Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 2160 be indefinitely postponed.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it may well have been the understanding of the Senator from Minnesota that an hour would be set aside. That was not my understanding in terms of how this time would be divided, other than to say that most of the time was to be used this evening, with the exception of 15 minutes to be equally divided tomorrow. I will agree to half an hour equally divided, if that will accommodate the Senator from Minnesota. But I, and I think the others involved in this debate, prefer to do most of the debate this evening. That was our understanding.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I mention to the Senator from Minnesota, it is not my understanding an hour would be reserved. I understand most of the time will be used this evening, with the exception of 15 minutes to be equally divided prior to the vote tomorrow.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, yes, I will proceed first. I won't be very long, and then both Senators from Vermont are here this evening as well. I am willing to go first in this debate. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, to sum up this issue, first and foremost, I think we need to understand that most other States have already entered into compacts that have been ratified by the Congress. In fact, 41 States already have compacts. The same compact that we are asking for support here in the U.S. Senate has been already adopted by the House of Representatives by an overwhelming margin. It has been supported by the conferees of both the House and the Senate. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report that allows these three States to enter into a compact that is consistent with the mandates of the laws that have been passed by the Congress both in 1980, with the original act instructing the States that they must make decisions with respect to the disposal of low-level radioactive waste, and consistent with the amendments to that act in 1985. This compact is in keeping with the spirit and intent of those thoughts. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I say to the Members of the Senate, I rise today to ask for my colleagues' support for the conference report on H.R. 629, the Texas Compact Consent Act of 1998, which reflects the original language ratified by the States of Maine, Vermont, and Texas to address the safe disposal of their low-level radioactive nuclear waste. The 1980 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act states that it is the policy of the United States that each State is responsible for providing for the availability of disposal capacity, whether in State or out of State, for waste generated within its borders, and the act authorized interstate compacts as a principal means of providing for this capacity. The policy was reinforced in the 1985 amendments to the act. The States of Maine, Vermont, and Texas are now approaching the end of a long journey that started in 1980 when Congress informed the States to form compacts to solve their low-level radioactive waste disposal problems. My first chart shows the extent of the nine compact networks that have already been ratified by Congress. California, for instance, has had a compact with North and South Dakota, and Hawaii and Alaska ship their low-level waste to Washington State. This chart designates all of the nine previous compacts that have been established with the various States across this country. As you can see in the second chart with the list of States in the compact, Mr. President, when we adopted this report, Texas, Maine, and Vermont will become the 42nd, 43rd, and 44th States to be given congressional approval to enter into a compact and will meet their responsibilities of disposal of their low-level waste from hospitals, medical centers, powerplants, and shipyards. We will be the 10th compact to receive the consent of the U.S. Congress. Only 6 States out of 50 will not yet have formed a compact with other States. Again, in referring to this chart, it shows that 41 States have entered into nine different compacts, all of which have been ratified by the Congress in previous years. So this compact is not unlike any of the other nine previous compacts that have been adopted by the U.S. Congress. It is very important for my colleagues to understand that the language ratified overwhelmingly by each State legislature is the same language that has been passed by the conferees, so that the compact will not have to be returned to each State to go through a reratification process that would, in all practicality, as well as reality, take several more years. The compact that is before the Senate has been approved by large majorities in all three State legislatures. The Texas Senate approved the compact in May of 1993 with a vote of 28-0, and by a voice vote in the Texas House of Representatives. Governor Ann Richards at the time signed the compact. The compact is supported by the current Governor, Governor George Bush. The Vermont House voice voted the compact in March of 1994, and the Vermont Senate voice voted the compact in April of 1994. Governor Howard Dean signed the compact. The Maine Legislature approved the compact in June of 1993, by a house vote of 131 yeas to 6 nays, and a senate vote of 26 yeas and 3 nays. Additionally, Maine held a public referendum on the compact in November of 1993, which passed by 73 percent. Then-Governor John McKernan signed the compact. Today it is supported as well by the current Governor, Angus King. As Congress intended in the original law, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Act of 1980, and in amendments enacted in 1985 by the Congress, the Texas Compact is site neutral. Site location questions are the exclusive purview of the State of Texas and can only be addressed through Texas political and regulatory processes. The chosen site must, of course, meet Federal environmental, public health and safety laws. To date, no site location has been finalized. No license has been granted. The compact does not determine who pays what, how the storage is allocated, or where the site is located. To the contrary, the intent of the law is for the States to develop and approve and finalize these details after Congress has ratified the plan. The compact is only an interstate agreement providing the terms under which Maine and Vermont can dispose of their waste at a licensed facility in Texas, irrespective of where that facility is located. As we all know, there has been a proposed site. As to the statements by the opponents and by the Senator from Minnesota that there is no local support for the proposed site, all I can say is that earlier this year local support was certainly evidenced through local elections that were held in Texas. The Hudspeth County judge, who is the top elected official in the county where the site has been proposed, and who has strongly declared his support for the compact, won his race for reelection. This was an issue in his reelection, and the elections at the local level in this county. Two candidates for county commissioner who also support the compact won their races over two opponents of the compact. And a local individual in opposition to the compact was the only person on the ballot for Democratic Party Chair, and he lost to a write-in candidate. In an August 25 letter, a top-elected official from Hudspeth, Judge Peace, stated: ``The truth is the socioeconomic benefits for the residents of Sierra Blanca are enormous and overwhelmingly positive.'' Judge Peace also says, ``I want you to know that the majority of citizens favor the development of such a facility.'' Further, he says, ``The people of Sierra Blanca and Hudspeth County voiced their opinions for a better future and tangible real life advances that will make our communities more livable.'' There is a grave concern in Maine and Vermont and Texas that there are some in Congress who want to add stipulations on to the Texas Compact that no other compact has had to endure. And that would be action that would discriminate against these three States. Again, as I mentioned earlier, there have been nine previous compacts. Not one of them have had any conditions or stipulations as the ones that have been suggested by the Senator from Minnesota and others--none. And the compact is site neutral because that is a decision that has to be made by the State that will have the proposed facility. That, of course, is the State of Texas--but all consistent with the environmental and safety and health guidelines, not only at the Federal level, but at the State and the local level as well. This is not irrespective; it is not overriding those concerns. In fact, the conference report and the statute that is being proposed before the Senate is very clear that they have to follow specific and certain guidelines. So that is the environmental justice that we are pursuing. No one is saying to override environmental justice principles or regulations--absolutely not. That is for the State in question. I have faith and confidence in the State of Texas and the elected officials and other officials involved in this procedural approach in determining where the proposed site should be located. But that is a judgment that has to be made by the State of Texas and consistent with their laws, and Federal laws as well. I might add that Senator Wellstone's own State of Minnesota is already part of a compact that was ratified by Congress. And like all the other compacts that Congress has approved, Congress made no changes or added any conditions or stipulations to that compact. There again, it was a decision made by the State who is going to have the facilities, but again in keeping with Federal environmental and health and safety regulations, as well as the State and local guidelines. With congressional ratification of H.R. 629 and the conference report that is before us today, Texas will move forward to select an appropriate site for the disposal facility in a timely manner, most importantly, consistent with all of the applicable State and Federal environmental, health and public safety laws, as I have already mentioned. It has always been the decision of the State of Texas as to where the facility will be sited. And it is not within the purview of the U.S. Senate to decide for them. And I applaud the conferees in their judgment of passing out a conference report with the original language ratified by Maine, Vermont and the State of Texas. Without the protection of the compact, Texas will be compelled to-- and I repeat, compelled to--open their borders to any other State for waste disposal if they decide to create a new facility or they will be in violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. This compact will protect Texas' right to decide what is best for the State of Texas. The State will be able to construct a single engineered facility for storing and management of all of its low-level waste rather than its current situation illustrated again on this chart in which 684 temporary storage sites are strewn far and wide across the State. Again, it shows in this chart 684 different facilities across the State of Texas. This compact will allow them to consolidate into one facility. But if the Congress did not approve this compact, and the State of Texas wanted to go ahead and develop a new site, they would be required, without this compact, to open up their facility to all of the other States in the country for the transport of low-level radioactive waste. So that is why the State of Texas wants this compact, because then they would only be accepting waste from the State of Vermont and the State of Maine. Texas Compact members will now be able to exercise appropriate, responsible control of their low-level nuclear waste as Congress has mandated. I would like to put into the Record the entire letter that I received from the Organizations United for Responsible Low-Level Radioactive Waste Solutions--a coalition made up of such organizations as the American Society of Nuclear Physicians, the American Heart Association, and the National Association of Cancer Patients--who are dedicated to socially, environmentally, technically and economically responsible solutions to low-level waste disposal. I would like to quote one of their lines within the letter that I think speaks to this issue. Please support the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact bill which will allow the continued use of low-level radioactive materials that provide critical health, environmental, and safety benefits to millions of Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the entire letter printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. Well, Mr. President, I was going to yield to the Senator from Vermont.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I will just make a few brief concluding comments in response to some of the issues that were raised by the Senator from Minnesota. I respect his views and his opinions although we certainly differ on the perspective on this issue. This isn't a unique or different approach to this issue of the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. Indeed, the U.S. Congress mandated that the States assume the responsibility of the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in or out of their States. And this is in response to a congressional mandate that began in 1980 and, as I said earlier, reinforced by amendments to that act in 1985. So this isn't a diversion from that approach. It isn't different from all of the other compacts that have been ratified by the Congress over time. And, as I said earlier, there are nine different compacts, that include 41 different States, including the State of Minnesota, the State that the Senator represents. So why should Texas and Maine and Vermont be any different? The Senator referred to some of the amendments that he had offered to this legislation, but they did not prevail. Those amendments did not prevail because those conditions and stipulations would require years of reratification. And I mention the fact that those conditions were not included in any of the other nine compacts that were enacted and ratified by the Congress over the years. We all respect the Senator's perspective on the issue of environmental justice. No one is suggesting for a moment that we should override the environmental issues, any of the issues that would adversely, and disproportionately adversely, affect a community with respect to public health and safety questions, environmental issues, or income. We believe in the State of Texas--through its procedures, through its public procedures, through its political process, through its State laws, through the Federal laws--to make the appropriate decision, environmentally and scientifically and geologically, in terms of the safe disposal of low-level radioactive waste. That is the issue here. And we are doing this consistent with all of the other compacts and all of the other statutes that have been enacted by the U.S. Congress over the last 20 years. In fact, I was in the House of Representatives back in 1980 when this was a major question: How do we resolve it? It is not an easy question. It is not as if we do not have low-level radioactive waste. We have a problem, as we do with high-level radioactive waste. But we have hospitals and we have research laboratories, and we have to dispose of the materials that result from those facilities; we have no choice. And that is why we have this compact before the U.S. Senate, as do so many of the other States. Forty-one States, including the Senator's own State of Minnesota, have a compact. But now we are saying Texas and Vermont and Maine are not allowed to enter into a compact? Are we saying that the Governor of the State of Texas or the legislature, the house and the senate, are not concerned with the views of their constituencies with respect to this issue?

Ms. SNOWE. Are we saying that senators and representatives are not concerned with the views of the constituents who live in Sierra Blanca or any other locations where these facilities are sited? Are we trying to override the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that are all referenced, I might add, in the conference report? None of this can be sited anywhere on Earth without regard to environmental and public health and safety questions. It has to go through a process. In fact, the Senator from Minnesota mentioned two administrative law judges in Texas who have been conducting evidentiary hearings on the license application to construct and operate this disposal site. And the judges issued a proposal for decision on the application in Hudspeth County saying they needed more information in two aspects of the potential site. And the appropriate Texas agency is now taking the recommendation under consideration and responding on the safety question. And the judges want more information as to whether there are any negative socioeconomic impacts in this facility to the citizens and to tourism. So environmental justice is being considered. This isn't ignoring those issues. That is why this legislation is site-neutral, because we want the appropriate agencies and statutes at the Federal, State and local levels to take hold and determine what is the safest location, respecting the wishes of a community. Now, the Senator mentioned the people who don't support it in Hudspeth County. We don't even know, in the final analysis, if that is where it is going to be. That is up to the State of Texas through its process. That has been stipulated in law in terms of what they have to consider. It says: Nothing in this compact that diminishes or otherwise impairs the jurisdiction, authority, discretion of the either the following: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Nothing in the compact confers any new authority to the State commission to do any of the following: Regulate the packaging or transportation of low- level waste, regulate the health, safety and environmental hazards from source byproducts and special nuclear materials, or inspect the activities of licensees of the agreement of the States or U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. All of it is in place, just like it has been done for 41 other States over the years. That is what we are talking about. We are not saying we are going to run roughshod over anybody's wishes or rights. That is a determination that has to be made with the State of Texas through the public process, which has been done and is continuing at this moment. That is what we are asking. So I hope that my colleagues will support the conference report, which is not unusual, not unlike any of the 9 previous compacts that have been ratified by the Congress over the last 20 years. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

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

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 533, H.R. 930.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I further ask consent that following the statement by Senator Bennett the Senate resume consideration of the Texas Compact conference report and there be 40 minutes of debate equally divided between Senators Wellstone and Snowe. Further, that upon the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on adoption of the conference report without any intervening action or debate.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Moseley- Braun and Senator Gordon Smith be added as cosponsors of the Snowe-Reid amendment.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today, along with my colleague Senator Reid, to offer an amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill that will produce two critical results: It will provide women who work for the federal government the equality in health care and the affordable access to prescription contraception coverage they need and deserve; and it will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in this country. The Snowe-Reid amendment says that if a health plan in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, or FEHBP, provides coverage of prescription drugs and devices, they must also cover FDA-approved prescription contraceptives. It also provides that plans which already cover outpatient services also cover medical and counseling services to promote the effective use of those contraceptives. That's it, Madam President. That's the extent and scope of the Snowe- Reid amendment. It only prevents health plans in the FEHBP from carving out exceptions for FDA-approved prescription contraceptives that prevent pregnancy. It does not cover abortion in any way, shape or form. It does not cover abortion related services such as counseling a woman to seek an abortion. And it does not require coverage of RU-486, because RU-486 is not a method of contraception. Let me repeat, this amendment does not require coverage of RU-486. The Snowe-Reid amendment also respects the rights of religious plans that, as a matter of conscience, choose not to cover contraceptives. Again, I want to make it clear that this amendment clearly exempts such plans. Finally, the Snowe-Reid plan isn't going to break the bank or burden American taxpayers. In fact, CBO has estimated that the cost to the federal government would be less than $500,000, and under CBO's practice of scoring bills to the nearest million dollars, CBO stated: ``this provision would have no effect on the budget totals in FY 1999.'' So the Snowe-Reid amendment is a practical, common sense, cost effective approach to effecting the kind of public health policy that should set an example for the rest of the nation's insurers to follow. The need for this visionary measure is clear. Today, nearly 9 million Federal employees, retirees, and their dependents participate in the FEHBP. Fully 1.2 million are women of reproductive age who rely on FEHBP for all their medical needs. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these women are currently denied access to the broad range of safe and effective methods of contraception. In fact, according to the Office of Personnel Management, which administers the FEHBP, 81 percent of plans do not cover all five of the most basic and widely used methods of contraception and 10 percent of these plans do not cover any type of contraception at all. The ramifications of this are dramatic. When 8 out of 10 women enrolled in the FEHBP aren't covered for the leading methods of contraception, their choices are unfairly limited. Who are we to pick and choose what method works best--or is most medically suited--for each individual woman? The fact is, different women require different methods of contraception due to a variety of factors. If there is only one method of contraception her plan offers, where does that leave her? And even more to the point, why do we leave this decision to her health care plan, instead of her health care provider? Across America, this lack of equitable coverage for prescription contraceptives contributes to the fact that women today spend 68 percent more than men in health care costs. That's 68 percent. And this gap in coverage translates into $7,000 to $10,000 over a woman's reproductive lifetime. So I ask my colleagues: with 25 percent of all Federal employees earning less than $25,000--and nearly 18,000 Federal employees having incomes below or slightly above the Federal poverty level--what do you think is the likely effect of these tremendous added costs for these Federal employees? Well, I'll tell you the effect it has: many of them simply stop using contraceptives, or will never use them in the first place, because they simply can't afford to. And the impact of those decisions on these individuals and this nation is a lasting and profound one. Women spend more than 90 percent of their reproductive life avoiding pregnancy, and a woman who doesn't use contraception is 15 times more likely to become pregnant than women who do. Fifteen times. And of the 3.6 million unintended pregnancies in the United States, half of them will end in abortion. I can't think of anyone I know, no matter their ideology, party, or gender, who doesn't want to see the instances of abortion in this nation reduced. Well, imagine if I told you we could do something about it, and do it at almost no cost to the federal government. That is what the Snowe-Reid amendment does. When the Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that the use of birth control lowers the likelihood of abortion by a remarkable 85 percent, how can we ignore a provision like the Snowe-Reid amendment that will make the use of birth control more affordable to our Federal employees, and do so with negligible cost to the Federal government? And yet, as thoughtful an approach as the Snowe-Reid amendment may seem, I know that there will still be some in this body who will argue against it. Well, I believe these arguments do not withstand scrutiny, and I would like to take just a few minutes to explain why. Some may voice concern that the Snowe-Reid amendment requires coverage of abortion of drugs that induce abortion, such as RU-486. To which I will reiterate, the Snowe-Reid amendment only requires coverage of FDA-approved methods of contraception--that means contraception to prevent pregnancy. It is important to make it clear that we are only talking about methods of contraception under this amendment. And I might add, methods of contraception which will reduce the number of abortions in this country--so the fact is--if you want to see fewer abortions performed in the United States, you should support this amendment. When it comes to the incredibly personal issue of abortion we should be celebrating common ground, not condemning it. This amendment achieves that goal. It does not pretend to settle the issue of abortion in America--far from it. It does, however, provide a rallying point for those who want to see abortions reduced--all of us, I would think--and that's the reason people like Senator Reid who is prolife, support it on one side of the abortion debate and people like me on the other. Some opponents may say that pregnancy isn't really a medical condition, and therefore we shouldn't be requiring its coverage in the FEHBP. Obviously, anyone who says this hasn't been through pregnancy or childbirth. If pregnancy isn't a medical condition, then I'd like to know what is! And in this day and age when prevention is the buzzword--as it should be--how is it we can support prescription coverage to treat a variety of biological conditions but not to prevent one of the most dramatic and life-altering conditions of all? Still others may argue, ``Pregnancy is a lifestyle choice, and shouldn't be covered like diseases that are not''. Such an argument simply ignores reality as well as the facts. As Luella Klein, the director of women's health issues at ACOG, put it: ``There's nothing `optional' about contraception. It is a medical necessity for woman during 30 years of their lifespan. To ignore the health benefits of contraception is to say that the alternative of 12 to 15 pregnancies during a woman's lifetime is medically acceptible.'' Of course, we shouldn't be too surprised at the attitude of our opponents. Indeed, it wasn't until 1978--only twenty years ago--that Congress passed a law requiring that maternity benefits be covered like any other medical care. Before we passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 43 percent of insurance policies didn't include coverage of maternity care. Sound familiar? So here we are, twenty years later, battling some of the same insurance companies that in 1978 didn't want to provide the same coverage we now take for granted. How can they still not cover the means to prevent what they already acknowledge through existing coverage as a medical condition? The fact is, all methods of contraception are cost effective when compared to the cost of unintended pregnancy. And with unplanned pregnancies linked to higher rates of premature and low-birth weight babies, costs can rise even above and beyond those associated with healthy births. As the American Journal of Public Health estimates, the cost under managed care for a year's dose of birth control pills is less than one- tenth of what it would cost for prenatal care and delivery. So the question, then, is not ``How can we afford to expand coverage to prescription contraceptives?'' but ``How can we afford not to?'' No, the cost argument doesn't hold water, Mr. President, and neither do any of the other arguments. The bottom line is, the Snowe-Reid amendment makes sense from a standpoint of fairness, from the standpoint of compassion, from the standpoint of cost effectiveness and from the standpoint of good public health policy. Maybe that's why the concept is supported by such diverse groups as the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the American Medical Women's Association, and the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Whatever the reason, as an employer and model for the rest of the nation, the federal government should provide equal access to this most basic health benefit for women. This amendment would allow federal employees to have that option, one already provided an option for contraceptives through the Medicaid program. Why shouldn't the same federal commitment be extended to women employed by the federal government? In closing, Madam President, let me say that if we, as a nation, are truly committed to reducing abortion rates and increasing the quality of life for all Americans, then we need to begin focusing our attention on how to prevent unintended pregnancies. The Snowe-Reid amendment is a significant step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Again, I applaud the leadership of the Committee on this matter, and thank them for their cooperation. I look forward to working with the Committee on this continuing and important effort in the future. marriage penalty amendments

Ms. SNOWE. I am grateful to Senator Campbell and Senator Kohl for their leadership on this important program. In the Committee's report on FY 1999 Customs' appropriations, the Committee recognizes the importance of the blue water vessels as a central component of the marine interdiction strategy, and urges the Customs Service to maintain its fleet of blue water vessels at a level which is safe for its agents. I understand the delicate funding balance that the Customs Service and the Committee must strike. I had hoped to see some replacement blue water vessels built in FY 1999. Unfortunately, it was not possible to allocate the funding for this purpose this year. However, we should not let this opportunity to upgrade these vessels slip by--I believe we should ensure that the option to fund these vessels remains in the event that funding becomes available next year. Again, Customs already has a contract to build these vessels on demand scheduled to expire in the 1999 fiscal year. I strongly believe that Customs should extend this contract.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to address my colleagues on a matter of critical importance to our national drug interdiction program. I am very concerned about the condition of some of the currently deployed drug interdiction vessels. I understand that some of the vessels currently deployed in the U.S. Customs Service's marine program fleet are 30 years old and may pose a threat to U.S. Customs Service agents and the viability of our drug interdiction program. The Customs Service already has a contract to build replacement vessels on demand. However, this contract will expire at the end of FY 1999, and no vessels have been purchased to date. I believe the Customs Service should extend this contract and make efforts to replace aging vessels in the field a high priority.

Ms. SNOWE. In recent years, drug seizures by the Customs Service have increased significantly. This progress is due in no small part to the Customs agents who put their lives on the line to help stem the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States. Protecting our borders and reducing the proliferation of narcotics is an enormous challenge. It is imperative that we maintain the viability of our drug interdiction program and the fleet we use to enforce our drug laws on the high seas. I believe procurement of drug interdiction vessels would be an invaluable investment in our drug interdiction program. In 1995, the U.S. Customs Service entered into a contract to build 82-foot ``blue water'' vessels for drug interdiction. As I mentioned, the contract was effective through FY 1999 but no vessel has been built. These vessels have a proven track record, and the contract was awarded by Customs in anticipation of resources for replacement vessels. However, the FY 1995 budget request proposed a 50-percent reduction in Customs marine program operations and staffing. The Congress restored some of the funding for this program. However, no additional funds were appropriated to Customs for the replacement costs of vessels.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1998. This legislation authorizes appropriations for NOAA research, operations, and other activities, reforms the operation of NOAA's hydrographic activities, authorizes continuation of the NOAA Corps, requires the development of a revised NOAA fleet modernization plan, and makes administrative changes related to NOAA. Mr. President, I consider NOAA to be one of the most important agencies of the Federal government. It manages and conserves living marine resources; explores, maps, and charts the ocean and its resources; describes, monitors, and predicts conditions in the atmosphere, ocean, and space environments; and issue whether forecasts and warnings, among other missions. Certain specific NOAA activities are authorized through individual statutes such as the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. But many NOAA activities are conducted pursuant to longstanding general authorizations, and the specific details of these programs are determined administratively Congress last enacted a general NOAA authorization in 1992 (Public Law 102-567). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1992 authorized funding for NOAA programs through FY 1993. As Chair of the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries of the Commerce Committee, I think it is time for the Congress to pass an updated authorization for these NOAA programs. My bill authorizes funding in various accounts in fiscal years 1999 through 2001 for the National Ocean Service, the National Weather Service, the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service, the Office of Ocean and Atmospheric Research, the National Marine Fisheries Service, Program Support, Facilities, and Fleet Maintenance and Planning. Mr. President, the Congress should make a concerted effort to reauthorize NOAA's programs. This legislation will accomplish that objective and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the two Capitol Police Officers who gave their lives to protect members of Congress, their staffs and visitors from throughout the world during last Friday's tragic shooting at the United States Capitol. For those of us who work in the Capitol, Special Agent John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut were among the people who are part of our daily lives. And over the twenty years I have served in Congress, I've been constantly impressed with their courteous manner and their friendliness and the way they know all of us by name, all the while maintaining the highest degree of professionalism in carrying out their solemn duties. They become extensions of our staffs, and they become our friends. Sometimes, in the commotion of everyday life around here, it is easy to forget that each new day brings the potential for unknown dangers for these brave men and women. The fact is, those assigned to protect the sanctity and safety of the U.S. Capitol put themselves in harms way on a daily basis, and three days ago, two of them came to work in the morning never to return to the lives and families they loved. It is difficult for us to understand how a day which began like so many other summer days here on Capitol Hill could so suddenly end in violence and terror. Here beneath this dome of marble and stone; here behind these historic walls; and here at the epicenter of the world's greatest democracy; we feel somehow that such heinous acts are simply too incongruous with our noble surroundings to be possible. And yet, history and reality tell us they are, in fact, all too possible. It vividly brings back to me one such incident fifteen years ago, when I was in the House of Representatives. My future husband, Congressman Jock McKernan, and I were standing with others on the House floor when, right above us, two officers tackled a man brandishing a bomb in the House gallery. These two men unhesitatingly put the safety of the entire House chamber before their own, without questioning the danger they faced. Such was the case last Friday--as certainly more would have been injured or killed had it not been for the willingness of Special Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut to put their lives on the line. Their actions not only prevented what could have been an even greater catastrophe, but sent a message to those who would violate the people's house that they will never prevail. During what I know is the most difficult of times for the families of Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut, I hope it will be at least some measure of comfort for them to know that so many here and across America are keeping them in their thoughts and prayers. The entire nation shares in their sense of loss, and our hearts go out to the loved ones that these brave individuals have left behind. I also want to extend my sympathies to all the men and women of the Capitol Police force. They have lost two of their finest--men whose actions under the most dire circumstances have brought tremendous credit to the Capitol Police. As members of the force go about their vital duties, I want them to know that they have our fullest support, trust, and appreciation for all they do to keep us safe. Last Friday's shootings stunned the nation and affected us all in very personal ways. For those of us here on Capitol Hill, we lost two members of our family. And in Maine and throughout the country, people felt a sense of outrage that this symbol of freedom of democracy--the greatest public building in the country--would be stained with the mark of violence. Today, let us as a country be grateful that people like Special Agent John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice so that this building will always remain the people's house. Let us mourn their loss, celebrate their lives, and never forget their courageous deeds on behalf of all the citizens of our great Nation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gregg, in a colloquy.