Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to once again reiterate my support for the reauthorization of the very successful Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, and I must vote against the FY2000 Agriculture appropriations conference report without its reauthorization. This past Thursday night, I came to the Senate floor to urge my colleagues to consider certain points that should prove that support of the Compact is justified and I would like to briefly reiterate them again today. 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 of their legislatures and the governors approved the Compact and all that is required is the sanction of Congress to reauthorize it. The Compact has proven to be an effective approach to address farm insecurity. The Compact has protected New England farmers 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. Mr. President, 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. Only the consumers and the processors in the New England region pay to support the minimum price 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. 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 time again that prices elsewhere are higher and experience much wider price shifts than in the Northeast Compact states. 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 has been a huge success. Mr. President, there is almost $8 billion in the Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report for farm disasters partially created by competition in the global marketplace and because of a series of weather-related problems. The funding will be paid for by the federal government. Now, some of my colleagues want to create a disaster situation for Northeast dairy farmers by taking away a program that has not cost the federal government one cent. There has been no expense to the federal government--not one penny--for the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. The costs to operate the Dairy Compact are borne entirely by the farmers and processors of the Compact region. And, when there has been a rise in the federal milk marketing prices for Class I fluid milk, the Compact has automatically shut itself off from the pricing process. In addition, the Compact requires the compact commission to take such action as necessary to ensure that a minimum price set by the commission for the region does not create an incentive for producers to generate additional supplies of milk. There has been no rush to increase milk production in the Northeast as has been stated here today. There are compensation procedures that are implemented by the New England Dairy Commission specifically to protect against increased production of fresh milk. No other region should feel threatened by our Northeast Dairy Compact for fluid milk produced and sold mainly at home. There is no evidence that prices Northeast dairy farmers receive for their milk encourages overproduction of milk that spills over into other regions and affects dairy farmers in other areas. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, a table from the Daily Market News showing USDA Commodity Credit Corporation purchases of surplus dairy products with the total and percentage by regions for the last three fiscal years.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for his effort and cooperation. With this debate on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, the Senate discharges one of its most fundamental and solemn duties, the stewardship of our national defense. I think there is little question among us that a world free of nuclear weapons would be a world more secure. Obviously, we all look forward to the day when we do not have to rely on our nuclear stockpile as a necessary deterrent. We know full well over 80 percent of the American people share that point of view. But the fact is, that day has not yet arrived. Until it does, as the world's last remaining superpower, we walk a line both fine and blurred. This debate must be about how we walk that line. It should be about how we balance our clear and shared interests in a nuclear-free planet within the reality of a post-cold-war world. The reality is this: At the same time the world looks to us to provide leadership in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, so, too, does it rely upon us for a credible nuclear deterrent that will keep in check international aggressors, nations that seek to undermine democracy and freedom. That is the challenge before us, to move towards our shared goal in a responsible and measured manner, ever mindful that a post-cold-war world does not mean a world devoid of duplicity or danger. That is the dynamic we can neither escape nor ignore. That is the dynamic that must inform each and every one of us as we consider the ramification of a zero-yield treaty of unlimited duration. The question is not whether we support nonproliferation measures. We obviously make that as one of our key national security objectives. The question is, Are we going to support a treaty that is a significant departure from what every Chief Executive of the atomic age, except President Clinton, has laid down for criteria in any test ban treaty? Are we going to support a treaty predicated on a program that is yet to be tested and may remain unproven for decades? Are we going to support a treaty that assumes reliable verification when we know we cannot always detect low-level tests, when we know that rogue nations such as North Korea, Iraq, or Iran could develop crude first-generation nuclear devices with no testing at all? In fact, the CIA Director George Tenet stated, back in 1997, in response to questions submitted to him by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Nuclear testing is not required for an acquisition of a basic nuclear weapons capability. Tests using high explosive detonations only could provide reasonable confidence in the performance of a first generation device. Nuclear testing becomes critical only when a program moves beyond basic designs, incorporating more advanced concepts. We cannot even verify what is going on in Iraq with Saddam Hussein. We all recall we set up an onsite inspection program as a condition for his surrender in the Persian Gulf war. Today he has systematically and unilaterally dismantled the U.N. weapons inspection system regime. So these are the pressing issues that confront us about the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. That is why I am disappointed, regretting that we have had politics permeate both sides of the political aisle, both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue with respect to this debate. Because the ratification of any treaty, and certainly this one, is a solemn and unique responsibility for the Senate, and we should accord this debate the level of gravity it deserves. It is not just about process and procedure. It is certainly not about politics. It is about policy; what is in the best interests of this country as well as the security interests of the world. What is at stake is no less than our ability to stop proliferation and to ensure at the same time the continued viability of our stockpile. When we get into debates about procedure and process, I think it ignores the overwhelming magnitude and gravity of the centerpieces of this treaty. We should not be making this agreement a political football. Duty, a constitutional duty, compels us to look at the facts before us. I can tell you, after I sat through hours of deliberations and testimony on the Armed Services Committee last week, the facts are not reassuring. I know there is an honest difference of opinion among experts, among former Secretaries of Defense. But you have to look at the honest difference of opinion and take pause when you have six former Secretaries of Defense, two former Clinton administration CIA Directors, four former National Security Advisers, and three former National Weapons Lab Directors, all opposing the treaty before us. Why? Because they believe a no-testing, unlimited duration policy at this time would fatally undermine confidence in the reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile as a sturdy hedge against the aggressive intent of once and future tyrants. That is a risk we simply cannot afford to take. Consider the backdrop of the Rumsfeld Commission report in 1998. We are all too familiar with the stark fact that North Korea, Iran, and Iraq, to name a few, would be able to inflict major destruction on the United States within 5 to 10 years of making a decision to acquire ballistic missile capabilities. Thanks to the testimony last week of three current National Weapons Laboratory Directors, we also know full well that the very program the administration proposes to rely on to monitor the safety, effectiveness, efficiency, and accuracy of the arsenal is between 10 and 20 years away from being fully validated and operational, and that is assuming it will work. That is 10 to 20 years. We could have weapons in our stockpile left untested and unproven for decades while rogue states acquire the means of mass destruction. That is what we are addressing today fundamentally: a treaty that has ultimately been negotiated by this administration with a noble long- range goal that almost everyone accepts but one which requires this country to accept an unproven and incomplete computer-model-based system for the security of our nuclear deterrent in this age of weapons proliferation. In other words, we put the cart before the horse. We ought to know that our Stockpile Stewardship Program works first before we commit to any zero-yield, unlimited-duration treaty. As the Director of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Dr. Tarter, testified to the committee last week, the program is an approach that the country must pursue ``short of a return to a robust schedule of nuclear testing.'' By closing the door entirely, we would be making a question mark of our nuclear stockpile. As President Bush reminded us in 1993, one-third of all U.S. nuclear weapons designs fielded since 1958--one-third--have required nuclear testing to correct deficiencies after deployment. In his words: The requirement to maintain and improve the safety of our nuclear stockpile and to evaluate and maintain the reliability of U.S. forces necessitates continued nuclear testing for those purposes, albeit at a modest level, for the foreseeable future. Even within the Clinton administration, these conditions found a voice. According to Mr. Robert Bell, a member of the National Security Council staff, soon before President Clinton released his August 1995 statement of support for the treaty, Defense Department officials argued that the United States should continue to reserve the right to conduct underground nuclear tests at a threshold of 150 kilotons or below. That would seem to be the prudent course on what we know at this moment in time. It is yet another fact today that we face a real danger of fewer and fewer scientists with the first-hand knowledge that comes from a testing process. Indeed, of the 85 remaining nuclear weapons experts at the Los Alamos and Livermore Laboratories today, only 35 have coordinated live underground tests. Even as early as 1994, barely 18 months after the United States stopped underground nuclear testing, a report from the Congressional Research Service sounded an alarm, and my colleagues would be wise to read it. Back in 1994, it sounded the alarm that: These trends . . . threaten to undercut U.S. ability to maintain the safety, reliability, and performance of its warheads; to correct defects that are discovered or that result from aging; and to remanufacture warheads. They also work at cross-purposes with President Clinton's declaration that the United States will maintain the capability to resume testing if needed. Again, we must remember that these considerations must be made in the context of a treaty that raises the bar by allowing absolutely no testing at any level in perpetuity. As Dr. John Nuckolls, the former Director of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, put it, even an ``extended duration test ban'' would trigger the loss of all nuclear trained expert personnel as well as ``major gaps in our understanding of scientific explosives.'' Again, the CRS in 1994 in its report said: This skills loss is in its greatest jeopardy. Director Tarter, the current Director of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, testified before our committee last week. What did he say in his testimony? It is a race against time. Before long, our nuclear test veterans will be gone. We are counting on our current cadre of experienced scientists to help develop and install the new tools that are only now starting to come online. We have now heard from our Directors: A minimum of 10 years and maybe as high as 20 years from now, the Stockpile Stewardship Program will be determined to be workable. We have the loss of our nuclear scientists trained in the testing field. That is a safety net we cannot do without as we walk the tightrope of sustaining a credible strategic nuclear deterrent and aggressively promoting global arms control. Consider that our successive agreements with the Soviet Union, and now Russia, will eventually reduce the entire American nuclear warhead stock to about 25 percent of its peak size in the cold war. Consider also that we maintain only 9 categories of nuclear weapons today from a level of more than 30 in 1985. We are making remarkable strides, as we should, on our priorities in the arms control arena. But knowledge about the arms we must sustain as bulwarks against future military conflicts cannot be lost, and this fact suggests that time has not ripened for the United States to sacrifice a 50-year, fool-proof position to keep the testing option open as unprecedented arms reductions have occurred and must continue. Indeed, the administration itself agrees we need a viable strategic nuclear arsenal to deter conflicts that could arise in critical areas such as the Middle East, the western Pacific, or northern Asia. In the view of the vast majority of treaty opponents and supporters alike who submitted opinions and testimony to the Armed Services Committee last week, the Stockpile Stewardship Program will produce low levels of confidence in many aspects of nuclear warhead capability for at least a decade to come and perhaps more. Perhaps Dr. Robinson, the Director of the Sandia National Laboratory, put it best and simplest when he told the committee: Confidence on the reliability and safety of the nuclear weapons stockpile will eventually decline without nuclear testing. It was expert scientists, not politicians, who told the committee that the Stockpile Stewardship Program brings the U.S. nuclear weapons complex into uncharted waters of reliability. So, too, is confidence key when it comes to another vital component of this treaty, and that is verification. At first glance, the technology behind the treaty's verification regime seems airtight. Article IV of the accord establishes a joint international monitoring system and international data center with a total of 337 facilities around the world. If these installations detect a potentially illegal underground explosion that subsequent diplomacy cannot resolve, the accusing state may request an onsite inspection. Fair enough, you might say, until you read the fine print. Then you discover that the onsite inspection provision requires an affirmative vote by 30 of the 51 members of the Executive Council of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organization authorized under article II, an awfully high threshold. Article II does not give the United States or any of its allies permanent or rotating seats on the Council. That is not all. Science itself throws a wrench into the treaty's verification mechanism. According to a 1995 study by the Mitre Corporation, an established scientific research center, neither the National Technical Means of the United States nor the Monitoring System envisioned by the treaty can detect very low-yield or zero-yield tests. Finally, article V of the treaty establishes ``measures to ensure compliance.'' The most important of these measures entrusts the Conference of States Parties, the treaty's ratifying governments, to refer urgent cases to the United Nations Security Council, a forum in which Russia or China could exercise a unilateral veto. In other words, article V could mean if the United States diagnosed an imminent nuclear danger in a strategic region of the world, Moscow or Beijing might emerge as the final courts of appeal for sanctions or other punitive acts. The day for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty may come where we could have a zero-nuclear testing regime for an unlimited period of time. It may arrive. And we may be confident that we will be able to verify that level, as well as the low-level detections of other countries when it comes to explosions. But I think we have to consider the facts as we know them now. I think we have to look very carefully at the troubling aspects of the Stockpile Stewardship Program and whether it is a viable alternative to nuclear testing. In the strategic and scientific communities many say it is not, and maybe we will not know for 10 to 20 years. That is what we are predicating our nuclear deterrent strategy on. So we have to vote--if we do vote today or tomorrow--on what we know today. We may know something differently in the future. But I submit that we cannot subject our security interests to what we might know 20 years from now. I hope we will defer the vote on ratification because of all the current concerns that I and others have cited. We would do well to heed the advice of the letter that was submitted to the majority leader asking for deferral, the letter that was written by Henry Kissinger; John Deutch, a former CIA Director for the administration; and Brent Scowcroft, that we should defer until we can give more consideration to all of the issues that are before the Senate with respect to this treaty. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Agriculture conference report. I rise in strong opposition to the conference report. First, I wish to commend my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, for his leadership, for his perseverance, for his hard work and determination on behalf of all the small dairy farmers, not only in his State of Vermont but in the State of Maine and throughout New England. I thank him. I commend him for the extraordinary effort he has displayed and exhibited throughout this process. It is only regrettable that those members of the conference committee in resolving the differences between the House and the Senate on the Agriculture conference report did not recognize the position that has been held by all of us who represent the New England States for the Northeast Dairy Compact. That is why I rise in strong opposition to the Agriculture appropriations conference report because it does not extend a reauthorization of the Northeast Dairy Compact. This issue is a States rights issue more than anything else. Quite simply, it addresses the needs of the States in the Northeast, and most specifically those in New England, that have organized in a way that we can allow fair prices for locally produced supplies of fresh milk. All the legislatures have approved the compact in New England, and in the Northeast, and all that is required is the sanction of Congress to reauthorize this compact. The compact has protected New England farmers against the loss of their small family dairy farms and consumers against the decrease in the fresh supply of local milk. The compact has proven to be an effective approach to address farm insecurity. The compact has stabilized the dairy industry in this entire region and has protected farmers and consumers against volatile price swings. As I say, we are talking about small dairy farmers. In my State of Maine, the farmer has an average of 50 cows on their farm. They are trying to preserve a way of life, a way of life that has been there for families for generations. We are trying to protect them through this dairy compact. All we are asking from this Congress is a reauthorization so we can extend this way of life to small dairy farmers--not agribusiness, not big business, not co-ops, just small dairy farmers who want to produce milk so they can sell it to the consumers in my State of Maine, to Senator Jeffords' State of Vermont, and within the New England region. Over 97 percent of the fluid milk market in New England is self- contained. Fluid milk markets are local due to the demand for freshness and high transportation cost. So any complaints raised from other parts of the country about unfair competition is quite disingenuous. All we are asking for is a continuation of the Northeast Dairy Compact, the existence of which does not threaten or financially harm any other dairy farmer in the country--not any other dairy farmer in the country. It is to help our dairy farmers within New England, to help the consumers, to help a way of life. The Northeast Dairy Compact currently encompasses the New England States and only applies to fluid milk sold on grocery store shelves in the Northeast. Only the consumers and the processors in the New England region pay to support the minimum price to protect a fair return to the areas' family dairy farmers and to protect a way of life important to the people of Northeast. All six of the New England States have supported this through the acts of the legislature, and through all of their Governors, because each Governor has signed a resolution supporting the Northeast Dairy Compact. Let me repeat. Every Governor and every State legislature in New England have supported the dairy compact. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents support the dairy compact through acts of the legislatures because they recognize how important this compact is to the small dairy farmers in the Northeast. Under the compact, New England retail milk prices have been among the lowest and the most stable in the country. The opposition--again, we have heard it day in and day out--has manufactured arguments against the compact, saying that increased milk prices. Let's look at dairy prices over the past few months around the country for a gallon of fresh milk. The price in Augusta, ME, ranged from $2.89 to $2.99 per gallon from February to April of 1999; in Boston, MA, the market 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 the compact. Yet their milk was approximately 50 cents higher per gallon than in the State of 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 the compact. Las Vegas prices were $2.99 all the way up to $3.62 in that time period; not much price stability there. And then Nevada is not in the 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. That is why Pennsylvania dairy farmers want to join us. That is why Pennsylvania supports joining the compact. Denver, CO, on the other hand, is not in the 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 a dollar more than in New England. The Northeast Dairy Compact has not resulted in higher milk prices in New England in spite of what the opposition has said, but milk prices are among the lowest in the country and are among the most stable. Opponents also say consumers are getting a raw deal having to spend more on milk. Obviously, based on what I have said thus far in terms of prices around the country, this claim is inaccurate, as prices are among the lowest in the Northeast Compact area and reflect greater price stability. 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 they can continue in an important way of life. Where is that consumer outrage? It isn't in New England. I have not heard of consumer complaints in my State over the last 3 years as a result of this dairy compact, even in instances where milk prices might have gone up a few pennies because consumers support our dairy farmers. They realize that this pilot program is very important to a way of life, to the kind of milk they want in their region, and they are willing to support it. They recognize this dairy compact has been a huge success. The Compact Commission sent out over $4 million in checks to Northeast dairy farmers this past month. That averages to over $1,000 for each dairy farmer--enough to help keep small family farmers in business and continue a historical way of life that is so important. The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has provided the very safety net that we have hoped for when the compact passed as part of the Freedom to Farm Act, the omnibus farm bill of 1996. The dairy compact has helped farmers maintain the stable price for fluid milk during times of volatile swings in farm milk prices. In the spring and summer months of 1997 and 1998, for instance, when milk prices throughout most of the country dropped at least 20 cents a gallon while consumers' prices remained constant, the payments to the Northeast Interstate Compact dairy farmers remained above the Federal milk marketing prices for class 1 fluid milk because of the dairy compact and I might add, at no expense to the Federal Government. The costs to operate the dairy compact are borne entirely by the farmers and the processes of a compact region. Also, consider what has happened to the number of dairy farmers staying in business since the formation of the dairy compact. Another goal of the compact is to preserve a way of life of the small dairy farmer. It is now known throughout New England there has been a decline in dairy farmers going out of business. This is a clear demonstration that with the dairy compact, the dairy producers were provided a safety net, which is what we had hoped for. The results have been just that. In addition, the compact requires the Compact Commission to take such action as necessary to ensure that a minimum price set by the commission for the region does not create an incentive for producers to generate additional supplies of milk. There has been no rush to increase milk production in the Northeast, as has been stated. Oh, we heard time and time again by the opposition that it would increase milk production. We inserted in the compact legislation back in 1996 compensation producers that have been implemented by the New England Dairy Commission specifically to protect against increased production of fresh milk. That legislation in the 1996 farm bill required the commission to reimburse the USDA for any portion of the Government's cost of purchasing surplus dairy products that could be attributed to an increase in milk production in the Northeast in excess of the projected national average. This provision was included in the farm bill in response to critics' concern that the compact price would lead to overproduction of milk in the Northeast and thus cause Government purchases of surplus milk under the dairy support program to rise. Between March and September of 1998, the commission placed $2 million in escrow in anticipation of a potential liability to USDA for surplus purchases. The commission ended up paying $1.76 million to the USDA toward the end of the fiscal year and returned unused escrow funds of $400,000 to the Northeast producers who did not increase milk production during fiscal year 1998. I welcome anybody in this Chamber to cite any other commodity farm program that actually paid back the Federal Government money, that didn't cost the Government any money. I daresay there is no other instance of any other commodity farm program that actually reimbursed the Federal Government, that didn't cost the Government one dime--other than the New England Dairy Compact. How can other regions of the country feel threatened by a Northeast Dairy Compact for fluid milk produced and sold mainly at home in our region of the country? This compact did what it said it would do: Preserve its way of life, create price stability; it didn't cost the Government money; it didn't increase production, and if it did in any small way, we reimbursed the Government so it wouldn't cost any money. Despite what has been stated by the opposition, again there has been no additional cost to the Federal nutrition programs, no adverse price impact in the WIC Program--the Women's, Infants and Children Program-- or the Federal school lunch and breakfast program. In fact, the advocates of the programs support the compact and serve on its commission. It should be noted that in the farm bill conference in 1996, the Secretary of Agriculture was required to review the dairy compact legislation before implementation to determine if there was compelling public interest for the compact within the compact region. In August 9, 1996, and only after a public comment period, Secretary Glickman authorized the implementation of the dairy compact, finding that it was, indeed, in the compelling public interest to do so. In addition, another mechanism for guaranteeing that this was in their interest, that it wasn't going to cost money to the Federal Government, the Agricultural Appropriations Act of 1998 directed the Office of Management and Budget to study the economic effects of the compact and especially its effect in the Federal food and nutrition programs. Key findings of the OMB study released in February 1998 showed that, for the first 6 months of the compact, the New England retail milk prices were 5 cents per gallon lower than retail milk prices nationally. Also, a GAO study stated that the compact economically benefited the dairy producers, increasing their income from milk sales by about 6 percent, with no adverse effects to dairy farmers outside the compact region. These were independent studies. We had OMB, GAO, we had every safety mechanism and precaution in this legislation, and it has demonstrated time and time again it is in the best interests of our small dairy farmers, not costing the Government money--in fact, to the contrary. The consumers in the Northeast Compact area are showing their willingness to support this compact, to pay a little more for milk if the additional money is going directly to the dairy farmer. Because we are not talking about big corporate farms, we are talking about the small dairy farmer whose family has been in business 100 years, 150 years--generational. That is what they want to do--to maintain their families, to maintain a way of life, and to sell their milk to their local consumers. Environmental organizations have supported dairy compacting as the compact helps to preserve dwindling agricultural land and open spaces that help combat urban sprawl. I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a joint resolution from the Legislature of the State of Maine that was passed last spring. I have it here on this board. It shows strong support, on a bipartisan basis, in the Maine State Legislature, and how enormously important this compact is to the near 500 dairy farmers in Maine who produce annually over more than $100 million in the State of Maine, and how it is in the best interests of Maine's consumers and businesses that this compact be reauthorized. It is that important. So we have Republicans and Democrats in the State legislatures, we have an independent Governor who supports it, we have everybody across the political spectrum who supports this dairy compact because they understand the value of it. I also will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a July 15, 1999, letter from Maine's Commissioner of Agriculture, who wrote: I am writing to urge your continued support of Maine's dairy farmers. As you know there is legislation pending before Congress relating to the reauthorization of the Northeast Dairy Compact Commission, and reorganization of the Federal Milk Marketing Orders. These issues are of the utmost importance to Maine dairy farmers and the dairy industry and the infrastructure in this State as a whole. We need only look at the recent volatility of milk prices to see the Northeast Dairy Compact has been a great success. He goes on to say: I cannot stress enough the importance of this issue to the Maine dairy industry. I also will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a September 29, 1999, letter from the Council of State Governments, Eastern Regional Conference, signed by Senators and Representatives and heads of the departments of agriculture of Maine, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. These State elected officials from States all over the Northeast wrote: The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, in setting minimum regional prices for milk, has been an essential stabilizing force with respect to the price that the northeast dairy farmers receive for the milk they produce. Because of its regional focus, it has been extremely successful in promoting adequate local milk production to meet the needs of consumers for fresh milk at an affordable price. I am also submitting for the Record the Council of State Governments' resolution of August 11, 1999, in support of the reauthorization of the compact. Last, I will ask consent to have printed in the Record a September 30 editorial from the Bangor Daily News in my State of Maine, which states: The compact helps keep local farmers in business, not only through price support but also by keeping enough other farmers at work. That means a dairy infrastructure of grain dealers, truck drivers, and farm machinery salespeople will remain. And that means jobs where they are needed most, in the smallest towns whose residents cannot simply turn to alternative industries. This is not mere nostalgia for the bucolic past, but an immediate dollars and cents issue. The editorial goes on to say: Certainly there would be less support for the compact as it stood alone as the sole agricultural support states enjoyed. But the sheer number and variety of Federal programs for crops or for not growing crops, for research and marketing, for electricity, grazing water, etc., makes singling out this relatively small program seem more than a little short- sighted. That raises an important point. We do not get any support. We do not get the kinds of subsidies that other parts of the country, other commodity programs, have received. Our dairy farmers work hard. They work hard for the sole interest of producing a small amount, so they can sell to their local consumers, to their neighbors, to their community, to their State. That is all they ever want. This editorial goes on to say: None of the Midwestern representatives so angry about the compact have suggested, for instance, that Congress end the millions of dollars spent on local farm research or cut the power lines at the Hoover dam. Yet the dairy compact is in no sense different than these programs--or it is different only in the sense it helps farmers in this region rather than the usual pattern of helping farmers in the Midwest. Unless Congress has some hidden reason to single out punishment for New England dairy farmers, it should support the compact as a sensible part of our Nation's agricultural policies. That is an important final point. As one who served 16 years in the House of Representatives, and now in my fifth year in the Senate, I have seen a huge disparity in our farm programs between the policies and programs providing support for the big, the very big, farmers, and the lack of support for the small family farmer, who is so indicative and characteristic of my State and I know the State of Vermont that my colleague, Senator Jeffords, represents. It is the small family farmer who just wants to survive, wants to go about doing his business each and every day. Yet we are not going to allow them to do that and to continue a way of life. The pattern I have seen in these agricultural programs that are supported here in this conference report, time and time again over my 20 years, has been to the exclusion of the small family farmer and to the benefit of the big agribusiness in America. I say that is a travesty of justice. I say it is unfair. I say it is not right. That is why this dairy compact is so important. Indeed, it is shortsighted on the part of the conferees who did not support the reauthorization in this conference report. It is shortsighted of those who are unwilling to give it their support once again, raising the most bogus of arguments, which we have dispelled. We have refuted all of their arguments, not just based on our hearsay alone, but we have had OMB studies, we have had GAO studies--by everybody's reckoning. We even have legislatures in all the New England States and in the Northeast that support this dairy compact, and the Governors. Can they be all wrong? Could they be misrepresenting their constituency? I say not. I hope we can defeat this conference report. It simply is not right. It is simply not fair. I ask you to support the small farmers and the way of life they want to embrace, that they cherish, and that they want to sustain. We owe them that much. Again, I thank my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, for doing yeoman's work on behalf of these small dairy farmers in his State and my State, throughout New England and the other States that want to join because they have seen the success of this compact over the last 3 years. It was a very effective and successful pilot program, and it deserves to be continued. Mr. President, I now ask consent that the material I referred to be printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my distinguished colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, to discuss legislation we introduced in July concerning prescription drug coverage. The legislation is known as the Seniors Prescription Insurance Coverage Equity Act, or SPICE. We have come to the floor to address a number of questions that have been raised with respect to our legislation. We want to answer some of those questions so the Members of this body can be informed in terms of what our legislation is all about on this most critical issue. I am also pleased to announce Representatives Roukema and Pallone have introduced a companion bill to our legislation in the House of Representatives. I have always believed, as being part of the elective process, we have an obligation to serve the people by addressing the problems that are the most immediate and most critical. We are not here solely for the purpose of creating issues so our parties can run on those issues in the next election. Yet it seems all too often now Congress is only focusing on the difference between the two parties, the difference between Congress and the President, instead of focusing on how we can achieve a consensus on the most significant issues facing this country, where we can make a meaningful difference in the lives of our constituents. The people of this country rightfully expect us to legislate good public policy on those issues, to address problems facing this country. Yet, time and again, it seems the more critical issues we face in Congress and in this country are the ones that are the most polarized. Time and time again, we fail to achieve a consensus on the key issues. The most notable, recently, of course, is the tax cut bill. While we might all have differences in terms of what kind of tax cut bill we should have or how much, there was no difference of opinion with the President or with Congress in terms of having a tax cut but, rather, what the size of that tax cut package should be. People say to me: Where is it going from here? I say: That is a good question. Inevitably, there will be another train wreck, and it doesn't have to be so. We ought to be able to demonstrate to the American people we are very serious about creating solutions, rather than issues, as a platform and a basis for the next election, which, by the way, is more than a year away. It is almost as if compromise has become a lost art. So here we are in September, approaching October, closer and closer to adjournment, and the only thing that will be falling faster than the leaves will be our legislative agenda and the public's faith. America expects us to build bridges and not to draw lines. So often bipartisanship has become a joke. It may well be within the beltway, but I can tell my colleagues, in the real world, it is no laughing matter. That is why Senator Wyden and I are taking the floor, not only to discuss our legislation but to urge the Members of the Senate and of the Congress, and the President, to come together on this most vital of issues to our Nation's citizens. That is why we are here, because we have introduced a bill that puts the interests of the American people over the best interests of politics, a bill that gives us a chance to show America's seniors and the American people that, yes, we can come together on an issue of great significance to our constituency. I believe that how a society treats its seniors speaks volumes. What does it say that while America is 4 or 5 months shy of its longest expansion ever in the history of this country, while this Nation enjoys an era of unprecedented wealth and prosperity and growth, a third of Medicare recipients still have no insurance coverage whatsoever on one of their most basic health needs, prescription drug coverage? What does it say, when seniors are cutting prescription medications out of their budgets and their lives simply because they cannot make ends meet; they cannot afford to pay for them? What does it say when the New England Journal of Medicine reports that poor elderly persons without Medicaid coverage spend about 50 percent of their total income on out-of-pocket health care costs such as Medicare premiums and prescription drugs? It says: Wait until next year. Wait until next year? That may be good and may be acceptable in the world of sports and elections, but it is not acceptable when it comes to America's seniors and a matter of life and death. For them the status quo is a bitter pill to swallow. Our plan--the only bipartisan one, I might add, in the Senate-- represents a straightforward, comprehensive, responsible approach. It will appeal to anyone who wants seniors to have coverage, to have choice, to pay for it in a responsible fashion, to get it done this year, regardless of whether or not we have Medicare reform. How does it work? Instead of reinventing Medicare, because we know that is complicated and contentious, we created a program that builds on the existing medigap system, using the basis and the model of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, the one that benefits Members of Congress and all Federal employees, and we have choice. So why shouldn't seniors have the same choices that are afforded Members of Congress and Federal employees with respect to their health insurance and to this prescription drug coverage? All Medicare-eligible individuals will have the option of purchasing this plan. It will be voluntary, a supplemental insurance program. It will be similar to medigap. We create a board that will disseminate the information on the choices available. Not only is this approach better for Medicare beneficiaries, but it keeps the costs down by encouraging competition because we have a potential pool of 39 million Medicare beneficiaries. All seniors will receive some premium support assistance on a sliding scale: 100 percent for those with incomes under 150 percent of the poverty level and under, and then it phases out to 175 percent and above to 25 percent, so at least at a minimum 25 percent premium support, and 100 percent for those under 50 percent of poverty level. Individuals will pay for the copayments and the deductibles. The policies will be the threshold standard developed by the board, which will include consumers and State representatives, insurance representatives, commissioners, designed with the seniors' needs in mind. There will be a number of choices based on the need and based on encouraging competition among a number of insurance companies across America because of the size of the pool. The question people ask the most about our plan is, Are you changing seniors' current Medicare program? No. SPICE will not be a part of Medicare. What is more, it is completely optional. Best of all, we pay for it with a reasonable and reliable funding mechanism that would not in any way affect the solvency of Medicare or dip into Social Security surpluses, which is a key issue, both on the Social Security and Medicare question. Senator Wyden and I, as members of the Budget Committee, last March offered an amendment to the budget resolution. At that time we had an amendment that allowed for the use of surpluses for the financing of a prescription drug program, predicated on the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means, to report out a Medicare reform package. This seemed a great way to create an incentive for Medicare reform and also a way of financing a prescription drug program, given that we will have projected surpluses of a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. But in the event we don't have a reform package--and I hope we do work on it because it is critically important and we should not be deferring this issue, but given the fact that we might not, and given the precarious state of the projected surpluses, Senator Wyden and I decided to offer another alternative of financing a prescription drug program when the budget came up. We offered an amendment based on the President's proposal to increase the tobacco tax by 55 cents and also accelerate the scheduled tax increase of 15 cents on tobacco. Even though we were defeated on a budgetary point of order that required 60 votes, we got 54 votes. We had a majority of support for financing a prescription drug program through tobacco tax revenues. It makes good policy sense. Columbia University did a study in 1995, and it showed, in that year alone, smoking-related illnesses cost the Medicare program $25 billion or 14 percent of the total expenditures of the Medicare program. There is no reason whatsoever to think those costs have diminished at all. So we think this is a reasonable, logical way to finance a prescription drug program. People may have differences and say: We don't want to raise any kind of tax, even if it is a tobacco tax. But I urge my colleagues that there are other alternatives. We have to have funding. It isn't responsible to introduce a prescription drug program and have no financing mechanism. What we don't want to do with the SPICE program is to add layers of bureaucracy. We are minimizing bureaucracy by creating a board that will maximize oversight. But HCFA will not be presenting this program. We will not affect current Medicare benefits, and we won't be affecting the solvency of the program. I urge the Members of the Senate to give careful consideration to the legislation we are offering. It is critically important. We have the luxury, so to speak, of deferring issues, but our seniors in this country--certainly in the State of Maine--don't have the luxury of deferring their well-being. A third of Medicare enrollees have nothing, not to mention the patchwork quilt involved in the coverage for all the other seniors. Now, if you think it is acceptable for 15 million enrollees in the Medicare program not to have any coverage whatsoever, then fine. But if you are truly concerned about the fact that 15 million Americans have nothing, then I urge you to consider this legislation. Some of our opponents have said, well, the lack of prescription drug coverage isn't a crisis; it is a mirage. They label our bill, and other bills for prescription drug coverage, a ``solution in search of a problem.'' They use words such as ``misguided,'' ``regressive,'' ``unnecessary,'' and ``fictitious.'' They say our claims about seniors having to choose between drug coverage and filling their cupboards are simply not true. Ask the seniors in my State and all across this country who have written to us and said they are cutting their pills in half, or cutting dosages, or skipping dosages, and not simply filling prescriptions when they get them from the doctor because they are unable to pay for them. That is the bottom line. It will be a big surprise to older Americans if you say it is not a problem. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague, Senator Wyden from Oregon, 10 minutes.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague, Senator Wyden, for the comments he made. It is critically important to understand the differences in our approach as compared to others for controlling the price of drugs which will have an impact on the developments that have occurred in prescription drugs in America. Most importantly, Senator Wyden and I have come together on an approach we think is reasonable both from a fiscal standpoint as well as from a policy standpoint. We are allowing competition; we are allowing choice. We don't create a bureaucracy; we don't affect Medicare. We provide a financing mechanism. It truly is a reasonable solution to a crisis that is facing America's seniors. I encourage my colleagues to take a very close look at this bipartisan proposal, the only one that has been introduced in the Senate, to talk to Members to see if we can come together so we can address this issue this year in this Congress. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. The Senator raises an important question about the choices that would be available to seniors by creating this board. We look at the needs of seniors. What are the prescription drugs seniors most use? What is most available? What is out there already for insurance coverage? Where are the gaps? This board will have the ability to devise a number of plans across the board and make it available to seniors. Then they can make decisions as to whether or not that plan is tailored to their needs, similar to what Members of Congress get. Members of Congress can avail themselves to an array of plans that provide for prescription drug coverage. The seniors in America should have the same choices. We want them to have choices and to avail themselves, as Senator Wyden indicated, to the state-of-the-art, advanced developments in prescription drugs and medications. We did not rely on Government programs, a big bureaucracy of price controls in order to achieve prescription drug coverage because there are bills out there in the House and the Senate that will either control the price of drugs or create a huge Government bureaucracy or impinge on the Medicare Program that already has significant financial problems. Could the Senator tell Members how our bill will help seniors without relying on Government price controls but at the same time giving them the ability to have access to the most advanced prescription drug coverage in America?

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I commend Senator Wyden for his idea on having seniors in this country send their prescription drug bills to the Members of the Senate and to their Representatives. It is absolutely critical for people to understand the significance of this issue in the daily lives of our seniors. Doesn't the Senator find it somewhat remarkable there are some in Washington saying there is no crisis among our Nation's seniors when it comes to prescription drug coverage, that this is a fictitious problem? My seniors are telling me: We cannot afford to pay for our prescription drug bills. I met with a senior recently who said she is reducing the number of pills she takes every day because she cannot afford to fill the entire prescription. So she tries to make it last longer. That is a real story. It is happening all across America. I find it somewhat amazing people are suggesting it is not a problem. On average, the seniors will spend $642 a year on drugs. That is on average. Prescription drug access in America, for most seniors, is out of reach. I think we have to impress upon Members of this body, Congress, and the President, this is an issue we all need to come together on, to work out now, not 2 years from now. People say: After the election. The election is a year from November. Then it will be another year, at the minimum, before we can get anything passed. That is 2 years. The American seniors cannot defer their health, their well-being. In many instances, it is the difference between life and death. Much sicker seniors are being discharged from hospitals today than ever before. That is why prescription medication becomes all the more compelling and urgent in helping our seniors.

Ms. SNOWE. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes of my time to the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, at the conclusion of my 25 minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that following the expiration of my control of the time, Senator Roberts be recognized for up to 15 minutes.

Ms. SNOWE. Will the Chair inform me when I have consumed 10 minutes?

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I seek recognition today along with my colleague, Senator Collins, to draw to the Chairman's attention our request for funding within the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency to defray some of the costs of researching and developing an effective new technology for monitoring mercury vapor emissions. As we know, mercury is one of the most toxic substances in our environment and one of most common air pollutants and, unfortunately, remains largely unregulated, causing great neurologic damage if ingested by humans. This is why I have cosponsored a bill, S. 673, that will go a long way towards developing a much needed solution to the problem of mercury emissions in our environment. I am advised that researchers in Maine and in Maryland are teaming together to research and develop a new, environmentally beneficial technology for tracking mercury vapor emissions. I am hopeful that in Conference, the distinguished Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member, Senator Mikulski, will look again at the proposal and to consider designating it for funding within the appropriate budget account.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation honoring the centennial of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) of the United States, which will occur on the 29th of this month. Earlier this year, the Senate passed my legislation designating September 29, 1999, as ``National VFW Day.'' I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my colleagues for joining me in honoring the more than 2 million members of the VFW, and urge the approval of this legislation, which congratulates all members of the VFW on the occasion of the organization's centennial. Similar legislation passed the House on June 29 and awaits approval by the Senate. I hope that we can pass this legislation before September 29 in order to pay tribute to these brave protectors of liberty. As I indicated, September 29, 1999, marks the centennial of the VFW. As veterans of the Spanish-American War and the Philippine Insurrection of 1899 and the China Relief Expedition of 1900 returned home, they drew together in order to preserve the ties of comradeship forged in service to their country. They began by forming local groups to secure rights and benefits for the service they rendered to our country. In Columbus, OH, veterans founded the American Veterans of Foreign Service. In Denver, CO, veterans started the Colorado Society of the Army of the Phillippines. In 1901, the Philippine War Veterans organization was started by the Philippine Veterans in Altoona and Pittsburgh, PA. In 1913, these varied organizations with a common mission joined forces as the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. I am truly honored to salute this proud organization. The joint resolution I am introducing today recognizes the unselfish service VFW members have rendered over the last 100 years to the Armed Forces, to our communities, and other veterans. It also highlights the historic significance of this important day in the lives of so many veterans, and calls upon the President to issue a proclamation recognizing the anniversary of the VFW and the contributions made by the VFW to our Nation. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who have served their country. With this legislation, we say ``thank you'' 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. The centennial of the founding of the VFW will present all Americans with an opportunity to honor and pay tribute to the VFW and to all veterans. I thank my colleagues for joining me in a strong show of support and an expression of thanks to the VFW and all veterans.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that will remedy a problem facing one of Maine's home health agencies-- Home Health & Hospice of St. Joseph, in Bangor, Maine. This bill would reclassify Home Health & Hospice of St. Joseph as a ``new agency'' under the Medicare Home Health Interim Payment System, allowing it a higher per-beneficiary rate. When Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act, the intention was to modestly control the dramatic growth rate of home health care agencies. But the broad financing constraints and administrative regulations codified in the Balanced Budget Act have had unintended consequences. Almost every week I hear concerns from home care agencies in Maine about the implementation of regulations and restrictions on these agencies. Since enactment of the Balanced Budget Act, many of our home healthcare agencies have found themselves in a position of financial insolvency. Nationwide, more than 2,000 agencies have closed since BBA's passage. The State of Maine had 90 Medicare/Medicaid certified home health care agencies in the beginning of 1998. By the beginning of 1999, 16 of those agencies had closed. At the time of the BBA's enactment, the Congressional Budget Office expected home health care expenditures to drop by $75 billion over ten years. In March of this year, CBO examined the Medicare program expenditures of the home health agencies and increased the expected savings by $56 billion--a three-quarter increase over the same ten years! As a component of the general funding reductions enacted by the Balanced Budget Act, the law created detailed regulations in determining agency per-beneficiary payment limits. These regulations have had several unforeseen and unintended consequences when applied to real-life agencies. Home Health & Hospice of St. Joseph serves over 700 patients in Bangor, Maine and the surrounding area. Under the BBA, per-patient cost reimbursement is based solely on cost reporting ending in fiscal year 1994. Unfortunately for Home Health & Hospice of St. Joseph--an established and vital component of Bangor's health care system--fiscal year 1994 was an unprecedented period of clinical and financial upheaval. As a result of these problems, the agency's per-patient reimbursement limitation is artificially low. And in spite of the extensive clinical and financial reforms enacted during this unique and transitional period, the cost data for this one year is significantly and permanently flawed. As a result of the anomalous cost report, the Medicare payment amount for Home Health & Hospice of St. Joseph is only 59 percent of the true costs of treating each patient. For every patient the agency treated in 1998, it lost $1,148. The agency is a cost effective home health care agency: its actual per-patient cost of $2,752 is substantially below the national medial of approximately $3,200. Unfortunately, St. Joseph's anticipates an aggregate loss of $780,000 for its service to Medicare patients over 1998. Simply put, they cannot sustain such a deep loss of funding and continue to operate. Mr. President, I introduce this bill today in order to address the problem faced by Home Health & Hospice of St. Joseph. This legislation will reclassify Home Health & Hospice of St. Joseph as a ``new agency'' under the BBA, and is targeted to St. Joseph's. Mr. President, my state relies on home health agencies for much of its healthcare, and we cannot face the prospect of losing such a fine agency.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation honoring the centennial of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) of the United States, which will occur on the 29th of this month. Earlier this year, the Senate passed my legislation designating September 29, 1999, as ``National VFW Day.'' I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my colleagues for joining me in honoring the more than 2 million members of the VFW, and urge the approval of this legislation, which congratulates all members of the VFW on the occasion of the organization's centennial. Similar legislation passed the House on June 29 and awaits approval by the Senate. I hope that we can pass this legislation before September 29 in order to pay tribute to these brave protectors of liberty. As I indicated, September 29, 1999, marks the centennial of the VFW. As veterans of the Spanish-American War and the Philippine Insurrection of 1899 and the China Relief Expedition of 1900 returned home, they drew together in order to preserve the ties of comradeship forged in service to their country. They began by forming local groups to secure rights and benefits for the service they rendered to our country. In Columbus, OH, veterans founded the American Veterans of Foreign Service. In Denver, CO, veterans started the Colorado Society of the Army of the Phillippines. In 1901, the Philippine War Veterans organization was started by the Philippine Veterans in Altoona and Pittsburgh, PA. In 1913, these varied organizations with a common mission joined forces as the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. I am truly honored to salute this proud organization. The joint resolution I am introducing today recognizes the unselfish service VFW members have rendered over the last 100 years to the Armed Forces, to our communities, and other veterans. It also highlights the historic significance of this important day in the lives of so many veterans, and calls upon the President to issue a proclamation recognizing the anniversary of the VFW and the contributions made by the VFW to our Nation. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who have served their country. With this legislation, we say ``thank you'' 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. The centennial of the founding of the VFW will present all Americans with an opportunity to honor and pay tribute to the VFW and to all veterans. I thank my colleagues for joining me in a strong show of support and an expression of thanks to the VFW and all veterans.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that will remedy a problem facing one of Maine's home health agencies-- Home Health & Hospice of St. Joseph, in Bangor, Maine. This bill would reclassify Home Health & Hospice of St. Joseph as a ``new agency'' under the Medicare Home Health Interim Payment System, allowing it a higher per-beneficiary rate. When Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act, the intention was to modestly control the dramatic growth rate of home health care agencies. But the broad financing constraints and administrative regulations codified in the Balanced Budget Act have had unintended consequences. Almost every week I hear concerns from home care agencies in Maine about the implementation of regulations and restrictions on these agencies. Since enactment of the Balanced Budget Act, many of our home healthcare agencies have found themselves in a position of financial insolvency. Nationwide, more than 2,000 agencies have closed since BBA's passage. The State of Maine had 90 Medicare/Medicaid certified home health care agencies in the beginning of 1998. By the beginning of 1999, 16 of those agencies had closed. At the time of the BBA's enactment, the Congressional Budget Office expected home health care expenditures to drop by $75 billion over ten years. In March of this year, CBO examined the Medicare program expenditures of the home health agencies and increased the expected savings by $56 billion--a three-quarter increase over the same ten years! As a component of the general funding reductions enacted by the Balanced Budget Act, the law created detailed regulations in determining agency per-beneficiary payment limits. These regulations have had several unforeseen and unintended consequences when applied to real-life agencies. Home Health & Hospice of St. Joseph serves over 700 patients in Bangor, Maine and the surrounding area. Under the BBA, per-patient cost reimbursement is based solely on cost reporting ending in fiscal year 1994. Unfortunately for Home Health & Hospice of St. Joseph--an established and vital component of Bangor's health care system--fiscal year 1994 was an unprecedented period of clinical and financial upheaval. As a result of these problems, the agency's per-patient reimbursement limitation is artificially low. And in spite of the extensive clinical and financial reforms enacted during this unique and transitional period, the cost data for this one year is significantly and permanently flawed. As a result of the anomalous cost report, the Medicare payment amount for Home Health & Hospice of St. Joseph is only 59 percent of the true costs of treating each patient. For every patient the agency treated in 1998, it lost $1,148. The agency is a cost effective home health care agency: its actual per-patient cost of $2,752 is substantially below the national medial of approximately $3,200. Unfortunately, St. Joseph's anticipates an aggregate loss of $780,000 for its service to Medicare patients over 1998. Simply put, they cannot sustain such a deep loss of funding and continue to operate. Mr. President, I introduce this bill today in order to address the problem faced by Home Health & Hospice of St. Joseph. This legislation will reclassify Home Health & Hospice of St. Joseph as a ``new agency'' under the BBA, and is targeted to St. Joseph's. Mr. President, my state relies on home health agencies for much of its healthcare, and we cannot face the prospect of losing such a fine agency.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 2000 Defense authorization conference report. The bill emerges in the turnmoil of a post-cold-war world--one demanding a U.S. military that can face transnational developments such as weapons proliferation, regional tyrants such as Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic, and emerging powers such as China. As a result, the authorization cycle of the last few months allowed Congress to bring the Pentagon's budget into alignment with the changing Armed Services on which the nation will rely to deter a broad spectrum of global threats to U.S. national security. I caution my colleagues not to confuse the unpredictable nature of these threats with the disappearance of serious global challenges to the security of the United States and its key allies. The former menace of imperial communism has yielded to a less detectable, but still destructive, gallery of aggressors: the cyber- terrorist, the rogue dictator, the narcotics lord, and violent dissidents throughout the world with ideological resentments against the culture and prosperity of the West. A brief tour of the global horizon furthermore alerts us to the ongoing requirement for a robust and flexible national defense. The burned and bloodied streets of East Timor warn the United States that the world's fourth most-populous country, guarding the sea lanes between the Pacific and Indian Oceans, faces an anxious period of political and military strife. Saddam Hussein still hopes to strangle the Arab-Israeli peace process and hold the oil reserves of the Persian Gulf hostage to his lust for warfare. China wants to build a nuclear and naval force to counter the United States and Japan as a major power among the trading states of Western Asia. The North Koreans and the Iranians quietly try to siphon weapons of mass destruction out of a chaotic Russia. India and Pakistan have intensified their grim nuclear standoff, and the rumbling Balkans undermine stability and economic development from the Caucuses to the Mediterranean Basin. The Senate, therefore, should embrace a Defense authorization conference report that increases the President's request by more than six billion dollars to a total of $288.8 billion. Almost one-half of the eight billion dollar increase goes towards procurement--the keystone of force modernization--and keeps the Pentagon on schedule to level this account at $60 billion next year, as Secretary Cohen proposed in February 1998. Beyond the numbers in the budget, however, this bill takes care of the needs of our Service people. The Conference Report, Mr. President, recognizes the human dimension of military readiness by approving an across-the-board 4.8% pay increase for uniformed personnel-the largest since 1982. It also equalizes retirement benefits, extends bonuses for second and third-term re-enlistments, and gives troops the same chance that civilians have to achieve financial security by making thrift saving plans available, for the first time ever, to the Total Force. This legislation furthermore takes the bold step of re-organizing the Energy Department of fight the emerging threat of nuclear proliferation through reformed intelligence and security systems. Our statutory effort on this front reflected the chilling fact that the Department, as it exists, cannot adequately safeguard the secrets that give nuclear arsenals their range and mobility. An alarming flood of evidence produced by two distinguished panels this year, the Cox and Rudman Commissions, uncovered a fractured and apathetic DoE bureaucracy that failed over the course of twenty years to protect the design plans for America's most sophisticated warheads against foreign espionage. As a result, the conference report mandated the creation of a new semi-autonomous organization within the Energy Department, accountable directly to the Secretary, that will streamline reporting procedures and tighten security at the country's national weapons laboratories. In addition, as Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Seapower Subcommittee, I was honored to join my colleagues in forging an FY 2000 budget authorization that enhances the nation's naval power projection, force protection, and strategic lift capabilities. I want to thank Senator Kennedy, the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee, along with the panel's other members, Senators John McCain, Bob Smith, Jeff Sessions, Chuck Robb, and Jack Reed, for both their hard work on this year's bill and their support of me as the Chairman. The conference report approves the President's request for authorization of six new construction ships, including $2.681 billion for three DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, $1.508 billion for two LPD-17 San Antonio-class amphibious ships, and $440 million for one ADC(X), the first of a class of auxiliary refrigeration and ammunition supply ships. It also authorizes the President's advance procurement request of $748.5 million for two SSN-774 Virginia-Class attack submarines, and $751.5 million for the CVN-77, the last Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. These budget levels will enable the Navy to set the stage for a planned increase in annual ship construction rate from six per year today to eight per year between FY 2001 and FY 2004 and nine per year beginning by FY 2005. As the Assistant Service Secretary for Research, Development, and Acquisition, Dr. Lee Buchanan, testified to the Subcommittee on March 24, 1999, a yearly production rate of between eight and ten vessels is essential to the maintenance of a Fleet within the range of 300 ships over the next 35 years. Beyond the procurement priorities of today, the subcommittee supported the Navy's revolutionary research efforts to shape a 21st century fleet of greater speed, precision, and maneuverability for littoral operations near coastal waters. According to the Navy's official definition, littoral engagements requires forces to deploy ``close enough to influence events on shore if necessary.'' This post-Soviet mission connects our force structure to our security interests since by 2010, 80 percent of the world's population will live within 300 miles of the shorelines known as the littorals. And as our maritime Service, Mr. President, the Navy operates as the first and most significant force of relief and response in the littoral waterways. In the realm of ship research, development, testing, and evaluation, the conference report approves $270 million for the DD-21 next- generation land attack destroyer, $205 million to advance the post- Nimitz aircraft carrier program known as CVN(X), and $116 million for SSN-774 Virginia-class attack submarines. These initiatives will help the fleet in meeting one of its core force structure goals for the years ahead: the deployment of ships with intensified firepower and lower life-cycle costs. The sailors and marines of tomorrow, Mr. President, will also require worldwide mobility to bring American power to the shores of conflict or instability. Towards this end, our bill extends the Pentagon's core tactical and strategic lift programs, including the C-17 airlifter and the MV-22 Osprey helicopter. The seapower portion of the conference report includes a number of legislative provisions allowing the Pentagon to take advantage of the most cost-effective acquisition strategies to sustain a fleet of at least 300 ships--the bare minimum, according to the testimony of senior officials before the Seapower Subcommittee this year, that the Navy needs to meet its forward-deployed operational requirements. These legislative provisions extend the multi-year procurement authority to include fiscal years 2002 and 2003 in the DDG-51 production program, and authorize advance procurement and construction funding for both a new LHD-8 amphibious assault ship and an additional large, medium-speed roll on/roll off ship. We also authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into auxiliary ship leases for 20 or more years. This initiative should give service leaders more flexibility to invest resources into complex war fighting ships by relying more on qualified commercial ship owners to build and maintain the supply fleet. Finally, Mr. President, long-range fleet planning will prompt the naval leadership to concentrate on developing a broad force structure to execute the National Security Strategy. For this reason, the conference report directs the Department of Defense to submit a report next February detailing the Navy's shipbuilding schedule and needed maritime capabilities through fiscal year 2030. In summary, the fiscal year 2000 Defense authorization conference report address the key acquisition, research, hardware, and operational challenges that will provide the nation with a flexible and responsive 21st century fleet. I urge my colleagues to uphold a valuable tradition of the United States Senate by voting on a strong bipartisan basis in favor of this landmark legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans Sexual Trauma Treatment Act, legislation authorizing a program within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) which will offer counseling and medical treatment to veterans who suffered from sexual abuse while serving in the armed forces. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who have served or are currently serving their country in uniform. Countless men and women, and their families, have served this country with courage, honor and distinction. Today, as they have throughout this proud nation's history, they stand ready to answer the call to duty, and they deserve, at the very least, to serve free from the threat of sexual abuse and harassment. And yet, an estimated 35 percent of all female veterans report at least one incident of sexual harassment during their military service. That it why I am introducing this legislation today. The Veterans Sexual Trauma Treatment Act, which is similar to legislation introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Gutierrez, will enable former military personnel who were subjected to sexual harassment or abuse while in the military to receive proper medical and psychological care. The legislation does so by extending and improving the VA's abuse counseling initiatives. The bill makes permanent a program to require the VA to provide counseling to veterans to overcome psychological trauma resulting from a physical assault or battery of a sexual nature, or from sexual harassment, which occurred during active military service. Under current law the program authorizing such counseling expires in 2001. The bill authorizes the program to include appropriate treatment, and requires a VA mental health professional to determine when such counseling and treatment 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 and other announcements. It also calls for a report on joint DOD/VA efforts to ensure that military personnel are informed upon their separation from service about available sexual trauma counseling and treatment programs. Most importantly, the bill eases restrictions under the existing program. I find it very troubling, for example, that women with fewer than two years of service are not eligible for counseling, even if they separated from the military due specifically to incidents of harassment or abuse. According to the DOD, over 5 percent of female active duty personnel have been sexually assaulted while in the service. And a recent survey conducted for the Pentagon found that between 1988 and 1995, the percentage of active duty women who reported that they had received uninvited or unwanted sexual attention stood at 55 percent, while the percentage for men stands at 14 percent. The survey also reported that 78 percent of female respondents said they had experienced one or more specific types of unwanted behaviors from a range of specified inappropriate behaviors. Eighty eight percent of females said the harassment occurred on a base; 74 percent said the harassment occurred at work; 77 percent said it occurred during duty hours; 44 percent said that military coworkers of equal rank were the perpetrators; and 43 percent said the perpetrator was of a higher rank. These findings are very disturbing. The data illustrates just how widespread this problem is, and indicates the need for a program to treat victims upon separation from active duty service. I credit the DOD with working to reduce the prevalence of sexual harassment in the military. However, as long as there is harassment and abuse in the military, it is vital that victims have access to counseling while on active duty and after separation from the service as well. We expect active duty servicemen and women to make extraordinary sacrifices to safeguard the democracy we cherish. We should not expect them to accept abuse and harassment while they serve. The legislation I am introducing today is aimed specifically at ensuring that veterans have access to abuse counseling after they leave the military. It has the backing of the VFW, Vietnam Veterans of America, the American Legion, and AMVETS. I urge my colleagues to join me in a strong show of support for this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans Sexual Trauma Treatment Act, legislation authorizing a program within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) which will offer counseling and medical treatment to veterans who suffered from sexual abuse while serving in the armed forces. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who have served or are currently serving their country in uniform. Countless men and women, and their families, have served this country with courage, honor and distinction. Today, as they have throughout this proud nation's history, they stand ready to answer the call to duty, and they deserve, at the very least, to serve free from the threat of sexual abuse and harassment. And yet, an estimated 35 percent of all female veterans report at least one incident of sexual harassment during their military service. That it why I am introducing this legislation today. The Veterans Sexual Trauma Treatment Act, which is similar to legislation introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Gutierrez, will enable former military personnel who were subjected to sexual harassment or abuse while in the military to receive proper medical and psychological care. The legislation does so by extending and improving the VA's abuse counseling initiatives. The bill makes permanent a program to require the VA to provide counseling to veterans to overcome psychological trauma resulting from a physical assault or battery of a sexual nature, or from sexual harassment, which occurred during active military service. Under current law the program authorizing such counseling expires in 2001. The bill authorizes the program to include appropriate treatment, and requires a VA mental health professional to determine when such counseling and treatment 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 and other announcements. It also calls for a report on joint DOD/VA efforts to ensure that military personnel are informed upon their separation from service about available sexual trauma counseling and treatment programs. Most importantly, the bill eases restrictions under the existing program. I find it very troubling, for example, that women with fewer than two years of service are not eligible for counseling, even if they separated from the military due specifically to incidents of harassment or abuse. According to the DOD, over 5 percent of female active duty personnel have been sexually assaulted while in the service. And a recent survey conducted for the Pentagon found that between 1988 and 1995, the percentage of active duty women who reported that they had received uninvited or unwanted sexual attention stood at 55 percent, while the percentage for men stands at 14 percent. The survey also reported that 78 percent of female respondents said they had experienced one or more specific types of unwanted behaviors from a range of specified inappropriate behaviors. Eighty eight percent of females said the harassment occurred on a base; 74 percent said the harassment occurred at work; 77 percent said it occurred during duty hours; 44 percent said that military coworkers of equal rank were the perpetrators; and 43 percent said the perpetrator was of a higher rank. These findings are very disturbing. The data illustrates just how widespread this problem is, and indicates the need for a program to treat victims upon separation from active duty service. I credit the DOD with working to reduce the prevalence of sexual harassment in the military. However, as long as there is harassment and abuse in the military, it is vital that victims have access to counseling while on active duty and after separation from the service as well. We expect active duty servicemen and women to make extraordinary sacrifices to safeguard the democracy we cherish. We should not expect them to accept abuse and harassment while they serve. The legislation I am introducing today is aimed specifically at ensuring that veterans have access to abuse counseling after they leave the military. It has the backing of the VFW, Vietnam Veterans of America, the American Legion, and AMVETS. I urge my colleagues to join me in a strong show of support for this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1999. I am pleased that Senator McCain, Chairman of the Commerce Committee, is a cosponsor of this legislation. This bill reauthorizes the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) through Fiscal Year 2004. This legislation will improve the qualify of life for those Americans fortunate enough to live in coastal communities and the millions of others who visit these regions each year. First and foremost, the bill recognizes the many benefits of economic development, and balances those needs with the protection of our valuable public resources. The United States has more than 95,000 miles of coastline along the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans, Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes. Nearly 53 percent of all Americans live in these coastal regions, but that accounts for only 11 percent of the country's total land area. This small portion of our country supports approximately 200 sea ports, contains most of our largest cities, and serves as critical habitat for a variety of plants and animals. To help meet the growing challenges facing these coastal areas, Congress enacted the CZMA in 1972. The CZMA provides incentives to states to develop comprehensive programs that balance the many competing uses of coastal resources and to meeting the needs for the future growth of coastal communities. As a voluntary program, the framework of the CZMA provides guidelines for state plans to address multiple environmental, societal, cultural, and economic objectives. This allows the states the flexibility necessary to prioritize management issues and utilize existing state regulatory programs and statutes wherever possible. Obviously, each state's priorities and needs are unique. That is why this bill provides maximum flexibility to states to address the diverse problems affecting our coastal areas. The coastal zones managed under the CZMA range from the arctic to tropical islands, from sandy to rocky shorelines, and from urban to rural areas. Because of these varying habitats and resource types, no two state plan and the same, nor should they be. Likewise, there are multiple uses of the coastal zone. Coastal managers are asked to strike a balance among residential, commercial, recreational, and industrial development; harbor development and maintenance; shoreline erosion and commercial and recreational fishing. Coastal programs address these competing needs for resources, steer activities to appropriate areas of the coast, and attempt to minimize the effects of these activities on coastal resources. As you may imagine, being able to balance economic development while protecting public resources requires careful strategies, substantial financial resources, and cooperation among stakeholders. So far, 32 of the 35 eligible coastal states and U.S. territories have federally approved coastal zone management plans under the CZMA. Two of the remaining eligible states are currently completing their plans. I am proud to say that my state of Maine has had a federally approved plan since 1978. The approved plans cover 99% of the eligible U.S. coastline. Another component of the CZMA is the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. These reserves not only provide habitat for a wide variety of fish, invertebrates, birds, and mammals, but they also serve as natural laboratories for research and education. There are currently 22 of these reserves in 18 states. Mr. President, this bill authorizes $100 million to carry out the objectives of the CZMA for fiscal year 2000. The authorization level increases by $5 million each year to $120 million in FY 2004. Of the annual $5 million increase, $3.5 million would be targeted for the base state-grant programs; $1 million would be authorized for coastal zone enhancement and coastal community grant programs; and $500,000 would be authorized for the national Estuarine Research Reserve System. This bill will enable the states to build upon the successes of their management plans an confront emerging problems along our coasts. Further, this bill allows each state to maintain the flexibility it requires in order to address the specific needs of its coastal communities. Because flexibility at the state level is a critical element of this bill, titled the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1999 allows states to establish partnerships with local communities to encourage wise and sustainable development of their public resources. As the United States' population continues to increase in coastal communities, it is imperative that we provide those communities with the capability to plan for growth. This will enable coastal communities to address open space needs, environmental protection, and infrastrasture needs. Finally, let me say that the foundation of this legislation is the existing federal/state partnership that has made the CZMA so effective. The federal funds to implement CZMA management plans are matched by state matching monies. Some states have capitalized on the opportunities presented by the CZMA by leveraging even more money than the required match. In my state, the State of Maine, for example, the importance of investing in coastal areas has been clearly recognized and the CZMA federal funds have been matched at a rate of seven state dollars per federal dollar. Given examples like this, the potential for this reauthorization could produce several hundred million dollars for coastal zone management programs. I believe the legislation that I am introducing today will provide states with the necessary funding and framework to meet the challenges facing our coastal communities in the 21st Century. Mr. President, this is a solid, reasonable and realistic bill that enjoys bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. I look forward to moving this bill at the earliest opportunity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section explanation of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1999. I am pleased that Senator McCain, Chairman of the Commerce Committee, is a cosponsor of this legislation. This bill reauthorizes the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) through Fiscal Year 2004. This legislation will improve the qualify of life for those Americans fortunate enough to live in coastal communities and the millions of others who visit these regions each year. First and foremost, the bill recognizes the many benefits of economic development, and balances those needs with the protection of our valuable public resources. The United States has more than 95,000 miles of coastline along the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans, Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes. Nearly 53 percent of all Americans live in these coastal regions, but that accounts for only 11 percent of the country's total land area. This small portion of our country supports approximately 200 sea ports, contains most of our largest cities, and serves as critical habitat for a variety of plants and animals. To help meet the growing challenges facing these coastal areas, Congress enacted the CZMA in 1972. The CZMA provides incentives to states to develop comprehensive programs that balance the many competing uses of coastal resources and to meeting the needs for the future growth of coastal communities. As a voluntary program, the framework of the CZMA provides guidelines for state plans to address multiple environmental, societal, cultural, and economic objectives. This allows the states the flexibility necessary to prioritize management issues and utilize existing state regulatory programs and statutes wherever possible. Obviously, each state's priorities and needs are unique. That is why this bill provides maximum flexibility to states to address the diverse problems affecting our coastal areas. The coastal zones managed under the CZMA range from the arctic to tropical islands, from sandy to rocky shorelines, and from urban to rural areas. Because of these varying habitats and resource types, no two state plan and the same, nor should they be. Likewise, there are multiple uses of the coastal zone. Coastal managers are asked to strike a balance among residential, commercial, recreational, and industrial development; harbor development and maintenance; shoreline erosion and commercial and recreational fishing. Coastal programs address these competing needs for resources, steer activities to appropriate areas of the coast, and attempt to minimize the effects of these activities on coastal resources. As you may imagine, being able to balance economic development while protecting public resources requires careful strategies, substantial financial resources, and cooperation among stakeholders. So far, 32 of the 35 eligible coastal states and U.S. territories have federally approved coastal zone management plans under the CZMA. Two of the remaining eligible states are currently completing their plans. I am proud to say that my state of Maine has had a federally approved plan since 1978. The approved plans cover 99% of the eligible U.S. coastline. Another component of the CZMA is the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. These reserves not only provide habitat for a wide variety of fish, invertebrates, birds, and mammals, but they also serve as natural laboratories for research and education. There are currently 22 of these reserves in 18 states. Mr. President, this bill authorizes $100 million to carry out the objectives of the CZMA for fiscal year 2000. The authorization level increases by $5 million each year to $120 million in FY 2004. Of the annual $5 million increase, $3.5 million would be targeted for the base state-grant programs; $1 million would be authorized for coastal zone enhancement and coastal community grant programs; and $500,000 would be authorized for the national Estuarine Research Reserve System. This bill will enable the states to build upon the successes of their management plans an confront emerging problems along our coasts. Further, this bill allows each state to maintain the flexibility it requires in order to address the specific needs of its coastal communities. Because flexibility at the state level is a critical element of this bill, titled the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1999 allows states to establish partnerships with local communities to encourage wise and sustainable development of their public resources. As the United States' population continues to increase in coastal communities, it is imperative that we provide those communities with the capability to plan for growth. This will enable coastal communities to address open space needs, environmental protection, and infrastrasture needs. Finally, let me say that the foundation of this legislation is the existing federal/state partnership that has made the CZMA so effective. The federal funds to implement CZMA management plans are matched by state matching monies. Some states have capitalized on the opportunities presented by the CZMA by leveraging even more money than the required match. In my state, the State of Maine, for example, the importance of investing in coastal areas has been clearly recognized and the CZMA federal funds have been matched at a rate of seven state dollars per federal dollar. Given examples like this, the potential for this reauthorization could produce several hundred million dollars for coastal zone management programs. I believe the legislation that I am introducing today will provide states with the necessary funding and framework to meet the challenges facing our coastal communities in the 21st Century. Mr. President, this is a solid, reasonable and realistic bill that enjoys bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. I look forward to moving this bill at the earliest opportunity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section explanation of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Seniors Prescription Insurance Coverage Equity (SPICE) Act along with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden. The purpose of this bill is to provide Medicare beneficiaries with access to prescription drug coverage. The program is voluntary and federal assistance will be provided to help pay for the premiums. Senator Wyden and I believe that this bill is one solution to the lack of prescription drug coverage for America's seniors and we believe that it is a bill we could and should enact this year. Lack of prescription drug coverage is a serious problem facing our seniors. When Medicare was created in 1965 it was based on the inpatient care system that was prevalent at that time. Today, thirty four years later, drug therapy often allows individuals to stay out of the hospital--but Medicare does not cover drugs. And the lack of coverage means that those over 65 years of age end up paying for half the costs associated with their prescriptions, while the average person under age 65 pays only a third. It also means that seniors are forgoing medication because they cannot afford it. The SPICE Act creates a voluntary supplemental drug insurance policy that all Medicare eligible individuals can purchase. These policies will be guaranteed issue--no one can be turned down. SPICE eligibility will begin when Medicare eligibility begins. There will be a penalty for late entry, just as there is for those who make a late entry into the Medicare Part B program. The penalty fee for late entry will be waived if the late entry is based on the loss of prior drug coverage from a Medicare + Choice plan or a retiree group health plan. All seniors will receive some premium support assistance on a sliding scale based on income. Every senior will receive at least 25% premium support. Those below 150% of the federal poverty line will receive 100% premium support. A sliding scale will phase down the premium support from 100% to 25% for those between 150% and 175% of the federal poverty line. The federal premium support will be used to allow seniors to purchase SPICE policies from private providers, similar to the Medigap program. The policies will all meet a threshold standard developed by the SPICE Board, which includes consumers, state insurance commissioners, and insurance representatives, and will be designed with seniors needs in mind. Medicare+Choice and group health plans which provide drug coverage for Medicare eligible individuals will be able to receive the actuarial value of the drug benefit if their plans meet or exceed the SPICE Board threshold benefit plan. Seniors will be given a choice of plans. This will ensure competition and help keep the costs down and will allow seniors to choose the plan that best meets their needs. To provide an idea of the types of choices, plans may offer coverage for different drugs (formularies), copays, deductibles, and caps. The SPICE Board will disseminate information about these choices, much like the Federal Employee Benefit Health Program (FEHBP) does. Funding sources for the benefit will come from the on-budget surplus, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates show to be $505 billion after the $792 billion tax cut legislation that is currently in conference. Additional funding may come from implementing the President's FY2000 budget proposal to raise the tobacco tax by 55 cents per pack in addition to enacting the 15 cent tobacco increase already in law one year earlier than originally planned. America's seniors need help in obtaining prescription drug coverage. SPICE is a doable proposal that can be passed whether or not we are able to move forward on Medicare reform this year.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Marine Sanctuaries Amendments Act of 1999. I am pleased that Senator Kerry, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, Senator McCain, Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee, and Senator Breaux are joining me as cosponsors on this legislation. This bill will protect our nation's valuable marine resources while facilitating their sustainable use. One hundred years after the first national park was created, the United States made a similar commitment to preserving its valuable marine resources by establishing the National Marine Sanctuary Program in 1972. Since then, twelve areas covering a wide range of marine habitats have been designated as national marine sanctuaries. Half of these designations have occurred in the last decade. Today, our marine sanctuaries encompass everything from kelp forests and marine mammal nursery grounds, to underwater archeological sites. Together these sanctuaries protect nearly 18,000 square miles of ocean waters, an area nearly the size of Vermont and New Hampshire combined. Acting as a platform for better ocean stewardship, these sanctuaries offer an opportunity for research, outreach, and educational activities. The national sanctuaries are also a model for multiple use management in the marine environment. Obviously, balancing the protection of public resources with fostering economic activities requires the cooperative efforts of the federal, state, and local governments, as well as nongovernmental organizations and the public. There are many of these partnerships working together within the national marine sanctuary program. Most of the successes of the program can be attributed to these partnerships. One of these sanctuaries is located in the Gulf of Maine. The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary provides feeding and nursery grounds for more than a dozen types of whales, including the endangered humpback, northern right, sei, and fin whales. This has led to the development of a thriving whale watching tourist trade in the sanctuary. The area also supports diverse seabird species and other fish and shellfish such as bluefin tuna, herring, cod, flounder, lobster, and scallops. Consequently, important commercial fisheries for lobster, bluefin tuna, cod and others exist in and around the sanctuary. Historic data strongly suggest the presence of several shipwreck sites within the sanctuary, including the recently discovered wreck of the steamship Portland which sunk in 1898. Seven historic shipwrecks have been identified within or adjacent to the boundaries. However, a complete inventory of historical resources has not been conducted. These traditional shipping lanes are still active today. A heavily-used vessel traffic separation lane in the sanctuary facilitates the passage of more than 2,700 commercial vessels in and out of regional ports each year. Through careful management and cooperation, all of these diverse uses co-exist in a marine sanctuary while providing protection to the marine resources. This is just one example of the diverse management strategies being utilized by the national program. The goal of the national marine sanctuary program is quite ambitious. Unfortunately, lack of funding has hampered their success. To date, insufficient funds have been provided to keep up with the pace of expansion of the sanctuary system. As a result, the 12 existing sanctuaries are not fully operational. Nationwide, individual sanctuaries are understaffed; unable to fully implement their management plans; unable to review existing management plans every five years as required by law; and lack educational and outreach materials and facilities. Consequently, management plans that were written twenty years ago have not been updated to adapt to the changing needs of the area nor for advances in science and resource management. Congress identified the need for these sanctuaries when we passed the original Act in 1972. It is time now to provide the funds necessary to achieve what we set out to do. This will require an increase in the authorization level. The bill we are introducing today provides $30 million in FY 2000 and increases the annual authorization level by $2 million a year to $38 million in FY 2004. It is time to move beyond fundamental planning and reach full implementation of the national program. This bill focuses the sanctuary program on making the existing sanctuaries fully operational before the formal designation process can begin for additional sanctuaries. It is our intention that management plans be developed in an open and participatory process so that partnerships between resource protection and compatible uses are given every chance to succeed. Further, management plans must be reviewed and updated in a timely manner so that we can prioritize our objectives and respond to the changing needs of the resources and the people who utilize them. A large part of the implementation process is the development of enforcement capabilities. It is one thing to plan resource protection, it is another thing to actually provide it. At the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries hearing on reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, it was disappointing to hear about the overwhelming lack of enforcement in our marine sanctuaries. This bill encourages the development and implementation of meaningful enforcement plans, including partnerships with the states and other authorized entities. This will now become a part of the management plan review process. Further, the Administration will need to demonstrate that effective enforcement plans exist for the current sanctuaries before beginning the formal designation process for additional sanctuaries. The National Marine Sanctuaries Act expires at the end of Fiscal Year 1999. This bill gives us the opportunity to realize the goals first laid out by Congress in 1972. There can be no doubt that this revitalization of the sanctuary program is long overdue. Mr. President, this is a strong and much-needed bill that enjoys bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. I look forward to moving this bill at the earliest opportunity. 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 in support of extending the Federal Milk Marketing Order system for one year, and in support of the preservation of small family dairy farms throughout Maine and all of New England. As you are aware, Mr. President, the Farm Bill of 1996 authorized the USDA Secretary to fundamentally revisit the federal Milk Marketing Orders, which is a regulation voluntarily initiated and approved by a majority of producers in a given area. The regulation places requirements on the first buyers or handlers of milk from dairy farmers, such as processors who distribute fluid milk products in a designated marketing area. One of those requirements is that handlers must pay an assigned minimum price according to the use of the milk. Also, a milk order requires that all payments by handlers be pooled and the same average price is paid to individual dairy farmers. On January 30, 1998, the USDA proposed two options to reform differentials, including Option 1-A that closely reflects the current program, which is a market-oriented option for fluid milk prices, and Option 1-B that would be accompanied by transition assistance for dairy farmers. I immediately heard from Maine dairy farmers, who asked for my support for the Option 1-A differential because it is the fairest and most equitable pricing option for them as it stabilizes prices for dairy farmers and ensures that consumers do not pay higher milk prices in the supermarket. My response was to join 60 other Senators on April 29, 1998 and send a letter to USDA Secretary Glickman in support of Option 1-A, saying that the other option, Option 1-B, would further reduce the price of milk received by farmers in almost all regions of the country, thereby reducing local supplies of fresh, fluid milk and increasing costs for consumers. My actions the previous year, 1997, were the same as I joined 47 other senators, in writing to Secretary Glickman stating that Option 1- A was the most viable and economically sound approach to the future pricing of fluid milk. When the USDA announced its final rule on March 31, 1999, it selected a form of Option 1-B that will reduce monies to dairy farmers in New England by at least 2 percent. The final rule will become law in October unless there is Congressional action to stop the final rule. I believe the Congressional action to extend the Milk Marketing Order system until October 1, 2000--which also extends the Northeast Dairy Compact until that time--is required so that there is an appropriate time period to assess such a major and potentially devastating change to the pricing formula for producers throughout my region, and other regions as well. I am currently a cosponsor of S. 1256, Senator Coverdell's bill that will implement Option 1-A for Class I fluid milk as part of the implementation of the final rule to consolidate the federal Milk Marketing Orders. Mr. President, since the Northeast Compact was put in place in 1996, there has been no groundswell of opposition from the consumers of New England, but they have actually preferred to protect a cultural way of life for the region. In addition, for this August, the Maine dairy producers will be receiving an extra $2.28 per hundred weight for their milk because the Compact is currently in place--and this is still not bringing in enough money to the dairy farmers to meet their cost of production. No one is getting rich off of the Compact, Mr. President, but they will get poorer or go out of business after this October if the Compact is allowed to expire. The Compact has only helped stabilize the dairy industry in the Northeast and protected farmers and consumers against volatile price swings. The Compact has protected against the loss of small family owned dairy farms and protected against a decrease in the fresh local supply of milk at a fair price for consumers. Mr. President, Maine had over 2,000 dairy farms in the 1980s. We now have less than 500. The Compact has helped stem the tide of the loss of small family owned dairy farms--and a way of life. We have been talking on the floor for two days now about how natural disasters are affecting the family farmer. I urge you not to create a manmade disaster by allowing the Northeast Compact to expire. I urge my colleagues to support the extension of the federal Milk Marketing Orders--which will also extend the Northeast Dairy Compact--and I thank the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Marine Sanctuaries Amendments Act of 1999. I am pleased that Senator Kerry, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, Senator McCain, Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee, and Senator Breaux are joining me as cosponsors on this legislation. This bill will protect our nation's valuable marine resources while facilitating their sustainable use. One hundred years after the first national park was created, the United States made a similar commitment to preserving its valuable marine resources by establishing the National Marine Sanctuary Program in 1972. Since then, twelve areas covering a wide range of marine habitats have been designated as national marine sanctuaries. Half of these designations have occurred in the last decade. Today, our marine sanctuaries encompass everything from kelp forests and marine mammal nursery grounds, to underwater archeological sites. Together these sanctuaries protect nearly 18,000 square miles of ocean waters, an area nearly the size of Vermont and New Hampshire combined. Acting as a platform for better ocean stewardship, these sanctuaries offer an opportunity for research, outreach, and educational activities. The national sanctuaries are also a model for multiple use management in the marine environment. Obviously, balancing the protection of public resources with fostering economic activities requires the cooperative efforts of the federal, state, and local governments, as well as nongovernmental organizations and the public. There are many of these partnerships working together within the national marine sanctuary program. Most of the successes of the program can be attributed to these partnerships. One of these sanctuaries is located in the Gulf of Maine. The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary provides feeding and nursery grounds for more than a dozen types of whales, including the endangered humpback, northern right, sei, and fin whales. This has led to the development of a thriving whale watching tourist trade in the sanctuary. The area also supports diverse seabird species and other fish and shellfish such as bluefin tuna, herring, cod, flounder, lobster, and scallops. Consequently, important commercial fisheries for lobster, bluefin tuna, cod and others exist in and around the sanctuary. Historic data strongly suggest the presence of several shipwreck sites within the sanctuary, including the recently discovered wreck of the steamship Portland which sunk in 1898. Seven historic shipwrecks have been identified within or adjacent to the boundaries. However, a complete inventory of historical resources has not been conducted. These traditional shipping lanes are still active today. A heavily-used vessel traffic separation lane in the sanctuary facilitates the passage of more than 2,700 commercial vessels in and out of regional ports each year. Through careful management and cooperation, all of these diverse uses co-exist in a marine sanctuary while providing protection to the marine resources. This is just one example of the diverse management strategies being utilized by the national program. The goal of the national marine sanctuary program is quite ambitious. Unfortunately, lack of funding has hampered their success. To date, insufficient funds have been provided to keep up with the pace of expansion of the sanctuary system. As a result, the 12 existing sanctuaries are not fully operational. Nationwide, individual sanctuaries are understaffed; unable to fully implement their management plans; unable to review existing management plans every five years as required by law; and lack educational and outreach materials and facilities. Consequently, management plans that were written twenty years ago have not been updated to adapt to the changing needs of the area nor for advances in science and resource management. Congress identified the need for these sanctuaries when we passed the original Act in 1972. It is time now to provide the funds necessary to achieve what we set out to do. This will require an increase in the authorization level. The bill we are introducing today provides $30 million in FY 2000 and increases the annual authorization level by $2 million a year to $38 million in FY 2004. It is time to move beyond fundamental planning and reach full implementation of the national program. This bill focuses the sanctuary program on making the existing sanctuaries fully operational before the formal designation process can begin for additional sanctuaries. It is our intention that management plans be developed in an open and participatory process so that partnerships between resource protection and compatible uses are given every chance to succeed. Further, management plans must be reviewed and updated in a timely manner so that we can prioritize our objectives and respond to the changing needs of the resources and the people who utilize them. A large part of the implementation process is the development of enforcement capabilities. It is one thing to plan resource protection, it is another thing to actually provide it. At the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries hearing on reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, it was disappointing to hear about the overwhelming lack of enforcement in our marine sanctuaries. This bill encourages the development and implementation of meaningful enforcement plans, including partnerships with the states and other authorized entities. This will now become a part of the management plan review process. Further, the Administration will need to demonstrate that effective enforcement plans exist for the current sanctuaries before beginning the formal designation process for additional sanctuaries. The National Marine Sanctuaries Act expires at the end of Fiscal Year 1999. This bill gives us the opportunity to realize the goals first laid out by Congress in 1972. There can be no doubt that this revitalization of the sanctuary program is long overdue. Mr. President, this is a strong and much-needed bill that enjoys bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. I look forward to moving this bill at the earliest opportunity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Seniors Prescription Insurance Coverage Equity (SPICE) Act along with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden. The purpose of this bill is to provide Medicare beneficiaries with access to prescription drug coverage. The program is voluntary and federal assistance will be provided to help pay for the premiums. Senator Wyden and I believe that this bill is one solution to the lack of prescription drug coverage for America's seniors and we believe that it is a bill we could and should enact this year. Lack of prescription drug coverage is a serious problem facing our seniors. When Medicare was created in 1965 it was based on the inpatient care system that was prevalent at that time. Today, thirty four years later, drug therapy often allows individuals to stay out of the hospital--but Medicare does not cover drugs. And the lack of coverage means that those over 65 years of age end up paying for half the costs associated with their prescriptions, while the average person under age 65 pays only a third. It also means that seniors are forgoing medication because they cannot afford it. The SPICE Act creates a voluntary supplemental drug insurance policy that all Medicare eligible individuals can purchase. These policies will be guaranteed issue--no one can be turned down. SPICE eligibility will begin when Medicare eligibility begins. There will be a penalty for late entry, just as there is for those who make a late entry into the Medicare Part B program. The penalty fee for late entry will be waived if the late entry is based on the loss of prior drug coverage from a Medicare + Choice plan or a retiree group health plan. All seniors will receive some premium support assistance on a sliding scale based on income. Every senior will receive at least 25% premium support. Those below 150% of the federal poverty line will receive 100% premium support. A sliding scale will phase down the premium support from 100% to 25% for those between 150% and 175% of the federal poverty line. The federal premium support will be used to allow seniors to purchase SPICE policies from private providers, similar to the Medigap program. The policies will all meet a threshold standard developed by the SPICE Board, which includes consumers, state insurance commissioners, and insurance representatives, and will be designed with seniors needs in mind. Medicare+Choice and group health plans which provide drug coverage for Medicare eligible individuals will be able to receive the actuarial value of the drug benefit if their plans meet or exceed the SPICE Board threshold benefit plan. Seniors will be given a choice of plans. This will ensure competition and help keep the costs down and will allow seniors to choose the plan that best meets their needs. To provide an idea of the types of choices, plans may offer coverage for different drugs (formularies), copays, deductibles, and caps. The SPICE Board will disseminate information about these choices, much like the Federal Employee Benefit Health Program (FEHBP) does. Funding sources for the benefit will come from the on-budget surplus, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates show to be $505 billion after the $792 billion tax cut legislation that is currently in conference. Additional funding may come from implementing the President's FY2000 budget proposal to raise the tobacco tax by 55 cents per pack in addition to enacting the 15 cent tobacco increase already in law one year earlier than originally planned. America's seniors need help in obtaining prescription drug coverage. SPICE is a doable proposal that can be passed whether or not we are able to move forward on Medicare reform this year.