Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, in a colloquy.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, during the 101st Congress, the Congress and the President enacted Public Law 101-543, the Maine Acadian Culture Preservation Act. The purposes of the act were to recognize the important contributions made to American history and culture by the Acadians in Maine, to assist State and local governments, as well as private and public entities, in the identification, preservation, and interpretation of Acadian culture and history, and to assist in the identification and preservation of sites and objects associated with Acadian culture. Although the Acadians in Maine represent one of America's oldest and most interesting cultural groups, the mission of the act has still not been fulfilled, and more work has to be done. I understand that, in the current fiscal year, the National Park Service has provided $72,000 from the Operation of the National Park System account to fund activities related to the act, including technical assistance to the Maine Acadian Culture Preservation Commission created by the act. I further understand that the administration's budget request $72,000 for activities related to Maine Acadian cultural preservation in fiscal year 1997. Is it the chairman's understanding that the National Park Service intends to use funds from the Operation of the National Park System account in this bill for these purposes in the next fiscal year?

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the chairman for that clarification. u.s. geological survey

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague Senator Bill Cohen in sponsoring legislation to name the U.S. Post Office in Brewer, ME, in honor of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. Chamberlain, who was born in Brewer on September 8, 1828, and grew up there, went on to play an important role in the history of Maine and the United States. Historians will recognize the name of Joshua Chamberlain, whose remarkable military career placed him at some of the most critical battles of the Civil War. At the Battle of Gettysburg, Colonel Chamberlain commanded the 20th Maine Infantry Regiment which held down the extreme left flank of the Union line. Chamberlain and his regiment defended Little Round Top until their ammunition ran out, at which point he ordered ``fix bayonets'' and led an unexpected charge down the hill capturing nearly 400 Confederate prisoners. Chamberlain's leadership is credited with contributing significantly to the North's victory at the pivotal Battle of Gettysburg. During the Civil War, Chamberlain commanded troops in 24 battles as well as numerous skirmishes. He was wounded six times and was promoted to general on the battlefield by Gen. U.S. Grant. At the war's end, General Chamberlain was given the honor of receiving the Southern Surrender at Appomattox Court House, ordering his own troops to stand at attention and salute the defeated Army of Northern Virginia. General Chamberlain was given the honor of first place in the last Grand Review in Washington following the Civil War. Mr. President, the extraordinary public service of Joshua Chamberlain did not end with the Civil War. After he returned to Maine following his military career, Chamberlain was elected Governor by the largest majority in the State's history. He was subsequently reelected three times. The people of Brewer and Maine are rightfully proud of their distinguished native son. The Brewer City Council and the Brewer- Orrington Customer Advisory Council have both requested that the memory of Joshua Chamberlain be honored by naming the U.S. Post Office in Brewer after him. This is a fitting tribute to an outstanding American.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the conference report for the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996. Mr. President, many senators, particularly those who represent land- locked States, would probably not think of a Coast Guard reauthorization bill as being a very difficult undertaking. But the development and negotiation of this bill has not been easy. Three years have elapsed since the Coast Guard was last reauthorized, even though this essential agency is supposed to receive an annual authorization like the Defense Department. Unfortunately, several controversial issues have slowed the progress of this bill, and it was not until yesterday that the last of these was finally resolved between the Members of the House and Senate on both sides of the aisle. I think the fact that we have gotten the bill this far--to the verge of sending a conference report to the President--is a testament to the expert leadership that the bill has been fortunate to receive. Senator Stevens, the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee chairman, and Senator Pressler, our full committee chairman, have done an impressive and artful job of shepherding this bill past many seemingly insurmountable obstacles and pitfalls. This bill teetered on the precipice on several occasions during the past 2 years, and each time, Senators Stevens and Pressler rescued and revived the measure. Their deft handling of this measure is what has brought it so close to enactment. Mr. President, the American people want this bill. The Coast Guard provides an essential service for our country. It makes the waters of this maritime Nation safe for the mariners of all stripes who ply our waters--the commercial and sport fishermen, the merchant seamen, the sailing enthusiasts, the cruise ship passengers, and others. It defends our borders from the depredations of the drug lords who would export their poison to our communities. It protects our waters from oil spills and other forms of marine pollution. We need to reauthorize and update the legislative authorities for this critical agency, and this conference report does a good job in that regard. Not only does this report include necessary reforms and authorities for the Coast Guard, but it is a fiscally responsible piece of legislation. It authorizes approximately $3.8 billion for the Coast Guard in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. This amount represents a very small increase over the funding levels in the previous authorization which expired in 1993. Mr. President, I would also like to specifically mention several provisions in the report that are based on amendments I sponsored or cosponsored with other Senators during consideration of the Senate bill, and that have been retained in the conference report. One of the longest lasting legacies of this bill will be the preservation of 36 lighthouses on the coast of Maine. This provision originated as a stand-alone bill earlier in the year, S. 685. It was adopted by the full Senate in S. 1004, the Senate Coast Guard bill, and it is included in the conference report. This provision will create the Maine Lights program to transfer these historically and environmentally important lighthouses to new owners who will agree to maintain them, preserve their historic character, preserve ecological resources on adjacent property like seabird nesting habitat, and provide access to the public. In short, this legislation provides a way to preserve these lighthouses at very little or no cost to the federal government. Mr. President, long after this bill passes, when citizens from all over the country visit the Maine coast and admire the lighthouses, they will have this Congress to thank for its vision and its commitment to preserving such a valuable piece of the Nation's coastal heritage. Times have changed since the lighthouses that we will protect in this bill were first constructed, but one thing hasn't changed: the heart of the Coast Guard's mission is still the human emergency response, the rescues at sea. It's critical that the Coast Guard maintain this capability to respond promptly and professionally to all accidents in American waters, even while we are engaged in the necessary process of balancing the budget and protecting the fiscal health of the Nation. Senator Kerry and I authored an amendment in the Commerce Committee to prevent the Coast Guard from closing any of its small-boat, multi- mission stations unless the Secretary first certifies that the closure will not result in a degradation of services that threatens life, property, the environment, or public safety. Language that I included in this amendment provided, in particular, that a proposed station closure will not hamper the Coast Guard's ability to meet its 2-hour standard for responding to search and rescue requests. At the request of the House, we agreed to streamline the Senate provisions for the conference report, but the report maintains the key components of our amendment. The Coast Guard will still have to certify that the closure of a small boat station will not impair the agency's ability to maintain the safety of the maritime public. It will still have to ensure that search and rescue standards, such as the two-hour response time, will have to be met. And it will still have to ensure that the extra safety threats posed by unique or special marine conditions, such as exceedingly cold water, will be fully considered before any stations are closed. This is a very important provision that will guarantee that the safety of the maritime public will not be diminished if the Coast Guard decides to close a small-boat station. Mr. President, another provision that I sponsored during Senate consideration and that has been retained in the conference report will facilitate a timely and effective response in the event of an oil spill in certain areas near our foreign borders such as Passamaquoddy Bay on Maine's border with Canada. Passamaquoddy Bay is a large, virtually pristine bay and estuary system that is internationally recognized as a staging area for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. In addition, the bay area has substantial economic value, hosting major aquaculture and commercial fishing operations, a vibrant tourism industry that depends on the health of the bay, and one of Maine's three major cargo ports. Unfortunately, this important resource would be relatively unprotected in the event of a major oil spill. The State of Maine does not have an adequate number and type of oil spill response vessels in the vicinity of Passamaquoddy Bay. Some Canadian-registered vessels based north of the bay could do the job, but current federal law prevents these vessels from operating in U.S. waters. To address this kind of problem, my amendment, which was modified in cooperation with other senators prior to adoption of the conference report, will allow foreign-registered oil spill response vessels to be used in U.S. waters in the event of an oil spill. The authority only applies on a temporary and emergency basis, however. And it only applies as long as U.S.-documented response are not available to respond in a timely manner. Furthermore, the modified amendment makes this authority contingent on the nation in which the foreign vessel is registered providing the same privileges to U.S. response vessels. This provision will help to ensure that U.S. waters like Passamaquoddy Bay receive the maximum amount of protection from an oil spill, while giving U.S. recovery vessels priority consideration for doing the work if they are available. Mr. President, as we consider this conference report, the State of Maine and the Coast Guard are grappling with a significant oil spill that occurred yesterday in Portland harbor. The spill occurred after a tanker carrying diesel fuel struck a drawbridge. This is obviously a very unfortunate development, and we wish it had not happened. Once the spill has been cleaned up, it will be thoroughly investigated by federal authorities. But the spill does underscore the very serious need to make sure that all of our coastal areas are fully equipped to respond effectively to oil spills. The conference report contains a number of provisions to do that, including the amendment that I just described, and these provisions take on an added urgency in light of the Portland oil spill. Finally, I wanted to reference the section on financial responsibility under the Oil Pollution Act. I offered an amendment in the Commerce Committee that addressed the aspect of this issue dealing with marinas and onshore fuel terminals. Under some current interpretations of OPA, these facilities could have been subjected to the act's extremely expensive financial responsibility requirements, even though the act was intended to cover offshore drilling platforms and other large production facilities that could be involved in large oil spills. Mr. President, the financial responsibility language in the report reflects a compromise that Senators on the Commerce and EPW Committees, and Members of the House, negotiated on this issue. Among other things, it simply clarifies that marinas and onshore fuel terminals are not subject to OPA's financial responsibility requirements. This legislation will benefit many small businesses, boaters, commercial fishermen, oil distributors, and fuel consumers across the country without jeopardizing important environmental protections. Mr. President, this is a very good bill, and it is the result of a lot of hard work and painstaking negotiation. It deserves the strong support of all Senators, and I would urge my colleagues to vote yes and send it to the President.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to this effort to override the President's veto of H.R. 1833. Mr. President, this is our very last chance to ensure that this punitive legislation does not have the effect of putting women's lives and health on the line. For that is exactly what will happen if we override the President's veto today. Women's lives and health will be put at tragic risk. And Congress will be substituting its judgment for that of doctors, by outlawing a medical procedure for the first time since Roe versus Wade. There is no question that any abortion is an emotional, wrenching decision for a woman. When a woman must confront this decision during the later stages of a pregnancy because she knows that the pregnancy presents a direct threat to her own life or health, such a decision becomes a nightmare. Mr. President, 22 years ago, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Roe versus Wade, carefully crafted to be both balanced and responsible while holding the rights of women in America paramount in reproductive decisions. This decision held that women have a constitutional right to an abortion, but after viability, States could ban abortions as long as they allowed exceptions for cases in which a woman's life or health is endangered. Let me repeat--as long as they allowed exceptions for cases in which a woman's life or health is endangered. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed this decision time and time and time again. And to date, 41 States--including my home State of Maine--have exercised their right to impose restrictions on post-viability abortions. All, of course, provide exceptions for the life or health of the mother, as constitutionally required by Roe. This legislation, as drafted, does not provide an exception for the health of the mother, and provides only a very narrow life exception. It is narrow because it only allows a doctor to perform this late term procedure to save a woman's life, and I quote, `if no other procedure would suffice.'' So this means that if another procedure carries 4 times the risk of this procedure, but it might suffice, the doctor will be compelled to perform the more risky procedure. If a hysterectomy, rather than this procedure, will suffice, the doctor will be compelled to perform it instead. Above all, both the Constitution and the health of women across this Nation demand that we add a health exception. But this Chamber rejected an amendment to do just that. Without such a health exception, this legislation represents a direct, frontal assault on Roe and on the reproductive rights of women everywhere. And make no mistake, innocent women will suffer. We learned this at the Judiciary Committee hearing from women who underwent the procedure. Make no mistake--this procedure is extremely rare, and, when performed in the third trimester, only when it is absolutely necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman, or when a fetus is incompatible with life. In his September 24, 1996, letter to Congress, Dr. Warren Hern of the Boulder Abortion Clinic said: ``I know of no physician who will provide an abortion in the seventh, eighth or ninth month of pregnancy, by any method, for any reason except when there is a risk to the woman's life or health, or a severe fetal anomaly. Not since prior to Roe v. Wade have there been efforts to criminalize a medical procedure in this country. But that's exactly what this bill does. This legislation is an unprecedented expansion of Government regulation of women's health care. Never before has Congress intruded directly into the practice of medicine by banning a safe and legal medical procedure that is absolutely vital in some cases to protect the health or life of women. The supporters of this bill are substituting political judgment for that of a medical doctor regarding the appropriateness of a medical procedure. Regrettably, politicians are second-guessing medical science. Mr. President, who are we here on this floor to say what a doctor should and should not do to save a woman's life or preserve her health? Who are we to legislate medicine? The proponents of this legislation are willing to risk the lives and health of women facing medical emergencies. According to physicians-- not politicians--this procedure is actually the safest and most appropriate alternative for women whose lives and health are endangered by a pregnancy. As Dr. Robinson testified during the hearing before the Judiciary Committee, telling a doctor that it is illegal for him or her to perform a procedure that is safest for a patient is tantamount to legislating malpractice. I oppose this bill because I believe in protecting women's health and upholding the Constitution. For central to both Roe and Casey is the premise that the determination whether an abortion is necessary to preserve a woman's health must be made by a physician in consultation with his patient. Without an exception which allows these late term procedures in order to save the health of the mother, doctors will be unwilling to take the safest and most appropriate steps to protect a woman's health. As today's editorial in the New York Times states: The bill should be rejected as an unwarranted intrusion into the practice of medicine. It would mark the first time that Congress has outlawed a specific abortion procedure, thus usurping decisions about the best method to use that should properly be made by doctor and patient. The bill would actually force doctors to abandon a procedure that might be the safest for the patient and resort to a more risky technique. We must never overlook the fact that women's lives and health are at stake. They hang in the balance. Women who undergo these procedures face the terrible tragedy of a later-stage pregnancy that has through no fault of their own gone terribly, tragically wrong. These women will face the horrible truth that carrying their pregnancy to term may actually threaten their own life and their own health. Now, I want to say something in response to some of the graphics that you have seen on the floor today and in previous debates in this Chamber--graphics that my colleagues have displayed about this traumatic and difficult procedure. They say a ``picture paints a thousand words.'' But the truth is, these pictures just don't tell the whole story. They don't tell you the story of the mothers involved. They don't tell you the woman's side of the story. They certainly don't tell you her family's story. They don't show you the faces of the mothers who are devastated because they must undergo this procedure in order to save their own lives and health. These pictures don't tell the story of Vikki Stella, who learned 32 weeks into her pregnancy that her fetus had nine severe abnormalities, including a fluid-filled skull with no brain tissue at all. However, Vikki is a diabetic, and this procedure was the safest option to protect her life and health. Without it, she could have died. These pictures don't tell the story of Viki Wilson--a nurse who testified that she found out in her 8th month of pregnancy that her fetus suffered a fatal condition causing two-thirds of the brains to grow outside of the skull. Viki testified that carrying the pregnancy to term would have imperiled her life and health. The fetus' malformation would have caused her cervix or uterus to rupture if she went into labor. She described this legislation as a ``cruelty to families act''. And let us not forget the poignant testimony of Colleen Costello, who described herself as a conservative pro-life Republican, and who found out when she was 7 months pregnant that her baby had a fatal neurological disorder, was rigid, and had been unable to move for 2 months. Although she wanted to carry the baby to term, it was stuck sideways in her uterus. Her doctors did not want to perform a C- section, because the risks to her health and life were too great. Due to the safety of this procedure, Ms. Costello has recently given birth to a healthy son. And these pictures certainly don't show you the pictures of women who died in back alleys in the dark days before Roe versus Wade. They don't show what the consequences will be for women if this legislation is signed into law, for that very small group of women each year who desperately need a late-term abortion in order to save their own lives and health. Congress should not be in the position of forcing doctors to perform more dangerous procedures on women than necessary. As Dr. Campbell testified, the alternatives are significantly more dangerous for women and far more traumatic. Dr. Campbell, an OBGYN, listed these alternatives, which include: C-sections, which cause twice as much bleeding and carry four times the risk of death as a vaginal delivery. In fact, a woman is 14 times more likely to die from a C-section than from the procedure that this legislation seeks to outlaw. . . Induced labor, which carries its own potentially life- threatening risks and threatens the future fertility of women by potentially causing cervical lacerations. . . And hysterectomies, which leave women unable to have any children for the rest of their lives. . . In the end, this legislation would order doctors to set aside the paramount interests of the woman's health, and to trade-off her health and future fertility in order to avoid the possibility of criminal prosecution. As Professor Seidman, a constitutional expert at Georgetown University, testified during the hearing, the only thing that this procedure does is to channel women from one less risky abortion procedure to another more risky abortion procedure. He argued that the Government does not have a legitimate interest in trying to discourage women from having abortions by deliberately risking their health. This view is supported by Dr. Allan Rosenfield, Dean of the Columbia School of Public Health, who stated the following in a September 25 letter to the Editor of the Washington Post: [The bill's] only effect will be to prohibit doctors from using what they determine, in their best medical judgment, to be the safest method available for the women involved. * * * In sum, this bill is bad medicine. Is this the legacy that the 104th Congress will bequeath to American women? I urge my colleagues to oppose this effort to override the President's veto. It is necessary not only to uphold the Constitution, but first and foremost, it is critical to actually save women's lives and protect their health.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, Senator Cohen and I have been working extensively with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Maine State Housing Authority to clarify the status and handling of contracts for 17 housing projects in Maine that were originally subsidized under section 23 and were later converted to section 8. We would like to confirm that these housing projects meet the definition of ``project-based'' as defined under paragraph (5), section 21 of the housing appropriations bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I sponsored and worked on, with other Commerce Committee members, the provision to which Senator Chafee refers, and I can assure the Senator that the provision does require these transshipment permits to be consistent with all relevant herring management measures approved by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. I would simply mention that the ASMFC has expressed support for this provision.

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

Ms. SNOWE. As the Senator knows, section 112 of the manager's amendment amends the Magnuson Act to clarify that the existing provision which allows a State to impose State laws and regulations on its State-registered vessels, even if those vessels fish in the exclusive economic zone. This provision greatly interests Maine because, in addition to the Federal rules, Maine imposes stringent State lobster conservation regulations on all of its vessels, regardless of where they fish. These State regulations are certainly consistent with the Federal lobster management plan in conserving and sustainably managing the lobster resource. But some of Maine's regulations do differ in design from some of the regulations currently in force in the Federal zone. For instance, Maine prohibits the possession or landing of lobsters by State vessels that do not use traps to harvest lobster, imposes a maximum-size lobster possession limit, prohibits the possession of egg-bearing female lobsters, and requires the v-notching technique to ensure the identification of these lobsters. The Federal lobster management plan does not contain conservation and management measures of the same design. As I understand the amendment, section 112 would allow Maine to continue imposing its more stringent State lobster regulations on all of its State-registered fishing vessels because the regulations are consistent with the Federal lobster management plan. Am I correct in stating that it is the intent of the author and manager of this bill that section 112 of the manager's amendment dealing with State jurisdiction would permit a State like Maine to continue applying more stringent rules on its State-registered vessels that operate in the exclusive economic zone?

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chairman of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee and the author of this bill, Senator Stevens, in a brief colloquy.

Ms. SNOWE

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

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

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the committee substitute and of S. 39, the Sustainable Fisheries Act, as amended. Before discussing some of the provisions of the bill, I wanted to commend Senator Stevens for his achievement in bringing this bill to the verge of Senate passage. As those of us from coastal States know, fisheries management issues can be extremely complex, in both the technical and political senses. And these complexities are greatly heightened at the present time when so many of our fisheries are either fully exploited or overexploited. That is why the reauthorization of the Magnuson Act has been a long and arduous process. But Senator Stevens, working with Senator Kerry, have been able to plow through the complexities and the conundrums, and to resolve seemingly intractable disputes, in an effort to fashion the compromise legislation that we are considering today. It's truly a monumental achievement. And Senator Stevens, in particular, who has been a leader on fisheries issues for decades, and a framer of the original Magnuson Act, deserves our appreciation. Mr. President, as other Senators have mentioned, this bill strengthens the conservation provisions of the Magnuson Act, and it will lead to the elimination of overfishing and fisheries rebuilding in all our our marine fisheries. Consistent with the title, letter, and spirit of the bill, I firmly believe that our fisheries must be sustainably managed. And sustainable management will require regulation. Given the state of many of our fisheries, we cannot avoid conservation measures. But in the course of developing these measures, it is also equally important that the Federal Government consider the economic costs of fisheries conservation. In some cases, those costs can be severe, as in the case of the New England groundfish industry, which is now facing a mandatory 80 percent fishing effort reduction in 2 years. Yet despite the importance of economic considerations, there is no requirement in the Magnuson Act to require fishery management councils to try to minimize the adverse economic impacts of fisheries regulations on fishing communities. During markup in the Commerce Committee, I offered an amendment which establishes a new national standard requiring all fishery management plans to minimize adverse economic impacts on fishing communities. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. This provision is retained in the bill on the floor today, although we have modified it to make clear that these economic considerations are not designed to trump conservation considerations in the process of developing fishery management plans. In addition to the economic impacts language, the bill before us contains other provisions that I had offered as amendments during the committee process. One directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish an advisory panel consisting of scientists, State officials, fishermen, and conservationists to study and explore ways that the National Marine Fisheries Service can expand the application of ecosystems principles in its fisheries research and management programs. Currently, the service takes a narrow approach that focuses primarily on individual fish populations. I, along with many scientists, believe that the Government should take a more holistic approach that looks at fisheries in the context of the ecosystems in which they live. The report required by my amendment would be completed within 2 years. Another of my provisions from the committee bill would preserve the existing ban on the sale of undersized lobsters in the United States. This language insures that the ban will remain in place even after the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission assumes responsibility for lobster management in the Federal zone. Obviously, this ban protects juvenile lobsters that must, if we are going to conserve this resource, be given an opportunity to reach sexual maturity. Negotiated rulemaking was the subject of another of my amendments in committee, and the bill retains those provisions. Negotiated rulemaking is a form of alternative dispute resolution in which representatives of all of the stakeholders in a dispute hold a series of negotiations with a professional facilitator to achieve consensus. Negotiated rulemaking provides an opportunity to overcome some of the divisiveness that we have seen in some fisheries controversies. My amendment would authorize the Councils, as well as the Secretary, to use negotiated rulemaking when they develop fishery management plans. Mr. President, I would also like to mention three amendments that I offered prior to floor consideration, and that have been included in the manager's amendment. The first directs the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent scientific peer review of the scientific information which forms a basis of the northeast multispecies fishery management plan. This is the plan that covers the New England groundfish industry. As I noted earlier, due to serious concerns about the health of the groundfish resource, the New England Council has implemented a management plan that will reduce fishing effort by 80 percent within 2 years. This science has been controversial within the industry in the New England region, and before moving forward with such draconian regulations, I think we owe it to those most affected by the plan to get a second opinion on this science before it's too late. This peer review amendment will give us that second opinion. My other amendments allow the State of Maine to permit Maine-licensed lobstermen to continue to fish in four pockets of Federal water that are surrounded on three sides by State waters, and make transshipment permits available to certain Canadian transport vessels involved in the sardine trade between Maine and Canada. Mr. President, the bill is a fair product which resolves many competing concerns. I urge its adoption.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank Senator Stevens for giving me the opportunity to offer this amendment. Before discussing some of the provisions of this amendment, I want to commend Senator Stevens for his achievement in bringing this bill before the Senate and for ultimate passage. As those of us from coastal States know, fisheries management issues can be extremely complex in both technical and political senses. These complexities are greatly heightened at the present time when so many of our fisheries are either fully or overexploited. That is why the reauthorization of the Magnuson Act has been a long and arduous process. But Senator Stevens and Senator Kerry have been able to work through the complexities and conundrums and resolve seemingly intractable disputes in an effort to fashion compromise legislation that we are considering today. It is truly a monumental achievement. Senator Stevens in particular has been a leader in fisheries issues for a decade and, as a framer of the original Magnuson Act, deserves our appreciation. Mr. President, if you ask any American what they think of when they think of Maine, they will tell you lobsters. Maine is indelibly linked with its lobster industry, and with good reason. Lobstering is a proud and historic tradition in our State. It exemplifies some of the best qualities of Maine, and indeed, the American character--rugged independence, a willingness to work hard, and a profound respect for mother nature. Of course, lobstering is also an essential element of the Maine and New England economies. If you drive along the coast of Maine and see the lobster boats moored in the harbors of our 144 fishing villages, and the lobster traps spread out in the yards of the homes nearby, it won't take you long to understand how many people depend on the lobster industry for a living. My amendment is designed to protect the lobstering tradition in Maine and New England. It is a very important amendment, Mr. President, because the lobster resource now faces a serious threat. And if this threat remains unaddressed, our lobstering tradition could be jeopardized. My amendment deals with a wasteful and destructive form of lobster harvesting known as dragging. The original amendment I was prepared to offer would have imposed tough new restrictions on dragging within 60 days. But after listening to concerns expressed by other Senators, I have agreed to substantially revise the amendment. This is a true compromise, and it is very deserving of the Senate's support. Most people know that lobstering is general conducted with traps that are baited and rest on the ocean bottom. This is the time honored and sustainable method of catching lobsters. The trap method permits the lobstermen to bring lobsters to the surface alive and unharmed, and then to safely discard those lobsters that should not be retained, such as juveniles, egg-bearing females, and older brood stock lobsters-- lobsters that are essential to replenishing the resource. There are other ways to catch lobsters, however. Some fishermen drag nets, like those used to catch finfish such as cod, along the ocean bottom to scoop up the lobsters. But these nets are indiscriminate. Undersized and oversized lobsters, along with egg-bearing females, get swept into the nets. When the nets are dragged across the bottom, and they hauled up to the surface, many lobsters are broken and crushed, including those that should be protected and returned to the water safely to reproduce. This method of harvest is very damaging to the resource. That's why Canada, the world's largest lobster producer, and Maine, the United States' largest producer, prohibit any of their vessels from dragging for lobsters. That's why Massachusetts, America's second largest lobster producer, just enacted a new law to sharply restrict dragging by any of its vessels. And it's why Massachusetts and New Hampshire prohibit dragging for lobsters in State waters. Inexplicably, however, dragging for lobsters is permitted under the status quo in Federal waters. And because Federal lobster management is currently in a state of limbo, we do not have comprehensive and active lobster management in the Federal zone at this time. The Commerce Department has turned Federal lobster management over to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission [ASMFC], a State-based organization. But the commission is not expected to complete a plan until sometime late in 1997. Obviously, lobsters don't recognize the State-Federal line. They cross it at will. So anything that happens on one side of the line affects the lobster resource on the other side. It's the same stock. Thus, lobstermen in State waters can abide by the strictest regulations possible, but their conservation efforts will be undermined as long as dragging occurs right across the State line--and there is no doubt that it is occurring. Reports in New England indicate that there are increasing numbers of dragging vessels engaged in directed fishing for lobsters in the Federal zone just outside State waters. The Maine Marine Patrol has seen an increase in directed dragging in the Federal zone. And lobster industry officials from Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire are reporting it. And these officials expect dragging activity to increase further over the next couple of years as new groundfishing restrictions take effect and prompt more displaced groundfishermen to seek alternative fishing opportunities. My original amendment sought to control the unwise practice of directed, or intentional, dragging for lobsters. A dragger would have been prohibited from landing more than 100 lobsters per 24-hour fishing day, with a maximum limit of 500 lobsters for a fishing trip of 5 days or longer. These landings limits were taken straight from the law enacted this summer by Massachusetts and signed by the Governor. States could have set the tighter limits, but landings would have been capped at the levels in the amendment. These landings limits were intended to make it economically infeasible for dragger vessels to intentionally target lobsters, while permitting draggers that unintentionally catch lobsters when they are fishing for other species, like cod, to sell their incidental by-catch. It would have prevented draggers from easily circumventing the conservation laws of Maine and Massachusetts. While I thought the amendment was a very reasonable one, other States expressed concern about the abrupt imposition of new Federal regulations on them, so I agreed to a substantial compromise. Instead of imposing the landings limits immediately, the amendment I am offering today permits the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Secretary of Commerce to develop and issue regulations for a Federal management plan for American lobster by December 31, 1997. If a plan is not completed by the end of 1997, then the amendment would require the Secretary to implement the landings limits that were contained in the earlier amendment. To prevent an explosion in new dragging effort before the deadline, the amendment directs the Secretary to monitor lobster landings, and if he determines that a substantial increase in dragging is occurring, he is given discretionary--and I repeat, discretionary--authority to issue interim regulations to control the increase. Mr. President, the deadline in my amendment is obviously more than a year away and it gives the ASMFC and the Secretary ample time to get a handle on Federal lobster management. In fact, the commission has said that it can complete a plan by the fall of 1997, so the deadline is realistic. My amendment will simply help to ensure that the commission meets its own schedule for a plan, which will, hopefully, address the dragging issue. If the commission fails to meet this deadline, then and only then will the dragging restrictions go into effect. Once the commission completes its plan, the restrictions would be voided. This is a very fair amendment, Mr. President, and, frankly, it represents a substantial compromise on the part of the American lobster industry. It provides plenty of time for the management process to work, while sending a message to the appropriate authorities that the issue of dragging for lobsters must be addressed. But if that process bogs down, and we're faced with the prospect of more and more dragging for lobsters, then responsible lobstermen will receive some interim protection until the commission completes its plan. Lobster dragging is not only inconsistent with the conservation of this fully exploited resource, it discourages conservation efforts aimed at trap lobstermen. Trap lobstermen in Maine are facing stringent new State regulations. All lobstermen who fish in the Federal zone will have to reduce fishing effort by at least 20 percent in order for the ASMFC to meet its goals. How can we expect these responsible lobstermen to sacrifice and accept burdensome new regulations when wasteful and destructive dragging is allowed to continue unabated just across the State line? The answer is that we can't. What we can expect is that these lobstermen will resist new regulations imposed on them, and the conservation program for the entire resource will be undermined. Mr. President, this amendment is about responsible fishing practices. And it is about equity for responsible fishermen. With the substantial concessions that I have agreed to, this amendment gives the appropriate authorities plenty of time to work out a comprehensive plan. But if the process fails, then we have to act. The amendment is pro-conservation, and it is pro-lobsterman. It is strongly supported by the State of Maine, the State of Massachusetts, and the entire lobster industry throughout New England and the Northeast. Mr. President, my amendment presents an opportunity for Senators to cast a vote for equity for the great majority of America's lobstermen who fish the right way, and for a healthy lobster resource. It would be the height of irony if the Senate passed this Magnuson reauthorization bill, whose hallmark is the protection of America's fisheries, without approving this modest amendment. We can't let that happen, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the managers' amendment, and to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Pressler, for working with me to ensure that this bill addresses an important issue facing the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA]--the issue of safety. My language in the managers' amendment responds to the request made by the Secretary of Transportation on June 18, when he called on Congress to: ``* * * change the FAA charter to give it a single primary mission: safety and only safety.'' In light of the many safety concerns that have become public as a result of the tragic crash of ValuJet flight 592 and TWA flight 800, it is important to restate the commitment of Congress and the FAA to ensuring the safety of air travel in this country. By addressing the issue of the dual and dueling missions of safety and air carrier promotion, as one reporter so accurately put it, there will be no room for doubt in the minds of the traveling public--or the FAA--that safety is its job--first, last and always. The underlying bill includes the Wyden-Ford amendment, which I supported in committee, that took an important step in the direction requested by the Secretary. That amendment added the word ``safety'' to the statute outlining the FAA's mission on air commerce promotion, and I agree that it is important to reemphasize safety in this area. This still leaves us with a dual mandate, however. The Snowe language requires the Management Advisory Council [MAC], created under the bill to provide oversight for management and policy matters to the FAA Administrator, and to review the overall condition of aviation safety and the extent to which the dual mission of the FAA undermines the safety mission. The MAC has 180 days to report back to Congress, in conjunction with the FAA, with its recommendations for necessary changes in the mission. I would have preferred to simply eliminate the mandate, as I did in the Snowe-Pressler freestanding bill on this issue, S. 1960. But I understand the concern that development and safety issues are closely linked in some cases, and a review is necessary in order to determine the most appropriate distribution of functions between the FAA and other agencies within the Department of Transportation. I believe that this language provides for a process that will allow Congress to put to rest concerns that the FAA is not focused on safety. We cannot expect the FAA to regain the trust of the traveling public while it maintains its dual mission of both ensuring their safety while at the same time continuing to promote the growth of the carriers. The current mission of the FAA places it in the untenable position of being both the chief enforcer and the best friend of the airlines--no one should be asked to perform both roles, and no one can be expected to do both well. The dual mandate places the FAA in the position of conflict between the American consumer and the airlines. It has raised questions about the FAA's actions with regard to moving forward in a timely fashion on the safety recommendations made by the National Transportation Safety Board; and most importantly, it has raised questions about whose side the FAA is really on. As James Burnett, Jr., former Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, said ``It's as if the FAA acts to protect the airline rather than the consumer until they just can't maintain that position any longer.'' I believe that a review of FAA functions by the MAC, as required under my language, and subsequent action by Congress on the MAC's specific recommendations for changes necessary to ensure that safety remains the focal point of the FAA's mission, will enable us to reassure the American public that the FAA is looking out for their safety at all times.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which authorizes increased funding for breast cancer research. Over the past 5 years, Congress has demonstrated an increased commitment to the fight against breast cancer. Back in 1991, less than $100 million was spent on breast cancer research. Since then, Congress has steadily increased this allocation. These increases have stimulated new and exciting research that has begun to unravel the mysteries of this devastating disease and is moving us closer to a cure. Today, we must send a message through our authorization level to scientists and research policymakers that we are committed to continued funding for this important research. This increase in funding is necessary because breast cancer has reached crisis levels in America. This year alone, 184,000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in this country, and more than 44,000 women will die from this disease. Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer and the second leading cause of cancer deaths among American women. Today, over 2.6 million American women are living with this disease. In my home State of Maine, it is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women, representing more than 30 percent of all new cancers in Maine women. In addition to these enormous human costs, breast cancer also exacts a heavy financial toll--over $6 billion of our health care dollars are spent on breast cancer annually. Today, however, there is cause for hope. Recent scientific progress made in the fight to conquer breast cancer is encouraging. Researchers have isolated the genes responsible for heritable breast cancer, and are beginning to understand the mechanism of the cancer cell itself. It is imperative that we capitalize upon these advances by continuing to support the scientists investigating this disease and their innovative research. For this reason, my bill increases the fiscal year 1997 funding authorization level for breast cancer research to $575 million. This level is just $20 million over the National Cancer Institute's fiscal year 1997 bypass budget, representing the funding level scientists believe is necessary to make progress against this disease. This increased funding will contribute substantially toward solving the mysteries surrounding breast cancer. Our continued investment will save countless lives and health care dollars, and prevent undue suffering in millions of American women and families. On behalf of the 2.6 million women living with breast cancer, I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this effort to reinstate the ban on abortions in Federal employee health benefits plans. It is yet another ripple in a steady stream of attacks on women's reproductive rights and health. This debate is painfully familiar. One year ago, the Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, offered an amendment, which--regrettably-- passed this body and changed the status-quo of health care for Federal employees and their dependents in America. It represented a giant step backward for the rights and health of women who are covered by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan [FEHBP]. It prohibited the FEHBP from covering abortions--except when the woman's life is in danger or in cases of rape or incest. As the result of these restrictions, Federal employees and their dependents enrolled in FEHBP's who need abortions must pay for them out of their own pocket, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. This may result in significant hardship to a woman and her family, especially because many Federal employees have incomes at or below the poverty level, which is $12,980 for a family of three. In fact, 25 percent of all Federal employees earn less than $25,000-- with nearly 18,000 Federal employees having incomes below or just slightly above the Federal poverty level. And while the average cost of an early abortion performed in a clinic is $250, the cost rises to $1,760 if performed on an outpatient basis in a hospital. This means that some Federal employees may be forced to decide between paying for an abortion and buying food for their children or paying rent. Others may be forced to carry their unintended pregnancies to term. It is shameful that our Federal employees have such terrible options. Denying abortion coverage to Federal employees may also endanger a woman's health. Restrictions that delay an abortion make it more likely that a woman will continue a potentially health-threatening pregnancy to term, or undergo abortion procedures later in a pregnancy when they are far more risky to a woman's health. Just because we have the power of the purse in Congress does not mean we should have the power to penalize women in public service by denying them their reproductive freedoms or threatening their health. There are currently 1.2 million women of reproductive age who rely on their Federal health plan for their medical care--and that's 1.2 million American women who would be summarily stripped of their constitutionally guaranteed right to choose because they or a family member work for the Federal Government. Federal employees should have no fewer rights than any other American worker who earns a health care benefit as part of their compensation package. Some argue that the Federal Government has a right to dictate which medical services will be covered under the FEHBP. They argue that Federal tax dollars should not pay for abortions. That's what some would like this debate to be about--taxpayer funding for abortion. But that's simply not the case. In fact, that argument is a red herring. Taxpayers would not fund abortions covered by Federal health plans. Far from it. The Federal Government, like millions of private employers across the country, contributes a portion of its employee's insurance premiums, and the employee pays the rest. Thus, FEHBP coverage is not pocket money for Federal employees. It is not an allowance or a Federal handout. It is direct compensation earned by Federal employees. And I would like to note that CBO has determined that coverage of abortions-- a legal medical procedure--does not add to the cost of the premium. This anti-choice restriction on Federal employees health benefits arbitrarily and unjustifiably reduces their total compensation package. The fact is, any service not covered by their health insurance which they must pay for out-of-pocket amounts to a pay cut in their hard- earned wages. It is not for Congress to determine how those hard-earned wages should or should not be spent. Wages and benefits belong to the employees. According to the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the FEHBP, between 1993 and 1995, 178 of the 345 FEHB plans provided abortion coverage. Of the ``Big Five'' health plans offered to Federal employees, four of the five offered abortion coverage. This range of options allows employees who object to abortions to choose any one of the hundreds of Federal health plans that would not cover the procedure. Today, 78 million women in America have abortion coverage in the private sector. Two-thirds of private fee-for-service plans provide the full range of reproductive health services, including abortions. And 70 percent of health maintenance organizations [HMO's] provide abortion coverage. Finally, a majority of people in America believe that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. These Americans do not distinguish between women who work in the private sector and women who work for the Federal Government. A person's ability to exercise a constitutional right should not be determined by an employer--even when the employer is the Federal Government. What we can and must do today is ensure that we do not maintain the existing two-tiered system of rights for our citizens--one for women who work for or are insured by the Federal Government, and another for those women who work in the private sector. We must not allow such discrimination to continue. And we must stop sending a signal to our Federal employees and their female dependents that we do not value their health or their reproductive rights. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to oppose this motion to table the committee amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which authorizes increased funding for breast cancer research. Over the past 5 years, Congress has demonstrated an increased commitment to the fight against breast cancer. Back in 1991, less than $100 million was spent on breast cancer research. Since then, Congress has steadily increased this allocation. These increases have stimulated new and exciting research that has begun to unravel the mysteries of this devastating disease and is moving us closer to a cure. Today, we must send a message through our authorization level to scientists and research policymakers that we are committed to continued funding for this important research. This increase in funding is necessary because breast cancer has reached crisis levels in America. This year alone, 184,000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in this country, and more than 44,000 women will die from this disease. Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer and the second leading cause of cancer deaths among American women. Today, over 2.6 million American women are living with this disease. In my home State of Maine, it is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women, representing more than 30 percent of all new cancers in Maine women. In addition to these enormous human costs, breast cancer also exacts a heavy financial toll--over $6 billion of our health care dollars are spent on breast cancer annually. Today, however, there is cause for hope. Recent scientific progress made in the fight to conquer breast cancer is encouraging. Researchers have isolated the genes responsible for heritable breast cancer, and are beginning to understand the mechanism of the cancer cell itself. It is imperative that we capitalize upon these advances by continuing to support the scientists investigating this disease and their innovative research. For this reason, my bill increases the fiscal year 1997 funding authorization level for breast cancer research to $575 million. This level is just $20 million over the National Cancer Institute's fiscal year 1997 bypass budget, representing the funding level scientists believe is necessary to make progress against this disease. This increased funding will contribute substantially toward solving the mysteries surrounding breast cancer. Our continued investment will save countless lives and health care dollars, and prevent undue suffering in millions of American women and families. On behalf of the 2.6 million women living with breast cancer, I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to give agricultural producers, including potato producers, some important and badly needed new tools for combating injurious increases in imports from foreign countries. The Trade Act of 1974 contains provisions that permit U.S. industries to seek relief from serious injury caused by increased quantities of imports. In practice, however, it has been very difficult for many U.S. industries to actually secure action under the act to remedy this kind of injury. The ineffectiveness of the act results from some of the specific language in the statute. Specifically, the law requires the International Trade Commission, when evaluating a petition for relief from injury, to consider whether the injury affects the entire U.S. industry, or a segment of an industry located in a major geographic area of the U.S. whose production constitutes a substantial portion of the total domestic injury. This language has been interpreted by the ITC to mean that all or nearly all of the U.S. industry must be seriously injured by the imports before it can qualify for any relief. Thus, if an important segment of an industry is being severely injured by imports that compete directly with that segment, the businesses who comprise this portion of the industry will not have much recourse--even though the industry segment in question may employ thousands of Americans and generate billions of dollars annually for the U.S. economy. In other words, our current trade laws leave large segments of an industry that serve particular regions and markets, or have other distinguishing features, practically helpless in the face of sharp and damaging import surges. In addition, even if large industry subdivisions could qualify for assistance, the timeframes under the Trade Act for expedited, or provisional, relief for agricultural products are too long to respond in time to prevent or adequately remedy injury caused by increasing imports. At a minimum, 3 months must elapse before any relief can be provided, irrespective of the damage that American businesses may suffer during that time. And 3 months is an absolute minimum. In reality, it could take substantially longer to provide expedited relief. Mr. President, when it comes to agricultural products, the problems in U.S. trade law that I have described are particularly acute. Due to their perishable nature, many agricultural products cannot be inventoried until imports subside or the ITC grants relief--if the industry is so fortunate--many months or even years later. And most agricultural producers, who are heavily dependent on credit each year to produce and sell a crop, cannot wait that long. They need assistance in the short term, while the injury is occurring, if they are going to survive an import surge. Also, because crops are grown during particular seasons and serve specific markets related to production in those growing seasons, the agricultural industry is more prone to segmentation. Finally, many of the agricultural industry entities that would have to file a petition for relief under the Trade Act are really grower groups that do not necessarily have the financial wherewithal to spend millions of dollars researching, filing, and pursuing a petition before the ITC. The bill that I have introduced today is designed to empower America's agricultural producers to seek and obtain effective remedies for damaging import surges. It will make the Trade Act more user friendly for American businesses. Unlike the current law, which sets criteria for ITC consideration that are impossible to meet and that do not reflect the realities of today's industry, my bill establishes more useful criteria. It permits the ITC to consider the impacts of import surges on an important segment of an agricultural industry when determining whether a domestic industry has been injured by imports. This segment is defined as a portion of the domestic industry located in a specific geographic area whose collective production constitutes a significant portion of the entire domestic industry. The ITC would also be required to consider whether this segment primarily serves the domestic market in the specific geographic area, and whether substantial imports are entering the area. Rather than rely solely on an industry petition to initiate an ITC review of whether provisional, or expedited, relief deserves to be granted, my bill would permit the U.S. Trade Representative or the Congress, via a resolution, to request such review. Because the time frames in the present law for considering and providing provisional relief are so long that the damage from imports can already be done well before a decision by the ITC is ever issued, this bill would shorten the time frame for provisional relief determinations by the ITC by allowing the commission to waive, in certain circumstances, the act's requirement that imports be monitored by the USTR for at least 90 days. And, finally, the bill expands the list of agricultural products eligible for provisional relief to include any potato product, including processed potato products. Under current law, only perishable agricultural products and citrus products are eligible to apply for expedited relief determinations. But this narrow eligibility list unreasonably excludes important U.S. agribusinesses, such as our frozen french fry producers, from the expedited remedies available in the Trade Act. Major American companies like Ore-Ida and Lamb Weston have reported that U.S. companies have lost 150 million pounds of french fry sales in the U.S. market to Canada in 1996 alone due to Canadian imports priced below market rates. And Canada, particularly the western provinces, has dramatically expanded its french fry production capacity to expand exports to the United States even further over the next several years. Without the changes in my bill, these critical American businesses will have no effective means for combating a Canadian import surge in the next year. For too long, American agriculture has been trying to combat sophisticated foreign competition with the equivalent of sticks and stones. My bill strengthens the position of American agricultural producers in the competitive arena, and will either provide effective remedies for agricultural producers, or provide effective deterrents to the depredations of their competitors from other countries. I hope other Senators with an interest in fair play for our domestic agricultural producers will join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to give agricultural producers, including potato producers, some important and badly needed new tools for combating injurious increases in imports from foreign countries. The Trade Act of 1974 contains provisions that permit U.S. industries to seek relief from serious injury caused by increased quantities of imports. In practice, however, it has been very difficult for many U.S. industries to actually secure action under the act to remedy this kind of injury. The ineffectiveness of the act results from some of the specific language in the statute. Specifically, the law requires the International Trade Commission, when evaluating a petition for relief from injury, to consider whether the injury affects the entire U.S. industry, or a segment of an industry located in a major geographic area of the U.S. whose production constitutes a substantial portion of the total domestic injury. This language has been interpreted by the ITC to mean that all or nearly all of the U.S. industry must be seriously injured by the imports before it can qualify for any relief. Thus, if an important segment of an industry is being severely injured by imports that compete directly with that segment, the businesses who comprise this portion of the industry will not have much recourse--even though the industry segment in question may employ thousands of Americans and generate billions of dollars annually for the U.S. economy. In other words, our current trade laws leave large segments of an industry that serve particular regions and markets, or have other distinguishing features, practically helpless in the face of sharp and damaging import surges. In addition, even if large industry subdivisions could qualify for assistance, the timeframes under the Trade Act for expedited, or provisional, relief for agricultural products are too long to respond in time to prevent or adequately remedy injury caused by increasing imports. At a minimum, 3 months must elapse before any relief can be provided, irrespective of the damage that American businesses may suffer during that time. And 3 months is an absolute minimum. In reality, it could take substantially longer to provide expedited relief. Mr. President, when it comes to agricultural products, the problems in U.S. trade law that I have described are particularly acute. Due to their perishable nature, many agricultural products cannot be inventoried until imports subside or the ITC grants relief--if the industry is so fortunate--many months or even years later. And most agricultural producers, who are heavily dependent on credit each year to produce and sell a crop, cannot wait that long. They need assistance in the short term, while the injury is occurring, if they are going to survive an import surge. Also, because crops are grown during particular seasons and serve specific markets related to production in those growing seasons, the agricultural industry is more prone to segmentation. Finally, many of the agricultural industry entities that would have to file a petition for relief under the Trade Act are really grower groups that do not necessarily have the financial wherewithal to spend millions of dollars researching, filing, and pursuing a petition before the ITC. The bill that I have introduced today is designed to empower America's agricultural producers to seek and obtain effective remedies for damaging import surges. It will make the Trade Act more user friendly for American businesses. Unlike the current law, which sets criteria for ITC consideration that are impossible to meet and that do not reflect the realities of today's industry, my bill establishes more useful criteria. It permits the ITC to consider the impacts of import surges on an important segment of an agricultural industry when determining whether a domestic industry has been injured by imports. This segment is defined as a portion of the domestic industry located in a specific geographic area whose collective production constitutes a significant portion of the entire domestic industry. The ITC would also be required to consider whether this segment primarily serves the domestic market in the specific geographic area, and whether substantial imports are entering the area. Rather than rely solely on an industry petition to initiate an ITC review of whether provisional, or expedited, relief deserves to be granted, my bill would permit the U.S. Trade Representative or the Congress, via a resolution, to request such review. Because the time frames in the present law for considering and providing provisional relief are so long that the damage from imports can already be done well before a decision by the ITC is ever issued, this bill would shorten the time frame for provisional relief determinations by the ITC by allowing the commission to waive, in certain circumstances, the act's requirement that imports be monitored by the USTR for at least 90 days. And, finally, the bill expands the list of agricultural products eligible for provisional relief to include any potato product, including processed potato products. Under current law, only perishable agricultural products and citrus products are eligible to apply for expedited relief determinations. But this narrow eligibility list unreasonably excludes important U.S. agribusinesses, such as our frozen french fry producers, from the expedited remedies available in the Trade Act. Major American companies like Ore-Ida and Lamb Weston have reported that U.S. companies have lost 150 million pounds of french fry sales in the U.S. market to Canada in 1996 alone due to Canadian imports priced below market rates. And Canada, particularly the western provinces, has dramatically expanded its french fry production capacity to expand exports to the United States even further over the next several years. Without the changes in my bill, these critical American businesses will have no effective means for combating a Canadian import surge in the next year. For too long, American agriculture has been trying to combat sophisticated foreign competition with the equivalent of sticks and stones. My bill strengthens the position of American agricultural producers in the competitive arena, and will either provide effective remedies for agricultural producers, or provide effective deterrents to the depredations of their competitors from other countries. I hope other Senators with an interest in fair play for our domestic agricultural producers will join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization conference report. The conferees have done an admirable job of crafting a well-balanced bill that will ensure our national defense needs are met in the coming fiscal year. At $265.6 billion for fiscal year 1997, the conference report is $11.2 billion above the President's budget request. Much of the additional funds will go toward much-needed weapons modernization, with $6 billion more for procurement and $3 billion more for research and development. Despite the increase over the budget request, however, the bill is actually $7.4 billion below the fiscal year 1996 spending level for Defense in real terms. The conference report authorizes a responsible level of defense spending given the threats to our national security which exist in the post-cold war era. The conference report preserves our readiness to respond quickly to military emergencies like the one precipitated within the past 2 weeks by Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It emphasizes modernization and new weapons procurement in an effort to begin turning around the steep 71 percent decline in funding for military procurement over the last 10 years. It also continues crucial research and development of promising new defense technologies. These programs include the design of an effective ballistic missile defense system, quieter submarines, and multi-use fighter aircraft. While effective and state-of-the-art military hardware are crucial to maintaining our defense advantage, the best military equipment in the world is of little value without the highly-trained and hard-working service men and women on whom the success of our national defense ultimately depends. I am therefore pleased that the conference report authorizes a number of initiatives directly benefiting military personnel, retirees, and their families. Among these are a 3-percent military pay raise, a 4.6-percent increase in the basic allowance for quarters, $466 million for new housing, and a dental insurance plan for retired service members and their families. My one regret is that the conference agreement dropped the Murray-Snowe amendment adopted by the Senate which would have repealed the ban on abortions at overseas military hospitals. Mr. President, I am especially pleased that the conference report supports a strong and efficient Aegis destroyer program. Bath Iron Works of Maine is one of two private shipyards which build this important Navy ship. The conference report authorizes $3.4 billion for four guided-missile Aegis destroyers in fiscal year 1997 and $520 million in advanced procurement for an additional Aegis destroyer in fiscal year 1998. I am particularly gratified that the conference report includes approval for the Navy to implement a stable three-ship- per-year procurement plan for the Aegis from 1998 through 2001. The plan will result in efficiencies that will save $1 billion in construction costs for the Aegis destroyer. The end of the cold war has uncapped a host of long-simmering regional conflicts around the globe, some of which have threatened important U.S. interests. Combined with the proliferation of nuclear and missile technology as well as chemical and biological weapons, these limited conflicts carry the potential for far wider consequences. I am pleased that the conference report includes $122 million to strengthen our domestic preparedness against the use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. We must recognize that the world is still a dangerous place and that maintaining a high level of military preparedness must continue to be a national priority. The fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization conference report will maintain the strength of our national defense forces for the coming year. I urge that it be adopted.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the Newborns and Mothers Health Protection Act, I am extremely pleased to rise in support of this amendment to the VA/HUD appropriations bill. My colleague from New Jersey, Senator Bradley, has worked steadfastly and diligently for well over a year to bring this important bill to the floor, and I commend him for his tireless efforts. I share his concern over the growing practice of what has come to be known as drive-thru deliveries, and I believe that this practice of discharging new mothers and their infants too soon after delivery is simply unacceptable. This amendment requires health plans to provide coverage for a minimum hospital stay for a mother and her newborn infant following delivery, in accordance with established medical guidelines. These guidelines, developed in 1983 by the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians and the American Academy of Pediatrics, recommend that mothers remain in the hospital for 48 to 96 hours after giving birth, depending on the type of delivery. Shorter hospital stays are permitted if the physician, in consultation of the mother, determines that is the best course of action. For those mothers and newborns who leave the hospital after staying less than 48 or 96 hours, followup care within 72 hours of discharge must be provided in order to monitor both the mother and the infant during this vulnerable time. Since 1970, the average hospital stay for newborns has been cut almost exactly in half. Today, many insurers provide for only a 24-hour stay for deliveries, while some medical plans call for discharging women within 8 to 12 hours of a birth. Usually, women are not informed of these policies until they are already in the hospital. Many doctors who decide, based on their best medical judgment, that their patients should stay beyond the short time-frame are overruled by insurance companies. Others are unduly pressured to release these women and their babies prematurely. There are certain myths surrounding the impact of this bill, so I would like to clarify what this bill does not do. It does not mandate how long a mother and baby must stay in the hospital. It simply states that these patients may stay in the hospital up to the minimum period recommended by established medical guidelines. Insurers are permitted, and even encouraged, to develop alternatives to inpatient care, and to allow doctors, in consultation with their patients, to select the type of care which is most appropriate for a mother and her baby. I believe that this bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation this Congress has and will consider in the 104th Congress. To date, stories abound about women whose infants have suffered physical harm and even death as the result of early discharge policies. No woman or family should have to endure such tragedy. Often, doctors are not able to detect certain health problems in infants within the first 12 or 24 hours after birth. For example, doctors may be unable to detect jaundice--a disorder which may lead to permanent brain damage--within the first day after birth. Other infants have been released before their doctors had time to test them for PKU-- an easily treated metabolic disorder that causes mental retardation if not detected early enough. In addition, early discharge deprives mothers of important opportunities to learn how best to care for their infants, including proper breast feeding techniques. Problems with breast feeding can cause infants to suffer severe medical complications--even death--from dehydration. Hospitals report that increasing numbers of women and their children are returning for care after discovering problems such as life-threatening infections that could have been caught if the mother and child had been able to stay in the hospital just a little bit longer. While the financial costs of hospital readmissions resulting from early discharge can be astronomic, the human costs can be truly tragic. Twenty-eight States have passed maternity stay laws similar to this bill, including my home State of Maine. However, State legislation alone does not sufficiently protect the women of America and their newborns. For example, many women are not protected by State legislation because they work for employers with self-insured plans shielded by Federal ERISA preemption. In addition, women who live in one State and work in another may find themselves vulnerable without Federal legislation. Don't we owe it to the women of America and to our very youngest citizens--those who are only a few days old--to ensure that they enjoy the full protections and benefits of one of the best health care systems in the world? There is nothing more precious than the birth of a child. There is nothing more tragic than the death of an infant that could have been prevented. That is why we must leave it to doctors, not insurers, to decide how long women stay in the hospital following delivery in accordance with established medical guidelines. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce a vital piece of legislation which will help people with serious or life-threatening diseases obtain the information they desperately need about clinical trials. Easy access to this information is critical, because clinical trials provide cancer patients with potentially promising treatments which are otherwise unavailable and which may be on the cutting edge of medical research. In June of this year, I convened an important hearing with my colleagues, Senators Connie Mack and Dianne Feinstein, Cochairs of the Senate Cancer Coalition, to address recent developments in breast cancer treatments and research. We convened our hearing on the eve of the Seventh Annual National Race for the Cure, a race that raises millions of dollars each year for breast cancer research and education efforts. During the hearing, we heard testimony from breast cancer advocates on the difficulty patients and physicians face in learning about ongoing clinical trials. One witness, representing Breast Cancer Action in California, testified about the need for ``One Stop Shopping'' to find out what is available in terms of clinical trials for cancer treatments. She testified that the existing Cancer Information Service at the National Cancer Institute is helpful but underfunded, and provides only partial information because it lists only publicly funded trials. It does not list, however, the 300-plus clinical trials of private pharmaceutical companies, producing a major knowledge gap. This witness contrasted this difficulty faced by cancer patients with the ease with which AIDS patients obtain information about clinical trials. As the result of a 1988 amendment to the Public Health Service Act, AIDS patients need only dial a 1-800 number in order to obtain information about all clinical trials--both Government financed and private pharmaceutical trials. If you have cancer or some other life- threatening illness, however, you must rely upon your doctor's knowledge about clinical trials, which is likely to be limited. Moreover, information contained on commercial databases are costly to access, difficult to use or understand, and often incomplete. Since this hearing, I have heard similar complaints not only from cancer patients, but from patients suffering from a wide range of severe or life-threatening illnesses. Today, I rise to introduce legislation to rectify this knowledge gap. My bill is based closely on the existing language in the Public Health Service Act which created the AIDS database and which has been so successful in making information about AIDS clinical trials available to those who need it. Modeled on that language, my bill establishes a data bank of information on clinical trials and experimental treatments for all serious or life-threatening illnesses. The one stop shopping information service will include a registry of all private and public clinical trials, and will contain information describing the purpose of the trial, eligibility criteria for participating in the trial, as well as the location of the trial. The bill also requires HHS to set up information systems, including a toll- free number, for patients, doctors, and others to access this critical information. The database will also include information on the results of experimental trials, enabling patients to make fully informed decisions about medical treatment. Imagine facing a deadly disease and not having access to information about the latest treatment options. Imagine enduring great pain and not having access to a centralized source of information about existing clinical trials which may relieve your suffering or extend your life. Imagine the arduous effort needed to gather information about these clinical trials in order to potentially benefit from cutting-edge treatments. Then consider what this legislation will do for Americans. People with cancer, Alzheimers' disease, Parkinsons, cystic fibrosis, advanced heart disease, multiple sclerosis, or any other serious disease will be able to dial a 1-800 number from their home phone and access the information they need about clinical trials underway across the Nation. They will also be able to obtain information about the results of experimental trials, helping them to make treatment decisions. All parties will benefit from this legislation. First and foremost, it encourages patient choice and informed decisions. But pharmaceutical companies will also benefit, because this legislation will allow for easier and quicker recruitment of individuals willing to participate in experimental trials, expediting the approval process for investigational new drugs. And the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration will be better able to serve the public. This one-stop shopping service will provide hope to countless Americans. But most importantly, it will help to save lives and reduce the suffering of Americans who are stricken by serious or life- threatening illnesses. We know from experience that this language works. I call for the speedy enactment of this legislation which will be of enormous benefit to countless Americans in times of extraordinary need, and I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.