Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Interstate Commerce Commission Sunset Act, and I would like to thank the chairman, the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler], for his interest in, and assistance, in putting language in the bill that addresses the serious problem of trucker fatigue. The bill would place the Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] on a time line for publishing regulations related to trucker fatigue. The purpose of [[Page S 17600]] this language is to move the decisionmaking process forward. What this language in section 216 will do is require FHWA to issue an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking [ANPR] dealing with fatigue- related issues such as 8 hours of continuous sleep after 10 hours of driving, loading and unloading operations, and rest and recovery cycles no later than March 1, 1996. This would be followed by a notice of proposed rulemaking [NPR] within 1 year and a final rulemaking within 2 years. It is estimated, Mr. President, that truck driver fatigue may be a contributing factor in as many as 30 to 40 percent of all heavy truck accidents. FHWA has been looking at the issue of trucker fatigue since the 1970's. I believe it is time we moved from studying the issue to making decisions about what is to be done to reduce the number of accidents related to fatigue. I know that regulations alone will not stop these tragic accidents, we need increased education, we need increased awareness and better enforcement as well. But we can set an example and start making changes in laws and regulations--some of them adopted 60 years ago--to improve safety on our highways. The Office of Motor Carrier Safety currently has six studies underway on tired truckers. Three of them will be completed this year: Fitness for Duty Testing, Multiple Trailer Combination Vehicle Driver Fatigue, and Stress and Rest Areas, and one, Driver Fatigue and Alertness Study will be completed next spring. And I would like to thank the chairman again for arranging a series of staff briefings on these studies, at my request. I believe it is important that this committee stay abreast of the work being done in this area so that we may better formulate legislative responses, where necessary. In addition, the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] released a study in January, 1995 on trucker fatigue that called on FHWA to complete rulemaking within 2 years on issues related to trucker fatigue, so the bill's language is in keeping with NTSB's recommendation. By establishing a time line for FHWA, we are requiring that the decisionmaking process begin on this important issue. There is a lot more to be done in this area, but the beginning of the rulemaking process is a big step in the right direction.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today on an issue that is related to this shutdown, and that is the issue of pay. I want to express my very deep disappointment that we have not been able to bring up the legislation which I proposed that would treat the pay for Members of Congress and the President in the same manner the pay is being treated for Federal employees who are currently working and who will find their paycheck is suspended during this period of a shutdown. I worked on this legislation in conjunction with the Senate majority leader, who supports it, and with Senator Boxer, who proposed similar legislation for future shutdowns. I wanted to be sure that this issue also applied to this current shutdown, so my legislation would make it retroactive. I have 24 Members of the Senate who support this legislation, who have cosponsored it. Besides myself, the Senate majority leader, Senator Boxer, Senators Thomas, Warner, Kempthorne, Grassley, McCain, Cohen, Abraham, Chafee, Jeffords, Pressler, Nickles, Simpson, Specter, Hutchison, Domenici, DeWine, Kassebaum, Brown, Craig, Coats, and Harkin. Here we stand today. We have had a session yesterday and we had a session today and we will have sessions tomorrow, hopefully, to resolve this shutdown. In the meantime, there is a tremendous disparity between Federal employees who are working, like our staffs, and other Federal employees, and those, of course, who are furloughed, and Members of Congress and the President. You might ask, what is the disparity? The fact is, Members of Congress will not face any disruption in their pay, yet those Federal employees who are working are going to face a disruption. Their pay will lapse during this period of time. You might ask, why such a discrepancy? That is a very good question. That is why I proposed this legislation. Unfortunately, we cannot reach a consensus among all Senators about bringing this legislation up for immediate consideration. I find it somewhat ironic, because at the beginning of this Congress, setting off in a new direction and a new course, the very first bill that this Senate and this House considered was the Congressional Accountability Act. That would require that the laws that apply to the rest of society would also apply to the U.S. Congress. I cannot think of a greater example than right here, where we could put our money where our mouth is. Yet, unfortunately, we are back to the same old procedures and business as usual. We are still preserving the status quo when it comes to how Members of Congress are treated, and the President, vis-a-vis the rest of society. In this case, it happens to be Federal employees. I would think every Senator would support this legislation. After all, hundreds of thousands of Federal employees and their families are going to face serious economic disruption, hardships, inconveniences. Yet Members of Congress will not. I do not see the equity in such an example. I do not see the fairness. I do not see the responsibility. Because each of us, individually and collectively, has a responsibility to this institution and to preserving the integrity of this institution. The very thing we should be preserving is the public's confidence in the way we do business. Obviously, it has [[Page S 17472]] suffered during this current shutdown. But, at the very least, we can say yes, we are going to face similar problems, similar inconveniences as to those Federal employees who will find their paycheck has lapsed. Unfortunately, we are not going to find that unless this legislation is brought up for immediate consideration and ultimately passed. Unfortunately, as I said, we have objections from others who do not support this approach. I find that remarkable, given the conversations I have had with Federal employees and even my own staff, in what they are going to be facing because they will not have the assurance of a steady paycheck. There are many people who have to live paycheck to paycheck. I think at the very least we ought to be setting an example, and not setting ourselves apart as somehow isolated from the problems that are associated with this current Government shutdown. As the Senator from Arizona was just saying, Senator McCain, what about the businesses--the many businesses, the hotels and the restaurants that are associated, that depend on Federal employees working, whether it is here or the Grand Canyon? They will never recover their losses. So what we are saying here is at least we ought to be experiencing some problems as a result of this shutdown, the same problems that others are experiencing, and certainly with respect to Federal employees. Tomorrow is another payday period. Again, there is a difference between how Members of the Congress and the President are being treated versus Federal employees. The difference will be that those Federal employees who are working currently will see a reduction in their pay, but Members of Congress and the President will not. I hope, Mr. President, that we will find on our calendar this legislation because I think it is important to provide confidence in this institution, and the direction this country is taking, but also to restore the public's trust in its elected officials. And I hope that we will try to set an example by sharing in the same undue burdens that are being placed on Federal employees and their families. Those same burdens should be placed on Members of Congress and the President. So I hope that every Member of this body will consent to providing for the consideration of this legislation on the calendar tomorrow. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Stevens manager's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, along with the Chafee amendment and the underlying bill, S. 1004. S. 1004 renews the authorization for the U.S. Coast Guard--an agency of special importance to a State like Maine which has over 3,000 miles of coastline and many commercial and sport fishermen, sailing enthusiasts, and merchant mariners. The Commerce Committee has reported a good, bipartisan bill, and I believe that it deserves unanimous approval in the Senate. Among the provisions contained in this bill and in the manager's amendment are several that I had the pleasure to author or coauthor with other Senators, and that I wanted to mention here on the floor. One of the longest lasting legacies of this bill will be the preservation of 35 lighthouses on the coast of Maine. I introduced this provision as a stand-alone bill earlier in the year, S. 685, and I am very pleased that we were able to include it in the Commerce Committee's version of S. 1004. [[Page S 17394]] This provision will create the Maine lights program to transfer these historically and environmentally important lighthouses to new owners who will agree to maintain them, preserve their historic character, preserve ecological resources on adjacent property like seabird nesting habitat, and provide access to the public. In short, this legislation provides a way to protect these lighthouses well into the future at no cost to the Federal Government. Long after this bill passes, Mr. President, when our grandchildren or their children visit the Maine coast and admire the lighthouses, they will have this Congress to thank for its vision and its commitment to preserving such a valuable piece of the Nation's coastal heritage. Lighthouses no longer play the crucial role in ensuring maritime safety that they once did, and, in fact, the original designers of the lighthouses could never have imagined the impressive array of technological resources that today's Coast Guard brings to the critical job of protecting the maritime public. But despite the new hardware and technology, the heart of the Coast Guard's mission is still the human emergency response, the rescues at sea. It is critical that the Coast Guard maintain this capability to respond promptly and professionally to all accidents in American waters, even while we are engaged in the necessary process to balance the budget and protect the fiscal health of the Nation. Senator Kerry and I authored an amendment in the Commerce Committee that will prevent the Coast Guard from closing any of its boat stations unless the Secretary first certifies that the closure will not result in a degradation of services that threatens life, property, the environment, or public safety. Language that I included in this amendment provides, in particular, that a proposed station closure will not hamper the Coast Guard's ability to meet its 2-hour standard for responding to search-and-rescue requests. Both of these provisions have been included in S. 1004, and they enjoy broad bipartisan support. Mr. President, while S. 1004 is a good bill and deserves this body's support, the manager's amendment offered by Senator Stevens makes a number of constructive changes to S. 1004 that will improve it further. Among these is a provision that I sponsored to facilitate a timely and effective response in the event of an oil spill in Passamaquoddy Bay on Maine's border with Canada. Passamaquoddy Bay is a large, virtually pristine bay and estuary system that is internationally recognized as a staging area for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. In addition, the bay area has substantial economic value, hosting major aquaculture and commercial fishing operations, a vibrant tourism industry that depends on the health of the bay, and one of Maine's three major cargo ports. Unfortunately, this important resource would be relatively unprotected in the event of a major oil spill. The State of Maine does not have an adequate number and type of oil spill response vessels in the vicinity of Passamaquoddy Bay. There are some Canadian-registered vessels north of the bay that could do the job, but current Federal law prevents these vessels from operating in U.S. waters. To address this problem, I drafted a provision that has been included in the manager's amendment which will allow Canadian-registered vessels to be used in U.S. waters near the Maine-Canada border in the event of an oil spill. The authority only applies on a temporary and emergency basis, however, and it only applies as long as U.S.-documented response-and-recovery vessels are not available to respond in a timely manner. This provision will help to ensure that Passamaquoddy Bay receives the maximum amount of protection from an oil spill, while giving U.S. recovery vessels priority consideration for doing the work if they are available. Finally, I wanted to reference Senator Chafee's amendment on financial responsibility under the Oil Pollution Act. I offered an amendment in the Commerce Committee that addressed the aspect of this issue dealing with marinas and onshore fuel terminals. Under some current interpretations of OPA, these facilities could have been subjected to the act's extremely expensive financial responsibility requirements, even though the act was intended to cover offshore drilling platforms and other large production facilities that could be involved in large oil spills. Mr. President, the language in the Chafee amendment reflects a compromise that Senators on the Commerce and EPW Committees were able to reach on this issue. Among other things, it simply clarifies that marinas and onshore fuel terminals are not subject to OPA's financial responsibility requirements. This legislation will benefit many small businesses, boaters, commercial fishermen, oil distributors, and fuel consumers across the country without jeopardizing important environmental protections. These amendments will strengthen an already good bill, and I hope that my colleagues will support them, and support S. 1004 on final passage.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to add a few comments to the issue that the Senator from California raised with respect to legislation that would require that Members of Congress and the President be treated in the same manner as those Federal employees whose pay will be suspended during this period of a shutdown. I think we all recognize the hardships this poses to the hundreds of thousands of Federal employees across the country. I think at the same time we are experiencing this shutdown, Members of Congress and the President should have their pay suspended. That is why I have introduced this legislation that complements the legislation introduced by the Senator from California and that is now part of the DC appropriations bill. But until such time as that becomes law, we still have to address this issue with respect to this present shutdown and making it retroactive. I just do not happen to believe that we as Members of Congress and the President should be treated any differently. I regret that we have not been able to bring this legislation up tonight so that we have a chance to put ourselves in the same position as every other Federal employee. That is what this legislation would do. Interestingly enough, it has the support of 21 Members of this Senate, including the Senate majority leader. I worked with the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] on this issue as well. We should be able to bring up this legislation, and we should be able to vote on it so that we move in the direction of being in the same position, sharing the same difficulties, the same economic hardships as those individuals who see their pay suspended during this period of time. Unfortunately, we do not know how long this shutdown will continue. Nevertheless, I do not think that we as Members of Congress want to be viewed differently, putting ourselves into another group as we are going through this shutdown. We should not be immune or isolated from those difficulties that Federal employees are now experiencing. That is true for those employees who work in our offices, and I have 15 such employees who are not working at this moment in time. Why should I not have my pay suspended if their pay is being suspended? I think most of us would agree. So I hope that we will be able to have this opportunity tomorrow to address this issue and to pass this legislation. It is a matter of fairness, and it is a matter of equity. I hope the President signs the continuing resolution that just passed in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. But if that does not happen, we still would go on into a prolonged shutdown, and I do not think that we should be getting our pay, not experiencing any discomfort, while Federal employees who are not able to work and even those who are still not going to be paid at this moment in time. So I urge my colleagues to insist that this legislation be considered tomorrow. I appreciate the support that is being given to this issue by the Senate majority leader. In fact, there were 21 of us who sent a letter to the Senate majority leader asking for this legislation to be considered, and he supports that effort. I hope everybody will do so because this is absolutely essential. I think we are facing enormous difficulties as it is with public confidence in the political process, but I do not think that that confidence should be undermined further by the fact that we are somehow in this separate category, somewhat isolated from the problems that Federal employees are currently facing. [[Page S 17195]] At the beginning of this year, the first piece of legislation that this Congress considered and, indeed, enacted and signed into law by the President was the Congressional Compliance Act that required Congress to abide by the same laws that apply to the rest of this country. I think that this legislation certainly reaffirms that policy and moves us in that direction. It is a matter of fairness. It is a matter of equity. It is right. So with that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak as a cosponsor of the motion made by my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, to commit this bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee for hearings. I rise to speak because I am deeply concerned that we stand here on the floor today to discuss legislation on such a serious issue, without ever having held any hearings on the matter. As a Member of the Senate, I am deeply concerned that hearings have not been held on this legislation which raises significant constitutional questions. But as a woman, I believe that the failure of this body to hold hearings demonstrates an appalling disregard for the lives and health of women across this Nation. There is no question that any abortion is an emotional, wrenching decision for a woman and her family under any circumstance. When a woman must confront this decision during the later stages of a pregnancy because she knows that the pregnancy presents a direct threat to her own life, such a decision becomes a nightmare. Mr. President, 22 years ago, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Roe versus Wade, carefully crafted to be both balanced and responsible while holding the rights of women in America paramount in reproductive decisions. This decision held that women have a constitutional right to abortion, but after viability, States could ban abortions as long as they allowed exceptions for cases in which a woman's life or health is endangered. Let me repeat--as long as they allowed exceptions for cases in which a woman's life or health is endangered. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed this decision time and time and time again. And to date, 41 States--including my home State of Maine--have exercised their right to impose restrictions on post-viability abortions. All, of course, provide exceptions for the life or health of the mother, as constitutionally required by Roe. H.R. 1833, however, does not provide an exception for the life or health of the mother. Let me repeat, it does not provide an exception for the life or health of the mother. And, as a result, it represents a direct, frontal assault on Roe and on the reproductive rights of women everywhere. And despite the apparent unconstitutionality of this legislation, the Senate has not held hearings on the subject. Not in the Judiciary Committee. And not in the Labor and Human Resources Committee. I find the Senate's lack of hearings on this issue deeply disturbing for another reason as well. Not since prior to Roe versus Wade has there been efforts to criminalize a medical procedure in this country. But that's exactly what this bill does. [[Page S 16797]] This legislation is an unprecedented expansion of congressional regulation of women's health care. Never before has Congress intruded directly into the practice of medicine by banning a safe and legal medical procedure that is absolutely vital to protect the health or lives of women. In effect, the Senate is clearly attempting to substitute congressional judgment for that of a medical doctor regarding the appropriateness of a medical procedure. As quoted in the New York Times, one doctor said: ``I don't want to make medical decisions based on congressional language. I do not want to be that vulnerable. And it is not what I want for my patients.'' He is right. This legislation sets new, frightening precedents for congressional action to limit on a wide range of medical procedures. It is open to even wider legal interpretations that may have an even broader impact on women's lives. Because of the vagueness of the bill, doctors across the Nation may interpret the language differently at the expense of the health and life of the mother involved. Now, some of my colleagues may rise to insist that the legislation somehow contains an exception for the life of the mother. However, this is simply untrue, and I urge my colleagues not to be misled by this rhetoric. As it now reads, the legislation only provides doctors with a so- called affirmative defense. I say so-called because there is nothing affirmative about this law for doctors. And there is no genuine defense allowed for them under this legislation because the guilty verdict is rendered the moment they attempt the medical procedure. It means that a doctor cannot avoid criminal prosecution if he or she uses their best medical judgment and decides that it is necessary to perform this procedure to save the life of a patient. Mr. President, it is only after that doctor is on trial that he is finally given an opportunity to prove that the procedure was necessary to save the life of that patient and that no other procedure would have sufficed--an almost impossible burden to prove. But that is exactly the intent of this bill. In other words--in a twisted angle on one of our most cherished judicial tenets--these doctors are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Thus, doctors will refuse to perform this procedure, which they know to be medically safer for their patient, even when the woman's life is threatened. Not only that, but doctors would also be subject to civil lawsuits brought on by the parents of the mother who undergoes the procedure or by the father. This opens up an entire new realm of judicial proceedings and civil lawsuits. Even if a doctor is able to survive the trial phase of affirmative defense, then he or she would be subjected to a further judicial hurdle of civil lawsuits. The possibilities go on and on. But--in the larger context--look at what this legislation does overall, and its intent is perfectly clear: First, intimidate doctors with prison terms. Second, threaten them with horrendous Federal fines in the vicinity of $250,000. Third, harass them with possibility of civil lawsuits--and that should keep anyone from wanting to perform any kind of medical procedure involving women's reproductive health. We're going to do this in a climate where--according to a recent statistic--94 percent of all American counties no longer have or never had a provider of full reproductive services for women. We're going to do this in a climate where doctors already face demonstrations, death threats against them and their family, and even violence. Now, we are telling them they must face the additional concern of criminal prosecution, jail, and costly trials. We are doing this to doctors who are only really trying to save the lives of women in dire circumstances to the best of their medical expertise. In this sense, it is a chilling frontal assault on every women's rights. How chilling? The proponents of this legislation are willing to risk the lives and health of women facing medical emergencies. My opponents will say that a number of other alternatives are available to these women. What alternatives? The only alternatives I know of are far more dangerous and traumatic. Has anyone asked the physicians? Has anyone looked at the medical evidence? This is another reason why we should be holding hearings: Are C-sections, which cause twice as much bleeding and carries four times the risk of death as a vaginal delivery--really an option? Is induced labor, which carries its own potentially life-threatening risks such as cardiac edema--really an option? Are hysterectomies, which leave women permanently unable to conceive--really an option? In the end, this legislation would order doctors to set aside the paramount interests of the woman's health, and to trade-off her health and life and future fertility in order to avoid the possibility of criminal prosecution. Yes, despite these significant risks to a woman's life and health created by this legislation--and despite the historic new precedents that are set--the Senate has never held hearings on this subject. We enter this debate today on H.R. 1833 with profound and critically important questions--legal, moral, and medical--unanswered and unconsidered. Why the rush? Why the hurry? That's why hearings deserve to be held. And that's the course of action that this Chamber must take. No one truly knows the legal ramifications. No one here truly knows the medical statistics or facts. No one has had the time to ask questions and receive answers. No one has anticipated the court challenges that will ensue. Doctors will be threatened. Physicians will be intimidated. The medical profession will wonder where the next assault on health care by the Federal Government will come from or where it will be felt. And what about the women? Who has thought about them? They will be more scared than ever before. Their rights will be more restricted than ever before. Their lives--their lives--will be more threatened than ever before. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to think of the women who are faced with this procedure. I urge my colleagues to consider the effect on doctors. And I urge my colleagues to support the motion to commit this bill to the Judiciary Committee. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for offering this motion. I am pleased to join him as a cosponsor to commit this bill to the Judiciary Committee for where it should be so that we can hold hearings on this legislation. As a Member of the Senate, I think it is absolutely critical that we have a hearing on an issue that raises profound constitutional questions. As a woman, I believe the failure of this body to hold hearings on this legislation represents an appalling disregard for the life and health of the mother. I am concerned that all of a sudden we are saying we do not need to have hearings on this very significant piece of legislation. We have heard that the House has had hearings. The House had debate. The House heard the proponents and the opponents of this legislation. The last time I checked this was the U.S. Senate. We are two distinct bodies, and we are entitled to hold our own hearings, to make our own decisions, to ask our own questions on this very, very important question. To hear the debate, at times I think that people actually believe that women casually and blithely make this decision about having an abortion under any circumstances. It is a difficult decision, but even more so when we are talking about late-term abortions. They are rare. They are exceptional. They are there because a woman's health is in danger. So it makes this decision all the more tragic. And it certainly is a nightmare for the woman. It is not something that she just does casually. I think it is unfortunate that many have made this sort of impression about how women arrive at their decision. Twenty-two years ago the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in the form of Roe versus Wade. It carefully crafted and balanced that decision, and said that a woman's interest in making the decisions about her reproductivity is paramount. But it also said that imposed a liability; that the States had the right to prohibit abortion so long as they allowed an exception for when a woman and her health is in danger. That is an important exception that this legislation does not allow. No matter what the Senator from New Hampshire says, it does not allow it. Oh, sure. Offer it as an affirmative defense. Once the doctor performs this procedure the doctor ends up in court and then he has to prove that. That burden of proof is going to be enormous. So that is what we are talking about. There is no exception for the doctor making that medical decision. So now we are saying in this climate today where the doctors have already been killed on the issue of abortion--with death threats, intimidation, and harassment--they are now saying you are going to face criminal prosecution because you performed a procedure in order to save the life of the mother. That is what we are saying in this legislation. I think they say, ``Well, what are the alternatives to this?''--which is what we should be discussing in the hearings--but what are the alternatives? It is easy for them to say the alternative is a Caesarean section, which interestingly enough has four times the risk of death, or induce labor, or potentially a life-threatening disorder such as cardiac edema, a hysterectomy, which means a woman cannot have any more children. So that is what we are talking about in terms of tradeoff in this legislation--the life and health of the mother in order to avoid criminal and civil prosecution of her doctor. That is how this legislation is structured. I hope that we will give this matter serious regard and hearings because this is an unprecedented intrusion in what should be properly a decision made between the doctor and his or her patient on what is a very, very critical decision for a woman having to make in these rare instances. I emphasize that because these are rare instances. And when the Senator from New Hampshire says, ``Well, these are elective procedures, that 80 percent are elective,'' let us talk about that. There is no medical definition for ``elective.'' It is when someone has to make the decision. For example, if a person had a heart attack and they are in a coma and somebody performed CPR, that is not [[Page S 16781]] elective because they were not involved in the decision. But if a person went to a doctor and the doctor said you have a serious heart condition, if you do not go tomorrow to the hospital and have surgery, you will die, that is elective because that person has made the decision. So I think that there has been a lot of misrepresentation. This is a serious issue. We should have hearings. I cannot understand why anybody would be afraid of the facts. Why are we so afraid of the facts? Why are we so concerned that we cannot in opposition have hearings and hear the facts, and everybody have a chance to speak before the legislative committee? So I urge the Members of this Senate to support the motion made by the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, last week I submitted for the Record my personal statement concerning Reuben Cohen--the father of my friend and colleague from Maine, Senator Bill Cohen--who passed away in Bangor, ME, earlier this month. Today, I would like to submit for the Record several items that appeared in the Bangor Daily News following Ruby's death. The first is an article about Ruby's life that appeared 2 days after his death. The second is an editorial that pays tribute to Ruby's well-known and admired work ethic. And the third is an article about funeral services that were held in Bangor which contains many appropriate statements from family and friends about this remarkable man. I believe these items remember Ruby as he was--someone who brought a lot of life into his community, and a lot of love into his family: The material follows: [From the Bangor Daily News, Oct. 11, 1995] Ruby Cohen Dies in Bangor senator's father ran local bakery for nearly 70 years (By John Ripley) Bangor.--A few years ago, Oklahoma Sen. David Boren needed to talk with Maine Sen. William Cohen, his colleague on the Intelligence Committee who was home in Bangor. So he called Reuben Cohen, the senator's father. ``Well, if you're chairman of the Intelligence Committee,'' Cohen barked into the telephone, ``you should be able to find him yourself.'' And he hung up. The story is vintage Cohen. Cohen--baker, husband, father of three children--died late Monday. He was 86. Reuben ``Ruby'' Cohen is survived by his wife of 58 years, Clara; two sons, William and Robert; a daughter, Marlene Beckwith; and seven grandchildren. Those who knew Ruby Cohen agree that he died the way he would have wanted: He was found at 9:45 p.m. by a worker at his store, The Bangor Rye Bread Co., where he had been making the next day's batch of rolls and bagels. To many, Cohen is known best as the father of Bill, now the state's senior U.S. senator. But as proud as he was of his eldest son and all of his children, Cohen enjoyed a reputation of his own as a man of ornery independence, who wasn't above a little mischief every now and then. In 1974, when the U.S. House of Representatives was deciding whether to impeach President Nixon for his Watergate shenanigans, the press followed then-Rep. William Cohen to Maine, dogging him about how he would vote. The young congressman shrugged off the questions with ``no comment.'' Then, from the rear of the pack, came a gravelly voice. ``Billy says he's guilty as hell!'' It was Ruby Cohen. He was a throwback to the days of smoky pool halls, Saturday night fights and dollar haircuts, when Bangor was a cauldron of ethnic neighborhoods and when friends were friends for life. Like many men of his generation, Cohen was held in awe by those who watched him work 18 hours a day, six days a week, for nearly 70 years. Hunched over and with hands like shoe leather at the end of his beefy baker's forearms, Cohen would start his day as everyone else's was ending. Work would begin around 8:30 p.m., when he would prepare the dough for the bulkie rolls, rye bread, French bread, Italian sandwich rolls, and bagels. Surrounded by 100-pound sacks of flour, sugar and corn meal, he would work quietly through the night, guided by recipes long ago committed to memory. Early the next morning, he would pile overflowing paper grocery bags into the back of his battered station wagon and head out on his rounds. He would shuffle into a client's store or restaurant, drop off his goods, occasionally sit down for a quick cup of piping-hot coffee, and then be on his way. ``I guess you could say he worked to live and lived to work,'' Sen. Cohen said Tuesday after flying home from Washington, D.C. ``He wanted to work until he died, and he did.'' With little prodding, Cohen could be lured into conversation, treating everyone to his unhesitating opinions on everything from the big bang theory to Celtics basketball to Workers' Compensation. Despite the ravages of age and occasional illness, Cohen could never be kept from his work. In April 1979, a train derailed near Cohen's shop on Hancock Street, leading police to block off the neighborhood. Cohen somehow was able to sneak in, grab some rolls, and head out as always. When his son was sworn into the U.S. Senate, Cohen grudgingly flew down to Washington, watched the ceremony, then returned to work. ``That's the only time he ever went down,'' Sen. Cohen said. Even on Tuesday, as family and friends grieved Cohen's passing, the rolls and breads were delivered. ``When you think of Bangor, you think of the standpipe, the Paul Bunyan statue, and Ruby Cohen,'' said U.S. Rep. John Baldaccis, a lifelong friend. The Baldaccis, as with a handful of other families in town, go back more than half a century with the Cohens. Grandfathers knew grandfathers, fathers knew fathers, some know sons. A lover of jazz, Cohen was known in his younger years as a sharp dresser who would dance the night away at the old Chateau ballroom, now the site of a renovation project across from City Hall. Though not a large man, he could be fearless--he once decked a man who later became a bodyguard for a California mobster. It was at a dance hall that he met Clara, then a 16-year- old Irish girl. They courted, and then married in 1937--not a small thing for a Jewish man in those days. ``I guess he wasn't too much concerned about what anyone thought about it,'' Sen. Cohen said. To Cohen, life was about devotion to work, family and friends. For years, he and Clara would eat dinner at different restaurants with Abe and Frieda Miller, his childhood friends. Like his own son, Bobby, Ruby followed in his father's flour-dusted footsteps. Born Jan. 8, 1909, in New York City, Ruby was essentially raised in Bangor, where his father, who emigrated from Russia, owned a bakery. As with Bangor Rye Bread, the New York Model Bakery was a family affair, where everyone chipped in to bake bread in an old, coal-fired oven. ``It's a family of hard workers,'' Frieda Miller said. Cohen expected the same of his own children. Bobby still works at the store, Marlene is married to another baker, and Bill is known to lend a hand when he's in town from Washington. ``Billy works here once in a while . . . when he's campaigning,'' Ruby once joked. Sen. Cohen often tells of scoring 43 points in a high school basketball game at Bangor Auditorium. Expecting praise from his father, Ruby instead replied, ``If you hadn't missed those two foul shots, you'd've had 45!'' Over the years, the Cohen bakeries could be found on Essex Street and then on Hancock, not far from the current location. Through it all--the Depression, World War II, urban renewal, generations come and gone--Cohen was a fixture in the Queen City. ``I was bred on his bread,'' Bangor restaurateur Sonny Miller said Tuesday. ``Ruby was just one of a kind--just a real fine gentleman.'' At his father's 80th birthday party in 1989, Sen. Cohen arranged for video messages from President Reagan and President-elect George Bush, among other dignitaries. As much as he appreciated the attention, Cohen was a man who thought as little of pretension and ego as he did of frozen bagels. ``If you come out to Los Angeles and see the Dodgers,'' manager Tommy Lasorda said in a telephone call that day, ``I'd like to meet you.'' ``I hope you can,'' Cohen replied. If Cohen's work ethic and wit were the stuff of reputation, his driving habits were legend. ``There's an old Bangor saying that you don't know Ruby Cohen until he hits your car,'' U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe once joked. Cohen himself once told of being stopped by a Bangor police officer, who didn't know that the baker's old Ford station wagon could be found traveling the city streets at all hours of night and day. Suspecting that Cohen might have been drinking, the cop asked the octogenarian to recite the alphabet. Cohen did-- backward. Only in recent months, as his health began to slip, did Cohen relent and allow someone else to drive on the morning rounds. [[Page S 16512]] With their father's passing, Bobby and the others hope to follow tradition and keep the bakery open, Sen. Cohen said. But Bangor, he said, has tasted the last of Ruby Cohen's rye bread. ``That was something that went with him.''

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, first of all I would like to correct a few of the statements that were made by the previous speaker, the Senator from Texas. He said that this position that is embraced in the amendment of Senator Leahy and Senator Kassebaum has been rejected by the Congress in the past. That is not true. Back in 1989 both the House and the Senate, in fact, rejected the Mexico City policy. In addition, he said this amendment before us today embraces coercive abortion. Nothing could be further from the truth. No one here supports coercive abortions. It is morally wrong, and, furthermore, it is illegal. The fact is, our policy does not support abortions in terms of international family planning assistance. Unfortunately, this issue has been misrepresented so many times in the past. We have to get beyond those misrepresentations with respect to this issue. The United States does not support, through its international family planning assistance, abortion. Those funds cannot even be commingled with an organization that may use its funds for abortion. The fact of the matter is, under the Mexico City policy, our funds could still go to a government that uses its own funds for abortion or abortion- related activities. Yet, on the other hand, we deny those organizations who are the most instrumental and the most effective in providing international family planning assistance, family planning money, if in fact they use their own private funds for abortion-related activities. This amendment would overturn the Mexico City policy. That is what the Senate voted on, and, I might add, by a vote of 57 to 43--57 to 43. Unfortunately, the House has chosen not to compromise at all on this issue. But I would urge the Senate to stay firm and committed to the position that we have taken--that not only do we reject the Mexico City policy, but that, yes, we continue to provide funds to UNFPA which we are also on record in support of. I think it is unfortunate that we have so many different issues entangled. The issue is whether or not you support family planning. If you are against abortion, the most reasonable approach to take is to support international family planning programs. The United States has been the forerunner. We were a leader in international family planning assistance. We cofounded UNFPA. We sit on their governing board. Now we are saying, well, we are sorry. We will somehow untangle all of this family planning money under the notion of abortion when, in fact, our money does not go for that purpose. If we are truly serious about supporting family planning programs that are effective, then we have to provide the necessary funding. That is what this is all about. We are asking that we put into permanent law a nondiscriminatory policy on the funding of private organizations, that we treat them the same as we do foreign governments. It is a matter of simple fairness, and it should be preserved. What we are talking about here today are the programs that are so essential that will make a difference in the developing countries. These include voluntary family planning services, contraceptive research, maternal health programs, and child survival programs. That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about abortion. The fact is that this Congress back in 1973 passed the Helms amendment that prohibits the use of any U.S. funds for abortion-related activities. That is the law. That will continue to be the law. What we are supporting is assistance through international family planning programs, and to those private organizations that have been the most effective around the world. So it is a matter of whether or not we want to assist those countries that have a truly difficult problem in controlling population growth, if we deny assistance as American assistance to these programs, such as the International Planned Parenthood Program that provides more than assistance to more than 160 countries. When the Mexico City policy that took effect that Senator Kassebaum referred to back in 1984, 50 of those affiliates around the world were denied assistance. This has impaired our ability to support the most capable family planning programs in countries such India, which has more births each year than do Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Brazil, and Mexico combined. I think it is a sad irony that by the time the Mexico City Conference 10 years ago embraced this policy that denial of additional American assistance to family planning programs came at a time when most developing countries had come to understand the importance of voluntary family planning programs to their own countries' development. It is interesting because it took that long for us to convince other countries what they needed to do, and the validity of those programs and the impact it would have in containing the growth in those countries. Now we are attempting to resume our leadership role, and some are asking us to turn our backs. If we believe in voluntarism and family planning--and we do--and, if we believe that abortion should be avoided as a method of family planning--and we do--then we should maintain our leadership. We have unrivaled influence in setting standards for family planning programs. A great number of other donors and recipient countries adopted our own model in their own program. And I would hope that we would reject the arguments in that tradition in the position taken by the House of Representatives with respect to this issue because it is taking us a step backward. We talk about UNFPA being a leader, an organization that has been [[Page S 16487]] a leader in international family planning programs, and, in fact, provides a third of all of the assistance in delivering family planning programs around the world. UNFPA does not support coercive abortions in China. No one does. We put a number of restrictions on our assistance to UNFPA because they still work in China. They are trying to prevent what is happening in China. But we put restrictions in any event so those who say our money is fungible can be transferred to one account to another. The United States did not contribute to UNFPA during the time of the Mexico City policy. We also denied assistance to UNFPA, but in 1993 the U.S. resumed contributions to the UNFPA organizations with four major limitations. One, that no United States funds could go to China; two, United States funds are prohibited from funding coercive abortions and involuntary sterilization; that United States funds to UNFPA must be held in a separate account from all other UNFPA funds so there is no comingling; and, that UNFPA funding for China could not increase for the 5 years once the United States resumes its contributions to UNFPA. In fact, the UNFPA program in China will end at the end of this year. So we have enormous protection in the event that any money would be transferred indirectly--not indirectly because we have never provided funds in that regard--but even indirectly because of UNFPA's presence in China. So we have put all those protections into law. But now people are saying we should not provide any assistance to UNFPA. That is the leading organization providing and supporting multilateral family planning programs throughout the developing world. I think that is a truly regrettable. We should be doing everything that we can to assist these countries in controlling their population problems because we know the implications that it has for global and economic instability. So I think that we as a country should be a leader in that regard as we have been in the past. I hope we will resume that leadership role. Mr. President, I urge Members of the Senate to adopt the amendment offered by Senator Leahy and Senator Kassebaum. I think that there is no question that these countries need our assistance. They need our help. They need our leadership in international family planning--not only in our country and our own future, but for theirs as well. I yield the floor. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment that has been offered by Senator Leahy and Senator Kassebaum. I ask unanimous consent to be included as cosponsor of that amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont, and I rise in strong support of the amendment. Family dairy farms are facing hard times across the country, and this amendment is designed to assist these farmers while protecting the interests of the taxpayers and consumers. The Jeffords amendment does two things. First, it creates a class IV pool for nonfat dry milk and butter. This pool will help to offset the financial impact on farmers of the reconciliation bill's repeal of the price support program for these two products. The new pool would be GATT-legal, allowing a greater volume of U.S. butter and nonfat dry milk to be exported than would be the case if we do not create the new pool. In short, the class IV pool will help farmers maintain their incomes without increasing Federal expenditures. Mr. President, the second provision of the amendment provides the consent of the Congress to the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. Like the class IV proposal, the compact is designed to help family dairy farmers survive in a very difficult market environment. But unlike the class IV proposal, the compact does not involve the Federal Government. It represents a regional, State-based solution to a regional problem, and the Federal Government need only give its assent and then step out of the way. Today, New England is practically bleeding dairy farms. In Maine, for instance, we have lost more than 200 farms since 1988, and this number would have been far higher if Maine [[Page S 16001]] had not instituted a dairy vendor's fee to help stabilize farm income. Unfortunately, that vendor's fee has been invalidated by a Federal court, and farmers are exceedingly vulnerable once again. The decline in New England's dairy farms can be attributed to low and volatile dairy prices under the Federal marketing order program that do not reflect the costs of production in the region. Because New England farmers sell much of their milk in the fluid milk market, they face substantially higher costs to get their milk to the plant, and they do not have access to subsidized electricity like farmers in some other parts of the country. Consequently, New England's dairy farmers receive some of the lowest mailbox prices of any dairy farmers in the country. In response to this farm crisis, the six New England States negotiated an interstate compact in 1993 that allows them to add, if they choose, an additional increment to the Federal marketing order price in the New England region. These increments would have to be approved by a commission created under the compact which consists of representatives from each of the New England States, and which includes both producer and consumer interests. Mr. President, this compact is a regional solution to a regional problem in the most literal sense. With very few exceptions, it affects only the consumers, farmers, and dairy processors of New England. The compact applies only to fluid, or class I, milk, and 97 percent of the fluid milk consumed in New England is processed by New England-based processors. Approximately 75 percent of the milk processed by these processors comes from New England farmers. The remainder comes from New York, whose farmers would receive the same prices for their milk under the compact as farmers in New England. Although the compact only affects the participating States, the cosponsors of the amendment have included explicit assurances to remove any doubt. These assurances further clarify that the compact only applies to class I fluid milk, that no new States can join 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 New England farmers, and that the compact commission will take active measures to prevent increases in production. Mr. President, the Jeffords amendment is profarmer, protaxpayer, and pro-States' rights. It will help to ensure that good farmers have a reasonable chance to stay in business, but at less cost to the Federal Government. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

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

Ms. SNOWE. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Kassebaum for yielding. Mr. President, I want to first recognize several of my colleagues who have been instrumental in helping to craft this amendment and reach a compromise on student loan funding. First, the chairwoman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kassebaum, who has been a real leader on this issue. She has had to make difficult choices and tough decisions throughout this process--especially meeting instructions of $10.8 billion in savings for her committee, so I thank her for her work and for offering this amendment. Second, the majority leader and the chair of the Budget Committee, Senator Dole and Senator Domenici--for meeting our concerns and being responsive to our requests all along. Their support was obviously instrumental in crafting this amendment. Finally, one of the main cosponsor of this amendment, Senator Jeffords of Vermont, for his concern, his support, and his compassion for the needs of America's students. Mr. President, let there be no doubt about it, we are setting a course for America for the next 7 years and beyond as we debate the measure before us today. That is a heavy responsibility. But the image of a better America, a stronger America, and a more fiscally secure America is incomplete for the next generations without one critical component: that is, a commitment to education funding and to students. I believe one of our duties in this process is to keep the American Dream alive for our generation as well as the next generation of students--because we all know that educating today's students is also about preparing tomorrow's workers. While I firmly believed that balancing the budget is the greatest legacy we can bequeath to our children and grandchildren, I do not believe it requires the sacrifice of educational opportunities to the children and students today. Let us be clear about this: our two objectives--balancing the budget and providing quality educational opportunities--are not mutually exclusive entities. I believe we can identify and set budget priorities within the framework of a balanced budget. I believe it is possible to be fiscally responsible and also be visionary about our education needs into the next century for the next generation. That is basically what this amendment accomplishes. It is prudent. It is responsible. It's fair. And it maintains our commitment to excellence in education. The amendment we are offering today would restore $5.9 billion in student loan funding that is sorely needed by America's youth to continue their education. Basically, we are removing the most onerous and punitive provisions on students that are currently contained in this package. Those provisions we are targeting for removal include the following: the imposition of a 0.85 percent fee on the student loan volume of institutions of higher learning; the provision increasing the interest rate on parent PLUS loans from T-bill plus 3.1 percent, to T-bill 4.0 percent; and--most importantly--the provision charging interest on student loans during the so-called 6-month grace period. I believe we must support this amendment because student loans level the education playing field for so many in this country. In the world of education, student loans are the great ``enabler''. They afford everyone the equal opportunity to profit from a college education. I should know, I owe my education and much of my career in public service to the student loan program, which sustained me at the University of Maine. Now, it is important to add that the Senate has already gone on record and has made a strong statement in support of increased student loan funding. Back in May, when the Budget Committee reported out a resolution that included a cut of more than $13 billion in student loan funding over 7 years--and when the House reported out a version that included a cut of over $18 billion, I joined several of my colleagues in taking action-- because student loan funding programs would clearly result in leaving some needy students locked out of our Nation's colleges and universities, and therefore locked out of America's work force and a successful career. And, with bipartisan support from both sides of the aisle, my colleague from Illinois, Senator Simon, and I authorized and passed an amendment that restored $9.4 billion for student loans. No other amendment, except one, received as much bipartisan support during the consideration of the Senate budget resolution. We should reaffirm that same level of commitment again today, and with this amendment, we now have an opportunity to do so. If we pass this amendment, the Senate's strong support for this level of funding will be a strong instruction to the Senate conferees to maintain this level of funding during the upcoming House-Senate Reconciliation conference. Now, I know that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have wanted more, especially when it come to direct lending. Obviously, there is a difference of opinion on direct lending. While the amendment we are offering restores critical funding for loans, it maintains the bills current cap on direct lending at 20 percent. I could support raising this cap to 30 percent, which would cover the 1,300 education institutions currently involved in the direct lending program. However, the sole purpose of this amendment is to restore funding for student loan programs. other opportunities may arise on the floor today or tomorrow to increase the cap on direct lending. I have worked with many of my colleagues across the aisle, and I know that--in the final analysis--we share the same goals on funding for student education. That is the most important--the most critical-issue here. Why is this amendment important to our students and to our future as a nation? What is the value of student loans? it is unmistakable. Student loans have a tremendous impact on our nation's economy . . . on personal incomes . . . on careers . . . and especially on providing education to needy citizens. Student loans have given millions of young Americans a fighting chance at reaching their own American Dream: in 1993, it gave 5.6 million Americans that chance, and that was almost double the number of loans made 10 years earlier, when it was 3 million, in fact, statistics show that almost half of all college students receive some kind of financial aid--many through student loans. They have become especially important considering that the cost of college education and post-secondary education has become a very, very expensive proposition for students, as well as their families. For example, a College Board survey says that 1995-1996 is the third straight year that tuition costs have risen by 6 percent. Since this rise outpaces income growth in America, there's heavy borrowing for a college education--up an average of 17 percent yearly since 1990. Each year, college costs rise 6.6 percent for private college while we have recorded a rise in disposable personal income of only 4.4 percent. That 2 percent disparity is what is making student loans a pipe dream for our college-bound students. In fact, since 1988, college costs have risen by 54 percent--well ahead of a 16 percent increase in the cost of living. And, more tellingly, student borrowing has increased by 219 percent since that time. Without student aid, increasing costs make higher education out of reach for millions of Americans. We should not have to bankrupt the families of students in order to allow them to send their children to receive a solid college education. You see, when we allow students to get the loans they need to complete their college education, we are making a sizable, long-term investment in not only personal incomes, but our economy as well. Men and women who continue their education beyond high school, as we have seen in study after study, have consistently earned more money on average each year than those who do not. In 1990, for example, the average income for high school graduates was almost $18,000. For those who had 1 to 3 years of a college education, earned on the average $24,000. Those who graduated from college and received a college diploma received on average salary of $31,000. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, a person with a bachelor's degree will average 50 to 55 percent more in lifetime earnings than a person with a high school diploma. The entire country benefits, as well from student loans. For every $1 we invest in education we get enormous returns as a result. Back in 1990, another study was conducted that analyzed the school assistance that was provided to high school students back in 1972. For every $1 that the Federal Government invested in the student loan programs at that time, the Government received $4.3 in return in tax revenues. According to a study by the Brookings Institute, over the last 60 years, education and advancements in knowledge have accounted for 37 percent of America's economic growth. At a time in which education is becoming paramount in this global arena, where it is going to make the difference for an individual and the kind of living that can be enjoying for themselves and their families, education puts them on the cutting edge. Most of all, it puts America on the threshold of competition for the future. If we deny individuals the opportunity to receive an education because they lack the financial assistance or the access to financial assistance, clearly, we--as a nation, a superpower, and the world's greatest democracy--are going to suffer. Today, let's make sure that we retain policies that will make higher education accessible to millions of low--and middle-income families. Today, let us make a significant contribution to students pursuing a higher education. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, I am very pleased to have joined Senator Kassebaum and Senator Jeffords offering this amendment that essentially restores $5.9 billion to the student loan program. This essentially reaffirms the position that has been taken by 67 Members of this body when we had a vote on this issue last spring to the budget resolution. This amendment removes the provision that increases the origination fee on student loans. It removes the provision that allows interest rates to accrue during the so-called 6-month grace period, and it also eliminates the provision that allowed interest rates to increase on the PLUS loans from 3.1 percent to 4 percent. I think we all acknowledge that college costs have increased in this country. In fact, since 1988, they have increased more than 54 percent--16 percent beyond the growth of income for most families in America. That has resulted in increased borrowing of 219 percent for individuals and families all across this Nation so that their family and their children can pursue higher education. I think it essential for this country to retain the policies that ensure access for low- and middle-income families through these policies. I also ask unanimous consent to include as cosponsors of this amendment Senators Roth, Domenici, Pressler, Stevens, and Specter.

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

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair. First of all, I would like to say that this amendment is cosponsored by Senators D'Amato, Shelby, Biden, Mack, Murkowski, Hutchison, Gramm, Cohen, and Jeffords. This amendment is a sense of the Senate that would provide coverage under Medicare for breast and prostate cancer. When changes were made in Medicare back in 1993, there was an inadvertent omission whereby oral drug treatment was not covered under Medicare for breast and prostate cancer. It is a cost-saving measure. Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays and ask for a voice vote.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include Senator Jeffords as a cosponsor of this amendment, and I will yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include Senator Cohen, of Maine, as a cosponsor.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair. I am offering this amendment in conjunction with Senators D'Amato, Shelby, Biden, Mack, Hutchison, and Gramm that expresses the sense-of- the-Senate that the budget reconciliation conferees should amend Medicare to provide coverage for certain oral cancer drugs that are of enormous benefit to breast and prostate cancer victims. Currently, Medicare discriminates among breast and prostate cancer victims by providing certain drug treatment coverage for some but not all such cancers. Back in 1993, when Congress expanded Medicare to help pay for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, gaps in coverage were inadvertently created which denied coverage for certain oral cancer drugs. This is because in 1993, the Medicare OBRA provisions allowed the coverage of oral cancer drugs that were previously available in injectable or intravenous form. However, half of all women with breast cancer, that is, 50 percent, and thousands of men with prostate cancer which has spread beyond the prostate, need hormonal therapy that is administered through oral cancer drugs that have never been available in injectable or intravenous form. Let us consider the potential benefit of covering these oral estrogen-based cancer drugs for elderly populations. Breast cancer and prostate cancers are very similar. First, both diseases strike approximately 200,000 Americans per year. Second, both diseases take over 40,000 lives each year. While breast cancer affects 1 in 9 women, prostate cancer affects 1 in 11 men every year, and for both diseases the number of reported cases is rising rapidly. In fact, the number of reported cases of prostate cancer is increasing to an alarming degree, an expected 90 percent increase between 1983 and the year 2000. Finally, these diseases are prevalent among women and men whose age makes them eligible for Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office's preliminary analysis revealed the coverage of the breast cancer portion of this amendment at a savings of $156 million over 7 years. So I am asking, Mr. President, that we support this resolution because I think it is the next logical step in fighting both breast cancer and prostate cancer. It does not make sense that we do not provide coverage for the next generation of drug treatment for both prostate and breast cancer treatment. It will save money in the long run under Medicare, and it certainly will make it easier to be administered to those patients, especially those who live in rural areas because it is an oral type of drug rather than having to be administered in outpatient or in inpatient facilities. In 1991, Congress made a significant investment under the Medicare provisions for breast cancer screening. It only makes sense then to provide this kind of extensive coverage with the new kinds of drugs that are coming on the market that will be reimbursed under the Medicare system. By denying coverage for treatment to half the population of breast cancer patients, we are not taking full advantage of the investment that Congress has already made. In 1994 alone, Medicare will have spent an estimated $640 million on breast cancer treatment. Yet, here we find that Medicare will not cover some of the treatments that could be provided for women because they do not reimburse an oral form of drug. In this case, for example, it is tamoxifen. Tamoxifen is a new drug on the market for the treatment of breast cancers at certain stages and yet because it was not available in intravenous or injectable form it cannot be reimbursed under the Medicare system because it is an oral drug. I do not think it makes sense. It certainly does not make sense for the future. It does not make sense for the lives and the health of the individuals who are victims of breast or prostate cancer. So I would urge that the Senate go on record in preventing the recurrence of breast and prostate cancer by advocating that Medicare reimburse for such coverage. Mr. President, I would ask for the yeas and nays, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I support this legislation, and would like to congratulate the distinguished majority Leader for his consistent leadership on this very important issue. This bill states the simple fact that Jerusalem is Israel's national capital. It puts in place a series of careful, measured steps to eventually locate our Embassy in Israel's capital city, but in any case no later than May 31, 1999. I am a cosponsor of both S. 770, the original Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act, as well as the slightly modified bill that we are considering today, S. 1322. S. 770 was introduced on May 9 by the gentleman from Kansas, Senator Dole, and I am proud to have joined with 62 of my colleagues as a cosponsor of both S. 770 and S. 1322. I was also pleased to join 92 of my colleagues in our March 20 letter to Secretary of State Christopher calling for the relocation of our Embassy to Jerusalem no later than May 1999, the time when both the Israelis and Palestinians have agreed that the final status of Jerusalem would be settled. Some may argue that now is not the time for us to establish a firm policy on the eventual location of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. The irony, of course, is that it appears that for 47 straight years the State Department has never yet found precisely the right moment to take this commonsense action. All we are saying in this legislation is that we are giving State 4 years in which they certainly can find an appropriate time. As a cosponsor of the original House Lantos bill to take this action over a decade ago, I have consistently supported this position throughout my congressional career. Only in the sometimes fantastic politics of the Middle East could this issue even be considered remarkable. It is a simple fact that Jerusalem--or at least some part of Jerusalem--has been Israel's capital city ever since Israel's 1948 war for independence. Observing this fact is no different than observing that the sun rises in the east. And trying to deny the act does not make it any less true. This takes us to a potentially troubling aspect of the State Department's consistent refusal to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. This policy originated from the days of the U.N. partition plan ending Britain's colonial mandate over the region. That plan envisioned the establishment of Jerusalem as an international city not under the sovereignty of any nation. The U.N. partition plan of 1947, however, was never implemented due to its total rejection by the Arab countries because it would have split the British protectorate into a Jewish and Arab state. Thus, the State Department continues to cling to a formal position refusing to acknowledge Israel's sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem. The only, and I repeat only possible justification for such a position would be if the State Department believed that Israeli sovereignty over even west Jerusalem was illegitimate, and that Israel must cede the entire city to an Arab state or to international control. If our country does not take this position, we have no more right maintaining our Embassy in Tel Aviv than we do insisting on maintaining our Embassy in Alexandria, Egypt, which was that country's capital until the military overthrow of its monarchy by Col. Gamel Abdel Nassar in 1952. Mr. President, I believe it is long past time for our country to begin treating our closest ally in the Middle East--Israel--in the same way that we treat every Arab country, and indeed, every other country in the world with whom we maintain diplomatic relations. It is time for us to locate our Embassy in Israel's capital city, and stop making excuses why any particular moment never seems to be exactly the right moment. Sometime in the next 4 years that moment will arrive, and that is all this bill is saying. I urge overwhelming bipartisan support for this important bill, and I again congratulate the Senator from Kansas for his leadership on this issue.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, a candle went out late one night recently at the Bangor Rye Bread Co. as Reuben ``Ruby'' Cohen--father of my friend and colleague Senator Bill Cohen--passed away while working late at night in the bakery he founded and owned. I was deeply saddened to learn of his passing, and my thoughts are with his wife Clara, his three children and his seven grandchildren. Ruby was laid to rest in his beloved town of Bangor with many friends and family members at his side. I joined them to bid my own farewells to this remarkable American. Ruby Cohen was an exceptional human being by living his life in a traditional manner: he worked hard, he worked late, he held strong values, and he raised a family. But these are traits that have made Ruby Cohen a legend in Bangor. At age 86, he had seen it all. The First World War, the Great Depression, the Second World War, the cold war, Korea and Vietnam, Kennedy and King, Nixon in China, Reagan in Russia, and the fall of the Iron Curtain. To Ruby Cohen, what mattered were the timeless ideals of hard work, good business, a strong family, and straight, honest talk. And he lived it to the hilt. He worked 18 hours a day, 6 days a week, for 70 years. His days began as everyone else's day was ending. And even when everyone else's day was beginning, Ruby was on the road delivering bagels, rye bread, French bread, Italian sandwich bread, and--last but certainly not least--his trademark Cohen rolls. That diversity of his produce was matched only by the ethnic collage for which Bangor is known. Ruby Cohen himself was a product of immigrants who hailed from Russia, and married an Irish girl named Clara in 1937. His accomplishments and his stamina shine brightly as yet another example of the rich foundation millions of immigrants and their children have laid down for future generations. As was always the case with his father and then with his children, work at Ruby Cohen's bakery was nothing short of a family affair right up until his very last day. In January 1989, I was honored to be a part of an 80th birthday celebration party for Reuben Cohen in the Queen City--Bangor. As always, time spent with Ruby was full of laughs, smiles, and stories about his wit and his candor--all of which will be sorely missed by us all. His son and their senior Senator from Maine, Bill Cohen, said yesterday that is father ``worked to live and lived to work''. In the process, Reuben Cohen added light and color to the lives of so many of us who knew him, so many of us who took pride in being able to call him ``Ruby''. There is a richness by which you can measure the success of one's life. It can be found in the satisfied love and companionship of your spouse, the abiding love of your children, and in the admiration and friendship of those who have known you across the years. By all these measures and so many others, Reuben Cohen was a very rich man. Ruby, we know you are still putting in those late hours--only in a different place. But it just won't be the same without you. God bless.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly this morning on a matter of great importance; namely, world population. World Population Awareness Week will be held this year from October 22- 29, and is designed to foster awareness of the environmental, economic, political, and social consequences of rapid worldwide population. Let us reflect a moment on the implications of the current population growth rate. In 1830, the world's population reached 1 billion. Today, the world's population is nearly 6 billion. Unless something is done, world population in 2020 will reach 8 billion and by 2035 it will reach 12 billion. Current levels of population growth are unprecedented. This year alone, the world's population will grow by almost [[Page S 15363]] 100 million people. This is like adding a new country the size of Nigeria to the world every year, or a city the size of New York City every month. Virtually all this growth takes place in the poorest countries and regions across the world--those who can least afford to accommodate such rapid population growth. Rapid population growth is one of the world's most serious problems, posing a long-term threat to U.S. national interests in the areas of security, trade, and the environment. There are many developing countries in the world which are finally taking steps to institute the kind of free market reforms that offer them their best hope for long- term sustainable development. But high population growth rates threaten their economic development accomplishments. Moreover, the environmental implications of such population growth is startling. A child born today can expect by the year 2000 a world where almost one-half of the world's forests will be gone and one-fifth of the world's plant and animal species will be extinct. Ground water supplies are dwindling; rivers and lakes are fouled with pollutants from industries, municipalities, and agriculture. Currently, at least 1.7 billion people, nearly one-third of the planet's population, lack an adequate supply of drinking water. The developing world already produces 45 percent of all gases contributing to global warming. Rapid population growth, especially when overlaid with sharp social or economic divisions, places great strains on political institutions. To the extent population pressures contribute to weakening economic and political structures, they adversely affect international stability and peace. And this directly affects our own national security interests around the world. I am very pleased that the theme of World Population Awareness Week this year is gender equality and the implementation of the Cairo Program of Action, which was approved by more than 180 countries, including the United States, at the International Conference on Population and Development last year. This is especially significant because the goals and objectives of the Cairo Program of Action include providing universal access to family planning information, education, and services; as well as eliminating poverty and illiteracy among girls and women who are disproportionately denied access to education, increasing women's employment opportunities, reducing infant mortality, and eliminating all forms of gender discrimination. Several Governors throughout the United States, from the State of Washington to my home State of Maine, have issued proclamations recognizing World Population Awareness Week. I submit for the Record the proclamation of this important event issued by Gov. Angus S. King, Jr., Governor of the State of Maine. The proclamation follows: Proclamation Whereas, world population is currently 5.7 billion and increasing by nearly 100 million each year, with virtually all growth added in the poorest countries and regions--those who can least afford to accommodate current populations let alone massive infusions of humanity; and Whereas, the annual increment to world population is projected to exceed 86 million through the year 2015, will three billion people--the equivalent of the entire world population as recently as 1960--reaching their reproductive years within the next generation; and Whereas, the environmental and economic impacts of this level of growth will almost certainly prevent inhabitants of poorer countries from improving their quality of life, and, at the same time, have deleterious repercussions for the standard of living in more affluent areas; and Whereas, the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, Egypt crafted a 20-year Program of Action for achieving a more equitable balance between the world's population, environment and resources, that was duly approved by 180 nations, including the United States. Now, therefore, I, Angus S. King, Jr., Governor of the State of Maine, do hereby proclaim October 22-29, 1995 as ``World Population Awareness Week'' throughout the State of Maine, and urge all citizens to support the purpose and spirit of the Cairo Program of Action, and call upon all governments and private organizations to do their utmost to implement that document, particularly the goals and objectives therein aimed at providing universal access to family planning information, education and services, as well as the elimination of poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, social disintegration and gender discrimination that have been reinforced by the 1995 United Nations International Conference on Social Development and endorsed by 118 world leaders.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today, I would like to call attention to a day of critical importance to women across this Nation--National Mammography Day. America's women are facing a devastating crisis, and its name is breast cancer. It is a devastating crisis that targets women's lives, their confidence in health care, their work, their friends and their families. It is a crisis that results in approximately 182,000 new cases of breast cancer being diagnosed each year, and 46,000 deaths. Breast cancer is a crisis that has become the most common form of cancer and the second leading cause of cancer deaths among American women--an estimated 2.6 million in the United States are living with breast cancer, 1.6 million have been diagnosed, and an estimated 1 million women do not yet know they have breast cancer. It is a crisis in which one out of eight women in our country will come to develop breast cancer in their lifetimes--a risk that was one out of 14 in 1960. In fact, this year, a new case of breast cancer will be diagnosed every 3 minutes, and a woman will die from breast cancer every 11 minutes. It is a crisis that has tragically claimed the lives of almost 1 million women of all ages and backgrounds since 1960. This is more than two times the number of all Americans who have died in World War I, World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, and the Persian Gulf war, and 48 percent of these deaths occurred in the past 10 years alone. Finally, it is a crisis that has become the leading cause of death for women aged 40 to 44, and the leading cause of cancer death in women aged 25 to 54. But what really hits home for this Senator is the fact that my mother died of breast cancer when I was only 9 years old, as well as the fact that 900 Maine women were diagnosed with breast cancer last year. This is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among Maine women, and this represents more than 30 percent of all new cancers among women in Maine. We all know these statistics, we live with them every day of our lives and face them with a growing concern and deepening sorrow, and they are a constant reminder of the work that remains to be done. But we know that they represent more than just numbers--each number represents the life of a mother, sister, grandmother, aunt, daughter, wife, friend, or co-worker. They are the fabric of our families, our communities, our States and our Nation. As a former co-chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, I have joined other members of that caucus in working diligently to bring the respect and action that is needed to the struggle against breast cancer. In past years, we have introduced and passed vital legislation to help us win this struggle--and that has included the Women's Health Equity Act, which in 1993 included the National Breast Cancer Strategy Act, which established a National Breast Cancer Commission--an interagency office on breast cancer--and authorizes $300 million for increased breast cancer research at NIH. The WHEA also contained the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act Reauthorization, which provides much-needed grants to States for mammograms and pap-smears for low-income women and was passed by Congress and signed into law in late 1993. And we also passed the NIH Revitalization Act, which authorized increased funding for clinical research on breast, cervical and other reproductive cancers in women. But these are just the first steps in our crusade to find a cure for breast cancer and to bring relief and comfort to its victims and their families. Our fight goes on. We need more funding. We need more research. We need more education and awareness of breast cancer and its causes. We need more understanding. We need more compassion. And we need a cure. Yet despite these frightening statistics, we know that with early detection and regular screening, a survival rate of over 90 percent can be achieved. Unfortunately, these statistics reveal that not enough women are taking advantage of preventive measures with proven benefits--such as mammograms. In fact, the Director of the National Cancer Institute announced yesterday that ``one of the biggest barriers to reducing breast cancer mortality is lack of information.'' Given that such a promising survival rate is associated with early detection and treatment, it is essential that we be relentless in our efforts to increase public awareness of this terrible disease. The lives of our mothers, daughters, sisters and friends may well depend on our ability to educate them about the importance of mammograms. This year, I submitted Senate Concurrent Resolution 8, expressing the sense of Congress on the need for accurate guidelines for breast cancer screening for women ages 40-49. However, on this day, National Mammography Day, there are things we can all do to ensure there are no more victims of breast cancer, but only survivors. Talk to the women in your family and your home States about the importance of breast cancer screening. Tell them to arrange for a physical, including a clinical breast exam. Tell them to schedule a mammogram for themselves or a loved one. Talk to them. Talk to them today. Tell them not to wait.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with the Senator from Nebraska on this amendment because I do think it is very, very important that we do everything that we can as a Government to support the communities, public school systems, and our health care systems in joining the information superhighway. Frankly, I believe that the grants provided to local communities, States, and public entities by the Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program [TIIAP] play a very important role in enabling these public entities to do everything they can to help serve their communities with advanced technology. As I said during the telecommunications debate when we are reforming that area of our policy, one of the most important aspects is to make sure that we transmit information across traditional boundaries of time and space. Even the House recognized the importance of these grants to the States and local communities and public entities. They understand that we have to do everything that we can to help serve those populations, particularly those in rural areas that do not have access to this technology. In 1994, half of the grants went to the rural areas and rural States of our country. One-quarter of the 1994 fund went to the underserved, often low-income areas to enable school children, the elderly, and the other at-risk groups to connect with information resources from their homes, schools, and communities centers. In fact, the House appropriation include report language that said this program: is critical to the development of the national information superhighway which will be of particular value to underserved rural areas. This emerging telecommunications infrastructure will allow more remote areas to gain access to enhance education, health care, and social services, as well as provide enhanced economic opportunity. I think that characterizes very well the importance of these grants to communities. In my State of Maine, a 1994 planning grant of more than $113,000 was awarded. This grant will be utilized to develop a telecommunications plan that will link the State to the national and global networks. Involved in this planning effort will be not only the University of Maine, but also Maine Public Broadcasting Corporation and a consortium of public, private, and nonprofit organizations--including NYNEX and Central Maine Power. Telecommunications can also help us provide a world class education to children across America. If we want young people to actively use and understand the technology of the future, then we must ensure that schools are part of the National Information Infrastructure. [[Page S 14625]] For starters, telecommunications will enable students and teachers to gain access to libraries across the country, and will allow them to communicate with experts and other students around the world. It will ensure that small schools in remote areas, and schools with limited financial resources will have equal access to the same rich learning resources. It is also in the Nation's best interest to ensure that all schools and libraries, even those in rural areas, have access to educational services. In the 21st century, our children will be competing in a global economy where knowledge is power. Our future as a nation depends on our children's ability to master the tools and skills needed in that economy. I agree with House Speaker Newt Gingrich who said that if the country doesn't figure out a way to bring the information age to the country's poor, that we are buying ourselves a 21st century of enormous domestic pain. 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. Seventy-seven percent of libraries serving a populations base of more than 1 million--almost the total population of Maine, I might add--had Internet access, whereas just 13.3 percent of libraries serving communities of 5,000 or fewer people had Internet access. In addressing these needs, TIIAP grants have served an integral role in connecting our schools to the information superhighway. In Montana, TIIAP funds enabled the Hall Elementary School District to install the town's first Internet connection in the school building. A TIIAP grant in Oregon aided in the construction of the Lane Education Network--a system that is fully accessible to the community and will serve as a conduit for educational programs among high schools. If we are going to ensure that all of the areas of this country are going to have access to educational telecommunications services, if we are going to be competing in a global economy where knowledge is power--and our future depends on our children's ability to master the tools and skills needed in that economy--then I think that we have to do everything as a Government to promote and to serve that program and those interests. Mr. President, the Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program works to ensure that rural and low-income regions are not passed by. So I encourage my colleagues to support the Kerrey- Snowe amendment that would restore the funding to this program as the House did in a recent vote in their appropriations bill. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. How much time is left, Mr. President?

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would first like to thank my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, for his continued efforts on issues pertaining to the Economic Development Administration [EDA] and for sponsoring this amendment. And I am pleased to join in this effort. I would also like to thank the bipartisan group of Senators who have joined us in cosponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of continued funding for the EDA. The EDA is a small but important agency that contributes significantly to economic growth and job expansion. Through its programs, the EDA fulfills a key function in providing State and local governments, non-profit organizations, and public institutions with vital economic grants and technical assistance. The House of Representatives clearly recognized the vital role that the EDA plays in communities affected by economic dislocation and included a significant and meaningful level of funding for the agency in fiscal year 1996. And although the House overwhelming voted on July 26 to maintain the $348.5 million funding level contained in the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee opted to cut funding for the EDA to $100 million. I recognize the challenge that we face in balancing the budget over 7 years and believe that all programs should be asked to contribute. However, as we choose those programs that should be either scaled back or eliminated, it is important that we establish priorities. I believe the EDA can and should remain a priority even as it contributes to deficit reduction. The House-passed funding level for EDA is $60 million less than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1995--which would amount to a 21-percent cut. The amendment we are offering would send a strong message to the soon-to-be-chosen conference committee that, while such a reduction is acceptable, to go further would imperil an agency that has proven to be a valuable source of economic assistance to regions all across the United States. The debate over EDA funding is hardly a new one in Congress--previous administrations have even proposed the termination of the agency. However, I have consistently fought--and will continue to fight--for meaningful funding because of the critical assistance I have seen the EDA deliver not only in the State of Maine, but across the United States. Many in Congress know the real value of EDA in distressed communities and support the EDA. We all know that economic distress is not limited to simply a single city or county. Pockets of need exist nationwide in both rural and urban areas. And while some may be concerned that EDA moneys are spent in regions lacking requisite need, 98.8 percent of the 603 EDA projects undertaken between fiscal year 1992 and today were in areas of high economic distress. For 30 years the EDA has provided grants for infrastructure development, local capacity building, and business incentives that address the debilitating conditions caused by substantial and persistent unemployment in economically distressed areas. Since 1965, the EDA has provided more than $15.6 billion nationally through its programs for initiatives ranging from natural disasters to defense conversion. The partnerships it has forged with local, county, and State economic development organizations have provided invaluable assistance and technical support for regions of high economic distress not only in Maine, but across the United States. Over this same period of time, the EDA has invested more than $182 million in 570 projects targeted to assist needy communities in Maine. During 1994, more than $14 million in EDA assistance was received by the State. Included in this amount was $6 million in assistance for fishermen coping with the severe economic impacts of the ongoing New England groundfish crisis. EDA is a true partnership between the Federal Government and local communities that fosters economic growth and stability by promoting sound economic development practices and carefully investing limited Federal dollars. The underlying philosophy of the EDA program is that long-term job opportunities can best be created by providing the infrastructure and other forms of support necessary for private businesses to establish new plants or to expand existing facilities in economically distressed areas. And the programs administered by the EDA put this philosophy into practice. EDA's Public Works Program is an excellent example of the federal- local partnership that brings this vital assistance to distressed regions. We all recognize that an adequate local infrastructure is critical to the development and expansion of rural and urban economies. By pairing federal grants [[Page S 14685]] with matching monies from local communities, the Public Works Program has led to the development of water and sewer systems, industrial access roads, and high-skilled training facilities. All of these services are essential to not only retaining existing businesses, but to attracting new industries to communities. In our increasingly competitive global economy, the importance of developing this infrastructure and attracting new businesses cannot be overstated. The Title IX Economic Adjustment Assistant Program provides communities with the most flexible tools necessary to develop and implement locally-identified economic development priorities that address changes that are causing--or are threatening to cause--serious structural damage to the underlying economic base. Examples of such economic changes include sudden and severe economic dislocations caused by base closures, reductions in defense contract spending, new Federal laws or requirements, industrial or corporate restructuring, or natural disaster. Structural economic changes may also result from long-term economic deterioration as evidenced by gradual population shifts, depletion of natural resources, or increased foreign market competition that drains a significant local industry. Under the Title IX program, communities are provided with the flexibility and tools necessary to organize a local strategy for achieving economic stability and change. Such planning may lead to grants for projects including the construction of public facilities, roads, or industrial parks. In Lewiston, Maine, Title IX monies proved invaluable in renovating the Bates Mill--a textile mill that required massive renovations following its closure. Finally, the EDA Planning, Technical and Trade Adjustment Assistance Programs are visible examples of local-federal partnerships with academic institutions, communities, and economic development professionals committed to the promotion of our nation's economic well- being. As cited in a recent issue of Fortune magazine, many firms with strong growth potential have very little in the way of physical assets, but many intangible assets. When these firms seek capital for expansion, their lack of collateral is a significant hindrance. Through the utilization of a small EDA grant, the article demonstrated how a recipient was able to create a formula to help firms calculate the value of these intangible assets--which could thereby be helpful in expanding access to capital. EDA Planning Assistance also supports local economic development planning efforts necessary to respond to local problems and, therefore, help communities take advantage of opportunities at the state, multi-county, and local level. Through these and other programs, the EDA has proven itself to be an invaluable guide and resource for economically depressed communities. Based on available data, the EDA has created more than 2.8 million jobs of which 1.5 million were the result of public works projects. In addition, through the EDA revolving loan fund program, the agency has created $1.9 billion in private sector capital--which amounts to more than three dollars in outside capital being generated for every federal dollar invested in the program. And don't be mistaken: EDA is not an entitlement program--rather, it is a push in the right direction for our nation's communities. As Congress begins to make the tough decisions necessary to balance the budget, let us be sure we continue to maintain a program that has proven itself to be both necessary and effective in its broad assistance to distressed communities across America. I urge my colleagues to continue funding the EDA at a responsible level--and support the Pryor-Snowe amendment. amendment no. 2878 (Purpose: To establish conditions for the termination of sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro) At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following: