Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, access to quality health care concerns many of our military men and women, both active and retired. My amendment would allow the Department of Defense to start a pilot project allowing continuous open enrollment in managed health care plans form military retirees at 2 sites selected by the Defense Department. The term ``continuous enrollment'' means the opportunity for military beneficiaries to join the Prime option in TRICARE at any time. Currently, military retirees and their beneficiaries wishing to enroll in the Uniformed Services Family Health Plan (USFHP) may only do so during an annual 30-day long, open session. This arrangement inconsistent with the enrollment rules under TRICARE Prime option. These same beneficiaries can join TRICARE Prime on a continuous basis, but are restricted from joining the USFHP to joint once a year for a 30-day period. Coupled with the many changes in TriCare, including new enrollment fees and higher copayments, many military beneficiaries are confused and unsure if the HMO option in TriCare, either Prime through the managed care support contractor of the USFHP, is the right choice for them and their families. Thus, as I have been informed by physicians from my own state, many beneficiaries and their families have decided not to join either program. What this restriction means in practical terms for retirees is that they are not able to take advantage of health are providers that may practice in close proximity to their residences, but instead travel significant distances to a military treatment facility. In locations where there are no TriCare Prime network providers, the retirees are aced with limited choices and higher costs. The Department of Defense has indicate that this open enrollment would be too costly; however, there is limited data to support their contention that this provision will generate a significant influx of new enrollees in the program. DOD's key concerns are based on two factors; the possible increase in cost due to the number of enrollees, and the risk adjustment in the Medicare program scheduled to take effect January 1, 2000. However, based on a review of the actual enrollment data the number of people enrolled in the USFHP program has actually declined from 29,256 in October 1997 to 26,950 in March 1999. This trend represents a decline of 7.6% over eighteen months and an annual rate of decline of 5.0%. As of June 1, six of seven designated providers which operate the USFHP will have completed ``open season'' enrollment. The preliminary results show a net increase of 3,754 individuals enrolled in the USFHP. Of this number, approximately 18% or 676, were 65 and older. This is a much lower percentage--18% compared to 28%--than the 65 and older enrollees were as a percentage of enrollment before the current open season started. This amendment would authorize the Department of Defense to demonstrate the continuous open enrollment program at a minimum of two sites for a two year period. During the second year of the demonstration period, DOD would submit a report to Congress evaluation the benefits of the program and a recommendation concerning whether the authorize open enrollments in the managed care plans on a permanent basis. This proposal is supported by numerous organizations such as the National Military Family Association and the National Military and Veterans Alliance. The national Military and Veterans Alliance includes organizations such as: The Retired Officers Association, Non- Commissioned Officers Association, Naval Reserve Association, National Association of Uniformed Services, the Reserve Enlisted Association and the Korean War Veterans Association. In testimony before the Personnel Subcommittee earlier this year, representatives from many of these organizations have emphasized that access to quality health care is one of their primary concerns. Finally, I believe that this amendment is a measured step, but one that leads us toward a fair and good faith effort to address the inconsistency in providing our retirees access to health care on an equal basis with TriCare Prime. amendment no. 501 (Purpose: To require a report on the D-5 missile program) On page 28, below line 21, add the following:

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. The real challenge and the problem with these base closing rounds has been the fact that they are costing far more than what the Defense Department anticipated. I think it is important for us to have the information and the verification from the Defense Department as to exactly what they have saved and how much it has cost and what they anticipate in the future. In addition, they have not even completed the four previous rounds. They have yet to be totally implemented. So we could be incurring additional costs. Of course, the final dimension to the whole problem is all of the contingency operations. We have had 25 contingency operations that have cost the Defense Department more than $20 billion. That has impacted readiness and modernization. I say to this administration that perhaps if they had more clear objectives with respect to these operations, we could contain the costs, but we should not put pressure on reducing our domestic infrastructure if we are going to have more contingency operations in the future that demand the use of our domestic installations.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair. I gave a lengthy statement last night. I will not go into everything that I referred to, but I think there are several points that need to be reiterated with respect to base closing. I strongly oppose the base closing amendment that has been offered by Senator McCain and Senator Levin that would initiate another round in the year 2001. We come back to the same issues that have yet to be addressed by the Department of Defense with respect to creating a comprehensive analysis in terms of matching our infrastructure with our assets and the security threat mix that we can anticipate into the 21st century. This is an analysis, in fact, that has been suggested and recommended by the National Defense Panel in order to have an overall assessment and accounting of exactly what we are going to need with respect to our domestic infrastructure into the 21st century. I think everybody acknowledges that we are facing different types of threats today, more asymmetric, more unpredictable, more uncertain, far more diverse, regional threats than we have ever encountered before. So as a result, it seems to me we need to have an accounting from the Defense Department as to exactly what are their needs. They keep telling us over and over again from the previous four rounds that we have achieved and realized billions and billions of dollars in savings. Yet we have been unable to track those savings. In fact, in the reports by the General Accounting Office in 1996 and then again in 1997 and in addition to the Congressional Budget Office reports, all indicate the very same thing. It is very difficult to ascertain the amount of savings derived from the previous base closing rounds, because the Department of Defense has never established a mechanism for tracking those savings. I think it is important for us to have that data so we can document what has exactly been saved as a result of those four previous rounds. When you look at this chart, this is in the General Accounting Office report: Why BRAC Savings are Difficult to Track and Estimate Changes Over Time. DOD accounting systems are not designed to track savings. Some costs are not captured initially; i.e. the environmental costs. Well, we now find out that they are going to have to spend at least $3 billion more in environmental mitigation than they anticipated. Some savings cannot be fully captured--long-term recapitalization costs. Again, we have found out in terms of sales, they anticipated they would realize $3 billion in sales, and they have only received about $65 million. So that is a great gap between what they projected for revenues of sales and what they actually realized. DOD components do not have incentives to track savings because budgets may be reduced. Over time events may impact costs and savings that could not have been known when estimates were developed. On and on it goes. We have no way of knowing. Then the Department of Defense has said, well, we have cut back on personnel by 36 percent so, therefore, we should be reducing infrastructure by 36 percent. Since we haven't done that, it should be one on one, essentially, we should be reducing our infrastructure. But again, these determinations should not be made by arbitrary percentages but, rather, a documentation of exactly what we need for the future. We have unpredictable challenges and, therefore, I think we should make those decisions based on the assessment of what should be our military infrastructure for the 21st century. Yet we have not had that kind of accounting. I hope the Senate will not approve another round until we have the opportunity to have this kind of analysis from the Department of Defense they have resisted providing over the years. In fact, in the 1998 Secretary's report on BRAC, it said additional rounds of BRAC in the years 2001 and 2005--that would be contingent on two rounds--would yield $21 billion in the years 2008 to 2015, the period covered by the QDR, and $3 billion every year thereafter. But that is contradicted by the report by the Defense Department in 1999 with respect to BRAC savings. It says with four BRAC rounds between 1995 and 1998, DOD invested approximately $22.5 billion to close and realign 152 installations. So it costs as much to close those bases as what they are projecting for savings from another two rounds in the future.

Ms. SNOWE. One additional minute.

Ms. SNOWE. Five minutes.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Washington for, once again, providing leadership on this most significant issue. As she said, it is regrettable that we have to come back to the floor to seek support for our women in uniform who happen to be assigned overseas for this very basic right. I commend her for introducing this legislation once again to repeal the ban on privately funded abortions at overseas military hospitals. It is unfortunate that this amendment is even necessary. It is unfortunate that we have to be here fighting for it once again. How could this debate be necessary? How can it be that this blatant wrong still needs to be righted? Yet, here we are, once again, having to argue a case that basically boils down to providing women who are serving this country overseas with the full range of constitutional rights, options, and choices that would be afforded them as American citizens on American soil. We are here today because the U.S. law denies the right to choose to 227,000 spouses and dependents stationed with our servicemen overseas, and denies the right to choose for more than 27,000 servicewomen who volunteered to serve our country. Though these women are right now protecting our country's interests, year after year this body denies them access to safe and sanitary medical care simply because they were assigned to duty outside the United States. In very simple terms, this amendment will allow women stationed overseas that right to privately funded abortions at their local American military facility. It will allow women and their spouses the freedom to consider the most difficult, heart-wrenching decision they could make without fearing the potentially substandard care they would be faced with in a country that does not speak their language and that does not train their medical personnel the way in which they are here in the United States. I don't understand why we insist in denying our service men and women and their families their right as Americans. We ask a great deal of our military personnel and their families--low pay, long separations, hazardous duty. When they signed up to serve their country, I don't believe they were told, nor do I believe they were asked, to leave their freedom of choice at the ocean's edge. It is ironic that we are denying the very people who we ask to uphold democracy and freedom the basic and simple right to safe medical care. The Murray-Snowe amendment would overturn that ban and ensure that women and military dependents stationed overseas would have access to safe health care. I want to clarify the fact that overturning this ban doesn't mean we will be using Federal funds to support a procedure such as abortion. This would allow American personnel stationed overseas to use their own funds for the support of an abortion in a military hospital. It is very important to make that distinction. As the Senator from Washington indicated, there is also a clause so that medical personnel cannot be forced to perform a procedure with which they disagree. We had this ban lifted in 1993 restoring a woman's right to pay for abortion services with her own money. Unfortunately, that ban was reinstated back in 1995. I think it is important to understand what choices women are left with under our current policy. Imagine a young servicewoman or the wife of an enlisted man living in a foreign country where language is a barrier. She finds herself pregnant and, for whatever reason, she has made a very difficult decision to terminate her pregnancy and she wants to have that procedure done in a military hospital and is willing to pay for it with her own funds. Under current U.S. law, she won't be able to do that. She won't be able to go to a base hospital near her family and friends. She won't be assured of the same quality care that she could receive here in the United States. She won't be able to even communicate under some circumstances because language might be a barrier. So what are her choices? She must either find the time and the money to fly back to the United States to receive the health care she seeks, or possibly endanger her own health by seeking one in a foreign hospital, or she may have to fly to a third country, again where the medical services may not equate to those available at the military base--if she can't afford to return home. What is the freedom to choose? It is a freedom to make a decision without unnecessary government interference. Denying a woman the best available resources for her health care simply is not right. Current law does not provide a woman and her family the ability to make a choice. It gives the woman and her family no freedom of choice. It makes the choice for her. Our men and women in uniform--and the families standing behind them-- are our country's best and most valuable assets. When people sign up for military service, they promise us they will do their best to protect our country and its ideals. We promise them we will provide for them and their families the necessities of life--to provide them with the most advanced and the safest health care available. That is the arrangement. This is the benefit that we make available to them in return for their commitment to serve our country. Our men and women and their spouses should not be required to give up their constitutional protections, and the Supreme Court supported right to privacy, and our promise of safe health care. Yet, we prohibit women from using their own money--not taxpayers dollars--to obtain the care they need at the local base hospital. What we are saying to our women in uniform, or to the dependents of others who serve in our military, is: Sorry. You are on your own. So she faces a circumstance that she would not confront were she stationed at Fort Lewis, WA, or Brunswick Naval Air Station in Brunswick, ME, because she could go off base and be guaranteed safe and legal medical care. The Murray-Snowe amendment is only asking for fair and equal treatment. It is saying to our men and women and their families, if you find yourself in a difficult situation, we will provide the service of safe medical care if you pay for it with your own money. Is that too much to ask? We owe it to our men and women in uniform. We owe it to them so that they have the options to receive the care they need in a safe environment. They do not deserve anything less. I urge my colleagues to join in voting for the Murray-Snowe amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of H.R. 1183, which is at the desk.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment that has been offered by Senator McCain and Senator Levin concerning the establishment of another Base Closing Commission process in the year 2001. It is not a matter of when it is established. It is not a matter by whom it is appointed. I think the question is whether or not the Department of Defense and this administration has answered the questions that have been raised time and time again in the committee and on the floor of this Senate with respect to a number of issues that justify having another base closing round. Having been involved in the four previous rounds, I can tell you it raises a number of issues with respect to the efficiency and the effectiveness of base closings. We are seeing already with our commitment in Kosovo the Defense Department cannot continue to decide which installations to downsize or close by making arbitrary comparisons to personnel reductions. Just since the hostilities began in March, we have seen the Pentagon divert a carrier battle group to the Adriatic leaving the western Pacific without a carrier for the first time in decades. It has contributed more than 400 aircraft to the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia. It has nearly depleted the Nation's air-launched precision missile stocks, exhausted our tanker fleet, and called up 33,000 reservists. Now we have a situation where we are conducting a campaign regarding Kosovo and it has been revealed that the air and sea bridges required to ``swing'' forces into one major theater war to support a second conflict makes the risk of prevailing in the latter engagement too high because of the operational strains on personnel, weapons, and maintenance schedules. Yet, the Pentagon persists with the position that we must close more bases. But who is really making these assumptions about the volatile and complex nature of warfare as we approach the 21st century? The standard the administration is putting forth is personnel reductions; that closing 36 percent of our bases is absolutely essential, if 36 percent of all our people have left the military since the peak of the cold war. But the standard must remain if we are to be truly honest about what kinds of assumptions and determinations we must make. We should be making a decision of adapting our infrastructure to the mix of security threats that we anticipate into the 21st century. I do not think that we have to project that far out to recognize what we can expect for the types of conflicts that we will be facing in the future. As it did last year and in 1997, the administration rests its argument for more base closings primarily on the claim that facility cuts have lagged behind personnel reductions by more than 15 percent. I do not happen to think that a simple percentage can answer the types of questions that we need to determine the future of our military bases. What systems, what airfields, and what ports do we need to sustain in light of our engagement in the Balkans and considering the fact that the Pentagon planners thought that the Nation's two simultaneous conflicts would likely occur in Asia and the Persian Gulf? What depots can provide competition for the private sector? What shipyards can provide the Navy with a diversified industrial base to sustain the next generation of submarines that will maneuver in our waters? What airbases must stay active to support long-range power projection capabilities we now have with the diminished forward presence overseas? What configuration of domestic bases does the country require to project a smaller force over long distances that we now lack because we have a diminished presence in Asia and Europe? This fact means at a minimum the country has to stabilize a number of domestic facilities to prepare forces once deployed abroad for long- range projections from this country. How has DOD calculated the vulnerability of political uncertainties of gaining access to our Middle Eastern military assets in the event of another regional crisis? These are the unanswered questions. These are the questions that need answers, not some isolated percentages that should determine the size and the shape of our basing network. These are the answers that we do not have. We have discrepancies in the numbers that have been provided to us by the Department of Defense. We do not have the assessments. We do not have the matching infrastructure to the security threat. We have not made a determination with respect to the assets, and even the national defense plan indicated in its own report that it was necessary to make that determination based on a report. In fact, the panel said it strongly urges Congress and the Department to look at these issues. They talked about if there is going to be a next round, it might be preceded by an independent, comprehensive inventory of all facilities and installations located in the United States. This review would provide the basis for a long-term installation master plan that aligns infrastructure assets with future military requirements and provides a framework for investment and reuse strategies. We raised this issue time and time again in the committee and in the Senate over the last 2 years to those individuals who are propounding this amendment and raising the fact that we should have another base closing round. Yet, how can we make those decisions and on what basis are we making those decisions? Are they going to be arbitrary determinations? Are they going to be politicized? I know people argue: Oh, this is a depoliticized process in the Base Closing Commission procedure. I argue to the contrary. Having been through this procedure on four different occasions since 1988, I can tell you we just moved politics from one venue to another. I think we have to very carefully consider whether or not we want to initiate another base closing round for the future, absent the kinds of decisions and determinations that need to be made in order to make a reasonable decision. Even in the Department's own report in April of 1998, it exposed the apparent base closure savings as a frustrating mystery rather than a confirmed fact. To its credit, the Department actually admitted in its own study that there was no audit trail for tracking the end use of each dollar saved through the BRAC process. They admitted in their own report that they did not have a procedure for determining the actual savings that they projected from the base closing rounds and how they were used, so that we could not correlate the savings and whether or not they were used for any purpose or, in fact, were there any savings. So now the Department of Defense has said: Yes, there are savings from the four previous base closing rounds; and, yes, we are using them for readiness and modernization; and that is what we will do in the future. But they never established a process that we could document those savings that ostensibly occurred in the four previous rounds, and that they were invested in modernization and in the readiness accounts. The fact is, it never happened. The General Accounting Office, in fact, recommended, in their 1997 report, and, in fact, documented what the DOD report said, that there is no process by which to track the savings which the Department of Defense claims occurred as a result of the base closings over the last 10 years. So we have no way of knowing if, in fact, we have realized real savings. The Department claims that over the last four rounds there were savings of $21 billion, $22 billion. Yet, in their 1999 report, they admitted that the cost of closing bases was $22.5 billion. Their savings, in their 1999 report, from the four previous rounds is $21 billion. So they have $1.5 billion more than the estimated savings through 2015. So that is what we are talking about here. The Department of Defense is spending more to close these bases than they are actually saving. They have had more costs as a result of environmental remediation. In fact, they project to spend $3 billion more. They said they would realize $3 billion from the first base closing round, to give you an example, from the sale of the property to the private sector, when in fact they only realized $65 million. That gives you an idea of the discrepancy that has occurred from their projected savings to the actual revenue that was realized through their sale process. So that is the problem we have. We have been given promises by the Department of Defense that we will have the savings, and yet these savings have not really materialized. So we do not have a picture of what we need for the future in terms of domestic bases because we have closed so many abroad as well as at home. Because we do not have the presence in other countries, it is all the more important that we have the necessary domestic bases to do the kinds of things we have to do, as we have seen in Kosovo. It is interesting that back in 1991, when we went through a base closing round, we had Loring Air Force Base up in northern Maine. It was a B-52 base. We were told at the time B-52s were going to go out. They were old. They were aging. They were going to be rapidly removed from the defense program. What are we seeing? B-52s are being used in Kosovo. No, we do not have the base in northern Maine that is closest to Europe, to the Middle East, to the former Soviet Union, to Africa. We are having to launch those B-52s from other bases that are not as close to Europe. So that is the problem we are seeing, because of the miscalculations and the underestimation of what we might need for the future. It has not been the kind of documentation that I happen to think is necessary. In fact, it was interesting to hear--when talking about B-52s--what a former Air Force Secretary said a few weeks ago, that the current crises are proving the enormous value of the Nation's long-range bomber force of B-52s. That is what it is all about. So what we were told in 1991: No; they are going to be out of commission because they are simply too old, we find is not the case. So I think we have to be very circumspect about how we want to proceed. That is why I think we have to be reticent about initiating any base closing process for the future until we get the kinds of answers that are necessary to justify proceeding with any additional base closing rounds. We have had the miscalculations of the costs in the Balkans. In fact, that is why there is such great pressure within the Pentagon to try to find additional savings, because we have spent so much money in Bosnia. When we were only supposed to spend $2 billion, we are now beyond $10 billion. We will probably spend $10 billion in Kosovo by the end of this fiscal year. That has placed granted, inordinate pressures on the defense budget. But as QDR said, and even the Pentagon has admitted, there are many ways, in which to achieve their savings. They could follow up on the management reforms that have been proposed by the Department of Defense through technology upgrades. They could obviously require the services to determine their budget priorities. We can obviously look even at the deployment in Bosnia, which has far exceeded the original estimates, as I said earlier. So those are the kinds of challenges we face in the future. I think we have to be very, very cautious about suggesting that somehow we should close more bases--subject to another arbitrary process, subject to more arbitrary percentages--without the kind of analysis that I think is necessary to make those kinds of decisions. We have to be very selective. We have to make decisions for the future in terms of what interests are at stake, what we can anticipate for the future, because it seems that we are going to have more contingency operations like the ones we are confronting now in the Balkans. Therefore, we will have to look at what we have currently within the continental United States. It is important to be able to launch these missions, simply because we cannot depend on a presence in foreign countries. So I hope Members of the Senate will vote against the amendment which has been offered by the Senator from Arizona about initiating another base closing round, because we have raised these questions before. We have asked the Department: Please document what bases you are talking about. What bases do you need? What bases don't you need? Why don't you need them? How does that comport with the anticipated security threats for the future? Of course, finally, the Department claims that they have made enormous savings from the previous base closing rounds, but now we find that the cost of closing those bases--of which more than 152 were either realigned or closed--was greater than the savings that have been realized to date and into the future. So I think we have an obligation and, indeed, a responsibility to evaluate what has happened. I think it is also interesting that the Department of Defense has not responded to the General Accounting Office or to the National Defense Plan in terms of coming up with an analysis of what is actually necessary for our domestic military infrastructure, and then, secondly, setting up a mechanism by which we can evaluate whether or not savings have, indeed, been realized as a result of the four previous base closing rounds, because on the basis of what we have currently from the Pentagon, they cannot suggest in any way that they have made any savings. If anything, it has cost them more money. Then when you look at what we are facing in Kosovo, what we can project in the future for additional asymmetric threats, we may want to be very careful about closing down any more bases in this country without knowing whether or not they are going to be necessary for the future, because once you lose that infrastructure, it is very difficult to recoup. So I hope the Senate will reject this amendment. I yield the floor. position on landrieu-specter amendment no. 384

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I understand that S.J. Res. 26, introduced earlier by Senator Smith of New Hampshire, is at the desk, and I ask that it be read the first time.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 26. I further ask that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. I further ask consent that the Senate then resume the DOD authorization bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill at 9:30 a.m. and expect to debate an amendment by Senator Brownback regarding Pakistan, to be followed by an amendment by Senator Kerrey of Nebraska regarding the strategic nuclear development system. Under a previous consent, at 11:45 a.m., the Senate will resume consideration of the BRAC amendment. At least one vote will occur in relation to the BRAC amendment at 1:45 p.m. Therefore, Senators should expect the next vote to occur at 1:45 p.m. on Wednesday. Senators who have amendments are urged to notify the two managers. It is the intention of the leadership to complete action on this bill prior to the scheduled Memorial Day recess.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the chairman for his comments. I certainly feel privileged to chair the Seapower Subcommittee and to focus on some of the critical challenges facing our naval forces in the future. Having had the opportunity to visit our personnel on the U.S.S. Enterprise, the U.S.S. Gettysburg, and the U.S.S. Ardent, I had a firsthand appreciation of the pressures placed on the men and women in our Armed Forces and the more we need to support them in every way possible. That is why I think the pay and retirement provisions are all necessary, given the demands that are being placed on our naval forces overseas. The deployments are longer and they are more rigorous. It is becoming far more difficult for them when they return to home port because they have to begin retraining. So there is very little time for them to prepare for the future and also the demands that these challenges present in keeping them from their families. We have to recognize that. I think the administration has to recognize that in terms of the number of contingency operations, that, ultimately, is really putting a tremendous strain on all of our armed services.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act. This critical legislation brings the military to the threshold of a new century posing new challenges to the U.S. national security. Under the superb leadership of our distinguished chairman, the senior Senator from Virginia, the Armed Services Committee has reported a bill that shapes a more flexible, mobile, and precision Total Force required for the future. This bill takes a proven and fundamental approach to enhancing our national defense by devoting more resources to readiness and modernization accounts and improving the quality of life for military families. The total authorized funding of $288 billion in the legislation increases the administration's request by $8 billion and represents a 2.2-percent increase in real terms over the fiscal year 1999 level. These responsible funding levels try to rescue a defense budget that, as a percentage of the Nation's GDP, has reached its lowest points in 50 years. In modernization programs--those for weapons procurement-- funding has fallen by 67 percent since 1985. At the height of the Reagan buildup, the Pentagon obligated $138 billion for procurement. Since then, the spending fell to a low point of $44 billion in 1997. The fiscal year 2000 budget increases the account to $56 billion, and I commend Secretary Cohen for planning the first budget of this administration that brings procurement back to a threshold of $60 billion, as recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, starting in the year 2001. The major weapons and systems authorized by this bill, particularly service combatants, strategic and tactical aircraft, and high-speed armored vehicles, will give the armed services more endurance and firepower at lower life cycle costs. Smooth construction materials will deceive the enemy radars that can detect the hard angles of older platforms. Information technologies will give ships, tanks, and aircraft battlespace data that shows potential enemy movements before they occur. A new series of rapid transporters will bring forces to the shorelines of instability. And from safe distances in the air or at sea, smaller crews will program missiles for strategic inland targets. As chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I had the honor of witnessing firsthand the revolution in capabilities by traveling to the Persian Gulf to visit the sailors of the carrier Enterprise and the guided- missile cruiser U.S.S. Gettysburg and the minesweeper U.S.S. Ardent during the Easter recess. Without exception, the men and women of these ships, forward deployed between Iran and Iraq, demonstrated a solid commitment to defending the interests of their nation in some of the most dangerous waters on the planet. I listened and talked with dozens of sailors and returned to Washington with a fresh understanding of the human dimension of readiness. Only dedicated people can deliver the capabilities needed to project our military power. Far removed from their families and the luxuries of life ashore, the crews of the Enterprise, the Ardent, and the Gettysburg admirably performed their missions of containing the Iraqi military and ensuring the freedom of commerce. The diligence of the crews of these ships makes a visitor forget their youth. From galleys and control rooms to flight decks and bridges, sailors cooperated with professionalism to ensure that our maritime power upheld peace and stability. They reminded me that patriotism hinges on sacrifice, and that Congress can perform no greater service in defense policy than to improve the quality of life for military families. Therefore, I think the legislation before us reinforces the wisdom of additional personnel provisions in both this authorization bill, as well as the legislation that was passed by the Senate that would increase the retirement and the pay for the members of our Armed Forces. The Bill of Rights Act, the pending legislation, as well as the fiscal year 1999 supplemental, will move closer to this goal by authorizing a universal active-duty pay increase of 4.8 percent, the largest since 1982, and giving troops enrolled in the retirement plan the option of drawing pension benefits calculated under the same formula as other personnel who served for at least 20 years. I believe this certainly reinforces the conversations that I have had with a group of senior noncommissioned officers aboard the Enterprise who stressed the need for equity in the Pentagon's compensation and retirement systems. I repeatedly heard that uniformed personnel could not obtain timely care for their families and waited months on end for reimbursement. As a result, I sponsored a provision in this bill permitting TriCare beneficiaries to receive treatments at qualified medical offices if they live more than 50 miles from a DOD health installation. This initiative, coupled with the Bill of Rights Act, directs to the Defense Department to rely on more efficient claims processing procedures to tackle the issue of access to quality treatment that several sailors raised in their encounters with me. I also include a provision in this legislation--of course, it was authored with Senator Kennedy--that would create a Defense Department task force on domestic violence. This is another issue that has become a serious concern within our Armed Forces. This task force will consist of military representatives, family advocacy program experts, and civilian domestic violence professionals to develop guidelines for a coordinated response to this tragic problem that has grown from 14 reported cases per 1,000 families in 1990 to 22 per 1,000 families by 1998. The second major provision of the Kennedy-Snowe amendment mandates creation of a central departmentwide database to receive information on reported domestic violence cases in the Armed Forces. No military family should endure the trauma, fear, and alienation that flows from acts of domestic violence. I am hopeful that the Kennedy-Snowe amendment will represent a crucial beginning in the process of setting standards and imposing penalties to deter spousal and child abuse in the armed services. I want to highlight a few provisions under this legislation which were within the jurisdiction of my Seapower Subcommittee. I thank Senator Kennedy, the ranking Democrat of the subcommittee, along with the panel's other members, for their diligent work on this year's legislation. The Seapower Subcommittee held five hearings in our review of the fiscal year 2000 budget request. Our hearings focused on the overarching question of how the Pentagon can sharpen its ability to reinforce U.S. political and economic objectives overseas with an agile maritime fleet. Towards this end, we explored programs designed to maintain the sea lanes vital to international trade. The subcommittee also summoned Navy and Marine Corps witnesses to discuss strategic air and sealift in support of regional commanders in chief, littoral force projection and protection, evolving submarine requirements, and priorities in the realms of research and acquisition. Witnesses before the Seapower Subcommittee testified that the proliferation of weapons and advanced technology caused by the willingness of countries to sell expertise, hardware, and technology present a challenge for the United States to predict potential adversary threats. This trend of proliferation shortens the timeline for an enemy to field an offensive weapon that can disable our forces in any region of concern. For these reasons, research and development in systems designed to counter enemy air, land, and sea-launched missiles, in addition to antiship torpedoes and mines, will enhance the Navy's capacity to deter conflict throughout the littoral areas of the globe. These coastal zones, within 200 miles of any sea, contain three- quarters of the world's population, 80 percent of the capital cities, and the major corridors of commerce. Subcommittee witnesses expressed concern that traditional threats, as well as nontraditional threats, from hostile countries and international terrorists would attempt to disrupt seagoing trade and military operations. They pointed out that over 50 countries possessed over 150 types of naval mines; over 60 countries have inventories of more than 60 types of torpedoes; over 75 countries have more than 90 types of antiship cruise missiles; and by 2016, 40 to 50 countries will deploy at least one theater ballistic missile. Navy and Marine Corps witnesses testified that their services will function as the force of choice in the 21st century. They based this assessment on compelling demographic facts. Water covers 70 percent of the world's surface, and by the year 2010, over 70 percent of the world's population will live in urban areas within 300 miles of a coastline. An ever-increasing world population--to top 7.5 billion by the year 2015--will only intensify this surge of urbanization and leave new environmental, housing, and health care problems in its wake. Competition among ethnic and religious populations will furthermore make the urbanized littorals ripe for conflict in the 21st century. The Navy and Marine Corps can, therefore, use the sea area as an operating base and a maneuver space without permission from a foreign country. In this context, maritime forces can serve as a first echelon of U.S. military power projection. Force modernization must subsequently remain on schedule since America needs high-technology fleet able to steam at a moment's notice to any point on the planet. Our witnesses, however, cited a number of budgetary and operating tempo developments that compete with core modernization requirements. From 1988 to 1998, the Navy's total obligational authority, in constant 1998 dollars, decreased by 40 percent. Coincident with this decrease, the Navy and Marine Corps have experienced a dramatic increase in forward presence and contingency operations. In the past 50 years, naval expeditionary forces have responded to over 250 crises worldwide. Since 1992 alone, as this ``Commander-in- Chief Requirements'' chart illustrates, naval forces have responded to 77 different contingency operations or threats around the world--that is between 1992 and 1998--while between the years of 1988 and 1991, they only responded to 27 different threats worldwide. So it shows the disparity in the threats between this decade and the previous decade, to show the tremendous pressures that are being placed on our naval and our marine forces. During the cold war, Marines were called upon to respond to a threat on average of once every 15 weeks. Since 1990, the Marines have been responding to a threat once every 5 weeks. That is a threefold increase. So as a result of the naval force structures, as one witness said during the Seapower Subcommittee's first hearing, there is ``no shock absorbency left'' when it comes to our force structures and the demands they are placing on our naval and marine forces. Again, as this chart will illustrate in terms of where we are today on the 300-ship Navy, we are going to have to build, on an annual rate, 8 to 10 ships a year in order to sustain a 300-ship Navy. We are going to decline pretty rapidly. As we are in 1999, we have 315 ships; for the year 2000, 314; by the year 2005, we will be down to 305 ships. In order to sustain 300 ships, we will have to increase the number of ships we are building to 8 to 10 a year from the 6 we are building currently. Based on the testimony, and also my visits to the deployed fleet units, and discussions with the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Army and Air Force officials, the subcommittee reached the following conclusions: First, the Navy and Marine Corps capabilities must remain ahead of the threats designed to disrupt or deny maritime operations on the high seas and in the littorals. To respond to this conclusion, the Seapower portion of this bill adds $213 million to the budget request for research, development, testing, and evaluation. Second, the Navy and Marine Corps future readiness will decline if recapitalization and modernization are deferred. I think again these charts illustrate the problem. So to respond to this challenge, the Seapower portion of this bill adds $1.068 billion to the budget request for procurement. Third, strategic sea and airlift are required to support daily operations overseas, emergent requirements, and sustained military campaigns of a major theater war. The force deployment goals of the 1995 Mobility Requirements Study Bottom-Up Review Update established the strategic lift requirements as those required for one major theater war and, later, to swing that lift to support the second nearly simultaneous MTW. So to respond to this challenge, the bill adds $40 million to the budget request for national defense features in ships. In addition, the full committee approved the budget request for $3 billion for procurement of 15 C-17 aircraft, $70 million for modifications to the C-5 aircraft, $170 million for the C-17 research and development, and $63 million for the C-5 research and development. Fourth, the Navy must build no fewer than 8 ships per year to maintain a force structure of approximately 300 vessels, as I mentioned earlier. Ship designs and technologies must respond to these challenges of both the littorals and the open ocean warfare. Quantity has a quality of its own, especially when naval operations occur at the same time in different geographic regions. The Seapower portion of the bill therefore adds $375 million advanced procurement for the LHD-8 and extends the DDG-51 multiyear procurement authority to include the fiscal years 2002 and 2003 ships. The committee, however, remains concerned with the overall shipbuilding rate included in the administration's budget requests. The topic of ship force structure was discussed more than any other issue in the Seapower hearings. Witnesses stated repeatedly that the current force structure of 324 ships already strains worldwide operations. This problem will only grow, since the projected size of the fleet, as I said, will decrease to 305 platforms in the next 5 years. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense has provided few specifics on the planned size of the Navy force structure beyond the calendar year 2015 and how it intends to address the impending ship shortfall problem beyond lowering acquisition costs and reducing the size of ships' crews. The time has come for the administration to demonstrate an understanding of the ship acquisition problem and to share with Congress a systematic plan to address this serious national security concern. The report accompanying this bill requires the Secretary of Defense to submit, with the fiscal year 2001 budget request, a report that details the Department's long-range shipbuilding plan through fiscal year 2030 and describes the annual funding required to procure 8 to 10 ships a year between fiscal years 2001 and 2020. Finally, attack submarines have reached the limits of sustainable operations. The submarines of the 21st century will generate key strategic and tactical intelligence, deploy surveillance and reconnaissance teams, and enhance the firepower of carrier battle groups. In recognition of these facts, the bill approves the request of $116 million for submarine advanced technology and adds $22 million for the Advanced Deployable System. Finally, the key to reducing the operating costs of ships lies in research and development to design future ships that can operate effectively with smaller crews. Our bill approves well-funded research and development programs for developing new ship designs to reduce overall life-cycle costs. All of these naval programs, as well as the major systems of the other three Services, will require an adequate domestic basing structure for maintenance and deployment. This factor, along with the changing mix of threats to our national security, triggered the two bipartisan Armed Services Committee votes this year against amendments authorizing additional base realignment and closure rounds. The committee first rejected the BRAC amendments because no base closure round yet has yielded the taxpayers any clear or proven savings. To appreciate this point, one only need to consider the conclusion of the leading advocate of BRAC, the Department of Defense. DOD's April 1998 base closure report to Congress stated explicitly that ``no audit trail, single document, or budget account exists for tracking the end use of each dollar saved through BRAC.'' Furthermore, the conflict in Kosovo illustrates how hostilities can strain our ability to project military power in unstable areas of the world. Since this war began in March, the United States has diverted its only aircraft carrier in the Western Pacific, near North Korea, to Serbia's Adriatic Sea basin. We have more than 400 aircraft from airfields across the country now engaged over Kosovo. In the meantime, the Department of Defense has almost depleted the Nation's air-launch precision missile stocks, strained our aerial tanker fleet, and called up 33,000 reservists. Congress and the administration should therefore consider how to improve, rather than phase out, the shore- and land-based systems that sustain our deployed forces. We cannot forget that America's overseas basing infrastructure has declined by more than 40 percent since the end of the cold war. The four previous BRAC rounds have eliminated about 25 percent of domestic military installations. The key challenge of the 21st century force will focus on long-range deployments from American territory to protect interests and allies on short notice. We need a master base plan, still undeveloped, that identifies categories of ports, staging grounds, airfields, depots, and maintenance facilities to meet these strategic requirements. The administration cannot ask Congress to approve more closure commissions in a vacuum about what physical support assets at home the troops of tomorrow will need to complete their missions abroad. This authorization bill advances the goals of shaping the modernized Armed Forces on which Americans will rely to safeguard their interests in a changing and volatile world. I again thank the committee chairman, Senator Warner, for his leadership, and the ranking member, Senator Levin, for his leadership as well in crafting this significant bipartisan legislation. I urge all Senators to support it. Privilege Of The Floor Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Laurell Brault, my military fellow, be given floor privileges during the Senate consideration of S. 1059.

Ms. SNOWE. That is correct.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1999. The Coast Guard provides many critical services for our nation. Dedicated Coast Guard personnel save an average of more than 5,000 lives, $2.5 billion in property, and assist more than 100,000 other mariners in distress. Through boater safety programs and maintenance of an extensive network of aids to navigation, the Coast Guard protects thousands of additional people engaged in coastwise trade, commercial fishing activities, or simply enjoying a day of recreation out on our bays, oceans, and waterways. The Coast Guard enforces all federal laws and treaties related to the high seas and U.S. waters. This includes marine resource protection and pollution control. As one of the five armed forces, it provides a critical component of the nation's defense strategy, something weighing heavily on all of our minds lately. Last year, Congress enacted the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998, which authorized the Coast Guard through Fiscal Year 1999. The bill I am introducing today reauthorizes the Coast Guard for the next two years--Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001. It authorizes both appropriations and personnel levels for these two years. It also contains various provisions that are designed to provide greater flexibility to the Coast Guard on personnel administration; strengthen marine safety provisions; includes sufficient funding to allow for a 4.4 percent pay raise; and other provisions. One provision that deserves particular mention relates to icebreaking services. The President's FY 2000 budget request includes a proposal to decomission 11 WYTL-class harbor tugs. These tugs provide vital icebreaking services throughout the northern states, including my home state of Maine. While I understand that the age of this vessel class may require some action by the agency, I feel it would be premature to decommission these vessels before the Coast Guard has identified a means to rectify any potentially harmful degradation of services. The Coast Guard has identified seven waterways within Maine that would suffer a meaningful degradation of service should these tugs be brought offline now. These waterways provide necessary transport routes for oil tankers, commercial fishing vessels, and cargo ships. The costs would be excessive to the local communities should that means of transport be cut off. As such, the bill I am introducing today includes a measure that would require the Coast Guard to submit a report to Congress before removing these tugs from service that will include an analysis of the use of this class of harbor tugs to perform icebreaking services; the degree to which the decommissioning of each such vessel would result in a degradation of current services; and recommendations to remediate such degradation. As part of its law enforcement mission in 1998, the Coast Guard seized 75 vessels transporting more than 100,000 pounds of illegal narcotics headed for our shores. This bill provides funding to maintain many of the new drug interdiction initiatives of the past few years. The Coast Guard has proven time and again its ability to stem the tide of drugs entering our nation through water routes. Finally, the Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for preventing and responding to major pollution incidents in the coastal zone. It responds to more than 17,000 pollution incidents in the average year. This bill includes a provision that provides the Coast Guard with emergency borrowing authority from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The measure would enhance the Coast Guard's ability to effectively respond to major oil spills. Mr. President, this is a good bill that enjoys bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. I look forward to moving this bill to the Senate floor 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, today I am pleased to introduce the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1999. The Coast Guard provides many critical services for our nation. Dedicated Coast Guard personnel save an average of more than 5,000 lives, $2.5 billion in property, and assist more than 100,000 other mariners in distress. Through boater safety programs and maintenance of an extensive network of aids to navigation, the Coast Guard protects thousands of additional people engaged in coastwise trade, commercial fishing activities, or simply enjoying a day of recreation out on our bays, oceans, and waterways. The Coast Guard enforces all federal laws and treaties related to the high seas and U.S. waters. This includes marine resource protection and pollution control. As one of the five armed forces, it provides a critical component of the nation's defense strategy, something weighing heavily on all of our minds lately. Last year, Congress enacted the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998, which authorized the Coast Guard through Fiscal Year 1999. The bill I am introducing today reauthorizes the Coast Guard for the next two years--Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001. It authorizes both appropriations and personnel levels for these two years. It also contains various provisions that are designed to provide greater flexibility to the Coast Guard on personnel administration; strengthen marine safety provisions; includes sufficient funding to allow for a 4.4 percent pay raise; and other provisions. One provision that deserves particular mention relates to icebreaking services. The President's FY 2000 budget request includes a proposal to decomission 11 WYTL-class harbor tugs. These tugs provide vital icebreaking services throughout the northern states, including my home state of Maine. While I understand that the age of this vessel class may require some action by the agency, I feel it would be premature to decommission these vessels before the Coast Guard has identified a means to rectify any potentially harmful degradation of services. The Coast Guard has identified seven waterways within Maine that would suffer a meaningful degradation of service should these tugs be brought offline now. These waterways provide necessary transport routes for oil tankers, commercial fishing vessels, and cargo ships. The costs would be excessive to the local communities should that means of transport be cut off. As such, the bill I am introducing today includes a measure that would require the Coast Guard to submit a report to Congress before removing these tugs from service that will include an analysis of the use of this class of harbor tugs to perform icebreaking services; the degree to which the decommissioning of each such vessel would result in a degradation of current services; and recommendations to remediate such degradation. As part of its law enforcement mission in 1998, the Coast Guard seized 75 vessels transporting more than 100,000 pounds of illegal narcotics headed for our shores. This bill provides funding to maintain many of the new drug interdiction initiatives of the past few years. The Coast Guard has proven time and again its ability to stem the tide of drugs entering our nation through water routes. Finally, the Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for preventing and responding to major pollution incidents in the coastal zone. It responds to more than 17,000 pollution incidents in the average year. This bill includes a provision that provides the Coast Guard with emergency borrowing authority from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The measure would enhance the Coast Guard's ability to effectively respond to major oil spills. Mr. President, this is a good bill that enjoys bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. I look forward to moving this bill to the Senate floor 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 regarding the conference report language in the supplemental bill regarding the transfer of emergency Community Development Block Grant funding from HUD to FEMA. January 1998 will long be remembered in the State of Maine because of the extraordinary and historic Ice Storm that crippled the State. The combination of heavy rains and freezing temperatures left much of the State under a thick coat of ice which downed wires, toppled transformers and snapped utility poles in two. At the peak of the storm more than 80 percent of the entire State was literally in the dark. Vice President Gore best summed up the situation during his visit on January 15, 1998, when he said, ``We've never seen anything like this. This is like a neutron bomb aimed at the power system.'' The response from the federal government to our plight was for the most part remarkable. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Small Business Administration, and the Department of Defense all answered Maine's call for immediate help. In addition, utility workers from up and down the East Coast came to work in freezing temperatures and hazardous situations to kill live wires and free remaining wires from downed trees and poles. These men and women worked side by side with Maine's utility companies around the clock until the lights were back on in every house in the State. I am here today, however, because while the storm brought out the best in people across the State and in many federal agencies, we still have not received the assistance we need from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In fact the lack of help from HUD has surpassed the storm in many people's minds as the truly extraordinary event. To understand fully, one has to know the history. The Stafford Act which provides FEMA's guidelines for assistance covers public power companies. It will reimburse 75 percent of the costs related to a disaster. Because Maine and much of the Northeast have utilities that are investor-owned rather than government-owned, we were ineligible to receive assistance from FEMA for this purpose, despite the fact that, FEMA's own Ice Storm ``Blueprint for Action'' noted that the greatest unmet need from the storm is the cost of utility infrastructure. The ``Blueprint'' also noted that ``(The) HUD Community Development Block Grant Program can supplement other federal assistance in repairing and reconstructing infrastructure, including privately-owned utilities . . .'' Utility reimbursement is of great concern to Maine as it was not only the largest unmet need from the Ice Storm, but ratepayers in our State already pay the fourth highest utility costs in the country. Without some federal help, ratepayers would have been called on to cover utility infrastructure repair costs through increased rates. So the Maine Congressional Delegation joined with the delegations from Vermont, New Hampshire and New York to obtain funding in the 1998 Supplemental Appropriations Act to provide money for the CDBG program to help our States complete their recovery from the Ice Storm. Working with Senator Bond, Chairman of the VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Mikulski the Ranking Member; and Appropriations Chairman Stevens, we secured $260 million in the Senate's 1998 Supplemental. When the Senate considered this legislation, members from the Northeast spoke of the need for, and reasons behind, this additional funding and in a colloquy between Senators Bond and D'Amato, it was noted that $60 million of this funding was meant specifically for the Northeast to help with the recovery costs from the Ice Storm. During the subsequent conference, that amount was dropped to $130 million, as the House version of the bill only contained $20 million for this purpose. The Supplemental was signed into law on May 1, 1998. On November 6, 1998, 11 months after the disaster and six months after the bill had been signed into law, HUD announced that it was allocating approximately half of the $130 million, including $2.2 million for Maine. With an unmet need of more than $70 million, this funding was simply unacceptable and made all the more so because HUD would not or could not explain the rationale behind the numbers. Phone calls were made, meetings were held, letters were sent and still we received no explanation. In the 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill adopted by Congress at the end of the 105th Congress, $250 million was provided for emergency CDBG money to cover disasters occurring in both FY98 and FY99. Secretary Cuomo told me in a phone conversation on March 2, 1999 that he would use some of this money to allow States dissatisfied with their original allocation to reapply. This discussion occurred a few days before the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up the 1999 Supplemental that included language to transfer the remaining CDBG emergency funding from HUD to FEMA because, according to the Senate Appropriations Committee report, The Committee is concerned over HUD's continuing failure to implement an effective emergency disaster relief program for the ``unmet needs'' of states with Presidentially-declared natural disasters. Instead, the Committee believes that FEMA is the appropriate Federal agency for addressing these unmet disaster needs since FEMA has primary responsibility for assessing and responding to all natural disasters and for administering most primary programs of disaster assistance. In particular, FEMA is urged to review and respond appropriately to the needs of the Northeast for damage resulting from the ice storms of last winter. HUD failed to respond properly to these needs despite congressional concern over the ice damage. On March 5, 1999 I spoke again with Secretary Cuomo when he called to express his concern that he could not publish the notice as OMB said that the Senate Appropriations Committee's actions on March 4 to transfer the money from HUD to FEMA prevented him from doing so. After conversations with OMB, I sent a letter to the Secretary detailing OMB'S response that it was permissible to publish the notice as long as funding was not allocated. On March 10, the Federal Register (p. 11943 to p. 11945) contained a notice from HUD that provided a review for states unhappy with their original funding allocation. Maine began work at once on an application for this funding. On March 23, we learned that HUD had allocated the rest of the money from the 1998 supplemental and that Maine was slated to receive another $2.158 million. HUD took this action despite the fact that they had been informed by the VA/HUD Subcommittee Chair and Ranking member, Senators Bond and Mikulski respectively, that they ``wait for final action by the Congress on the program structure for the award of emergency funding for ``unmet'' disaster needs'' and that ``because of a number of outstanding program issues, we believe that HUD should ``hold'' all final award allocations pending final congressional action on S. 544.'' So HUD's allocation announcement was somewhat confusing as they did not have the authority to release the money. I request unanimous consent that a copy of the HUD notice be included in the Record. Secretary Cuomo told me on March 24 that the State should get their application in response to the March 10 Federal Register in as soon as possible, and the State delivered it to HUD on March 25. On May 4, as conferees were working on the Supplemental, I received a letter from Cardell Cooper, Assistant HUD Secretary for Community Planning and Development, announcing that Maine would receive an additional $17,088,475 based on the State's March 25 application under the March 10 Federal Register notice. This letter also noted that Maine's money was subject to Congressional action. Mr. President, mere words cannot explain the frustration that Mainers have experienced with HUD throughout this process. I am deeply grateful for the leadership that Senator Bond, Senator Mikulski, Chairman Stevens and the entire Senate Appropriations Committee have demonstrated in their willingness to work with us and to help us address Maine's unmet needs. The conference report language on this bill states that: The Department is directed to award the remaining funds in accordance with announcements made heretofore by the Secretary, including allocations made pursuant to the March 10, 1999 notice published in the Federal Register, as expeditiously as possible. This language directs HUD to live up to its March and May promises of funding for Maine to help pay for the unmet needs of the Ice Storm. Mr President, with passage of the Supplemental, Maine's fifteen month journey for equity will hopefully end. We can now complete the recovery that began in January, 1998 and has dragged on far too long.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Admiral Bud Nance, chief of staff of the Foreign Relations Committee, who passed away last week after many years of devoted service to the country he loved. As a former member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and someone who had the privilege of knowing and working with Bud, I can honestly say I have not met a finer person. A man deeply devoted to the ideals for which this country stands, he conducted himself with honor and integrity in all that he did. And he had an uncommon humility and kindness that will be remembered by all those fortunate to have met him. With 41 years in the Navy, service under both the Nixon and Reagan Administrations, and a direct role in SALT II talks, Bud had already achieved a lifetime of accomplishments even before he was urged by his longtime friend, Senator Helms, to assume the role of chief of staff at the Foreign Relations Committee. As with everything else he did, Bud flourished in that position, bringing his invaluable years of experience and knowledge to the Senate. He was a sure and steady hand at the helm of the Committee, and his remarkable spirit has left an indelible mark on all of us. Theodore Roosevelt once said that ``the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena--whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood . . . a leader who knows the great enthusiams, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause . . .'' Admiral Bud Nance was just such a man, and today our thoughts are with his wife, Mary, and Bud's entire family as they mourn the passing of their beloved husband, father, and grandfather. We are also thinking of Senator Helms at this saddest of times, as he grieves for the loss of one of his oldest and dearest friends. Again, I want express my profound sadness on the loss of this great American, who was a patriot in life and whose legacy will never be forgotten by a grateful nation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, in introducing the Investment in Women's Health Act. Today we celebrate the 116th birthday of Dr. George Papanicolaou, the physician who developed the Pap smear. In the 50 years since Dr. Papanicolaou first began using this test, the cervical cancer mortality rate has declined by an astonishing 70 percent. There is no question that this test is the most effective cancer screening tool yet developed. The Pap smear can detect abnormalities before they develop into cancer. Having an annual Pap smear is one of the most important things a woman can do to help prevent cervical cancer. Congress has recognized the incomparable contribution of the Pap smear in preventing cervical cancer and nine years ago directed Medicare to begin covering preventive Pap smears. Medicare beneficiaries are eligible for one test every three years, although a more frequent interval is allowed for women at high risk of developing cervical cancer. And through the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress expanded the Pap smear benefit to also include a screening pelvic exam once every 3 years. But the Medicare reimbursement rate is artificially low and does not accurately reflect the true cost of providing this vital test. The current Medicare rate of reimbursement is $7.15, though the mean national cost of the test is twice that amount: $14.60 per test. The bill we introduce today, The Investment in Women's Health Act, will raise the Medicare reimbursement rate for Pap smears to at least $14.60 per test. Women understand the usefulness and life-saving benefit of the Pap smear. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported last year that 95 percent of women age 18 years old and over have received a Pap smear at some point in their lives. And 85 percent of women age 18 years and older across the country have received a Pap smear within the last 3 years. Unfortunately, the artificially low reimbursement rate threatens both our country's local clinical laboratories and the health of women across the country. Pathologists are increasingly concerned that low Medicare reimbursement for Pap smears will force them to stop providing the service and to ship the slides to large out-of-state laboratories. Shipping the slides to non-local, large-scale laboratories--``Pap mills''--reduces quality control, brings up continuity of care issues, and puts women at risk of higher rates of ``false positives'' or ``false negatives.'' Providing Pap smears locally facilitates the likelihood of follow-up by a pathologist, comparison of a patient's Pap smear to cervical biopsy, and facilitates better communication and consultation between the patient's pathologist and attending physician or clinician. When Pap smears are shipped out of the local community these vital comparisons are much more difficult to complete and are more prone to inconsistencies and error. Inadequate reimbursement for Pap smears provided through Medicare threatens not only a woman's health but the financial stability of the laboratory as well. If a lab is forced to continue to subsidize Medicare Pap smears they will eventually either stop providing the Medicare service or go out of business--and neither option is acceptable. Finally, local laboratories have a proven track record of providing better service for the patients. A Pap smear is less likely to get lost in a local lab than among the tens of thousands of other tests in a ``Pap mill'' and cytotechnicians have better supervision by a pathologist in smaller laboratories than in large volume operations. The Pap test has contributed immeasurably to the fight against cervical cancer. We cannot risk erasing our advancements in this fight because of low Medicare reimbursement. I urge my colleagues to join us.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, in introducing the Investment in Women's Health Act. Today we celebrate the 116th birthday of Dr. George Papanicolaou, the physician who developed the Pap smear. In the 50 years since Dr. Papanicolaou first began using this test, the cervical cancer mortality rate has declined by an astonishing 70 percent. There is no question that this test is the most effective cancer screening tool yet developed. The Pap smear can detect abnormalities before they develop into cancer. Having an annual Pap smear is one of the most important things a woman can do to help prevent cervical cancer. Congress has recognized the incomparable contribution of the Pap smear in preventing cervical cancer and nine years ago directed Medicare to begin covering preventive Pap smears. Medicare beneficiaries are eligible for one test every three years, although a more frequent interval is allowed for women at high risk of developing cervical cancer. And through the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress expanded the Pap smear benefit to also include a screening pelvic exam once every 3 years. But the Medicare reimbursement rate is artificially low and does not accurately reflect the true cost of providing this vital test. The current Medicare rate of reimbursement is $7.15, though the mean national cost of the test is twice that amount: $14.60 per test. The bill we introduce today, The Investment in Women's Health Act, will raise the Medicare reimbursement rate for Pap smears to at least $14.60 per test. Women understand the usefulness and life-saving benefit of the Pap smear. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported last year that 95 percent of women age 18 years old and over have received a Pap smear at some point in their lives. And 85 percent of women age 18 years and older across the country have received a Pap smear within the last 3 years. Unfortunately, the artificially low reimbursement rate threatens both our country's local clinical laboratories and the health of women across the country. Pathologists are increasingly concerned that low Medicare reimbursement for Pap smears will force them to stop providing the service and to ship the slides to large out-of-state laboratories. Shipping the slides to non-local, large-scale laboratories--``Pap mills''--reduces quality control, brings up continuity of care issues, and puts women at risk of higher rates of ``false positives'' or ``false negatives.'' Providing Pap smears locally facilitates the likelihood of follow-up by a pathologist, comparison of a patient's Pap smear to cervical biopsy, and facilitates better communication and consultation between the patient's pathologist and attending physician or clinician. When Pap smears are shipped out of the local community these vital comparisons are much more difficult to complete and are more prone to inconsistencies and error. Inadequate reimbursement for Pap smears provided through Medicare threatens not only a woman's health but the financial stability of the laboratory as well. If a lab is forced to continue to subsidize Medicare Pap smears they will eventually either stop providing the Medicare service or go out of business--and neither option is acceptable. Finally, local laboratories have a proven track record of providing better service for the patients. A Pap smear is less likely to get lost in a local lab than among the tens of thousands of other tests in a ``Pap mill'' and cytotechnicians have better supervision by a pathologist in smaller laboratories than in large volume operations. The Pap test has contributed immeasurably to the fight against cervical cancer. We cannot risk erasing our advancements in this fight because of low Medicare reimbursement. I urge my colleagues to join us.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Hatch-Craig amendment to S. 254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act. This amendment provides four important components in the efforts of combating juvenile violence and crime. I also want to thank the Majority Leader, Senator Lott, Senators Hatch, Craig and McCain for listening to my concerns and working with me to ensure the National Instant Check System applies to all sales made at gun shows. This amendment provides for more aggressive prosecution of criminals who use guns to commit crime, enhances penalties on criminals who use guns, increases protection of children from gun violence. Most importantly, this amendment mandates that individuals purchasing weapons at gun shows must undergo a background check through the National Instant Check System. This is the same requirement currently in place for purchases made at gun shows, when buying a weapon from a licenced gun dealer. Mr. President, gun shows are community events, usually held over a weekend at State Fairgrounds, convention centers, or exhibit halls. These shows have been going on for years and attract a wide cross section of gun owners. At the shows, people not only buy, sell, or trade firearms, they also exchange tips on hunting, gunsmithing, and firearm history. By implementing an instant check system at gun shows, law abiding gun buyers can receive their background check within minutes and be able to obtain the firearm they wish to add to their collection. On the other hand, criminals and other people who are not allowed to possess firearms can be identified and arrested for trying to purchase a weapon, in violation of the law. Mr. President, this amendment, of which I am a co-sponsor, provides a good balance between allowing law-abiding citizens to purchase weapons at gun shows without burdensome regulations and preventing criminals from obtaining weapons from individuals at gun shows.