Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I think that that would answer the Senator's question.

Ms. SNOWE. I certainly would not be opposed to a multilateral response, but at the same time it should not preclude our position in terms of what we think is important for this country in the final analysis. I do not think that prevents the United States from seeking a multilateral approach in changing the site of the conference. If the other countries do not agree, then I do not think that it should prevent us from doing what we think is right.

Ms. SNOWE. I would answer the Senator by saying that it is remarkably striking that China sought to do what it did in face of the fact it very much wanted to have the conference. That is why I happen to believe that precluding our delegation from attending the conference or even having the conference there, sure, that would be the best of all worlds, but we cannot depend upon that response in the final analysis. We certainly should encourage it and prevail upon other countries. And I do not say that we should take that as a position as well. But I do not think we should then say we are going to attend the conference if we cannot change the site of that conference. I just happen to think it is amazing that China would do this in light of the fact it very much wanted to have the conference. It was very eager to host that conference. And there was a question as to whether or not to even host that conference in Beijing to begin with, let alone before all this developed. But I think it makes a mockery of the very purpose of that conference. That is what I happen to believe. And I feel very strongly about the issues which are on that agenda to empower women throughout the world on a host of issues that I have worked on personally. But I also think we have to stand up and be counted. There is always a reason why we cannot do something--well, it is better for us. This is what China wants. We have heard that before, but it has not stopped China. Has it stopped China? No. It has not stopped China from doing a number of [[Page S 10943]] things recently that certainly have been an affront to our policies and what we stand for. And at what point do we demand something in return when it comes to human rights? I just happen to think the conference should not go on, no. But I certainly do not think that we should attend that conference. That is what I happen to think. That is what I think happens to be the strongest message and that is why I am supporting this amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor of the amendment that has been offered by the Senate majority leader. I speak today as one of, I think, the Senate's strongest advocates of the U.N. Conference on Women. But it is precisely because of the conference's importance that I support the distinguished majority leader's amendment to call on the President, really, in essence, not to send an official delegation to that conference until Harry Wu is released. Frankly, this is what it is all about. It is about Harry Wu. And it is also about principle and at what point do we stand up and support principle. As we debate this issue, we are really speaking about one of our most courageous citizens, who continues to be unjustly incarcerated in China. Today, Chinese authorities are violating his most fundamental human rights and are threatening his very life with a trumped-up charge of espionage, which, in China, is a capital crime. We face a critical juncture in our relations with the People's Republic of China. Given China's gross violation of Harry Wu's rights and privileges as an American, I certainly cannot support this country's participation in the women's human rights conference that is set to get underway on September 4. What kind of message does it send? That is exactly what China wants. China wants to have it both ways. They want to be able to have Harry Wu in prison and, at the same time, as their backdrop will be this human rights conference. It is a conference on women and it is a conference on human rights. I have been very much a supporter of that conference. So I hope no one will question my motivations as to why I am supporting this amendment, and I am a cosponsor. Because at some point I believe you have to support principle. Yes, sometimes this is discomforting. Some people say this is just what China wants. I hardly believe that. China wants to be able to do that in spite of keeping Harry Wu in prison. They want to be able to have credibility and look at the international community as having their human rights conference in China in spite of the fact they have grossly violated Harry Wu's rights. That is what this is all about. And what kind of message will we be sending? I know everybody is in a quandary as to what to do, understandably so. But sometimes you finally meet the bottom line, and you say, ``We cannot do it.'' No, the First Lady should not attend the conference. But we should not send an American delegation. That is what this amendment is all about.

Ms. SNOWE. I would like to finish my statement. I think that it would be simply wrong because of the issue of Harry Wu's rights. What he has attempted to do is to have the tragedies exposed, the gross violations of human rights that have occurred in China. He has risked his life. I think we ought to learn from that. I would like to quote for you from his book ``Bitter Wind.'' It was published in 1994. In discussing his decision to return to China in 1991 to film his famed expose, ``The China Secret Prison Facilities,'' he wrote in 1991: I married, and for the first time I found deep personal happiness. But just 4 months later I arranged to travel back to China. Outside China much was known about the Nazi concentration camps and about the Soviet gulag, but almost no information was available about the carefully developed system of forced labor that had kept millions of Chinese citizens incarcerated in brutal and dehumanizing conditions, frequently without sentence or trial. Returning to China meant risking my own rearrest and reimprisonment. Perhaps I would once again disappear. Even though I had wanted to forget the suffering of the past after arriving in the United States and had wanted to heal the wounds in my heart, the 19 years of sorrow would not stop returning to my mind. I could not forget those who still suffer inside the camps. If I did not undertake this task, I asked, who would? I felt a responsibility not just to disclose but to publicize the truth about the Communist Party's mechanism of control. Whatever the risk to me, whatever the discomfort of telling my story, each time I revisited my past, I hoped it would be the last time. But I had decided that my experiences belong not only to me and not only to China's history, they belonged to humanity. Well, Harry Wu is an American. He belongs not only to us, not only to those he left behind to China's gulag, but he also belongs to humanity. And that is why we have to take every necessary step possible to get Harry Wu released. When it comes to the conference, yes, there are a number of important issues. I have been a supporter of all the previous conferences, and I have been engaged in providing input on the development of the agenda. But I think there is a time that we have to make certain decisions as a country. There was great reluctance to have this conference in Beijing because of obvious reasons--the country's severe restrictions on human rights and most basic freedoms of speech and press. We also know what China has done to governmental organizations. They have basically placed their conference about 75 miles away from Beijing with a great deal of confusion and restrictions upon accreditation of the various representatives who are seeking to go to that conference, as well, which will occur a week before the conference on women. So there have been a number of attempts to encroach on the ability of those people who want to attend, and certainly their ability to participate in the conference, in making it obviously very difficult. But above and beyond everything else is looking at what Harry Wu represents and what he has done. Frankly, I just cannot imagine China as a backdrop for this conference at a time in which Harry Wu is in prison. So I think it is important to take this step. It is one that I do not take lightly. I gave it a great deal of thought. But I think that we can do no less in making a very strong statement about how we feel as a nation toward China's treatment toward one of our citizens, but to anyone. So that is why I am supporting this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE. Yes. I will be glad to yield for a question.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I appreciate the words of the Senator from New York and his leadership on this issue as well. He is absolutely correct with respect to the arms embargo. Regrettably, it did not happen before. They do have the inherent right of self-defense, and that is what we should give them now.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, thank you. Mr. President, I certainly want to commend the distinguished majority leader and the distinguished Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] for their bipartisan leadership on this matter. The moral question of whether to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia is a bipartisan issue. The original cosponsors of this bill represent a distinguished cross- section of the Senate. And the legislation to lift the arms embargo passed the House by an overwhelming vote of 318 to 99. It received broad support from both sides of the aisle. It was sponsored by the Democrats. I believe that the U.S. Senate deserves to take a similar action on the Dole-Lieberman bill. The Bosnia and Herzegovina Self-Defense Act is not a panacea. It will not bring back to life the Bosnian women who have been raped, mutilated, and torn from their homes by advancing Serbian forces. It will not return the thousands of Bosnian men who have disappeared into Serbian concentration camps never to be heard from again. It will not erase 3 years of Serb genocidal atrocities in this war, which the Serbs call ethnic cleansing. What this bill would do, however, is to return to a country and a people under siege their God-given right to defend themselves against naked aggression. This principle is enshrined in article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which states: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense. Today, Bosnia faces perhaps its gravest threat from Serb forces that have already conquered 70 percent of the country's territory. These are the same forces that on July 11 overran the U.N.-designated safe area of Srebrenica, in blatant violation of the U.N. Security Council and their own earlier agreements. These are the same forces that promised not to take any future U.N. personnel as hostages, yet captured Dutch peacekeepers as they advanced on the town and used them as human shields against NATO airstrikes. And these are the same forces that murdered, raped, and disappeared the people of Srebrenica and today they are poised to overrun Zepa, another U.N. safe area, with inevitable similar results. Mr. President, the Bosnian Government is not asking for United States troops to come to their aid. They are not asking Americans to fight and to die to turn back the aggression of the Bosnian Serbs. They are, however, asking for us to stop impeding their own ability to fight-- and, if necessary, to die--to defend their own homes and families from Serbian aggression. I would like to take a moment to respond to the two main arguments the administration has made against this legislation. No. 1 is that the United States should take this action, but should do so only multilaterally, not unilaterally. I have two responses to this. First, this is an argument that says no matter how bad things may get in Bosnia, we must allow any single permanent member of the Security Council to prevent us from doing what we know to be moral and right. But there is an equally strong legal argument. I challenge any of my colleagues to find a Security Council resolution that places an arms embargo on the sovereign nation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 1991, the Security Council placed an arms embargo on the country of Yugoslavia in a failed effort to prevent the outbreak of violence in the Balkans. A year later, in 1992, Bosnia, Croatia, and Slovenia gained their independence from Yugoslavia. These countries quickly received diplomatic recognition from the United States and Western Europe, and they were admitted to the United Nations as sovereign states. At that time, the United States should have simultaneously recognized the legal status of these countries as not being the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia--which today encompasses only Serbia and Montenegro. At that time, we should have had the political courage to do what was right. We did not--and I recognize that this error was made in the waning months of the Bush administration. Mr. President, I voted for the Hyde amendment to lift the arms embargo 2 years ago in the House. I believe that the Bush administration got this issue wrong, and the Clinton administration continued that error, despite Clinton's campaigning against President Bush's policy in Bosnia. But it is never too late to do what is morally right and legally correct. That is what this bill is intended to do. The administration's second argument against this bill is curious, because it is logically incompatible with the first, which argues that we should lift the embargo but should do so multilaterally. The second argument is if we were to lift the embargo at all, it would only encourage more bloodshed, or that the Bosnian Serbs would immediately launch an offensive against remaining Bosnian Government territory to take advantage of their military superiority while they still have it. I have a simple response to this. Just look at what is happening today--even as we talk--in Bosnia. Do we have any right to determine for the Bosnian people whether they should choose to fight for their lives and their independence against aggression? Must we tell them that their duty to the international community is to die quietly and submissively, to avoid provoking the Serbs even further? Mr. President, the Dole-Lieberman substitute adds an important element to the original version of S. 21. It delays its effective date to 12 weeks after enactment to permit time for the withdrawal of the U.N. protection force in Bosnia. The President may extend this another 30 days, if necessary, for the safe withdrawal of UNPROFOR. I think it is also important to mention, especially in response to the Senator from Massachusetts, who earlier said that the Bosnians want both--they want to lift the embargo as well as keep UNPROFOR in place-- but that is not what this resolution says. It requires that, prior to the termination of the arms embargo, the United States Government has to receive a request from the Bosnian Government for a termination of the arms embargo. In addition, they have to request the U.N. Security Council for departure of UNPROFOR, and there has to be a decision by the U.N. Security Council, or decisions by countries contributing forces to UNPROFOR, to withdraw [[Page S 10286]] UNPROFOR. So the point is that has to occur before we lift the embargo. I think this resolution, in the final analysis, is perhaps an overdue recognition, unfortunately, that UNPROFOR, as constituted, has no viable mission. UNPROFOR is incapable of protecting the victims of this war. It is incapable of keeping open humanitarian supply routes. And it has become the pawn of the Serb forces who now routinely using U.N. forces as hostages to protect their own military advances. In Bosnia, the United States and other Western nations have supported policies that have put NATO and U.N. forces into the midst of a raging civil war with a complicated line of command that weaves and snakes its way through the United Nations through NATO, and through the labyrinth of bureaucracies in various national governments. This U.N. Protection Force in Bosnia is not a humanitarian mission, because it is not perceived of as neutral. It is not a traditional peacekeeping force, because there is no peace to keep. And it cannot be merely a fighting force, because it does not have a military mission and does not have adequate rules of engagement required for combat. Call it the ``no-name'' defense. No one knows exactly what it is--or what it should become. But this confusion and timidity has had consequences. It has had consequences for those Bosnians who apparently believed that the United Nations designation of so-called safe areas actually meant anything. And it has had consequences for NATO personnel who struggled to defend themselves under the United Nations mandated rules of engagement. Last month, Lt. Gen. Wesley Clerk, Director of Plans and Policy of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, revealed in an open session before the Foreign Relations Committee that the NATO flights over Bosnian Serb areas under Operation Deny Flight have been hampered by the U.N. refusal to grant our forces the right to defend themselves. The United Nations has expressly denied past NATO requests for authority to take out Bosnian Serb surface-to-air missile batteries that have fired at our planes enforcing the no-flight zone over Bosnia, the very same missiles that shot down Scott O'Grady during a mission over Bosnia not long ago. As we all know, NATO made a request to take out the surface-to-air missiles last year when a British plane was shot down, and they were denied. They were denied then and they are denied now because such an action could provoke the Bosnian Serbs--could provoke the Bosnian Serbs. Exactly what are the Serbs doing today? The key question is whether the status quo is something that makes sense for the long term and whether it is leading to any acceptable solution in Bosnia. I believe that the current situation makes no sense precisely because UNPROFOR has no coherent goal, and it certainly cannot function for the purposes for which it was originally designed and intended. As the loss of innocent human life increases, our options to stem the tide of the bloodbath decrease conversely. I have long supported the lifting of the United States arms embargo in Bosnia, and that is why I think this resolution is so critically important. Unfortunately, it comes late, is long overdue, knowing the thousands and thousands of casualties in Bosnia, but the fact remains that we have to do what is right now. I support this measure because I think it clearly gives the Bosnians the understanding that lifting the arms embargo is out of respect for their inherent right of self-defense, and I think we can do no less under these very circumstances. And considering the fact that we look at the safe haven issue and what has already happened--we have lost one, perhaps we will lose another--the fact remains these people, these refugees going to these safe havens think they are protected, and they are not. So the time has come to do something different, to introduce a different dynamic. I do not support the authorization of ground troops, and again this resolution stipulates very clearly that there will be no authorization of ground troops but for the purposes of training and support of military equipment. I do think we should give the Bosnian Serbs a right to defend themselves. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article that appeared in the Washington Post today that was written by Richard Perle, the headline of which says, ``Will We Finally Recognize the Right to Self-Defense?''

Ms. SNOWE. I yield the floor. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to first thank the majority leader and Senator Hatch for working with me and Senators Cohen, Kempthorne, Leahy, and Lieberman on this amendment. Throughout this process, they have clearly demonstrated their strong support for the bottled water industry and for bottled water consumers, and they deserve to be commended for their cooperation and good work. I also wanted to clarify a couple of points that were raised during the discussion on the amendment between Senator Hatch and Senator Levin. First, it is definitely correct that the amendment is supported by the bottled water industry. In fact, this legislation has been one of the bottled water industry's biggest priorities for the past couple of years. Second, Senator Levin referenced the FDA's standards for defining spring water. This amendment does not apply to the FDA's spring water definition rules. It applies only to public health standards for bottled water. In addition, I wanted to point out that the big issue here is more the discrepancy in timing between the EPA's and the FDA's issuance of rules for tap water and bottled water, respectively, than it is the bottled water industry's level of enthusiasm for Federal regulation. The bottled water industry does have an interest in the promulgation of reasonable regulations that provide additional assurances of the safety of its product, but the industry's biggest interest is in making sure that the FDA does not take too long in issuing its regulations for bottled water after the EPA promulgates regulations for tap water. And I will explain why in a moment. I also wanted to thank Senator Kempthorne, who chairs the Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries, and Wildlife, for his assistance in getting this amendment adopted. My motive in offering the amendment to the regulatory reform bill was to provide another option by which we can get the legislation enacted, giving it a better chance of ultimate success. But I think it is important to recognize that Senator Kempthorne has been working on this issue as part of the Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization bill that he is now drafting, and that he will continue to do so as that bill moves through the Environment and Public Works Committee. I commend him for his efforts on this issue, and I look forward to working with him during the SDWA reauthorization process so that we can give this urgently needed legislation another opportunity for eventual adoption. Mr. President, my amendment, which is cosponsored by Senators Cohen, Kempthorne, Leahy, and Lieberman, is designed to make the regulatory process for bottled water more efficient and responsive, while expanding health protections for the consuming public. Under current law, bottled water is considered a food product, and is therefore subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. My amendment requires the FDA, which has jurisdiction over bottled water, to publish final regulations for a contaminant in bottled water no more than 6 months after the EPA has issued regulations for that same contaminant in public drinking water or tap water. Unfortunately, the FDA has a history of long delays in issuing its regulations for bottled water after EPA publishes its standards for tap water. On December 1, 1994, FDA published a final rule for 35 contaminants in bottled water. Nearly 4 years earlier, however, in January 1991, the EPA regulations for these contaminants had already been issued. In another case, it took the FDA 4 years to issue regulations for a series of volatile organic chemicals in bottled water after the EPA issued regulations for those chemicals in public drinking water in 1989. And presently, final regulations for 23 new contaminants in bottled water are still pending at FDA, even though the EPA's version of the regulations went into effect in January 1994--a year and a half ago. While the FDA takes its time, bottled water producers and consumers are left in limbo. In the absence of Federal standards, the bottled water industry, which is composed of 430 bottling facilities in the United States, is vulnerable to charges that its product is unsafe. In fact, the Administrator of the EPA suggested publicly on two occasions that bottled water was not fully protected because the FDA had not issued certain regulations that had already been issued by the EPA for public drinking water. Of course, charges that bottled water is unsafe or unprotected couldn't be further from the truth. Bottled water is subject to strict industry safety standards and to various State rules. But the Federal standards do provide an important additional assurance for consumers nationwide. Without these standards, consumers may question whether bottled water is really a safe, natural, and healthy alternative to tap water, and sales in the industry could be unnecessarily dampened. Not only do consumers lose when the bureaucracy drags its feet, but an industry that employs thousands of Americans loses. My amendment will ensure a more expeditious response in the future. In addition to the 6-month deadline for new contaminants, the FDA will be given 1 year to issue final regulations for contaminants that the EPA already regulates, but that have not yet received new FDA standards for bottled water. If the FDA fails to meet either the 6-month or 1- year deadlines, the existing EPA standard is automatically implemented for bottled water. In some cases, FDA may determine that a particular contaminant regulated by EPA does not occur in bottled water. My amendment would allow the FDA to simply publish such findings in the Federal Register before the deadline periods expire. The amendment also stipulates that in all cases, the FDA standards for bottled water must be at least as stringent as the EPA's standards for public drinking water. The bill does reserve the FDA's right to issue more stringent standards, however, adding an extra measure of public health protection, if necessary. It is my hope that this amendment will prompt the FDA to coordinate its regulatory activities for drinking water with the EPA from the beginning, before either agency issues a notice of proposed rulemaking. By coordinating in this process, the agencies could issue their regulations at roughly the same time. The amendment would therefore have the effect of improving the efficiency of the Federal regulatory process--something all of us agree is necessary--while enhancing health protections for consumers. It represents a clear win-win proposition for all of our constituents. The bottled water industry generates $2.7 billion in sales annually, and it serves millions of American consumers, with the potential to serve even more. Surely, these producers and consumers alike deserve the kind of consideration from their Government that my amendment guarantees. I am pleased to see that Senators on both sides of the aisle agree and support the amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the substitute to S. 267 offered by Senator Stevens, and I rise to express support for the amendment. Before proceeding to discuss the substitute, I want to offer my sincere thanks to the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Pressler, and the chairman of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, for their assistance to me throughout the process of considering S. 267. Early on, I expressed an interest in offering an amendment to the bill, and the two chairmen and their staffs always showed a willingness to help me as a freshman member of the committee. S. 267 is the first fisheries bill considered by the Commerce Committee in the 104th Congress, and the leadership and skillfulness that the Senators demonstrated in this effort deserves to be commended. Mr. President, the substitute includes an amendment that I sponsored which is designed to protect two of the few remaining healthy fish stocks in U.S. waters--Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel--from foreign fishing pressures. I consider this amendment and the issues that it addresses to be very important for the health of our domestic fishing industry as well as our domestic fish stocks. As media stories over the last year have reported, the New England groundfish fishery is now experiencing the most serious crisis in its long history. Groundfish stocks in the region have dwindled to record lows, threatening the future viability of this essential resource. Stringent conservation regulations have been implemented in response to the stock decline in an attempt to prevent a collapse of the fishery. In combination, these two factors have drastically reduced fishing opportunities, threatening a centuries-old industry and the livelihoods of thousands of people in coastal communities across the region who depend on it. And the regulations approved to date are not the end of it. The New England Fishery Management Council is now developing a public hearing document for new fishing effort reduction measures that are even more draconian than the existing regulations. To survive in the face of such adversity, many fishermen who want to remain on the water will have to catch species besides groundfish. But unfortunately, given present rates of fishing effort, few species offer much opportunity for new harvesting capacity. Two that do are Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel. The National Marine Fisheries Service has determined that these stocks are healthy, and that they can withstand higher rates of harvest without endangering the resource. Utilization of these species by Northeast fishermen has been limited to date because they generate less value in the market than groundfish. Maine has a viable sardine industry that uses a modest portion of the herring resource, and herring are harvested for bait to supply other fisheries like lobster and bluefin tuna. With regard to mackerel, several processors in the Northeast have established markets serving Canada and the Caribbean. But significant potential for expansion of these domestic industries exists. The mackerel industry hopes to increase market share in the Caribbean and gain a foothold in West Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. The Maine sardine industry has been trying to expand its markets in Mexico and the Caribbean. As groundfish landings decline, new players are actively pursuing new opportunities in the sustainable development of herring and mackerel. Resource Trading Company of Portland, Maine, has negotiated a deal to sell 25,000 tons of Atlantic herring to China--a market of enormous potential for New England fishermen. New England fishing interests are not the only ones pursuing our herring and mackerel, however. Foreign countries like Russia and the Netherlands have shown a keen interest in obtaining fishing rights for these species in U.S. waters. In 1993, the Russians and their domestic partner came close in persuading the Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service to approve an application to harvest 10,000 tons of Atlantic mackerel-- despite the fact that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council had specified that no foreign fishing rights for mackerel be granted. Since that time, the Dutch, acting through the European Union, have aggressively pursued foreign fishing rights for mackerel, and the Russians have continued to push for a portion of the stock. Mr. President, it would be unconscionable for the U.S. Government to allow foreign countries to begin harvesting two of the only healthy stocks left in U.S waters while New England fishermen lose their jobs as a result of the groundfish crisis. Since the process of developing strict fishing regulations for groundfish began four years ago, Federal fisheries managers and policymakers have encouraged groundfishermen to pursue alternatives or ``underutilized'' species like herring and mackerel. They have cited this option as an important way to help some fishermen stay in business during the recovery period for goundfish. To give away our fish to foreign fishermen at this critical time, after all of the rhetoric about developing underutilized species, would be a slap in the face to our fishermen. We should instead help fishermen and processors develop these resources in a sustainable manner, and the best way that we can do that is to provide assurances that sufficient quantities of fish will be available to meet the needs of our industry. We need to give entrepreneurs and fishermen the time to develop new products and markets so that they can compete all over the world with the same countries who seek the last of our healthy fish stocks. Out of my great concern for the future of the fishing industry in Maine and New England, and out of my strong desire to see American fishermen sustainable utilize Atlantic herring and mackerel, I offered an amendment during committee consideration of S. 267 which would have imposed a 4-year moratorium on the granting of foreign harvesting rights for these two species. This moratorium would have given our industry adequate time to create new products, markets, and associated infrastructure in herring and mackerel. It would have preserved valuable jobs in the New England fishing industry, and it would have done so without strengthening the position of our foreign competitors. The Resource Trading Company deal that I mentioned earlier, which involves only U.S. fishermen, shows clearly the great potential that exists. In committee, however, Senator Gorton expressed reservations about my amendment. A company based in Washington State that has operated in Russian waters and that is pursuing new markets in Russia was concerned that such a strong statement from the United States on fisheries could negatively affect some of its ongoing business. I agreed to work with Senator Gorton, as well as Senators Kerry, Stevens, and Pressler, to work out a compromise acceptable to all parties. Fortunately, we were able to reach an agreement on a new amendment that I sponsored and that Senator Kerry agreed to cosponsor. The amendment is contained in the Stevens Substitute under consideration today. It has two provisions. First, the amendment prohibits the awarding of any foreign harvesting rights for any fishery that is not subject to a fishery management plan under the Magnuson Act. At a bare minimum, no foreign harvesting should be allowed unless a strict regime for managing the harvest is in place. Atlantic herring does not have a council-approved fishery management plan at the present time, so this provision will protect the herring resource from foreign fishing pressure until the New England Fishery Management Council approves a plan. Second, the amendment adds a new layer of scrutiny to any applications submitted by foreign countries for the harvest of Atlantic herring and mackerel in U.S. waters. Under the current procedures in the Magnuson Act, the regional fishery management council of jurisdiction is required to specify whether foreign harvesting of a particular species should be allowed. The Secretary of Commerce is encouraged to follow the Council's guidance on foreign fishing, but he is not bound by it. In effect, the Secretary can disagree with the Council, and approve a foreign fishing application despite the Council's reservations. My amendment prohibits the Secretary from approving a foreign fishing application for herring and mackerel unless the council of jurisdiction recommends approval of it. In the absence of explicit Council agreement, the Secretary will no longer be able to grant foreign fishing rights. A foreign applicant will therefore have to convince not only the Commerce and State departments, but the regional council that was established to conserve the marine fisheries resources of the region, and whose membership is drawn in part from the regional fishing industry. While I would have preferred a moratorium, this new provision will make it more difficult for foreign countries to gain access to our important herring and mackerel resources. Mr. President, I also wanted to mention a couple of additional amendments contained in the substitute that I cosponsored. Both amendments relate to the management and conservation of Atlantic bluefin tuna and other highly migratory species in the Atlantic. Last year, pursuant to a request from the Maine and Massachusetts congressional delegations, a scientific peer review panel convened under the auspices of the National Research Council issued an important report that criticized NOAA's scientific work on Atlantic bluefin tuna. The report contained a number of significant findings, but perhaps most significant was the panel's finding that NOAA scientists had erroneously estimated Western Atlantic bluefin population trends since 1988. Rather than a continuing decline during that period, the NRC panel concluded that the stock had remained stable. Because the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, to which the United States belongs, relies heavily on NOAA's bluefin science, the NRC peer review report had a profound impact on Atlantic bluefin management. Whereas ICCAT and NOAA had been advocating a 40 percent cut in the Western Atlantic bluefin quota before the report was issued, ICCAT actually approved a slight increase in the existing quota after the report's findings were published. Tuna fishermen in New England, where most of the commercial fishery for the species in the United States exists, had long criticized the quality of NOAA's bluefin science. The NRC report reinforced those criticisms. This episode points out the need for improved fisheries science in general, and improved research on highly migratory species like Atlantic bluefin tuna, in particular. One way that we can improve research on bluefin and other highly migratory species is to ensure that the scientists who conduct stock assessments and monitoring programs are wholly familiar with the conditions of the primary fisheries for the species. In the case of Atlantic bluefin tuna, most of the scientific activity is conducted at NOAA's Southeast Fisheries Science Center in Miami, even though the overwhelming majority of the commercial fishing activity for the species takes place in the Northeast, and much of the data used by scientists is collected from this fishery. Senator Kerry sponsored an amendment, which I cosponsored, that requires NOAA to ensure that the personnel and resources of each regional fisheries research center participate substantially in the stock assessments and monitoring of highly migratory species that occur in the region. Hopefully, this provision will bring scientists closer to the fishery, stimulate fresh thinking about fisheries science, and lead to improvements in NOAA's scientific program. Senator Kerry and I have also asked for administrative action on this matter, and we will continue our efforts in that regard after S. 267 is enacted. I had also cosponsored another amendment offered by Senator Breaux pertaining to the enforcement of ICCAT conservation measures. Western Atlantic fishermen, particularly American fishermen, have abided by ICCAT's rules since the first stringent quotas were implemented in the early 1980's. Unfortunately, some fishermen from other countries don't appreciate the need for conservation or international agreements the way that our fishermen do, and they harvest highly migratory species in the Atlantic in a reckless and unsustainable manner. To give ICCAT conservation recommendations greater force, Senator Breaux drafted an amendment which would have required the Secretary of Commerce to certify that ICCAT has adopted an effective multilateral process providing for restrictive trade measures against countries that fail to address reckless and damaging fishing practices by their citizens. If ICCAT failed to adopt such a process, the Breaux/Snowe amendment would have required the administration to initiate bilateral consultations with problem nations. And in the event that consultations proved unsuccessful and the country in question failed to address unsustainable fishing practices by its nationals, the amendment would have required the Secretary of the Treasury to impose a ban on the imports of certain fish and fish products from that country. Unfortunately, due to jurisdictional problems in the House that threatened to derail this entire bill, it was decided that the sanctions language in the original Breaux-Snowe amendment would not be included in the substitute. We did, however, include language similar to the other provisions of the amendment which require the Secretary to identify problem nations, and which authorize the President to initiate consultations on conservation-related issues with the governments of these problem nations. I would have preferred the original language, but this was the best that we could do without risking the entire bill. Let me state, Mr. President, that I do not think the issue of foreign compliance with ICCAT recommendations ends here. I intend to continue monitoring this issue, and if no more progress is made, I think that the Commerce Committee should be prepared to revisit it. We owe it to American fishermen who play by the rules, and to our highly migratory fisheries resources, to ensure that foreign countries are doing their part to conserve these important natural resources. Mr. President, the amendments that I have described will significantly improve S. 267, and improve U.S. efforts to manage its marine fisheries. I urge my colleagues to support the substitute, and to support S. 267 as amended.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman for yielding me 10 minutes. I want to commend him for the effort that he has undertaken to put this budget proposal together. Mr. President, to paraphrase Winston Churchill's famous remark, I feel we finally have reached the ``end of the beginning'' of what I hope will eventually be known as the first 7-year budget to reach a balance in over a generation. I say the ``end of the beginning'' because we still have a tremendous amount of work lying ahead of us over the next few months. While this resolution moves Congress forward light years, rather than leap years, in our quest to achieve a balanced budget by 2002, we still have a [[Page S 9376]] challenging reconciliation process to overcome. As a member of the Budget Committee, I know that has been a tough target to reach, but it has been a goal well worth fighting for. I have had concerns about this conference proposal, not necessarily because it has some tax cuts, not necessarily because of some spending cuts, but I believe a careful balance has been tilted in a manner that could put at risk the very goal of this entire process. This afternoon, I would like to offer some constructive words and views to this very important process--a process for whose goal I have been fighting throughout all of my years in the Congress, including when I served for 16 years in the House of Representatives. Getting us closer to balancing the budget has not exactly been a ``walk in the park'' for those of us who worked hard and diligently to unlock the fiscal handcuffs that have bound our country. I speak especially of the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, our distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, and all of the Senate members of the conference committee who represented the views of this body and the American people with a firmness of resolve and commitment to our goals. Those are goals that even the President has finally agreed to--after a considerably long leave of absence--that we should reach by a date certain, the most important of which is the total elimination of the budget deficit. Let it be known that while we on this side of the aisle had the guts from day one to forge a 7-year fiscal vision about where we wanted to take America, there are those in this institution, on the other side of the aisle, who never had it in their hearts to fight for a balanced budget, and never had the stomach to make it a bipartisan fight. A balanced budget is not only making the Federal Government accountable to sound fiscal policy, but it is also a commitment to compassion and common sense that must be made in the process. It is said that ``every rose has its thorn,'' and this historic budget proposal is no different. That ``thorn,'' as it turns out, stemmed from wide-ranging differences between the House and Senate budget numbers, and specifically on the issues of tax cuts. When this budget was reported out of this Chamber on its way to the conference committee, an agreement was reached among Senators regarding the size and scope of proposed tax relief. The House gave a $345 billion tax cut package. From here, it was agreed that a total of $170 billion would be held in reserve to be used if--and only if--two things happened. First, that we had an economic dividend over 7 years, and, second, that the Congressional Budget Office would actually certify that a balanced budget would occur by the year 2002. Let us be clear right up front about one thing: The entire purpose of this balanced budget process was not to craft and produce tax relief in sum totals that were unrealistic or inconsistent with achieving balance in a fair and rational manner. The singular goal of our efforts from the outset has been this, and only this: To sensibly and carefully craft a 7-year plan to reach balance by the year 2002, without being sidetracked by other goals and proposals. In our plan, we identified a potential for a $170 billion dividend that would be held in reserve to be used for tax relief. But in the conference committee, a final figure of $245 billion was reached. I happen to consider the original Senate plan a fair and reasonable approach: Taxpayers who have been asked to make sacrifices to reach a balanced budget could receive the dividend of reaching balance in the form of a tax cut. I credit Senator Domenici as chairman of the committee for having reached, I think, a very fair and reasonable proposal in addressing some of these issues with respect to a tax cut plan. The compromise agreement from the budget conference, however, allows for the possibility of an additional $75 billion in tax cuts. From this point, there are three ways to proceed: Offsets may be chosen from the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee; higher deficits may be called for in the first years of the plan to absorb the high cost of this tax cut proposal; or we can simply reduce the size of the tax cut reported by the Finance Committee. The budget only stipulates that the tax cut not exceed $245 billion; it does not say that it must be $245 billion. My point is that I do not think we want to hinder the progress of the balanced budget caravan by attaching a larger-than-necessary bulky trailer to its hitch. To this Senator, it is one issue to return the economic dividend derived from balancing the budget to taxpayers in the form of a tax cut, but it is quite another to ask them to absorb additional cuts in programs to support further tax cuts of larger-than-life proportions. As we move forward, other issues concerning the budget resolution will also be addressed in reconciliation--issues of tremendous importance to me and to other Senators, such as maintaining adequate levels of funding for education and student loans. When we talk about the goal of the balanced budget for our children, nothing could be as important as investing in the education of our children's future, and we must see to it that this investment is maintained. We must also fight to ensure that the Medicare system is not only solvent, but a healthy provider of quality service as well. We must fight to protect biomedical research, funding for the National Institutes of Health, and nutrition programs--again, in the sole interests of protecting and providing for America's children. I believe we can maintain these priorities and maintain the moral imperative of a balanced budget which must come first and foremost. I know that this is the price and the cost for righting 26 years of wrong in America--26 years of budget deficits, 26 years of allowing Congress to treat the budget like a charge card, 26 years of adding unceremoniously to our national debt. We are not going to treat the Federal Government like an ATM machine anymore. We are basically going to revoke its credit-card privileges, and it is about time we do so. In the final analysis, my hope is that we can look upon this document for what it is--a ``binding blueprint.'' Its parameters have been drawn and set, but its contents have yet to be fully shaped. The opportunity for further imprints is, for many of us, one of its shining qualities, and reconciliation will be its end result. This document gives committees the opportunity to meet these balanced budget targets. And we must accomplish this without harming the most vulnerable in our society. Mr. President, with these caveats in mind, and with the knowledge that we are merely at the ``end of the beginning,'' I am concluding at this stage of this historic process that the momentum forward toward a balanced budget should not be stopped. We are, in the end, finally tilting the fiscal scale to balance. In this proposal for a balanced budget, we reach our goals by cutting Federal spending, by eliminating waste and unnecessary bureaucracy in Government, by saving Medicare from bankruptcy, by not taking a dollar from the Social Security system, by cutting over $900 billion from the deficit over 7 years, and without raising taxes. In a final note, I want to assure my colleagues that I intend to do everything I can to work diligently and constructively throughout this process, with as much resolve and vigor as I entered into it with, to ensure that we have a balanced budget. I want to work to ensure that we have fairness and reasonableness in this process. I want to make sure that the working Americans and working families are treated fairly, and that we have middle-class America facing relief in the future from the enormous debt that has been certainly hampering their economic security. And we have to look at single parents who often work two jobs to make both ends meet, as well as those trying to educate their children in this uncertain time. We also have to look at the young Americans whose future and financial security is already at risk. In this budget we have asked Americans to contribute in some form or another to our bold effort to balance the [[Page S 9377]] budget. Already, we have asked them to make difficult choices. Already, we have joined with them to make our mark on history. So, once again, we ask for their trust and confidence as we take the next step forward. I hope that although we have not had a strong, bipartisan effort to balance the budget--we have not had a plan from the other side--I think it is important from this point forward that we have set the goals for a balanced budget, that we work in unison and harmony to fashion the most fair and reasonable approach possible, to ensure that we provide the economic security that Americans deserve. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. I certainly do.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the chairman for the work he did on the committee to bring us together to make this day possible. And it is a historic moment, to think this is the first time in 26 years we have established a balanced budget resolution. But it is due to the chairman's credit, his demeanor, and to his approach to the committee to bring this forward, that we cut a trillion dollars from the next 7 years. Without the chairman's efforts and input and his experience as chairman of the Budget Committee, this day would not be possible. So, I thank my colleague and look forward to working with him in the future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, last Friday I joined with the people of Maine and America in celebrating the life of Senator Margaret Chase Smith, who had a distinguished 32 years of service in Congress on behalf of my home State of Maine. Senator Smith passed away this Memorial Day at the age of 97. With characteristic modesty, she asked that no funeral be held, and that instead that a memorial service be scheduled at a later date. That service is scheduled to occur this afternoon in Senator Smith's home town of Skowhegan, ME, at the Margaret Chase Smith Library. During her tenure in Congress, Margaret Chase Smith became known for her independence and her conscience as well as for her legislative accomplishments. In 1953, she identified her creed that guided her both in life and in the Senate. Her creed is as follows: My Creed is that public service must be more than doing a job efficiently and honestly. It must be a complete dedication to the people and to the nation with full recognition that every human being is entitled to courtesy and consideration, that constructive criticism is not only to be expected but sought, that smears are not only to be expected but fought, that honor is to be earned but not bought.--Margaret Chase Smith, November 11, 1953. Senator Smith--always prepared to speak for what is right in society--also identified, in her book ``Declaration of Conscience,'' some of the perils that face our society. I think that, as we mark Senator Smith's passing today, it is appropriate to again consider Margaret Chase Smith's ``tribute to the square'': In today's growing, but tragic emphasis on materialism, we find a perversion of the values of things in life as we once knew them. For example, the creed once taught children as they grew up was that the most important thing was not in whether you won or lost the game, but in ``how you played the game''. That high level attitude that stresses the moral side no longer predominates in this age of pragmatic materialism that increasingly worships the opposite creed that ``the end justifies the means'' or in the attitude of get what you can in any way, manner, or means that you can . . .--``A Ttribute to the Square,'' December 21, 1964, Quoted in Margaret Chase Smith, ``Declaration of Conscience.'' Now, three decades after Senator Smith wrote those words and four decades after her ``Declaration of Conscience'' speech, her words ring as true as they did when Margaret Chase Smith first uttered them. We may learn from them even today, as we celebrate Senator Smith's memory, her conscience, and her values.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, first, I wanted to ask unanimous consent to include somebody as a cosponsor.

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

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I just want to make a couple of additional points. I think a lot of the debate has centered on many of the issues that also were raised yesterday and are important to reiterate. But I think it is important since we are talking about the issue of safety, in terms of the statistics that have been given with respect to motorcycle safety. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 1993, the motorcyclist fatality rate per registered vehicle has decreased by more than 50 percent since 1966. Senator Pressler mentioned, and Senator Campbell, who has taken the rider education course, how effective and valuable it is, and that is why the States have decided unilaterally, without any coercion by the Federal Government, to establish those programs because they know it is essential to reducing fatalities and accidents on the road. I also would like, as I did yesterday, because I do think it is critical, since the chairman is from the State of Rhode Island, to read part of a statement that was given by a State senator before his committee back in March. He says in his statement that: In a year when unfunded mandates are a target of Federal legislation, it may be said that section 153 is an unfunded suggestion. Section 153 also has a negative economic impact on the State of Rhode Island. The Federal Highway Administration has stated that every $1 billion in highway construction monies creates 60,000 jobs. Although the funding is not being rescinded, the transfer of funds will result in the loss of approximately 40 construction jobs. These are difficult economic times, and Rhode Island has been hit hard by defense cutbacks, as well as national recession. If each job paid $30,000, the impact on the Rhode Island economy could be greater than $1.2 million. The State senator goes on to talk about how there has been a dramatic reduction in fatalities and accidents in Rhode Island. He said: . . . the number of deaths related to motorcycle accidents have declined significantly in proportion to the number of motorcycle riders on the road. In 1976, the last year that the motorcycle helmet law was in effect, there was more than 1 death per every thousand riders. In 1994, there was less than .5 deaths per thousand riders. . . . In 1993, the number of fatalities per 10,000 registrations was lower in Rhode Island than in many States with motorcycle helmet laws. Massachusetts, which applied strict helmet wearing standards for motorcycle riders, has a fatality rate a full point higher than Rhode Island. . . . Much of the success can be attributed to motorcycle rider education programs, which were first implemented back in 1980. . . . Furthermore, Rhode Island also had the second lowest rate of all motorcycle accidents per 10,000 riders, behind only Oregon, which has a helmet law in place. So I think it goes to show that the experiences in various States that have been through the rider education program in making a difference and having an impact on highway safety with respect to motorcycle riding. I also would like to read a paragraph from the Bellevue News Democrat, in Illinois, from September 14 titled ``Independent of Blackmail, Summed Up the Issue": If the Federal Government is so hot on motorcyclists wearing helmets, why doesn't it adopt a national policy? Because it realizes this is the type of decision that rightfully belongs to the individual States, as long as the decision is the one that the Federal bureaucrats want, that is. I think that appropriately sums up the problem we have here today with these kinds of penalties. It will not end here. It will continue, somehow thinking that we know more than the States in terms of what is occurring on their highways. I also will mention that the States have debated these issues at great length. There were 109 bills introduced on helmet laws and zero adopted, since ISTEA penalties became effective--109 different bills. So it was adequately debated in the States. They will determine their own wisdom whether or not they should adopt a helmet law. That is where that decision belongs. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Gregg from New Hampshire, Senator Wellstone from Minnesota, and Senator Brown from Colorado as cosponsors of my amendment, Mr. President.

Ms. SNOWE. Does the Senator have a problem?

Ms. SNOWE. I hope, as I conclude my own remarks with respect to this issue, that we reject this amendment because, while some would say this is a red herring, it is not. We all too often find that we have amendments that have real implications. This certainly is one of them. We are saying on the one hand the States have the right to make decisions about their helmet laws, but on the other hand, if you do and it is not the right decision, we are not going to allow eligible recipients to have access to medical care if they abide by that law. It does not stop there. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator for his comments, because I think his amendment would be very relevant under the rules of the Senate, and I think that it does, as the Senator from Colorado indicates with his amendment, open up all kinds of possibilities. This is unprecedented. We will start determining who will have access to medical care depending on their personal or recreational choices. That is the decision we will be making with this amendment. I also suggest it is a strange form of States rights that almost does not pass the straight-face test.

Ms. SNOWE. But I would say, I mentioned earlier that it would be a very strange form of States rights. We are saying to the States, ``You decide whether or not you want a helmet law.'' However, if somebody who is abiding by the fact that their State does not have a helmet law, so is not wearing a helmet and gets in an accident, regardless of whether or not it is his or her fault, they will be denied medical care; is that what we are really saying and want to say by adopting this amendment? I hope not, because I think you would all agree there are other areas that we could examine, as far as having a tremendous impact on medical care that adds to the cost year in and year out. So I hope that we reject this amendment, because otherwise, as the Senator from Colorado, Senator Campbell, has mentioned, there will be other amendments to address these very issues that come within the scope and relevance of the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison. Mr. President, I ask for a recorded vote on the underlying amendment.

Ms. SNOWE. The fact of the matter is, we are going to be denying individuals medical care under this amendment. But it will not stop here. It will go on into other areas. As the Senator from Colorado has indicated, he will offer an amendment. There will be other amendments, there will be other legislation, and we will be continuing to draw those lines in terms of who will be able to get medical care. It can go on and on, because there are a number of behaviors that people engage in that have implications to our medical costs. I cannot imagine we are saying now, if somebody is skiing or skateboarding or rollerblading, playing touch football, and has a head injury and is not wearing a helmet, and may be on Medicaid--that has implications, too. But what we are doing is isolating a certain group and imposing a punishment on them because they are abiding by State law. So I hope we will reject the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

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

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