, and know well the personal sacrifices which the defense of freedom demands. It is a true honor to represent these brave Americans, as so many of them continue to make contributions day-in and day-out in our communities--through youth activities and scholarships programs, homeless assistance initiatives, efforts to reach out to fellow veterans in need, and national leadership on issues of importance to veterans and all Americans. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who have served their country. This legislation is a tribute to the men and women and their families who have served this country with courage, honor and distinction. They answered the call to duty when their country needed them, and this is but a small token of our appreciation. I urge my colleagues to join me in this show of support and an expression of appreciation to all veterans.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that a commemorative postage stamp should be issued honoring the United States Naval Shipyards. This legislation calls upon the United States Postal Service to issue a commemorative postage stamp honoring the legacy of our naval shipyard system on the occasion of its 200th anniversary, which will take place in the year 2000. Mr. President, naval technology has proven invaluable to our nation by strengthening our national defense, preserving world maritime freedom, and producing significant scientific breakthroughs. In peacetime, ships built in naval shipyards patrol around the clock to preserve peace and keep the United States free. As Chair of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower, I am proud that, today, the U.S. Navy is the preeminent naval force in the world. Ships constructed in U.S. yards have helped lead the way to victory in numerous global conflicts. Naval shipyards workers, both past and present, have a well-deserved sense of pride in their accomplishments which have kept our Navy strong and our country free. Likewise, veterans of the United States Naval Force have served with courage, honor and distinction, risking their lives in combat and against an unforgiving sea. On June 12, 2000, the Kittery/Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine will celebrate the 200th anniversary of its founding. Kittery/Portsmouth was the first major naval shipyard of the modern era. From the beginnings at Kittery/Portsmouth, the naval shipyard system grew to eventually include eleven yards located on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. In the two hundred years since 1800, naval yards have built hundreds of naval ships, and completed thousands of overhauls on ships of both the U.S. Navy and those of U.S. allies. I believe this resolution would be a fitting way to recognize the forthcoming bicentennial of our public shipyards. I strongly believe that the contributions of the hundreds of thousands of men and women who work in our shipyards are worthy of recognition. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in this show of support for our shipyards.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that this past June 2, 1999, the Fort James Corporation Paper Mills 2 was recognized for its impressive safety record of performance for the entire year of 1998. The award was presented by the Pulp & Paper Association, which honored the St. James Mill at its Awards Banquet at the Association's annual Professional Development Conference in St. Petersburg, Florida. The award is the highest honor given for safety performance throughout the paper industry, and reflects the most improved safety record in the class of 56 mills working between one and to two million hours per year. Mr. President, the mill logged over 1.3 million work hours with an extremely low incidence of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recordable work injuries--only 21, yielding an exemplary incident rate of 3.2. This incident rate reflects that very few employees required any type of medical attention while carrying out their demanding jobs. Further, in light of their accomplishments on behalf of the safety of the community and its people, the City of Old Town issued a resolution to the Fort James Corporation honoring its employees for their outstanding commitment. And at a follow-up picnic, mill employees were given a true Maine ``thank you'' as mill management, along with corporate environmental and safety leaders as well as local officials, helped out in cooking and serving a Celebration Picnic to all of the mill's employees. Each employee was also presented with a gift in recognition of the worker safety accomplishments. To the entire workforce and management at the Fort James Mill, I would like to add my congratulations and a sincere Maine thank you as well for their efforts in worker safety that have culminated in this well deserved award, and I thank the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in expressing my profound sadness on the passing of our good colleague and our great friend, Senator John Chafee, and to offer my most sincere condolences to his wife Ginny, their 5 children, and 12 grandchildren, the entire Chafee family, and also people in Rhode Island, who have lost a strong advocate, a compassionate leader, and a true friend. This body and this Nation are diminished today by the loss of one of the finest people I have ever had the privilege to know in politics. Senator Chafee's life was an ode to the finest ideals of public service. He fought in World War II and Korea because he believed in freedom. He served in the State legislature and as Governor of Rhode Island because he loved his State. He answered the call to become Secretary of the Navy because he wanted us to have the best defensive force in the world. He ran for the Senate because he thought he could make a difference, and what a difference he has made. I had the honor of working with Senator Chafee in this body for only a little under 5 years, but as did everyone else on Capitol Hill, I had long known of his reputation for thoughtfulness and reason. Indeed, for anyone who really cared about the art of legislating, John Chafee was a household name. I consider myself fortunate for the opportunity to have worked with this great American and to have seen firsthand why he engendered such respect and affection from both sides of the aisle and from all political persuasions. He was an extraordinary man of sincere humility, boundless energy, and steadfast integrity. It was difficult enough coming to terms with his impending retirement from the Senate. Now it will be immeasurably more difficult to come to terms with his passing. Throughout my tenure in the Senate, I have felt a special kinship with Senator Chafee on a number of levels. For one thing, he and his wife Ginny have long had a home in my State of Maine, a home that has been in his family more than 100 years, in the beautiful town of Sorrento just across the bay from where my husband's family has a place. And we had a chance to see them during the course of the summer. Clearly, I knew from the start that Senator Chafee was a man of discerning taste. In fact, he would often say--only half-jokingly--he considered himself the third Senator from Maine. If such a thing were really possible, we could not have been more honored, and we certainly could not have had a better advocate for our great State. On the political front, I always saw Senator Chafee as something of a kindred spirit. He epitomized what it meant to be a modern, moderate Republican. For him, compromise was a way things got done. It was the way we distilled all the opinions, all the issues, all the viewpoints, and arrived at legislation that could change America and change lives for the better. For John Chafee, there was strength in compromise, courage in compromise, honor in compromise, and he was right. He viewed it not as an abdication of principle but a catalyst for constructive policy. Senator Chafee was willing to take risks in order to do what he believed was in the best interests of Rhode Island and our country. For him, leadership and the public good were two concepts forever and eternally intertwined. Sometimes that meant being a lone voice in the wilderness, and he was willing to be that voice. Time and again, John Chafee was there, both out in front and behind the scenes, as Senator Breaux just mentioned, forging consensus, breaking deadlocks, and bringing people together on countless issues that were key for Americans, issues that resonate today in people's daily lives and will continue to resonate for generations to come. John Chafee always put ideas ahead of ideology. That is why he was at the forefront of the legislative and political debates in Congress. He proposed sensible, viable, and realistic alternatives. I well remember in the budget debates of 1995 and 1996 when Senator Chafee joined Senator Breaux to form a bipartisan group of Senators to bridge the political gulf that had opened in the aftermath of the Government shutdown. I was proud to be a member of that group because John Chafee was never about making the political points; John Chafee was about making the process work, and that is precisely what he did during the budget debate and throughout his entire 23 years in the Senate. He was a tireless advocate on so many issues vital to the future of this country, perhaps none more important than the health of our Nation's environment. In fact, when it comes to the protection of our natural resources, it can truly be said that John Chafee has left a lasting mark on the landscape of America. He was a strong voice for the environment, shepherding the Clean Air Act of 1990 and consistently supporting the preservation of our country's precious wetlands and open spaces. He has played a role in every major Federal initiative to control pollution and protect our natural resources over the past 20 years, and it is testament to his vision that generations of Americans not even born will have John Chafee to thank for a healthier world. Of course, it is not only the health of our environment he sought to protect. Until the very end, John Chafee was a champion for those less fortunate, and that includes health care for low-income families and expanded health coverage for uninsured low-income children. He was a visionary on the issue of child care. He knew we had to make it safer, more accessible, more affordable, and it was my privilege to join him in that fight. More recently, just last week, I joined him on a bill he and Senator Rockefeller introduced that will help foster children make the transition to independent living. Just shortly after I learned of John's passing, I had to get on a plane yesterday, and I picked up a newspaper and read an editorial in the Los Angeles Times, in fact, praising this legislation, saying this is not extending a welfare project but building a bridge to independence. That is the type of approach John would take on issues. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, that was typical of John Chafee. He saw the potential of people--the best in people--and did everything he could to enhance their lives. He did not just root for the underdog; he was on the field helping the underdog. We can attribute more than a few upset victories over the years to his efforts. It is hard for me to believe it was just 6 days ago I saw John at the weekly lunch we moderate Republicans hold every Wednesday. We take turns holding them in our offices. Last week, it was in John's office. Little did we know it would be for the last time. It was a tradition he started in 1995. Back then, our circle included Senators Cohen and Kassebaum. We always looked forward to them. They were our refuge to discussions of what was happening on the floor, in the Senate, and in the country. It was a refuge from the ``hurly- burlyness'' of the process in the Senate with like-minded Senators. It was a tradition we looked forward to every week. I know it will not be the same without him. At these luncheons, John always brought to the table the issues about which he most cared. We would also expect he would have a list of issues and legislation he was promoting that he thought was important to bring to our attention and to get our support. In fact, John was just speaking last week, as I said, about the foster children legislation, and I joined him on that issue because he was so passionate, as he was on all of the issues, whether it was child care, the environment, or families on welfare looking to make a better life for their family. Such talk never surprised any of us in the room because it was the essence of the man; it was what drove him. Once again, it was also revealed in words forged by deep compassion and unyielding humanity in so many respects. Maybe it sounds trite in our world at the end of the 20th century, maybe it sounds old fashioned in a time when cynicism is celebrated over optimism, but John Chafee cared. He was a good man who believed he had something to offer the Nation in which he felt privileged to live, and he saw public service as a noble calling. Ironically, perhaps, it is precisely because of people such as John Chafee that public service remains a noble calling. So today, there is a hole in the Senate where this great man once was. There is an empty desk on this floor where a remarkable leader once stood. There is a hollowness in our hearts. But even in the midst of our sadness, let us also celebrate the life of a man who brought such extraordinary credit upon himself, his family, his State, and this institution. Senator Chafee now and forever will be a part of this Chamber. His compassionate and reasoned voice will forever echo from these walls, and his legacy will endure. It is a legacy we would all do well to follow. We measure success in our lives and in this body by many different standards. But at such a solemn time as this, I cannot help but think of the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson who wrote: . . . to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. . . . This is to have succeeded. So many lives have breathed easier because John Chafee lived, because John Chafee cared, because John Chafee was a United States Senator. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my objections to the Africa trade bill. I have listened to how this bill will help those countries on the African Subcontinent, and I support that goal. However, Mr. President, what I don't support is watching mills close in my State, and around the country, and having to tell these people that they no longer have jobs because cheap labor overseas has either caused their company to go out of business or move overseas. At the same time, I don't believe that this legislation will serve the intended purpose of helping to raise the living standards of Africans through increased trade and economic cooperation between the United States and African countries. In order for this to occur, workers need to be paid well, treated well and have a suitable workplace. Workers in many countries in both Africa and the Caribbean Basin are subjected to abusive conditions at work while their governments remain uninvolved, or, with government complicity. This legislation does not have the provisions necessary to guarantee that the workers in these countries receive the benefits of U.S.-Africa trade. In addition, being from Maine, I understand the importance of balancing the needs of loggers with the desires of environmentalists. This legislation would result in increased rates of logging, which has been cited as the greatest threat to Africa's remaining native forests. As only eight percent of Africa's forests still exist in large undisturbed tracts, forcing African nations to give even more access to foreign logging companies could be fatal to these vital tropical forests. In the last 57 months, from December 1994 to September 1999, the U.S. apparel industry has lost 309,000 jobs. The textile industry has lost 128,000 jobs, for a total of 437,000 American jobs lost. My home state of Maine has seen its fair share of lost jobs as well. Since 1994, 26,500 Mainers have been told that they no longer have a job to provide for them and their families. I have heard some of my colleagues state that this legislation is about jobs. Well, I am unwilling to trade well-paying jobs with benefits for lower paying ones--but that's precisely what's happened under our ill-conceived trade agreements. As the trade deficit and globalization of U.S. industries have grown, more quality jobs have been lost to imports than have been gained in the lower-paying sectors that are experiencing rapid export growth. Increased import shares have displaced almost twice as many high-paying, high-skill jobs than increased exports have created. It was my concern about the impact of foreign labor on the American job market, Mr. President, that led me to oppose passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993. Unfortunately, NAFTA has become a trade agreement whose provisions are not adequately enforced-- to the detriment of the United States, our industries, and our workers. I am in agreement with my distinguished colleague from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, in his assessment of NAFTA last week. We were told that NAFTA would create jobs in America. I have seen in my state that they were wrong. The U.S. textile and apparel industry has been decimated by imports from the Far East as a result of the Asian ``flu'' and also illegal transshipments that our government does not catch and which find their way into this country in what is estimated to be an annual volume of somewhere between $4 and $10 billion. For 23 years, U.S. imports have exceeded U.S. exports. Consequently, in the last quarter of the 20th century, the United States has amassed a total trade deficit of more than $2 trillion. As a result, the United States, which entered the decade of the 1980s as the world's largest creditor nation, leaves the 1990s as the world's largest debtor country. This is no time to further liberalize trade policy that is hurting not only the textile and apparel industry but also steel, computers, and auto parts where net imports have climbed enormously. Last year, all of manufacturing lost over 340,000 jobs. Mr. President, when I became a United States Senator, one of my pledges to the people of Maine was that, and continues to be, that I will work to the best of my ability to ensure that their jobs are not lost because of actions taken by their government. The administration and proponents of NAFTA told us over and over again how good the Agreement would be for creating American jobs. I now hear the same argument with this legislation and I want to say that if what has happened is considered good, then I could not imagine what poor trade legislation would do to the textile and apparel industry.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the more than 9.1 million women business owners nationwide on the occasion of National Business Women's Week. This week marks the celebration of the 71st annual National Business Women's Week. On this occasion, advocates for women business owners may have a well-deserved sense of pride. I am pleased to be able to report that between 1987 and 1999, the number of women-owned businesses increased by 103 percent nationwide, employment increased by 320 percent, and sales grew by 436 percent. Today, women business owners across the country employ more than 27.5 million people and generate in excess of $3.6 trillion in sales. These businesses account for 38 percent of all U.S. businesses. In my home State of Maine, there are more than 48,200 women-owned businesses, employing 91,700 people and generating $10.2 billion in sales. For Maine's economy, this represents growth of more than 85.3 percent between 1987 and 1996. Mr. President, this data demonstrates just how vital women and women- owned businesses are to the health of the U.S. economy. Although women- owned businesses have grown at an astronomical rate, we must continue to ensure that women have access to the knowledge and capital necessary to start their own businesses. That is why I ask that, as we celebrate the tremendous accomplishments of women during National Business Women's Week, my fellow colleagues join me in supporting opportunities for women to become entrepreneurs. As a member of the Senate Small Business Committee, I am proud of the role the Committee and the Small Business Administration have played in providing access to assistance from women entrepreneurs, because many of the businesses in this rapidly growing sector are small businesses. Just last month, the Committee reported legislation, the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act, that would significantly increase funding for the Women's Business Centers Program, which provides women with long-term training and counseling in all aspects of owning and managing a business--fostering the growth of women's business ownership and providing a foundation of basic support to women business owners. This program promotes the growth of women-owned businesses by sponsoring business training and technical counseling, access to credit and capital, and access to marketing opportunities, including Federal contracts and export opportunities. Over the past 10 years, the program has served tens of thousands of women entrepreneurs by providing them with consulting, training, and financial assistance as they seek to start or expand their own business. As a result, women are starting new firms at twice the rate of all other business, and employ roughly one in every five U.S. workers. Today, the program is comprised of nearly 70 centers in 40 States. In my view, creating new opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups, such as women and minorities to help provide tangible opportunities for economic independence must remain a top priority, and National Business Women's Week is a perfect opportunity to focus attention on the importance of such efforts. In closing, I would like to express my appreciation to the Business and Professional Women/USA organization, which has played a pivotal role in making the celebration of National Business Women's Week possible. Since its creation in 1928, National Business Women's Week has been sponsored by Business and Professional Women/USA for the purpose of recognizing and honoring the achievements of working women. Business and Professional Women/USA local organizations across the country, and in my state of Maine, will take this week to honor outstanding business women and employers of the year, and I would like to congratulate them and thank them for their important contributions.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, Barbara and her husband had been ecstatic when they discovered that they were expecting a child--an unborn daughter they would name Tristan. But this anticipation and delight turned to profound sorrow when, at 20 weeks into the pregnancy Tristan was diagnosed with a rare genetic disease called Edwards' syndrome. An extra chromosome in Tristan's DNA had caused lethal abnormalities. The Sun Journal reports that ``Their daughter would have severe heart and gastrointestinal problems, they were told. In an ultrasound image, they could already see cystic tissue forming on top of Tristan's brain and partly outside of the skull tissue. The shape of her stomach and diaphragm muscle were abnormal. Her diaphragm was perforated. Her stomach was growing in her heart and lung cavity. In all likelihood Tristan wouldn't be born alive. She probably would suffocate before that because her lungs would be so underdeveloped. Barbara and her husband were told that no surgery could or would be possible.'' In fact, doctors predicted that Tristan would probably die before she was born. And if not, she had a 95 percent chance of dying before her first birthday. Barbara told the Sun Journal that ``It seemed to us that it would be cruel, that it would be absolute torture to put our little girl through the pregnancy. . . . With her heart and her lungs being crushed by her stomach and her diaphragm. We were worrying what it would feel like. What sensation she might be experiencing as the cystic tissue continued to grow on her brain.'' And as Barbara and her husband consulted other medical specialists and prayed over the fate of their daughter, Barbara remembers that ``I was so afraid for my baby. I didn't want her to feel any pain in the last hours of her life. . . . It wasn't really life yet. She wasn't born.'' Barbara remembers that ``Loving the baby was never part of the discussion. . .. Of course you would love the baby no matter what was going on, disability or healthy. I think sometimes there's a misperception about that, that love might be conditional based on whether it's a perfect fetus or not.'' This family in Maine is what the debate today is really about--when does the State have the right to tell Barbara and her husband that they cannot have the abortion they believe to be the best medical procedure? A procedure that will protect her health and her future fertility? At the very end of her story, Barbara tells the Sun Journal that women who have abortions are unfortunately ``portrayed as some kind of careless monsters without any kind of moral direction. The people who know me would be aghast that that's how I'm seen by people who don't even know me.'' I stand before this body today and I am saddened that there are those out there who would so judge Barbara and her husband. Because I do believe they have moral direction--and I don't believe that I or my fellow Senators should be able to tell them when a decision such as this is wrong or medically inappropriate. I don't believe that I have the medical training necessary to decide when one type of medical procedure is best used over an alternative procedure. And let there be no doubt about it, this legislation does nothing but create an inflammatory political issue. This legislation does nothing to end postviability abortion--nothing--or to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And courts around the country have recognized this. In fact, of the 30 states that have enacted legislation banning so- called ``partial birth'' abortions, there have been 21 court challenges and 19 of these challenges have been either partially or fully enjoined while their constitutionality is considered. Four U.S. Courts of Appeal have ruled on the issue--and just this September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed three trial court injunctions on partial birth abortion bans in Arkansas, Iowa, and Nebraska. When the Kentucky District Court overturned its State's ban on these so-called ``partial birth'' abortions this year, the author of the decision, the Honorable John G. Heyburn, II, said ``By adopting a considerably less precise definition of a partial birth abortion, the legislature not only defined the terms of its prohibition, but also said a lot about its own collective intent. Though the Act calls itself a partial birth abortion ban, it is not. The title is misleading, both medically and historically. . . . A few [legislators] seem to disregard the constitutional arguments and push for language which they believed would make abortions more controllable.'' And though proponents of this legislation claim that these bans address only one abortion procedure, courts have disagreed. Last year, the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras, a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, also struck down an Illinois law banning these so-called partial birth abortions. In his opinion Judge Kocoras stated that, ``[The Act] has the potential effect of banning the most common and safest abortion procedures. . . . To ensure that her conduct does not fall within the statute's reach, the physician will probably stop performing [all] such procedures. . . . Because the standard in [the Act] effectively chills physicians from performing most abortion procedures, the statue is an undue burden on a woman's constitutional right to seek an abortion before viability.'' And this year, the Honorable G. Thomas Porteous, writing for U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana said that the Louisiana ``Partial Birth'' Abortion ban ``advances neither maternal health nor potential life and clearly would create undue burdens on a woman's right to choose abortion. At most, the Act may force women seeking abortions to accept riskier or costlier abortion procedures which nevertheless result in fetal death.'' Riskier or costlier? At what price? Can you ask Barbara and her husband to risk that? They desperately wanted their baby--and though they were faced with losing her they knew that they would want to try again. Four years later they have a beautiful 2\1/2\-year-old daughter. But they would not have this daughter nor even had the chance to try again had Barbara been forced to have a procedure that threatened her ability to have another child. What if the riskier or costlier procedure Judge Porteous referred to had been a total hysterectomy? Is this what we really want? To put Barbara's health and life at risk? To put women's health and lives at risk? Shouldn't these most critical decisions be left to those with medical training, and not politicians? I believe so. I believe that a decision such as this should only be discussed between a woman, her family, and her physician. I am absolutely and fundamentally opposed to all post-viability abortions except in the instances of preserving the life of or preventing grievous physical injury to the woman. This legislation neither provides for those exceptions nor does it prevent post-viability abortions. I yield the floor. Exhibit I [From the Lewiston (ME) Sun Journal, Mar. 7, 1999] Abortion: One Woman's Story (By Christopher Williams) For weeks Barbara and her husband had consulted medical experts and researched scientific journals. They meditated and prayed. To the visible mound protruding above her waist Barbara spoke quietly, lovingly. She sang to it. She sometimes felt the light flutter of kicks. The day before final tests had confirmed the diagnosis, Barbara and her husband had named their unborn daughter Tristan, which means tears and sadness. Then the time came for Barbara's decision. It's not the kind of choice that any mother ever wants to have to make. She would have an abortion. ``I didn't feel like I was taking my baby's life away,'' she says ``I felt like it had already been taken away from her. And all that was left for me to have any control over was what was going to be the least painful for her.'' quality of life It was the last day of summer. Barbara made the 2\1/2\-hour trip from her Camden home to Portland. She rocked all night in a motel room, crying, unable to stop. At 20-weeks, Tristan had been diagnosed with a rare genetic disease called Edwards' syndrome. An extra chromosome had caused ``lethal'' abnormalities. Doctors said Tristan would probably die before she was born. If not, she had a 95 percent chance of dying before her first birthday. No surgical options could correct the multiple birth defects. ``It seemed to us that it would be cruel, that it would be absolute torture to put our little girl through the pregnancy,'' Barbara recalls. ``With her heart and her lungs being crushed by her stomach and her diaphragm. We were worrying what it would feel like. What sensation she might be experiencing as the cystic tissue continued to grow on her brain.'' As Barbara continued rocking in her motel room, cramps from medicine preparing her for the abortion gripped her insides. ``I was so afraid for my baby. I didn't want her to feel any pain in the last hours of her life,'' she says adding, ``It wasn't really life yet. She wasn't born.'' She also was ``grateful'' that she didn't live in a state that would ``force me to carry her to term because I knew at that moment, in those hours, that if I had, I probably would have cracked up.'' The strain would likely have landed end of the process. To have done that, feels to me, like it would have been the epitome of selfishness.'' The last few days, Barbara had been jolted awake by nightmares, including ``ghastly images.'' In one of the dreams, a python had devoured her youngest niece. The dishes had piled up in the sink. Housework was forgotten. Tristan was the only thing they talked about. the abortion The abortion was scheduled for Sept. 23, the first day of fall. There was only one place in Maine where an abortion could be performed in the 20th week of a pregnancy. Barbara would have a procedure called a dilation and extraction. Her cervix was slowly dilated. Then the fetus was extracted. The method would be less damaging to her uterus and therefore to her future fertility. Rain poured down. By noon the sky had darkened, turning an eerie greenish yellow. Barbara imagined it was ``crying as deeply as I was because that day I was losing Tristan.'' She wandered around the halls of the hospital guided by her husband's hand on her elbow. She remembers staring at signs, but not understanding their meaning. Studying the words, she didn't know what she was reading. In the waiting room, she shook uncontrollably and kept breaking into sobs, consoled by her husband. ``I couldn't stop them. I kept trying to think of anything to shut down the tears. Sitting in that waiting area. Just kept crying and waiting.'' A nurse's clipboard recorded Barbara's demeanor as ``appears emotional.'' The abortion took 45 minutes. She asked for general anesthesia. Then she spent about an hour recovering before she was allowed to leave the hospital. Driving back to Camden, she reclined in the seat, putting her feet on the dashboard. It was raining even harder. ``The sky was so dark. And it was only mid-afternoon, early evening. It was much darker than it should have been.'' grief But that was just the beginning, Barbara says. For the next two years, she cried every day. The first year, several times a day. ``I don't mean light crying, where you can sort of keep it back. I mean it would kind of well up from my center and it just didn't seem to stop. It seemed to be bigger than the person who's doing the crying. There was so much grief over the baby I'd hoped for,'' she says. She wasn't grieving her decision to have the abortion, Barbara says, ``That's a very important distinction,'' That decision was the ``most humane choice possible for Tristan.'' Instead, she was grieving for the child she didn't have. ``I had so much grief for the baby that I had fantasized about. A vibrant, healthy little girl. For the two years following her abortion, Barbara was treated by a therapist who helped her to work through the grief. She decided not to join the support groups for parents who suffered the loss of babies due to stillbirth, miscarriage or ``other means,'' as if it's a ``dirty phrase'' to say abortion. Yet, Barbara says she is ``very careful'' about revealing the details of how her pregnancy ended. ``By and large most of the people I'm close with I would describe as moral, ethical people and without exception they were all supportive about the decision we had made, which is not to say they would have done the same thing,'' she says. ``But they seemed to inherently understand that if you're not in the situation, how could you possibly know all the ins and outs of the circumstances and come up with the universal which is right and which is wrong, a cookie-cutter answer for someone else's baby.'' fear Four years later, Barbara sits on the couch in her cottage overlooking the water. Her legs are tucked under her and her 2\1/2\-year-old daughter is asleep on her breast. Outside, in the garden, a dark gray angel cherub perched on the edge of a scallop shell keeps watch. A week after the abortion, Barbara and her husband bought the sculpture, which doubles as a bird bath. Each summer, they plant marigolds around it and a bleeding heart behind it. On the first day of November every year, they sprinkle marigold petals from the garden to the steps of the house. It's a Catholic tradition in Mexico performed during the day of the dead, she explains. The petals are intended to lead Tristan back to hearth and home. Barbara learned of the ceremony when she lived in New Mexico and made frequent trips over the border. Their daughter knows about Tristan. Sometimes she wanders over to the angel, talking to the statute and stroking its smooth stone surface. ``She knows there was a baby named Tristan who wasn't born, who was in mommy's tummy,'' Barbara says. Barbara asked that her last name not be used, fearing harassment or intimidation by those who disagree with her decision to seek an abortion. She sees a growing threat to abortion access around the state. A citizens' petition aimed at ``partial birth'' abortions is clearly an attempt to further erode reproduction rights, she says. Although she and her husband collected all of the information about Tristan and discussed the options for weeks, Barbara says he recognized who had to make the final choice. ``He was being very clear that ultimately it was my body that we were talking about.'' But others don't. ``Today, we're portrayed as some kind of careless monsters without any kind of moral direction. The people who know me would be aghast that that's how I'm seen by people who don't even know me.''

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President I rise today to oppose the so-called ``Partial Birth'' Abortion Ban. In 1973 the Supreme Court held that women have a constitutional right to an abortion. That decision--Roe v. Wade--was carefully crafted to be both balanced and responsible while holding the rights of women in America paramount in reproductive decisions. This decision held that women have a constitutional right to an abortion, but after viability, states could ban abortions as long as they allowed exceptions for cases in which a woman's life or health is endangered. The legislation before us today is in direct violation of the Court's ruling. It does not ban postviability abortions as its sponsors claim, but it does ban an abortion procedure regardless of where the woman is in her pregnancy. And this legislation, as drafted, does not provide an exception for the health of the mother as required by law, and provides a very narrow life exception. In fact, the legislation's exception only allows that the ban, and please let me quote from the bill here, ``shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.'' Not her health, but only her life. There is no question that any abortion is an emotional, wrenching decision for a woman. No one would debate this. And when a woman must confront this decision during the later stages of a pregnancy because she knows the pregnancy presents a direct threat to her own life or health, the ramifications of such a decision multiply dramatically. We stand on the floor of this body day after day and pontificate on laws, treaties, appropriations bills, and budget resolutions. But how often do we really, truly consider how a piece of legislation will affect someone specific . . . a wife or a husband . . . a mother or a father? And I don't mean knowing how the budget numbers or appropriations will generally help our constituents, I mean considering the very, very personal lives of our constituents. This last March the Lewiston Sun Journal, a paper in my home state of Maine, ran an article about a woman in Maine, one of the women that I was elected to represent, who had faced the heartbreaking decision of a late-term abortion. Before I tell my colleagues her story, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I would like to salute five outstanding young women who have been honored with the Girl Scout Gold Awards by the Abnaki Girl Scout Council in Brewer, ME. The are Jodie Comer, Kaitlin Coffin, Jessie Mellott, Sara Agouab, and Michelle McLaughlin. These young women will receive their award at a ceremony this Sunday, October 17. The Girl Scout Gold Award is the highest achievement award in U.S. Girl Scouting and it symbolizes outstanding accomplishments in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning, and personal development. In having this honor bestowed upon them, Jodie, Kaitlin, Jessie, Sara, and Michelle have shown that they are dedicated and committed to these qualities, and, just as important, that they enjoy what they are doing. For their parents, family and friends, this is a proud moment-- and, as a Mainer, I share this feeling. To reach this goal a Girl Scout must earn four interest project patches, the Career Exploration Pin, the Senior Girl Scout Leadership Award, and the Senior Girl Scout Challenge, as well as design and implement a Girl Scout Gold Award project. A plan for fulfilling these requirements is created by the Senior Girl Scout and is carried out through close cooperation between the girl and an adult Girl Scout volunteer. All of the girls throughout the United States who have earned this award have fulfilled a personal goal which will benefit them in the years to come. For their project, Jodie Comer, Michelle McLaughlin, and Sara Agouab researched, designed, and produced a booklet on auto care and maintenance for women. In addition, they put on an auto care workshop for cadette and senior Girl Scouts. Kaitlin Coffin and Jessie Mellott produced a video to help recruit and retain younger girls in Girl Scouting. I have always been, and will continue to be, supportive of the Girl Scouts and recognize the important values that it instills in young people, such as service, honesty and leadership. By helping to form the character of young women, the Girl Scouts makes a lasting contribution on the lives of people throughout Maine and the United States. I know that my Senate colleagues join me in offering my congratulations to these young women for what they have accomplished. This prestigious award is a testament to their convictions and individual commitment to serve those in their community for the betterment of society.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank my colleagues for joining me in clarifying this critical shipbuilding matter. india/pakistan sanctions waiver

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2000 contains a provision allowing the Navy to apply up to $190 million in FY 2000 advanced procurement funding to the DDG-51 multiyear procurement contracts renewed by Section 122 of the same legislation. Are my colleagues, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Majority Leader, and the senior Senator from Mississippi, aware of any provision of the FY 2000 Defense Appropriations Conference Report that conflicts with Section 122 of the FY 2000 National Defense Authorization Act?

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. An important point here, Mr. President, is that, despite what has been said on the Senate floor today, the Eastern region of the country from Maine to Florida--the very states that wish to compact-- sold no surplus dairy products to the USDA this past fiscal year. All Commodity Credit Corporation purchases came from the Western and Midwest states. And, despite what has been stated by the opposition, there are no added costs to the federal nutrition program. There has been no adverse price impact on the WIC program--the Women's Infants and Children's program--or the Federal school lunch and breakfast programs. In fact, the advocates of these programs support the Compact and serve on its commission. So, I ask for the support of my colleagues today for my dairy farmers in Maine and to vote against the Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report because it does not include the reauthorization of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact as the State of Maine and every other New England state legislature, governor and its citizens have requested, and I thank the Chair.