Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening and Intervention Act of 1999. This bill is a companion bill to H.R. 1193, introduced in the House by Representative Jim Walsh. I am pleased to be joined again this year by my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who has long been a champion of the hearing impaired, and my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Frist. We usually associate hearing problems with the aging process, and it is true that the largest group of Americans suffering from hearing impairment are those in the 65 to 75 year age range. But at the same time, approximately 1.5 to 3 out of every 1000 children--or as many as 33 children per day--are born with significant hearing problems. According to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, as many as 12,000 infants are born each year in the United States with some form of hearing impairment. In recent years, scientists have stressed that the first years of a child's life are crucial to their future development. This makes early detection and intervention of hearing loss a necessity if we are to ensure that all our children get the strong start they deserve. Specialists in speech and language development believe that the crucial period of speech and communication in a child's life can begin as early as six months of age. Unfortunately, though the average age of diagnosis of hearing loss is close to three years of age. The ability to hear is a major element of one's ability to read and communicate. To the extent that we can help infants and young children overcome disabilities detected early in life, we will improve their ability to function in society, receive an education, obtain meaningful employment, and enjoy a better quality of life. Without early diagnosis and intervention, these children are behind the learning curve-- literally--before they have even started. They should not be denied a strong start in life simply for the lack of a simple screening test. There are many causes of hearing loss, and in many states a newborn child is screened only if the physician is aware of some factor that puts that baby in a risk category. The good news is that over 550 hospitals in 46 states operate universal newborn hearing screening programs. Nine states--Hawaii, Rhode Island, Mississippi, Connecticut, Colorado, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Massachusetts--have passed legislation requiring universal newborn hearing screening. Hawaii, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Utah, and Wyoming have statewide early hearing detection and intervention programs. And scientists across the country are developing and implementing model rural-based infant hearing, screening, follow-up, and intervention programs for children at risk for hearing and language disabilities. The bad news is that, unfortunately, only about 20 percent of the babies in this country are born in hospitals with universal newborn hearing screening programs, and more than 85 percent of all hospitals do not do a hearing screening before sending the baby home. Universal screening is not a new idea. As early as 1965, the Advisory Committee on Education of the Deaf, in a report of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, recommended the development and nationwide implementation of ``universally applied procedures for early identification.'' In 1989, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop used the year 2000 as a goal for identifying 90 percent of children with significant hearing loss before they are one year old. In 1997, an expert panel at the National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders recommended that the first hearing screening be carried out before an infant is three months old in order to ensure that treatment can begin before six months of age. The Panel also recommended that the most comprehensive and effective way of ensuring screening before an infant is six months old is to have newborns screened before they sent home from the hospital. But a 1998 report by the Commission on Education of the Deaf estimated that the average age at which a child with congenital hearing loss was identified in the United States was a 2\1/2\ to 3 years old, with many children not being identified until five or six years old. It is time to move beyond the recommendations and achieve the goal of universal screening. In addition to the nine states that require screening, the Bureau of Maternal and Child Health, in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control, is helping 17 states commit to achieving universal hearing screening by the year 2000. This plan will lead to the screening of more than one million newborns a year, but it still leaves more than half the states without universal screening programs. The purpose of the bill I am introducing today is to provide the additional assistance necessary to help all the states in implementing programs to ensure that all our newborns are tested and to ensure that those identified with a hearing impairment get help. Specifically, the bill: (1) Authorizes $5 million in FY 2000 and $8 million in FY 2001 for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to work with the states to develop early detection, diagnosis and intervention networks for the purpose of developing models to ensure testing and to collect data; (2) Authorizes $5 million in FY 2000 and $7 million in FY 2001 for the Centers for Disease Control to provide technical assistance to State agencies and to conduct applied research related to infant hearing detection, diagnosis and treatment/intervention; and (3) Authorizes the National Institutes of Health to carry out research on the efficacy of new screening techniques and technology. A baby born today will be part of this country's future in the 21st century. Surely we owe it to that child to give them a strong start on that future by ensuring that if they do have a hearing impairment it is diagnosed and treatment started well before their first year of life is completed. I urge my colleagues to join me, Senator Harkin, and Senator Frist in supporting the Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening and Intervention Act of 1999.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening and Intervention Act of 1999. This bill is a companion bill to H.R. 1193, introduced in the House by Representative Jim Walsh. I am pleased to be joined again this year by my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who has long been a champion of the hearing impaired, and my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Frist. We usually associate hearing problems with the aging process, and it is true that the largest group of Americans suffering from hearing impairment are those in the 65 to 75 year age range. But at the same time, approximately 1.5 to 3 out of every 1000 children--or as many as 33 children per day--are born with significant hearing problems. According to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, as many as 12,000 infants are born each year in the United States with some form of hearing impairment. In recent years, scientists have stressed that the first years of a child's life are crucial to their future development. This makes early detection and intervention of hearing loss a necessity if we are to ensure that all our children get the strong start they deserve. Specialists in speech and language development believe that the crucial period of speech and communication in a child's life can begin as early as six months of age. Unfortunately, though the average age of diagnosis of hearing loss is close to three years of age. The ability to hear is a major element of one's ability to read and communicate. To the extent that we can help infants and young children overcome disabilities detected early in life, we will improve their ability to function in society, receive an education, obtain meaningful employment, and enjoy a better quality of life. Without early diagnosis and intervention, these children are behind the learning curve-- literally--before they have even started. They should not be denied a strong start in life simply for the lack of a simple screening test. There are many causes of hearing loss, and in many states a newborn child is screened only if the physician is aware of some factor that puts that baby in a risk category. The good news is that over 550 hospitals in 46 states operate universal newborn hearing screening programs. Nine states--Hawaii, Rhode Island, Mississippi, Connecticut, Colorado, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Massachusetts--have passed legislation requiring universal newborn hearing screening. Hawaii, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Utah, and Wyoming have statewide early hearing detection and intervention programs. And scientists across the country are developing and implementing model rural-based infant hearing, screening, follow-up, and intervention programs for children at risk for hearing and language disabilities. The bad news is that, unfortunately, only about 20 percent of the babies in this country are born in hospitals with universal newborn hearing screening programs, and more than 85 percent of all hospitals do not do a hearing screening before sending the baby home. Universal screening is not a new idea. As early as 1965, the Advisory Committee on Education of the Deaf, in a report of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, recommended the development and nationwide implementation of ``universally applied procedures for early identification.'' In 1989, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop used the year 2000 as a goal for identifying 90 percent of children with significant hearing loss before they are one year old. In 1997, an expert panel at the National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders recommended that the first hearing screening be carried out before an infant is three months old in order to ensure that treatment can begin before six months of age. The Panel also recommended that the most comprehensive and effective way of ensuring screening before an infant is six months old is to have newborns screened before they sent home from the hospital. But a 1998 report by the Commission on Education of the Deaf estimated that the average age at which a child with congenital hearing loss was identified in the United States was a 2\1/2\ to 3 years old, with many children not being identified until five or six years old. It is time to move beyond the recommendations and achieve the goal of universal screening. In addition to the nine states that require screening, the Bureau of Maternal and Child Health, in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control, is helping 17 states commit to achieving universal hearing screening by the year 2000. This plan will lead to the screening of more than one million newborns a year, but it still leaves more than half the states without universal screening programs. The purpose of the bill I am introducing today is to provide the additional assistance necessary to help all the states in implementing programs to ensure that all our newborns are tested and to ensure that those identified with a hearing impairment get help. Specifically, the bill: (1) Authorizes $5 million in FY 2000 and $8 million in FY 2001 for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to work with the states to develop early detection, diagnosis and intervention networks for the purpose of developing models to ensure testing and to collect data; (2) Authorizes $5 million in FY 2000 and $7 million in FY 2001 for the Centers for Disease Control to provide technical assistance to State agencies and to conduct applied research related to infant hearing detection, diagnosis and treatment/intervention; and (3) Authorizes the National Institutes of Health to carry out research on the efficacy of new screening techniques and technology. A baby born today will be part of this country's future in the 21st century. Surely we owe it to that child to give them a strong start on that future by ensuring that if they do have a hearing impairment it is diagnosed and treatment started well before their first year of life is completed. I urge my colleagues to join me, Senator Harkin, and Senator Frist in supporting the Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening and Intervention Act of 1999.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Smith-Snowe Combined Sewer Overflow Control and Partnership Act of 1999. If enacted, this bill will eliminate or appropriately control combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges in this country by the year 2010. This legislation will also help ratepayers in at least 53 communities throughout the state of Maine and over 1,000 other communities around the country. Presently, over 43 million people in the U.S. are incurring the high costs of trying to overcome the problem of combined sewer overflows because of the lack of federal statute and funding to meet federal sewage treatment mandates for these CSO communities. Mr. President, CSOs are by far the single largest public works project in the history of almost every CSO community. When the Maine Municipal Association members met with me last month, they informed me of communities where people are facing paying more in sewer rates than they will owe in property taxes. This, to me, is unacceptable. Most, but not all, of the combined sewer systems are located primarily in the Northeast and Great Lakes areas where sewer lines and stormwater collection systems were first constructed in the 1800s and early 1900s. Typically, sewer lines designated to carry raw sewage from urban residential areas and business were laid first. These were followed by stormwater drainage systems designed to collect rainwater during storms to reduce or eliminate urban flooding. In many cases, sewer lines and stormwater conduits were connected into a combined sewer, which served as a single collection system to transport both sewage and stormwater. Eleven states in the two geographic areas of New England and the Great Lakes account for 85 percent of the water-quality problems attributed to CSOs nationwide. Sewer overflow problems arise mainly during wet weather, causing an overload of the systems, and the untreated or partially treated waste water discharges through combined sewer overflow outfalls into receiving waters such as rivers, lakes, estuaries and bays. The CSOs are the last remaining discharges from a point, or known, source of untreated or partially treated sewage into the nation's waters. The federal government has been long on regulation and short on financial assistance. The CSO problem was first addressed when Congress revisited the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, better known as the Clean Water Act, almost three decades ago. The subsequent Clean Water Act Amendments of 1972 established the fundamental principles and objectives of a national wastewater management policy. To implement these goals, a national program was created to regulate the discharge of pollutant into surface waters, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES. This system required outfalls for industrial process waste and sewage from municipal treatment plants. Individual states were allowed to assume responsibility for the administration of NPDES once their permitting processes were approved by the EPA. Maine and 37 other states operate EPA-approved NPDES permitting programs. The law requires that state water-quality standards be consistent with federal policy, but, if necessary to achieve the act's objectives, states are allowed to impose water-quality standards more stringent than those required by federal regulations. Section 10(a)(4) of the CWA Amendments of 1972 explicitly linked the achievement of national water-quality goals to federal financial assistance for municipalities affected by the new mandate by creating the Construction Grants Program (CGP) that provided subsidies for the construction of publicly owned treatment works. In Section 516(b), the EPA was charged with administering the program, and was required to develop biennial estimates of the cost of construction of all needed publicly owned treatment works in each of the States. In the past, federal funds have paid for as much as 75 percent of the construction costs for water treatment and sewage facilities. In recent years, federal contributions have been limited to low interest loans rather than grants, through a revolving loan fund (SRF), and local ratepayers and taxpayers bear the burden of rehabilitating, upgrading and for operating costs. It is clear that more federal funding assistance is needed so that CSO communities can be given policy and financial tools with which to handle their ongoing CSO problem of sewer overflows into our rivers and bays. The Smith-Snowe CSO bill amends the Clean Water Act and addresses the problems faced by such CSO cities and towns, 45 in my state alone. The purpose of the bill is to move forward with technology-based controls that are the most cost effective and to make sure communities do not put in controls that are not actually needed. The bill seeks to codify the Environmental Protection Agency's rational approach to CSO control, its ``CSO Policy of April, 1994''. Codification is necessary since the implementation of EPA's CSO policy has been inadequate to date. The bill also provides congressional approval of the inclusion of realistic water quality standards compliance schedules for CSO control in permits and other enforceable documents issued as called for in the 1994 EPA Control Policy. Initiation of the water quality standards/designated use review and revision process called for in EPA's Control Policy must also occur before requiring long-term CSO control plan implementation. The guidelines that the EPA is currently developing to assist communities for implementing measures for the control of CSOs are only just that, guidelines, and could potentially be changed after a community has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars following them. CSO communities need certainty, not changing guidelines after costly measures have already been taken. The bill also authorizes federal grant funding assistance for CSO communities to implement long term CSO controls. The problem of CSOs has been a long standing issue Mr. President, for which I cosponsored similar legislation in the House in the 102nd Congress. The CSO problem is not going to go away, but only become a bigger financial burden for our CSO communities. I want to thank my colleagues who have agreed to cosponsor the Smith- Snowe CSO bill and urge those not yet cosponsoring to join us in support of this much needed legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation being introduced by my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, the Homeless Assistance Funding Fairness Act. This bill will set a minimum allocation for state homeless funding by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in an effort to prevent future repeats of a situation that Maine faced this year when HUD denied applications for homeless funding from the Maine State Housing Authority and the city of Portland, Maine's largest city. Maine was one of just four states denied funding this year under HUD homeless programs--and that is a situation that no state should have to endure. HUD took steps to partially rectify this situation since the original announcement, but this legislation will assure minimum funding for every state and assure a fairer allocation of funding in the future. The legislation requires HUD to provide a minimum of 0.5 percent of funding to each state under Title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. Mr. President, it may interest my colleagues to learn a little more about the problem that inspired this legislation. In January, HUD issued grant announcements for its Continuum of Care program--which provides rental assistance for those who are or were recently homeless--but denied applications by the Maine State Housing Authority and by the city of Portland, leaving the state one of only four not to receive funds. The Maine congressional delegation immediately protested the decision to HUD Secretary Andrew M. Cuomo, and I wrote and spoke repeatedly with Secretary Cuomo about the decision--to encourage HUD to work with Maine homeless providers to find an acceptable solution. I also contacted the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and asked committee members to examine the issue as well. HUD officials restored about $1 million in funding to the city of Portland, but refused to restore State homeless funding. In 1998, Maine homeless assistance providers received about $3.5 million from the Continuum of Care Program, and this year the State had requested $1.2 million for renewals and $1.27 million to meet additional needs. MSHA, which coordinates the program, estimates that many individuals with mental illness or substance abuse problems who have been receiving rent subsidies will lose those subsidies over the course of the next six months as a result of HUD's failure to fund Maine programs. This in spite of the ``proven track record'' of Maine homeless programs, including praise by Secretary Cuomo during his visit to Maine in August 1998. Without this homeless assistance, basic subsidized housing and shelter programs suffer, and it is more difficult for the State to provide job training, health care, child care, and other vital services to the victims of homelessness, many of whom are children, battered women, and others in serious need. In 1988, 14,653 people were temporarily housed in Maine's emergency homeless shelters. Alarmingly, young people account for 30 percent of the population staying in Maine's shelters, which is approximately 135 homeless young people every night. Twenty-one percent of these young people are between 5\1/2\ with the average age being 13. Meanwhile, Maine earmarks more funding per capita for the elderly, disabled, mentally ill, and poor for services and support programs then the majority of other states, even though it ranks 36th nationwide in per capita income. In closing, I would simply reiterate that Maine was not the only state that was frozen out of the process this year. Without congressional intervention, what state will be next? This makes it all the more important that changes be made to our homeless policy to ensure that no state falls through the cracks. As such, I urge my colleagues to join Senator Collins and myself in a strong show of support for this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation being introduced by my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, the Homeless Assistance Funding Fairness Act. This bill will set a minimum allocation for state homeless funding by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in an effort to prevent future repeats of a situation that Maine faced this year when HUD denied applications for homeless funding from the Maine State Housing Authority and the city of Portland, Maine's largest city. Maine was one of just four states denied funding this year under HUD homeless programs--and that is a situation that no state should have to endure. HUD took steps to partially rectify this situation since the original announcement, but this legislation will assure minimum funding for every state and assure a fairer allocation of funding in the future. The legislation requires HUD to provide a minimum of 0.5 percent of funding to each state under Title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. Mr. President, it may interest my colleagues to learn a little more about the problem that inspired this legislation. In January, HUD issued grant announcements for its Continuum of Care program--which provides rental assistance for those who are or were recently homeless--but denied applications by the Maine State Housing Authority and by the city of Portland, leaving the state one of only four not to receive funds. The Maine congressional delegation immediately protested the decision to HUD Secretary Andrew M. Cuomo, and I wrote and spoke repeatedly with Secretary Cuomo about the decision--to encourage HUD to work with Maine homeless providers to find an acceptable solution. I also contacted the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and asked committee members to examine the issue as well. HUD officials restored about $1 million in funding to the city of Portland, but refused to restore State homeless funding. In 1998, Maine homeless assistance providers received about $3.5 million from the Continuum of Care Program, and this year the State had requested $1.2 million for renewals and $1.27 million to meet additional needs. MSHA, which coordinates the program, estimates that many individuals with mental illness or substance abuse problems who have been receiving rent subsidies will lose those subsidies over the course of the next six months as a result of HUD's failure to fund Maine programs. This in spite of the ``proven track record'' of Maine homeless programs, including praise by Secretary Cuomo during his visit to Maine in August 1998. Without this homeless assistance, basic subsidized housing and shelter programs suffer, and it is more difficult for the State to provide job training, health care, child care, and other vital services to the victims of homelessness, many of whom are children, battered women, and others in serious need. In 1988, 14,653 people were temporarily housed in Maine's emergency homeless shelters. Alarmingly, young people account for 30 percent of the population staying in Maine's shelters, which is approximately 135 homeless young people every night. Twenty-one percent of these young people are between 5\1/2\ with the average age being 13. Meanwhile, Maine earmarks more funding per capita for the elderly, disabled, mentally ill, and poor for services and support programs then the majority of other states, even though it ranks 36th nationwide in per capita income. In closing, I would simply reiterate that Maine was not the only state that was frozen out of the process this year. Without congressional intervention, what state will be next? This makes it all the more important that changes be made to our homeless policy to ensure that no state falls through the cracks. As such, I urge my colleagues to join Senator Collins and myself in a strong show of support for this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Senate Joint Resolution not only in support of the reauthorization and modifications for the very successful Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, but also to grant the consent of Congress for the formation of the Southern Dairy Compact. This issue is really a state rights issue more than anything else, Mr. President. Quite simply, it addresses the needs of states in two different areas of the country, one in the North and one in the South, who wish to work together within their regions for two different and totally independent dairy compacts--in the Northeast to continue and modify their current Compact, and in the Southeast where 10 states wish to work closely together--to form a compact for determining fair prices for locally produced supplies of fresh milk. As recently as last September, the Congress sanctioned another interstate compact, one that allows states to set regional prices for a commodity. In passing the Texas Compact for the storage of low-level radioactive waste, the states of Texas, Maine and Vermont were given permission to jointly manage and dispose of their low level waste--and are free to set any price they wish for the disposal of the waste. Congress has now approved ten such compacts involving 45 states. All we are doing here is continuing another states rights activity-- dairy compacting, an idea whose time has now come throughout different regions of the country. Currently, New Jersey and Maryland have passed Dairy Compact legislation seeking to join the Northeast Compact. In addition. Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio have expressed interest in joining. A state may join the Compact if they are contiguous to a participating state and Congress approves its entry, and we are asking for Congressional approval to extend this right also to New York, New Jersey, and Maryland. The Northeast Dairy Compact currently encompasses all New England states and builds on the existing Federal milk marketing order program for Class I, or fluid, milk, and only applies to fluid milk sold on grocery store shelves. As you may know, a federal milk marketing order is a regulation that already sets a minimum milk price in different areas around the country, of which the Northeast region is one, and is voluntarily initiated and approved by a majority of producers in each milk marketing order area, which places requirements on the first buyers or handlers of milk from dairy farmers. Currently, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact allows the New England milk marketing order region to add a small increment to the Federal order price for that region, which is the floor price, so 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 farms and to protect a way of life important to the people of the Northeast. Mr. President, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has provided the very safety net that we had 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 a 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 U.S. markets dropped at least 20 cents a gallon while consumer prices remained constant, the payments to Northeast Interstate Compact dairy farmers remained above the federal milk marketing prices for Class I 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 processors of the Compact region. Also, in considering what has happened to the number of dairy farms staying in business since the formation of the Dairy Compact, it is now known that throughout New England, there has been a decline in the loss of dairy farmers since the Compact started. This is a clear demonstration that, with the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, the dairy producers were provided a safety net--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. 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 a bit disingenuous. 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. No other region should feel threatened by our Northeast Dairy Compact for fluid milk produced and sold mainly at home. It should be noted that, in the farm bill conference in 1996, the U.S. 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. On August 9, 1996, and only after a public comment period, Secretary Glickman authorized the implementation of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, finding that it was indeed in the compelling public interest to do so. In addition, the Agriculture Appropriations Act for FY1998 directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to study the economic effects of the Compact and especially its effects on the federal food and nutrition programs, such as the Womens, Infants and Children program. Key findings of the OMB study released in February of 1998, showed that, for the first six months of the Compact, New England retail milk prices were five cents per gallon lower than retail milk prices nationally. Also, the Compact did not add any costs to federal nutrition programs like the WIC program and the school breakfast and lunch programs. The GAO study also stated that the Compact economically benefitted the dairy producers, increasing their income from milk sales by about six percent, with no adverse affects to dairy farmers outside the Compact region. Mr. President, the consumers in the Northeast Compact area, and now other areas around the country, are showing their willingness to pay more for their milk if the additional money is going directly to the dairy farmer. Environmental organizations have also supported dairy compacting as compacts help to preserve dwindling agricultural land and open spaces that help combat urban sprawl. I ask for the support of my colleagues for the reauthorization of the Northeast Compact and the ratification of the Southern Compact.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Senate Joint Resolution not only in support of the reauthorization and modifications for the very successful Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, but also to grant the consent of Congress for the formation of the Southern Dairy Compact. This issue is really a state rights issue more than anything else, Mr. President. Quite simply, it addresses the needs of states in two different areas of the country, one in the North and one in the South, who wish to work together within their regions for two different and totally independent dairy compacts--in the Northeast to continue and modify their current Compact, and in the Southeast where 10 states wish to work closely together--to form a compact for determining fair prices for locally produced supplies of fresh milk. As recently as last September, the Congress sanctioned another interstate compact, one that allows states to set regional prices for a commodity. In passing the Texas Compact for the storage of low-level radioactive waste, the states of Texas, Maine and Vermont were given permission to jointly manage and dispose of their low level waste--and are free to set any price they wish for the disposal of the waste. Congress has now approved ten such compacts involving 45 states. All we are doing here is continuing another states rights activity-- dairy compacting, an idea whose time has now come throughout different regions of the country. Currently, New Jersey and Maryland have passed Dairy Compact legislation seeking to join the Northeast Compact. In addition. Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio have expressed interest in joining. A state may join the Compact if they are contiguous to a participating state and Congress approves its entry, and we are asking for Congressional approval to extend this right also to New York, New Jersey, and Maryland. The Northeast Dairy Compact currently encompasses all New England states and builds on the existing Federal milk marketing order program for Class I, or fluid, milk, and only applies to fluid milk sold on grocery store shelves. As you may know, a federal milk marketing order is a regulation that already sets a minimum milk price in different areas around the country, of which the Northeast region is one, and is voluntarily initiated and approved by a majority of producers in each milk marketing order area, which places requirements on the first buyers or handlers of milk from dairy farmers. Currently, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact allows the New England milk marketing order region to add a small increment to the Federal order price for that region, which is the floor price, so 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 farms and to protect a way of life important to the people of the Northeast. Mr. President, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has provided the very safety net that we had 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 a 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 U.S. markets dropped at least 20 cents a gallon while consumer prices remained constant, the payments to Northeast Interstate Compact dairy farmers remained above the federal milk marketing prices for Class I 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 processors of the Compact region. Also, in considering what has happened to the number of dairy farms staying in business since the formation of the Dairy Compact, it is now known that throughout New England, there has been a decline in the loss of dairy farmers since the Compact started. This is a clear demonstration that, with the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, the dairy producers were provided a safety net--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. 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 a bit disingenuous. 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. No other region should feel threatened by our Northeast Dairy Compact for fluid milk produced and sold mainly at home. It should be noted that, in the farm bill conference in 1996, the U.S. 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. On August 9, 1996, and only after a public comment period, Secretary Glickman authorized the implementation of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, finding that it was indeed in the compelling public interest to do so. In addition, the Agriculture Appropriations Act for FY1998 directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to study the economic effects of the Compact and especially its effects on the federal food and nutrition programs, such as the Womens, Infants and Children program. Key findings of the OMB study released in February of 1998, showed that, for the first six months of the Compact, New England retail milk prices were five cents per gallon lower than retail milk prices nationally. Also, the Compact did not add any costs to federal nutrition programs like the WIC program and the school breakfast and lunch programs. The GAO study also stated that the Compact economically benefitted the dairy producers, increasing their income from milk sales by about six percent, with no adverse affects to dairy farmers outside the Compact region. Mr. President, the consumers in the Northeast Compact area, and now other areas around the country, are showing their willingness to pay more for their milk if the additional money is going directly to the dairy farmer. Environmental organizations have also supported dairy compacting as compacts help to preserve dwindling agricultural land and open spaces that help combat urban sprawl. I ask for the support of my colleagues for the reauthorization of the Northeast Compact and the ratification of the Southern Compact.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President I rise today to submit a resolution to raise national awareness of Alpha 1-antitrypsin definiency. I am so pleased to be joined by 15 of my colleagues. Our resolution officially declares May 1999 as ``National Alpha 1 Awareness Month.'' Alpha-1 is a genetic condition that can cause severe early onset emphysema, liver disease in both children and adults, or more rarely, a skin condition called panniculitis. In infants, Alpha-1 causes neonatal cirrhosis of the liver, which is sometimes fatal. In adults, Alpha-1 can lead to pulmonary emphysema and or cirrhosis of the liver. This disease normally strikes young adults in their 30s and 40s. Alpha-1 was first identified in 1963 and is the most common lethal single gene defect in the United States. It is as common as cystic fibrosis but it is neither well known, nor well understood by many physicians, and is virtually unknown to the American public. An estimated 5,000 people have been diagnosed with Alpha 1- antitrypsin deficiency in the United States and statistical estimates indicate that there should be 80,000 to 100,000 people total in this country. In fact, one in 37 people are Alpha-1 carriers of this genetic defect. A simple blood test can detect Alpha-1 antitrypsin levels and let people know if they are carriers or have this genetic defect. In fact, in 1998, the Maine chapter of the Alpha-1 National Association Support Group screened 105 people for the genetic defect and found 15 carriers. Alpha-one antitrypsin deficiency can be a devastating disease. Symptoms of Alpha-1 are similar to those of other respiratory diseases, and often Alpha-1 emphysema is accompanied by asthma, bronchitis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The most common indicators of Alpha-1 include worsening shortness of breath, a chronic cough and abnormal liver test results. The good news is that many Alphas can stay healthy into old age, especially if they never smoke, avoid pollution, lung irritants, and do not suffer from frequent lung infections. The bad news is that there are many Alphas who are misdiagnosed for years, and this misdiagnosis can cause additional irreversible lung damage. By declaring May, 1999 as ``National Alpha 1 Awareness Month'' we hope bring the problem of Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency to the attention to the Senate. I urge my colleagues who have not yet joined us on this important issue to add their name to the public call for increased national awareness of this genetic condition.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint resolution honoring the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) of the United States. This resolution designates September 29, 1999, as Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States Day, and urges the President to issue a proclamation in observance of this important day. 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, forming what we know today as the VFW. Mr. President, when many of us think about war veterans, we think about the tremendous sacrifices these defenders of freedom made to safeguard the democracy we cherish, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice. My resolution recognizes those contributions and sacrifices. It also recognizes the contributions that VFW members continue to make day-in and day-out in our communities--the youth activities and scholarships programs, the Special Olympics, homeless assistance initiatives, efforts to reach out to fellow veterans in need, national leadership on issues of importance to veterans and all Americans, and others too numerous to mention. Over the last 100 years, members of the VFW have contributed greatly to our nation both in and out of uniform in many ways. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who have served their country. This is an opportunity to honor the men and women and their families who have served this country with courage, honor and distinction. They answered the call to duty when their country needed them, and this is a small token of our appreciation. The centennial of the founding of the VFW presents all Americans with an opportunity to honor and pay tribute to the more than two million active members of the VFW and to all veterans, as well as to the ideals for which many made the ultimate sacrifice. I urge my colleagues to join me in a strong show of support and an expression of appreciation for the VFW and all veterans. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, tomorrow's vote on the Social Security lock-box legislation will be a defining moment for the Senate. Members will be making an unequivocal statement about how they feel about the Social Security program: Do we truly believe Social Security's monies should be protected and preserved from spending raids? Or are we willing to allow Social Security monies to be treated as a ``piggy bank'' that can be tapped and diverted to other federal programs? I think the answer to these questions should be obvious--and I believe the 99 Senators who voted on March 24 for an amendment calling for adoption of the lockbox provision during the consideration of the Senate's FY 2000 budget resolution have an obligation to uphold the commitment they made to protect Social Security's monies and vote for the lock-box proposal. Every Republican and every Democrat present voted for the substance of this proposal just a few short weeks ago and--accordingly--I hope they will vote to conclude debate tomorrow. The Administration's opposition to this legislation should come as no surprise, especially considering that President Clinton's FY 2000 budget proposal relied heavily on Social Security's surpluses to fund numerous other programs. Specifically, the President's budget would have raided $158 billion from the Social Security surplus over the coming five years to pay for other programs, while the Republican budget preserves every penny of the Social Security surplus. In light of the President's diversion of Social Security monies to other programs, the members of the Budget Committee--by a nearly unanimous vote of 21 to 1--voted for an amendment I offered during the markup that called on Congress to reject any budget that would spend any portion of Social Security surpluses for any program other than Social Security. Not coincidentally, when the President's budget was later brought to a vote in the Senate, it was resoundingly rejected by a vote of 97 to 2. The bottom line is that the time has come for Congress and the President to stop relying on Social Security's surpluses to fund other government programs. The Social Security lock-box legislation we are now considering provides a hard and fast means of protecting these monies, while providing needed ``safety valves'' for recessions, emergencies, declarations of war, or legislation that strengthens the Social Security program. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to uphold their commitment to this proposal by voting to conclude debate and bring the Social Security lock-box proposal to a Senate vote. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills that call for the deauthorization and realignment of harbor boundaries in Searsport, Maine and for Carvers Harbor on Vinalhaven Island, Maine. Passage of these bills will allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue permits to the Maine Department of Transportation for projects that are vital to the economic well being of the town of Searsport and the island of Vinalhaven. The first bill addresses the deauthorization and realignment of the navigation channel in Searsport Harbor so that the existing cargo pier can be replaced. The bill will allow a multimillion dollar improvement to be made to the Mack Point cargo port at the earliest possible date. In addition, a second cargo pier will be rehabilitated. The work will include new dolphin structures, which will encroach upon the existing Federal channel. The navigation project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of October 23, 1962. The second bill deauthorize and realigns Carvers Harbor in Vinalhaven so as to allow the construction of a new ferry terminal to replace the existing pier facility that is located within the established Army Corps of Engineers anchorage. The deauthorization will allow the ferry terminal project to remain on schedule and occur at the earliest possible date. The year round population of the island is comprised primarily of lobster fishermen and the businesses that support that industry. This navigation project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of June 3, 1896. Along with my support, both projects have the blessing of the respective towns and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I am also working with Senator Chafee in the hopes of having these two harbor deauthorizations included in the Managers amendment for the Water Resources Development Act, which has already passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee and is expected to be taken up by the full Senate shortly. I urge the support of my colleagues for these two deauthorizations and I thank the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills that call for the deauthorization and realignment of harbor boundaries in Searsport, Maine and for Carvers Harbor on Vinalhaven Island, Maine. Passage of these bills will allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue permits to the Maine Department of Transportation for projects that are vital to the economic well being of the town of Searsport and the island of Vinalhaven. The first bill addresses the deauthorization and realignment of the navigation channel in Searsport Harbor so that the existing cargo pier can be replaced. The bill will allow a multimillion dollar improvement to be made to the Mack Point cargo port at the earliest possible date. In addition, a second cargo pier will be rehabilitated. The work will include new dolphin structures, which will encroach upon the existing Federal channel. The navigation project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of October 23, 1962. The second bill deauthorize and realigns Carvers Harbor in Vinalhaven so as to allow the construction of a new ferry terminal to replace the existing pier facility that is located within the established Army Corps of Engineers anchorage. The deauthorization will allow the ferry terminal project to remain on schedule and occur at the earliest possible date. The year round population of the island is comprised primarily of lobster fishermen and the businesses that support that industry. This navigation project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of June 3, 1896. Along with my support, both projects have the blessing of the respective towns and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I am also working with Senator Chafee in the hopes of having these two harbor deauthorizations included in the Managers amendment for the Water Resources Development Act, which has already passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee and is expected to be taken up by the full Senate shortly. I urge the support of my colleagues for these two deauthorizations and I thank the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the FY2000 budget conference report we are now considering and to urge for its adoption. I would first like to thank the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Pete Domenici, for his unwavering commitment to a balanced budget and fiscally responsible decision-making over the years. Thanks, in part, to his leadership and efforts, the turbulent waves of annual deficits and mounting debt have been temporarily calmed. And, by maintaining these principles in the House- Senate budget conference report, we may be able to maintain the current budgetary calm for many years in the future. The conference report not only maintains fiscal discipline, but it also ensures that critical priorities are protected and addressed in fiscal year 2000 and beyond. Specifically, the conference report contains the following key provisions: First, it sets-aside every penny of the Social Security surplus, unlike the President's budget proposal. Second, by retaining an amendment I offered to the Senate budget resolution, it provides monies from the on-budget surplus for a new Medicare prescription drug benefit--something that President Clinton failed to include in his own budget proposal after touting the need for this benefit in his State of the Union address. Third, it adheres to the spending levels established just two years ago in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, while increasing funding for critically needed priorities including education and defense. Fourth, it provides tax relief for Americans at a time when the typical family's tax burden exceeds the cost of food, clothing, and shelter combined. And by retaining language from an amendment I offered to the Senate budget resolution, it highlights marriage penalty relief as being one of the forms of tax relief that could be accommodated in any forthcoming tax cut package. When considering that 42 percent of all married couples incurred a marriage tax penalty averaging $1,400 in 1996, I think of no tax cut that would be more appropriate in any upcoming tax package. Collectively, I believe these principles and priorities reflect those of most Americans--especially the protection of Social Security's monies. Accordingly, I believe this conference report deserves broad bipartisan support by the entire Congress. Mr. President, to appreciate the provisions in this conference report, I believe it is appropriate to compare it to the only other major budget proposal on the table: the budget proposal put forth by President Clinton on February 1. In particular, I believe the manner in which these proposals treat the Social Security surplus should be carefully compared. As mentioned, the first priority that is protected in the Republican conference report is Social Security and the annual surpluses it is currently accruing. As my colleagues are aware, the Social Security surplus was responsible for the unified budget surplus of $70 billion we accrued in FY98. In fact, without the Social Security surplus, the federal government actually ran an on-budget deficit of $29 billion last year. By the same token, Social Security's surpluses will account for the bulk of our unified budget surpluses in coming years as well. Specifically, over the coming 5 years, Social Security surpluses will total $769 billion and account for 82 percent of CBO's projected unified surpluses--and over 10 years, they will total $1.7 trillion and account for 69 percent of unified surpluses. To protect Social Security's surpluses, the budget resolution sets the stage for ``lock-box'' legislation that will accomplish what many of us have desired for years: a bonafide means of taking Social Security off-budget. Put simply, this resolution ensures that Social Security surpluses are set aside and not raided to pay for other federal programs. In contrast, President Clinton's budget offers no protection for the Social Security surplus and, in fact, proposes that it be spent on other federal programs in upcoming years. Specifically, over the coming 5 years, the President proposes we take a $158 billion ``bite'' out of Social Security surpluses and spend these monies on other federal programs. That means that, under the President's budget, fully 21 percent of Social Security's upcoming surpluses would be spent on other programs over the next 5 years. Although the President has proposed that we spend a portion of the Social Security surplus on other programs, I was pleased that an overwhelming majority of my Democratic colleagues on the Senate Budget Committee voted for an amendment I offered during markup of the Senate resolution that rejected the President's proposed use of Social Security's surpluses. Specifically, my amendment outlined the fact that the President's budget would spend $40 billion of the Social Security surplus in FY2000; $41 billion in FY01; $24 billion in FY02; $34 billion in FY03; and $20 billion in FY04. Furthermore, the amendment called on Congress to reject any budget proposal that spent Social Security surplus monies on other federal programs. Appropriately, after my amendment was adopted by a vote of 21 to 1, the President's budget proposal--which spends Social Security's surplus monies--was unanimously rejected by the Budget Committee when offered as an amendment later in the markup, and by a vote of 97 to 2 by the full Senate later on the floor. Mr. President, the manner in which Social Security surpluses are treated is but one of the ways in which these two proposals could be compared, but the bottom line is that the House-Senate conference report is simply superior to the Clinton plan. By maintaining fiscal discipline, protecting Social Security surpluses, providing funds for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and enhancing funding for shared priorities such as education, I believe this conference report deserves strong support by the full Senate. Ultimately, while members from either side of the aisle may disagree with specific provisions in the resolution that has been crafted, the simple fact is that this is a budget framework--or ``blueprint''--that establishes parameters and priorities, but is not the final word on these individual decisions. Rather, specific spending and tax decisions will initially be made in the Appropriations and Finance Committees, and ultimately by members on the floor. Therefore, I urge that my colleagues support this carefully crafted and fiscally responsible FY2000 conference budget report --and work to ensure that the parameters it establishes are used to protect and advance the priorities we share. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I support the Chafee amendment that assumes funding of $200 million specifically for the stateside program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to come out of Function 370. It is my understanding that no specific program in Function 370 has been designated as an offset for the Chafee amendment, nor do I believe that programs such as the Advanced Technology Program be considered as an offset. The ultimate funding decision of course rests with the appropriators, but I wanted to take this opportunity to cast my support for funds for the LWCF stateside program, which has not received any funding since 1995. Up until 1995, LWCF stateside program funds were used in my state to assist communities for planning, acquiring and developing outdoor recreation facilities that would not otherwise have been affordable, especially in the smaller communities in Maine. The LWCF stateside program has funded such local projects in Maine as the community playground in Durham, the Mt. Apatite trails in Auburn, the Dionne Park Playground in Madawaska, the East-West Aroostook Valley trail in Caribou, the Williams Wading Pool in Augusta, multi-purpose fields in St. George, Hampden, Buxton, Calais, and Bradford, the skating rink in Bucksport, and wharf rehabilitation in Greenville. By leveraging state dollars with critical LWCF stateside funds, Maine's communities have been able to enjoy recreational facilities such as neighborhood parks, swimming pools, and ball fields, and also have had the opportunity to conserve certain highly valued lands that the citizens of the state wish to save for outdoor recreational activities for themselves and for generations to come. amendment no. 239 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Social Security Trust Fund shall be managed in the best interest of current and future beneficiaries) At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I will take the remaining 10 minutes. First of all, I ask unanimous consent that at 4 p.m. today, all remaining debate time on the budget resolution be considered yielded back and, further, that the Senate proceed to a stacked series of votes on the remaining pending amendments. I further ask that the first vote be 15 minutes in length, with the remaining votes in the sequence limited to 10 minutes in length, with 2 minutes equally divided between each vote for brief explanations of the amendments. Finally, I ask that the votes alternate between Republican and Democrat amendments.

Ms. SNOWE. That is correct.

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to make a few comments on an amendment that the Senator from Oregon and I have introduced already. It has already been brought up. I wanted to offer a few words of explanation, because we think this is a very important amendment that would expand the reserve fund in the budget resolution for Medicare and the prescription drug benefit program. Specifically, our amendment would allow for new tobacco taxes to be used as an offset for the new Medicare prescription drug benefit that this reserve fund would create. As I stated on the floor yesterday, I believe that one of the most critical items included in this year's Senate budget resolution is the reserve fund for Medicare and prescription drugs. This reserve fund received support from virtually all the members of the committee, both Democrats and most Republicans, which would address the prescription drug benefit program by allowing the use of onbudget surpluses. We know that the Bipartisan Commission did not report out a majority report, but we do know that the Senate Finance Committee will be considering the Commission's recommendations nevertheless. So in this proposal, in the bipartisan resolution, it does include, in the reserve fund in the budget resolution, language that in the event that the Senate Finance Committee reports out a reform package of the Medicare program that extends the solvency of the program, then we would also include a prescription drug benefit program. To the credit of the chairman of the Budget Committee, he proposed, when we were trying to work out exactly how this would be funded, whether or not to use tobacco taxes or other sources of revenue, we decided that the onbudget surplus was one means of supporting a prescription drug benefit program. But we also know that could also be tenuous depending on the surpluses that develop over the next 5 to 10 years. We want to provide certainty to the funding of this prescription drug benefit program. So the Senator from Oregon and I have proposed an amendment that would provide an additional means of funding for this prescription drug benefit program so that we provide the continuity and the stability for funding by raising tobacco taxes in order to fund the program. In fact, the President includes a 55-cent tax increase in his own budget for a tobacco tax increase. He talks about a prescription drug benefit program but does not provide a plan nor does he provide any sources for funding. We think this is an important step forward. I appreciate being able to work with the Senator from Oregon in a bipartisan fashion to address this most critical issue, critical problem that is facing our Nation's senior citizens. Twelve percent of our Nation's elderly account for more than a third of the drug expenditures that occur in this country. Clearly, it is a real problem for seniors. It certainly is the black hole in the Medicare program because of the absence of support for a drug benefit program. We want to provide the means by which it can happen and can happen this year. So the reserve fund in the budget resolution, contrary to what has been said, does provide the means for a prescription drug benefit program. If that reserve fund and that line item was not in the budget resolution, we would have a 60-vote hurdle to bring it to the floor. So it guarantees the prospects of having a prescription drug benefit program with use of onbudget surpluses. We are just adding another option to the funding of that program because we think it is so important. HCFA will say 65 percent of the Nation's elderly who are on Medicare have support of prescription drug benefits through other insurance policies. Well, not exactly. When you start to look at the Medigap policies, the cost of the deductibles and the caps, it is a very expensive proposition, and very few seniors have the option of using it in a way that can help them given the enormous costs that prescription drugs represent to their families. So we realize this is a necessity. That is why we wanted to develop this bipartisan approach on funding, and ultimately the Senator from Oregon and I are going to develop bipartisan legislation to move this process forward. I want to yield to the Senator from Oregon, because I know there is very little time left, to be able to address this issue as well. I think it is important. It makes sense to use tobacco taxes. The Columbia University did a study on this issue. And there is no question that tobacco-related illnesses has cost the Medicare program to a tremendous extent, in fact, more than $34 billion. And 80 percent of the $32 billion in total substance abuse costs in 1994 were as a result of tobacco-related illnesses, as this chart will illustrate right here. So $25 billion alone in 1994. So Mr. President, there is no question that it makes sense to link a tobacco tax increase to financing a prescription drug program when you consider the costs and the impact of tobacco-related illnesses on the Medicare program. And that is only going to get worse in the future. Now I would like to yield to the Senator from Oregon for any comments he would like to make on our amendment.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, how much time is available?

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I have the time.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, if I may respond, I would be glad to respond. We are not proposing any reforms to solvency. That will be determined by the Senate Finance Committee with respect to Part A. With respect to the prescription drug benefit program, that would come under Part B. And that is why we will be using onbudget surpluses, plus the tobacco tax increase, if it is necessary.

Ms. SNOWE. Not too much longer, perhaps another 10 minutes. The Senator from Oregon could finish up his remarks and then any concluding remarks.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 1999. I am pleased that Senator McCain, Chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, is joining me as a cosponsor in this effort to protect, sustain, and restore the health of coral reef ecosystems. Coral reefs are among the world's most biologically diverse and productive ecosystems. Reefs serve as essential habitat for many marine organisms, enhancing commercial fisheries and stimulating tourism. They provide protection to coastal areas from storm surges and erosion, and offer many untold potential benefits such as new pharmaceuticals, some of which are presently being identified, developed, and tested. Unfortunately, coral reef ecosystems are in decline. In 1998, coral reefs around the world appear to have suffered the most extensive and severe bleaching damage and subsequent mortality in modern times. Reefs in at least 60 countries were affected, and in some areas, more than 70 percent of the corals died off. These impacts have been attributed to the warmest ocean temperatures in 600 years. In addition to these impacts, however, it is estimated that 58 percent of the world's reefs are threatened by human activity such as inappropriate coastal development, destructive fishing practices, and other forms of overexploitation. As a result of these stressors, coral reef habitat has been damaged and destroyed. Diseases of coral and reef-based organisms are expanding rapidly. Most of the diseases being tracked have only recently been discovered and are not widely understood. These serious problems highlight the need for more research to unravel the complex interactive effects between natural and human-induced stressors on coral reefs, and for more conservation and management activities. The United States is not immune to these problems. Large coral reef systems exist in Florida, Hawaii, Texas, and various U.S. territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific. These reefs produce significant economic benefits for surrounding communities. In Florida, for example, the reefs contribute approximately 1.6 billion dollars annually to the state economy. But despite these clear benefits, U.S. reefs suffer from some of the same problems that affect reefs in other parts of the world. Mr. President, this bill authorizes $3,800,000 in each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 for a Coral Reef Conservation Program in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to provide conservation and research grants to states, U.S. territories, and qualified non- governmental institutions. Eligible conservation projects will focus on the promotion of sustainable development and work to ensure the effective, long-term conservation of coral reefs. Potential research projects will address use conflicts and develop sound scientific information on the condition of and threats to coral reef ecosystems. The bill also authorizes NOAA to enter into an agreement with a qualified non-governmental organization to create a trust fund that will match private contributions to federal contributions and provide additional funding for worthy conservation and research projects. Through this mechanism, federal dollars can be used to leverage more dollars from the private sector for grants. In addition, this bill authorizes $200,000 for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 for emergency assistance, which would be be provided through grants to address unforeseen or disaster-related problems pertaining to coral reefs. Based on early reports, the repercussions of the 1998 mass bleaching and mortality events will be far-reaching in time and economic impact. This development, along with the continuing pressures from other sources, demonstrates the need for an increase in the effort to protect our coral reefs. The legislation I am introducing today provides a reasonable, cooperative vehicle to address these concerns. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in contrast to the President's budget, we do have a means by which to create a provision for a prescription drug benefit program in the budget resolution. We created a reserve fund in the Budget Committee that was supported by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, 21 to 1. Mr. President, the reserve fund that is included in the budget resolution for the purposes of financing a prescription drug benefit program was supported overwhelmingly by the members of the committee on a bipartisan basis, a 21-to-1 vote. The amendment I am offering, along with Senator Wyden, as well as cosponsor Senator Smith of Oregon, is to expand and create a funding mechanism that will ensure and guarantee the funding of a prescription drug benefit program. We think it is important to ensure that we have this benefit program for our Nation's senior citizens. It is contingent upon a reform package being reported out of the Senate Finance Committee to extend the solvency of the Medicare program. The funding mechanism would be an increase in the tobacco taxes. I think it is an appropriate linkage between Medicare and tobacco taxes. A recent study shows, in fact, that $25 billion was the cost to the Medicare program as a result of tobacco-related illnesses. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering along with my good friends and colleagues from Oregon, Senators Wyden and Gordon Smith, would expand the reserve fund that is found in section 209 of the budget resolution. Specifically, our amendment would allow new tobacco taxes to be used as an offset for the new Medicare prescription drug benefit that this reserve fund would create. Mr. President, as I stated on the floor yesterday, I believe that one of the most critical items included in this year's Senate budget resolution is the reserve fund for Medicare and prescription drugs. Put simply, this reserve fund--that was adopted with the support of all 10 Democratic members on the Budget Committee--will provide the Congress with a critically needed opportunity to address an issue that has been highlighted repeatedly of late: the long-term solvency of Medicare and a means to fund a new Medicare prescription drug benefit. In light of the recent disappointing conclusion of deliberations by the Bipartisan Commission on Medicare--where the final vote for a recommendation failed by a singe vote--I can think of no provision more critical to moving these issues forward in the aftermath of that Commission's work than the reserve fund contained in the Senate budget resolution. Specifically, the reserve fund already contained in the budget resolution will allow for the creation of a new Medicare prescription drug benefit. This reserve fund will be available for any Medicare legislation reported from the Senate Finance Committee that significantly extends the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund in a meaningful and legitimate manner beyond its current insolvency date of 2008. However, to ensure our ability to tap the reserve fund is not unduly restricted or that legislation is not stalled in the Finance Committee due to a particular solvency date not being achieved, the reserve fund intentionally provides no specific target date for extending the program's solvency. Rather, it simply requires that the added solvency be ``significant'' with no gimmicks to simply increase the ``paper balance'' of the trust fund. Specifically, the President's proposal to artificially increase the number of IOUs held by the Medicare Trust Fund would be precluded. Also of critical importance, the reserve fund explicitly provides for the funding of a new Medicare prescription drug benefit that could be funded with a portion of on-budget surpluses that have been set-aside in the Chairman's budget. The on-budget surplus currently set-aside in the budget totals $132 billion over the coming 10 years, so up to this amount of monies could be utilized for the prescription drug benefit. Given the fact that prescription drug coverage proved to be one of the most divisive issues during the Bipartisan Commission's deliberations, this reserve fund will ensure that this critically needed addition to the Medicare program is not blocked from consideration when legislation to strengthen Medicare is considered on the floor. Furthermore, it serves as a much needed ``carrot-and-stick'' for getting Congress and the President to develop a comprehensive plan to strengthen Medicare soon--not put it off until the day of reckoning in 2008 is nearly upon us. Mr. President, there are many issues where members of the Senate may disagree, but there is one stark fact--the fact that the Medicare Part A Trust Fund will be broke within 10 years--which everyone in this room must accept. Therefore, since solutions will likely become draconian the longer we wait to take meaningful steps to strengthen the program, we must not wait any longer to take action to credibly extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund and improve the Medicare program overall. As my colleagues are aware, we didn't get a proposal out of the Bipartisan Medicare Commission despite the best efforts of several members of this body. But that ``hung jury'' decision does not mean we can simply ignore the fact that the Medicare program--which is the program more then 38 million elderly Americans rely on for their health care--is going broke. Fortunately, the Senate Finance Committee is already taking action, beginning with a series of hearings that began last week on the Commission's majority-supported proposal, and speculation that a markup of Medicare-related legislation could occur in the not-too-distant future. In addition, the President--who was accused of preventing the Commission from getting the final, crucial vote necessary to report a recommendation--has now said that he will send us his own proposal soon. Mr. President, the reserve fund already included in the Senate budget resolution will facilitate this process by allowing the Congress to take up the President's forthcoming proposal or any other proposal reported by the Senate Finance Committee that credibly addresses Medicare's needs. That, alone, is a critical step forward since we can no longer leave our seniors worrying that our failure to take action will leave them without access to health care. Because when the Trust Fund runs dry there is no health care--none--for many of our nation's senior citizens. Even as the reserve fund will help spur action on legislation to credibly extend the solvency of the Medicare program, it will also allow us to take a critical step in improving and updating the Medicare system: the addition of a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit. I believe this addition is, unquestionably, the most significant we could make to Medicare as we seek to strengthen the system. Mr. President, the need for this new benefit could not be more clear. When Medicare was created in 1965 it followed the private health insurance model of the time--inpatient health care. Today, thirty-four years later, it is sadly out of date and it is time to bring Medicare ``back to the future'' by providing our seniors with prescription drug coverage. The lack of a prescription drug coverage benefit is the biggest hole--a black hole really--in the Medicare system. HCFA will tell you that up to 65 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have drug coverage from other sources. But that number simply doesn't tell the whole story. Specifically, fourteen percent of Medicare beneficiaries get drug coverage from one of the three Medigap policies that cover drugs. Two of these policies require a $250 deductible and then only cover 50 percent of the cost of the drug with a $1,250 cap. Needless to say, you can run up against that cap pretty fast with today's drug prices. The third policy provides a cap of $3,000 but the premium ranges anywhere from $1,699 to $3,171 depending on where you live. That is a lot of money for someone living on a fixed income. An estimated 8 percent get drug coverage from participating in Medicare HMOs and another 16 percent receive coverage from Medicaid. Of course to do that, they must be very low-income to begin with and may have to spend a great deal out of pocket for their drugs--what we commonly refer to as spending down--before they are eligible in a given year for coverage. Finally there are those lucky enough--29 percent--to have employer sponsored drug coverage through their retiree program. Mr. President, drug coverage should be part and parcel of the Medicare system, not a patchwork system where some get coverage and some don't. Prescription drug coverage shouldn't be a ``fringe benefit'' available only to those wealthy enough or poor enough to obtain coverage--it should be part and parcel of the Medicare system that will see today's seniors, and tomorrow's into the 21st Century. In light of this glaring need for prescription drug coverage, I will be working with senior citizens groups and health care experts over the coming weeks to develop bipartisan legislation with Senator Wyden and others that will provide Medicare recipients with a comprehensive Medicare prescription drug coverage benefit that could be included in any forthcoming package to strengthen Medicare. The focus of my proposal will be to provide senior citizens with actual coverage for prescription drugs. Put simply, even if we attempt to control the prices of drugs that are needed by senior citizens, that does not guarantee many of these individuals will be able to afford those prices. That's why a new benefit is so critical. Although the details of my prescription drug coverage proposal will be developed over the coming weeks, there are several broad principles that I anticipate will be included in the Snowe-Wyden package: First, this package will not be part of Medicare Part A, and therefore will have no direct impact on the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund. Like my colleagues, I am gravely concerned about the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund and believe that issue must be addressed in a comprehensive, bipartisan manner. Therefore, I believe it would be irresponsible to propose a new benefit in the Trust Fund that would further jeopardize its solvency in future years, and will propose that my new benefit package be outside the Trust Fund accordingly. Second, while the details of our legislation will ultimately be crafted during bipartisan negotiations with interested groups and health care experts, the drug benefit package will be comprehensive and ensure that all seniors have prescription drug coverage. Third, while the cost of this proposal will ultimately be determined by the benefit package that is crafted, our proposal will be fully- offset. While my colleagues are aware that the cost of this coverage varies widely depending on the size and scope of the benefit, I believe it would be irresponsible to create any new benefit without paying for it. Accordingly, the primary offset for our package will be an increase in the tobacco tax. As my colleagues are aware, President Clinton's FY 2000 budget proposal included a 55-cent per pack increase in the cost of cigarettes and an acceleration of the 15-cent per pack increase contained in the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement. The Joint Tax Committee estimates that the combined revenues of these two proposals would be $36 billion over 5 years, and $70 billion over 10 years. Interestingly, instead of applying these new revenues to Medicare or a new prescription drug benefit, the President proposes that these tobacco tax revenues be used to offset increases in discretionary spending. Because tax increases are not allowed to offset discretionary spending under the Budget Act, these improper offsets contribute to the President's budget being in violation of the spending limits agreed to just two years ago by $30 billion in FY 2000. At the same time, the President's budget also fails to provide a single penny for a prescription drug benefit--or even a mechanism to provide monies for such a benefit--after touting the need for prescription drug coverage in the State of the Union address. In light of this deficiency in the President's budget, the bipartisan proposal I will be crafting with Senator Wyden will not only create a fully-funded prescription drug benefit, but it will also utilize the proposed tax increase for tobacco contained in the President's budget. Ultimately, it is my hope that the President will recognize that these monies would be best spent on Medicare, and will support our effort accordingly. Mr. President, the rationale for linking tobacco taxes and Medicare is clear. As outlined in a study by Columbia University, smoking- related illnesses cost the Medicare program $25.5 billion in 1994 alone--a full 14 percent of Medicare's costs in that year. In fact, as the chart behind me indicates, of the various forms of substance abuse that affect the Medicare program, tobacco-related illnesses accounted for 80% of the $32 billion in total substance abuse costs in 1994. Therefore, dedicating tobacco revenues to Medicare will allow the program to recapture some of the monies it is losing to tobacco. In particular, the proposal I will be developing with Senator Wyden will demonstrate how new tobacco monies could be shifted to Medicare and then targeted to the new prescription drug benefit for seniors. To accommodate the proposal we will be crafting--and the tobacco offset it will contain in particular--the amendment I am offering today will ensure that tobacco tax revenues are among the funding options provided for in the new reserve fund for prescription drugs. While I am pleased that remaining on-budget surpluses are already an allowable offset in the reserve fund, I believe it is only appropriate that tobacco taxes also be an allowed offset. Not only because this offset be used in the prescription drug package I will be developing with Senator Wyden, but because of the direct link between tobacco and the Medicare program. As mentioned, a study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University found that the cost of tobacco- related illnesses on the Medicare program totaled $25.5 billion in 1994, or 14% of the total expenditures of the Medicare program. Assuming this percent holds as true today as it did five years ago-- and there is no reason to assume otherwise--the impact of tobacco on Medicare is astounding. With CBO projecting Medicare expenditures of $220 billion in the current fiscal year, tobacco-related health care expenses would total upward of $30.8 billion in 1999 alone using the 14 percent assumption. Over the coming years, these numbers will only escalate: $32.5 billion in 2000. $34.7 billion in 2001. $36 billion in 2002. And $39.5 billion in 2003. In fact, if tobacco-related illnesses continue to cost the Medicare program 14 percent of its total expenditures, these expenses will total $62.6 billion in the year 2009. All told, tobacco-related illnesses would cost the Medicare program $486 billion from 1999 to 2009! Mr. President, in light of the impact of tobacco on the Medicare program, I can think of no reason why new tobacco revenues should not be returned to the Medicare program and used to fund a new prescription drug benefit. Along with our efforts to keep the program solvent well beyond 2008, this new benefit is arguably the most pressing need of our nation's senior citizens in the Medicare program. By linking the two issues in the reserve fund I have created, we can and should do both. Mr. President, while I know that many of my colleagues may not support a tobacco tax increase, I urge that they seriously consider the impact of tobacco-related illnesses on Medicare. My amendment is not an effort to simply pass a tobacco tax for the sake of doing it. Rather, it's about recouping a limited portion of the monies tobacco costs the Medicare program every year, and devoting these monies to a program within Medicare that benefits senior citizens. The bottom line is that the reserve fund already included in the budget will help facilitate the consideration of Medicare legislation by laying the groundwork for a new Medicare prescription drug benefit that may not otherwise be available. While it would already allow remaining on-budget surpluses to be used for this new benefit, the amendment I am offering today will ensure that another funding source is also available. Ultimately, the true benefit of adopting my amendment is that it will ensure a new Medicare prescription drug benefit that utilizes tobacco revenues can be offered with only a simple majority vote being required for its adoption. Without this provision, a point of order would lie against such a proposal, and 60 votes would be required to waive the point of order. While not an impossible hurdle, it nevertheless raises the bar on an offset that I believe is wholly appropriate for the issue at hand. Again, I do not expect that all of my colleagues will support the prescription drug benefit bill that Senator Wyden and I will be crafting. But I would hope that my colleagues would see the legitimate link between Medicare and tobacco, and will at least vote today to allow this offset to be considered without a supermajority vote in the future. The reserve fund already contained in the budget resolution is a critical step in the right direction that may ultimately ensure legislation to genuinely strengthen Medicare will move in the Congress. And the amendment we are offering will simply bring one more legitimate, related offset into the mix of available options as that package is crafted in the Congress. Mr. President, I believe the cost of Medicare prescription drugs constitutes a crisis for our senior citizens. While the President expressed support for such a benefit in the State of the Union, he failed to deliver anything for it in his budget proposal, just as he seemingly failed to assist the Commission in doing their job: sending this Congress a bipartisan Medicare reform proposal. Despite the President's lack of courage on these issues--or willingness to put substance behind his State of the Union rhetoric--I believe it is critical that we make it possible to strengthen and improve Medicare in the Congress. The reserve fund already contained in the budget may be our best hope to repair and improve the Medicare program. It will allow it to be one of our finest accomplishments in the 106th Congress--not a political punching bag that delivers nothing of value to our deliberations or to our nation's elderly. And the amendment we are offering today will only make the reserve fund better. Therefore, I urge that my colleagues support our amendment, and work to improve the Medicare ``enabling'' reserve fund already contained in the budget.

Mr. SNOWE

Mr. SNOWE. I support the Chafee amendment that assumes funding of $200 million specifically for the stateside program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to come out of Function 370. It is my understanding that no specific program in Function 370 has been designated as an offset for the Chafee amendment. The ultimate funding decision of course rests with the appropriators, but I wanted to take this opportunity to cast my support for funds for the LWCF stateside program, which has not received any funding since 1995. Up until 1995, LWCF stateside program funds were used in my state to assist communities for planning, acquiring and developing outdoor recreation facilities that would not otherwise have been affordable, especially in the smaller communities in Maine. The LWCF stateside program has funded such local projects in Maine as the community playground in Durham, the Mt. Apatite trails in Auburn, the Dionne Park Playground in Madawaska, the East-West Aroostook Valley trail in Caribou, the Williams Wading Pool in Augusta, multi-purpose fields in St. George, Hampden, Buxton, Calais, and Bradford, the skating rink in Bucksport, and wharf rehabilitation in Greenville. By leveraging state dollars with critical LWCF stateside funds, Maine's communities have been able to enjoy recreational facilities such as neighborhood parks, swimming pools, and ball fields, and also have had the opportunity to conserve certain highly valued lands that the citizens of the state wish to save for outdoor recreational activities for themselves and for generations to come. I thank the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 1999. I am pleased that Senator McCain, Chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, is joining me as a cosponsor in this effort to protect, sustain, and restore the health of coral reef ecosystems. Coral reefs are among the world's most biologically diverse and productive ecosystems. Reefs serve as essential habitat for many marine organisms, enhancing commercial fisheries and stimulating tourism. They provide protection to coastal areas from storm surges and erosion, and offer many untold potential benefits such as new pharmaceuticals, some of which are presently being identified, developed, and tested. Unfortunately, coral reef ecosystems are in decline. In 1998, coral reefs around the world appear to have suffered the most extensive and severe bleaching damage and subsequent mortality in modern times. Reefs in at least 60 countries were affected, and in some areas, more than 70 percent of the corals died off. These impacts have been attributed to the warmest ocean temperatures in 600 years. In addition to these impacts, however, it is estimated that 58 percent of the world's reefs are threatened by human activity such as inappropriate coastal development, destructive fishing practices, and other forms of overexploitation. As a result of these stressors, coral reef habitat has been damaged and destroyed. Diseases of coral and reef-based organisms are expanding rapidly. Most of the diseases being tracked have only recently been discovered and are not widely understood. These serious problems highlight the need for more research to unravel the complex interactive effects between natural and human-induced stressors on coral reefs, and for more conservation and management activities. The United States is not immune to these problems. Large coral reef systems exist in Florida, Hawaii, Texas, and various U.S. territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific. These reefs produce significant economic benefits for surrounding communities. In Florida, for example, the reefs contribute approximately 1.6 billion dollars annually to the state economy. But despite these clear benefits, U.S. reefs suffer from some of the same problems that affect reefs in other parts of the world. Mr. President, this bill authorizes $3,800,000 in each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 for a Coral Reef Conservation Program in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to provide conservation and research grants to states, U.S. territories, and qualified non- governmental institutions. Eligible conservation projects will focus on the promotion of sustainable development and work to ensure the effective, long-term conservation of coral reefs. Potential research projects will address use conflicts and develop sound scientific information on the condition of and threats to coral reef ecosystems. The bill also authorizes NOAA to enter into an agreement with a qualified non-governmental organization to create a trust fund that will match private contributions to federal contributions and provide additional funding for worthy conservation and research projects. Through this mechanism, federal dollars can be used to leverage more dollars from the private sector for grants. In addition, this bill authorizes $200,000 for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 for emergency assistance, which would be be provided through grants to address unforeseen or disaster-related problems pertaining to coral reefs. Based on early reports, the repercussions of the 1998 mass bleaching and mortality events will be far-reaching in time and economic impact. This development, along with the continuing pressures from other sources, demonstrates the need for an increase in the effort to protect our coral reefs. The legislation I am introducing today provides a reasonable, cooperative vehicle to address these concerns. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.