Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I further ask unanimous consent that Senator DeWine be recognized for up to 60 minutes following our statements.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my statement, the order of speakers be Senator Collins from Maine and Senator Chafee from Rhode Island.

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

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I rise to express my support for Senate Concurrent Resolution 90, which acknowledges the historic Northern Ireland Peace Agreement reached just two weeks ago. Both the governments of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom have worked for many years to facilitate a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Northern Ireland that has cost so many lives and caused so much suffering. Ultimately, it was the willingness of the representatives of Northern Ireland's political parties to adhere to the principles of non-violence that helped create an atmosphere that led to this most historic agreement. I commend all those who helped lay the groundwork for this achievement: Prime Minister Tony Blair, Prime Minister Bertie Ahern and President Clinton for their dedication to the peace process. And I am especially proud of my former colleague, Senator George Mitchell, for his patient and herculean efforts to heal the deep wounds of this tragic conflict. It will come as no surprise to my fellow Mainers and my Senate colleagues that Senator Mitchell would be unduly modest in recognizing the role he has played. As he noted, it may be true that the agreement alone ``guarantees nothing.'' But it does bestow the precious gift of hope upon a people who finally have ``the chance for a better future.'' In his quiet, understated way, George Mitchell brought individuals who had been in conflict for the past thirty years out of the shadows of distrust and into the light of faith--faith in a nonviolent, democratic resolution. As one of the participants in the talks commented, ``Here the United States sent one of its most able, skilled, talented, humble politicians, a supreme diplomat, and frankly we didn't deserve him.'' That is a poignant and appropriate tribute to a man who has helped bring the promise of peace to a region most deserving of its blessings. As one who served with him in the Congress for nearly 15 years, I am proud to extend my gratitude to Senator Mitchell for his extraordinary work. And I do so knowing that the honor which would please George Mitchell most would be the true and lasting success of the remarkable agreement he helped to broker. May the Northern Ireland Peace Agreement finally bring an end to the fear and suffering, and may the future of Northern Ireland be as bright as the spirit and potential of her extraordinary people.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Vice Admiral George R. Sterner, United States Navy, who will retire on May 1st upon completing 36 years of faithful service to our nation. During his distinguished career, Vice Admiral Sterner played a significant role in reshaping the way the Navy develops, acquires, modernizes, and maintains its ships and systems so that our Sailors and Marines have the best equipment in the world at an affordable price. Vice Admiral Sterner's career began in 1962 upon his commissioning as an Ensign in the United States Navy. During the years that followed, he served aboard four submarines and commanded two others. His shore assignments included duty on the staff of the Commander in Chief, United States Atlantic Fleet; Branch Head for submarine tactical weapons on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations; Program Manager for the Mark 48 Advanced Capability Torpedo; and Program Executive Officer for Submarine Combat and Weapons Systems. After serving in two senior Naval Sea Systems Command positions, Vice Admiral Sterner took charge of this organization on April 25, 1994. As Commander of the largest of the five Navy Systems Commands, Vice Admiral Sterner re-energized an agency in turmoil as a result the largest restructuring since World War II. Managing a budget of approximately $14 billion annually and managing more than 180 acquisition programs, he has been a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars while insuring that we have technically-superb, world-class naval fleet. As a testament to his dynamic leadership, the National Performance Review chose to honor him and his command with 27 Hammer Awards for contributions to create a government that works better and costs less. Closer to home, Vice Admiral Sterner has been a friend to the dedicated men and women who works at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Thanks in part to his vision, the Shipyard retains its important military-industrial capabilities and continues to provide critical jobs for the region. Vice Admiral George Sterner's innovation has positioned the Naval Sea Systems Command for the 21st Century. He is an individual of uncommon character and his professionalism will be sincerely missed. I am proud, Mr. President, to thank him for his honorable service in the United States Navy, and to wish him ``fair winds and following seas'' as he closes his distinguished military career.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the FY 1999 budget resolution is the first resolution that has been crafted since the historic balanced budget agreement was reached and enacted just 10 short months ago. I would first like to congratulate the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Pete Domenici, for bringing us to the point where a balanced budget is no longer just a projection at end of some indeterminate period of time--but may actually be a reality by the end of the current fiscal year. His years of dedication to balanced budgets and his ongoing commitment to being a responsible steward of the taxpayer's dollar may soon be rewarded--and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to serve with him on the Budget Committee during this historic time. Furthermore, I believe that the resolution that Chairman has crafted deserves the support of no less than each of the 76 members who voted for last year's bipartisan agreement. This resolution is not only consistent with that agreement, but also adds critical funding for a multitude of programs that are priorities for many in the Senate: child care, health research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), smoking cessation programs, and federal funding for the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA), to name just a few. Any member who heralded last year's budget agreement--or who voted in favor the provisions and spending targets it contained--would be hard-pressed to explain why this resolution does not deserve their support this year. Mr. President, as I stated during the recent markup of this resolution in the Budget Committee, I believe it is important that we establish several guiding principles in crafting the FY 1999 budget resolution. I am proud to say that the resolution we crafted--and which is now being considered by the full Senate--achieves all of these goals. First, based on the 29-year losing streak we have had in balancing the federal budget, we have an obligation to craft a resolution that puts us on a credible and prudent path that will keep the budget balanced for many years to come. Second, we must craft a budget resolution that is based on the balanced budget agreement that was enacted 10 short months ago. Third, with an eye to the future, we must preserve the Social Security program before utilizing any portion of forthcoming surpluses for spending increases or tax cuts. And, fourth, we must ensure that any monies generated by tobacco revenues in the months ahead be utilized to preserve and protect Medicare. Although it would seem that these principles will be easy to attain, Congress' unproven track record of keeping the budget in balance, the tenuous nature of our economic assumptions, and the overwhelming desire of some individuals to ``spend'' money we don't even have, will make this difficult. As I said, Congress has been on a 29-year losing streak when it comes to balancing the budget--we have no track record of getting the budget in balance or keeping it in balance. Therefore, much as I am pleased that CBO now projects an $8 billion surplus this year and total surpluses of $151 billion over the next five years, I believe we have an obligation to prove to the American people that we will ensure these projections become a reality not only for the next five years, but year-after-year in the future. Achieving this goal will be harder than it looks. The simple fact is that the current outlook and surplus estimates are based on extremely tenuous projections. Therefore, to modify a well known saying, ``we shouldn't count our surpluses before they're hatched.'' First, our estimated surpluses are based on the assumption that we will have no recessions or economic downturns in the coming 10 years. Based on the fact that we are now in the midst of one of the longest stretches of sustained economic growth in our nation's history, this seems to be a fragile estimate at best. Specifically, as the chart behind me indicates, the current period of sustained economic growth first started in March 1991. If it continues until December 1998, it will match the duration of the longest peacetime expansion in U.S. history--the ``Reagan expansion''--which lasted 92 straight months (i.e. November 1982 to July 1990). Furthermore, if this expansion continues until early 2000, it will be longest period of expansion ever--peacetime or wartime--which was set in the 1960's (106 straight months, from February 1961-- December 1969). Therefore, If CBO's projection come true and growth is sustained through 2008, we will double the all-time record of 106 straight months set in 1969. Needless to say, with 61% of the economists surveyed by Blue Chip believing a recession is likely to occur before March 2000, these estimates of prolonged economic growth leading to substantial surpluses should be viewed with a health dose of skepticism. Furthermore, our estimates for growth in even the current year are predicated on shaky estimates. Specifically, although the impact of the Asian economic crisis has seemed only slight up until now, we still do not know how severe the overall impact will be--and we certainly won't know until later in the year when it's too late to alter the budget. Already, just two weeks ago, we learned that the U.S. trade deficit for the month of January soared to a new all-time record of $12 billion, as exports to Asia dropped precipitously. According to a recent Washington Post article, many economists expect that because of problems in Asia, the trade deficit will widen substantially this year from the $114 billion deficit posted in 1997--which was already the largest trade deficit our nation had posted in nine years. Needless to say, if this situation persists and worsens, there will be a drag on the U.S. economy. In light of these risks, we would be wise to heed the caution of CBO when it comes to touting the budget outlook. As CBO outlined in their own January report, the economy is ``highly unlikely to develop precisely as the forecast predicts''--and even a moderate recession, such as the one experienced in the early 1990's, could lead to the budget outlook deteriorating by ``more than $100 billion'' for a year or more. In fact, if projected growth is even 0.5% lower than CBO projects over the next 10 years, the budget outcome will be $150 billion worse than projected in 2008. It is because of CBO's own cautions that I am especially concerned with the economic and budget estimates of OMB. Although the CBO and OMB estimates are very close together, the simple fact is that OMB still provides a more favorable economic outlook in coming years. Specifically, as a result of more favorable growth estimates and lower inflation estimates, OMB's estimated surpluses are $66 billion--or 30 percent--higher than CBO. Therefore, prudence dictates that OMB's estimates be viewed with even greater skepticism than the already optimistic projections of CBO. Clearly, if we are to establish a track record of balanced budgets, we must chart a prudent course in the budget resolution. And for this reason, we must adopt a resolution that not only follows CBO's more modest economic estimates, but that also adheres strictly to last year's balanced budget agreement. This body should do nothing to jeopardize that agreement, which put in place strict spending limits that will improve the chances of projected surpluses becoming actual surpluses. Regrettably, the President does not seem to share this view. Rather, he views the recent favorable estimates as an opportunity to spend money, create new programs, and violate the terms and spirit of the budget agreement we reached just 10 short months ago! By proposing to increase taxes by $105 billion and to increase spending by $118 billion, the President's budget would revert to the tax-and-spend policies that the American people believed we abandoned three years ago. Furthermore, although President Clinton has urged that Congress not spend the surplus until Social Security is fixed, CBO now tells us that the President's own budget would not only spend the surplus, but also cause a deficit in three years! Specifically, as CBO stated in their March 4 preliminary analysis of the President's budget: ``CBO estimates that the President's policies will reduce projected baseline surpluses by $43 billion between 1999 and 2003--and will temporarily dip the budget back into red ink by a small amount in 2000.'' Needless to say, these aren't the kind of policies that Congress agreed to when we crafted the bipartisan balanced budget agreement last year--and that's not what the American people were led to believe would happen when President Clinton unveiled his budget proposal in February. While some may argue that the President is not bound by last year's budget agreement because the budget may be balanced sooner than expected, I have only one thing to say: I don't remember any clause in the agreement that read: ``If a balanced budget is achieved prior to 2002, the terms and spending limits of this agreement are automatically waived.'' Fortunately, the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Pete Domenici, understands the need for prudence, and crafted this resolution accordingly. As the budget before us demonstrates, the Chairman believes that we have an obligation to treat this favorable budget news as a chance to prepare for the future and address the long-term demands that retiring Baby Boomers will place on our budget in 10 short years. Specifically, this resolution adheres to the budget agreement we struck 10 months ago. Also, he leaves every dime of every future surplus to the Social Security Trust Fund--which is just as the President urged us to do, though his own budget does not. And, finally, he ensures that Congress does not forget or ignore the plight of Medicare--a critical program that will be insolvent in 2008, which is long before Social Security will be insolvent, and sooner than many would like to remember. To achieve this final goal, the Chairman has wisely walled-off any monies we receive from tobacco legislation and dedicated it to Medicare. In comparison, the President would like to target these monies to a host of new programs that he believes will have popular appeal. Perhaps targeting windfall revenues to a program that our elderly rely on for their medical needs isn't as appealing as handing out new ``goodies'' in an election year, but I certainly believe it would be more responsible and prudent. In addition, when considering the cost of smoking-related illnesses on the Medicare program each and every year, linking any forthcoming tobacco revenue to the Medicare program is imminently appropriate. As the chart behind me indicates, Columbia University found that smoking- related illnesses cost the Medicare program $25.5 billion in 1995 alone. In fact, of the various forms of substance abuse that affect the Medicare program, tobacco-related illnesses accounted for 80% of the approximately $32 billion total costs in 1995. Therefore, even assuming that these costs have not risen since 1995-- which is doubtful--then the President's budget, which assumes tobacco revenues of approximately $13 billion in each of the coming five years, will not even come close to covering the costs of tobacco on the Medicare program. In fact, the President's assumption would cover only slightly more than half of these annual costs. Needless to say, the budget resolution's assumption that these monies be used to shore-up the Medicare program is more than justified when considering these facts. Now, some members have expressed concern that walling-off tobacco revenues in this manner will harm our efforts to pass comprehensive tobacco legislation later this year. As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee--the Committee that will soon be marking-up this legislation--I cannot emphasize enough that this concern is unfounded. The tobacco reserve fund does not imperil comprehensive tobacco legislation, as some members on the other side of the aisle will contend. Rather, just the opposite is true: It will protect future tobacco legislation. The simple fact, Mr. President, is that the more uses we identify for possible tobacco revenues in the budget resolution, the more the urge to spend money will become the driving force for tobacco legislation. If that happens, the only winners will be the tobacco companies, because Congress will have lost sight of the true goal of that legislation: reducing--if not eliminating--teen smoking. Tobacco companies would like nothing more than for those of us who are committed to passing comprehensive tobacco legislation to argue about how money will be spent. The simple fact is that if we divvy-up the pot of potential tobacco money in this resolution, we will face enormous pressure to simply pass a tobacco bill at all costs, regardless of its merits. Such a bill could well-contain many weak provisions that favor tobacco companies--but the pressure to ``spend the money'' will drive members to overlook the inherent flaws of such a bill. As the Washington Post stated in a February 3 editorial: ``Mr. Clinton would pay for a fair amount of his program with a tobacco bill that he has thus far not submitted. He is relying on Congress to write it. He says that as a deterrent to smoking, it should raise the price of smoking $1.50 a pack in real terms over 10 years, and he proposes a division of the revenue. The problem with that will be if the money becomes more important than the rest of the bill, and the tobacco companies are able, as is their intent, to buy weaker legislation than might otherwise be passed.'' That's not an outcome that I want for tobacco legislation--and that's not the outcome that I believe the American people want either. Unfortunately, those who would attempt to push for an advance- divvying of the tobacco ``piggy-bank'' drive us toward that outcome. The fact of the matter is that the Chairman's mark will ensure that tobacco legislation to reduce teen smoking is able to move forward based on sound policy--not politics. Limiting the use of the federal share of future tobacco monies to Medicare is not an impediment to tobacco legislation--it is an enabler. Mr. President, if I understand the argument of the minority accurately, they believe that limiting the use of the federal share of tobacco monies to Medicare will impose an additional hurdle to tobacco legislation. They are saying that it will prevent tobacco monies from being used for important tobacco-related purposes, such as smoking cessation programs and health research. As the Chairman has outlined, his budget resolution does more for these programs today than any theoretical tobacco bill is able to do. This resolution provides $800 million for tobacco cessation and prevention programs, and $15 billion for research at the NIH. That's real money--not the illusory money that we simply hope tobacco legislation will generate in the future. Now, some may argue that this budget simply does not provide enough for these or other smoking-related programs, and that any forthcoming tobacco legislation should provide additional monies for these purposes. That's a legitimate argument. But the simple fact is that this budget will not prevent additional monies from being provided for such purposes if a tobacco bill is passed. In fact, the budget resolution will not even prevent tobacco monies from being diverted to programs that have nothing to do with tobacco. The bottom line is that if tobacco legislation is brought up on the floor of the Senate and members wish to divert monies for any number of purposes--either related to smoking or not related to smoking--they can do that. It will simply take 60 votes to waive the point of order that this resolution would create against such spending--which is the same margin of votes that will be required to end debate on that same tobacco bill (achieve cloture). Therefore, in light of the fact that it will take at least 60 votes to end debate on a tobacco bill and--ultimately--to pass a tobacco bill, this point of order is not onerous. It simply ensures that we keep our priorities straight from the start (Medicare), and ensures that the various ways we spend tobacco monies will have the same level of support as the tobacco bill itself. The bottom line is that if Congress believes that more money is needed from the tobacco bill to pay for smoking cessation and other tobacco-related programs, garnering 60 votes to waive the point of order will not even be an issue. Therefore, arguing that this requirement--which is no more onerous than the 60-vote margin that will be required to end debate and pass the tobacco bill--endangers tobacco legislation, is completely inaccurate. The bottom line is that this resolution seeks to protect tobacco legislation from being weakened or undermined by a ``rush for the money.'' So I hope that those who are concerned about tobacco legislation will join us in this effort to keep the focus of tobacco legislation on reducing teen smoking--not on spending money. I want a strong, effective tobacco bill--I don't want it undermined and weakened because the ``politics of spending'' got in the way of good policy. Mr. President, these and other principled decisions that are embodied in this resolution will undoubtedly be challenged by those who would like to open the fiscal floodgates and start spending at will or pass another round of tax cuts. However, I believe that as we move from a period of deficit politics to surplus politics, we should exercise discipline and prudence to ensure expectations are met--not re-open the federal credit card account that got us into so much trouble in the first place. At the same time, maintaining fiscal discipline and adhering to last year's balanced budget agreement does not mean that we must ignore important issues confronting our nation today. Specifically, within existing budget constraints, we can and should address the educational needs of our children and tackle the child care crisis that is affecting countless families nationwide. But funding these and other priorities doesn't require that we violate last year's spending caps--rather, they require that we prioritize our spending and have the will to target our spending accordingly. In particular, I would like to highlight the manner in which the Chairman properly accommodated one such priority--child care--in this resolution. As the leaders of both parties an the Administration have demonstrated through a variety of proposals, improving child care should be a priority during the current Congress. And in light of the ever-expanding need for child care assistance, such a decision is not surprising. In 1995, 62 percent of women with children younger than 6 years of age--which means 12 million children--were cared for by someone other than a parent during working hours, and the numbers have not improved. Yet the supply of child care does not meet demand, and existing child care is often unaffordable. In fact, on average, child care costs range from $3,000 to $8,000 per year, and can be even higher for infant care. Safety is also a factor that looms heavily on parents' minds--in fact, a U.S. News and World Report article last August found that 76 children died in day care in 1996. This is tragic and should not be the case. Placing children in child care should be an act of confidence, not a leap of faith. Finally, many families who wish to care for a young child at home-- even for a short period of time--cannot afford to forgo the second income, while other families undertake great scarifies to do so. But what many American families share is that terrible feeling that they have no option. And it should not be this way. That is why the assumptions of this budget resolution are so critical. Not only would this budget double funding for the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG)--going from $5 billion to $10 billion-- over the coming five years, but it would also ensure that any tax package subsequently passed by the Finance Committee provide tax relief to families struggling with child care. I believe that these are policies that both Democrats and Republicans alike can and should embrace. In January, I introduced a comprehensive bill--the Caring for Children Act--with Senators Chafee, Hatch, Roberts, and Specter, that is designed to increase the availability of a safe and affordable child care. That legislation would expand the Dependent Care Tax Credit, and for the first time make this credit available to families where a parent stays at home to care for a child. It also encourages public-private partnerships, provides increased funding for quality, and doubles funding for the Child Care Development Block Grant. Although the budget resolution does not advocate any particular child care bill, I am pleased that the assumptions included in this budget would comport with our bill, and I hope that policies along these lines will be enacted in the coming months. I know that other child care bills have been introduced in the Senate--including a bill introduced by Senator Dodd, along with Senators Murray and Conrad. I truly believe that we are not that far apart in terms of policy, and I look forward to a time when we can work together to bridge these differences. At the same time, I also know that there are those who will be adamant that the increased funding provided in the budget resolution for the Child Care Development Block Grant be mandatory in nature. However, I believe that the large increase in discretionary funding provided in the resolution is the most fiscally responsible approach to this nation's child care needs--and is quite an accomplishment when considering the fiscal constraints imposed in last year's bipartisan balanced budget agreement. To those who will say that the Appropriations Committee will not be able to locate additional funds within the discretionary caps for child care, say, If child care is truly a priority, then it is simply a matter of having the will--and casting the votes--to ensure that an additional $1 billion per year is identified during the appropriations process for child care as we weigh our spending priorities. And considering that the President has proposed more than $47 billion in non-defense discretionary cuts over the coming five years, this is hardly a practical impossibility--it is only a matter of will. Mr. President, this decision to dramatically increase funding for child care is but one of many decisions contained in this resolution that will address shared priorities. While some may argue that the recent favorable budget outlook gives us leeway to fund these priorities out of surplus monies or hoped-for tobacco revenues, the bottom line is that Republicans and Democrats alike fought hard for, and agreed to, this bipartisan agreement only ten months ago. We should not take steps now to violate not only that agreement, but our trust with the American people. We have a responsibility to abide by this agreement, and the Chairman provided very generous funding within these constraints to ensure that child care and other priorities are properly addressed. The bottom line is that this resolution abides by last year's balanced budget agreement; provides increased funding for critically needed priorities; preserves every penny of every surplus over the coming five years to protect Social Security; and ensures that any windfall revenues from tobacco legislation will be used to buttress the Medicare program. The fact that this budget resolution abides by last year's agreement should be reason enough for each of the 76 members who voted for last year's agreement--including 36 Democrats--to vote for this budget plan. And the fact that it contains these other strong provisions should lead to even stronger bipartisan support. Therefore, I urge that my colleagues support this soundly-crafted resolution. Mr. President, there is a saying: ``Money's only something you need if you're around tomorrow.'' While this may be true for an individual, it doesn't make for good federal policy. Therefore, I congratulate the Chairman of the Budget Committee for recognizing that being a good steward of the federal budget requires that we ensure there is money around tomorrow--even if we are not. Our children and grandchildren are counting on us to make decisions today that will ensure they are not left with a mountain of unpaid bills and a host of unresolved problems on the horizon. The budget that you have crafted--and that is now before this body--would protect them from both of these dangers, and I congratulate you for your continued foresight. Thank you, Mr. President, and I look forward to voting in favor of this resolution.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support of Justice Kermit Lipez's nomination to become a judge on the First Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Justice Lipez has many qualifications to recommend him and I want to take a few minutes to touch on them. But before I begin, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, for all that he has done in getting the Committee to promptly consider Justice Lipez's nomination and bringing us to this vote today. Throughout this process, Senator Hatch has been consistently thoughtful and cooperative, and I want him to know how much I appreciate his invaluable contributions and assistance. The Senate's action today will be the culmination of an exemplary career on the state bench--a career that has earned Justice Lipez universal respect in Maine's legal community, regardless of political affiliation. This is a man who was appointed to the state bench by a Democratic Governor, was promoted to the Maine Supreme Court by a Republican Governor--my husband, John McKernan, Jr.--and whose nomination to the First Circuit was enthusiastically supported by Maine's current Independent Governor. Likewise, it was no coincidence that Maine's entire Congressional Delegation--representing both parties--stood proudly with Justice Lipez and testified on his behalf at his nomination hearing. All of this points to one irre- futable fact: by all accounts and by any measure, Kermit Lipez is an exceptional judge. And he will make us proud. At Justice Lipez's hearing before the Judiciary Committee, my friend from Delaware, Senator Biden, noted the high regard in which the First Circuit is held. He wanted to impress upon Justice Lipez that, if confirmed, he would join a very impressive and effective court. I trust and share my friend from Delaware's assessment of the First Circuit-- and I want to assure him and all of my colleagues that in this regard, Justice Lipez and the First Circuit are an ideal match. That is not a statement I make lightly. The facts reveal a judge that for thirteen years on the state bench has been a judge personally and professionally dedicated to excellence. But you don't have to take my word for it. Since the President nominated Justice Lipez for this post, I have been privileged to read numerous letters in support of his nomination. Justice Lipez's has been called a ``. . . truly outstanding nomination,'' by a senior member of the First Circuit, Judge Frank Coffin. He has been characterized as ``. . . at the top of Maine's jurists'' by the Dean of the University of Maine's Law School, Donald Zillman. And his present colleagues on Maine's Supreme Court have commented that he works as hard on their cases as he does on his own, and for that, they will miss him. It's not just Justice Lipez's colleagues or his congressional delegation who support him, but just about anybody who has taken the time to review his record. An editorial that ran in Maine's largest newspaper, the Portland Press Herald, put it this way: ``. . . (he) has proven to be a fair and thoughtful judge during his 12 years on the state Superior and Supreme Courts. . . . Lipez's resume and record . . . transcend politics.'' Maine's second largest newspaper, the Bangor Daily News, echoed this sentiment, commenting that Justice Lipez was ``remarkably talented'' and that ``. . . the state should feel nothing but honor that Kermit Lipez will represent Maine on the second-highest court in the nation.'' Mr. President, I couldn't agree more. I believe we should expect any federal judge to demonstrate a personal dedication to his or her work, a thorough understanding of the law, and a balanced approach to jurisprudence. Justice Lipez has demonstrated all of these attributes with admirable regularity. What makes me so proud to support his nomination, however, is the fact that he will bring so much more than just the prerequisites to the federal bench. For with Justice Lipez also comes a deep respect for the law--and a judge's role in its administration. With him comes an outstanding legal mind that is not only able, but willing to make the right decision even when it's not the easy or expeditious one. And with the nomination of Justice Lipez, the federal bench will welcome a man of the utmost personal integrity--a man well represented by his work ethic, his tremendous talent, and his irreproachable personal character. Mr. President, I am proud that Justice Lipez will represent Maine on the First Circuit. He has precisely the kind of experience and disposition that we should expect from all our nominees. He is well- tested, remarkably talented, and perfectly suited for the demanding work of the federal bench. The President and the Judiciary Committee have acted wisely in forwarding Justice Lipez's nomination, and it is time for the Senate to do likewise by confirming him. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this outstanding nominee. statement on the nomination of johnnie b. rawlinson

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of HR 629, the Texas Compact Consent Act of 1997, which addresses the disposal of low-level radioactive nuclear waste for Maine, Vermont and Texas--and to thank the cosponsors of this bill: Senators Collins, Leahy, and Jeffords, as well as Senators Hutchison and Gramm of Texas for their invaluable assistance and support. In 1980, Congress told the states to form compacts to solve their low-level waste disposal problems. Subsequently, Congress authorized a means of establishing these compacts without violating the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As you can see from the chart behind me, 41 states have now joined together to form nine different compacts across the country. Forty-one states. The compact before us today will simply add three more states to the nation's compact network, and carry out what these 41 other states have already been allowed to do. As the law requires, Texas, Vermont and Maine have negotiated an agreement that was approved by each state: in the Texas Senate by a vote of 28 to zero, and voice voted in the House; in Vermont, the bill was also voice voted by large margins in both bodies. In Maine, the Senate voted 26 to 3 to pass the compact; in the House, 131 to 6. In addition, 73 percent of the people in a state-wide referendum approved the Compact. All three Governors signed the bill. And, last October 7th, the House passed the Texas Compact by an overwhelming vote of 309 to 107. Decisive victories on all counts, and by any measure. So, we have before us a Compact that has been carefully crafted and thoroughly examined by the state governments and people of all three states involved. Now all that is required is the approval of Congress, so that the State of Texas and the other Texas Compact members will be able to exercise appropriate control over the waste that will come into the Texas facility. Let me be clear: the law never intended for Congress to determine who pays what, how the storage is allocated, and where the site is located. To the contrary: the intent of the law is for states to develop and approve these details, and for Congress to ratify the plan. A quick review of history bears this out--for the nine compacts that have been consented to by the United States Congress, not one of them was amended. Not one of them. It is very important for my colleagues to know that the language ratified by each state for this Compact is exactly the same language, and if any change is made by Congress, the Compact would have to be once again returned to each state for reratification. And let me take this opportunity to clear up some other misconceptions about this compact, which are being used by our opponents to cast discredit on this legislation. The Compact before us does not discuss any particular site for the disposal facility. Let me repeat that--this bill has nothing to do with the location of a facility in Texas, as some would have us believe. It only says that Texas must develop a facility in a timely manner, consistent with all applicable state and federal environmental, health, and public safety laws. This is being done. The Texas Office State Office of Administrative Hearings is presently conducting several evidentiary hearings at various locations all around the state of Texas to evaluate a proposed site. All voices are being heard, and the state of Texas will decide, as it should. Opponents of the Texas Compact would have you believe that should we ratify this Compact it will open the doors for other states to dump nuclear waste at a site, in the desert, located five miles from the town of Sierra Blanca, exposing a predominantly low-income, minority community to health and environmental threats. The truth is that Texas has been planning to build a facility for its own waste since 1981, long before Maine first proposed a Compact with Texas. That is because whether or not this Compact passes, Texas still must somehow take care of the waste it produces. Further, absent the protection of this Compact, Texas must, I repeat must, open their borders to any other state for waste disposal or they will be in violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Compact gives Texas the protection that oversight commissioners, mostly appointed by the elected Governor of Texas but also with a say from Maine and Vermont, will decide what is best for Texas. Local support for the Compact was evidenced just last month in state elections held in Texas. The Hudspeth County judge, who is the top elected official who runs county business where the site has been proposed, and who has strongly declared his support for the Compact, won his race for reelection. Two candidates for county commissioner who also support the Compact won their races over two opponents of the Compact. The opponents of the Compact would have you believe this issue is about politics. It is not about politics, it is about science: sound science. It is very dry in the Southwest Texas area, where the small amount rainfall it receives mostly evaporates before it hits the ground. The aquifer that supplies water to the area and to nearby Mexico is over 600 feet below the desert floor and is encased in rock. The proposed site has been designed to withstand any earthquake equaling the most severe that has ever occurred in Texas history. Strong seismic activity in the area is non-existent. All these factors mean that the siting of this facility is on strong scientific grounds. Our opponents say we will be bad neighbors if we pass this Compact because the proposed site is near the Mexican border. In fact, the U.S. and Mexico have an agreement, the Las Paz Agreement, to cooperate in the environmental protection of the border region. The Las Paz Agreement simply encourages cooperative efforts to protect the environment of the region. Any proposed facility will be protective of the environment because it will be constructed in accordance with the strictest U.S. environmental safeguards. In addition, both the Mexican National Water Commission and the National Nuclear Security and Safeguards Commission have stated that the proposed site meets the Mexican government's requirements. Without question, the far bigger threat to the border environment is the untreated sewage dumped into the Rio Grande River by poor border communities on both sides of the river, and large factories, or maquiladoras on the Mexican side of the river that do not adhere to these stringent U.S. environmental standards. Mr. President, when this Compact is adopted--and it is clear that it should be adopted without amendments--the States of Texas, Maine and Vermont will become the forty second, forty third and forty fourth states to be given Congressional approval for forming a compact. And they will meet their responsibilities under federal law for the disposal of their low-level waste from universities, hospitals, medical centers, and power plants and shipyards. I, along with my colleagues from the Texas Compact states, urge the Senate to give us this reasoned opportunity, which has widespread public support in Texas, Maine and Vermont. I urge the Senate to adopt S. 270. I ask unanimous consent that several letters relating to this subject be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the disaster supplemental bill. I want to thank Chairman Stevens, Ranking Member Byrd and the Committee for their efforts to provide funding to fill the gaps in federal disaster assistance that are essential to ensuring that Maine and the other Northeast states fully recover from the January, 1998 Ice Storm. Maine is no stranger to the cruelness of winter. But the Ice Storm that swept across the State in early January was like nothing anyone had ever seen before. It left the state covered with three inches of ice, closing schools, businesses and roads and leaving more then 80 percent of the state in darkness. For the last two months I have worked with my colleague Senator Collins, my friends from Vermont, Senators Jeffords and Leahy and the two gentlemen from New York, Senators D'Amato and Moynihan, in an effort to ensure that the unmet needs of our states are addressed. Working in conjunction with our states, we identified areas where FEMA was unable to provide the assistance needed, and we have worked with the Administration and the Committee to fill those gaps. I am pleased that the bill before us today provides funding to ensure that Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York will have money available to help ensure a full recovery from the devastation of the Great Ice Storm of 1998. Our forests were left in shambles as the weight of the ice broke off entire limbs and felled mature trees, leaving the forest floor in a mass of confusion. This bill will provide $48 million to the US Forest Service in order to help the states and private land owners assess the damage and develop plans for clean up and for ensuring a healthy future for the forests. In addition to general clean up, some of the trees which were felled must be harvested as soon as possible in order to retain any value, others may sit on the forest floor for a while. Maine's forest products industry is vital to the economy, and this supplemental funding will help ensure as quick a recovery as possible from the havoc wrecked by the Ice Storm. In addition, funding is provided to help Maine's maple syrup producers. Not only did the storm do immense damage to the trees, but it also tore out the tubes which were waiting to catch the flow of sap. There is approximately $4 million, which requires a cost share, to assist this industry in recovery efforts that will be hampered for a number of several years by the severe damage done to the trees. The supplemental also provides assistance to Maine's dairy farmers. The ice knocked out power to more than 80 percent of the state and thousands of people were without power for up to two weeks. The lack of electricity made it impossible for many dairy farmers to milk their cows--and for those that could, the lack of electricity meant they had to dump their milk because it could not be stored at the proper temperature. Maine's dairy farmers are family farmers. It is as much a way of life as it is a business, and the storm put a big dent in their finances. This bill provides $4 million to help take care of livestock losses. I also supported an amendment offered by my good friends from New York, Senator D'Amato and from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, that added $10 million for milk production loss. Not only were farmers forced to dump milk, but their inability to milk impacts the production level of milk. It will take several months for these cows to return to their full production level. I wish to reiterate my appreciation for the support that the Appropriations Committee, lead by Chairman Stevens, has shown for the needs of the northeast states hit by the Ice Storm. His leadership has been instrumental in ensuring that Maine will be able to make a quick and full recovery from the devastation of the Ice Storm of 1998. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, 1998 will long be remembered in the State of Maine as the year of the Ice Storm. In early January the state was coated with more than three inches of ice--the result of a once in a lifetime storm that left more than 80 percent of the State without power. It was an extraordinary event--both for the way the people of Maine pulled together and for the damage it did to the state's utility infrastructure. The reaction of the people of Maine was proof positive that ``Maine: the way life should be'' is not just a slogan, it is a fact. I was overwhelmed by the resiliency and compassion I witnessed across the state last month, and Senator Collins and I shared our thoughts and our praise for the people of Maine on the Senate floor. We have worked, along with our colleagues from Vermont, Senators Jeffords and Leahy and New York, Senators D'Amato and Moynihan, to obtain additional federal assistance, through the Community Development Block Grants Program (CDBG) to help cover damage done in the state that FEMA did not cover. Specifically, the damage done to the state's utility infrastructure. I appreciate the assistance provided to us by the Chairman, the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, Chairman Bond of the VA/HUD Subcommittee, and the Ranking Member of that Subcommittee, Senator Mikulski in crafting this amendment. The amendment, which I am cosponsoring, will provide $260 million for the CDBG program. This money will allow states, like mine, that have been declared disaster areas, to obtain CDBG money to address the unmet disaster needs--or fill the gaps--that FEMA has identified. In Maine, the biggest cost of the storm was the damage done to the utility infrastructure. Vice President Gore, during a visit to Maine on January 15, summed up the situation succinctly when he said ``We've never seen anything like this. This is like a neutron bomb aimed at the power system''. The combination of heavy rains and freezing temperatures left the State coated with more than three inches of ice. The weight of this ice downed wires, toppled transformers and snapped utility poles in two. At the peak of the storm 65 percent of the customers--more than 275,000 households served by Central Maine Power (CMP) Company were without electricity. Bangor Hydro Electric Company had 75 percent of its customers--more than 78,000 without power. In fact at the height of the storm more than 80 percent of the entire State of Maine was in the dark. It took CMP, which supplies power to 77 percent of the State, 23 days to restore power to all its customers. They did it with 1,048 crews working around the clock and running up 177,000 hours of overtime. They had to secure downed wires, replace more than 1 million feet of cable, 3,050 utility poles and 2,000 reformers. They have estimated the cost of this heroic effort to be $74 million. Bangor Hydro nearly tripled the number of crews it normally used-- going from 40 to 117 and put in an estimated 54,402 hours on storm damage. Their crews worked more overtime in January then they did in all of 1997. And once they completed their restoration efforts, they loaned crews to CMP. They estimate they spent more than $7 million to bring all their customers back on line. My colleagues will tell similar stories, Mr. President. The rain and freezing temperatures proved to be a fatal combination for the utility infrastructure. As Maine Governor Angus King said ``If you designed a storm to take out the electrical system, this was it''. I cannot offer enough praise to the men and women of Maine's utilities and their brethren who came in from all over the East Coast-- including several crews from my good friend, Senator Mikulski's home state of Maryland. These crews faced freezing temperatures and hazardous situations as they worked to kill live wires and free remaining wires from the downed trees and poles. They worked round the clock until the light was back on in every house in the State. As we say in Maine, they are the ``Finest Kind''. And the federal response was just as important and just as swift. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Small Business Administration, the Department of Defense--all answered Maine's call for immediate help. We truly appreciate it, Mr. President, and like many of my colleagues whose states have suffered from mother nature's rage, I have seen first hand how vital the federal response is in the early days of a disaster. Once we were assured of federal assistance and the agencies were in the State and working, the Maine Congressional Delegation asked the Governor what else was needed. He told us they needed federal assistance to cover the extraordinary costs associated with the destruction of our utility infrastructure. And he asked the President to include supplemental funding for this purpose, as did the Governors of Vermont and New York. The Stafford Act which provides FEMA's guidelines for assistance covers public power. It will reimburse 75 percent of the costs related with a disaster. But because Maine and much of the northeast have investor-owned utilities as opposed to government-owned utilities, we are ineligible to receive assistance from FEMA for this purpose, despite the fact that it is the greatest cost of the storm. When we learned this, we went looking for other sources of federal assistance, but we could find nothing that could address the magnitude of the costs of this storm. Without assistance, the utilities in the states of Maine, Vermont and New York will have to pass these costs onto the ratepayers, who already pay some of the highest rates in the country for electricity. Maine's residential rate is 48 percent higher than the country's average and New York pays the highest rates in the country. Vermont pays 28 percent more than the national average. Yet these ratepayers--who also happen to be taxpayers--have helped pay the bill for FEMA assistance for utilities in other states, with lower rates, when they were faced with disasters of their own. The CDBG funding provided in this amendment will allow Maine and the other northeast states to apply to HUD for funds to reimburse the utilities for the huge cost of repair and recovery. FEMA has identified utility costs as the major unmet need from the Ice Storm of 1998. Mr. President, I know that some of my colleagues are wondering the States have asked for assistance for private companies. But a utility is a unique animal. Whether it is a public or private utility is immaterial to the role it plays. It provides a public service and it has an obligation to provide that service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year--rain or shine, tornado or flood, ice storm or earthquake. The fact is that these utilities didn't shut down like many private businesses did during the ice storm--because they couldn't. They had to protect the public from the danger of live, downed wires and from freezing to death in their own homes. It was a matter of public safety--not a business decision. They had to right downed poles, replace crumpled transformers and get the power back on. They did not have the luxury of sitting down and saying ``this is going to cost us a bundle, our stockholders won't like it, we should take a pass''. They couldn't. They provide a public service, and they had an obligation to the people they served to restore power as quickly as possible. In a letter to Vice President Gore, Governor King explained: It is important to emphasize that this cost . . . was purely a function of protecting the life and safety of our people. . . . the quick restoration of power . . . was not a matter of convenience, but was an unequivocal necessity. The amendment we have worked out with the Committee will provide $260 million in supplemental funding to HUD for the CDBG program. This money, which will go to the states, can be used for a number of activities, including reimbursement of costs to privately owned utilities. HUD regulation 24 CFR Section 570.201(l) states: CDBG funds may be used to acquire, construct, reconstruct, rehabilitate, or install the distribution lines and facilities of privately owned utilities. . . . And HUD Secretary Cuomo has assured Maine that if funds are appropriated, they can be used for this purpose. In its Ice Storm ``Blueprint for Action'' FEMA, which listed utility costs as the top unmet need, noted: (The) HUD Community Development Block Grant Program can supplement other federal assistance in repairing and reconstructing infrastructure, including privately-owned utilities. . . . In fact, this amendment, Mr. President, asks for the same assistance this Congress gave to Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota last year in an effort to help these states get back on their feet after they had been ravaged by the worst flooding in 100 years. In the FY97 supplemental, $500 million was appropriated for CDBG to help with disaster assistance. The Northern States Power Company applied to the State of Minnesota for funding and was turned down. Minnesota could have provided them with the funding, but chose not to. The same utility has applied to Grand Forks, North Dakota--a CDBG entitlement city--for funding and is still waiting for a response. Again, Grand Forks can give the money to the utility or turn them down--it is their decision. Another concern that has been raised is the issue of accountability. How do we know that this money will cover only those costs related to the ice storm and not be used by the utilities to upgrade their infrastructure? Again, the answer lies in the fact that utilities are unique. They are regulated at the State level, and they must justify their costs to the regulators who allow them to recover only those incremental costs directly attributable to the ice storm. In addition, the bulk of the costs associated with this storm are related to the cost of labor--not to the cost of new equipment. In Maine, the Public Utility Commission issued an accounting order on January 15 that required the utilities to segregate their storm related costs. The PUC just started an audit of these accounts. If our amendment is adopted, Maine will receive additional CDBG money that it will provide to the utilities to cover only those incremental costs the PUC says are prudent and directly related to the storm. Without this additional assistance, the ratepayers of Maine will cover the costs through rate increases. CMP has said it will need a ten percent rate hike to cover its costs so 77 percent of the utility customers in Maine will pay 10 percent more. Bangor Hydro has said its rates will need to increase three percent to cover the storm costs. One question I asked myself was what about insurance? The utilities do have insurance, and it is determined by their regulating body. The coverage, a dollar figure determined on past risk experience, is set aside. For CMP that is $3.9 million, enough to deal with several major outages--20,000 to 40,000 households--a year. Because of the extensive damage done to utilities as a result of Hurricanes Hugo, Iniki and Andrew, the ability of utilities to obtain traditional insurance coverage has become very costly. CMP was offered one policy that provided $15 million worth of coverage. To get this coverage, the deductible was $5 million and the yearly premium was another $5 million. So, they were being asked to pay $10 million to get $5 million worth of coverage. Even with this coverage, Mr. President, CMP would have been left with $54 million in uncovered costs. The fact is that the 1998 Ice Storm was a 100 year storm. The Chair of the Historical Committee of the American Meteorological Association, who happens to reside in Maine, has said that ``So far this century, there has been nothing like it. It will probably make the meteorological text books--even history books--as one of the biggest storms ever.'' To put this storm into perspective, I want to share a comparison of the damage done by Hurricane Gloria in 1985 and Hurricane Bob in 1991 with the Ice Storm of 98. The Ice Storm destroyed 3,050 utility poles compared to 350 as a result of Hurricane Bob. One million feet of cable had to be replaced in January compared with 52,000 feet in 1991. It took 1,048 crews working 23 days to restore power to everyone in January. It took 320 crews working 8 days to restore power after Hurricane Gloria. The Ice Storm was simply unprecedented. Nothing had caused damage that even comes close to the Ice Storm. The utilities self-insured for the types of storms they were used to dealing with. They couldn't insure for this storm--because it was completely outside the realm of their experience and therefore, their expectations. And it is because the Ice Storm was a once in a hundred year storm that the people of Maine, and Vermont and New York have asked the federal government for assistance in addressing the costs associated with it. Without this assistance the ratepayers will be asked to bear the burden of a rate hike. This will be in addition to all the other storm-related costs they have already paid. Many of my colleagues know, from the experiences in their own states, the true costs of a disaster. Based on this experience, I would ask them to lend their assistance to the people of Maine, Vermont and upstate New York to provide this much needed assistance, and I urge them to support this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I would be pleased to join the Senator from Michigan in a colloquy.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would be happy to comment on this issue. The Leahy-Abraham amendment makes a clear distinction between the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain. Lake Champlain is not a Great Lake. There are only five Great Lakes--Michigan, Superior, Huron, Ontario, and Erie. The Leahy-Abraham amendment clearly reflects this traditional understanding of the Great Lakes. With passage of the Leahy-Abraham amendment, there should be no doubt that the term ``Great Lakes'' in the Sea Grant Act means only Michigan, Superior, Huron, Ontario, and Erie.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will authorize breast cancer research funding at a record level. Over the past seven years, Congress has demonstrated an increased commitment to the fight against breast cancer. Back in 1991, less than $100 million dollars was spent on breast cancer research. Since then, Congress has steadily increased this allocation. These increases have stimulated new and exciting research that has begun to unravel the mysteries of this devastating disease and is moving us closer to a cure. Today, we must send a message through our authorization level to scientists and research policy makers that we are committed to continued funding for this important research. This increase in funding is necessary because breast cancer has reached crisis levels in America. In 1998, it is estimated that 178,700 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in this country, and 43,500 women will die from this disease. Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer and the second leading cause of cancer deaths among American women. Today, over 2.6 million American women are living with this disease. In my home state of Maine, it is the most commonly- diagnosed cancer among women, representing more than 30 percent of all new cancers in Maine women. In addition to these enormous human costs, breast cancer also exacts a heavy financial toll--over $6 billion of our health care dollars are spent on breast cancer annually. Today, however, there is cause for hope. Recent scientific progress made in the fight to conquer breast cancer is encouraging. Researchers have isolated the genes responsible for inherited breast cancer, and are beginning to understand the mechanism of the cancer cell itself. It is imperative that we capitalize upon these advances by continuing to support the scientists investigating this disease and their innovative research. For this reason, my bill increases the FY99 funding authorization level for breast cancer research to $650 million. This level represents the funding level scientists believe is necessary to make progress against this disease. It also reflects the 11 percent increase that the Administration requested for NIH funding. This increased funding will contribute substantially toward solving the mysteries surrounding breast cancer. Our continued investment will save countless lives and health care dollars, and prevent undue suffering in millions of American women and families. On behalf of the 2.6 million women living with breast cancer, I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will authorize breast cancer research funding at a record level. Over the past seven years, Congress has demonstrated an increased commitment to the fight against breast cancer. Back in 1991, less than $100 million dollars was spent on breast cancer research. Since then, Congress has steadily increased this allocation. These increases have stimulated new and exciting research that has begun to unravel the mysteries of this devastating disease and is moving us closer to a cure. Today, we must send a message through our authorization level to scientists and research policy makers that we are committed to continued funding for this important research. This increase in funding is necessary because breast cancer has reached crisis levels in America. In 1998, it is estimated that 178,700 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in this country, and 43,500 women will die from this disease. Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer and the second leading cause of cancer deaths among American women. Today, over 2.6 million American women are living with this disease. In my home state of Maine, it is the most commonly- diagnosed cancer among women, representing more than 30 percent of all new cancers in Maine women. In addition to these enormous human costs, breast cancer also exacts a heavy financial toll--over $6 billion of our health care dollars are spent on breast cancer annually. Today, however, there is cause for hope. Recent scientific progress made in the fight to conquer breast cancer is encouraging. Researchers have isolated the genes responsible for inherited breast cancer, and are beginning to understand the mechanism of the cancer cell itself. It is imperative that we capitalize upon these advances by continuing to support the scientists investigating this disease and their innovative research. For this reason, my bill increases the FY99 funding authorization level for breast cancer research to $650 million. This level represents the funding level scientists believe is necessary to make progress against this disease. It also reflects the 11 percent increase that the Administration requested for NIH funding. This increased funding will contribute substantially toward solving the mysteries surrounding breast cancer. Our continued investment will save countless lives and health care dollars, and prevent undue suffering in millions of American women and families. On behalf of the 2.6 million women living with breast cancer, I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Commerce Committee Safety amendment, and wish to commend the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, for his efforts to bring this amendment to the floor. In particular, I commend him and the Committee for its incentive approach to the serious problem of drunk driving. The Committee amendment provides four grants that provide additional funding to states that take the zero tolerance approach to drunk driving. States that have already enacted tough laws, like my own State of Maine, are eligible for additional funding, while these grant programs will serve as an incentive for other states to pass the tough laws necessary to keep drunk drivers off the roads. I would also like to briefing explain my provision in this amendment that requires Maine and the Department of Transportation to create a performance based system to evaluate a state trucking law to determine if it is a safety concern. Maine has lost half of its Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Programs (MCSAP) for the last two years--$145,000 per year--because of a state law providing an exemption from motor carrier safety regulations for trucks traveling within 100 air mile radius of their home base. This loss of funding means that the State cannot hire more state troopers for the Motor Vehicle Enforcement Unit and in fact may have to lay off another trooper if this issue is not resolved soon. The Maine law in question is used primarily by construction companies, farmers, loggers, sand and gravel, landscaping and local delivery vehicles. In another words, small businesses who do intrastate delivery work or must travel some distance to a work site. Maine did a study for Federal Highway to show that the exemption was not a safety problem, but Federal Highway would not give the state a waiver. The State's study, done by the Maine State Police found no safety problems. And in 1995, the Governor's Task Force on Motor Vehicle Safety, which reviewed Maine's truck laws, recommended that this exemption be kept because it did not have an impact on safety. My language seeks to end this impasse in order to improve safety by first giving the state its full funding so it can hire more troopers and second to evaluate whether or not the exemption is a safety problem. The language requires the State and the Department to work together to establish a review system for the State to carry out to determine, based on empirical evidence, whether or not this exemption has a negative impact on safety. The burden will be on Maine to show whether or not there are safety implications to this particular state law. I am confident that this cooperative effort will reassure the Department while at the same time allowing Maine to improve safety on our roadways. Thank you. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the community of Eastport, Maine, which this week celebrated the 200th anniversary of its incorporation. When the sun rises over the cities of America, it rises first over the City of Eastport. The city, located on Moose Island, epitomizes the rugged beauty of Downeast Maine as well as the hearty and individualistic nature of the region's people. This is a part of Maine and America where hard work is more than a virtue, it's a way of life-- and neighbors look out for each other just as they have done for the past two centuries. As the deepest natural harbor on the east coast, the lifeblood of Eastport has always been the sea. In its earliest days, the city was a center for trade and ship building. Later, in the 1800's, Eastport became the birthplace of the American sardine industry, which was a major source of economic prosperity for the region for many decades, and the city's sea captains sailed from Eastport to ports from Boston to the West Indies. Today, the city is very much a working port, where traditional fishermen and a vibrant and growing shipping industry exist side-by- side. In 1981, the first year of operation for the Eastport Port Authority, the Port logged six vessels and 15,000 tons of cargo at its 420-foot pier. Last year, according to the Authority's director, Eastport shipped out value-added products to the tune of about $60 million, with markets ranging from Northern Europe to Taiwan to Italy and the Middle East. Eastport also hosts an annual, week-long celebration of our nation's independence every year during 4th of July week that is renowned across the State of Maine. Steeped in tradition, the festival has included an almost yearly visit from U.S. Navy vessels dating back to the days when Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who summered across Passamaquoddy Bay on Campobello Island, was Secretary of the Navy. In fact, during the 4th of July celebration Eastport's population of about 2,000 swells six or seven times as visitors and former residents as well as the state's elected officials flock to the island city. Eastport also pays homage to its fishing tradition with its Salmon Festival each September, celebrating an aquaculture industry which has become an important part of the local economy. As Eastport celebrates its 200th Birthday, her people can be proud of the community which supports a host of cultural and recreational opportunities. And they can be proud of a rich and unique history, which includes the historic site of the War of 1812 era Fort Sullivan--a part of which was relocated and appropriately lives on as a home to Eastport's Border Historical Society. I first visited Eastport in 1977, and have returned many times over the years, getting to know many of its residents--in fact, one Eastport native is today my Chief of Staff. I have always been struck not only by the beauty of the area but also the hospitality of Eastport's people. Most recently, I was also struck by their strength and compassion in the face of adversity. Last month, in the wake of devastating and unprecedented ice storms which left much of Maine without electricity, I visited the area to see first-hand how local residents were coping. I spent time at the emergency shelter set up at the Eastport Youth Center. While there, I marveled how people in the community, like elsewhere in Maine, pulled together to help each other through a most difficult and trying time. I am proud to represent the City of Eastport in the United States Senate, particularly at this special time in the life of this great community. I congratulate Eastport on this wonderful milestone, and wish her people all the best as the city looks ahead toward continued success in the next hundred years.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. That is correct--our amendment is not intended to convey any criticism of the FEC. The Buckley magic words test is a very narrow one, and has proven completely ineffective in stopping phony issue ads that attack candidates. My amendment offers a new approach to this problem, by creating a new category of ``electronic ads'' that name candidates in broadcasts close in time to an election. But my amendment does not foreclose or criticize other approaches to the problem. The FEC and the courts must continue to wrestle with clarifying when ads advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, and I fully support that effort. In fact, it is because the courts are still wrestling with the constitutional issues that makes me comfortable with waiting awhile longer before we legislate.

Ms. SNOWE. My friend from Michigan is correct. Stopping issue ad abuse is critical to meaningful campaign finance reform. But distinguishing candidate ads from issue ads based on ad content is the Supreme Court's approach in Buckley versus Valeo; it is an approach that the courts are now examining; and I am willing to defer to the courts at this point.

Ms. SNOWE. I am now very pleased to yield to Senator Lieberman, who has been very helpful in drafting the Snowe-Jeffords amendment as well. I yield him 3 minutes.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I now am very pleased to be able to yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Arizona, who has been a leader on this issue, and because of his leadership and commitment to campaign finance reform, we are here today debating this issue and hopefully advancing it.

Ms. SNOWE. I reserve the balance of the time.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I am delighted to yield 20 minutes to my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold. I want to commend him for his perseverance and tenacity to ensuring that campaign finance reform reached the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, in response to what the Senator from Washington mentioned in terms of our amendment and the constitutional questions, it is interesting to note that his arguments suggest that in fact he prefers a broader amendment, which I think is interesting. So I would certainly ask the Senator from Washington if he could tell us where in the Constitution it is impermissible to draw these distinctions and to draw these lines? The Constitution doesn't require us to address every problem. It certainly allows us to address some of the problems. And we know where some of the problems develop in campaigns today. The problems develop in the amount of money that is placed in television and radio advertising. That is what we are attempting to address. So I think it is interesting that the Senator from Washington is talking about printed materials, newspapers, and direct mail. In fact, we are saying that isn't the source of the problem in these campaigns. The source of the problem is where you have $150 million being spent in television advertising by groups that do not have to disclose their donors That is all we are requiring--disclosure. That is the thrust of our amendment. We are entitled to draw those distinctions. It would not be unconstitutional. We don't need to find something in the Constitution to justify every policy decision that we make.

Ms. SNOWE. I would be happy to respond to my friend from Michigan for that purpose.

Ms. SNOWE. With one exception: We would like to respond to the Senator from Washington briefly and Senator Jeffords briefly. We both have made our remarks. I want to yield to the Senator from Michigan 20 minutes.