Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. That is correct. The Snowe-Jeffords amendment is fully consistent with the view that the Furgatch decision and the FEC regulation may be a constitutional approach for detecting ads that pretend to discuss issues, but are really attacks on candidates. If that's where the Supreme Court ends up, I will be glad to see it, but it will be a separate approach from the Snowe-Jeffords amendment's treatment of broadcast ads that name candidates just before an election.

Ms. SNOWE. How much time remains on both sides?

Ms. SNOWE. I would now like to yield to my friend from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, 10 minutes.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Jeffords, along with a bipartisan group of colleagues--Senator McCain, Senator Feingold, Senator Levin, Senator Lieberman, Senator Chafee, Senator Collins, Senator Thompson, which I believe represents a commonsense middle-ground approach to reforming our campaign financing system in America. As I think our colleagues know, I have long been a proponent of fair, meaningful changes in the way campaigns are financed in this country. That is why, when this issue came to the floor last year, I worked with Senators McCain, Jeffords, Feingold, Senator Daschle, and others, to try to forge a compromise that would address the concerns of both sides and move the debate forward. I said then on the Senate floor, and say again today, that we should be putting our heads together, not building walls between us with intractable rhetoric and all-or-nothing propositions. While that effort was not successful, I am pleased that we are again having the opportunity to address campaign reform, and I thank the distinguished majority leader for making this possible. I also want to thank the bill's sponsors--Senators McCain and Feingold--for their continued leadership and determination on this issue, and their support of the efforts that are being done here today with Senator Jeffords and myself. I want to acknowledge the hard work of my colleagues who are committing themselves to this compromise amendment and have committed themselves to moving campaign finance reform forward: Senators Levin, Chafee, Lieberman, Thompson, Collins, Breaux, and Specter have worked very hard with us on crafting this amendment. They have made clear their support for meaningful reform this year. Last year, this body became stuck in the mire of all-or-nothing propositions and intransigence. We missed an opportunity to coalesce around a middle ground--any middle ground--and the result was that the status quo remained alive and well. Despite the efforts of some of us who tried to work to forge a compromise that would have moved the debate forward, campaign finance reform died a quiet and ignoble death here in the U.S. Senate. The reasons are many but the central issue then, as now, centered on the objection of Republicans to a package that does not address the issue of protecting union members from having their dues used without their permission for political purposes with which they may disagree, and the objection of Democrats to singling out unions while not providing similar protections for corporation shareholders. Let me say that I am among those Republicans who have had a concern about the use of union dues for political purposes and, in fact, the campaign finance reform bill that I introduced last year included language similar to the Paycheck Protection Act. I happen to think it is not a bad idea, and in a perfect world where I could get my way on this and still pass meaningful reform, I would support it. But the fact is, I believe we can still have fair and meaningful reform at the same time we take a step back from this incredibly divisive issue. In fact, it is probably the only way we can have such reform. The bottom line is, we will never pass campaign finance legislation--at least in the foreseeable future--if we take an all-or- nothing approach on this facet of reform. And I believe that we can and must make significant changes that may not be perfect, that may not make everyone happy, but which will be a great improvement over the current morass we find ourselves in. If we do nothing, we will see a repeat--or likely an even worse scenario--of what we saw in 1996, which confirmed all the reasons why it is imperative to be strong proponents of campaign finance reform. We saw over $223.4 million in soft money raised by the two national parties--three times more than in the last Presidential election. We saw more than $150 million--we do not know the precise amount because it is not disclosed--spent on attack ads paid with unlimited funds by third-party groups that made candidates largely incidental to their own campaigns. We saw an electorate that was, to put it bluntly, disgusted by the spectacle. And the 1996 elections were barely over when allegations were made of illegal and improper activities, centered around the issues of so-called ``soft money'' and foreign influence peddling through campaign contributions, all egregious abuses highlighted by the Senate Governmental Affairs hearings. All of this has only served to further undermine public confidence and underscore the importance of enacting meaningful and achievable campaign finance reform this year. I believe that S. 25 is a good start, and I commend Senators McCain and Feingold for their tenacity in getting this bill to the Senate floor once again. One of the most important aspects of this scaled-back version of the original bill is its ban on soft money. We all know that soft money is becoming a major issue, and for good reason. It is money that circumvents the intent of the law--unaccounted for money which influences Federal campaigns above and beyond the intended limits. S. 25 takes a tremendous step forward by putting an end to national party soft money, as well as codifying the so-called Beck decision, making prudent disclosure reforms, tightening coordinating definitions, and working to level the playing field for candidates facing opponents with vast personal wealth to spend in their own campaigns. Do I think this is a perfect bill? No. Are there other things I would like included? Of course. Do I think it can be improved? Certainly. That is why I have again teamed up with my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, to work with the sponsors of this legislation, Senators McCain and Feingold and others, in a fresh approach developed by noted experts and reformers, including Norm Ornstein, Dan Ortiz of the University of Virginia School of Law, Josh Rosenkranz at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU, as well as others. They developed a proposal to address the exploding use of unregulated and undisclosed advertising that affects Federal elections and the concerns of many that the intent of S. 25 to address this issue would not withstand or survive court scrutiny. Therefore, the amendment that my colleague from Vermont and I are offering will fundamentally change the way in which the underlying bill addresses this issue. It strikes section 201 of title II, which redefines express advocacy and replaces it with the language that we have offered in our amendment that makes a clearly defined distinction between issue advocacy and influencing a Federal election. In other words, we are making a distinction between candidate advocacy and issue advocacy. This is important because, if the courts rule the efforts of S. 25 to address this distinction as unconstitutional, then essentially all that will remain from S. 25 is a ban on soft money. If that happens, we will be left with only one-half of the equation. I share the concerns of those who want to see balanced reform and who want to improve the system. Our amendment applies to advertisements that constitute the most blatant form of electioneering. The chart to my left shows what the Snowe-Jeffords amendment does. It is a straightforward, two-tier approach that only applies to ads run on television or radio--those are the only ads that this amendment addresses--near an election, 60 days before a general election, 30 days before a primary, that identify a Federal candidate, that mentions a Federal candidate in that radio ad or that television ad, and only if the group spends more than $10,000 on such ads in a year. What we require is the sponsors' disclosure and also the donors on such ads because we think it is important that donors who contribute more than $500 to such ads should be disclosed by these organizations. The amendment also prohibits direct or indirect use of corporation or union money to fund the ads in the 60 days before the general election and 30 days before the primary. We call this new category ``electioneering'' ads--again, making the distinction between issue advocacy and candidate advocacy designed to influence the outcome of a Federal election. They are the only communications that we address in our amendment, and we define them very narrowly and very clearly. If the ad is not run on television or radio, if the ad is not aired within 30 days of a primary and 60 days before a general election, if the ad doesn't mention a candidate's name or otherwise identify either he or she clearly, if it isn't targeted at the candidate's electorate, or if a group hasn't spent more than $10,000 in that year on these ads, then it is not an electioneering ad. If an item appears in a news story, editorial, commentary, distributed through a broadcast station, it is also not an electioneering ad, plain and simple. If one does run one of these electioneering ads, two things happen. First, the sponsor must disclose the amount spent and the identity of the contributors who donated more than $500 to the group since January 1 of the previous year. Right now, candidates, as we all well know since we have been candidates, have to disclose campaign contributions over $200. So the threshold and the requirement in this amendment is much higher. Second, the ad cannot be paid for by funds from a business corporation or labor union in the nonvoluntary contributions such as union dues or corporate treasury funds. Again, I just want to repeat, these are basically the provisions on what this amendment would do. We have heard a lot of things about what it would do, and I want to make sure that everybody understands. It is very simple, very direct, it is very narrow. The clear and narrow wording of this amendment is important because it passes two critical first amendment doctrines that were at the heart of the Supreme Court's landmark Buckley v. Valeo decision--vagueness and overbreadth. Vagueness could chill free speech if someone who would otherwise speak chooses not to because the rules aren't clear and they fear running afoul of the law. We agree that free speech should not be chilled, and that is why our rules are clear. Any sponsor will know with certainty if their ad is an electioneering ad. That, again, gets back to when the ad is run and whether or not it mentions a candidate by name. Overbreadth can unintentionally sweep in a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech. But our amendment is so narrow that it easily satisfies the Supreme Court's overbreadth concerns. We strictly limit our requirement to ads near an election that identify a candidate or ads that plainly intend to convince voters to vote for or against a particular candidate. Nothing in the Snowe-Jeffords amendment restricts the right of any advocacy group, labor union, or business corporation from engaging in issue advocacy or urging grassroots communications. If a group were truly interested in only the issues, all they would have to do to avoid our requirements is to run an ad talking about the issues and encouraging people to call their Senators rather than naming them. Indeed, nothing in our amendment prohibits groups like the National Right-to-Life Committee, the Sierra Club, and a host of groups that exist in America from running electioneering ads, either. We just require them to disclose how much they are spending on electioneering ads, who contributes more than $500, and we prohibit them from using union and corporation money during that 60-day period before the general election and 30 days before a primary. So we create a very narrow standard. Even if the threshold of disclosure is $500, it is not like what it was in the Buckley v. Valeo decision where it was $10. That was broad and it was sweeping, drawing everybody in, and it raised questions in the Court. That is why they struck it down. We are raising a threshold of $500--$300 more than we are required in terms of disclosing our donors. Both of the basic principles, disclosure and a prohibition on union and corporation treasury funds, not only make sense, they are also on solid, legal footing. As detailed in a letter recently circulated by legal experts Burt Neuborne, professor of law at NYU School of Law; Norm Ornstein; Dan Ortiz; and Josh Rosenkranz, executive director of the Brennan Center, the Supreme Court has made clear that, for constitutional purposes, electioneering is different from other forms of speech. Congress is permitted to demand the sponsor of an electioneering message to disclose the amount spent on the message and the source of funds. Congress may prohibit corporation and labor unions from spending money on electioneering. These legal scholars further state that in Buckley the court declared that the governmental interests that justify disclosure of election-related spending are considerably broader and more palatable than those justifying prohibitions or restrictions on election-related spending. Disclosure rules, the Court said, enhance the information available to the voting public. That is why we disclose; that is why we are required to disclose; that is why the Congress can require us to disclose; and that is why the Supreme Court has upheld it. Disclosure rules, according to the Supreme Court, are the least restrictive means of curbing the evils of campaign ignorance and of corruption. Our disclosure rules are eminently reasonable. Second, the Congress has had a long record, which has been upheld, of imposing more strenuous spending restrictions on corporations and labor unions. Corporations have been banned from electioneering since 1907, unions since 1947. As the Supreme Court pointed out in the United States v. UAW, Congress banned corporate and union contributions in order ``to avoid the deleterious influences on Federal elections resulting from the use of money by those who exercise control over large aggregations of capital.'' In 1990 the Supreme Court upheld that rationale, as well. If anything, we have increased first amendment rights for union members and shareholders, while we maintain the right of labor and corporate management to speak through PACs and raising hard money like other political action committees. As these legal experts further state, ``The Snowe-Jeffords amendment builds on these bedrock principles, extending current regulations cautiously and only in the areas in which the first amendment protection is at its lowest ebb. It works within the framework of the two contexts--disclosure rules and corporate and union spending--'' which the Supreme Court allows and says we have the broadest discretion when it comes to governmental interest and governmental regulations, as well as corporate and union spending because we have had a century of rulings by the Supreme Court, not to mention Congress, in this issue, ``in which the Supreme Court, as well, has been most tolerant of campaign finance regulations.'' Hearing the debate here today, there have already been misconceptions out there. I think it is important to make very clear what this amendment does not do. I have a chart here to my right that talks about what the Snowe-Jeffords amendment would not do. I think it is important to restate this because there is a lot of information that has been circulated here in the Congress about saying what it would do, from a variety of groups, saying they would not be able to disseminate electioneering communications. That is not true. It would not prohibit groups like the Sierra Club or the right-to-life or any other group from disseminating electioneering communications. They can send out whatever they want. It would not prohibit these groups, again, from accepting corporate or labor funds. It would not require groups like the Sierra Club or right-to-life to create a PAC or other separate entities. It would not bar or require disclosure of communications by print media, direct mail, voter guides or any other nonbroadcast media because, again, it only applies to TV and radio broadcast 60 days before the election. It would not affect the ability of any organization to urge grassroots contacts with lawmakers on upcoming votes. They could say, ``Call your Senator.'' They could say, ``Call your Senator on the 1-800 number'' which is a very popular means of advertising today. But if they use the Senator's name 60 days before the election, they have to disclose their donors who donate more than $500. It does not require invasive disclosure of all donors, because some have said it will require them to release their donors list. Well, we all have to release donors at a certain threshold. We are not requiring everybody to release donors lists. We are saying in a very narrow period, right before the election, those groups who identify candidates in their ads or use a likeness are required to disclose their donors who donate more than $500. That is not invasive. It is not intrusive. It would not require advance disclosure of full contents of ads. Some have said in some of the material circulated here in Congress that somehow these groups will be required to disclose in advance the contents of their ad. That is not true. So, it is important to understand what this amendment does as much as in terms of what it does not do. It is a very limiting amendment. That is why it will withstand constitutional scrutiny. That is why it is important for everybody to understand that. So every group can advertise, they can communicate, they can accept money. But in that narrow period of time before the general election, if they target a candidate by identifying them by name--because if they are doing that, it is designed to influence the outcome of the election--that will be upheld by the courts. We are not saying they can't engage in grassroots activities and communications with their lawmakers who come and vote in Congress. They can urge their Senator or urge their Congressman to vote for or against such and such a bill. It is not affected by this amendment. All we are doing is requiring disclosure. Now that is for a very good reason, as to why we require disclosure, as we will see in the next chart of how much money is being placed in these elections by groups that don't have to disclose $1. Mr. President, this is a sensitive and reasonable approach to addressing a burgeoning segment of electioneering that is making a mockery of our campaign finance system. That is why it is important to use the 1996 election. It is certainly the one that reflects the most significant changes in campaigns. As is indicated by the two charts behind me--and I am going to describe this because I think it is interesting to show the problem we are facing in elections today, and it will only get worse. It will only get worse. We haven't seen a declining amount of money in each subsequent election. In fact, the opposite is true, as we well know. According to the Annenberg Public Policy Center, it shows that $130 million to $150 million was spent on issue ads in the 1996 election. But that is just a guesstimate because they don't disclose. We don't know. It could be far more than that. It could be more than $150 million. That is the best guess, the best estimate anybody can make. Money spent by all candidates, including the President, U.S. Senate and U.S. House, was $400 million. So a third of the ad spending was done on issue ads. A third of all the money that was spent by candidate advertising was spent on issue ads, and they didn't even have to disclose a dime. Now, something is wrong. Something is wrong with a system where a third of all the money was spent on candidate advertising and not one dime was disclosed in the last election. Do you think this number is going to get worse, or is it going to get better? It is going to get worse. The chart represents the so-called issue ads in the 1996 elections. Again, according to the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania survey--and it is important to look at this because when you see so-called issue ads, many of them are designed to influence the outcome of an election. It is not talking about legislative outcome. And no one wants to affect issue ads in which a group has a legitimate right and is entitled to discuss issues and run an ad that tells a Senator or a Member of Congress how to vote without identifying them. You must disclose it if their name is mentioned, if you do it 60 days before the election. Interestingly enough, on these so-called issue ads, almost 87 percent referred to an official or a candidate; 87 percent of the so-called issue ads referred to an official or a candidate. Instead of saying, ``Call your Senator,'' or, ``Call your Congressman,'' they identified that official or that candidate by name. That is the big distinction between issue advocacy and candidate advocacy. We do not want to infringe upon the rights of those groups who want to conduct grassroots communications through their membership or through Members of Congress and their elected officials on the issues of true issue advocacy. But now it is becoming candidate advocacy, designed to influence the outcome of a Federal election. Pure attack in 1996 issue ads. According to the Annenberg survey, 41 percent of those issue ads were ``pure attack''--41 percent; 24 percent, Presidential ads; debates, 15 percent; free time, 8.9 percent; and 36 percent from the news organizations. But 41 percent of the attacks came from what were so-called issue ads. That is the problem that we are facing in the system today. Now, that is why this amendment Senator Jeffords and I are offering requires disclosure. We are not even saying they can't do it. We are saying that 60 days before the election, if they mention a candidate by name, they have to disclose their donors of $500 or more. Now, I know there are some in this body who object to disclosure. But can anyone, with a straight face, tell me that when ads like these clearly cross the line into electioneering--which is a different category--there should not even be disclosure? Candidates, as I said earlier, have to disclose, and as candidates, I could not believe we would not want more disclosure in other areas that affect candidates in elections throughout this country. So can somebody honestly say that groups that spend millions of dollars in ads near elections that mention specific candidates don't have to disclose anything? Are we prepared to say that we don't even have the right to know who is spending vast sums of money to influence Federal elections? It is interesting to me we had $150 million--it could be more--spent in the last election cycle and we don't even know who donated that money. Yet, 87 percent of those so-called issue ads identified the candidate. As the letter from the legal scholars that I referenced earlier states: The Supreme Court has never held that there is only a single constitutionally permissible route a legislature may take when it defines ``electioneering'' to be regulated or reported. Congress has the power to enact a statute that defines electioneering in a more nuanced manner, as long as its definition adequately addresses the vagueness and overbreadth concerns expressed by the Court. The letter from these distinguished scholars also says: The Supreme Court has made clear that, for constitutional purposes, electioneering is different from other speech (FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life). Congress has the power to enact campaign finance laws that constrain the spending of money on electioneering in a variety of ways . . . (Buckley v. Valeo). Congress is permitted to demand that the sponsor of an electioneering message disclosure the amount spent on the message and the sources of funds. And Congress may prohibit corporations and labor unions from spending money on electioneering. This is black letter constitutional law about which there can be no serious dispute. Again, these are their words, and these are constitutional experts. These are the words of experts who have made a life of studying these issues. Mr. President, we have the power and the obligation to put elections and specifically electioneering ads--because that is what this amendment is all about--back into the hands of voluntary, individual contributors. The question before us now is, will we stand foursquare behind reform? Will we support this incremental, reasonable, constitutional approach that gets at some of the core abuses that we have seen in previous elections? Maybe the question is better stated this way: How can we not support such a reasonable approach? How can we go home and face our constituents, our electorate, and explain that we didn't even want to vote for a measure that would give them the information they need to be informed voters? How can we go home without having voted for a measure that addresses at least some aspect of campaign reform that Americans view as out of control in a sensible and reasonable way? Let's make no mistake about it; we will pay the price. To those who hide behind the mistaken notion--the doorkeepers of the status quo-- that people don't really care, I say that you are making a grave mistake. Yes, some of you may point to studies such as the January poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, which ranked campaign reform 13th on a list of 14 major issues. But let's look at the reason. The report also said that the public's confidence in Congress to write an effective and fair campaign law had declined. That is a sad commentary. Many Americans have taken campaign finance off of their radar screens simply because they have given up on us. Frankly, it is an embarrassment, Mr. President. That this great body has not come together on some reasonable, incremental reform to move the issue forward is unacceptable. That is why Senator Jeffords and I have worked, with a bipartisan group, to change the dynamic in this debate, to address what were some legitimate concerns about some of the issue advocacy provisions of the McCain-Feingold amendment, on some of their restrictions. So this takes a different approach, based on what legal and constitutional experts have said would withstand judicial scrutiny. We have a chance to remedy this abrogation of our responsibility and, so far, we have failed to address some of the serious inequities and abuses in our campaign finance system. Our amendment would deal simultaneously and in a realistic way with broadcast electioneering messages at the time they have the most impact--which is right before an election, and, as we all know, that is where most of the money is spent in the final analysis--and a clear campaign context. It would provide the electorate with information as to who is running the ads. Isn't that something that everybody is entitled to know when we are seeing $150 million and we don't know who spends that money? Not one penny. In fact, it is probably much more. Our amendment would reinforce the traditional rules, limiting the role of unions and corporations in elections. I believe that this amendment would move us forward, again, because the courts, as well as Congress, have been able to draw a line on imposing restrictions on certain groups, and it can do so when it comes to unions and corporations because of the preferential benefits that have been accorded to them through the U.S. Congress and by statute in law. Typical of any compromise, both sides of the aisle have identified aspects of the measure they might not like. But I think that always means that we are on the right track. It is my hope, Mr. President, that this commonsense, incremental approach can be the impetus to passing an improved, balanced and fair S. 25. I sincerely believe that we can and must take a first step toward restoring public confidence and public faith in our campaign finance system. We are the stewards of this great democracy that has been handed down from our forefathers-- who would be aghast if they saw the state of campaigning in this country today, I might add--and it is our responsibility to see that it does not disintegrate under the weight of public cynicism and mistrust. As I said last year, it is the duty of leaders to lead and that means making some difficult choices and doing the right thing. I had hoped that our leaders would have been able to have come together and I had urged last fall that we have a bipartisan group to work out a plan, through the leaders, to come to the floor. That didn't happen. But many of us in the rank and file are working together on a bipartisan basis because we think this issue is important. Not to say that all we are doing is right and perfect; it is not. But it advances the process forward, the issue forward, and it makes substantial improvements on those areas which we have identified to be the most problematic in our campaign finance system today. I hope that we would not entrench ourselves in the rhetoric of absolutism. Let us not shun progress in the name of perfection. The fact is, improved S. 25 would be a good bill and it would be a good start down the road to putting our elections back into the hands of the American people. I urge my colleagues to join my colleague Senator Jeffords and others in bringing this bill out of the shadows of obfuscation and into the light of honest discussion and debate. The American people expect as much and they certainly deserve as much. Mr. President, I know we will have further discussions on this issue tomorrow before we have a vote on the motion to table. But I urge that each and every Senator give consideration to this amendment--that has been offered by a bipartisan group--that Senator Jeffords and I have been working on with others in hopes of moving this debate forward, to change the debate discussion and to show there is an earnestness and willingness to approach this very serious issue; not to set it aside, not to deflect it, not to ignore it, saying it will go away and people will not notice. I happen to think that people will notice. They will notice. They will be quickly reminded when they see the next election, because more money will be spent, as we see in this $150 million. This number is going to go up and people will be reminded how much they care about this issue. But more important, they will be reminded, if we fail to take action here, of our unwillingness and our failure to take action on this issue. I suggest to Members that we are embarking on a high-risk strategy by suggesting that somehow we can get away with not addressing this issue. I think that is a very high-risk strategy and I think it is dead wrong. I hope Members of this Senate will look very carefully at this amendment. There is nothing tricky about it. It is pretty straightforward, in accordance with the decisions that have been rendered by the Court in the past. It is very narrowly drawn, very precisely drawn, requiring disclosure. Because that is where the Court has granted a greater prerogative to the Congress and to the public's right to know, and restrictions only in those areas in which the Court and Congress has ruled in the last century, because we have a right to draw that line when it comes to unions and corporations. So, I hope that each Member of the Senate will have a chance, over the next 24 hours, to look at this amendment very carefully and to see that it does move in the right direction. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 1647

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished colleague from Montana, Senator Max Baucus, to introduce the ``Economic Development Partnership Act of 1998''--a bill to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration in the Department of Commerce. I would first like to thank the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Baucus, for his ongoing commitment to this vital agency, and would also like to thank the bipartisan group of Senators who have joined us in sponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, I have long been a supporter of the EDA because-- although it is a small agency--its programs contribute significantly to economic growth and job expansion. With only a modest annual appropriation and a national staff of 258 dedicated public servants, the EDA successfully assists communities across the nation who have experienced economic distress. Economic distress that is not only generated by economic downturns, but also by natural disasters--such as storms and earthquakes--and un-natural disasters, such as military base closings. I am also pleased that, at a time when Congress is exercising much needed fiscal discipline and performance-based budgeting is being demanded from all agencies, the EDA has maintained its commitment to providing a good return on the public dollar. Specifically, recent studies of EDA's programs were performed by a consortia of organizations including Rutgers University, the New Jersey Institute of Technology, Columbia University, Princeton University, the National Association of Regional Councils, and the University of Cincinnati. The results of these studies were impressive, and clearly showed the value and results of EDA investments in public works and defense conversion activities. Specifically, for every every $1 million that EDA invests in public works projects, 327 jobs are created or retained at a cost of $3,058 per job; 15 construction jobs are created; $10 million in private sector dollars are leveraged; and $10.13 million is added to the local tax base. Based on these statistics, I believe it's safe to say that EDA delivers a substantial ``bang for the buck''! Even as these statistics speak to the value of EDA programs nationally, I am pleased that the people of Maine don't need to hear what is happening in other states to be convinced of the value of EDA-- they already know what this agency has meant to their towns and communities. Over the past 32 years, the EDA has invested more than $198 million in 606 projects across the state. Through public works, technical assistance, planning, community investments, and revolving loan fund programs, the EDA has established local partnerships in Maine that have provided critical infrastructure development and other economic incentives that have stimulated local growth, created jobs, and generated revenue. Not only has the EDA invested in many economic development projects in Maine, but I can also personally attest to the value and importance of these projects because I have seen the results that they deliver. For example, as a result of EDA assistance in 1996, dormitories at the Maine School of Science and Mathematics--a magnet school built at former Loring Air Force Base--were built to house the school's students. And in 1995, EDA assistance in Freeport, Maine prevented a major health maintenance organization from relocating to another state. That project alone not only saved 99 jobs, but also created an additional 127 in the community. Mr. President, I cite these success stories not only to credit the agency for a job well done in my state, but to demonstrate to my colleagues the types of assistance that have likely been provided to their states as well. If my colleagues would review the cases of economic distress that have occurred in their own states, I believe they will find their own success stories that speak to the value of EDA to their constituents. Therefore, I would urge that my colleagues support the bill that Senator Baucus and I are introducing today because it would reauthorize the beneficial and critically-needed programs that have led to these success stories for an additional five years. Perhaps most importantly, it will keep the agency's successful programs intact, while incorporating ideas and concepts for improvement that have received increased attention and support in the Congress. For instance, many of my colleagues would agree that to be truly successful, government programs should proceed in partnership with local governments--and this legislation will do just that by preserving the integrity of the agency's traditional programs, while expanding and modifying them to encompass the partnership concept. The bill also contains new language that reflects some of the activities that the agency has become more involved in over the past few years, such as defense conversion and disaster assistance. From Maine's perspective, these programs could not be buttressed soon enough following the closing of Loring Air Force base in 1994, and the ice storms that ravaged the state just weeks ago. In addition, there are other provisions in this legislation that will bring meaningful, positive changes to EDA's programs by increasing program flexibility and heightening accountability. Ultimately, it is these types of changes that will not only update an Act that has been in need of reauthorization, but will also prepare this agency for the economic needs and demands of our nation as we approach a new century. Mr. President, the Economic Development Administration is a key federal agency that promotes economic growth and development, and the legislation we are offering today will ensure that these improved programs will be available for the next five years. I urge my colleagues to support this critically needed legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, one hundred years ago this Sunday, February 15, a tragic event took place in Havana harbor which claimed the lives of 260 officers and crew and hurtled our nation into war. I rise today to remember the U.S.S. Maine on the 100th anniversary of her destruction, and to honor the memories of those brave men who died in service aboard that mighty ship. True to her namesake's motto, ``Dirigo'', or ``I Lead'', the Maine was one of the first surface combatants to be designated as a battleship. When she was commissioned in 1895 she was, at 319 feet in length, the largest ship ever built in a U.S. Navy shipyard. A state- of-the-art vessel, the Maine was showcased in many ceremonial events and was the pride of the U.S. Navy. Then, on February 15, 1898, destiny called upon the U.S.S. Maine, her officers and her crew. On that night--a quiet and still evening by accounts from survivors--an explosion shattered the tranquility of Havana Harbor and tore through the Maine, blowing apart her berthing deck and hurling much of her starboard side into the water. After several smaller explosions in the ship's magazines, only 88 men remained among the living, and the United States and Spain were one giant step closer to war. Soon after the tragedy, eight more men died and in the weeks following six more deaths would be attributed to injuries suffered aboard the Maine. Initial Navy reports suspected a mine sank the Maine, but urged caution until further investigations could be conducted. The outrage surrounding the incident was taking on a life of its own, however, as papers throughout America reported to a stunned and outraged nation that the pride of our Navy had been destroyed by an enemy mine set in Havana Harbor with the sole and deadly purpose of sinking the Maine. On March 23, 1898, a Navy board officially concluded that it was, in fact, a mine that put the Maine on the bottom of Havana Harbor. By April, the infamous expression ``Remember the Maine'' became a rallying cry for a nation and by the end of that month, President McKinley had ordered a naval blockade which precipitated a formal declaration of war by the U.S. Congress against Spain. The Captain of the U.S.S. Maine, Captain Charles Sigsbee, who survived the tragedy, put the scope of the U.S.S. Maine disaster in perspective after the Spanish-American War ended. He said: ``During the recent war with Spain, about 75 men were killed and wounded in the United States Navy. Only 17 were killed. On board the Maine, 252 men were killed outright and eight died later--nearly fifteen times as many as were killed in the United States Navy by the Spanish land and naval forces during the entire war.'' We may never know precisely why the Maine met her end that night one hundred years ago. Today, controversy still surrounds the original theory that it was a mine that sank her. Indeed, a 1976 report compiled by the order of Admiral Hyman Rickover concluded that it was an internal fire in a coal bunker next to the Maine's powder magazines that led to the fatal explosion. More recently, tests results reported in National Geographic magazine, based on a careful computer analysis of photographs of the twisted hull, proved inconclusive. While the means by which she met her end may always be a mystery, one thing is for certain: there will never be a debate about her place in history. And there will never be a debate about the bravery of those souls lost aboard the Maine in a flash of fire and chaos. That is why we remember the Maine. Captain Sigsbee, knowing of the controversy surrounding the cause of the explosion and its consequences, admonished us to recall the most honorable reason to remember her: ``In the way that the men of the Maine suffered there was enough of the heroic to provide a sound foundation for the motto, ``Remember the Maine''. And so we do so today, and always. Remembrance events are scheduled to take place across the country: at Arlington Cemetery, in Bangor, Maine--where the shield and scroll of the ship rest today, in Central Park in New York City, in Key West, Florida, and at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Liz Henning, Midshipman at the Naval Academy, will likely be there: in the recent National Geographic story on the Maine, she was quoted as saying, ``We still think about those guys on the Maine * * * Navy people never forget''. Nor will Mainers ever forget. In Bangor, an appropriate memorial to the Maine reminds us of that fateful day one hundred years ago. In the Blaine House in Augusta--the Governor's residence--the silver soup tureen and vegetable dish from the original U.S.S. Maine, along with the loving cup, have been displayed for the past 70 years and have become one of our state's most unique treasures. The story of the recovery of these pieces from the bottom of the ocean in Havana Harbor has always brought a look of awe and amazement to the eyes of Maine's children, and it was always clear to me that these pieces are our living link to Maine's maritime heritage. And now, I am proud to say that the U.S. Postal Service will help keep the spirit of those lost on the Maine alive. Key West, Florida, one of the last ports of call for the U.S.S. Maine, and the place where many of the brave Americans who died aboard the Maine are buried, is the location for the First Day and City of Issue for the stamp. Key West will host a first-day ceremony and will use a distinctive First Day of Issue cancellation. I would like to thank Postmaster General Marvin Runyon for agreeing to my request for a special, limited advance release this weekend of the Postal Service stamp commemorating the centennial of the sinking of the Maine. The stamp will be distributed during the U.S.S. Maine Centennial observance in Bangor. Rather than the First Day of Issue cancellation, the stamps will be canceled with a special pictorial of the U.S.S. Maine designed in Bangor. This and other centennial celebrations will ensure that the Maine will indeed not be forgotten--nor will those aboard who made the ultimate sacrifice. They answered the call when their country needed them, and we must honor their memories with our respect and remembrance. As a Mainer and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have nothing but the utmost respect for the men and women who throughout history have risked their lives and invested their careers in our armed forces. In that light, let us keep their memory alive, and let us ensure that future generations will understand and appreciate the legacy of the U.S.S. Maine, and the tragic sacrifice of her gallant crew. Let us remember the Maine.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Collins, to discuss the unprecedented and historic storm in the State of Maine several weeks ago. Mr. President, every once in a while--maybe only once every 100 years or more--an event happens that truly tests the strength of a people and the depth of their spirit. It is an event that strips away comforts and security and pretense and reveals for all to see the true nature of those whose lives it has in its grip. In my home State--the State of Maine--that event began on January 5 and is now known as the Great Ice Storm of 1998. As shown here in this photograph, you can see the ice that covers the streets with the trees over the car. It wasn't just one area of the State. This really replicated almost the entire State in terms of the devastation of this storm. As you would imagine, we are no strangers to a little winter weather. But this storm was like nothing anyone had ever seen before. By the time five days of sleet and freezing rain had worked their misery on the state, Maine was under a sheet of ice more than two inches thick, and Mainers suddenly found themselves without power, without heat, and facing a life more closely resembling one from 1898 than 1998. The State was devastated by this unprecedented storm and many areas were described as resembling a ``war zone.'' At its peak, the storm knocked out electrical power to an estimated 80 percent of Maine's households--and a week later, about 137,000 people were still without power. Schools and local governments ground to a halt. Over the weekend as the storm finally abated, over 3,000 people sought refuge in 197 shelters and two days later there were still over 2,000 Mainers staying in 111 shelters across the State. And in the end, all of Maine's 16 counties were declared federal disaster areas. As you can see here, another sign that shows the kind of pleas that were made by residents all across this State, saying, ``Power, please. Our transformer was taken away on Thursday.'' People lost their power for up to 2 and 3 weeks. The Chairman of the historical committee of the American Meteorological Association, who also happens to be an associate professor of science, technology and society at Colby College in Waterville, MA, summed it up best: ``So far this century there has been nothing like it . . . It will probably make the meteorological textbooks--as one of the biggest storms ever.'' I traveled Maine extensively in the wake of the ice storm, and I was overwhelmed by the extent of the destruction, as we see here another photo of all the downed poles. That is exactly what happened all across the State. You can see the condition of the road. But it was a total destruction of the forests, the pole lines, as well as the telephone poles across the State. Three-quarters of the State, as I said, was affected by it. Trees and branches felled, power lines snaked across ice-encrusted streets and major utility structures crumpled as if made of tin-foil. In fact about 50 such structures, an eight-mile stretch carrying the major electrical line into Washington County--the easternmost county in Maine and the United States--were destroyed. The owner of that line, Bangor Hydro, needed 170 utility poles and 144,000 feet of 115,000 volt transmission line just to repair the eight miles of downed lines that left 10,000 Washington and Hancock County residents without power. Central Maine Power, the other major power company in the state, estimated that 2 to 3 million feet of power lines fell--2,000 utility poles had to be replaced as well as 5,250 transformers. Between 1,200 and 2,000 National Guard soldiers were called to active duty, and 200 Army and Air National Guard personnel helped clear the roads. Central Maine Power had crews of more than 2,500 line and tree- trimming workers on the job. And Maine hosted line crews from Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania; New Jersey; Connecticut; Washington, D.C.; New Hampshire; and New Brunswick, Canada. Broken trees and broken power lines littered the Maine landscape as far as the eye could see. But I discovered one thing in my travels that was never broken--one thing that may have been stronger after the storm than before--and that is the spirit of Maine's people. That is why I am speaking here today, Mr. President. Mainers faced the tremendous challenges this storm presented with resolve and a caring spirit which is truly remarkable and which makes me very proud to call Maine home. Everywhere I went I heard stories of neighbors helping neighbors: people inviting strangers into their homes so that they might be warm, lending a hand with fallen trees so that they might be cleared and sharing advice so that no one would feel alone. Rising from the devastation left in the storm's wake was a tide of generosity and giving emblematic of Maine people, and it was deeply heartening to know that such compassion is alive and well in America. Paul Field Sr. and his son, both of Bridgton, worked tirelessly and virtually without sleep for 10 days cutting branches, clearing roads, fighting fires, draining pipes, helping neighbors and moving generators to where they were most critically needed. And Paul was not alone. In the Town of Albion, farmer Peter Door trucked a portable generator from farm to farm and slept in his truck while dairy farmers milked their cows. In Fairfield, Town Manager Terry York was moved to tears when talking to the Bangor Daily News about the volunteers who helped residents through the crisis. Out of state crews found Mainers' attitudes remarkable. One member of a Massachusetts crew that put in two weeks of 16 hour days restoring power to the towns of Otis and Mariaville said, ``When I left there, I was proud to be a lineman. My hat goes off to the people of Maine. They're really a special breed.'' The same lineman said he never heard an angry word, even though many residents had gone over a week without power and heat. In fact, people offered the linemen food and even hosted a public spaghetti dinner for the crews. Indeed, throughout the state, people took strangers into their homes, brought food to elderly residents unable to get out, looked after the homes of those who were away, and cooked meals at local shelters. Maine's potato growers gave away truckloads of potatoes to those in need of food, radio stations fielded calls from residents sharing vital information and advice, and television stations banded together to raise over $115,000 for Red Cross relief efforts. My deepest gratitude goes to all those who made life a little easier for others during this most trying of times. In particular I want to recognize and extend my profound gratitude to the outstanding Red Cross officials and the over 1,800 volunteers who did an incredible job of organizing shelters and delivering vital emergency services, as well as the dedicated men and women of the National Guard who did not hesitate for a moment to provide assistance. Also the outstanding employees of the Maine Emergency Management Agency who deserve recognition for their timely and professional response to the disaster. Again, you see what linemen crews did here in working on these downed power lines, as I said, and which was pervasive all over the State on miles and miles and miles of line. I also want to extend my sincere appreciation to the men and women on utility crews from Maine and from throughout the country who toiled day and night to clear roads and rebuild a crippled power grid. These dedicated individuals worked incredible hours and in terrible weather conditions to bring the state back on line. They are truly unsung heroes and I thank them for their tireless work. Indeed, to give you some idea of the magnitude of the effort, in one instance Air Force cargo planes made 13 trips between North Carolina and Maine to bring 50 fresh crews and 47 bucket trucks to lend a hand. It took 5,000 people to carry out the logistics at an estimated cost of this single operation of $1 million. In Augusta, local Public Works employees logged, on average, an 80 hour week, with some as high as 102 hours. The Maine Department of Transportation spent $600,000 in overtime in one week and in that same time they used 54,000 cubic yards of sand and 5,000 tons of salt to the tune of another $600,000. And the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers worked with my office to coordinate their volunteer efforts to help reattach damaged entrance service cables on residences throughout the state so that the power company could re-energize the homes. (In one weekend, Local 567 helped put 75 houses back in shape so the power could come on and families who had done so long without heat could once again be warm.) Those dedicated IBEW workers provided help where it was most needed, and I applaud these dedicated teams of electricians who donated their time, supplies, and skills to make vital repairs across the state. Indeed, it was an honor for me to spend time in the field with some of these unsung heroes to let them know how much I appreciate and admire their selfless efforts. Finally, I want to thank all the volunteers who--in the face of their own difficulties--took the time to help others affected by this unprecedented storm. (We may never know their names or their faces, but we know what they have done and we are very, very grateful.) It is a credit to Maine people that we coped as well as we did and made speedy progress in recovering and rebuilding. Everyone pulled together from Governor King to town officials to the Brotherhood of Electrical workers. But it was clear that we still needed help. We are an independent people and proud to solve our own problems, but this time even we couldn't do it alone. That is why the federal government's response to this disaster was and is so important. The Vice President's personal tour of Maine in the wake of the disaster spoke to the magnitude of the challenge we were facing. I appreciate the Vice President's visit and the President's prompt declaration of 16 Maine counties as federal disaster areas. This declaration opened the door to a variety of assistance, and it is estimated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency that about 300 Maine towns and non-profit organizations will seek public assistance from the agency. I am pleased that FEMA has established field offices in Maine to assist Mainers who are still trying to put their lives back together and I expect they will remain in the state for some time. Because the fact is, the repercussions of this storm will be felt long after the ice melts and the first blossoms of spring make their way north. Dairy farm losses continue to mount and state agricultural officials may not know for months the full impact of the storm on the industry. Utilities are estimating that their costs will top $70 to 80 million. The State of Maine estimates that they need the release of $12 million in LIHEAP funds to help those who normally don't use the funds but will sign up this year, and to defray the costs of buying generators for those eligible. Small businesses across the state have been reeling from lost business--as of last week the Small Business Administration has taken 450 applications for low-interest loans from individuals and businesses, and awarded loans of $173,000. And overall, FEMA has considered 20,869 applications for individual and family grants, 10,085 applications for disaster housing, 9,849 applications for SBA home and property loans and 4,410 applications for SBA business loans. This tremendous need for assistance must be met, and that is why I will continue my efforts in conjunction with my colleague from Maine, to ensure that Maine people have rapid and efficient access to the assistance that will become available over the days and weeks ahead. Mr. President, we are working with the other States who were hit by the storm--Vermont, New Hampshire and New York--on a supplemental funding package to help our states recover from the devastation of the ice storm. The fact remains that we still must obtain an emergency release of LIHEAP funds, we still must acquire supplemental assistance to help prevent Maine's ratepayers from having to foot all of the utility bill, estimated to be $80 million; and the U.S. Forest Service estimates that it will cost $28 million to clean up the more than 7 million acres of working Maine forest which has suffered moderate to severe damage; for making our farmers and our small businesses whole again and for the additional costs our states have identified that they cannot cover. My colleagues from the Northeast and I and my Maine congressional delegation have started working with the Appropriations Committee to assure that supplemental funding to meet the needs of our States can be included in the first supplemental funding bill which the committee will begin work on early next month. As many of my colleagues know, we have faced the challenges posed by disasters in their own States. They recognize how important this additional assistance is to their States, and I hope that we can get this assistance as quickly as possible in order to ensure a quick and full recovery from the impact of this historic disaster. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in morning business, and I ask for up to 30 minutes to be equally divided between myself and the Senator from Maine, Senator Collins.

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at 1 p.m. today the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Margaret Morrow and a vote occur at 6 p.m. this evening with the time equally divided between Senators Hatch and Ashcroft or their designees. This request has been cleared by the minority.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Hatch, Cleland, and others in cosponsoring the proposed constitutional amendment to grant the States and Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. Our flag occupies a truly unique place in the hearts of millions of citizens as a cherished symbol of freedom and democracy. As a national emblem of the world's greatest democracy, the American flag should be treated with respect and care. I have long held that our free speech rights do not entitle us to consider the flag as merely personal property, to be treated any way we see fit, including its desecration for the purpose of political protest. I want to commend Senator Hatch for once again leading us in this very worthwhile cause. Mr. President, with the introduction of this resolution, we resume our effort to protect the greatest symbol of the American experience. There is no more powerful symbol of freedom, democracy, and our commitment to those principles that the American flag, and it is altogether just that we try to ensure that it is publicly displayed with pride, dignity, and honor. Make no mistake, Mr. President, the flag is not merely a visual symbol to us, nor should it be. Too many Americans have contributed too much of their labor, their passion, and in some cases their very being for it to be so simply regarded. For the flag permeates our national history and relays the story of America in its simplest terms. Indeed, knowing how the flag has changed--and in what ways it has remained constant--is to know the history and hopes of this country. More than 220 years ago, a year after the colonies had made their historic decision to declare independence from Britain, the Second Continental Congress decided that the American flag would consist of 13 red and white alternating stripes and 13 white stars in a field of blue. These stars and blue field were to represent a new constellation in which freedom and government of the people, by the people and for the people would rule. As we all know, the constellation has grown to include 50 stars, but the number of stripes has remained constant. In this way, the flag tells all who view it that no matter how large America may become, it is forever rooted in the bedrock principles of freedom and self-government that led those first 13 colonies to forge a new nation. Equally important is the fact that the flag also represents our commitment to these ideals. This commitment has exacted a high human toll, for which many of America's best and brightest have given their last full measure of devotion. It is in their memories and for their commitment to America's ideals that I am proud to support the amendment introduced yesterday. The amendment is necessary because the Supreme Court, in its 1990 U.S. verses Eichman ruling, held that burning the flag in political protest was constitutionally protected free speech. No one holds our right to free speech more dearly than I do, Mr. President, but in my view, the Eichman decision unnecessarily rejects the deeply held reverence in which millions of Americans hold our flag. With all the forums for public opinion available to Americans every day, from television and radio, to newspapers and internet chat rooms, Americans are afforded ample opportunity to freely and fully exercise their legitimate, constitutional right to free speech, even if what they have to say is overwhelmingly unpopular with a majority of American citizens. Simply put, protecting the flag from desecration poses no serious threat to the exercise of free speech in America. We must also remember that this constitutional amendment is carefully drafted to simply allow the Congress and individual State legislatures to enact laws prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag, if they so choose. It certainly does not stipulate or require that such laws be enacted, although many States and the Federal Government have already demonstrated widespread support for doing so. In fact, prior to the Supreme Court's rulings on this issue, 48 States, including my own State of Maine, and the Federal Government has anti-flag-burning laws on their books for years. So really what we do with this resolution is give the American flag the protection that almost all the States, the Federal Government, and a large majority of the American people have already endorsed. Protecting the flag also enjoys widespread support in Congress. During the 104th Congress, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a flag protection resolution, and 63 Senators supported a resolution identical to this one. Just last year, the House or Representatives, to its credit, reaffirmed its commitment to the sanctity of the American flag by once again passing a flag protection resolution with ease. Now it is time for the Senate to show a similar commitment. Whether our flag is flying over Fenway Park, a military base, a school, or on a flag pole on Main Street, the stars and stripes have always represented the ideals and values that are the foundation of this great Nation. Our flag has come to not only represent the pride we have for our Nation's past glories, but also to stand for the hope we all harbor for our Nation's future. Mr. President, it is with this pride and hope that I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senators Hatch, Roberts, Specter, and Chafee to introduce a bill that I believe is an historic opportunity to help ensure the well- being of our children and by extension the very well-being of our nation: the Caring for Children Act. I come before you as a veteran on child care issues who has worked to address child care throughout my political life, and was the lead Republican cosponsor on the Act for Better Child Care in 1989--the bill which set the stage for the bipartisan package that was adopted by the 101st Congress. Since that time we have advanced the ball in profound ways that reflect the changing nature of the American family, but our work must never cease when it comes to our children. We must build on our laurels, not rest on them: and that is precisely what this bill does. Consider the challenge: In California alone in 1997, 500,000 children were already on waiting lists for federal child care in--half a million! Now, it is estimated that, as welfare reform proceeds, some 2 million parents across America will join the workforce and their children will require child care. A GAO report from May of last year determined that in Chicago, for example, the known supply of child care would only meet 14 percent of the need for infant child care in the first year of welfare reform implementation. And within three years, 3 out of 4 American women with children under 5 will be working and in need of child care. With the perspective of years spent on this issue, I have come to the conclusion that what American parents need most are choices. The decision of how to care for a young child is a deeply personal and difficult one. Many feel handcuffed by economic concerns, others worry about the safety of child care, but all face different circumstances that make the decision making process unique. Given the tremendous challenges of raising children today, and the extraordinary range of issues facing families, I believe the federal government should not be in the business of encouraging one choice over another. Instead the government's role must be to ensure that families have viable options and that the basis for decisions is the best interests of the child. If we are to care about children we must care about choices, and not politicize the issue with partisanship or ideology. That is the spirit in which we crafted our bill. Because it is not about pitting one group against another. It is not about starting a ``mommy war''. It is about helping parents do the best they can for their children--no matter what choice they make. The reality is that, despite our best efforts to date to make quality, affordable child care accessible, the myriad pressures facing American families today still imperil their ability to provide the best possible care for their children. In my home state of Maine, one out of every five Mainers are working multiple jobs. Across the country, 63 percent of women with children under age six are in the workforce, and as a result, over 12 million children are cared for by someone other than a parent during working hours. In Maine, there are 42,000 women in the labor force with children under 6, and 64,000 with children between the ages of 6 and 17. At the same time, child care costs can range from $4,000 to $9,000 annually--with families earning less than $14,000 per year paying more than one quarter of their income in child support. As a result, families are often forced to make a choice between two unacceptable options: find care for their children that may not be safe or appropriate, or stay home and hope that they can somehow still put food on the table. Our bill respects parents' decisions and expands the choices available in a number of innovative ways. By expanding the Dependent Care Tax Credit, we make it more affordable for parents to choose quality child care, but we also leave the door open for a parent to stay at home with their child. And we target our tax benefits to those who need them most: working American families. For two-working parent families with child care expenses, we raise the income level at which parents can take the maximum credit from $10,000 to $30,000, allowing more parents to take advantage of the maximum tax credit. In addition, we raise the percentage of child care expenses that parents can put toward their credit to 50% (up from 40% under current law) of expenses up to $2400 for one child, or $4800 for two or more children. The credit will phase down 1% for every $1500 of income above $30,000, phasing out completely for families earning over $105,000 per year. Under this new scheme, the maximum tax credit will be $1200 for one child (up from $720), or $2400 for two or more children (up from $480). For the first time, parents who forgo an income to stay at home to take care of a child between the ages of 0-3 will be able to take advantage of the Dependent Care Tax Credit. By attributing child care expenses to stay at home parents of $150 per month, they will be eligible for a maximum tax credit of up to $900 per year, depending on their income. Applying the tax credit to parents who wish to stay home for children ages 0-3 acknowledges that parents of infants and toddlers often face the toughest decisions between working or staying at home, particularly in light of recent research in the area of early childhood development which demonstrates that care from one or two consistent, loving and stimulating caregivers during these earliest years is crucial to brain development. The Caring for Children Act will also help defray the considerable costs of child care for low-income families by doubling funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, to the time of $5 billion. This will create more child care slots for low-income families and double the amount of money devoted to improving quality, again leaving more options for parents. And we also address the issue safety, because parents are still rightfully concerned about safety. According to a US News and World Report article last August, a query of all 50 states and the District of Columbia revealed that 76 children died in day care in 1996. The causes included drownings, falls, and being struck by automobiles. And these numbers are low because, shockingly, some states do not even track day care deaths. In terms of oversight, the US News report revealed that in Virginia, for example, the state had failed to make mandatory twice-a-year inspections of 722 of its 4,200 licensed facilities in 1996; 159 centers were not visited even once. No parents should have to fear for their child's safety--no parent should ever get that dreaded call that their child was hurt at day care. Bringing a young child to day care in the morning should not be an act of faith--it should be an act of confidence. While states have the responsibility to set health and safety standards, states need to be held accountable for enforcing these standards by adhering to the inspection-schedule that they establish under state law. Accordingly, our bill provides a 10 percent bonus in CCDBG funding to states that meet targeted inspection rates, while penalizing those by 10 percent that don't meet their existing responsibility to ensure health and safety. This gives our bill ``teeth'' to ensure that child care is safe and children are protected. Finally, we encourage more American businesses to become partners in child care by offering then tax credits for child care operation, construction and renovation expenses up to $500,000. And recognizing that it is not always feasible for small businesses to assist with child care, we offer grants to small employers to provide such care. Businesses already have an incentive to provide child care in that parents who are confident in their child care arrangements are more reliable, productive workers. These initiatives will not only create more slots and make child care more affordable for parents and businesses alike, but it will help literally bring care closer to more parents. In closing, let me emphasize that this bill is an investment in our nation's future. It is a statement by the federal government that there can be no greater cause--no more noble a purpose than providing for our children. How a nation raises its youth and the value it places on giving children a chance to grow up safe, happy, and healthy speaks volumes to its greatness. This legislation won't make decisions easier for parents but it will ensure that they have a full range of options available to them as they seek to do the very best they can for their children. That's why I'm proud to be here today and that's why I will work hard to ensure the passage of the Caring for Children Act. Thank you.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senators Hatch, Roberts, Specter, and Chafee to introduce a bill that I believe is an historic opportunity to help ensure the well- being of our children and by extension the very well-being of our nation: the Caring for Children Act. I come before you as a veteran on child care issues who has worked to address child care throughout my political life, and was the lead Republican cosponsor on the Act for Better Child Care in 1989--the bill which set the stage for the bipartisan package that was adopted by the 101st Congress. Since that time we have advanced the ball in profound ways that reflect the changing nature of the American family, but our work must never cease when it comes to our children. We must build on our laurels, not rest on them: and that is precisely what this bill does. Consider the challenge: In California alone in 1997, 500,000 children were already on waiting lists for federal child care in--half a million! Now, it is estimated that, as welfare reform proceeds, some 2 million parents across America will join the workforce and their children will require child care. A GAO report from May of last year determined that in Chicago, for example, the known supply of child care would only meet 14 percent of the need for infant child care in the first year of welfare reform implementation. And within three years, 3 out of 4 American women with children under 5 will be working and in need of child care. With the perspective of years spent on this issue, I have come to the conclusion that what American parents need most are choices. The decision of how to care for a young child is a deeply personal and difficult one. Many feel handcuffed by economic concerns, others worry about the safety of child care, but all face different circumstances that make the decision making process unique. Given the tremendous challenges of raising children today, and the extraordinary range of issues facing families, I believe the federal government should not be in the business of encouraging one choice over another. Instead the government's role must be to ensure that families have viable options and that the basis for decisions is the best interests of the child. If we are to care about children we must care about choices, and not politicize the issue with partisanship or ideology. That is the spirit in which we crafted our bill. Because it is not about pitting one group against another. It is not about starting a ``mommy war''. It is about helping parents do the best they can for their children--no matter what choice they make. The reality is that, despite our best efforts to date to make quality, affordable child care accessible, the myriad pressures facing American families today still imperil their ability to provide the best possible care for their children. In my home state of Maine, one out of every five Mainers are working multiple jobs. Across the country, 63 percent of women with children under age six are in the workforce, and as a result, over 12 million children are cared for by someone other than a parent during working hours. In Maine, there are 42,000 women in the labor force with children under 6, and 64,000 with children between the ages of 6 and 17. At the same time, child care costs can range from $4,000 to $9,000 annually--with families earning less than $14,000 per year paying more than one quarter of their income in child support. As a result, families are often forced to make a choice between two unacceptable options: find care for their children that may not be safe or appropriate, or stay home and hope that they can somehow still put food on the table. Our bill respects parents' decisions and expands the choices available in a number of innovative ways. By expanding the Dependent Care Tax Credit, we make it more affordable for parents to choose quality child care, but we also leave the door open for a parent to stay at home with their child. And we target our tax benefits to those who need them most: working American families. For two-working parent families with child care expenses, we raise the income level at which parents can take the maximum credit from $10,000 to $30,000, allowing more parents to take advantage of the maximum tax credit. In addition, we raise the percentage of child care expenses that parents can put toward their credit to 50% (up from 40% under current law) of expenses up to $2400 for one child, or $4800 for two or more children. The credit will phase down 1% for every $1500 of income above $30,000, phasing out completely for families earning over $105,000 per year. Under this new scheme, the maximum tax credit will be $1200 for one child (up from $720), or $2400 for two or more children (up from $480). For the first time, parents who forgo an income to stay at home to take care of a child between the ages of 0-3 will be able to take advantage of the Dependent Care Tax Credit. By attributing child care expenses to stay at home parents of $150 per month, they will be eligible for a maximum tax credit of up to $900 per year, depending on their income. Applying the tax credit to parents who wish to stay home for children ages 0-3 acknowledges that parents of infants and toddlers often face the toughest decisions between working or staying at home, particularly in light of recent research in the area of early childhood development which demonstrates that care from one or two consistent, loving and stimulating caregivers during these earliest years is crucial to brain development. The Caring for Children Act will also help defray the considerable costs of child care for low-income families by doubling funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, to the time of $5 billion. This will create more child care slots for low-income families and double the amount of money devoted to improving quality, again leaving more options for parents. And we also address the issue safety, because parents are still rightfully concerned about safety. According to a US News and World Report article last August, a query of all 50 states and the District of Columbia revealed that 76 children died in day care in 1996. The causes included drownings, falls, and being struck by automobiles. And these numbers are low because, shockingly, some states do not even track day care deaths. In terms of oversight, the US News report revealed that in Virginia, for example, the state had failed to make mandatory twice-a-year inspections of 722 of its 4,200 licensed facilities in 1996; 159 centers were not visited even once. No parents should have to fear for their child's safety--no parent should ever get that dreaded call that their child was hurt at day care. Bringing a young child to day care in the morning should not be an act of faith--it should be an act of confidence. While states have the responsibility to set health and safety standards, states need to be held accountable for enforcing these standards by adhering to the inspection-schedule that they establish under state law. Accordingly, our bill provides a 10 percent bonus in CCDBG funding to states that meet targeted inspection rates, while penalizing those by 10 percent that don't meet their existing responsibility to ensure health and safety. This gives our bill ``teeth'' to ensure that child care is safe and children are protected. Finally, we encourage more American businesses to become partners in child care by offering then tax credits for child care operation, construction and renovation expenses up to $500,000. And recognizing that it is not always feasible for small businesses to assist with child care, we offer grants to small employers to provide such care. Businesses already have an incentive to provide child care in that parents who are confident in their child care arrangements are more reliable, productive workers. These initiatives will not only create more slots and make child care more affordable for parents and businesses alike, but it will help literally bring care closer to more parents. In closing, let me emphasize that this bill is an investment in our nation's future. It is a statement by the federal government that there can be no greater cause--no more noble a purpose than providing for our children. How a nation raises its youth and the value it places on giving children a chance to grow up safe, happy, and healthy speaks volumes to its greatness. This legislation won't make decisions easier for parents but it will ensure that they have a full range of options available to them as they seek to do the very best they can for their children. That's why I'm proud to be here today and that's why I will work hard to ensure the passage of the Caring for Children Act. Thank you.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a matter of utmost importance to our Nation--granting the President fast-track authority for global trade agreements for the next 5 years. I have long opposed extending fast-track authority to the executive branch on the grounds that it removes all possibility of perfecting trade agreements which have wide-ranging impacts on many sectors of our economy. And nothing I have seen in recent history has changed my mind. We are being asked to rubber stamp not just one agreement, but any trade agreement that may come along, whether in South America, Asia, or anywhere else in the world. We are contemplating letting bureaucrats and other unelected interests negotiate America's future in the new global economy. And if history is any indication, we would be making a grievous mistake. Experience is a wonderful teacher--just look at NAFTA. What I have learned is that NAFTA has not been the job boon it was advertised to be; that the trade deficit has continued to explode under NAFTA, that too many good paying jobs have already been sacrificed on the altar of so-called fair trade, and that we have serious difficulties in enforcing the agreements we've already made. That is not a particularly encouraging track record--certainly not one that should inspire us to hand over the trade agreement keys to the White House. To the contrary, it raises grave concerns as to where the administration wants to take the country in the new world of globalization. That is why I believe the President is obliged to do more than just say that he needs fast-track authority. The gap between what he said would happen under NAFTA and what has actually happened makes it even more essential that he explain to us precisely how he would address the problems that already exist, and what his vision is for the future should he be granted such sweeping authority. Because frankly, the administration has not spelled out why it needs this authority, nor what it will mean for the Nation. Unfortunately, I can venture a fairly good guess as to what it will mean, based on history. The chart behind me represents the U.S. international merchandise trade from 1947 until last year. For 25 out of the 27 years preceding fast-track authority in 1974, the United States ran a trade surplus. Then, after 1975, the bottom started falling out. This sea of red ink behind me not only represents millions of dollars in deficit--over $190 billion last year ($191.2 billion)--but lost jobs and shattered lives. For each billion dollars in trade deficit, another 20,000 people are displaced from their jobs--according to the Foreign Trade Division of the Census Bureau, that number is approaching 3.8 million. Every $50,000 in trade deficit is one lost job. We hear time and time again that enormous opportunities will be created for the American people through trade agreements the President can negotiate if he has fast-track authority. But if the agreements already negotiated are any indication, it's time to put the brakes on, not hit the accelerator. Because working Americans can't afford any more ``opportunities'' like this. Right now, each week, the United States borrows from abroad or sells assets worth $3 billion to pay for our trade losses. All across the country, workers are taking cuts in pay--or worse, taking home pink slips. And we are left to wonder how trade agreements that had promised so much have delivered so little. Just look at the lessons of NAFTA. NAFTA, we were told, would improve our trade deficit with Canada and Mexico. So what's the reality? Before NAFTA in 1993, we had a $1.7 billion surplus with Mexico. As of last year, it's now a $16.2 billion deficit. Before NAFTA we had a $10 billion trade deficit with Canada. After only 3 years of NAFTA, we had a $23 billion deficit. And during those 3 years under NAFTA, our combined merchandise trade deficits with Canada and Mexico have grown 433 percent, as indicated by this chart showing the tremendous downward turn taken after NAFTA. We all know that, with trade agreements, there are winners and there are losers. But a quick review of the current NAFTA standings shows that, in sports terms, we are well below .500. The White House has claimed credit for 90,000 to 160,000 American jobs from NAFTA. Yet the Economic Policy Institute has issued a report that there are jobs losses in all 50 States because of NAFTA, more than 390,000 jobs eliminated since NAFTA took effect in 1994. Considering our experience prior to 1994, we can ill afford these kind of results. An October EPI briefing paper states that in the 15 years preceding NAFTA the U.S. goods and services trade deficit eliminated a total of 2.4 million job opportunities, 2.2 million in the manufacturing sector alone. That means 83 percent of the total job decline was in the manufacturing sector. For example, in my home State of Maine, between 1980 and the inception of NAFTA the Maine footwear industry--the largest in the Nation--lost over 9,000 jobs to countries like Mexico because our Government sat on its hands in spite of recommended action by the International Trade Commission. And in the past three years alone, there have been significant losses in the textile and shoe industries-- over 8,000 people have lost their jobs. I have already witnessed too many hardworking people lose their livelihood for me to risk more American jobs. I am unwilling to trade well-paying jobs with benefits for lower paying ones--but that's precisely what's happened under our ill- conceived trade agreements. As the trade deficit and globalization of U.S. industries have grown, more quality jobs have been lost to imports than have been gained in the lower paying sectors that are experiencing rapid export growth. Increased import shares have displaced almost twice as many high-paying, high-skill jobs than increased exports have created. Of course, NAFTA has created some good jobs. But the fact that increased imports have caused a large trade deficit tell us that more high-paying jobs were lost than gained in the push for more trade. Those deficits--and the path the United States is going down--are well illustrated by this chart which shows three roads that have diverged under the previous reign of fast-track authority, first instituted in 1974. Up to that point, Japanese, German, and United States merchandise trade was humming along essentially in balance. Beginning almost at the start of 1975, however, we clearly see the United States plunging into deficit, while Germany and Japan both enjoy a trade surplus. To paraphrase Robert Frost, the road less traveled certainly has made all the difference--in this case, not for the better. In other words, under NAFTA as well as other previous trade agreements, there have been many more losers than winners. So we must ask the President: How do you explain the job losses? How do you explain the trade deficit explosion? And what is it going to mean for the future of the country? The affect of NAFTA on these issues was seriously miscalculated--what assurances do we have that the administration's record will be better in the next 5 years, after multiple agreements? We also need assurances that agreements negotiated will be agreements fulfilled. Unfortunately, after we have negotiated past trade agreements, I do not believe that the United States has aggressively pursued enforcement of the elimination of trade barriers with other countries, whether they are tariff or nontariff barriers. Why then would we grant this authority on a broad basis for whatever agreements may be negotiated by the administration? The American Chamber of Commerce in Japan summed it up best in a study earlier this year concluding that ``it has often been more important for the two governments to reach agreements and declare victory than to undertake the difficult task of monitoring the agreements to ensure their implementation produces results.'' The bottom line is, long after the signing ceremonies and handshakes are forgotten, these trade agreements continue to affect lives on a daily basis. We must remember that our responsibilities don't end with the ratification of our trade agreements--they are just beginning. Unfortunately, I can only assume from my personal experience that this is a lesson not yet learned by the administration. What other conclusion is there when the NAFTA clean-up plan for the United States- Mexico border has generated only 1 percent of the promised funding? What other conclusion is there when other countries continue to violate our laws by dumping goods in the United States below cost and because of extensive subsidies? The Atlantic salmon farmers of Maine are a case in point. While we debate giving the President greater authority to close more trade deals, they have a case pending with the Department of Commerce because subsidized, low-priced Atlantic salmon from Chile--which provides at least 25 different subsidies to its producers, I might add--are being dumped in the United States. And while this situation remains unresolved, we have lost more than 50 percent of our salmon aquaculture industry in Maine, while Chile's imports into the United States have risen 75 percent and United States salmon prices have dropped by 30 percent. So forgive me if I am at a complete loss as to how bringing Chile into NAFTA will create more and better jobs, and a higher standard of living for the hard working people of Maine. And I could not talk about empty trade promises without mentioning Maine's potato industry. For years I have been raising the issue of an unfair trade barrier with Canada on bulk shipments of potatoes exported to Canada, a trade barrier that is in violation of the National Treatment Principle of article III, paragraph 4 of the GATT, to be specific. This provision requires that GATT/WTO member countries treat imported products the same as goods of local origin with respect to all laws, regulations, and requirements that affect the sale, purchase, transportation, distribution, and use of the goods. In December of 1994, USTR's then Trade Representative Micky Kantor said he would be filing a trade case with the GATT-WTO to overturn Canada's policy of bulk easements. So what has happened so far? Nothing. Almost 2 years later, in September of 1996, I wrote to President Clinton to express my belief that we had waited long enough, to urge him to live up to the USTR commitment, and to proceed with a trade case on bulk easements. One week later, USTR's Charlene Barshefsky called me to let me know that serious bilateral consultations on Canadian trade practices would begin. These talks lead nowhere--in fact, the USTR then actually backtracked on filing a trade case. Two months later, the ITC was asked to investigate. They did, and in July of this year, issued a report, which stated, and I quote: ``Canadian regulations restrict imports of bulk shipments of fresh potatoes for processing or repacking.'' The report also stated, ``the United States maintains no such restrictions.'' So where are we today? Well, this past week, the U.S. Trade Representative once again promised that bilateral talks on bulk easements will begin no later than March 1998. It looks to me, as Yogi Berra once said, like deja vu all over again. Is this how the administration plans to handle enforcement for future trade agreements? Last week, the President asked the American people to give him the benefit of the doubt on fast track. I believe we need the benefit of enforcement of existing agreements first. Where are our strict and mandatory enforcement provisions when our trading partners bring injury to our domestic workers? We need to provide the enforcement to ensure full reciprocity in market access and reduction of export subsidies--enforcement and oversight which, up until now, has been lacking. Yet, we are told that specific concerns should be weighed against the broader economic, political and social aspects of NAFTA expansion. We are told that, overall, no major negative impact is expected if we expand the trade agreement with Chile--except of course for industries like fish, forestry, and fruit, all of which are important to the economic stability of my home State of Maine. That is why I am not prepared to give up the right to seek assurances that these industries won't be decimated by a flawed trade agreement. The stakes are far too high for Congress to abrogate its responsibilities to the bureaucrats and special interests. Free trade, as we have seen, doesn't work unless we have agreements that also provide for fair trade, and Congress must have the right to exercise its responsibility to ensure fair trade in each and every agreement that comes down the road. The Senate must be more than just a debating society for global trade issues that affect each and every one of us. Our country negotiated trade agreements for nearly 200 years before fast-track authority was first granted in 1974, when trade was carved out for an exception unlike any other kind of treaty. We continue to negotiate treaties and agreements on everything from chemical weapons to extradition to tuna-dolphin without fast-track authority. And I have heard no rational explanation of why trade should be treated differently. I certainly do not believe Congress should approve fast-track authority on the basis of fear that the United States will not have a seat at the trade bargaining table. There is no question we are living in an era dominated by global economics and trade, but at the same time we are an economic super power with an 8.3 trillion dollar economy and 203 million willing buyers--an attractive market to say the least. I believe it would continue to be in the best interests of nations across the globe to negotiate with the United States--and those of us in Congress are committed to crafting mutually beneficial trade agreements. I think all of us in Congress understand full well the realities of trade as we approach the new millennium. We must also understand, however, that our trade record under fast track mandates that Congress have a strong voice in the process. Mr. President, we are elected to deliberate and vote on the major issues of our day. Well, what could be more important than trade agreements that will directly affect hard working Americans and their families? It is imperative that we not relinquish our right to have a voice in these agreements. I don't want to see a repeat of what happened during the summer of 1993 during negotiations on NAFTA side agreements, when United States negotiators, clearly under tremendous pressure to reach agreement on the outstanding issues and conclude the pact in time for a January vote, let Canada and Mexico off the hook on a number of different issues. We need better oversight, more discussion and debate, not less, because we stand at a very important juncture. A poignant story out of New England illustrates where we are at the end of the 20th century, and points up the failures of past agreements. Two years ago, Malden Mills, a textile mill in Massachusetts, burned to the ground, leaving thousands unemployed and putting 300 more jobs in jeopardy at the Bridgton Knitting Mills in Maine. In the wake of the fire, the mill's owner, Aaron Feuerstein, had several attractive choices, including rebuilding in another state or country with lower wages, anywhere from Texas to Thailand. Or he simply could have retired after four decades of running Malden Mills, founded by his grandfather more than 90 years ago. Instead, last month, Mr. Feurstein opened a new, state-of-the-art textile mill, and brought 2,630 very grateful Americans back to work. And the rebuilding of the plant has become a symbol of loyalty to employees and to an entire community. Mr. Feuerstein's actions are admirable and all of America rightfully extended their appreciation to a man who chose the difficult path over the easy, and perhaps more profitable. But let's step back for a moment and ask ourselves why this story became a national sensation. The sad fact is, it stood out so glaringly because it is the exception to the rule. The idea that American textile jobs would be kept in the United States when they could easily be shipped overseas is news because it hardly ever happens that way anymore. Mr. President, I don't want to continue down this path, but I fear we will if we don't retain our congressional right to speak out against trade agreements that aren't in our best interest. We have an obligation to all those who have already lost good jobs to bad trade agreements, and to all those who are in danger of becoming displaced in the future, to take the time to do it right. And the President has an obligation to fully explain how the wrongs of the past will be fixed, and why the future will be different. This he simply has not done. We stand poised to begin a new era of prosperity in the global marketplace, but I do not believe that fast track is the way to get us there, I do not believe the President has made his case for this broad authority, and I urge my colleagues to defeat this fast-track legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am offering a manager's amendment with Senator Hollings and Senator Chafee to S. 1213, the Oceans Act of 1997. The year 1998 has been declared the International Year of the Ocean by the United Nations, and around the world scientists, governments, nongovernmental organizations, and private citizens are preparing activities that recognize the importance of the oceans to all of humanity as well as the planet. Passage of the Oceans Act today would serve as a very fitting contribution to the Year of the Ocean, signifying that the United States is at the forefront of ocean policy, and that we as a nation are continuing to strive for the conservation and sustainable use of our ocean resources. S. 1213, which I cosponsored with Senators Hollings, McCain, Kerry, Stevens, and others is intended to address current and future problems related to the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes, and to ensure that we have a national oceans policy capable of meeting these challenges. The bill would create a commission to analyze the full range of ocean policy issues facing the Nation, and the way in which the Federal Government is currently responding to them through its agencies and programs. After completing its analysis, the commission would provide recommendations to the President and the Congress on the development of a comprehensive, cost-effective policy to address these issues. It also requires the President to create an interagency council to help improve coordination and cooperation, and eliminate duplication of effort among Federal agencies. This legislation is based on a law enacted in 1966 which created a similar commission known as the Stratton Commission. That commission led to the creation of NOAA in 1970, and it helped to shape our public policies on these issues in the succeeding years. But the times have changed over the past 30 years, and the problems that we face in the marine environment have changed as well. The manager's amendment which I am proposing today embodies virtually all of S. 1213 are reported by the Commerce Committee, but it also addresses the concerns of some Senators about the establishment of the interagency National Oceans Council. Over the last few days, I have worked closely with Senators Chafee, Hollings, and McCain on modifications to help ensure that the Council has an appropriate role within the administration. It is intended to assist the commission with its work, providing information from the appropriate Federal agencies as necessary, and to help the President implement the national ocean policy that he is charged with developing under the bill. The changes that we have agreed to and that are contained in the manager's amendment clarify the role of the Council, and establish a sunset provision requiring the Council to disband 1 year after the commission issues its report. The amendment also makes clear that the Council cannot supersede any other existing administration coordination mechanisms, or interfere with ongoing Federal activities under existing law. Mr. President, this is a very good bipartisan bill that is supported by the leaders of both the Commerce and Environment and Public Works Committees. It will give the United States very important guidance on how to prepare for the ocean-related challenges that will face the Nation in the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and the bill as amended.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation designed to address a serious national problem affecting our coasts. The recent outbreak of Pfiesteria in the Chesapeake Bay has garnered a lot of media attention, and deservedly so. But Pfiesteria is actually just one example of a larger phenomenon--Harmful algal blooms. These damaging outbreaks of often toxic algae affect every U.S. coastal State and territory. In my State of Maine, we have outbreaks of paralytic shellfish poisoning every year which require the closure of clam flats along the coast, and the loss of millions of dollars in potential income. On Georges Bank off the New England coast, harmful algal blooms cause $3 million to $5 million worth of damage every year. In Washington in 1991, an outbreak resulted in losses of razor clams exceeding $15 million. And off Alaska, which has our Nation's most pristine coastline, an estimated $50 million worth of shellfish remain unexploited each year due to these outbreaks. What is frightening is that these blooms have been increasing over the last 30 years with no sign of abatement--and science cannot explain why. Nor do we have any other way of addressing the problem besides closing areas to swimming and fishing. My bill is designed to address this problem with focused and appropriate Federal action. NOAA, the lead Federal agency on harmful algal blooms, currently has the major Federal research program to address the problem--the Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms project, or ECO-HAB. It is part of NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program, but it does not have a specific authorization. My bill would give this program a specific authorization for $10.5 million annually during fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000, providing it with a more certain future as the next century approaches. The bill would also authorize the following activities for the next 3 years--$5 million per year for NOAA to upgrade its research lab capabilities to more effectively study the problem; $3 million annually for education and extension services through the Sea Grant colleges; $5.5 million annually to augment Federal and State monitoring programs to help detect harmful algal blooms early; and $8 million annually in grants to the States through the Coastal Zone Management Act [CZMA] programs to help States control blooms in their area. My bill represents a coordinated strategy for attacking this serious problem. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today the Senate holds the future of Amtrak in its hands. The legislation before us seeks to put Amtrak's financial situation on a track to self-sufficiency. We have delayed action on Amtrak for three years and we cannot afford to delay it any longer. As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee for the last 3 years, I have listened to Amtrak and its detractors discuss the problems and the potential for passenger rail service. The committee, first under the leadership of Senator Lott, and now under the leadership of Senator Hutchison, chair of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, have reported out tough but fair reform bills that put the burden on Amtrak to prove it can survive without a Federal operating subsidy. In the last Congress, despite the best efforts of Senator Lott, no agreement could be reached with those who claim they want Amtrak reform but also wouldn't let it come to the floor--even when they were offered the opportunity to offer, debate, and vote on their amendments. Much the same can be said to explain why we are here, in the waning hours of the first session, considering this important bill. I want to express my support for the amendment offered by Senator Hutchison and my appreciation for her dedication to moving the reform process forward. She has fought a difficult battle because of her belief in the importance of maintaining a national passenger rail system, and I would like to commend her for her hard work and dedication to reform. But, we are not simply debating Amtrak reform, but a more complex question: Do we, as a Nation, believe that we should have a national passenger rail service? If we do, then we will pass this bill with Senator Hutchison's amendment. If we fail to address the financial problems at Amtrak all we are doing is delaying the inevitable. We need to make the tough choices--that is what the people of this country have sent us here to do. If we are not willing or able to do that for Amtrak then we might as well shut the system down rather then allow it to slowly bleed to death. That is what is happening now because some in this body have been unwilling to face up to the fact that there is no easy answer to the financial problems facing Amtrak. If there were--we would not find ourselves in this situation. Three years ago, Amtrak took the Government's pronouncement that it should operate without Federal operating subsidies to heart. They developed a business plan and told Congress what was needed both in the way of statutory changes and capital funding in order to meet this goal. Earlier this year we created the capital trust fund--an important first step--but in this case money simply isn't enough. Until we address the statutory changes they need, we have left them to sink slowly into bankruptcy. Tom Downs has come before the Commerce Committee, the Finance Committee, the Appropriations Committee, and the Environment and Public Works Committee to tell the Senate what changes Amtrak needs in order to turn a public railroad into a business. He has laid out the statutory changes that are necessary in order to allow Amtrak to compete in the next century. He has been very straightforward about the fact that without these changes, Amtrak has no future. The Commerce Committee has twice reported out bills that provide these changes. But the committee has also made it clear that the reform bill is a commitment between Congress and Amtrak to achieve the mutual goal of self-sufficiency. We have created the Amtrak Review Council which will consider factors that will help it determine if Amtrak has kept its end of the deal--Amtrak's performance, and the findings of the independent assessment--in order to determine whether or not Amtrak should continue to exist. I included a provision in the bill that will require the ARC to also consider whether Congress has held up its end of the bargain by requiring the council to look at whether sufficient funding was provided for Amtrak to carry out the financial plan it is required to write under the bill. In my very first Commerce Committee hearing in January, 1995, Ken Mead, then with GAO told us that ``. . . Congress needs to decide what is to be expected from Amtrak and how much it is willing to pay to fulfill those expectations.'' I believe the committee has provided the full Senate with a bill that provides Amtrak and its shareholders with a clear outline of those expectations and most importantly, provides Amtrak with all the tools, within its power, to meet those expectations. I believe that the committee's reform package--offered today by the distinguished Senator from Texas--is a fair one, but least anyone think that we are simply pouring money into a sinking ship, it is important to remember that this bill also includes a heavy dose of tough love. If the ARC determines that Amtrak cannot become free of Federal operating subsidies, then plans will be made for liquidation or a major restructuring will be undertaken. Having worked with Tom Downs, I am a firm believer that he and the men and women who have worked so hard to keep Amtrak moving will meet the goal of self-sufficiency. If they cannot, even after Congress has provided them with the tools they have asked for, then I am ready to close them down. But I want to know that they had the opportunity, the resources and the tools to meet that goal, first. And that is why it is so important that we adopt the amendment offered by Senator Hutchison. It is also important to look at what, until today, has prevented us from moving the Amtrak reform legislation--labor and liability. According to the General Accounting Office, labor accounts for 52 percent of the costs at Amtrak. You don't need to be an accountant to know that if Amtrak is to succeed it needs to be able to address these costs. Amtrak has asked for the ability to sit down at the bargaining table and negotiate on the issues of contracting out of services and severance pay, which under current law is 6 years. The Committee bill required both sides to negotiate. Under the Hutchison amendment, the issue of contracting out shall itself be negotiated in the next round of contract negotiations. A lot has changed since Amtrak was created and we need to allow the system to change with the times if it is to be a competitive force as we enter the next century. The men and women of Amtrak have worked hard to improve the system, make no mistake about it, and they have more at stake then anyone for without Amtrak they have no job. I do not believe that asking them to sit down at the table and negotiate is asking too much. The Hutchison amendment also makes changes in the liability issue that has long held up reform. It is a much misunderstood issue and I applaud the Senator from Texas' ability to reach agreement on the issue. The Senate will make an important decision today. We can take the responsible approach, pass reform, and help put Amtrak on the road to self-sufficiency. Or we can take the irresponsible approach, kill the bill and shut down passenger rail service. I have the luxury, I suppose, of coming from a State that will not be impacted one way or the other at this time. Maine does not have train service. We would like it, and we are waiting for a decision by the Surface Transportation Board to determine if we will get it, but the people of my State believe that a national passenger rail system is important, and so do I. A national passenger rail system is as much a part of our future as it is of our past. The Journal of Commerce noted last year that Amtrak's presence eliminates the need for 20 additional highway lanes in New York City and 10 new tunnels under the Hudson. It also replaces 27,000 cars on the highway between Boston and New York every day. We can only add so many lanes to any given highway. We need Amtrak--not as a reminder of our past, but as a vital part of our transportation future, and I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would authorize the U.S. Postal Service to issue a special stamp to raise funds for prostate cancer research. It is time to fortify the battle against prostate cancer by educating the public about this disease, emphasizing the importance of annual screening, and bolstering our research efforts in order to find a cure. In the wake of National Prostate Cancer Awareness week, September, 22-29, men and women from my home State of Maine are sharing their stories about this devastating disease and are calling for more prostate cancer research. Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer in American men. The American Cancer Society estimates that 334,500 cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed in 1997. Tragically, 41,000 of these men will die from the disease--a number fast approaching the annual breast cancer death toll of 44,300. Between 1989 and 1993, the prostate cancer incidence rate increased by 50 percent. Despite this dramatic surge in incidence, prostate cancer receives only a modest fraction, 3.7 percent, of the funding resources allocated to cancer. In fiscal year 1997, prostate cancer research funding was $96.2 million, which is very low considering the number of lives this dreaded disease will rob each year. Advances made over the past 10 years to detect and treat prostate cancer have been significant, considering the fact that the digital rectal examination [DRE]--the primary tool for detecting prostate cancer which has been used for over 100 years--cannot detect small tumors or those on the side of the gland where approximately 40 percent of prostate cancers are located. Physicians have increased their use of the prostate-specific antigen, P.A. blood test which detects both aggressive and latent prostate cancers. The National Cancer Institute is conducting a multicenter trial to test whether or not early detection of prostate cancer by the DRE and P.A. will reduce prostate cancer mortality. Moreover, NCI's Prostate, Lung, Colon and Ovary Cancer Screening Trial [PLCO], which began in 1993, will eventually enroll 74,000 men over its 16 year duration. The trial will determine the relationships between P.A. levels, risk for prostate cancer, and the actual presence and size of prostate cancer in individual men. These advances will help lay a solid foundation for prostate cancer research into the 21st century. These developments are pivotal steps in the right direction. However, if we are going to eradicate this disease, much work needs to be done. We must continue the search for new techniques and methods of treatment. We must be relentless in emphasizing the importance of education and awareness. But most of all, we must find a cure. The lives of our fathers, sons, brothers, and friends depend on this effort. The Prostate Cancer Research Stamp Act would authorize a special first class stamp to be priced at up to 8 cents above the cost of normal first class postage. The stamp would be voluntarily purchased by postal patrons and the additional money raised by the sale of the stamp would be earmarked for prostate cancer research at the National Cancer Institutes. Perhaps most importantly, this special stamp would help bring the disease out into the open. By raising awareness, men of all ages will be reminded to educate themselves about early detection, screening, prevention and treatment of prostate cancer simply by visiting the post office. The ravages of prostate cancer--like all other cancers--are devastating to the lives of all family members. A stamp designed to garner additional research funds would not only help the hundreds of thousands of men who suffer from prostate cancer, but would also remind men to seek regular screening. It is going to take a collective effort to find a cure. But if we all play a small role, the investment in this valuable research will pay off and we will be one step closer to winning the battle against prostate cancer.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would authorize the U.S. Postal Service to issue a special stamp to raise funds for prostate cancer research. It is time to fortify the battle against prostate cancer by educating the public about this disease, emphasizing the importance of annual screening, and bolstering our research efforts in order to find a cure. In the wake of National Prostate Cancer Awareness week, September, 22-29, men and women from my home State of Maine are sharing their stories about this devastating disease and are calling for more prostate cancer research. Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer in American men. The American Cancer Society estimates that 334,500 cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed in 1997. Tragically, 41,000 of these men will die from the disease--a number fast approaching the annual breast cancer death toll of 44,300. Between 1989 and 1993, the prostate cancer incidence rate increased by 50 percent. Despite this dramatic surge in incidence, prostate cancer receives only a modest fraction, 3.7 percent, of the funding resources allocated to cancer. In fiscal year 1997, prostate cancer research funding was $96.2 million, which is very low considering the number of lives this dreaded disease will rob each year. Advances made over the past 10 years to detect and treat prostate cancer have been significant, considering the fact that the digital rectal examination [DRE]--the primary tool for detecting prostate cancer which has been used for over 100 years--cannot detect small tumors or those on the side of the gland where approximately 40 percent of prostate cancers are located. Physicians have increased their use of the prostate-specific antigen, P.A. blood test which detects both aggressive and latent prostate cancers. The National Cancer Institute is conducting a multicenter trial to test whether or not early detection of prostate cancer by the DRE and P.A. will reduce prostate cancer mortality. Moreover, NCI's Prostate, Lung, Colon and Ovary Cancer Screening Trial [PLCO], which began in 1993, will eventually enroll 74,000 men over its 16 year duration. The trial will determine the relationships between P.A. levels, risk for prostate cancer, and the actual presence and size of prostate cancer in individual men. These advances will help lay a solid foundation for prostate cancer research into the 21st century. These developments are pivotal steps in the right direction. However, if we are going to eradicate this disease, much work needs to be done. We must continue the search for new techniques and methods of treatment. We must be relentless in emphasizing the importance of education and awareness. But most of all, we must find a cure. The lives of our fathers, sons, brothers, and friends depend on this effort. The Prostate Cancer Research Stamp Act would authorize a special first class stamp to be priced at up to 8 cents above the cost of normal first class postage. The stamp would be voluntarily purchased by postal patrons and the additional money raised by the sale of the stamp would be earmarked for prostate cancer research at the National Cancer Institutes. Perhaps most importantly, this special stamp would help bring the disease out into the open. By raising awareness, men of all ages will be reminded to educate themselves about early detection, screening, prevention and treatment of prostate cancer simply by visiting the post office. The ravages of prostate cancer--like all other cancers--are devastating to the lives of all family members. A stamp designed to garner additional research funds would not only help the hundreds of thousands of men who suffer from prostate cancer, but would also remind men to seek regular screening. It is going to take a collective effort to find a cure. But if we all play a small role, the investment in this valuable research will pay off and we will be one step closer to winning the battle against prostate cancer.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I, along with my distinguished colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, am submitting this concurrent resolution which calls for a United States effort to end the restrictions on the freedoms and violations of the human rights of the enclaved people in the occupied portion of Cyprus. A little over 2 years ago, Senator Mikulski and I had introduced a bill to address these very same concerns which, unfortunately, are still with us. Mr. President, I am aware that developments on Cyprus are not known to most Americans. Yet if I were to tell them that a small nation has had part of its land illegally occupied by a neighboring state for over 23 years, I know they would be both shocked and outraged. The 23 years since the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus have seen the end of the cold war, the collapse of the USSR, free elections in South Africa and a reunited Germany, yet while the line through the heart of Berlin is gone, the line through the heart of Cyprus remains. Over two decades ago, Turkey's brutal invasion drove more than 200,000 Cypriots from their homes. Turkey still controls about one- third of the island of Cyprus and maintains about 30,000 troops there. However, there remains, in northern Cyprus, a small remnant of 497 enclaved Greek-Cypriots. The reason they are referred to as the enclaved of Cyprus is that during the fighting in 1974 they mostly resided in remote enclaves and therefore were not able to flee the fighting and thus were not immediately expelled. Nevertheless the enclaved people of Cyprus have still seen their numbers reduced from 11,300 in 1974 to the 497 there are today. Mr. President, I am hopeful that with the appointment of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke as the Special Presidential Envoy for Cyprus that a long-overdue settlement will finally be reached. However, I believe that this resolution is nevertheless important in serving to bring to the attention of the American people and the world community, the hardships and restrictions endured by these enclaved individuals. In 1975, representatives of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities agreed that the Greek-Cypriots in the northern part of the island were to be given every help to lead a normal life. Twenty-two years later this is still not the case. The presence of the Turkish-Cypriot police in the lives of the enclaved Greek-Cypriots is constant, and there are restrictions on land travel. Other human rights restrictions and deprivations include: Restrictions on private telephones; Restrictions on hand-carried mail and newspapers; Difficulties in receiving full educational opportunities; Restricted access to and religious use of the monastery at Apostolos Andreas; A requirement that enclaved males aged 18-50 must report once a week to those in control; and A lack of investigation with regard to harassment, beating, rape and murder. Mr. President, this situation calls out for justice. By bringing these human rights violations to the attention of the American people, it is my hope and that of Senator Mikulski, that we can bring the plight of these people to the World's attention. Our resolution urges the President to undertake efforts to end the restrictions on the freedoms and human rights of the enclaved people. I will remain actively involved in this issue until their rights and freedoms are restored. This is the least we can do for these people. That is why I wish Ambassador Holbrooke the best of success in his efforts to achieve a settlement. While this resolution addresses the plight of the enclaved people of Cyprus, work must not cease on efforts to bring about a withdrawal of Turkish forces and a restorations of Cyprus' sovereignty over the entire island with the full respect of the rights of all Cypriots.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998 is being considered by the Senate. This is an important component of the national security legislation that the Congress must pass each year. The national defense authorization conference report is a good, bipartisan bill. The conference between the Senate and the House conferees dealt with many substantial issues. There were tough negotiations on many issues, and this bill provides a balanced approach and fair compromise. There are three areas that I would like to talk about which are very significant. These are in regard to United States policy in Bosnia; the depot maintenance compromise; and some very substantial quality of life issues for our troops--the men and women in uniform who serve our Nation. Mr. President, it is important to note that none of these significant national security issues will be addressed in any other forum unless the Senate passes this conference report and it is enacted into law. For example, significant progress was made in this legislation with regard to United States policy in Bosnia. The bill states that it is the sense of Congress that United States ground combat forces should not participate in a follow-on force in Bosnia after June 1998. In addition, the bill contains a provision cutting off funds to support United States troops in Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the President certifies that their continued presence in Bosnia is required to meet our national security interests, and provided United States policy continues to preclude U.S. forces from being used to perform civil law enforcement functions. This is a significant message to the administration and our NATO allies. This provides a workable solution to this complex policy issue, and is certainly more acceptable to the Senate and the administration than some of the alternatives proposed. I believe our language on Bosnia clearly puts the United States appropriately on record and yet preserves the constitutional authority and the necessary flexibility the administration needs to deal with the thorny issue of Bosnia. Another significant issue is the area of depot maintenance, and the fair and open competition that was created by the compromise in this legislation. There are strong feelings on both sides of the depot issue--with many jobs at stake. The conferees' objective was to ensure fair competition and a level playing field. This conference report compromise achieves two things: Straightforward criteria for fair and open competition and, provides greater opportunity for DOD outsourcing. Mr. President, one of the most significant areas in this legislation that will not be adequately addressed unless this bill is passed are very important provisions that support our military personnel in uniform who serve our nation so proudly--our troops who the President has so readily called upon in times of crisis throughout the world. Men and women who are now serving in dangerous and remote places like Bosnia, along the DMZ in Korea, and sailing in ships like the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Nimitz and its battle group who President Clinton has just recently ordered into the Persian Gulf to send a very clear message to Saddam Hussein. If we do not pass this bill we will be failing those we call on in times of crisis--the men and women in uniform. Examples of some of these important provisions are adjustments to troop strength levels, military pay raises, specialty pay and bonuses, major reform to housing allowances that will eliminate Government waste, authorization for new family housing units, and finally an important step forward in establishing accountability in the fair and equal treatment of our troops--both men and women. Compared to current law, this bill provides lower end strength levels and increased flexibility for the Pentagon and the individual services to manage military personnel strength. If the bill is not enacted, the military services will be held to the higher fiscal year 1997 end strength levels that were based on the 1993 Bottom Up Review. Levels that are higher than they need to be, levels that require the DOD to spend money that it does not have and does not need to spend. The lower personnel levels authorized are also consistent with the Department of Defense's Quadrennial Defense Review [QDR]. If we do not enact this bill we might as well throw the recommendations of that review right out the window. Without these modified troop strength levels, the services will have to recruit and retain personnel that they will have to separate from the service 1 year later. Is this responsible government? This will be disruptive to our military, unfair to its people, and significantly detract from funding needed for modernization. This is just poor stewardship of our Nation's precious resources. Without this Defense authorization bill, the military pay raise that we authorize in this bill will be less than our service members deserve. The bill includes a 2.8 percent pay raise for military personnel. If the bill is not enacted, the pay raise for military personnel will be limited to 2.3 percent. Mr. President, the bill also includes authority for significant increases in the special pay and bonus structure designed to respond to critical recruiting and retention problems highlighted by the Department of Defense in our Personnel Subcommittee hearings. If the bill is not enacted, these authorities will not be available to the Department of Defense to address these problems. Specific groups that would be affected include military aviators, nuclear-qualified officers, dentists, military members on overseas tours, military members receiving family separation allowances and/or hazardous duty assignment pay, and military members serving in hardship duty locations. Reducing military pay raises while failing to increase these bonuses through defeat of the Defense authorization bill will punish those who expect us here in the Congress to look out for them. We will be repudiating the commitments we have made to improving the quality of life for military personnel and their families. The conference report also includes a major reform to housing and subsistence allowances. These are significant reforms to the existing structure for housing allowances and subsistence allowances for military members. The reforms are intended to simplify the management of these allowances and to better target the allowances to those individuals and geographic areas where the need is most acute. The reforms will save the Department of Defense money which can be used for other compensation and quality of life projects. If the bill is not enacted, the Department of Defense will be forced to continue to use the existing, out-dated allowance structure with all its demonstrated inefficiencies, inequities, and higher costs. I assure my colleagues if we do not support military personnel with pay and compensation levels that are fair and meet the needs of their families, we will see increases in career personnel leaving the military services. They will see our action as a breach of faith and they will be absolutely right in their assessment. The bill also provides authority for the Department of Defense to begin construction on the fiscal year 1998 military construction projects which include quality of life and training-related facilities. If the bill is not enacted, construction cannot begin. Some may believe that since the military construction and family housing projects are funded in the Military Construction Appropriations Act, they do not need the authorization in the conference report. Let me assure my colleagues that is not correct. Both an authorization and an appropriation are required for military construction projects. Without this bill we will not build new family housing units. We will not build new barracks and dormitories for our single service members. We will delay construction on child care centers and dining facilities. If we deny these military construction projects, we will be guilty of failing to meet our commitment in support of our troops. And finally, another issue of great importance, is creating an opportunity for fair and equal treatment for all our troops. This body has few greater responsibilities than maintaining the effectiveness and accountability of our Nation's Armed Forces. This is one of the reasons that reports of widespread sexual harassment in our Nation's military deeply concerns us all. With Department of Defense statistics showing that sexual harassment is prevalent throughout the Armed Forces--we must do more than pay lip service to the problem. We must act, and this bill does that. Today, with a full understanding that the time has come for serious action that is responsible and constructive, a provision that I authored is included in this 1998 Defense authorization bill that places us on the road to solving the crisis of sexual harassment that plagues our military force. This legislation attacks the root of the problem--the lack of accountability when it comes to reporting and investigating incidents of sexual harassment. The Department of Defense conducted a survey in 1988 and found that 64 percent of women reported that they had experienced one or more incidents of sexual harassment in the 12 months preceding the survey. The Defense Department conducted another study in 1995 and found that the figure had only improved to 55 percent. This is not progress, these statistics are shocking. In its 1995 Defense Department survey, only 24 percent of the victims chose to report their sexual harassment experiences. Is this the kind of environment to which we should subject our volunteer force? These numbers tell me that women essentially stand a 50-50 chance of being harassed. This cannot and should not be tolerated. Add to that the fact that over three fourths of our military personnel do not feel they can report the harassment that occurs and you clearly have a very negative set of circumstances. How can you maintain good order and discipline in such an environment? This situation demands accountability. And it requires action to erase any perception that sexual harassment is tolerated in today's Armed Forces. My provisions in this bill require the unit commander to report each and every sexual harassment incident to their next senior officer within 72 hours. Once reported, the unit commander appoints an investigating officer to investigate the complaint of sexual harassment. The unit commander has 14 days to report back to their commander with the results of the investigation. If the unit commander cannot complete the investigation within 14 days, that commander must report the interim results, every 14 days, until the investigation has been completed. Today when an incident is reported to a unit commander, the commander is not required to report the incident until a preliminary investigation recommends disciplinary action. This gives the unit commander tremendous latitude as to how the case is handled. In most instances this is a not a problem. But look what we witnessed with the tragedy at Aberdeen. We saw a company commander who was a bad apple and there was no established system to alert his superiors that there was a problem. Under the provisions of the national defense authorization bill each incident is immediately brought to the attention of a more senior officer. The most distinct advantage of this provision is that the decibel level of the problem rises by elevating the matter to the highest echelons of the services. Mr. President, this accountability is included in this legislation. This provision also requires that the senior officers who receive these reports of sexual harassment forward all the complaints they receive and the results of the investigations of those complaints to their respective service Secretary by January 31 of each year, elevating the problem another notch within the military to the authors of the services' zero-tolerance policies where they can be scrutinized. The service Secretaries are then required to forward this information to the Secretary of Defense who in turn must report the information to Congress. Mr. President, this is what is needed to put us on the road to help end sexual harassment in our military. We owe the men and women who serve our Nation an environment that includes accountability, good order, and discipline. But we also owe this to our Nation, which relies on our military to defend our great country and its interests. The committee has been working on this bill for the past 10 months, it is an essential piece of legislation that must be passed by the Senate to ensure our national defense. We owe it not only to our people in uniform but to our Nation. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this conference report. Thank you, Mr President, and I yield the floor. Military Utility Assets