Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Reserving the right to object. How much time is that?

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, to sum up on where we stand with respect to the Coats-Snowe amendment, first of all, I remind this body what we are dealing with here. This amendment modifies an underlying amendment, and that underlying amendment would allow Federal funds to go to an unaccredited institution. That is what I wanted to prevent. That is the issue. That is what we are modifying through this compromise amendment, so that does not happen. Who supports this amendment? I think that is important since we are naming groups. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, which is the entity that establishes the one set of standards in America for the medical institutions; the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists--it is very important because we are talking about ob-gyn programs, and the medical association is made up of the profession of physicians. That is who supports this amendment. They say it is acceptable. They saw what I saw. What were the choices? What we will be facing here potentially is a major risk and threat to women's health. The House language, which gives Federal funds to unaccredited institutions, basically guts the accreditation standards for ob-gyn programs if those standards mention ``abortion.'' Then we have the original--the underlying--amendment which we are now seeking to modify through this compromise amendment which would have also let funding go to unaccredited medical institutions. Finally, you have the Coats-Snowe amendment--the compromise amendment--which says we will prevent Congress from engaging in the accreditation standards of medical institutions, will preserve those very important standards for health care in America, and at the same time we will also protect the accreditation standard when it comes to abortion. And that is what it has always been. Nothing has changed. It has always been that, if an individual, who is in a medical training program, does not want to get training for abortion, he or she does not have to. The same is true for institutions. They will be able to exempt the institution from providing that training if it is contrary to their belief. That is what it has always been. The accreditation council has never denied an institution accreditation based on the fact that they refused to provide abortion training. It was always for a host of other standard equality reasons. I want to make sure that we preserve those reasons by preventing Congress from engaging in establishing, or overturning, accreditation standards which is our only guidepost for quality care for women in America. That is the reality. I hope the Senate understands that because to do otherwise, if this amendment is rejected, is that we will face the language in the House which would basically gut and do away with accreditation for all medical institutions in America. That is not a choice nor a decision that we should have to make. Thank you. I yield.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I think it is always important that, when we are discussing legislation, we get a chance to read the legislation, in this case, the amendment that is before this body. The fact remains that this compromise amendment allows that anybody who wants to participate in training of abortions is allowed to do so. Nothing changes from the current circumstances. Any agency or institution that wants to provide the training of abortions to medical residents can do so. That is how the legislation reads. That is fact. I regret the fact that there has been so much misinformation circulated about what this amendment does and does not do. This amendment avoids getting the U.S. Congress involved in setting accreditation standards, because that is exactly what is happening with the legislation that passed in the House of Representatives. The Senator from Indiana and I worked with the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists on this very language. Sure we prefer not to be here today discussing this issue, but that is not reality. I am looking down the road. What I do not want to have happen is to have the U.S. Congress overturning the one set of accreditation standards that is predicated on quality care. If we do nothing, we run the very serious risk of having the U.S. Congress, because of the House language, overturn that one set of standards that everybody in America uses to determine the standards and the quality of care. If you think that is a risk worth taking, then vote against this amendment. I do not happen to think so. This accreditation standard that we are talking about in this legislation is the accreditation standard that has been developed by the Accrediting Council for Graduate Medical Education. You might say, Who sits on this accreditation council? This is the one council that everybody looks to for setting the standards for medical institutions and residents in this country. The organizations that sit on the council are: the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Board of Medical Specialties, the Council of Medical Specialties Societies. Then you have the residency review committee that reviews the ob-gyn programs that set the standards for the accreditation council, the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Council on Medical Education of the American Medical Association. These standards have been set with the conscience clause for medical residents since 1982. There has always been a conscience clause. That is what this legislation does. It allows for that. The accreditation council had to go a step further and establish a conscience clause for institutions because of a recent court case. That is a fact. Not one institution in America--even when it was implicitly required in the accreditation council standards before their proposed change this year, they did not deny accreditation to one institution in America because they solely refused to provide abortion training. It was for a host of other issues. So even when it was required, 88 percent of the institutions did not provide for abortion training. So this amendment basically preserves the status quo under the Accrediting Council for Graduate Medical Education, the one set of standards that everybody uses from the Federal Government on down. If we fail to support this amendment, I hesitate to think what message it is going to send to the conference committee on this issue. It is important that the Senate send a very strong message that we reject the intervention of Congress in establishing a different set of standards. That is what this is all about. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. SNOWE. I would like to quote part of a letter that was sent by Dr. James Todd, executive vice president of the American Medical Association, which he sent in March 1995 to Senator Kassebaum. I quote: The Accrediting Council for Graduate Medical Education standards were developed by professional medical educators in the field of obstetrics and gynecology. The standards were developed with great sensitivity to the differing moral and ethical views about abortion and after substantial consultation with medical societies, program directors, and obstetrics and gynecology and other individuals and organizations. So that is the standard that is embodied in this compromise legislation. If individuals who are participating in medical training programs want to get training for abortion, they will be allowed to do so. If an institution wants to provide it, they will be allowed to do so, just like it is under current circumstances. We, also, preserve the accreditation standards of the one group in America that sets those standards, rather than running the risk of what has been established in the House of Representatives that says that Federal funds can go to any institution in America that is unaccredited if those standards mention abortion. That is what the legislation says in the House of Representatives. That is what we are dealing with here. They would allow Federal funds to go to any institution that is unaccredited if those institutions use the accreditation standards, of which there is only one set in America, if they refer to abortion in whatever way. That is what I do not want to have happen in this body. That is why I supported and worked on this compromise legislation. The fact is the House goes further. Every State has a licensing board. Every State looks to the Accrediting Council for Graduate Medical Education standards in order to determine the licensing. So, if we are saying it does not matter anymore, then they are going to have to go back, and every State will have their own set of standards for medical institutions, of which there are 7,400 in America. So is that what we want to create? I do not think so. I think there is a time when you have to accept what is before you and work together in reaching a consensus, which is what the Senator from Indiana and I have done. I think that is what the American people want. We are never going to get unanimity on the issue of abortion. Far from it. But I do think it is important that we work together in the best way that we can to ensure that we have legislation that will benefit, in this case, the women of America, because this is who will be most directly affected by this legislation, and to ensure that our medical institutions are dealing with one set of accreditation standards rather than 50 different sets because that is, in essence, what will happen if we reject this amendment. That is the risk that we are running. That is why I would urge adoption of the Coats-Snowe amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the legislation that is before us today--S. 942, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, addresses what I believe is one of the most significant problems facing America's entrepreneurs and small business people, and that is the burden of excessive Federal regulations. These overreaching regulations prevent the birth and stunt the growth of small businesses all across the country. As part of our continuing efforts on this committee to stimulate business activity and increase job opportunities, this legislation acts as a Heimlich maneuver for the small businesses community that is choking on gobs of Federal redtape. I would first like to thank the chairman of the Small Business Committee, Senator Bond, for crafting the legislation that is before us--and for working to develop the strong bipartisan consensus that now exists for its passage. Although many often speak of their support for relieving the regulatory burden shouldered by our Nation's small entrepreneurs, Senator Bond has taken action in the offering of this legislation. Using the recommendations of the White House Conference on Small Business, S. 942 provides fundamental regulatory reform in the small business sector. This legislation contains several important measures essential to the future of small business in America. It requires that regulators provide for a cooperative and consultative regulatory environment, no longer viewing small business as the enemy. It establishes a Small Business and Agriculture Enforcement Ombudsman at the Small Business Administration [SBA] that will allow small businesses to express their concerns and complaints concerning the enforcement actions of agencies without fear of reprisal or retaliation. It requires agencies to simplify language and to use forms that can actually be read and understood. I don't know how many of my colleagues have attempted to read the thousands of pages of regulations that are issued by Federal agencies, but as the small business owners in my State can attest, finding the time to read the regulations is only one one-hundreth of the battle--actually understanding them is the rest of the war. And perhaps most importantly, it allows small businesses to finally be able to enforce a law that was enacted to fundamentally change the process by which Federal regulations are written and considered with respect to small businesses: the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980. I believe the Regulatory Flexibility Act remains an excellent tool for serving the needs of the Nation's small business community. But I also believe it must be strengthened if it is to ever fulfill its objective of forcing agencies to consider the impact of their regulations on small businesses and giving small business owners a louder voice in the regulatory process. For years, the call for judicial enforcement of Reg Flex has been clearly sounded by our Nation's small businesses. Indeed the annual report of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy in the Small Business Administration even concludes that ``the only solution is to subject agency decisions * * * to judicial scrutiny.'' Therefore, by providing for judicial enforcement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the legislation we are now considering will at last provide small businesses with the fundamental right to enforce a law that has been on the books for over 16 years. Small businesses play a critical role in the long-term growth and prosperity of our Nation by providing stable, permanent jobs. My home State of Maine is particularly reliant on small businesses for economic growth and job creation. Of the 29,920 firms with employees in Maine, all but 700 are small businesses. In addition, 61.4 percent of Maine's private nonfarm workers were employed by small businesses in 1991--far exceeding the national average of 54 percent. Nationwide, the number of small businesses has increased by 49 percent since 1982. These entrepreneurs are responsible for 52 percent of all sales in the country, and for 50 percent of private GDP. As these numbers show, small business truly is the backbone of the U.S. economy. This legislation recognizes that the health of the small business community has far-reaching implications for the future, and that the excessive regulatory climate facing today's small businesses is a threat to the overall strength of the entire American economy. This legislation represents a significant step toward our goal of releasing the American entrepreneurial spirit from the bonds of excessive Federal regulation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for yielding me this time to speak on this very important issue. I regret that the Senate is in a position to address this issue once again because the Senate has spoken on many occasions in support of international family planning. So I think it is unfortunate that we are here today to have to fight an amendment that, basically, would decimate family planning support by the U.S. Government on behalf of international family planning programs around the country. I think everybody knows that the United States has traditionally been a leader in international family planning assistance. This has been the case ever since this issue rose to international prominence with the 1974 U.N. Population Conference in Bucharest. At that time, a number of Third World developing countries perceived family planning as a Western effort to reduce the power and influence of Third World countries. It is a sad irony that we are here today because the U.S. Government became a leader on this issue to influence the Third World countries, to insert themselves into the developing family planning programs. They have done that. We have been a traditional leader in international family planning and have had unrivaled influence worldwide for setting standards for these programs. An estimated 50 million families around the globe use family planning as a direct result of U.S. leadership and population assistance programs. Now we are confronted with the idea of basically eliminating any U.S. support for U.S. international family planning programs. The passage of the continuing resolution back in January came at a terrible price to these programs. After the date of July 1, funding may be provided at 65 percent of the 1995 level, appropriated on a monthly basis at 6.5 percent for 15 months. As a result, U.S. population assistance expenditures could drop from $547 million last year to only $72 million during 1996. This means a loss of revenue to the program of $475 million, or a cut of 85 percent in funding for 1996. Senator Hatfield, who has been a champion in fighting for international family planning assistance programs throughout his career, included language in the omnibus appropriations bill that would restore the funding. The Hatfield provision would nullify the funding cuts in the continuing resolution. If not, this will lead to a significant increase in abortion. Senator McConnell is offering an amendment that would basically strike the Hatfield language and preserve the cuts contained in the continuing resolution. This will have a devastating impact on women, children, and families all over the globe, particularly in the developing countries. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, and other respected research institutions, predict that as a result of these cuts, at a minimum, 7 million couples in developing countries who would have used modern contraceptives will be left without access to family planning. Four million more women will experience unintended pregnancies. We can expect 1.9 million more unplanned births; 1.6 million more abortions and countless miscarriages; 8,000 more women dying in pregnancy and childbirth, including those from unsafe abortions; and 134,000 infant deaths. So let us make very clear what the impact of the McConnell amendment will be. It will result in more abortions, more women dying, and more children dying. It appears to be incongruous-- in fact, it is inconceivable--that opponents of abortions would support cuts to family planning which would result, undoubtedly, in many more abortions, particularly because current law prohibits the use of any U.S. population assistance funds for abortion-related activities. So this debate should not be about the fact that population assistance programs support abortion. They do not. In fact, they reduce the incidence of abortions worldwide. So the issue is not about encouraging abortion. It is about preventing unwanted pregnancies and preventing abortions, and because of the continuing resolution, organizations that provide family planning services with American funds are already determining which of their programs will have to be cut or eliminated. A local affiliate of International Planned Parenthood in Brazil estimates that 250,000 couples who rely on its services will lose access to family planning and related health care. In Peru, a country that is among the poorest in Latin America and where 90 percent of women surveyed say they want to prevent or delay another pregnancy, more than 200,000 couples will lose services. Families in these extremely poor countries cannot afford to lose this vital U.S. family planning assistance. But this will become a certainty should the Senate pass the McConnell amendment. Mr. President, the United States has been a model nation on international family planning programs, and other countries look to our leadership and to our example. The implications of these reductions in U.S. aid contained in the continuing resolution are far broader than one might think. If other countries follow our lead, the impact will be devastating to the health of women and families of developing nations. Ironically, last Friday, March 8, was International Women's Day. Is this the gift that Congress will bequeath to the women around the world in honor of International Women's Day? Greater poverty? Increased maternal death? More abortions? Increased infant death? I urge my colleagues to reject the McConnell amendment because hanging in the balance are lives around the world. I hope we will not want to set this kind of example for other countries with respect to this very critical program if we are going to do everything that we can to reduce the explosion in population growth in other countries, and particularly in the developing world. The increase in population alone worldwide was 100 million, the greatest increase ever, and that is not the direction we want to take. In fact, the United States ought to take the leadership and reject the McConnell amendment and support Senator Hatfield's provision.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today, I speak in honor of International Women's Day, which was last Friday, March 8, on an issue of tremendous importance to women and families around the world--U.S. funding for international family planning programs. The United States has traditionally been a leader in international family planning assistance, and has had unrivaled influence worldwide in setting standards for these programs. An estimated 50 million families around the globe use family planning as a direct result of U.S. population assistance programs. Unfortunately, passage of the continuing resolution on January 26 came at a terrible price to U.S. population assistance programs. Time and time again during consideration of the foreign operations appropriations bill, the Senate resisted the efforts of the House to restore the Mexico City policy and to impose restrictions on funding for United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA]. Finally, opponents to family planning in the House unveiled a new, ugly strategy--slashing population assistance in the continuing resolution [CR]. Tragically, the need to avoid another Government shutdown led many Members to vote for the CR and accept what was understood to be an extremely painful funding cut. It was only later that the truly insidious nature of this provision became apparent, when it became known that this provision would simply devastate--if not obliterate--U.S.-funded international family planning programs. Under the terms of the CR, none of the funds appropriated for international family planning can be spent until July 1. After this date, funding may be provided at 65 percent of the fiscal year 1995 level, appropriated on a monthly basis of 6.7 percent for 15 months. As a result, U.S. population assistance expenditures could drop from $547 million last year, to only $72 million during fiscal year 1996 This means a loss of revenue to the program of $475 million. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood, and other population groups predict that as a result of these cuts, at a minimum, seven million couples in developing countries who would have used modern contraceptives will be left without access to family planning. Four million more women will experience unintended pregnancies. We can also expect 1.9 million more unplanned births, often to families living in terrible poverty and who cannot afford another child; 1.6 million more abortions and countless miscarriages; 8,000 more women dying in pregnancy and childbirth, including those from unsafe abortions; and 134,000 infant deaths. It appears that supporters of these funding cuts are unaware that current law prohibits the use of any U.S. funds for abortion-related activities. This is not about encouraging abortion. It is about preventing unwanted pregnancies and preventing abortions. It is about helping women to space their children, so that they and their children are healthier, because children born within 2 years of their mother's last birth are twice as likely to die in infancy than those born after a longer interval. It is about families being able to support themselves and emerge from terrible poverty. It is about preventing maternal and infant death. It is an issue that should unite Members on both sides of the abortion debate. Because of the CR, organizations that provide family planning services with U.S. funds are already determining which of their programs will have to be cut or eliminated. For example, a local affiliate of international planned parenthood in Brazil estimates that 250,000 couples who rely on its services will lose access to family planning and related health care. In Peru, a country that is among the poorest in Latin America and where 90 percent of women surveyed say they want to prevent or delay another pregnancy, more than 200,000 couples will lose services. Families in these extremely poor countries cannot afford to lose vital U.S. family planning assistance. As a conferee for the State Department reauthorization bill, I worked hard to prevent the inclusion of House language reinstating the Mexico City policy and restrictions on UNFPA funding. Thankfully, we prevailed and the House capitulated on this front. Now it is time to take this important battle to take the next step and undue the harm caused by the House appropriators. I am pleased to say that my distinguished colleague from Oregon, Senator Hatfield, who has been such a champion in fighting for international family planning throughout his career, included language in the omnibus appropriations bill which would restore funding for U.S. population assistance. The Hatfield provision would nullify the funding cuts in the CR if the President certifies that they will lead to a significant increase in abortions. I applaud Senator Hatfield for his outstanding leadership on the Appropriations Committee and for his dedication to this very important issue. The United States has been a model nation on international family planning issues, and other countries look to our example. The implications of the cuts to U.S. aid contained in the CR are far broader than one might think. If other countries follow our lead, the impact will be devastating to the health of women and families of developing nations. So, in honor of International Women's Day, I urge my colleagues to support the restoration of funding for international family planning. Hanging in the balance are the lives, the health, and the economic survival of women, children, and families throughout the world.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I will keep my remarks brief, as I know there are so many of my colleagues who wish to add their voices in support of this conference report. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and as an original cosponsor and conferee on this landmark legislation, I rise in the strongest possible support for the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. Before going further, I would like to join so many other Americans in expressing personal outrage at the most recent crimes of the Castro regime. Just 11 days ago, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro ordered the shooting down of two unarmed civilian small planes over international waters, murdering four American citizens. I extend my deepest sympathy to the victims' families. They deserve justice for Castro's murderous, tyrannical act, and this legislation is a first step in process. For 36 years, Castro has ruled Cuba with an iron, totalitarian hand. But as he steadily impoverished and brutalized the Cuban people, his key source of support came from massive subsidies from the old Soviet Union. But since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, those subsidies have ended, the ideological underpinnings of his tyranny have evaporated, and his regime has come under pressure as never before. Castro has tried to compensate for the loss of Soviet aid by developing a hard-currency tourist industry. To build that industry, he has sold off at fire-sale prices confiscated American property to foreign companies for development. The purpose of this bill, among other things, is to deter these kind of actions by foreign companies who may be tempted to invest in Castro's Cuba at the expense of uncompensated Americans. This bill accomplishes that in two ways. In title IV it applies mandatory travel restrictions on top Cuban Government and foreign individuals who participate in trafficking in confiscated American property. Permanent exclusion from the United States is a serious sanction that will give any multinational firm second thoughts about taking possession of stolen U.S. property. In title III, the bill permits American citizens to bring suit against foreign persons who traffic in their confiscated property in Cuba. To obtain the administration's support for this bill, in conference we granted the President renewable 6-month waiver authority. But this still achieves the main goal of this title by creating an environment of uncertainty that foreign firms will want to avoid. All would-be foreign traffickers in confiscated United States property in Cuba will be put on notice that if they would always be within 6 months of having legal action taken against them in the United States for their actions. And this presupposes that the President will even initially invoke his waiver authority, which in the current climate is not, I believe, a foregone conclusion. This bill also: Calls for an international embargo against Cuba. Prohibits any United States loans to foreign individuals who purchase United States-owned property confiscated by the Cuban government. Requires the United States to vote against multilateral bank loans to Cuba until the country has had a democratic election. Disapproves of Russia's $200 million in loans to Cuba in exchange for continued access to intelligence-gathering facilities in Cuba. Calls on the President to develop a plan for providing support to Cuba during that country's transition to a democratically elected government. Also permits during the transition period Eximbank financing, Overseas Private Investment Corporation-supported investment projects, Trade and Development Agency assistance, counter-narcotics assistance, and Peace Corps assistance. Fully terminates the United States trade embargo upon President's certification of a democratic government in Cuba, and provides for extension of most-favored-nation status. Mr. President, with Castro's regime facing its gravest crisis ever, it is important to understand that his decision to kill four innocent Americans in cold blood is not an isolated act. This action came on the heels of yet another brutal crackdown on the Cuban people just the week before. From February 15 to 18, Castro ordered arrested 50 leaders of the Concilio Cubano, an pro-democracy umbrella group similar to Poland's Solidarity movement. The arrest was Castro's answer to their attempt to simply hold a meeting to discuss the future of democracy in Cuba. Many of these pro- democracy leaders have already been convicted by the Castro regime, and have joined the thousands of Cuban political prisoners that today languish in Cuba's gulags. I would like to recognize the stalwart leadership of the sponsor of this legislation and the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Chairman Helms. I also congratulate the leadership of the chairman of our Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Senator Coverdell, who is managing this conference report today. Together, they have been unswerving in their commitment to supporting the efforts of the Cuban people to bring freedom and democracy to that long-troubled island nation. I would also note that in both the House and Senate this has long been a bipartisan cause, and I hope and expect that this conference report will receive overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle. The bipartisan nature of this bill is further demonstrated from the fact that last week, after Castro's brutal action against innocent Americans, President Clinton himself gave his support to this legislative initiative. Now, we will be able to move forward together to strengthen our Nation's resolve to see an end to 36 years of totalitarian rule just 90 miles from our shores. Again, Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the efforts of all those who worked on this bill over the past year. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the conference report we will soon be adopting.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Wellstone amendment to strike the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact from this bill. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of talk in this debate about the need to preserve the family farm, and how the farm legislation that we pass should, at the very least, not cause more family farmers to go out of business. Well, I can tell you that what we have at stake in this vote on the Wellstone amendment is nothing less than the survival of many family dairy farms in Maine and the other New England States. It's very simple. If this amendment wins, large numbers of family dairy farms in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and other New England States go out of business. If we defeat the Wellstone amendment and retain the Craig-Leahy language, more farmers have an opportunity to keep their farms, the rural economy of our region stays afloat, and consumers and processors in our region have the satisfaction of knowing that the price they pay for fresh milk provides a fair return to the farmer who produced it. And that is one thing that I hope everyone keeps in mind on this vote: The only people directly affected by the compact--the farmers, consumers, and processors of New England--all support it. What is also at stake is the concept of State-based problem-solving. In the debates held so far in this Congress, and surely in the debates to come, we have heard and will hear many Members argue that the States are often best positioned to solve their own problems, and that they should be allowed to do so without interference from Washington. I couldn't agree more. With this vote on the Wellstone amendment today, Senators will have an opportunity to match words on this concept with deeds. The compact represents a regional response to a regional problem. It directly affects only those States that belong to the compact, and it doesn't cost the Federal Government anything. We have to decide whether we are going to support State problem solving, or obstruct it. As in many other rural regions of the country, agriculture is a cornerstone of Maine's economy. Within the agricultural sector, dairy farming usually ranks second or third in cash receipts every year. The dairy industry provides not only jobs for the farmers themselves, but for the people who sell farm machinery, service the machinery, sell fuel and feed, and provide other goods and services. Dairy farms also account for large shares of the municipal tax base throughout rural Maine, making them critical contributors to local schools and essential town services. Unfortunately, all is not well in the Maine dairy industry. In 1978, Maine had 1,133 dairy farms. By 1988, that number had declined to 800. In 1991, there were 680. And today we are down to roughly 600. I understand that our New England States have experienced the same devastating trend, and that Vermont, especially, has been losing huge numbers of family farmers. Without the compact in this bill, I can tell you: the bleeding of our family farms will continue. The precipitous decline in the number of dairy farms can be attributed to several factors, but most notably to the fact that Federal market order prices in New England are generally much lower than the costs of production in the region. Opponents sometimes like to say that New England has some of the highest average order prices in the East. This is generally the case because most of New England's milk market involves fresh, fluid milk, which brings a higher price than milk sold for other products; whereas, in other regions like the Upper Midwest, less than one-sixth of the milk producers is sold for the fresh fluid market. But the average order price in New England in the first half of 1995 was $13.17 a hundred, while the costs of production in Maine, which is a fresh fluid milk market, are close to $17 per hundred. New England farmers cannot make it under the existing order system. Mailbox prices provide a better illustration of the fact. The mailbox price is the actual price that the farmers receive after deducting the costs of marketing their milk. And if we look at mailbox prices, we see that New England farmers get the lowest take-home prices east of the Mississippi River. Farmers in Wisconsin and Minnesota receive significantly higher mailbox prices--nearly 50 cents a hundredweight more. Faced with the same problems throughout the region, the six New England States banded together to develop a joint regional solution. They painstakingly negotiated an interstate dairy compact that will ensure a fairer and more stable price for dairy farmers in the region. But it is a pricing program that also protects the interests of consumers in the region. As evidence of the balance and fairness achieved by the compact, both the net-producing and net-consuming States in the region all approved the compact with strong support. The compact creates a regional commission which has the authority to set minimum prices paid to farmers for fluid, or class I milk. Delegations from each State comprise the voting membership of the commission, and these delegations in turn will include both farmer and consumer representatives. The minimum price established by the commission is the Federal market order price plus a small ``over- order'' differential that would be paid by milk processing plants. This over-order price is capped in the compact, and a two-thirds voting majority of the commission is required before any over-order price can be instituted. Mr. President, until a court struck down the Main dairy vendor's fee in 1994 because we did not have the required congressional authorization, milk in my State was priced by a mechanism that is similar to that which could be utilized by the Compact Commission. Maine's experience was uniformly positive. Farm prices were stable and reasonable, but no farmers got rich on the minimal adjustment provided by the ``over-order'' price under the vendor's fee program. It only helped the farmers keep their heads above water. Dairy processors and vendors maintained their business, and consumers did not see any significant increases in the price of milk. It was a win-win proposition for everyone in Maine, and I am confident that the compact will achieve the same success throughout New England without violating the constitution's interstate commerce clause. With very few exceptions, the compact only affects New England consumers, farmers, and dairy processors. The compact applies only to fluid or class I milk, and approximately 97 percent of the fluid milk consumed in New England is processed by New England-based processors. Approximately 75 percent of the milk that these processors process comes from New England farmers; the rest comes from New York, whose farmers would receive any higher prices for their milk sold to New England under a compact. Although the direct impacts of the compact fall only on the New England States, we have shown a more than ample willingness to address the concerns expressed by Senators from other States. The compact consent provision in this bill provides additional assurances that the compact only applies to class I, fluid milk. The provision also includes a 5-year sunset, so that another act of Congress will be required to continue the compact after years. It's a fail-safe. If problems do arise with this compact, then Congress can let it expire after 5 years. In effect, what we are proposing in a kind of pilot program. And we would be willing to go even further. Senate Joint Resolution 28, the consent resolution that we introduced last year, explicitly provides that no additional States will be allowed into the compact without the formal approval of both Houses of Congress, that out-of- region farmers who sell milk in the compact region will get the same price as farmers in the region, that the commission's pricing authority is strictly limited, and that the commission must develop a plan to ensure that over-order prices do not lead to increases in production. Unfortunately, the amendment before us ignores the good-faith, constructive offerings that we have made in the past. Mr. President, why should the Federal Government deny the States an opportunity to solve their own problems, especially when it doesn't cost the Federal taxpayers? The answer is that we shouldn't. We should praise the States for their self-reliance and ingenuity when they devise creative ways to solve their problems, as they have done in the case of this compact. I hope that Senators will recognize the value in this kind of state-based problem-solving, support the wishes of the people who will really be affected by this legislation, and vote no on the Wellstone amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the cloture motion on the Leahy-Craig substitute to S. 1541, and in support of the bill. I am pleased to join my New England colleague, Senator Leahy, and my friend from Idaho, Senator Craig, as a cosponsor of this important bill. As everyone realizes, we must pass new farm legislation as quickly as possible. Farmers in many parts of the country who rely on Federal farm programs are already making planting decisions, and they need some certainty on this matter. But farmers are not the only ones with a stake in the prompt passage of this bill. If we do not pass farm legislation quickly, policy reverts to agricultural laws dating to 1949 and 1938. And under these statutes, the cost of our farm programs could skyrocket, adding up to $10 or $12 billion in additional costs to the Treasury in 1996. Obviously, given the continuing fiscal crisis that we have in the Federal Government, and given the year-long struggle to pass a 7-year balanced budget plan, we cannot allow that to happen. In fact, our fiscal reality dictates that we make significant additional reductions in current farm spending authorized under the 1990 farm bill, and the Leahy-Craig substitute will generate these additional savings from the present baseline. Mr. President, although the great majority of Maine farmers do not depend on or even use Federal commodity programs, the Leahy-Craig substitute contains a couple of provisions of great importance to Maine farmers. First, the substitute retains a provision that was included in S. 1541 which preserves the existing restriction on planting fruits and vegetables on what we previously called flex acres. Both the Leahy-Craig substitute and S. 1541 refer to all program acres as contract acres, but we still had a problem in earlier versions of S. 1541 whereby commodity crop farmers would have been able to grow any crop on unpaid contract acreage. This was a problem because it would place nonprogram fruit and vegetable growers at a distinct disadvantage in competition with program farmers who grow the same fruit and vegetable crops. The disadvantage arises from the fact that farmers who grow a program crop like wheat, along with a vegetable like potatoes, can use the Government support payments for wheat to bolster their potato business. Potato farmers in Maine, on the other hand, who do not grow any program crops, do not have a guaranteed source of revenues that they can rely on to support their farm operations. Senator Lugar, the author of S. 1541, and Senators Leahy and Craig have listened very intently to the concerns of full-time fruit and vegetable farmers, and they addressed this matter with an even hand. Senator Lugar even met with Maine potato farmers to discuss this problem. The substitute prohibits the planting of most fruits and vegetables, including potatoes, on contract acres. Senators Lugar, Leahy, and Craig have demonstrated considerable leadership on this issue, and they deserve to be commended for it. The other provision in the substitute that I would like to specifically mention concerns dairy farming. Section 108 provides the consent of the Congress to the Northeast Interstate Diary Compact. This compact was drafted, negotiated, and signed between all of the New England States to help remedy a serious problem throughout that region: the rapid loss of the family dairy farm. The compact creates a regional commission which has the authority to set minimum prices paid to farmers for fluid, or class I milk. Delegations from each State comprise the voting membership of the commission, and these delegations in turn will include both farmer and consumer representatives. The minimum price established by the commission is the Federal market order price plus a small ``over- order'' differential that would be paid by milk processing plants in the region. This over-order price is capped in the compact, and a two- thirds voting majority of the commission is required before any over- order price can be instituted. Mr. President, we desperately need this dairy compact in New England. The current Federal order price for this region does not come close to reflecting the farmers' cost of production. As a result, we are losing family farms at a consistent and rapid rate, and their loss impacts the rural economy and the municipal tax bases of many small New England towns. The people of New England--farmers, consumers, processors, and public officials--devised the compact as a solution to this problem, and it is wisely limited in scope. The compact only applies to class I fluid milk, and since we have a largely self-contained fluid milk market in our region, the compact will not harm farmers or processors in other regions of the country. There is no good reason not to support the efforts of the people of New England to solve one of their own problems. We should praise them for their ingenuity and self-reliance. I am very pleased that Senators Leahy and Craig have recognized the merits of this proposal, and have agreed to include it in their substitute. Mr. President, the Leahy-Craig substitute will generate substantial savings for the taxpayers, and it will give farmers more flexibility. It will address the concerns of many fruit and vegetable growers, and dairy farmers. Given the fiscal implications of not passing a farm bill, all Senators have an important stake in at least the completion of debate on the farm bill. Senators Leahy, Craig, Lugar, Dole, and many others have done a tremendous amount of work of the substitute before us, and the Senate must be allowed to finish action on it. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and for passage of the Leahy- Craig substitute.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the conference report to S. 652, the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act. This legislation will revolutionize our telecommunications industry as broadly as telecommunications have revolutionized our society. And I am pleased that it contains the Snowe-Rockefeller provision that was included in the original Senate bill--a provision of significant importance to rural regions and rural Americans. I would first like to thank my friend and colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee who also served as chairman of the House-Senate conference committee on this legislation, Senator Pressler. For over a year now, he has worked tirelessly to shepherd this legislation through the Commerce Committee, the full Senate, and the House-Senate conference committee. In the process, he has worked to ensure that telecommunications reform remains a priority for our Nation as we enter the next century--a century that is certain to bring even greater advancements in technology and telecommunications. I also want to congratulate the distinguished Senate majority leader, Senator Dole, for his outstanding efforts in bringing this critical legislation to the floor of the Senate. Telecommunications is an increasingly important part of our daily life. Over the past few years, most of us have become dependent on communications services as diverse as wireless telephones, fax machines, information services, computers, pagers, alarm monitoring services, and cable television. In many cases, it is hard to imagine functioning without them. We are clearly witnessing a revolution in the way we do business and in the way we live, a telecommunications and information revolution as important to our future as the industrial revolution was in the last century. As I stated during debate on the legislation last summer, my State of Maine has, for more than a century, faced serious economic challenges in attracting business and industry. Thus, the revolution in telecommunications technologies which has opened the door to the information age continues to be especially important for Maine. At 60 miles an hour, the speed of truck transportation, Maine's geography can be an economic disadvantage. At the speed of light--the speed with which information can be transmitted over Maine's state-of- the-art telecommunications networks--Maine's location becomes an asset. Information technology coupled with our outstanding quality of life has created substantial business and employment opportunities in my State. Recognizing the importance of telecommunications to Maine, the Maine State Legislature adopted legislation that established the policy goal of ensuring that all of Maine's businesses and citizens have affordable access to an integrated telecommunications infrastructure capable of providing voice, data and image-based services. Furthermore, Maine intends to adopt policies that encourage the development and deployment of new technologies, and encourages service applications that support economic development initiatives or otherwise improve the well-being of Maine citizens. Mr. President, this conference report will bring unprecedented competition and development to the telecommunications industry. And while competition can bring an array of improved services at a lower cost, we must ensure that competition ultimately achieves this goal for all Americans, in both urban and rural areas. I am, therefore, particularly pleased that the conference report before us recognizes that strong universal service provisions are a necessary and important part of telecommunications reform. Residents of rural areas should bear no more cost for essential telecommunications services than residents of densely populated areas. Just as extending basic telephone service and electrification to rural areas rose to the top of our national agenda in the 1930's and 1940's, so telecommunications must be a top priority today. No American citizen should be left out of the communications revolution. Indeed, the concept of universal service was established in the 1934 Communication Act, to establish widely available basic telephone service at reasonable rates. The rationale for this policy is that telephone service is essential to link Americans together, so that all Americans can communicate with each other on approximately equal footing. It was an important economic development tool, as well. Everyone in our country must be able to engage in commerce using the tools and technologies necessary to interact with buyers and sellers, and be able to be informed and to inform others of emergency situations and to access emergency services. Presently, every telephone can interconnect with every telephone, but every computer cannot hook up with every computer. If in the future, computers replace telephones and become the basic standard equipment for communication, a mechanism must to be in place to ensure that all Americans can continue to be interconnected as they are presently via the telephone. Central to the concept of universal service is access for public institutions, which provide services to a broad segment of our population. We must ensure that key institutions in our society-- schools, libraries, and rural hospitals--are also assured affordable access to telecommunications services. That can not be done when schools and libraries are paying business rates for educational services like access to the Internet. Business rates are frequently beyond these institutions' ability to pay--and without access, I am concerned about the consequences. The Internet, the ``information highway,'' is increasingly critical to our children and our Nation. How can we hope to compete in the world economy if our educational institutions are unable to link with a critical telecommunications link? I strongly believe that the economic future of our children is inexorably tied to their education. In turn, education is becoming increasingly entwined with the use of emerging technologies and the information these services carry and provide. Our schools need access to educational telecommunications services to prepare our children for economic success. In the 21st century, our children will be competing in a global economy where knowledge is power. Their future depends on their ability to master the tools and skills needed in that economy. Unfortunately, there is a widening gap between the high expectations of an increasingly technologically driven society and the inability of most schools--particularly rural schools--to prepare students adequately for the high-technology future. Almost 90 percent of kindergarten through 12th grade classrooms lack even basic access to telephone service. Telecommunications can help us provide a world class education to children across America. If we want young people to actively use the technology of the future so it becomes second nature to them, then we must ensure that schools are part of the national information infrastructure. For starters, telecommunications will enable students and teachers to do research in libraries across the country and the world, and to connect to experts and other students across the country. It will ensure that small schools in remote rural areas, and schools with limited financial resources have access to the same rich learning resources. Consider that only 30 percent of schools with enrollments of less than 300 have Internet access, while 58 percent of schools with enrollments of 1,000 or more reported having Internet access. Only 3 percent of classrooms in public schools are connected to the Internet, and cost is cited as a major barrier to access. Rural schools and libraries usually pay more for access to information services than schools and libraries in urban areas because the information service providers do not have access points in local calling regions, meaning that rural schools and libraries must make a long distance telephone call to access the Internet and other information services. It is imperative that access the information superhighway be affordable, because America's schools and public libraries operate on very slim, inflexible budgets. And it is an area where we need the strength and innovation of the private sector as well. That's why I am especially pleased to note that NYNEX and the independent telephone companies that serve Maine have already taken steps to deploy and encourage the utilization of needed telecommunications services throughout Maine. As a result of a unique agreement with Maine's telephone companies--all Maine libraries and schools are now eligible to receive substantially discounted long distance services that will now allow access to a broad range of information services. But schools and libraries in Maine and across America will not be the only ones to benefit from this provision. So does our health care system through telemedicine. When I served in the House of Representatives, I cowrote the Rural Health Care Coalition's ``Rural Health Care Bill of Rights.'' The paper argued that Congress should adopt policies that seek to ensure that those who live in rural areas receive the same quality of health care as other Americans. All Americans, regardless of their age, income, employment status, medical history or geographic location, have a right to access affordable, quality health care. Telemedicine can help us achieve this goal by enabling physicians in rural areas to communicate through state-of-the-art telecommunications networks with providers and specialists in other areas. With Telemedicine, a burn victim in Presque Isle, ME, may be able to get care from some of the Nation's best burn specialists, without ever leaving the local hospital. Rural doctors will be able to connect directly to major hospital centers for consultation, diagnostic assistance, and ongoing professional education. However, rural areas pay significantly more than urban areas for transmission of Telemedicine services. Mr. President, I believe that the Snowe-Rockefeller provision is fundamentally important to assuring that we do not end up with a two- tiered telecommunications system in America. The Snowe-Rockefeller provision is fundamental to assuring that all areas in America have access to the essential telecommunications services of the future. And it is fundamental to ensuring that this legislation provides a solid foundation for the future. Mr. President, I believe that this legislation offers tremendous promise, making this among the most exciting and meaningful bills we will vote on this session. By promoting true competition in telecommunications while providing necessary safeguards that further the goal of competition and serve the public interest, this conference report offers a strong framework on which the technological future of America can be built. I believe that this bill strikes the right balance that is needed, and offer my strong support. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I, along with my colleague on the Commerce Committee, Senator Kerry, am introducing the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Amendments Act of 1995. I am pleased to also have Senators Cohen and Kennedy joining us as cosponsors in this effort. Congress passed the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act in 1986 to promote the management of interjurisdictional fisheries resources throughout their range, and to encourage and promote active State participation in the management of these important resources. The act provides modest funding to the States and interstate marine fishery commissions to assist with research and management activities, with the underlying objective being the development and maintenance of healthy, robust fish stocks. The act also authorizes aid to commercial fishermen who have suffered losses as a result of fishery resource disasters. The bill that we are introducing today extends the act's authorization through 1998. It reduces the authorized appropriations level for apportionment to the States, maintains the current overall authorization level for the Commerce Department, and provides a small increase in the authorization level for assistance to the interstate fishery management commissions. This bill also amends section 308(d) of the act, which deals with disaster assistance to commercial fishermen. Earlier this year, the Secretary of Commerce declared fishery resource disasters impacting commercial fishermen in the Northeast, Pacific Northwest, and the Gulf of Mexico, and he committed $53 million in already-appropriated funds to help mitigate the impacts of these disasters. In order to effectively operate these disaster relief programs, however, certain changes must be made in the act's grant-making authority. The current provision, for example, limits the kind of assistance available under section 308(d) to direct grants to individual fishermen or fishing corporations. But recent analysis of disaster relief strategies has revealed that, in some cases, aid to fishermen could be more efficiently and effectively provided if it is provided indirectly, through States, local governments, or nonprofit organizations, who in turn would operate programs to help fishermen. This bill amends the statute to allow for the provision of both direct and indirect forms of assistance. The bill also lifts the current $100,000 cap on aid to individual fishermen. This cap makes the operation of a fishing vessel buy-back program, like the one currently planned for the New England groundfish fishery, impossible. The purchase price for many vessels bought out under the program will exceed $100,000, and without a lifting of the cap, few fishermen will participate. Given the ongoing crisis in the New England groundfish industry, we need to move forward with an effective, comprehensive buy-back quickly, and passage of this amendment to section 308(d) is essential for us to do so. Mr. President, this bill will contribute to the improvement of conditions in interjurisdictional fisheries around the country, and it will assist fishing communities that are suffering the effects of fishery resource disasters. This is a bipartisan bill, and it will not require significant new federal expenditures. I hope that my colleagues will support the bill when the Senate considers it in the next session.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I, along with my colleague on the Commerce Committee, Senator Kerry, am introducing the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Amendments Act of 1995. I am pleased to also have Senators Cohen and Kennedy joining us as cosponsors in this effort. Congress passed the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act in 1986 to promote the management of interjurisdictional fisheries resources throughout their range, and to encourage and promote active State participation in the management of these important resources. The act provides modest funding to the States and interstate marine fishery commissions to assist with research and management activities, with the underlying objective being the development and maintenance of healthy, robust fish stocks. The act also authorizes aid to commercial fishermen who have suffered losses as a result of fishery resource disasters. The bill that we are introducing today extends the act's authorization through 1998. It reduces the authorized appropriations level for apportionment to the States, maintains the current overall authorization level for the Commerce Department, and provides a small increase in the authorization level for assistance to the interstate fishery management commissions. This bill also amends section 308(d) of the act, which deals with disaster assistance to commercial fishermen. Earlier this year, the Secretary of Commerce declared fishery resource disasters impacting commercial fishermen in the Northeast, Pacific Northwest, and the Gulf of Mexico, and he committed $53 million in already-appropriated funds to help mitigate the impacts of these disasters. In order to effectively operate these disaster relief programs, however, certain changes must be made in the act's grant-making authority. The current provision, for example, limits the kind of assistance available under section 308(d) to direct grants to individual fishermen or fishing corporations. But recent analysis of disaster relief strategies has revealed that, in some cases, aid to fishermen could be more efficiently and effectively provided if it is provided indirectly, through States, local governments, or nonprofit organizations, who in turn would operate programs to help fishermen. This bill amends the statute to allow for the provision of both direct and indirect forms of assistance. The bill also lifts the current $100,000 cap on aid to individual fishermen. This cap makes the operation of a fishing vessel buy-back program, like the one currently planned for the New England groundfish fishery, impossible. The purchase price for many vessels bought out under the program will exceed $100,000, and without a lifting of the cap, few fishermen will participate. Given the ongoing crisis in the New England groundfish industry, we need to move forward with an effective, comprehensive buy-back quickly, and passage of this amendment to section 308(d) is essential for us to do so. Mr. President, this bill will contribute to the improvement of conditions in interjurisdictional fisheries around the country, and it will assist fishing communities that are suffering the effects of fishery resource disasters. This is a bipartisan bill, and it will not require significant new federal expenditures. I hope that my colleagues will support the bill when the Senate considers it in the next session.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as chair of the International Operations Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the issues contained in the legislation, I rise in support of this bill. It is regrettable that this bill is coming up today with a managers' amendment drafted by Senate Democrats that will have the effect of undoing the Foreign Relations Committee's main work on this legislation. Lacking a sufficent level of support to actually make these changes by a majority vote, the Senate minority has insisted in changes in this bill that could not pass under normal legislative procedures. Although a freshman Senator, I have more than a decade of experience with these issues. I have worked on the State Department authorization bill since 1985, when I became ranking member of the House International Operations Subcommittee. Continuing this role in the Senate, this is the sixth State Department authorization process in which I have served as a Republican manager of the legislation. I would like to thank the chairman of the full committee, Senator Helms, for his perseverance with this legislation. That we have this bill back before the Senate today is in large part due to his stalwart support of the legislative process. I would like to also thank the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Pell, for his graciousness, comity, and belief in the legislative process. I would note that Senator Pell--the former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee--was the only member of the other party to support cloture when this bill was last before the Senate on August 1. This kind of steadfast support for the role of the authorizing committees will be sorely missed in the Senate after his retirement next year. I would also like to thank the majority leader for his strong support for this bill, and the other Republican members of the Foreign Relations Committee for their votes and their support when it was most critically needed. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the work of the staff, particularly the committee's staff director, Adm. Bud Nance. He has brought dedication and integrity to every aspect of his efforts, and he has greatly assisted the work of the committee. The bill before us today authorizes the budget and operations of the foreign affairs agencies, establishes policies for our participation in international organizations, and strengthens U.S. standards for our participation in U.N. peacekeeping operations. As reported out of the Foreign Relations Committee, this bill would have implemented an innovative restructuring plan first proposed at the beginning of this year by Secretary of State Warren Christopher. I note with regret that this is no longer the case. The original version of this bill would have terminated three independent foreign affairs agencies, and achieved $3 billion in savings over four years by consolidating the functions carried out by those agencies into the Department of State. The three independent foreign affairs agencies are: the U.S. Information Agency, which deals with the public relations aspects of our foreign policy; the Agency for International Development, which runs our foreign assistance programs; and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, which conducts diplomatic activities related to arms control and nonproliferation. This bill no longer explicitly requires bringing under the direct control of the Secretary of State the activities of these three existing independent agencies. The bill, however, does mandate to the President that he achieve over five years $1.7 billion in savings at least 70% of which must come from the elimination of duplication and bureaucratic downsizing. This is less than half of the savings contained in the committee bill, and about $500 million less in savings from Senator Kerry's own amendment that failed to pass during committee mark-up. I would also note that at committee Senator Kerry proposed the mandatory elimination of at least one agency, at the President's discretion. As I mentioned, this bill, with passage of the Kerry managers' amendment, no longer requires the consolidation of any agencies into the Department of State. To any who believe that the bill's original $3 billion in savings over four years is excessive, or even the current $1.7 billion in savings over five years, I would to point out that on January 26 Vice President Gore issued a press release announcing the second phase of the ``National Performance Review.'' That press release announced, and I quote: It is anticipated that the overall review of international affairs programs and agencies will result in savings of at least $5 billion over 5 years and a substantially enhanced capacity to deliver more effective programs overseas and provide value to the American taxpayer. The problem is that now, 11 months later, the Vice President still has not presented his plan for saving $5 billion over 5 years through restructuring and consolidation of our foreign affairs agencies. In fact, the Administration has refused to even present to Congress its normal legislative request for the foreign affairs agencies. And that is the first time this has happened in the 10 years I have worked on this legislation. So in the absence of any positive Administration proposal, all we are mandating in this bill is that the Administration develop and implement a proposal for saving $1.7 billion over 5 years, not the $5 billion over 5 years that the Vice President promised at the beginning of this year. Frankly, I believe that we can do more, and the original bill did do more. But at least this is a first step toward that goal. I hope that once the President is forced to begin looking at even this modest level of bureaucratic downsizing, even this Administration will recognize the wisdom of Secretary Christopher's original plan for consolidating the functions of all three independent foreign affairs agencies into the Department of State. Let me just give a small example of the reasons why the original consolidation would improve the formulation and conduct of American foreign policy. On October 12 my office received a State Department inspector general report that reviewed the activities of the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs. That report discusses efforts to identify and eliminate redundancies between this State Department bureau and ACDA. This is an effort that we should certainly all applaud, but without a formal consolidation between the two entities, a total elimination of duplication would either deprive the Secretary of State of any expertise over arms control issues, or rob ACDA of any diplomatic capabilities to conduct sensitive arms control negotiations. It would further isolate important arms control and nonproliferation considerations from the formulation of American foreign policy. Or, in the words of the State Department inspector general: If [the State Department] were to relinquish a significant portion of its nonproliferation functions, the overall effects could be counterproductive. This is a perfect illustration why merging the functions of these three independent agencies into the Department of State is needed not just to save money, but to improve the flexibility and coordination of American foreign policy in the post-cold-war era. And this is not just my own opinion, the opinion of Chairman Helms, or the collective opinion of the other body, which has included Christopher's consolidation plan in its own State Department authorization bill. This consolidation proposal is also supported by five former Secretaries of State and two former National Security Advisers. Mr. President, I would like to now discuss the reason for their support. The world has changed dramatically in the last decade, and with it the demands on our foreign policy structure. Gone is the cold war--and the certainty of a single opposing force in our foreign relations. Gone, too, is the highly focused foreign policy we once waged against an expansionist and authoritarian Soviet Union and its satellites. We face a new imperative: to maintain a strong and aggressive foreign policy, while streamlining our operations, achieving cost savings, and meeting the new criteria of a changing world. Consolidation among our foreign affairs agencies is an idea whose time has come. In the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the reigniting of ethnic strife that had been kept bottled up by the cold war, we live in a new world. But it is not necessarily a safer world. The reason five former Secretaries of State support this concept is the need to integrate the important public diplomacy, arms control, and foreign assistance aspects of American foreign policy into our basic policy formulation process. For example, currently the independent Arms Control and Disarmament Agency is primarily responsible for nonproliferation policy. But concerns about nuclear proliferation frame our relations with a range of countries around the world, from North Korea, to Pakistan, to Iran. It would enhance, not detract, from this important goal of American foreign policy for it to be integrated into the policy formulation process at State. It is far too important to be an afterthought considered only later in the interagency process. And by better coordinating public diplomacy with policy, we can directly benefit the conduct of our Nation's foreign relations. Public relations play an increasingly important role in a world that is increasingly democratic. But currently, our public diplomacy expertise rests in the independent U.S. Information Agency. Does it enhance the formulation of American foreign policy to consider its impact on world public opinion only after the fact? Similarly, there is a great need to more closely tie our foreign assistance programs to policy goals intended to directly advance our national interests. And there is a desperate need to cut back on AID's huge administrative structure that today consumes vast amounts of our humanitarian and developmental aid funds. Out of a $2.3 billion developmental aid account, AID spends $600 million on its formal operating expenses account. This is 25 cents for every developmental dollar. But in reality, AID's administrative costs are much higher because AID's formal operating expenses only count 5,000 out of its 9,000 employees worldwide. The missing 4,000 are AID contract employees who are paid out of program funds, not operating expenses. There are other important aspects to this legislation. The bill contains many management improvements sought by the administration. I regret that what State Department initiatives are included in this bill had to come to us informally, as the administration even to this day has refused to submit a formal legislative request. The bill also puts into permanent law many of the international peacekeeping reforms that were first enacted in our last bill. Let me also briefly mention a few of the initiatives I have included in this bill. I have included the text of the Terrorist Exclusion Act, which I first introduced in the House 2 years ago, and which I have reintroduced this year with Senator Brown as my original cosponsor. This provision will restore the pre-1990 standard allowing denial of a U.S. visa for membership in a terrorist group. Another provision would codify existing embassy visa terrorist lookout committees. These committees were established by the State Department in 1993 under the Visas Viper Program. However, recent GAO and IG reports indicate that these committees have become moribund. My provision would require the terrorist lookout committees to meet regularly and become more active. I have also included the requirement for two GAO studies. One would look at the extent to which the activities of four long-standing grantees duplicate activities carried out by the U.S. Government. These groups are the Asia Foundation, the East-West Center, the North-South Center, and the National Endowment for Democracy. A second study would look at the question of whether the North-South Center used U.S. funds to engage in improper lobbying effort in support of the North American Free Trade Agreement. I am particularly concerned about a publication the Center sent to Members of Congress during the NAFTA debate, entitled ``Assessment of the North American Free Trade Agreement.'' Mr. President, as I have expressed in the past, I know that there has been a great deal of anxiety among the dedicated, hard-working employees of our foreign affairs agencies. That concern comes not just over this bill, but over the generally recognized need to downsize our Federal work force as we move to a balanced budget. I believe that all of us need to do everything we can to remember the human dimension of what we are trying to achieve. This bill contains broad early retirement and buyout authorities, and we have taken every step we know how to take to make the transition as easy as possible to a streamlined foreign policy structure. This bill also gives the President extraordinary authority to formulate his own transition plan, limited only by the bill's mandated savings target. Mr. President, the bill before us is an important bill, and I hope that in conference it will become even better. The Foreign Relations Revitalization Act gives credit to our Chairman, to our committee, and to all of the Senators who have supported it since its inception. I urge its adoption, and I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Earlier this year, the Department provided funding to begin testing the technology, which is critical to demonstrate the commercial viability of the project. However, $4.3 million is now needed to complete these tests, which are currently suspended until further funding becomes available. Consortium members expect the program to be commercially viable after completion of the testing. I understand that in addition to coal, the heat exchange technology could be applicable to other types of power production, such as bioenergy. While some private money has been located to continue the tests, funding from the Department is necessary to restart the testing. If the testing cannot be completed, the $26.5 million already provided by the Federal Government and the $7.5 million contributed by the Consortium will have been wasted. Senator Cohen and I understand that the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee shares our interest in this project and believes that the Department should make an effort, within its budget constraints, to try to ensure that the testing is completed.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I introduce a small but important piece of legislation designed to assist parents in times of terrible crisis and need, times that every parent has nightmares about--when their children are missing. Imagine the horror of discovering that your child is missing. Imagine the pain and emotion that overcomes a family at such a time. Imagine the strength and dedication that such families muster in order to do everything possible to locate that child. And imagine how this horror and devastation becomes compounded by senseless Government regulations which hinder their efforts to locate their children. Consider the tragic experience of Claudine and Don Ryce, the parents of Jimmy Ryce, a 10-year-old Florida boy who disappeared on September 11 of this year. Jimmy disappeared somewhere in the three square blocks between his school bus stop and his home. Tragically, Jimmy's body was found late last week. I extend my deepest sympathy, and my most sincere condolences, to his family. I want Jimmy's parents to know that I heard about the frustration they encountered as they searched for their son. I want them to know that Congress will do something to rectify this. Today, I want to break down one barrier that they encountered in their vigilant efforts to locate their son. Jimmy's parents tell the story of how simple tasks, such as posting notices in Federal buildings with Jimmy's picture on it, were frustrated by senseless Government regulation. They tell of how, with the assistance of the FBI, they would post these notices in one Federal agency building, only to have them removed by employees of another agency. Imagine how frustrating this must be to parents of missing children. How frustrating this must be, especially since photographs of missing children are the most effective tool we have for locating these children. Unfortunately, far too many children are missing in this country. A 1990 study by the Department of Justice--the most recent study on this issue--found that in 1988 there were as many as: 114,600 attempted abductions of children by non-family members; 4,600 abductions by non-family members reported to the police; 300 abductions by non-family members where the children were gone for long periods of time or were murdered; 354,000 children abducted by family members; 450,700 children who ran away; and 438,200 children who were lost, injured or otherwise missing. Moreover, the National Crime Information Center reports that approximately 60,000 children are missing at any given time. The legislation that I introduce today is designed to help the parents of these missing children by eliminating one barrier that Jimmy's parents faced in their search for their son. This legislation amends the Protection of Public Property Act, which empowers the General Services Administration [GSA] to set rules governing Federal property under its control. Currently, Federal regulations issued by the GSA prohibit the posting of materials on Federal property. My bill directs the GSA to make a very important exception to these rules, and requires the GSA to draft regulations allowing the posting of notices designed to locate missing children. It also ensures that Federal employees cannot needlessly remove these posters. As Jimmy's father said, ``There are things the Government can do, simple things, that would make it easier to publicize'' that a child is missing. He also said that we need to ``turn these agencies into our allies.'' Well, Mr. Ryce, you are correct, and I believe that this legislation will do just that.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I introduce a small but important piece of legislation designed to assist parents in times of terrible crisis and need, times that every parent has nightmares about--when their children are missing. Imagine the horror of discovering that your child is missing. Imagine the pain and emotion that overcomes a family at such a time. Imagine the strength and dedication that such families muster in order to do everything possible to locate that child. And imagine how this horror and devastation becomes compounded by senseless Government regulations which hinder their efforts to locate their children. Consider the tragic experience of Claudine and Don Ryce, the parents of Jimmy Ryce, a 10-year-old Florida boy who disappeared on September 11 of this year. Jimmy disappeared somewhere in the three square blocks between his school bus stop and his home. Tragically, Jimmy's body was found late last week. I extend my deepest sympathy, and my most sincere condolences, to his family. I want Jimmy's parents to know that I heard about the frustration they encountered as they searched for their son. I want them to know that Congress will do something to rectify this. Today, I want to break down one barrier that they encountered in their vigilant efforts to locate their son. Jimmy's parents tell the story of how simple tasks, such as posting notices in Federal buildings with Jimmy's picture on it, were frustrated by senseless Government regulation. They tell of how, with the assistance of the FBI, they would post these notices in one Federal agency building, only to have them removed by employees of another agency. Imagine how frustrating this must be to parents of missing children. How frustrating this must be, especially since photographs of missing children are the most effective tool we have for locating these children. Unfortunately, far too many children are missing in this country. A 1990 study by the Department of Justice--the most recent study on this issue--found that in 1988 there were as many as: 114,600 attempted abductions of children by non-family members; 4,600 abductions by non-family members reported to the police; 300 abductions by non-family members where the children were gone for long periods of time or were murdered; 354,000 children abducted by family members; 450,700 children who ran away; and 438,200 children who were lost, injured or otherwise missing. Moreover, the National Crime Information Center reports that approximately 60,000 children are missing at any given time. The legislation that I introduce today is designed to help the parents of these missing children by eliminating one barrier that Jimmy's parents faced in their search for their son. This legislation amends the Protection of Public Property Act, which empowers the General Services Administration [GSA] to set rules governing Federal property under its control. Currently, Federal regulations issued by the GSA prohibit the posting of materials on Federal property. My bill directs the GSA to make a very important exception to these rules, and requires the GSA to draft regulations allowing the posting of notices designed to locate missing children. It also ensures that Federal employees cannot needlessly remove these posters. As Jimmy's father said, ``There are things the Government can do, simple things, that would make it easier to publicize'' that a child is missing. He also said that we need to ``turn these agencies into our allies.'' Well, Mr. Ryce, you are correct, and I believe that this legislation will do just that.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, let me say at the outset, while many of us have serious concerns with the scope and the structure of the Bosnian mission, there is no doubt about our troops' ability and competence to carry out the mission that has been assigned to them by the President of the United States. Like so many times in the past, when they have served our country well and they have made us proud, I have no doubts about the fact they will be no different in this mission. Despite what is being said here this evening, whether you are for or against the proposition that is before us, we will obviously not change the outcome. The deal, as they say, is done, because the troops are being deployed and will continue to be deployed, no matter what we do here or how we vote. Congress is essentially faced with a proposition of accepting the President's position on Bosnia, having come full circle from ``Mission Impossible'' several years ago, to ``fait accompli'' today. By disavowing any congressional role, the President has presented this policy no longer as the administration's policy, but now it is America's policy. That clearly places us in a very difficult position. What we can and should do today is to use this debate to express our reservations and concerns, our support--whatever the case may be. Inevitably there are constitutional conflicts between branches of Government. Inevitably, we have been in this role before, with respect to whether or not we should assign troops and whether or not the President should come to the Congress. I happen to think it is very important to express our concerns to this and future Presidents about the fact that Congress is not playing such a role before the fact--and not after the fact. The fact of the matter is, it is in America's interests to have congressional involvement and participation. It helps the President to advance his own policy and his own mission. It helps to broaden the support if there are doubts about such a mission. But, unfortunately, that is not what is before us today. We have also considered other alternatives with respect to Bosnia. In fact, I can remember as far back as 1993, in the spring, when I was a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Representatives, we voted on lifting the arms embargo so that the Bosnian Moslems could defend themselves and their families, their property. And for over 2 years we fought that battle, and the administration did not support us in that endeavor. The Europeans resisted this effort as well. I think that is part of the Balkan tragedy, the fact that the Moslems could not defend themselves; that they did not have the arms or the equipment or the training to defend themselves and their families. Now we are faced with the proposition of deploying troops to Bosnia. This should have been the last option and not the first. We should have exhausted all other means and all other possibilities before we resorted to deploying ground troops. Back in 1993, it is interesting, the administration presented its own criteria, guidelines for a future mission in Bosnia. In fact, Secretary of State Christopher laid out those guidelines in 1993. They said that, in order to deploy troops, four criteria should be met: First, that the goal must be clearly stated; Second, there must be strong likelihood of success; Third, there must be an exit strategy; Fourth, the action must win sustained public support. It seems to me the administration has fallen far short in meeting some of these criteria that the administration itself has established. But I would like to take a look at some of those guidelines tonight and how this agreement fits into the context of the criteria the administration laid out for such a mission. First, the goal must be clearly stated. When it comes to the mission of the troops, I think this Chamber and the American people certainly need to know what this deployment is or is not about. We know it is not a peacekeeping mission. In fact, it is much of a departure from a peacekeeping mission. It is a peace enforcement mission. That being the case, as the administration has suggested, is the goal simply to separate warring parties for 1 year and then leave? The administration has said yes, and so did witnesses before the Foreign Relations Committee. But at other times the administration argued that we will only achieve success if we succeed in creating a single, unitary, multiethnic Bosnian state, as Secretary Holbrooke said after the signing of the agreement in Dayton, when he said, ``Otherwise, we will have failed.'' So, is it a part of our mission to also create a more stable arms balance in Bosnia, by ensuring the Bosnian Government forces receive the heavy armor they currently lack? Yes, that is part of the overall intent of this administration. But the administration has also agreed that the arms buildup will not occur until we can succeed first in pursuing an arms builddown. But there is no such mechanism for that builddown to occur. Then we have the arming and training issue. It will certainly be one of the focuses of this resolution before us that will be offered by Senator Dole. But it still is not clear what the administration has in mind or how, in fact, it will be accomplished. The fact is, this could be accomplished without even deploying troops to Bosnia. But that, unfortunately, is not our option today. So the arming, the training, the equipping of the Bosnian Moslems will occur in the face of opposition from our European allies and the Serbs. It was so much opposed that it was not even a part of the agreement. Yet it now happens to be, and should be, a very key component of the overall strategy. Because Senator Dole has been working on precisely defining this mission now, because it has not been precisely defined by this administration, it will remain one of the key components of this mission. Yet it will have to be done in the face of overwhelming opposition by our allies and the Serbs. How that will be done remains open to serious question. Is our goal, as well, to facilitate elections? Protect refugees? Undertake reconstruction activities? Track down and arrest war criminals? The administration sometimes argues no. But then it also argues that these nation-building activities are what will determine whether or not we have succeeded. So, are these our goals as well? In fact, this case is strengthened by the fact that in the Dayton accords the United States insisted on granting our forces the power to become involved in these activities. To quote from article 6, section 3: Our NATO forces will have the authority to: A. Help secure conditions for the conduct of free and fair elections; B. Assist in the accomplishment of humanitarian missions; C. Assist the U.N. High Commission for Refugees; D. Prevent interference with the movement of civilian populations and to respond to deliberate violence to life and person. If our powers under article 6, section 3, are not a recipe for mission creep, I do not know what is. Second, there must be a strong likelihood of success. Is there? Of course, that all depends on the definition of our mission. And, as I have already stated, those goals are somewhat confused and vague. I have read the predictions of a wide range of experts on this subject, and few are truly optimistic about the long-term success of this agreement, whatever the definition of success may be. There is also a great deal of skepticism of the genuine commitment of all the parties to this agreement or to any common vision of a future for Bosnia. But, clearly, we are not going into Bosnia with lightly armed troops monitoring a peace that has been reached voluntarily and in good will by the parties themselves. That is what a traditional peacekeeping operation is all about. But that is not what this is. Rather, we will be moving in with one of the U.S. Army's six heavy armored divisions, the 1st Armored Division which served as a cornerstone of NATO's defense against the Soviet Union. So, this becomes more like our deployments to Beirut in 1983 and Somalia, in 1993, both of which ended with disastrous consequences, and both attempted to deploy United States troops in the service of so-called nation-building activities. Third, there must be an exit strategy. The administration has said it has an exit strategy by promising to be out within a year. But this is an exit timetable, not an exit strategy. It says nothing about what needs to be accomplished during that year to permit our successful disengagement. Again, any viable exit strategy defines our missions and goals. And we still have seen that remains nebulous at best. How can the administration legitimately argue that it has an exit strategy if it cannot clearly define the mission? In fact, Secretary Perry said before the Foreign Relations Committee that the exit strategy will have accomplished the cessation of hostilities, a separation of warring parties, and a break in the cycle of violence. But that really does not define an exit strategy. What it does is define an end date. It defines exactly what the state of affairs happens to be at the time in which we depart. But it does not define what we have accomplished. As Dr. Schlesinger testified before the Armed Services Committee, he said, ``We do not really have an exit strategy because the situation is too messy. We have an exit hope.'' Finally, the action must have sustained public support. Polls have shown that there is not strong support for this mission to Bosnia. In fact, it shows the opposite. The majority of the American people oppose the deployment of American troops into Bosnia. We know that could change as the troops are being deployed and will continue to be deployed. But what is the reason for the concern among the American people? I think the concern stems from the fact that the administration has yet to make a compelling case on the merits of the mission or even to clearly define the mission itself in terms of our vital national security interests. The American people need to know--and they deserve to know--that the mission itself merits a military deployment of our troops. The American people have the right to know that the parties involved in Bosnia are committed to self-sustaining and enduring peace. And at the very least they should expect that these parties will be committed to a longstanding peace. That remains open to a very serious question. And it gets back again to the definition of our goal and mission. I happen to think that it is very important that whenever we are deploying our men and women to an area of conflict, when we are putting them in harm's way, that it is absolutely vital that the parties involved are absolutely committed to securing a long-lasting peace. I think that all that we have heard thus far remains open to very serious question as to whether or not that will be the ultimate outcome. So I think that the administration has fallen short in meeting its own criteria for this mission. But above and beyond that failure, there is another question. And that is the unprecedented nature of this deployment. It has been said that this is the first time NATO has embarked upon a mission outside of the treaty area itself. And there are those who argue in favor of such a mission because they say that it will serve as a model for future NATO missions as well as securing the future of the alliance. That may be true. But no one has answered the question as to what harm will come to NATO and its prestige if this mission should fail. And what damage will that do to the alliance? If 2 years from now we face renewed fighting--which indeed is a serious prospect and consideration--and a partition of Bosnia, as so many analysts believe is the most likely outcome, in the end what will we have accomplished? Will it have been worth the potential loss of American lives, if that loss could have been avoided by employing other means such as lifting the arms embargo? Mr. President, one cannot help but feel that if we had pursued and exhausted all other possibilities and alternatives, Congress, the American people, and our troops would not be faced with a situation that has now been forced upon us. But, unfortunately, the proverbial train has left the station. In the final analysis, this is a mission in which success is in no way clear--whose mission is yet to be defined, whose goals are yet uncertain, and whose mission does not have the sustained support of the American people, and with parties who are not fully committed to peace. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Hatch and Heflin to urge passage of the proposed constitutional amendment granting Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. Our flag occupies a truly unique place in the hearts of millions of citizens as a cherished symbol of freedom and democracy. As a national emblem of the world's greatest democracy, the American flag should be treated with respect and care. Our free speech rights do not entitle us to simply consider the flag as personal property, which can be treated any way we see fit including physically desecrating it as a legitimate form of political protest. We debate this issue at a very special and important time in our Nation's history. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Allies' victory in the Second World War. And, 54 years ago last week, Japanese planes launched an attack on Pearl Harbor that would begin American participation in the Second World War. During that conflict, our proud marines climbed to the top of Mount Surabachi in one of the most bloody battles of the war. No less than 6,855 men died to put our American flag on that mountain. The sacrifice of the brave American soldiers who gave their life on behalf of their country can never be forgotten. Their honor and dedication to country, duty, freedom, and justice is enshrined in the symbol of our Nation-- the American flag. The flag is not just a visual symbol to us--it is a symbol whose pattern and colors tell a story that rings true for each and every American. The 50 stars and 13 stripes on the flag are a reminder that our Nation is built on the unity and harmony of 50 States. And the colors of our flag were not chosen randomly: red was selected because it represents courage, bravery, and the willingness of the American people to give their life for their country and its principles of freedom and democracy; white was selected because it represents integrity and purity; and blue because it represents vigilance, perseverance, and justice. Thus, this flag has become a source of inspiration to every American wherever it is displayed. For these reasons and many others, a great majority of Americans believe--as I strongly do--that the American flag should be treated with dignity, respect and care--and nothing less. Unfortunately, not everyone shares this view. In June 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that the Flag Protection Act of 1989, legislation adopted by the Congress in 1989 generally prohibiting physical defilement or desecration of the flag, was unconstitutional. This decision, a 5-4 ruling in U.S. versus Eichman, held that burning the flag as a political protest was constitutionally protected free speech. The Flag Protection Act had originally been adopted by the 101st Congress after the Supreme Court ruled in Texas versus Johnson that existing Federal and State laws prohibiting flag-burning were unconstitutional because they violated the first amendment's provisions regarding free speech. I profoundly disagreed with both rulings the Supreme Court made on this issue. In our modern society, there are still many different forums in our mass media, television, newspapers and radio and the like, through which citizens can freely and fully exercise their legitimate, constitutional right to free speech, even if what they have to say is overwhelmingly unpopular with a majority of Americans citizens. When considering the issue, it is helpful to remember that prior to the Supreme Court's 1989 Texas versus Johnson ruling, 48 States, including my own State of Maine, and the Federal Government, had anti- flag-burning laws on their books for years. Whether our flag is flying over a ball park, a military base, a school or on a flag pole on Main Street, our national standard has always represented the ideals and values that are the foundation this great Nation was built on. And our flag has come not only to represent the glories of our Nation's past, but it has also come to stand as a symbol for hope for our Nation's future. Let me just state that I am extremely committed to defending and protecting our Constitution--from the first amendment in the Bill of Rights to the 27th amendment. I do not believe that this amendment would be a departure from first amendment doctrine. I strongly urge my colleagues to uphold the great symbol of our nationhood by supporting Senator Hatch and the flag amendment. Thank you very much.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Another doctor, Dr. Robinson, an OB-GYN at Johns Hopkins, testified 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. So what we are doing under this legislation if we do not accept the Boxer amendment is saying to doctors, we want you to perform more dangerous, more traumatic procedures for the woman, even if it is against their best medical advice; for example, caesarean sections, that would require four times the risk of death as vaginal delivery. In fact, a woman is 14 times more likely to die from a caesarean section than from the procedure that this legislation seeks to outlaw. Induced labor carries a potentially life-threatening risk and threatens the future fertility of women by potentially causing cervical lacerations and hysterectomies which leave women often unable to have children for the remainder of their lives. As one professor said 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. That is what we are doing here. He said that the Government does not have a legitimate interest in trying to discourage that. I hope that we will not throw women's lives and women's health into limbo by rejecting this legislation. I hope that they support the Boxer amendment.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator for yielding. Mr. President, Members of the Senate, I rise in support of the amendment that has been offered by my colleague from California, Senator Boxer. I think there is no question in light of the testimony that was presented to the Judiciary Committee during a hearing on this legislation, when many of us advocated that this legislation go to committee so that we would have a chance to hear first hand from those women who would be affected by this kind of legislation, that without a doubt this amendment becomes even more important, more crucial, more vital to women's health. Twenty-two years ago the Supreme Court handed down the Roe versus Wade decision. It said that the woman's interest and decisions in reproductive matters should remain paramount. It also said the States could ban abortion in the last trimester. But they also had to include exceptions for when the life and health of the mother is in danger--let me repeat--as long as they allowed exceptions for cases in which a woman's life and health is endangered. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that decision time and time again. Forty-one States ban abortion in the last trimester, but they provide exceptions for the life and health of the mother, as is constitutionally required by the Roe versus Wade decision. That is what the Boxer amendment does. It upholds that decision providing for the life and health of the mother. The Supreme Court recognized, in its wisdom, that there would be certain limiting, exceptional, tragic circumstances that may require an abortion in the final trimester. That is a decision that has to be made between the doctor and his patient. Without such an exception, without providing for life and health exceptions, innocent women are harmed. I have been somewhat amazed by some of the discussion that has taken place here on the floor. These are not casual decisions. These are not decisions that are made lightly. This procedure is not performed for sex selection. These are tragic and compelling circumstances under which a woman has to make this decision. That was verified and reinforced by the testimony presented by so many women before the Judiciary Committee recently. It was compelling testimony. These are heart-wrenching decisions and very difficult ones. These are procedures that are rarely performed, seldom performed. But there are times in which they have to be performed to save the life of the mother or to prevent drastic consequences to her health. Those are the facts. There have been 450 such procedures performed annually. They are so rare that they amount to 0.04 percent in the last trimester. Now we are talking about criminalizing a procedure that can save the life and the health of the mother. Now we are saying that political judgment will override medical judgment. I cannot imagine that any doctor, under the language in this legislation, if this amendment is not accepted, would be willing to take an action that is the safest and the most appropriate course, given the criminal prosecution involved in this legislation, unless we [[Page S 18188]] accept the Boxer amendment that provides for the exception in cases of life and health. One doctor was quoted in the New York Times recently. He said, ``I don't want to make medical decisions based on congressional language. I don't want to be that vulnerable. It's not what I want for my patients.''

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. We further understand that the authorities available under section 13(b) apply to the surface water treatment rule, as they do to other national primary drinking water regulations, and that section 13(b) would therefore allow a State to provide an exemption to a system serving an economically disadvantaged community in the predicament that we just described, provided the system meets the terms and conditions set forth in the section. We would like to ask the chairman of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, and the chief sponsor of S. 1316, Senator Kempthorne, if our understanding of this provision is correct.

Ms. SNOWE. We thank the Senators for clarifying this important matter.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, Senator Cohen and I would like to engage the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Idaho in a colloquy.

Ms. SNOWE. As the Senators from Rhode Island and Idaho are aware, a number of very small, economically disadvantaged communities across the country are having serious difficulties trying to comply with the surface water treatment rule. Compliance with this rule can be very expensive, sometimes requiring a disadvantaged community with less than 500 residents to build a filtration plant costing over $1 million. Unfortunately, many of these communities cannot afford to construct these expensive facilities without substantial Federal assistance, and that assistance has not been adequate to meet the demand. This predicament [[Page S 17748]] has caused a lot of frustration in certain small towns, particularly since the quality of their local water sources, which are often located in isolated rural areas, can be quite high and is not vulnerable to imminent degradation.