Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the American people are suffering a crisis of confidence when it comes to the way in which campaigns for Federal office are financed. They no longer feel that they are in control of who gets elected, or that those who do get elected are fully accountable. Today, I am introducing a bill that will restore Americans' confidence in their elected officials, and put elections back into the hands of average citizens. Last year, for the first time since coming to Congress, I had the opportunity to watch Federal elections not as a candidate, but as a citizen and a voter. And what I saw confirmed all the reasons I have been a longtime proponent of campaign finance reform. What I saw was vast sums of money and very little accountability. I saw attack ads paid for with unlimited funds by out-of-State groups. And I saw contributions from PAC's to Federal candidates climb 12 percent higher than the record levels reached in the 1993-1994 election cycle. And the 1996 elections were barely over when allegations of illegal and improper activities began flying, centered around the issues of so- called soft money and foreign influence peddling through campaign contributions. Subpoenas are being issued at a faster pace than Ken Griffey, Jr., hits home runs, and while it remains to be seen what the results of congressional investigations will yield, it is clear that these latest scandals only serve to further undermine public confidence and underscore the importance of enacting meaningful and achievable campaign finance reform this year. It has often been said that perception is nine-tenths of reality, and I believe this is the case with campaign financing. I happen to believe that most elected officials are good people trying to do the people's business with America's interests at heart. At the same time, as in any walk of life, there are some people who abuse the system. And if there is even the perception that elections are being bought and sold, then the problem is serious and real--and the solution must be likewise. And make no mistake, there is a pervasive perception that the system is out of hand and in need of fixing. A poll taken last year by a major newspaper in my home State, the Maine Sunday Telegram, showed that over 70 percent of respondents believe politicians listen more to special interests than to individual voters. Findings like this are endemic of a deep systemic problem, one that we cannot afford to ignore any longer. I have voted for major changes in the campaign finance system throughout my career and introduced measures that I felt would make real and positive changes. Today, I am introducing the Restoration of America's Confidence in Elections Act, a comprehensive but realistic approach to fixing our broken system. One of the chief aims of my bill is to increase the impact of the small, individual contributor in election campaigns so that we place the campaign process in the hands of average Americans--rather than in the hands of special interests. My bill will lower the amount of money a PAC could contribute from $5,000 to the limit for individual contributors, $1,000--a change which 70 percent of respondents to a recent New York Times poll say they support. It will also encourage small, individual contributors from a candidate's home State to participate by providing the incentive of a tax credit in the amount of the contribution, up to $100 for an individual or $200 in the case of a joint return. Soft money has also become a major issue, and for good reason. It is money that skirts the intent of the law, and unaccounted for money which influences Federal campaigns above and beyond legal limits. My bill will close the soft money loophole by prohibiting national parties from raising or spending any soft money on behalf of any Federal candidates--and State parties could only spend hard money on behalf of Federal candidates. In order to keep parties healthy, individuals could contribute up to an aggregate amount of $20,000 to State party grassroots funds, and the existing limits on aggregate contributions to national parties by individuals and PAC's would be raised by $5,000 each. In that way, money is accounted for, parties can remain viable, and the soft money chase is ended. My bill also addresses the issue of candidates facing independently wealthy opponents. As we all know, the amount of personal funds a candidate spends on his or her campaign cannot be constitutionally limited, but the playing field can and should be leveled. The perception that an individual of means can buy their way to the top of the American political arena certainly does nothing to inspire confidence in our Government. My bill would make it easier for a candidate facing a wealthy opponent to compete by allowing that candidate to raise the necessary funding through increased contribution limits, depending on the amount the wealthy candidate spends of his or her own money. It would also require candidates to declare the amount of personal money they intend to spend, and encourage them to stick to their pledge by requiring disclosure should they violate that pledge. Any successful campaign finance reform bill must address the realities of elections as we approach the new millennium. One of those realities is the so-called issue advocacy or voter education ads. We have all seen these ads: threatening music over provocative images blatantly designed to influence voters to vote against a candidate. But because these ads don't specifically say ``vote against candidate X'' there is currently no limit on how much can be spent on them, and no accountability. It is obvious to anyone the purpose of these ads: to skirt current campaign finance laws that require that ads designed to influence Federal elections be paid for with hard money, and disclosed to, and regulated by, the Federal Election Commission. Under my bill, the law would be changed in such a way to include these types of ads under hard money limits and disclosure requirements. This would help limit the attack ads and give the public the information they need about who is paying for these ads and how much they are spending. An informed electorate is the key to any democratic system of government, and my bill will give people the information they need to make up their own minds. My bill also includes provisions to protect individuals from having their money involuntarily collected and used for politics by a corporation or labor organization. These provisions mirror those of Senator Nickles' Paycheck Protection Act. This measure will require prior authorization from workers before a corporation, national bank, or labor union finances political activities with any money from dues or from payments made as a condition of employment. The legislation I am introducing will also close a conduit for campaign money that should have been closed a long time ago. It will ban contributions from all individuals not eligible to vote in U.S. elections. After all, if a person cannot legally participate in a Federal election by voting, why should they be able to participate with their wallet? And finally, my bill will close the loopholes and ambiguities that exist about soliciting Federal soft money from Federal buildings or with Federal equipment. Because I think everyone agrees that it is not appropriate to raise political funds with taxpayer-financed equipment, or from the very office that might have influence over the interests of the potential donor. These are all commonsense approaches to the problem--measures which I believe the majority of Americans feel are sensible and long overdue. The Restoration of Americans' Confidence in Elections Act addresses a range of issues and does so in a way that does not single out any one group, or any particular political affiliation. Because if we are to pass meaningful reform, it will require that we all take our hits. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill, and making a historic statement that the old ways of doing business must be relegated to the annals of history. Let's return elections to the American people--and let's restore confidence in our Government.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, in the introduction of the Oceans Act of 1997. This bill will establish a commission like the Stratton Commission of 1966 to review the many ocean and coastal issues facing the United States, and to develop a comprehensive, coordinated, national ocean, and coastal policy. Prior to introduction, I raised a few concerns with Senator Hollings on some provisions of the draft bill. Basically, I had recommended some language that made it clear that as we develop a new ocean and coastal policy for the Nation, we keep in mind the facts that our fiscal resources are limited, and that our Federal investments in ocean and coastal resources must be spent efficiently and wisely. I also raised some concerns about the fact that the original draft had the President appointing all of the members of this important commission. Mr. President, Senator Hollings has graciously agreed to make some changes to the bill pursuant to my recommendations. For instance, the bill now authorizes the Congress to appoint more than half of the Commission members, and the Commission is directed to identify opportunities to reform Federal ocean programs to improve efficiency and effectiveness. I commend Senator Hollings for his willingness to work with me and other Republican Senators before introduction of the bill. After introduction, I look forward to working with the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, a Senator who worked on the original Stratton Commission bill 30 years ago and who is a true champion of ocean protection, in the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee on any further refinements along these lines that might be constructive. Again, I thank Senator Hollings and commend him upon introduction of this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee Special Investigation to meet on Wednesday, July 30, at 10:00 a.m. for a hearing on campaign financing issues.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, July 30, 9:30 a.m., Hearing Room (SD- 406) on S. 1059, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, for purposes of conducting a full committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this business meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to review the management and operations of concession programs within the National Park System.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Financial Services and Technology of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, 1997, to conduct a hearing on the financial institution regulators' management of the year 2000 problem.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Communications Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 30, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. on international satellite reform.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, 1997 at 2:00 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration hold a business meeting at 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 30, 1997 on the status of the investigation into the contested Senate election in Louisiana at which the committee could consider and vote upon a resolution, or resolutions, prescribing the future course of action to be taken by the committee.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, 1997 at 10:00 a.m. in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building to hold a hearing on: ``Review of the Global Tobacco Settlement.''

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, 1997 at 9:30 a.m. in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Building to mark up S. 569, a bill to amend the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978; to be followed immediately by an Oversight Hearing on the Special Trustee's `Strategic Plan' to reform the management of Indian trust funds.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, 1997, at 11:00 a.m. to hold a House/ Senate conference.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, 1997, at 10:00 a.m. to hold a business meeting.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague and good friend, Senator Jeffords of Vermont, to introduce the Older Industrial Region Rail/Port Access and Modernization Act. There is an old Yankee saying ``you can't get there from here''. If we do not take steps to upgrade our aging transportation infrastructure in order to allow us to be a vigorous competitor for the movement of goods, that saying may become a sad reality. That is why the bill we introduce today is so important to northern New England's future, because its purpose is to revitalize our aging rail infrastructure. As much as rail is a part of our Nation's history, it is also the pathway to a bright economic future. The bill, which covers Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, will provide funding for improving and modernizing our freight rail system-- removing obstacles like low bridges that constrict the use of double- stack trains, and intermodal facilities construction and maintenance. It would also provide funding to assist Maine's ports in updating and modernizing their facilities and rail transport access. This upgrading is particularly important as studies have shown that Maine's ports are losing business to southern ports because of inadequate rail transport and access. Under the bill, an 80/20 Federal/State share grant program would be created. The States could use this money for first, connecting all railroads to ports; second, removing, repairing or replacing bridges or other obstructions that inhibit the use of double-stack rail cars; third, repairing, upgrading and purchasing railbeds and tracks and fourth, constructing, operating and maintaining intermodal truck-train transfer facilities and train maintenance facilities. Intermodalism is the future, as we have seen from the success of ISTEA. I have seen it at the intermodal facility in my hometown of Auburn, ME. Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater visited the facility earlier this year with me and other members of the Maine delegation. After the visit, he told me that Auburn was a model facility that he would use in his travels as an example of how well the concept works when done correctly. Our bill will provide States with the flexibility to encourage new facilities and to upgrade current ones. It will provide our businesses with better, faster, more cost effective access to out of State markets and it will increase the viability of our three ports--Portland, Eastport, and Mack Point--by making them more attractive options for shipping and receiving goods. More important is the basic fact that a modern transportation system is vital to any economic development. Our bill will allow the northern New England States to upgrade their aging infrastructure to ensure that we do not allow future economic development and growth to slip away because we cannot meet the transportation needs of business and industry in the coming years.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am more than happy to yield the remainder of my time to Senator Stevens, who is a major sponsor of this legislation along with Senator Breaux. I thank the Senator for his leadership on this issue.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.

Ms. SNOWE. Mahi-mahi, for instance, a fish popular in white tablecloth restaurants in the United States, suffers far higher bycatch rates in log and school sets than in dolphin sets. Looking at blacktip sharks, we see a similar problem. The same is true for every other nondolphin species in the ETP. If you look at Mahi-mahi, you are talking about losing 30,000 Mahi-mahi fish for every 1,000 pounds of tuna caught in the eastern tropical pacific. Mr. President, the basic intent of the Panama Declaration and S. 39 is to lock the nations that fish in the ETP into a very strict conservation regime that will require them to continue the progress made to date and eventually reduce dolphin mortality to a level near zero. And it is also to recognize a fishing method that causes very little harm to dolphins, but which is also the safest possible fishing method for all of the other species that live in the ETP. Mr. President, as we know, some Senators have been concerned that dolphin setting may be causing unseen harm to dolphins, and they objected to the immediate change in the dolphin safe label contained in S. 39 as reported by the committee. The latest compromise that we all reached last week, and that is contained in the manager's amendment that was offered by Senator McCain. It requires the expeditious commencement of research to further study the effect of dolphin setting on dolphins. Tuna caught by dolphin sets may not be labeled dolphin safe until at least March 1999, at which time the Secretary of Commerce must review the preliminary results of the study, and make a determination as to whether or not dolphin setting is causing significant adverse impacts to depleted dolphin stocks in the ETP. If the Secretary finds no significant impact, then the label changes to permit tuna caught with dolphin sets to be labeled dolphin safe, as long as no dolphins were killed or seriously injured during harvest. Between July 1, 2001, and December 31, 2002, the Secretary will review the completed results of the study, and make another determination. If significant adverse impacts to dolphins are found at that time, he must prohibit the labeling of tuna caught with dolphin sets as dolphin safe. Mr. President, I think this compromise reasonably addresses the concerns on both sides, and it resolves what has been a very contentious issue. I urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment to S. 39, and the bill as amended. I reserve the remainder of my time, Mr. President. Mr. President, may I ask how much time I have remaining?

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would also like to commend the original sponsors of this legislation, Senator Stevens and Senator Breaux, for their stellar efforts on the bill before us today. They have spent a tremendous amount of time and energy over the past year and a half to get this bill to this point, and they have made every effort to accommodate the concerns of Senators with opposing views. I would also like to thank Senator Kerry, the ranking member of the subcommittee, and Senators Hollings, Boxer, and Biden who have been instrumental in helping us reach agreement on this bill, and I appreciate their efforts. S. 39, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act, will make the changes in U.S. law necessary to implement the Declaration of Panama, which was signed by the United States and 11 other countries in 1995. Under Panama, these nations agreed to conclude a binding agreement to protect dolphins in the Eastern Tropical Pacific tuna fishery, and to adhere to broadly sustainable methods of harvesting this tuna. This bill enjoys a tremendous amount of public support. The Clinton administration, which negotiated the agreement, strongly supports this bill. As Senator McCain indicated, a number of environmental groups are champions of this legislation as well. The World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Center for Marine Conservation, Environmental Defense Fund, and Greenpeace have all strongly supported this bill. The bill is also strongly supported by the National Fisheries Institute, the U.S. tuna fishing industry, and the Seafarer's International Union. The Panama Declaration and S. 39 represent a landmark international effort to achieve two critical objectives: to protect dolphins in the ETP, and to protect the entire marine ecosystem of this vast region. They do this by requiring the nations fishing in the ETP to meet exceedingly strict limitations on the mortality and serious injury of dolphins. In exchange for the other nations agreeing to this stringent conservation regime, the United States will lift its embargoes of tuna from other nations, and permit fishermen that set purse seine nets around dolphins to use the U.S. dolphin-safe label if they do not kill or seriously injure any dolphins. This is the most effective and responsible way to achieve our dual objectives of protecting dolphins and the ecosystem of the ETP, and the reasons are twofold. While dolphin setting was once very deadly for dolphins, refinements to the practice in recent years have yielded tremendous gains. The graph behind me shows dolphin mortality per dolphin set, and we can see how successful fishermen have been in reducing mortality to dolphins in each set--99 percent since 1986. These mortality reductions per set have in turn led to a precipitous decline in total dolphin mortality in the ETP, as this other graph behind me indicates as well. Overall dolphin mortality has plummeted 99 percent since 1986, even though the rate of dolphin setting has remained stable during that period. At the same time, it has become apparent that the alternatives to dolphin setting--log and school setting--are very damaging to many other species. The table behind me shows the relative amounts of bycatch for each of the three harvesting methods. I ask unanimous consent the table be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank Senator McCain, who, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, has shown tremendous leadership, and I congratulate him for getting this contentious bill to the floor. Before beginning, I ask unanimous consent that Kate Wing, a Sea Grant fellow from the Subcommittee on Ocean and Fisheries, be given floor privileges during consideration of S. 3 9.

Ms. SNOWE. Yes, the Senator is correct on that point. The Secretarial determinations to which you refer are included in S. 39 as an amendment to the Dolphin Consumer Protection Information Act. That act does not specify any alternative standard of review, and therefore the standard under the Administrative Procedures Act would apply. Furthermore, the bill managers intend that such standard will apply to the Secretarial findings in section 5 of S. 39. this standard involves a review of the administrative record, and a determination of whether the Secretary acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague and good friend, Senator Jeffords of Vermont, to introduce the Older Industrial Region Rail/Port Access and Modernization Act. There is an old Yankee saying ``you can't get there from here''. If we do not take steps to upgrade our aging transportation infrastructure in order to allow us to be a vigorous competitor for the movement of goods, that saying may become a sad reality. That is why the bill we introduce today is so important to northern New England's future, because its purpose is to revitalize our aging rail infrastructure. As much as rail is a part of our Nation's history, it is also the pathway to a bright economic future. The bill, which covers Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, will provide funding for improving and modernizing our freight rail system-- removing obstacles like low bridges that constrict the use of double- stack trains, and intermodal facilities construction and maintenance. It would also provide funding to assist Maine's ports in updating and modernizing their facilities and rail transport access. This upgrading is particularly important as studies have shown that Maine's ports are losing business to southern ports because of inadequate rail transport and access. Under the bill, an 80/20 Federal/State share grant program would be created. The States could use this money for first, connecting all railroads to ports; second, removing, repairing or replacing bridges or other obstructions that inhibit the use of double-stack rail cars; third, repairing, upgrading and purchasing railbeds and tracks and fourth, constructing, operating and maintaining intermodal truck-train transfer facilities and train maintenance facilities. Intermodalism is the future, as we have seen from the success of ISTEA. I have seen it at the intermodal facility in my hometown of Auburn, ME. Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater visited the facility earlier this year with me and other members of the Maine delegation. After the visit, he told me that Auburn was a model facility that he would use in his travels as an example of how well the concept works when done correctly. Our bill will provide States with the flexibility to encourage new facilities and to upgrade current ones. It will provide our businesses with better, faster, more cost effective access to out of State markets and it will increase the viability of our three ports--Portland, Eastport, and Mack Point--by making them more attractive options for shipping and receiving goods. More important is the basic fact that a modern transportation system is vital to any economic development. Our bill will allow the northern New England States to upgrade their aging infrastructure to ensure that we do not allow future economic development and growth to slip away because we cannot meet the transportation needs of business and industry in the coming years.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair. I rise to express my support for the agreement that ultimately was reached on this very important issue. I remind my colleagues that this was an issue that had been introduced in the last Congress by the Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, and unfortunately, we weren't able to get it through in the last Congress, for a lot of political reasons. I hope now that people recognize that this represents a very strong step toward preservation and conservation of the species and, at the same time, an important agreement with 11 other nations on this issue, which I think ultimately will resolve the problems that we are facing with respect to tuna, as well as with dolphins. So I hope that our colleagues will ultimately support this agreement. I want to commend Senator McCain, who certainly forged an effort to try to create this, as well as Senator Boxer and Senator Kerry. Truly, the leadership was exemplified by Senator Stevens and Senator Breaux, who originally introduced this legislation in the last Congress. So I hope that we will take the steps necessary to implement this legislation and, ultimately, will ratify the agreement that was reached by this administration with respect to this issue. With that, I yield the floor, Mr. President.