Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today marks a dramatic turning point for the Senate. Because, although Senators Thurmond, Hollings, Byrd, and a handful of others were members of this body the last time the Federal Government ran a unified budget surplus in 1969, no member of the Senate has even been involved in the crafting of a budget resolution under these all too unique fiscal circumstances. Furthermore, the consideration of this budget resolution is not only a significant moment for the Senate, but for more than a generation of Americans who never lived in a time without federal budget deficits. Mr. President, in light of the unified surpluses we are now enjoying--and the on-budget surpluses we are projected to soon enjoy--I would 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 debts have been temporarily calmed. And, if we are willing to adhere to these principles in this year's budget resolution and others yet to come, we may be able to maintain the current budgetary calm for many years in the future. Mr. President, the budget resolution reported by the Senate Budget Committee--and that we are now considering on the floor--not only maintains fiscal discipline, but it also ensures that critical priorities are protected and addressed in fiscal year 2000 and beyond. Specifically, the Senate budget resolution contains the following key provisions: First, it protects every penny of the Social Security surplus in upcoming years by devoting it solely to reducing publicly-held debt. Second, through an amendment I offered in the Budget Committee markup, 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 priroties including education and defense. Fourth, it provides tax relief for Americans at a time when the typical family's tax burden exceeds the cost of food, clothing, and shelter combined. And as a result of another amendment I offered during markup, it places marriage penalty relief as a top priority in any tax cut package that is ultimately crafted. 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 resolution deserves broad bipartisan support in the Senate and, ultimately, by the entire Congress. Mr. President, to truly appreciate what is contained in this budget resolution, I believe it is appropriate to compare it with the only other major proposal on the table: the budget proposal put forth by President Clinton on February 1. As mentioned, the first priority that is protected in the Senate budget resolution 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 Senate 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 will no longer be raided and used to fund other government programs in any upcoming year. Instead, every dollar of Social Security's current and projected surpluses will be set aside and used to bury-down publicly held debt. In contrast, President Clinton's budget offers no protection for the Social Security surplus and, in fact, would spend it on other federal programs in upcoming years. Specifically, as the chart behind me indicates over the coming five 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 five 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 that rejected the President's proposed use of Social Security's surpluses. Specifically, my amendment outlined that 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 Committee when offered as an amendment later in the markup. Mr. President, not only does the President's budget propose that we spend Social Security's money at the same time as he expresses a desire to save the program, but he also fails to achieve the goals he laid out in the State of the Union address regarding the utilization of the unified surplus. First, it's worth nothing that--based on that goals he laid out in the State of the Union address--the President apparently double-counts the surplus and proposes that we spend 151 percent of the surplus over the coming 15 years! That's 51 percent than you or I could spend, Mr. President, and 51 percent more than would ever exist. The next chart--taken from the February 1 article in Newsweek--shows how this ``double counting'' would occur. As you can see, the President proposed that we spend $500 billion for the new Universal Savings Accounts, $500 billion for other federal spending, $700 billion for Medicare, and $2.8 trillion for Social Security. In total, these five items would run $4.5 trillion--the total projected surplus over the 15 year period. However, what the President forgot to mention is that $2.3 trillion of this amount is already Social Security's money because it is the total of the annual Social Security surpluses that will accrue over the coming 15 years. As a result, the true total of the Clinton proposals would be $6.8 trillion--which is $2.3 trillion more than the surpluses we would accrue over the same period of time! Setting aside the questionable math of the President's proposals, it's also worth noting that there is a significant difference between how the President portrays his proposals, and what they actually accomplish. Specifically, as my next chart indicates, there is a gap between the ``rhetoric'' and the ``reality'' of the President's plan. In fact, in light of this gap, I believe the President's budget should have earned an Oscar for ``Best Actor'' during Sunday's Academy Award presentation! As we can see on this chart, the President claimed that his budget would give 62 percent of the unified surplus to Social Security, 15 percent to Medicare, 12 percent to new Universal Savings Accounts (USAs), and 11 percent to new spending. However, in reviewing CBO's analysis of the President's budget--and by removing the rhetoric from the various proposals and identifying them for what they truly are--it's clear that the ``reality'' of the President's budget is far different from how it has been presented. Specifically, instead of devoting a combined 77 percent of the unified surplus to Medicare and Social Security--65 percent to Social Security and 12 percent to Medicare respectively--the truth of the matter is that the President is simply proposing that we artificially increase the number of IOUs held by the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. Furthermore, we find that the President's goal to set-aside 77 percent of the unified surplus will not even be met. Specifically, over the coming five years, only 65 percent of the unified surplus would be set aside--and that is only achieved if we assume that the President's proposal to have Social Security monies invested in the stock market is ultimately used for the same purpose. Also, the new Universal Savings Accounts (USAs) proposed by the President are just another name for a tax cut--and would utilize 11 percent of the surplus accordingly. As I mentioned earlier, I believe reducing the marriage penalty should be the top priority of any tax cut package, and already had an amendment included in the budget resolution accordingly. Finally, over the coming five years, the President would actually spend 24 percent of the surplus on other federal programs--far above the 11 percent target that he laid out to the American people. Mr. President, as mentioned, for all the talk about devoting 62 percent of the surplus to Social Security and 15 percent to Medicare, the President really is proposing that we simply increase the number of IOUs held by the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds to make them more solvent on paper. Not only does this accounting scheme give the false impression that saving these critically needed programs can occur without lifting a ``fiscal finger,'' but it could also lead to a false sense of complacency that will lead to true reforms being put off until it's too late. If that happens, the changes that will need to be made to these programs will need to be draconian--and all because we chose to give the public the false belief that nothing needed to be done to legitimately strengthen these programs today. Of note, the President's own budget highlights the futility of simply increasing trust fund balances without true reforms, and discredits his accounting scheme accordingly. On page 337 of the President's ``Analytical Perspectives'' book for the FY 2000 budget, we read (Trust Fund) balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense . . . They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government's ability to pay benefits. So, what does this mean? In a nutshell, the President isn't putting a penny of real money into these programs--he's simply increasing the number of IOUs held by the Trust Funds and hoping that someone figures out how to pay them back with real money in the future. There's absolutely no commitment of a single dollar from the surplus to these programs today. As I said during the Budget Committee markup this past week, the President should win a Pulitzer prize for fiction by claiming that this plan somehow ``saves'' Medicare! In contrast, the Senate budget resolution contains a mechanism and money to truly strengthen and improve Medicare. Specifically, an amendment I offered during the Committee markup--that was subsequently adopted by a bipartisan vote of 21 to 1--would allow a portion of remaining on-budget surpluses to be used for the creation of a new Medicare prescription drug benefit. As my colleagues are aware, the need for such a benefit was one of the key sticking points in the discussions of the Bipartisan Medicare Commission--so my provision ensures that this critically needed benefit can be funded. Yet even as it allows for the creation of a new prescription drug benefit, it also will encourage the development of a comprehensive plan to truly save Medicare without accounting gimmicks. Specifically, to access the on-budget surplus to pay for this new benefit, my provision requires that the Senate consider legislation that will ``significantly increase the solvency'' of the Medicare Trust Fund without artificially extending it in the manner prescribed by the President. While this provision in no way endorses one type of reform over another, it provides tantalizing ``carrot'' for Congress and the President if they are willing to sit down and legitimately work to strengthen Medicare. Mr. President, now that we've separated the rhetoric from the reality of the President's budget, it's possible to do an honest comparison of the President's budget proposal and the Senate budget resolution we are now considering. As my next chart indicates, the Senate budget resolution handily beats the President's budget at reducing publicly-held debt over the coming five years. In fact, by walling-off the Social Security surplus, the Republican plan would ensure that 82 percent of the unified surplus is used for debt reduction, versus 65 percent in the President's plan. Why is the President's debt reduction so much lower? In a nutshell, because of the magnitude of his new spending proposals. While the Senate budget resolution exercises fiscal austerity by only using 18 percent of the surplus over the next five years for purposes other than debt reduction, the President uses 35 percent of the surplus for other purposes--the vast majority of which is increased spending. Mr. President, the bottom line is that whether you compare these budgets based on reality or on rhetoric, the Senate budget resolution is superior to the Clinton plan, especially in terms of protecting Social Security's money. As a result, I hope that the partisan attacks against the Senate budget resolution will end. Mr. President, by maintaining fiscal discipline, protecting Social Security surpluses, buying down debt, providing funds for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and enhancing funding for shared priorities such as education, I believe the Senate budget resolution deserves strong support by the full Senate. Ultimately, while members from either side of the aisle may disagree with specific provisions in the resolution that has been crafted, the simple fact is that this is a budget framework--or ``blueprint''--that establishes parameters and priorities, but is not the final word on these individual decisions. Rather, specific spending and tax decisions will initially be made in the Appropriations and Finance Committees, and ultimately by members on the floor. Therefore, I am hopeful that amendments offered to this framework do not harm the broad and reasoned parameters that have been set, and that keep in mind that--unlike the President's proposal--the budget resolution should not be about rhetoric, but about fiscal reality. Amendment No. 169

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. That is correct. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about my amendment.

Ms. SNOWE. Yes.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the answer to the Senator's question is, that is occurring through the Part A program of Medicare. The prescription drug benefit will be in Part B of the program.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to commend my colleague, Senator Wyden, for his leadership on this issue, not only here in the Senate, but as he referred to, during our days in the House of Representatives. I know he has worked considerably on the issues of senior citizens in this country, and in his service on the Aging Committee as well in the House of Representatives. I want to also commend the chairman of the Budget Committee because at a time when I was discussing the idea of creating a reserve fund for the prescription drug benefit program, Senator Domenici came up with the idea of including onbudget surpluses of which there is probably more than $132 billion estimated over the next 5 years, and that that could be a potential source for funding for the prescription drug management program. So this amendment is to build on that leadership, to ensure that there will be continuity and funding in the event that those surpluses do not materialize. Also, this is a carrot-and-stick approach because the reserve fund in the budget resolution includes a prescription drug benefit program contingent on a reform package being passed out by the Senate Finance Committee that extends the solvency of the Medicare program. We think that is important, but we don't want to overlook the significance of providing this benefit to senior citizens because it has constituted a crisis in this country for our Nation's elderly, without a doubt. As Senator Wyden has indicated, it has consumed most of their income when it comes to the cost of prescription drugs. We think it is an appropriate linkage between a tobacco tax increase and the impact on the Medicare program. Again, if you look at this chart, $25 billion is the cost to the Medicare program in 1995 as a result of tobacco-related illnesses. Well, if you take that even further, it represents 14 percent of Medicare costs in that year alone. That is all going to grow exponentially. It will get worse. It could be more than a $400 billion problem over the next 10 to 15 years. So that is why it is important, I think, to look at the source of revenue through a tobacco tax increase, in the event the surpluses don't materialize, but that we have a permanency in terms of coverage. That is what we are attempting to do in this amendment. That is why we think it is so important because to do otherwise is failing to acknowledge the reality of the impact of not having this kind of benefit program currently in the Medicare system. Finally, I should say, Mr. President, that in the reserve fund in the budget resolution we prohibit any transfer of IOUs to the Medicare program. We do not artificially address the Medicare program. We are doing it in a real way, and that is also the case with the prescription drug benefit program. I might also just mention, in talking about Medicare, as one quote that came out of the President's book--the OMB fiscal year 2000 budget--what it said with respect to the President's Medicare proposal is: Trust fund balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense. . . . They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government's ability to pay benefits. What that means, in a nutshell, is that the President's proposal, contrary to what is suggested on the floor, isn't putting a penny of real money into these programs, and the same is true for the prescription drug benefit program. They talk about the State of the Union Address, but did not propose a plan, did not provide one penny for a prescription drug benefit program. The budget resolution, on a bipartisan basis--21-1--supported the reserve fund I offered with the onbudget surpluses to pay for it. That is a step in the right direction that is going to ensure that the Nation's senior citizens have that benefit. In addition, on this amendment offered by the Senator from Oregon and myself, I should also mention that Senator Smith from Oregon is a cosponsor.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. No. Actually less, I say to the chairman. Mr. President, I want to speak on one facet of this issue, and I will speak again later. I thank the chairman. I appreciate his yielding me this time. I had intended to address the entire issue of the budget resolution as a member of the Budget Committee, because I think this was an extraordinary process in the Budget Committee. I want to commend the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, for doing an outstanding job, and for his exceptional leadership in balancing the many issues that came before the Budget Committee in crafting a budget that strengthens and improves some areas of the budget, preserves the Social Security surplus, and also addresses an issue that the debate is now apparently focusing on, and that is, of course, the issue of Medicare. The reason I decided to take to the floor at this time is because I thought it was important to talk about the issue of the Medicare prescription drug benefit in the budget resolution. First of all, I was somewhat surprised to hear the tenor of the debate that has occurred on the floor with respect to a particular provision--the reserve fund for the Medicare prescription drug benefit program that is included in the budget resolution. I should point out that it was the reserve fund that will provide for the assurance and the guarantee that if we get a Medicare reform package, we will also be able to fund a prescription drug benefit program. Thanks to the chairman of the Budget Committee, who was willing to agree to use the onbudget surpluses as a way to preserve the prescription drug benefit program. I had offered an amendment in the committee that provided for a reserve fund for the prescription drug benefit program so that we would not have to have the 60-vote hurdle on the floor of the Senate in order to provide funding for that program. The very fact that we have a reserve fund in this current budget resolution allows for a prescription drug benefit program and gives all the more certainty that is going to occur. We include language that that prescription drug benefit program is also contingent on a reform package that would advance the solvency of the Medicare program. I think we all agree that is of necessity, given the fact that the Part A program is going to go bankrupt by the year 2008. Given the fact that we now have a reserve fund for the prescription drug benefit program in this budget resolution, I think it will give confidence and will serve as a catalyst for reform of the Medicare program. But what is also important here in this debate this evening--that is why I decided to take to the floor tonight at this time, I say to my colleagues and to the Senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden--is to restore some bipartisanship and stability to this debate on this particular issue. The fact is my amendment which created the reserve fund for the prescription drug benefit program and Medicare garnered the support of all of the Democrats and all of the Republicans on the committee. It received a bipartisan vote of 21 to 1 in the Budget Committee--almost unanimous support for this provision. It received bipartisan support for this new Medicare prescription drug benefit, if legislation that reforms the Medicare program is reported out of the Senate Finance Committee. Crafting that reserve fund ensures that there will be a prescription drug benefit program of some kind using the onbudget surpluses. But what is important here this evening is to underscore the fact that it received overwhelming bipartisan support in the committee, because we recognize that there is a glaring need for prescription drug coverage in the Medicare package in the Medicare benefit program. Senator Wyden and I will be working with senior citizens groups and health care experts over the coming weeks to develop bipartisan legislation to try to see what we can do to ensure that coverage is provided. But currently it is important for Members to understand that there is a reserve fund in this budget resolution for that very purpose. I am somewhat surprised to hear the statements that have been made here on the floor of the Senate suggesting that somehow there is no coverage for a prescription drug program, that there is no way that there is any money for Medicare or the drug benefit program when nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that was one of the issues in the Budget Committee that received overwhelming bipartisan support. That is the way we want to keep it. Senator Wyden and I will be working to do just that, because we know that it is absolutely imperative that we provide this benefit to the senior citizens of this country. Medicare currently does not provide that benefit. Yet, 12 percent of the elderly in this country are the ones who spend more than a third of all of the costs of prescription drugs in this country. So, therefore, we need to provide some kind of comprehensive package and benefit program for our senior citizens on how we do that. We plan to work on it over the weeks and months ahead. But I do think it is important for Members to realize that there is a reserve fund for this purpose in this budget. It is not IOUs, as in the President's plan, I might add. In fact, as part of my amendment, it prohibits the transfer of these IOUs to the Medicare trust fund as proposed by the President. So they can't allow a transfer. That is an artificial benefit to the Medicare program. It doesn't essentially do anything to the Medicare program. I think we all recognize that. And, therefore, there is a prohibition against the transfer of IOUs to the trust fund, because it is not going to do anything to enhance the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. In fact, to the contrary. We are going to try to do everything that we can, not only to use the onbudget surpluses, but any other additional funding that could be available to ensure that there will be permanent funding of the prescription drug benefit program in the future. We think it is absolutely essential. We think it is a priority. That is why it is in this budget resolution. And thanks to the leadership of the chairman of the Budget Committee, it happens to be there. I hope Members will in no way denigrate what is in the committee resolution, because, if this provision wasn't in the budget resolution, we would have no way of assuring that there would be funding of the prescription drug benefit program that we addressed in the Medicare reform in this session of the Congress. Mr. President, I hope that we understand exactly what is in this budget resolution. I hope we do not make this a partisan debate. Many of us have worked across the aisle to ensure that we maintain bipartisanship when it comes to the reforming of the Medicare program. We hope we can preserve that approach. We will continue to do everything that we can to ensure that is the case. That is why I am pleased to have been able to work with Senator Wyden to see how we can further develop initiatives to ensure that prescription drug benefit program does get funded in this budget and in this reform effort of the Medicare program in the future. I want to make sure Members understand. If this reserve fund was not in the budget resolution, which was supported on a bipartisan basis, there would be absolutely nothing for prescription drugs. Because the President did not provide anything for prescription drugs. There was not one penny that was provided for, as far as this benefit is concerned, in his budget; not even a plan. So there was no mechanism and this reserve fund establishes this mechanism. It was supported by almost everybody on the Senate Budget Committee. Now I will be pleased to yield to my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Does the Senator intend to use the remainder of his time?

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in honor of Women's History Month, today I am introducing legislation to create an Advisory Committee for the National Museum of Women's History. I am pleased to be joined by 17 of my colleagues: Senators Hutchison, Murray, Mikulski, Boxer, Collins, Rockefeller, Reid, Biden, Akaka, Kerry (MA), Ashcroft, Dodd, Durbin, Torricelli, Inouye, Leiberman, and Sarbanes. For far too long, women have contributed to history, but have largely been forgotten in our history books, in our monuments, and in our museums. It is long past time that the roles women have played be removed from the shadows of indifference and given a place where they can shine. The bill we are introducing today will create a 26 member Advisory Committee to look at the following three issues and report back to Congress concerning (1) identification of a site for the museum in the District of Columbia; (2) development of a business plan to allow the creation and maintenance of the museum to be done solely with private contributions and 3) assistance with the collection and program of the museum. It is important to note that this bill does not commit Congress to spending any money for this museum. The Committee's report will tell us the feasibility of funding the museum privately. And I believe that the Museum's Board has shown that they have the ability to do just that. The concept for the National Museum of Women's History (NMWH) was created back in 1996. Since that time, the Board of Directors, lead by President Karen Staser, has worked tirelessly to build support and interest for this project. And judging by the fact that they have raised more than $10.5 million for the project, lent their support to the moving of the Suffragette statute from the crypt to the Rotunda, and raised $85,000 for that effort, I'd say they are well on their way to success. They have also spent a lot of time answering the question ``why do we need a women's museum when we have the Smithsonian.'' The first answer to that comes from Edith Mayo, Curator Emeritus of the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, who notes that since 1963 only two exhibits--two--were dedicated to the role of women in history. The fact is, in the story of America's success, the chapter on women's contributions has largely been left on the editing room floor. Here's what I mean: Many of us know that women fought and got the vote in 1920, with the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. But how many know that Wyoming gave women the right to vote in 1869, 51 years earlier, and that by 1900 Utah, Colorado and Idaho had granted women the right to vote? Or that the suffragette movement took 72 years to meet its goal? And few know that the women of Utah sewed dresses made from silk for the Suffragettes on their cross country tour. History is filled with other little known but significant milestones: like the first woman elected to the United States Senate was Hattie Wyatt Caraway from Louisiana in 1932. That Margaret Chase Smith, from my home state of Maine, was the first woman elected to the US Senate in her own right in 1948, and in 1962 became the first women to run for the US Presidency in the primaries of a major political party. Or that the first female cabinet member was Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor for FDR. How many people know that Margaret Reha Seddon was the first US woman to achieve the full rank of astronaut, and flew her first space mission aboard the Space Shuttle ``Discovery'' in 1985, twenty three years after the distinguished former Senator from the State of Ohio, John Glenn completed his historic first flight in space? And I can guarantee you more people know the last person to hit over .400 in baseball--Ted Williams--than can name the first woman elected to Congress--Jeannette Rankin of Montana, who was elected in 1916, four years before ratification of the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. Hardly household names. But they should be. And with a place to showcase their accomplishments, perhaps one day they will take their rightful place beside America's greatest minds, visionary leaders, and groundbreaking figures. But until then, we have a long way to go. Whatever period of history you chose--women played a role. Sybil Ludington, a 16-year-old, rode through parts of New York and Connecticut in April of 1777 to warn that the Redcoats were coming. Sacajawea, the Shoshone Indian guide, helped escort Lewis and Clark on their 8000 mile expedition. Rosa Parks, Jo Ann Robinson and Myrlie Evers played important roles in the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's. And as we move into the 21st century, the role of women--who now make up 52 percent of the population--will continue to be integral to the future success of this country. In fact the real question about the building of a women's museum is not so much where it will be built--although that remains to be explored. And it's not even who will pay for it--as I've said, it will be done entirely with private funds. The real question when it comes to a museum dedicated to women's history is, where will they put it all! I would argue that we have a solemn responsibility to teach our children, and ourselves, about our rich past--and that includes the myriad contributions of women, in all fields and every endeavor. These women can serve as role models and inspire our youth. They can teach us about our past and guide us into our future. They can even prompt young women to consider a career in public service--as Senator Smith of Maine did for me. Instead, today in America, more young women probably know the names of the latest super models then the names of the female members of this Administration's Cabinet. That is why we need a National Museum of Women's History, that is why I am proud to sponsor this legislation, and that is why I hope that my colleagues will join us in supporting the creation of this Advisory Committee as a first step toward writing the forgotten chapters of the history of our nation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Again, I wish to thank the Senator for his concern and hard work to help close this chapter in Maine's Ice Storm Disaster. I look forward to continuing to work with you, Mr. Chairman, HUD, and FEMA to ensure that Maine's disaster needs are finally addressed.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise as an enthusiastic co-sponsor of the Robb amendment to the fiscal year 1999 emergency supplemental appropriations bill. By giving the Secretary of Defense the discretionary authority to compensate the families of the 20 victims of the tragic Marine Corps aircraft accident near Cavalese, Italy last Winter, Congress would close a moral gap between the United States and millions of grieving citizens in our allied countries. The victims of the Cavalese accident came from six European countries, and the depth of this tragedy has led Secretary Cohen to appoint a panel under the leadership of retired Adm. Joseph Prueher to determine whether faulty training, mapping, or equipment malfunctions contributed to the plane's severing of a ski resort cable that led to the 20 innocent deaths. Depending on the findings of the Prueher Commission, the judgment of Secretary Cohen, and the outcome of ongoing U.S. military litigation regarding the Cavalese incident, our amendment gives the Pentagon the flexibility to provide direct cash payments of up to $2 million per victim to the families of the deceased. Under the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, between the United States and each of its NATO Allies, we have already repaid the $60,000- per-victim amount given to the families by the Italian Government. In addition, the administration has agreed to furnish up to 75 percent of any wrongful death civil suit damages awarded to the families by the Italian courts. But SOFA culpability applies only to the negligent acts of U.S. military personnel operating on the territory of an allied nation. The agreement does not apply to reckless activities that occur on U.S. territory but contribute to the causes of an accident overseas. These possible activities in the Cavalese case, such as reliance on an insufficiently detailed map, a potentially malfunctioning aircraft altimeter, or inadequate pilot training, remain unresolved. But if conclusive findings show that developments on American soil had a relationship with the tragedy of Cavalese, SOFA would prohibit the United States from offering any further compensation to the families of the victims. In the meantime, the Italian litigation could end inconclusively and continue for several years. Beyond our moral obligation on this matter, Mr. President, we have strong legislative precedents for the Robb amendment. The fiscal year 1999 Defense appropriations bill set aside $20 million for the property damage that the military plane caused at the resort. In addition, the Senate unanimously adopted a resolution last summer calling for the United States to resolve the claims of the Cavalese victims ``as quickly and fairly as possible.'' Finally, this new funding would require no offsets, and the Congressional Budget Office has certified the Robb amendment as revenue-neutral. Congress, Mr. President, acted wisely last year in compensating the Italians for the physical damage done at the ski resort. It should take similar action today to provide the Defense Department with legal authority for the compensation of the families who lost their loved ones in this tragedy. I therefore urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment on a strong bipartisan basis.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to engage the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, the Chairman of the VA/HUD Subcommittee, in a colloquy. Senator Bond and I have been working, for over a year now, to see that Maine and the Northeast have their needs from the January 1998 Ice Storm which devastated much of New England and upstate New York addressed.

Ms. SNOWE. The Senator from Missouri has been a real champion for my state of Maine in our efforts to ensure that the money this Senate appropriated went to alleviate some of the costs from the Ice Storm which could not be covered by FEMA.

Ms. SNOWE. Of course in the conference the final funding figure was $130 million as the House had only appropriated $20 million.

Ms. SNOWE. The FY98 Supplemental was signed into law on May 1. On November 6, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced that it was giving Maine $2.1 million to address $80 million in unmet needs as reported by FEMA to HUD. Needless to say, this amount was wholly unacceptable, and I have been working with HUD to try and address this very serious situation, which has left Maine unable to fully address the costs of the disaster.

Ms. SNOWE. At one point in Maine more than 80 percent of the people in the State were without power. In fact, as Vice President Gore explained it, during a visit to Maine on January 15, 1998 `` We've never seen anything like this. This is like a neutron bomb aimed at the power system.'' We asked for your assistance in obtaining money for the CDBG program because it would allow States to use the money for utility infrastructure costs, Maine's largest unmet need according to both FEMA, who listed it as first in their February 1998, ``Blueprint for Action" and the Governor. With the transfer of the funding, will FEMA be able to provide funding for a State, like Maine, which wants to use the money to address the damage to the utility infrastructure in order to keep the utility rates--which are already the fourth highest in the country--from increasing to cover the storm costs?

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 257, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999. I am also honored to serve as an original cosponsor of this bill since it makes a straightforward but vital statement of policy regarding the core mission of the Defense Department to protect the United States from an accidental or deliberate ballistic missile attack. Our bill this year, introduced on a bipartisan basis once again by the distinguished Senators from Mississippi and Hawaii, establishes a guideline without dictating its implementation. The so-called Cochran- Inouye measure simply urges the United States to deploy ``as soon as it is technologically possible'' a national missile defense system. Why should Congress pass a sentence-long policy endorsing the deployment of national missile defenses? We float in an ocean of evidence that documents the emerging threat of a multistage ballistic missile attack against the United States. Last summer, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld led a distinguished bipartisan panel in finding that North Korea and Iran, thanks to the support of Chinese and Russian technicians, could hit the far western territories of the United States with a multistage rocket by 2003. Iraq, the commission also informed us, could obtain this capability in a decade. Several months before the completion of the Rumsfeld Report, the Air Force released an updated ballistic missile threat assessment noting that the number of countries producing land-attack cruise missiles will increase from two to nine early in the next decade. A 1995 National Intelligence Estimate cautioned that about 25 countries could threaten U.S. territory in less than 14 years if they acquired launch and satellite capabilities from the sky or seas. Two years later, the CIA Director testified that Iran could have a medium-range ballistic missile by 2007. The following year, India and Pakistan exploded more powerful nuclear devices, and a North Korean multistage rocket soared over Japan. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service informs us that 21 countries overall possess or have ready access to chemical warheads. Another 10 nations harbor or seek inventories of biological weapons. And among all of these states, only four lack the ballistic missiles to fire these terrifying munitions. Several more countries without weapons of mass destruction, such as Afghanistan, Algeria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Ukraine, and Yemen, nevertheless have the launchers to deliver them far beyond their borders. Senators Cochran and Inouye wisely recognize this real and expanding security threat while leaving the scientific and budgetary issues involved with the deployment of missile defensive hardware to the technicians of the Pentagon who have devoted their careers to this cause. But the Congress as a whole must take responsibility for framing priorities of policy, and no priority could loom larger than the protection of our homeland. And on this fundamental front, supporters of the Cochran-Inouye bill have extensive reinforcements. The first reinforcement comes from the President of the United States. A 1994 Executive order declared that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons proliferation poses an ``unusual and extraordinary threat'' to our national security. Another reinforcement comes from the President's deputies. Echoing the main theme of a bill still opposed by the administration, General Joseph Ralston told the Senate Armed Services Committee last summer that the Pentagon would field a national missile defense system as soon as ``technologically practical.'' In this fiscal year 2000 budget submission statement increasing missile defense accounts by $6.6 billion over 5 years, Secretary Cohen concluded that such programs remained ``critical to a broader strategy seeking to prevent, reduce, deter, and defend against weapons of mass destruction.'' If the Secretary of Defense tells Congress that curbing the capacity of rogue governments to assault the United States is a ``broad'' security ``strategy,'' who can doubt that the administration already has a policy of making a missile defense system operational sooner rather than later? While this evidence of proliferation mounts by the month, our colleagues from the minority have blocked the Senate from exercising its majority will on the pending legislation because they believe that it would undermine the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union. But this bill addresses the prospect of a destructive weapons attack at any time of any intensity from any source. It primarily reflects the Second and Third World missile launch capabilities of tomorrow, not just the cold war arsenals of yesterday. These capabilities also do not always discriminate on the basis of nationality. Russia, just as unpredictably as America, could one day fall under the threat of attack from a rogue state. So instead of rejecting a fundamental statement of national defense, we should modernize the ABM Treaty in partnership with Moscow to ensure that both countries enjoy adequate protection against an accidental or deliberate ballistic missile strike. As the President's Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control told a Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee nearly 2 years ago, ``the determinant of our national missile defense program . . . is going to be what the threat requires.'' And the Threat, Mr. President, requires both the United States and Russia to prepare workable defensive networks. At the same time that we build safeguards against attack, we must support the thirty-year negotiating process, pursued by administrations of both parties, of reducing and eliminating the prime agents of attack: long-range nuclear weapons. For this reason, I was pleased to join Senator Landrieu in sponsoring an amendment to S. 257 reinforcing the United States arms control process with Russia. Despite Moscow's economic difficulties, a demoralized Russian Strategic Rocket Forces Command still maintains thousands of nuclear warheads subject to an accidental launch and the black markets of the Third World. Our amendment, endorsed on a rollcall vote by 99 Senators, simply reaffirms the ``policy of the United States to seek continued negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces.'' As a result, S. 257 now provides America with the best defense: a twin policy to deflect a short-notice missile strike against our homeland and to redouble our efforts at reducing the size and lethality of the world's two largest nuclear arms inventories. Finally, Mr. President, I want to highlight the relationship between an affordable and robust national missile defense system and our military modernization agenda. We pursue modernization to harmonize technology development with anticipated security threats. Missile defense programs embody this process since the president and his experts have diagnosed an evolving but real threat in ballistic arms proliferation. Modernization objectives require us to build new systems against a new ballistic missile threat that is less graphic than the one posed by the Soviet Union, but just as menacing to our strategic interests and economic vitality. In this light, Mr. President, a national missile defense system will bring the United States to the threshold of defense modernization. The Cochran-Inouye bill fully acknowledges that the architecture, components, and the budget for this program, like any other one scrutinized by Congress, must pass the test of practicality without jeopardizing other important priorities such as the Pentagon's planned increase in procurement spending to $60 billion by 2001. Beyond this responsibility, however, we have the obligation to reconcile public policy with the evidence of arms proliferation. Let's listen to the president, his analysts, his Defense Secretary, and his scientists. Let's awaken to an uncertain world rumbling with launchers, warheads, and satellites whose range and power grow by the year. And let's understand that the treaties of yesterday fail to help us shield the country against the potential attacks of tomorrow. The statement of policy proposed by the Cochran-Inouye bill would represent a compelling step by Congress to counter the growing ballistic missile threat to America's most precious assets: her land and her people. I therefore urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the National Missile Defense Act of 1999.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, during the consideration of S. 280, the Education Flexibility (Ed-Flex) Partnership Act of 1999, several new education proposals have been advanced by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In particular, an issue that has received prominent attention is an amendment that would authorize federal monies for the hiring of 100,000 new teachers. Like my colleagues, I am strongly committed to improving K-12 education and ensuring that the unique needs of our nation's schools are addressed. While the federal government provides only a fraction of our nation's total K-12 education spending, the amount that it does provide is critical to ensuring that our nation's children receive the quality education that they need and deserve. Mr. President, as I look at the various challenges and issues facing our nation's schools, it is clear that every state and every community has different needs, even if some of these needs are fairly pervasive. While one community may feel that its greatest need is the hiring of more teachers, another may feel that buying new textbooks or purchasing computers for the classroom may be the most pressing need. Over the years, various federal education programs have been created to assist state and local governments in addressing their disparate needs, including programs that are designed to address issues that demand national oversight. For instance, more than 20 years ago, the federal government appropriately demanded that individuals with disabilities receive a quality education, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was enacted accordingly. Unfortunately, even as the federal government appropriately mandated that disabled children be educated at the local level, it has continued to fall woefully short in fulfilling its promised commitment to cover 40 percent of the associated cost. In fact, as several of my colleagues have emphasized, the federal government only funds approximately 10 percent of the cost today--and that paltry percent has only been achieved through Republican-led efforts over the past three years to increase funding for IDEA by 85 percent! As a result of the ongoing federal shortfall, state and local governments are not only forced to cover the 60 percent share that was agreed to--but they also pick-up the missing 30 percent federal share. Mr. President, this broken promise on the part of the federal government must not continue. Not only does it represent a failure on the part of the federal government to meet an important obligation to our nation's disabled children, but it also forces states and communities to divert their scarce resources for this unfunded mandate--resources that could otherwise be used to address a wide variety of local needs, including the hiring of new teachers. To demonstrate the impact of this unfunded mandate, consider that in my home state of Maine, the federal government currently provides approximately $20 million for the education of the disabled, while the state and local governments are forced to shoulder more than $200 million of the cost. Therefore, if the federal government were to fulfill its 40 percent commitment, an additional $60 million would flow to the state. That's $60 million now spent by Maine's state and local governments to cover a federal commitment--$60 million that would otherwise be freed-up to address distinct and pressing local needs. Sixty million dollars. Needless to say, this shortfall has not been overlooked by officials at the state or local level. During a recent meeting with representatives of the Maine Municipal Association, local officials emphasized to me the need for the federal government to fulfill its commitment to fund 40 percent of the cost of educating the disabled because of the substantial budgetary impact it is having on their communities. And during the recent gathering of the National Governors Association (NGA), the Governor of Maine, Angus King, interrupted President Clinton during his presentation on education issues to hammer home the need for special education funding. As quoted in a March 1, 1999, article in the Portland Press Herald, Governor King ``raised his hand and interrupted'' the President saying: Mr. President, I'm bringing you a report from Franklin, Maine, and a lot of other places in Maine. What I'm telling you is that if you want to do something for schools in Maine, then fund special education and we can hire our own teachers and build our own schools. Mr. President, I don't believe the thoughts and comments by the Governor of Maine are unique to our state. This is a national problem that requires federal action. Paying ``lip-service'' to this funding commitment is no longer enough. We cannot simply brush off the comments of governors and local leaders by expressing support for the full- funding of education for the disabled and not achieving it--rather, it's time to actually deliver on the promise made more than 20 years ago. For this reason, I believe Congress should ensure that the federal share of education for the disabled is fully-funded before new programs are created. Not only will this ensure that a long-standing federal promise will finally be met, but it will also ensure that distinct local needs--which may include the hiring of new teachers--can be readily addressed. During the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education (ESEA) Act, there will be countless opportunities to reform and improve federal education programs that are intended to address distinct needs. But the time to create truly new federal education programs--and to devote federal resources to these new proposals-- should not occur until we have met our outstanding federal obligation to disabled children and to the states and communities that educate them. Mr. President, the time to fully-fund the federal share of education for the disabled is now. I urge that my colleagues vote to ensure that any new K-12 education monies be used to meet this commitment, and to finally fulfill a federal promise made to state and local governments more than 20 years ago.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senators Jeffords, Frist, and Hagel in introducing the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act. I first introduced this legislation in the 104th Congress, in conjunction with Representative Louise Slaughter in the House. Since then I have worked extensively with many of my colleagues to ensure that this legislation effectively addresses the need for protections against genetic discrimination in the health insurance industry. This bill builds on and improves the language included in the Patients' Bill of Rights-- Plus (S. 300). Progress in the field of genetics is accelerating at a breathtaking pace. Who could have predicted 20 years ago that scientists could accurately identify the genes associated with cystic fibrosis, cancer, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases? Today scientists can, and as a result doctors are increasingly better able to identify predispositions to certain diseases based on the results of genetic testing. These results mean that doctors are better able to successfully treat and manage many diseases. Scientific advances hold tremendous promise for the approximately 15 million people affected by the over 4,000 currently-known genetic disorders, and the millions more who are carriers of genetic diseases who may pass them on to their children. In fact, just this month scientists reported that one of the genes implicated in advanced breast cancer is also related to the final stages of prostate cancer. Because science progresses my legislation has not remained static and it represents the best of genetic advancements and the most comprehensive definitions of genetic issues. I have been working hard with experts in the genetics field, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Senator Jim Jeffords, Senator Bill Frist, and Senator Chuck Hagel to improve upon the language included in the Patients' Bill of Rights--Plus. Today's bill is the result of an enormous amount of time and effort, and I want to thank my three colleagues for their willingness to devote so much of their attention to this important issue. Unfortunately as our knowledge of genetics and genetic predisposition to disease has increased, so has the potential for discrimination in health insurance based on genetic information. In addition to the potentially devastating consequences health insurance denials based on genetic information can have on American families, the fear of discrimination has equally harmful consequences for consumers and for scientific research. But genetics still isn't an exact science. We all must remember that prediction does not mean certainty. For example, the Alzheimer's gene has less than a 35 percent prediction certainty. Science has not yet progressed to the point where it can tell us definitely and without doubt what will happen if a mutation is found and it is this uncertainty that makes our legislation so very, very important. As a legislator who has worked for many years on the issue of breast cancer, and as a woman with a history of breast cancer in her family, I continue to be amazed and delighted with the treatment advances based on the discoveries of two genes related to breast cancer--BRCA1 and BRCA2. Keep in mind that women who inherit mutated forms of either gene have an 85 percent risk of developing breast cancer in their lifetime, and a 50 percent risk of developing ovarian cancer. Not very good odds. Although there is no known treatment to ensure that women who carry the mutated gene do not develop breast cancer, genetic testing makes it possible for carriers of these mutated genes to take extra precautions such as mammograms, self-examinations, and even enrollment in research studies in order to detect cancer at its earliest stages. Many women who might take extra precautions if they knew they had the breast cancer gene may not seek testing because they fear losing their health insurance. And what are the implications when women are afraid of having a genetic test--or testing their daughters? The implications are simply devastating. One of my constituents from Hampden, Maine put it best: I'm a third generation [breast cancer] survivor and as of last October I have nine immediate women in my family that have been diagnosed with breast cancer * * *. I want my daughters to be able to live a normal life and not worry about breast cancer. I want to have the BRCA test [for breast cancer] done but because of the insurance risk for my daughters' future I don't dare. Nine women in Bonnie Lee Tucker's family have breast cancer, yet the fear of discrimination was so strong that she would forgo testing that could potentially save her own or her daughters' lives. Patients like Bonnie Lee Tucker may be unwilling to disclose information about their genetic status to their physicians out of fear, hindering treatment or preventive efforts. And though it could save her life or the life of one of her daughters she is unwilling to participate in potentially ground-breaking research trials because she does not want to reveal information about their genetic status and is afraid of losing her health insurance. Bonnie Lee Tucker should not have to bet her life and the life of her daughter this way. Americans should not live in fear of knowing the truth about their health status. They should not be afraid that critical health information could be misused. They should not be forced to choose between insurance coverage and critical health information that can help inform their decisions. They should not fear disclosing their genetic status to their doctors. And they should not fear participating in medical research. We must ensure that people who are insured for the very first time, or who become insured after a long period of being uninsured, do not face genetic discrimination. We must ensure that people are not charged exorbitant premiums based on such information. We must ensure that insurance companies cannot discriminate against individuals who have requested or received genetic services. We must ensure that insurance companies cannot release a person's genetic information without their prior written consent. And we must ensure that health insurance companies cannot carve out covered services because of an inherited genetic disorder. Our bill does just that. As the Senate moves forward with the Patients' Bill of Rights--Plus we must focus on this important issue and should act as quickly as possible to put a halt to the unfair practice of discriminating on the basis of genetic information, and to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect the privacy of genetic information.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the efforts of my colleague Senator Chafee for the Credit for Voluntary Early Action Act he has introduced that will encourage the reduction of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The concept of this bill is a creative step toward awarding those industries who take early actions to reduce their overall emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, which are thought to be causing changes in climate around the globe. The bill would set up a domestic program that gives companies certain credits for the voluntary actions they take for reducing the amount of greenhouse gases they emit into the air. These credits could then be used in meeting future reductions, or could be sold to other companies to help with their own reductions. Strong incentives would also be provided for those companies developing innovative technologies that will help reduce the buildup of atmospheric greenhouse gases. The Chafee bill clearly puts us at the starting line in the 106th Congress for addressing the continuous domestic buildup of greenhouse gases. I do feel the bill needs to take a further step in the race to make our planet more environmentally and economically friendly, however. We need to establish domestic credits for carbon sequestration that will help reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, and thereby help to address the complex issue of climate change. I plan to continue to work with Senator Chafee to take that next step. Maine is one of the country's most heavily forested states, with much of its land devoted to forests, and so has much to offer towards the reduction of carbon in our atmosphere. The State's forestlands have been a large key to our quality of life and economic prosperity. These forests absorb and store carbon from the atmosphere, allowing the significant sequestration of carbon, serving as carbon ``sinks''. Because of continuous improvements made in forest management practices and through extensive tree replanting programs, forests all over the country continue to sequester significant amounts of carbon. Through active forest management and reforestation, through both natural and artificial regeneration, the private forests, both industrial and non-industrial, are helping to decrease carbon dioxide emissions that are occurring both from natural processes and human activities into the atmosphere. The addition of credits for greenhouse gas reductions for forestry- related carbon sequestration activities should be a part of the voluntary credits system the bill proposes so as to allow the owners of the forests of today--and tomorrow--to voluntarily participate and receive credits for carbon sequestration. This should not be difficult to do since the U.S. Forest Service already follows a carbon stock methodology that is used by the Environmental Protection Agency to document the nation's carbon dioxide emissions and inventories for carbon storage. I realize that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been tasked to prepare a special report that is expected out next year that may help define appropriate definitions and accounting rules for carbon sinks. In the meantime, I do not believe it will be helpful to leave the issue of carbon sequestration unacknowledged in any domestic program--and to cause losers along with winners in the process. We are all in a race against an uncertainty that no one can afford to lose. As I mentioned, I believe that the goals of the Chafee bill are admirable and will allow for a dialogue to begin, hopefully on the science as opposed to the politics, for what can be done domestically within the global climate change debate. I hope to be included as a part of that dialogue and urge that those who speak to carbon sequestration credits be heard through the public hearings process or by amending the bill in a way that will not only encourage sustainable forest management, but also stimulate incentives for maintaining healthy forests. The discussion on the importance of carbon sequestration within our terrestrial ecosystems--long a large component of the climate change debate--must continue.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, with the passing of Morris K. Udall on December 12, 1998, there is a little less humor, and humanity in the world. On that day, the nation lost a remarkable man of unyielding warmth and uncompromising ethics--and an individual who increased the stock of public service by adhering to the very highest principles of leadership. Mo Udall exemplified all that is noble about our field of endeavor, and I was honored to serve with him in the House of Representatives. He was a man of stature in every sense in the world, and his legacy still looms large on America's political landscape. I admired him as a colleague and a person. Mo Udall was truly an American original, a son of the great Southwest who seemed at home wherever he was. He had a natural way with people-- maybe because he had a way of making everyone feel important, feel like they had something to contribute. His faith in people was genuine and unwavering, as was his belief in the power of government to be a positive force in the lives of those he served. I always had a sense that Mo was someone who truly enjoyed what he did, and felt privileged to be doing it. It saddened me deeply when I last saw Mo, in the grips of a cruel and unforgiving disease. But that disease, while it deprived Mo of so much of the life he'd always known, never managed to wrest from him his dignity. And my sadness was tempered by the notion that this was a man who could look back on his life's work and feel that it stood for something. That it had truly made a difference. And I think that all of us in public service would like to be able to say that when all our votes have been cast and our tenure in this great institution has passed into history, in that regard, we should all be as fortunate as Morris K. Udall. Similarly, we can all take lessons from his extraordinary life. He brought good cheer and laughter to a process that needs humor like an engine needs oil--without it, the wheels of government seize up; political discourse overheats. Indeed, as Mo himself once wrote, ``In times of national strife, humor can bring a diverse society closer together * * * In times of national tragedy, disappointment, or defeat, political humor can assuage the nation's grief, sadness or anger, and thus make bearable that which must be borne.'' Of course, while Mo never took himself too seriously, he understood full well the gravity of his work. Again, to use Mo's own words, ``* * * the business of government is serious business, and in politics, as in any other endeavor, wisecracks are no substitute for substance.'' Certainly, there was no lack of substance in Mo Udall's record, as even a cursory review of his accomplishments would reveal. Deeply committed to environmental issues, he worked toward a healthier world for future generations. Determined to erase the divisions among us, he helped champion civil rights. Weary of abuse in our nation's elections, he fought for campaign finance reform. Respectful of the natural beauty with which we've been blessed, he introduced legislation to protect our nation's most precious resources. And mindful of the solemn responsibility we have to those who first occupied these lands, he was a trusted friend to native Americans. In fact, Mo was chairman of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs when I fought for federal recognition of the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians in northern Maine--and I will forever appreciate all of his wise guidance, input, and assistance. Throughout it all, and despite his deeply held beliefs, Mo Udall never viewed ``bipartisanship'' as a four letter word. He knew that reaching out will always be more effective than digging in. That's not to say Mo Udall wasn't proud to be a Democrat--indeed, he was fiercely proud of his political affiliation--but at the end of the day, he always favored progress over party, civility over shrillness, and solutions over sound bites. He was more interested in fixing problems than scoring political points, and that made him a winner in the eyes of his constituents as well as a hero to all those who see public service as a worthy pursuit. In closing, let me just say that, for all of Mo's accomplishments, perhaps time will prove this last one to be his greatest. For Mo Udall was living proof that there are good people in politics. At a time when cynicism about government is considered intellectually chic, Mo Udall reminds us all that integrity and hard work never go out of style. If the reputation of an institution is like the balance in a bank account--the sum of its credits and debits--then Mo Udall made more than his share of deposits over his 30 years in Congress. And he never withdrew a dime. Today, Congress is the richer for it, public service is the richer for it, and the American people are the richer for it.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to bring my colleagues attention to the celebration of National TRIO Day which took place on Saturday, February 28. National TRIO Day--which was created by a concurrent resolution during the 99th Congress--is celebrated every year on the last Saturday of February, and serves as a day of recognition for the Federal TRIO Programs. As my colleagues are aware, the TRIO Programs actually consist of several educational programs: Talent Search; Upward Bound; Upward Bound Math/Science; Veterans Upward Bound; Student Support Services; Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program; and Educational Opportunity Centers. These programs, established over 30 years ago, provide services to low-income students and help them overcome a variety of barriers to obtaining a higher education, including class, social, and cultural barriers. Currently, 2,000 colleges, universities and community agencies sponsor TRIO Programs, and more than 780,000 low-income middle school, high school, and adult students benefit from the services of these programs. By lifting students out of poverty, these students can pursue their highest aspirations and achieve the American dream, even as our nation is collectively lifted to new heights. Mr. President, there are 15 TRIO Programs in my home State of Maine that serve 6,000 aspiring students each year. I know that these programs work because I have seen and heard of the tangible impact the programs have had--and continue to have--on individuals in Maine. The impact of the TRIO Programs speaks for itself when considering that TRIO graduates can be found in every occupation one can think of, including doctors, lawyers, astronauts, television reporters, actors, state senators, and even Members of Congress. In fact, two of our colleagues in the House of Representatives--Congressman Henry Bonilla and Congressman Albert R. Wynn--are graduates of the TRIO Programs. In closing, as we celebrate National TRIO Day, I would like to encourage my colleagues to learn more about the TRIO Programs in their respective states, and see for themselves the impact the programs have had--and continue to have--on their constituents. Ensuring that all of our nation's students who desire a higher education are able to attain it is a goal that I think we can all agree on--and TRIO makes it possible.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act, of which I am an original cosponsor. I would like to begin by thanking Senator Bond, who serves as Chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, for his leadership on this important issue. As a member of the Small Business Committee and a Senator from a state where virtually all the businesses are small businesses, I strongly believe that assisting small businesses prepare for the Year 2000 must be a top priority. So many aspects of our lives are influenced by computers. I believe the Y2K computer glitch is an issue of such importance that it demands decisive action on our part, because any delay at this point will make this problem exponentially more difficult to solve. The bill before us today authorizes loan guarantees for small businesses to help with Y2K compliance. Loan guarantees will permit small businesses to assess their computers' Y2K compatibility, identify changes to assure compatibility, and finance purchase or repair of computer equipment and software to ensure that is compatible with Y2K. The loans will also allow small businesses to hire third party consultants to support their efforts. Maine has an historical record of self-reliance and small business enterprise, and I am extremely supportive of the role the federal government can play in promoting small business growth and development. Small businesses are increasingly essential to America's prosperity, and they should and will play a vital role in any effort to revitalize our communities if we help them enter the 21st Century in a strong position. As we all know, this problem stems from a simple glitch--how the more than 200 million computers in the United States store the date within their internal clocks. Some computers and software may not run or start if the internal clock fails to recognize ``00'' as a proper year. The computer can continue waiting for you to enter what it thinks is a correct date and prevent you from accessing your records until you have done so. Without access to your records, you will be unable to track your inventory, sales, or even your bank accounts. I began to wonder what the effects would be on small business when the Commerce Committee held a hearing on the issue last year. And after questioning officials, specifically Deputy Secretary of Commerce Robert Mallett, it became evident that many small businesses simply didn't have the kind of time and resources that many larger business may have at their disposal to fix this potentially serious problem. At the Maine forums I sponsored last year as a member of both the Commerce and Small Business Committees, I worked to educate small businesses on the Y2K threat, and it was a learning experience for me as well. The impact of Y2K on the small business community could be devastating. According to a National Federation of Independent Business and Wells Fargo Bank study, 82 percent of small businesses are at risk. Fortunately, it doesn't have to be that way. With the benefit of foresight and proper planning, we can diffuse this ticking time bomb and ensure that the business of the nation continues on without a hitch--or a glitch. From a technical standpoint, the necessary corrections are not difficult to make. However, determining that there's a problem, finding people qualified to fix the problem, and crafting a solution to fit the individual needs of different computers and programs poses significant challenges. We must put ourselves in the position that a small business or entrepreneur is in. Consider that this problem effects more than just your business. By checking your system you are only halfway to solving the problem. You must also take time to ensure your supplier, distributer, banker, and accountant are also ``cured'' of the Year 2000 problem. For example, if you manufacture a product on deadline, you'll want to make sure your computers will be able to keep track of your delivery schedule, inventory, and accounts receivable and payable. If your system fails to do this, the consequences could be debilitating for a business. But think about this: suppose your suppliers aren't compatible, and their system crashes. You may not receive the raw materials you need to get your product to market on time--devastating if you're in a ``just in time'' delivery schedule with your supplier. And what happens when your shipper's computers go down for the count? That is why it is so important that we take steps to fix the problem now. The year 2000 is almost upon us, and each day that goes by trades away valuable time. For the vast majority of businesses, there are five simple steps toward compliance. First, awareness of the problem. Second, assessing which systems could be affected and prioritizing their conversion or replacement. Third, renovating or replacing computer systems. Fourth, validating or testing the computer systems. And fifth, implementing the systems. The bill before us today will help small business address these steps, and I urge my colleagues to join in an overwhelming show of support for our nation's small businesses by voting for this important legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my friend and colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, to introduce the ``Surplus Protection Act of 1999''--legislation that will reform the budget process by tightening the manner in which emergency spending legislation is considered in the Senate. Not only will these reforms ensure that there is greater accountability in the emergency spending process, but they will also ensure that the unified budget surplus we now enjoy will be protected from spending raids that are designed to circumvent the normal budget process--and that could undercut our ability to utilize the surplus for strengthening Social Security. Mr. President, as my colleagues are aware, last year the federal government enjoyed its first balanced budget since 1969. To be precise, the federal government actually achieved a unified budget surplus of $70 billion in fiscal year 1998. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), this surplus will not be a one time occurrence; rather, unified budget surpluses will continue to accrue during the next 10 years if CBO's projections for economic growth, federal revenues, and federal spending hold true. While the surplus is welcome news after decades of annual deficits and burgeoning debt, we must never forget how easily this valuable national asset can be squandered if we fail to be vigilant in protecting it. For too long, the federal government treated the budget like a credit card with an unlimited spending limit, and such bad habits--even if broken for a few years--can quickly return, especially when there is a surplus just burning a hole in the pocket of Congress and the President! Therefore, in an effort to ensure the surplus is protected from future spending raids, we are offering legislation today that will crack down on arguably the most insidious manner in which budgetary spending limits and protections can be circumvented: the emergency spending designation. In light of the $21.4 billion in emergency spending that was contained in last year's omnibus bill, the need to provide safeguards against the abuse of this provision--and the squandering of the surplus--could not be more clear. Mr. President, the emergency spending designation was created for a very important reason. If a sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary event occurs, the strict spending limits imposed in the budget resolution can be exceeded through the designation of that event as an ``emergency.'' This exception is understandable when considering that the hands of Congress and the Administration should not be tied when the pressing needs of our nation override the need for strict budget discipline. For instance, recent earthquakes in California, floods in the Midwest, hurricanes in the South, and ice storms in the Northeast-- which were devastating to my home state of Maine--are all examples of natural disasters that warranted the emergency designation because they were completely unexpected and unforseen, and could not have been addressed in a timely manner through the regular budget process. By the same token, the tragic bombing in Oklahoma City is an example of an unexpected and unforeseeable event that also warranted emergency treatment. Yet even as the emergency designation is necessary and warranted for these and other unexpected disasters, it can also be used as a major loophole by those who wish to circumvent the normal budget or legislative process. Rather than restricting the use of the emergency designation to only those bills or items that are truly unforseen and urgent, some may use this designation to either fund programs or projects that are debatable as to their emergency nature, while others may use emergency bills to push through unrelated legislation or spending programs without the normal level of scrutiny provided in the normal legislative process. For example, the omnibus bill adopted at the close of the 105th Congress contained $21.4 billion in emergency spending that came directly out of the surplus. While some of the provisions in that package undoubtedly deserved the emergency designation, several items were either debatably an ``emergency'' or were an outright effort to circumvent the regular budget process. Specifically, the $2 billion in emergency funding for our three-year-old mission in Bosnia was hardly unexpected and should have been included in the President's budget at the beginning of the year. It should not have be designated an ``emergency'' simply to avoid the budget caps that ensure fiscal restraint. Ultimately, regardless of the manner in which the emergency designation can be misused--whether it is to fund a military operation that has been ongoing for years, or to fast-track a piece of legislation that has no relationship to the emergency in question--it is a practice that we must stop. The legislation we are offering today will do just that. Specifically, the bill establishes three new rules to ensure that bills or individual provisions receiving the emergency designation are subject to careful--but reasonable--scrutiny. The first provision--which is patterned after the ``Byrd Rule'' that applies to reconciliation bills--will ensure that non-emergency items will not be attached to emergency spending bills by creating a point of order for striking these provisions. Simply put, because emergency spending bills are often put on a ``fast-track'' to ensure rapid consideration, we should not allow non-emergency spending or legislative riders to be attached to these bills in an effort to avoid the normal, deliberative legislative process. To waive this restriction, an affirmative vote by three-fifths of the members of the Senate would be required--a level that will be easily achieved for a true emergency. The second provision--which is also patterned after the Byrd Rule-- will ensure that the validity of any item that is designated as an emergency--in either an emergency spending bill or a non-emergency bill--can be challenged by the members of the Senate. The bottom line is that just because an item placed in a bill is given the emergency designation does not mean it deserves that designation--and this point of order will ensure that members agree that the designation is warranted. As outlined earlier, the omnibus bill adopted at the close of the 105th Congress contained a variety of provisions that were debatable ``emergencies''--in particular, the funding for troops in Bosnia, because this cost was hardly unforeseen, sudden, or temporary. This point of order will ensure that such provisions do not avoid budget scrutiny, and that the surplus is protected for Social Security accordingly. The final provision will ensure that any legislation that contains emergency spending will require a three-fifths vote for final passage. Because members may feel compelled to act quickly on bills that contain even a single item designated as an emergency, this provision will ensure that such bills do not slide through the regular legislative process without full consideration and without more than simple majority support. While the previous two points of order will prevent improper abuse of the emergency designation, this requirement will serve as a final safeguard in the process. Mr. President, the bottom line is that although the emergency designation is a vitally important means of ensuring the unexpected needs of our nation can be addressed, it can also become a loophole that subverts budget discipline, drains our new-found surplus, and potentially impacts our ability to strengthen the Social Security program. But with proper safeguards put in place, we can ensure that this potential loophole is closed while still ensuring legitimate emergencies are addressed. The legislation I am offering today along with Senator Graham provides such thoughtful and reasonable safeguards, so I urge that my colleagues support the ``Surplus Protection Act of 1999.''

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my friend and colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, to introduce the ``Surplus Protection Act of 1999''--legislation that will reform the budget process by tightening the manner in which emergency spending legislation is considered in the Senate. Not only will these reforms ensure that there is greater accountability in the emergency spending process, but they will also ensure that the unified budget surplus we now enjoy will be protected from spending raids that are designed to circumvent the normal budget process--and that could undercut our ability to utilize the surplus for strengthening Social Security. Mr. President, as my colleagues are aware, last year the federal government enjoyed its first balanced budget since 1969. To be precise, the federal government actually achieved a unified budget surplus of $70 billion in fiscal year 1998. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), this surplus will not be a one time occurrence; rather, unified budget surpluses will continue to accrue during the next 10 years if CBO's projections for economic growth, federal revenues, and federal spending hold true. While the surplus is welcome news after decades of annual deficits and burgeoning debt, we must never forget how easily this valuable national asset can be squandered if we fail to be vigilant in protecting it. For too long, the federal government treated the budget like a credit card with an unlimited spending limit, and such bad habits--even if broken for a few years--can quickly return, especially when there is a surplus just burning a hole in the pocket of Congress and the President! Therefore, in an effort to ensure the surplus is protected from future spending raids, we are offering legislation today that will crack down on arguably the most insidious manner in which budgetary spending limits and protections can be circumvented: the emergency spending designation. In light of the $21.4 billion in emergency spending that was contained in last year's omnibus bill, the need to provide safeguards against the abuse of this provision--and the squandering of the surplus--could not be more clear. Mr. President, the emergency spending designation was created for a very important reason. If a sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary event occurs, the strict spending limits imposed in the budget resolution can be exceeded through the designation of that event as an ``emergency.'' This exception is understandable when considering that the hands of Congress and the Administration should not be tied when the pressing needs of our nation override the need for strict budget discipline. For instance, recent earthquakes in California, floods in the Midwest, hurricanes in the South, and ice storms in the Northeast-- which were devastating to my home state of Maine--are all examples of natural disasters that warranted the emergency designation because they were completely unexpected and unforseen, and could not have been addressed in a timely manner through the regular budget process. By the same token, the tragic bombing in Oklahoma City is an example of an unexpected and unforeseeable event that also warranted emergency treatment. Yet even as the emergency designation is necessary and warranted for these and other unexpected disasters, it can also be used as a major loophole by those who wish to circumvent the normal budget or legislative process. Rather than restricting the use of the emergency designation to only those bills or items that are truly unforseen and urgent, some may use this designation to either fund programs or projects that are debatable as to their emergency nature, while others may use emergency bills to push through unrelated legislation or spending programs without the normal level of scrutiny provided in the normal legislative process. For example, the omnibus bill adopted at the close of the 105th Congress contained $21.4 billion in emergency spending that came directly out of the surplus. While some of the provisions in that package undoubtedly deserved the emergency designation, several items were either debatably an ``emergency'' or were an outright effort to circumvent the regular budget process. Specifically, the $2 billion in emergency funding for our three-year-old mission in Bosnia was hardly unexpected and should have been included in the President's budget at the beginning of the year. It should not have be designated an ``emergency'' simply to avoid the budget caps that ensure fiscal restraint. Ultimately, regardless of the manner in which the emergency designation can be misused--whether it is to fund a military operation that has been ongoing for years, or to fast-track a piece of legislation that has no relationship to the emergency in question--it is a practice that we must stop. The legislation we are offering today will do just that. Specifically, the bill establishes three new rules to ensure that bills or individual provisions receiving the emergency designation are subject to careful--but reasonable--scrutiny. The first provision--which is patterned after the ``Byrd Rule'' that applies to reconciliation bills--will ensure that non-emergency items will not be attached to emergency spending bills by creating a point of order for striking these provisions. Simply put, because emergency spending bills are often put on a ``fast-track'' to ensure rapid consideration, we should not allow non-emergency spending or legislative riders to be attached to these bills in an effort to avoid the normal, deliberative legislative process. To waive this restriction, an affirmative vote by three-fifths of the members of the Senate would be required--a level that will be easily achieved for a true emergency. The second provision--which is also patterned after the Byrd Rule-- will ensure that the validity of any item that is designated as an emergency--in either an emergency spending bill or a non-emergency bill--can be challenged by the members of the Senate. The bottom line is that just because an item placed in a bill is given the emergency designation does not mean it deserves that designation--and this point of order will ensure that members agree that the designation is warranted. As outlined earlier, the omnibus bill adopted at the close of the 105th Congress contained a variety of provisions that were debatable ``emergencies''--in particular, the funding for troops in Bosnia, because this cost was hardly unforeseen, sudden, or temporary. This point of order will ensure that such provisions do not avoid budget scrutiny, and that the surplus is protected for Social Security accordingly. The final provision will ensure that any legislation that contains emergency spending will require a three-fifths vote for final passage. Because members may feel compelled to act quickly on bills that contain even a single item designated as an emergency, this provision will ensure that such bills do not slide through the regular legislative process without full consideration and without more than simple majority support. While the previous two points of order will prevent improper abuse of the emergency designation, this requirement will serve as a final safeguard in the process. Mr. President, the bottom line is that although the emergency designation is a vitally important means of ensuring the unexpected needs of our nation can be addressed, it can also become a loophole that subverts budget discipline, drains our new-found surplus, and potentially impacts our ability to strengthen the Social Security program. But with proper safeguards put in place, we can ensure that this potential loophole is closed while still ensuring legitimate emergencies are addressed. The legislation I am offering today along with Senator Graham provides such thoughtful and reasonable safeguards, so I urge that my colleagues support the ``Surplus Protection Act of 1999.''