Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the majority leader. I am prepared to have a voice vote on the underlying amendment. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Getting to specifics, I think it is important, because we are talking about medical costs. We are saying if somebody does not wear a helmet and gets in an accident, regardless of whether or not it is that individual's fault, they will not have access to medical care if they happen to be eligible for a Federal program. Now, we know that smoking is a cost. Does the Senator think that if somebody who happens to be on the Medicaid or Medicare Program, smoking, and happens to get lung cancer, do we deny that individual medical care?

Ms. SNOWE. No, I think it is relevant. I reclaim my time. I think it is relevant because the Senator's amendment is setting up drawing distinctions for the first time. I think it is very relevant.

Ms. SNOWE. We know its within their rights.

Ms. SNOWE. This is not a hypothetical amendment. It is reality. That is, what we are talking about is a very real possibility that will open a number of doors in terms of who will be eligible and who will be ineligible for medical care. We know the Federal Government has every right in the world and every prerogative to design the programs the way we see fit. But that is not the point.

Ms. SNOWE. That is the way I interpret this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE. I say to the Senator, I am not a lawyer, but I certainly think that would have a great impact. It certainly would, in my opinion, in terms of the impact it would have on a specific category of recipients, potential recipients if they are eligible for any of our medical programs in the Federal Government.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to respond to a few of the comments that have been made by the chairman, the manager of this legislation, because I think it is important since we are quoting from one another's States with respect to statistics and positions of officials in those States. It is interesting to note, because back when we had hearings this year on this entire issue, Rhode Island State Senator William Enos, in testimony before the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure in March, noted that in 1976, the last year that Rhode Island had a helmet law, there was 1 death per every 1,000 riders. In 1994, without a mandatory helmet law, that rate was less than 0.5 deaths per 1,000 riders, despite the fact that there were 7,000 more riders in 1994 than in 1976. He goes on to say: 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 has applied strict helmet wearing standards to motorcycle riders, has a fatality rate a full point higher than Rhode Island. Much of this success can be attributed to motorcycle rider education programs, which were first implemented in 1980. [[Page S 8666]] Back in 1980. That was 15 years ago that Rhode Island implemented a motorcycle rider education program because they understood the value of those programs with rider safety and being able to drive a motorcycle better and more effectively. The same is true for driving an automobile. I further read from his testimony: Again, referring to the attached graph, it can be seen that since rider training began, fatality rates have continued to decline. 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. As I said earlier, the State of Maine in 1993 ranked 49th in the number of motorcycle fatalities, second lowest in the country. And it has a very effective rider education program. The 44 States that have rider education programs--and I think it is essential to underscore that there are 44 States that have motorcycle rider education programs. Those are not essentially mandated by the Federal Government, but the States have determined in their wisdom that they are the most effective approach in reducing the number of fatalities and accidents on the highways. In fact, those programs are financed through motorcycle registration and license fees. Collectively, they have raised $13 million. Contrary to what the chairman has said, these education programs are not only financed by the States, but our States have determined how much is necessary to finance these programs. It is not as if they do not have the money. They have been financing the programs. My State does not need to double the amount of money that already exists for its motorcycle rider education program. It has sufficient funding through license fees and registrations. But it does need its money for highway improvement and repairs. It desperately needs that funding. Listening to the debate here today, one would think that it would be very difficult for State legislatures and the Governors and State officials to have the capability to make these decisions on behalf of the best interests of their State and the welfare of their own constituency. Somehow, we have this notion that they do not know any better, that they could not possibly make these decisions for their constituents in their States, that somehow we know better here in Washington, DC, what should happen in the States when it comes to motor vehicle safety; that they do not have the capacity to understand. No one is disputing the fact that we should do everything we can to improve safety on the highways. There is no doubt about that. Yes, it has some impact on our health expenditures. As I said earlier, so much of our behavior asks how far do we go? That is the issue here today. Where do we draw the line as to what the Federal Government will dictate to the States or what the States themselves will decide for the people who live in their States? That is the ultimate question here. And I think that it is important to make a decision as to how far we are willing to go. I would argue with the chairman that there are many other aspects to personal and social behavior that contribute far more to that cost of Medicare than riding a motorcycle or driving an automobile.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be able to join Senator Smith as well as Senator Campbell in support of this amendment. I commend Senator Smith for offering it because I do think it underscores a very important point. In fact, as I recall, this Congress and this Senate, when we began in January, the very first issue we addressed was banning unfunded Federal mandates. I cannot think of another issue that represents unfunded mandates more than the one we are currently addressing with this legislation that would take away the mandate on States to enact mandatory seatbelt and helmet laws, and, if they do not, they are penalized by losing 1.5 percent of their transportation funds in 1995 and 3 percent in 1996. What is unprecedented about that approach, and something that I certainly object to, is saying that States are going to lose existing transportation funds, which will happen this October, if they do not enact both laws. It is not saying if the States enact these laws we will give you additional funds and create an incentive, which has generally been the approach taken by the U.S. Congress in the past on a number of issues, but rather we are penalizing those States with existing transportation funds, which certainly are needed in terms of repairing roads and bridges. We allow States to determine minimum driving ages for their residents. States have the authority to determine when the driver education courses are required. They determine the difficulty of the written as well as the practical tests. They determine many of the speed limits for various areas. And they determine the various penalties for violations such as driving while intoxicated. In nearly every aspect of day-to-day driving we trust the individual States to determine the motor vehicle laws that govern the majority of vehicles that are on our highways. In short, the States control every aspect, for the most part, of our driving experience, with one exception. And that is, of course, when the Federal requirements state that States must pass laws to adopt seatbelts and helmet laws. I do not believe that seatbelt and helmet laws are any different than any other motor vehicle law. We are creating these mandates from a paternalistic attitude, as Senator Smith indicated. It is certainly outdated. I think the arrogance of that attitude manifested itself in the last election. Somehow we always think Washington knows best, and what Washington knows best and what is good for the States generally can be two different objectives. I believe these differing perspectives were a critical reason we did address banning unfunded mandates as our very first legislative initiative in this Congress. No matter how you package this issue, sanctions or penalties or whatever, the truth is it is a Federal requirement that is an unfunded Federal mandate. If you look at the helmet laws--and that is a good example--the States, as Senator Smith indicated, 25 [[Page S 8662]] States will lose almost $49 million in 1995, and in 1996 they will lose close to $97 million because they did not adopt seatbelt and helmet laws. In fact, it is interesting to note that many States already fund rider education programs with respect to riding motorcycles. My State is a very good example. Yet, I am under these penalties. My State will double the motorcycle rider education safety program from $500,000 to more than $1 million. Yet, my State certainly needs these transportation funds for other things. It already has a well funded rider education program. It does not need to have it doubled. That is what the penalty will be under section 153. It is interesting to note that those 44 States that have rider education programs with respect to motorcycles have very high rates of safety. And they do not have mandatory helmet laws. My State again is a good example. We ranked 49th out of 50 States in terms of the number of fatalities with respect to motorcycles in 1993. We are next to the lowest in the country. Yet, we do not mandate a helmet law, but have a very active motorcycle education program. We know that these education programs work. The State knows that they work. It is hard to believe that we are saying somehow that the Governors of each and every State and every State legislature somehow are unconcerned and unresponsive to the statistics in what might be happening on their roads and their highways. As we all know, State governments are even more close to their people and to their constituencies, and somehow we are saying that they cannot possibly understand the implication if they do not enact seatbelt and helmet laws. The question here today is not whether we believe wearing a seatbelt or a helmet is a good thing. What we are saying is who should decide? And it clearly should not be the Federal Government. As I said earlier, much of our driving experience is governed and dictated by States. In 1993, there were 2,444 motorcycle fatalities. That same year, there were 5,460 young people between the ages of 16 and 20 that were the victims of traffic fatalities. So if you apply the logic of section 153 of ISTEA, that it is a safety issue, then one should suggest that penalties should be imposed on those States for allowing individuals to drive a car or ride a motorcycle under the age of 21. The fact of the matter is there are many dimensions to our personal and social behavior that do have implications for health care expenditures. And I know opponents of Senator Smith's amendment, or an amendment which I might offer or one which Senator Campbell might offer, are saying that this really has an impact on our health care expenditures. Well, I have to say that there are many aspects of social behavior in this country that have an impact on our health care costs. Low-fat diet, lack of exercise--if people do not engage in having a good diet or engage in daily exercise, that can be a contributing cause of heart disease, which is a major cause of death in this country. What should the Federal Government do--dictate a change in behavior in that regard? We could go on and on with some of the numbers of examples that we could offer as to what the Federal Government should get involved in because it has impact on health care. The point is that this legislation that was passed in 1991 really intervened in an area that has traditionally been a State issue. I hope that we can recognize here today in light of what happened in the last election, in light of what I think people strongly feel about what should be traditionally a Federal issue and what should be consistently a State issue, that we reverse what occurred in 1991. It is interesting to note that motorcycle fatalities, as well as motorcycle accidents, were reduced by 53 and 54 percent respectively between the time period of 1980 and 1992 before the penalties of ISTEA were put in place. It is because of motorcycle rider education programs that it made a difference in terms of reducing the number of accidents and fatalities. Applying the logic further, we could say, ``Well, the fatality rate on rural interstates is almost twice that of urban interstates.'' Does that mean we should penalize States with rural interstates because they have more accidents and more fatalities? Of course not. In 1993, before the Massachusetts seatbelt law went into effect, that State was one of only two States in the country that showed a consistent drop in motor vehicle fatalities for the prior 6 years. Another State which showed a consistent drop was Arizona, which does not have a mandatory helmet law. All combined, the 28 States that will face penalties if they do not enact both the helmet and seatbelt law will lose a combined $53 million in needed highway maintenance and improvement funding. When my State officials were asked exactly how they felt about the loss of money in the State of Maine, which is $800,000 that we will lose in 1995 and $1.7 million that we will lose in 1996, the State officials replied that, ``We could be spending it on our ailing highways and bridges, where it is desperately needed.'' So I hope that we recognize that we should reverse the position that was taken in 1991. We know the States are responsive to these issues, and to these concerns and what occurs on their highways. My State, for example, is sending to our people the question as to whether or not to enact a seatbelt law. I think that is perfectly consistent with the rights and the interests of the people of my State. If they make a decision that we should enact a seatbelt law, that should be their decision. But it should not be the Federal Government dictating that approach to the people of my State. So again, I want to thank Senator Smith for offering this amendment. I think it is a good amendment. I think it takes the right approach. It is a States rights issue, and it is an issue of unfunded mandates in the State, and every State has a right to determine its own motor vehicle laws. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator. Just to conclude, Mr. President, because I think it is important to read from the testimony of a State senator from the State of Illinois, who presented testimony before the committee on this issue--I would like to quote from her statement because I think it is important. She said that ``Many in the State believe that this course''--referring to the penalties imposed by ISTEA in 1991--``is directly responsible,''--the course they established in the State of Illinois for rider education-- . . . is directly responsible for the reduction in motorcycle accidents we witnessed in Illinois. We had a 46 percent decline in accidents involving motorcycles from 1985 to 1990. This led to a 48 percent decline in injuries to motorcyclists. During the time Illinois had a helmet law in 1968 and 1969, our fatality rate per 10,000 registrations averaged 9.15. Back then, we had 91,000 registered motorcycles. In 1993, we had 200,000 motorcycles registered and with no helmet law our fatality rate was 5.4 per 10,000 registrations, double the number of motorcycles, more vehicle miles traveled per year, no helmet law, and our fatality rate was four points lower. Yet Congress has sanctioned the State of Illinois for over $33 million. I would respectfully suggest to you that putting men to work building and repairing roads is a better and more efficient use of our highway dollars than requiring us to print up and distribute bumper stickers telling people to wear seatbelts. Finally, I would like to quote from a July 1994 Wall Street Journal article. Dennis Faulkenberg, chief financial officer for Indiana's Transportation Department, says this year's lost share would have paved 25 miles of highway and repaired 6 to 8 bridges. New lanes and intersection improvements will also fall by the wayside because of the loss of money to the State of Indiana as a result of this penalty. Further, I would like to quote from a New Hampshire State Representative who testified before the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Transportation in March. He said: My issue on whether I favor or disfavor a law mandating helmets or seatbelts is not the issue. The reason I came here today is because I feel this issue should be able to be decided by the State Legislatures in this country without the threat of Federal sanctions and money being moved. I don't think there is one of my colleagues in the State house that doesn't feel motorcycle helmets and seatbelts are a safety issue. There isn't one of us that will disagree with that. But let us discuss the issue, let us decide the issue on the merits of the issue, and not because we're going to have money transferred. I think that speaks very well to the issue and the essence of the amendment offered by Senator Smith. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. The Senator is absolutely correct. When it comes to dictating the driver's age or the automobile inspection or the types of tests that are given so that people can get their licenses, or even some of the speed limits that are established on the various roads within a State, they have all traditionally been within the purview and jurisdiction of the States in determining that. In fact, I was mentioning earlier in some of the statistics that the States have certainly made a number of decisions with respect to those issues and could make even more. We could draw a lot of decisions here today in terms of what we should do based on statistics, but the States are in a much better position to make those decisions. I ask the Senator, because I think it is important since the Senator has been a former Governor, there has been this sort of impression here that somehow the States just do not understand or get it and, therefore, it requires and compels the Federal Government to impose these dictates and mandates. Does the Senator not agree that the Governors and the States and the State legislature are in a far better position to make decisions about what is in the best interests of the general welfare of their constituencies and residents?

Ms. SNOWE. I answer the Senator, that is absolutely correct. Certainly, Senator Gregg well knows, having been a former Governor of the State of New Hampshire, to understand exactly what is relevant and within the purview or jurisdiction of the State, it is very essential that we begin to draw those lines as to how far we need to go to impose Federal mandates and Federal dictates. Would the Senator agree that the States are in a much better position to make those decisions? Are they not more responsive since they are closer to the people? The Senator has been a Governor and certainly can appreciate that relationship between the State and the residents of that State.

Ms. SNOWE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support as a cosponsor of Senator McCain's amendment to clarify how universal service discounts to schools, libraries, and rural hospitals under section 310 of the telecommunications bill should be targeted. As I noted last week in my remarks, I support targeting of discounts. For example, elementary and secondary schools with large endowments simply do not have the same need as public schools for discounts in order to assure affordable access to telecommunications services. In my view, the language in the bill gave the FCC, the States, and the Joint Board some flexibility to target discounts. Specifically, the language guaranteed schools and libraries an affordable rate, which implicitly takes into account both the price of the service and the ability of an entity to pay. I appreciate the time and effort Senator McCain has invested in working with the sponsors of section 310 to build upon the affordability concept, to develop a solid, responsible test of when schools, libraries, and rural hospitals should receive discounts in order [[Page S8419]] to promote the goal of affordable access to telecommunications services. Under the McCain amendment, public elementary and secondary schools would be eligible for discounts, as would private, nonprofit schools without large endowments. Libraries would be eligible for discounts if they participated in State-based plans under title III of the Library Services and Construction Act, which coordinate library development within the State. Non-profit rural health care providers would also be eligible for discounts. This amendment meets the twin goals which I am sure are supported by most Members of this Senate. First, it guarantees affordable access to telemedicine and educational telecommunications services for those key institutions in our society which need assistance in order to take full advantage of the information age. Second, by targeting the discounts, this amendment ensures that the universal service fund is used wisely and efficiently. Mr. President, the provision of the bill sponsored by myself, Senators Rockefeller, Exon, and Kerrey, is in my view one of the most important provisions of the bill. We know that competition will bring an array of improved services and exciting new services at a lower cost. Technology allows the transmission of information across traditional boundaries of time and space, dramatically changing the way that American school children learn, and the way that health care is provided. The Snowe-Rockefeller-Exon-Kerrey provision in the bill ensures that competition ultimately achieves this goal for all Americans, regardless of where they live. I realize that the distinguished Senator from Arizona believes that a deregulated market will take care of everyone, but I simply do not share that belief. Furthermore, the stakes are too great to leave affordable access to the marketplace. Again, I appreciate Senator McCain's willingness to work with myself and Senators Rockefeller, Exon, and Kerrey to clarify how discounts should be targeted, and I urge my colleagues to support the McCain amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I just want to address a couple of points that have been raised by Senator McCain because I think it is important to address his comments with respect to what would be provided, and to whom, under the manager's amendment that was incorporated in the legislation which Senator McCain seeks to strike. I cannot think what would be more in the public's interest than schools, libraries, and hospitals. As I said earlier, in the last Congress, the Committee, on a nearly unanimous vote, sought to provide universal service to zoos, aquariums, and museums. We do not include those entities under this language because we think we should strictly limit it to very essential institutions, schools, libraries, and rural hospitals. Universal service happens to be a national priority. That is what this issue is all about. Senator McCain said leave it to the States. States are involved, in the sense that there is a joint board in this legislation that will help determine the rates for the communities under the universal service provision. But this happens to be a national priority, a national issue, and it is too important just to leave it to the States on an ad hoc basis and say whatever happens, happens. The States are certainly doing their best. They understand the importance of this issue, and have been very innovative and progressive. But they cannot do it alone. Presently, there is a disparity between the States. We all recognize how important the information age is to the future of this country and to individuals and to families. It is so important, and therefore I think it requires a national policy and should be established as a national priority. Certainly, universal service can be supplemented by the States. The fact is, they cannot do it alone. This is a major telecommunications policy. If that was not the case, we would not be here discussing today the amendment before the Senate. But it is an important telecommunications policy. It is essential that we establish some parameters to universal service. There may be a day when it will not be required. But right now, we need a transition with respect to telecommunications. That is why the universal service language becomes an imperative. We have to recognize the changes that have evolved and will continue to evolve over time. We have to anticipate the needs of America. I cannot think of entities with a greater need to affordable telecommunications services than schools, libraries, and rural hospitals. I never would have expected anybody to have questioned that. The language in the bill extends the idea, included in the Communications Act of 1934, of universal service. That is all we are saying, with the language in the bill, sponsored by myself and Senator Rockefeller and Senator Kerrey and Senator Exon and adopted by committee. The language simply extends universal service to schools, libraries, and rural hospitals. Under the language, essential telecommunication providers will get reimbursements. They can recoup the [[Page S7984]] discounts given to these public entities from the universal service fund. In the case of schools and libraries, the discount is an amount necessary to ensure affordable access to telecommunications services for educational purposes. This is a modification we made in the managers' amendment that was offered last night. By changing the basis for the discount from incremental cost to an amount necessary to ensure an affordable rate, the Federal-State joint board in conjunction with the FCC and the States have some flexibility to target discounts based on a community's ability to pay. The discounts will not be indiscriminate, as the Senator from Arizona suggested in his previous remarks. There will be some parameters, because we do not have an unlimited fund. There have been a number of letters from supporters of the language in the bill that various Senators have received. I would like to quote from a couple of them. I think it gives everyone an idea of the importance of this issue. One letter that I will quote from is from an education technology specialist. She writes to one Senator, and I received a copy of this letter: Two key issues for rural States like ours are affordable and equitable access. Cost is the barrier cited. A recent survey shows only 3 percent of the Nation's classrooms have access to Internet or use information services for instructional services. Preferential rates for school and libraries at cost would be a step toward eliminating this barrier. As a Nation and as a State, we must recognize the need for improvement in our educational system and seize the opportunities offered by technology and telecommunications. The dream of access, equity, and excellence for all Americans for life means acting now to ensure these essential elements for better education, bound in decisions currently under consideration. We urge you to make certain the voices of K through 12 educators are heard and their needs addressed in the drafting and passage of this legislation. In another letter: I hope that Members of Congress will stop and consider the impact that schools and libraries had upon their lives. Then, if they will project what these entities can provide when they are equipped with appropriate connectivity, we can begin to understand the quality of true education our young people will possess that will equip them for bright futures. With your help, thousands of young lives will be able to experience the rush that comes with free exploration of knowledge sources. And then we received a list of different associations that are supporting this legislation, again, I think, expressing the thought that this legislation and this provision is so important to the future of this country. The organizations are part of a coalition supporting affordable telecommunications access for our Nation's schools and libraries, and there are a number of different associations. I am not going to read them all, but I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record, Mr. President.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in very strong opposition to the amendment that has been offered by Senator McCain. It certainly is disturbing to think that some Members in this body cannot accept a provision that will provide affordable access to rural schools, libraries, and health care providers, given that we have become part of the information age, and this issue is absolutely critical to our Nation's future. The Senator from Arizona has offered an amendment that will strike the provision that was offered by Senator Rockefeller, Senator Exon, Senator Kerrey, and myself in the Commerce Committee which requires telecommunications carriers, upon a bona fide request, to provide important telecommunications services to schools and libraries and rural health care providers. This principle of affordable access is not a new concept. The universal service concept has been embodied in our national telecommunications policy since 1934, to ensure that all parts of America had access to the telephone. It was important to ensure that all Americans had access to the essential service at the time, telephone service. But universal service needs to be updated, and in fact, the bill recognizes that universal service is an evolving concept. The bill presently ensures universal service for telemedicine, and educational services, which I believe will make a difference, not only for America and its ability to compete with other countries, but also for individuals in preparing themselves for the work force of tomorrow, which we know will be constantly changing. And ensuring that our Nation's children gain access to the important technologies of the future will make a significant difference in the standard of living they and their families will enjoy for years to come. That is what this amendment is all about. The Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, is offering an amendment to strike this language. His amendment will result in a nation of technology haves and have-nots, and that is not an outcome that I am willing to accept. I do not believe that we in Congress should pass a new telecommunications policy--I might add, the first revision of the Communications Act since 1934--which divides our Nation between the telecommunications haves and the have-nots. Many of the telecommunications providers are going to reap enormous gains from this legislation. Most will, and some will not. But the point is, in deregulating the telecommunications industry, we must make sure that we do not deny important areas of our country affordable access to telecommunications services. We know the densely populated urban areas will benefit from deregulation. They will have the benefit of all of the advances in technology for today and tomorrow and thereafter. But what about the rural areas? We know now that telecommunications services are far more expensive in rural areas than they are in urban areas, for example, access to Internet costs more in rural areas because the Internet nodes of access often are not in local calling areas, meaning that rural consumers must pay toll rates. What is going to happen now? If we do not guarantee some affordable access to telecommunications services in rural schools, libraries, and health care centers, where are they going to be tomorrow? Where will our Nation be? It is in our national interest to ensure that these areas are part of the information superhighway. If we want young people to be familiar with technology and to have it become second nature to them, to understand that it is their future, I cannot understand why we would support Senator McCain's amendment, which would take out the one provision that provides enormous public gain for all of America. Look at telemedicine. It is the here and now and it is the wave of the future. I have talked to many rural health care centers in my State of Maine. They need affordable access to telemedicine. They need the help so that they can provide the same kind of services and health care for their rural constituents as enjoyed by residents of more densely populated areas. I received a letter recently from Eastern Maine Health Care Services, which is located in a rural area of the State. They write: In the past several months, a network of hospitals have begun to collaborate in our region of Maine. One of the outstanding issues within that group is the need to use telemedicine as a tool for providing cost-effective quality health care from the smallest to the largest towns in our region. Telemedicine in our region is defined as the transmission of data --voice, image, and video--over distance. We have come across many obstacles in this endeavor, but one of the greatest obstacles is the transmission of these media over the present telecommunications lines at an affordable cost. Many of the hospitals and health centers in our service area have extremely limited funds. I thank the Senator, the chairman of our committee, Mr. Pressler, for including important refinements to this language in the managers' amendment. I know that there are some, such as the sponsor of the amendment to strike this language, who believe that the somehow, someway, affordable telecommunications will be available for everybody at affordable rates. Other Senators have mentioned here on the floor today, as an example of deregulation and the impact that it has had on many rural parts of our country, the impact of airline deregulation. I can certainly speak firsthand to that, as far as how it has affected the State of Maine. It certainly has denied us the kind of airline service I would have thought might have developed from deregulation, and it simply has not happened. Many of the areas that at one time had the benefits of airline service--and I might add jet service--do not even have the benefits of commercial airline service. Our largest city in the State of Maine, Portland, ME, is losing jet service as a result of deregulation. That is occurring this year. Since we have had deregulation--this is about 17 years ago --the situation has gotten worse. It has not improved in the rural areas of our country. That is a fact. I can speak to it firsthand because I use those airlines every week. We have commuter services. We do not have jet service for the most part, anymore, in the State of Maine. Most of the areas, like Presque Isle and Portland, that used to have jet service do not have the benefits of commercial airline service. So that is why I cannot understand why we want to apply the same notion here when it comes to telecommunication services. What will happen to the rural area? Who will make sure that our schools, libraries and health care centers are going to have the benefits of our national information infrastructure, if we do not provide for that in this legislation? House Speaker Newt Gingrich said ``If our country doesn't figure out a way to bring the information age to the country's poor, we are buying ourselves a 21st century of enormous domestic pain.'' He said, ``Somehow there has to be a missionary spirit in America that says to the poor kid, the Internet is for you, the information is for you.'' Well, that is exactly right. But I think that we have an obligation as a Nation to ensure that our young people have affordable access to this kind of service. The National Center for Education Statistics reports--and I think it is interesting to note these statistics because I think it proves the point--that 35 percent of public schools have access to the internet, but only 3 percent of all instructional rooms, classrooms, labs, and media centers in public schools are connected to the internet. Of the 35 percent of the schools with access, 36 percent cited telecommunication rates as a barrier to maximizing the use of their telecommunication capabilities. Some would suggest that the Snowe-Rockefeller-Kerrey amendment is opening a Pandora's box, a new array of entitlements for schools, libraries and hospitals. No, it is not. As I said earlier in my remarks, universal service provisions for residential consumers existed in the bill prior to the adoption of this amendment, to this legislation, in the committee. Those provisions guaranteed access to essential telecommunication services for residential consumers. Our amendment simply provides that assurance for key institutions in rural areas. Our objective is to ensure that rural areas are on an equal footing in terms of schools, libraries, and health care facilities in urban areas. I should also mention the fact that we have worked with some of the Bell telephone companies to address their concerns. We made some changes in the language, to address their concerns about incremental costs language. The revised language ensures affordable access to educational services for schools and libraries, and discounts will be determined, as for residential consumers, by the joint board in conjunction with the FCC and the states. The discount must be an amount necessary to ensure affordable access to use the telecommunications services for educational services. Some have suggested that these discounts would be wasted on some communities with poor schools, low literacy rates, high levels of unemployment, or other social problems. I disagree. This language will open doors, not close them. Those communities stand to gain enormously from the telecommunication network. It will open up a whole new world to these communities. Senator McCain's amendment will deny those gains, benefits, and opportunities for troubled areas. We do not know what the future will be all about. We do not have a crystal ball. We do know, however, that technology and the information age is going to be very much part of our future, I think in ways which we cannot now fully anticipate or appreciate even today. This is the first time we have addressed telecommunication policies, I mentioned, since 1934. There probably will be years and decades before we come back to this issue as a Nation and as an institution. How can we seek to deprive some areas of the country of the knowledge that they need in order to thrive and to develop, and to be productive for the future, for their future and this country's future? Knowledge is power. To cut some areas off from the information superhighway is not only denying them the future that they deserve, but it is denying the kind of future this country deserves, because their future is going to affect America's future. I hope that the Senate will reject this amendment of Senator McCain to strike out our universal service language, which, I might add, is not a new concept. In fact, it is interesting to note that the Commerce Committee in the last Congress approved a bill by a vote of 18 to 2 which contained adopted similar language on this very issue, extending the universal service concept to these key institutions, schools, libraries and rural health care facilities. Last year's bill went even further than this year's bill--it contained universal service discounts for museums and zoos and so on. We narrowed our language to ensure that we were just addressing the needs of key entities that are so important to the development of this Nation. Funding is a major barrier to access, it is the one that is most often cited in the acquisition of users of advanced telecommunications in public schools. Smaller schools, with enrollments of less than 300, are less likely to be on the internet than schools with larger enrollment sizes. Only 30 percent of the small schools reported having internet access, while 58 percent of schools with enrollments of 1,000 or more reported having internet access. So we know that there is a gap between the high expectations of an increasingly technologically-driven society and the inability of most schools, particularly rural schools, to prepare students adequately for the high-technology future. Almost 90 percent of K through 12 classrooms lack even basic access to telephone service. Telephone lines are used to hook up modems to the internet. When classrooms do have phone lines, schools are typically charged at the corporate rate for service. Schools and libraries in rural areas often pay more for access to information services because the information service providers are not located in the local calling regions, meaning they have to make long-distance calls. A recent study conducted by the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science found that 21 percent of public libraries had internet connections. Only 12.8 percent provide public access terminals. Internet connections were 77 percent for public libraries serving a population base of more than 1 million, but declined to 13.3 percent for libraries serving fewer than 5,000. Maine, I might add, has a population of 1.2 million. The largest city representing Maine has no more than 80,000 people. I hope that Members of this body would understand the importance and the value of maintaining the language that we have included in this legislation. It is so important to our future and to our children's future. It is fundamental that we, as a Nation, assure that all areas in America have access to essential telecommunication services for the future. I, for one, will not vote to deprive schools and libraries and hospitals of the affordable telecommunication services that they need and require. [[Page S7979]] I hope that Members of this body will vote to defeat Senator McCain's amendment. His amendment will go a long ways toward denying the important opportunities that we should afford our young people. No matter where they live in America, everyone should be entitled to have access to the information superhighway which will be so much a part of our future. So I urge Members of this body to defeat the McCain amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. Reserving the right to object.

Ms. SNOWE. For example, the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Association of School Administrators, American Association of School Librarians, American Council on Education, American Federation of Teachers, American Library Association, the American Psychological Association, the Council of Urban Boards of Education, the Educational Testing Service, the National Association for Family and Community Education, National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Association of State Boards of Education, the National Education Association, the National School Boards Association, the National PTA, the United States Distance Learning Association. That gives you an idea of the cross-section of organizations and associations across America that support this language. Even I was surprised at the extent to which the language that we incorporated in this legislation received such strong and widespread support. The FCC Chair, Reed Hundt, recently stated: There are thousands of buildings in this country with millions of people in them who have no telephones, no cable television, and no reasonable prospect of broadband services. They are called schools. This all goes to show how important this issue is. I hope that Members of this Senate will oppose the McCain amendment and will continue to support the provision that is incorporated in the managers' amendment and in the underlying legislation that was supported by members of the Commerce Committee--not a unanimous vote but a broad vote--because this is so important to the future of this country. Mr. President, I move to table the McCain amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Maine, Senator Cohen, and I join in cosponsorship of this legislation to ensure that set-top boxes are competitively available. I commend him for offering this legislation because I think in the context of the legislation before us today, this becomes a very important issue. Currently, as Senator Cohen has noted, consumers have absolutely no choice with respect to set-top boxes. They are forced to rent them from cable companies, often as a requirement to receiving cable signals. This issue was highlighted recently when a cable operator in Maine planned to scramble signals and require their customers to rent set-top boxes at a predetermined price. This obviously did not go over very well because it did not offer a choice to the consumers. Rather, they were required to rent set-top boxes for an additional fee added to their cable costs in order to unscramble the cable signal. Fortunately, the issue was resolved, but I think it underscores an important point, the need to ensure that consumers seeking to access cable services have options. This amendment would allow consumers to purchase the set-top box from a local retail store, or to lease or purchase a box from their cable provider. They would be able to choose boxes that will work with their own television set and continue receiving the cable programming channels to which they have subscribed. When set-top boxes are available in a competitive market, consumers will benefit from lower prices, increased flexibility, and a higher quality product. Competition will ensure technological innovation in set-top boxes, as companies compete to provide a better product at lower prices. I recognize that as companies try to provide consumers with new and changing technological features, there are bound to be growing pains. In the case of the State of Maine cable provider, the requirement to rent set-top boxes was intended to provide consumers with added flexibility through addressable programming--but instead it limited consumer choices because it required them to rent the set-top boxes and bear the additional cost, even if they wanted to receive the same services. I do not think that is a mandate, nor is it a price, that consumers should be forced to bear. I think certainly we should encourage competition, and I think this amendment does this. This amendment requires the FCC to assure that set-top boxes used by consumers to access cable programming are available in a competitive market. This amendment also continues to recognize the legitimate interest of cable operators in ensuring the delivery of cable services only to those consumers which have paid for them. Present technology, however, can ensure the integrity and safety of cable operators' signals without requiring delivery of set-top boxes only through the cable company. In fact, the Electronic Industries Association has developed a draft standard for security cards, similar to credit cards, that could be inserted into set-top boxes by cable companies to protect their system, while allowing consumers to use a commercially-sold set-top box. I think it is important to mention this issue because I know that cable companies were concerned about providing safeguards for their own signals. And this legislation provides for that, takes that into account. Under the amendment the FCC has the responsibility and obligation to consider the legitimate needs of owners and distributors of cable programming to ensure system and signal security, and to prevent theft of programming or services. It is interesting to look back on telephones prior to the deregulatory environment, specifically, think back to 1978--to give an example of how much costs have dramatically changed in telephone services, back in 1978, it cost $8.10 a month to rent a touch-tone telephone from AT&T--a noncompetitive rental that would cost about $18.60 in 1994 dollars, plus the touch-tone and extension fees. As you know, the AT&T monopoly was broken up back in 1984. With that decision, the non-competitive telephone rental market was concluded. In today's competitive market, a similar phone can be purchased for less than twenty dollars--about the same cost as a monthly rental from AT&T would have cost in today's dollars. In 1983, it cost $3.03 to rent a standard black telephone--$4.63 in 1994 dollars. Later that same year, when AT&T customers were allowed to buy the phones already in their homes, the very same phone could be purchased for $19.95. We have learned that competition did not threaten the security of the phone networks, and consumers benefited from technological innovations, lower prices, and expanded choice. So I think that a ``yes'' vote on Senator Cohen's amendment will bring competition to the market for set- top boxes, I think, benefiting consumers all across America. I think the case has been made absolutely clear. I urge a ``yes'' vote for consumer choice and improved competition. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.

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

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, just a few final points that I think are important to make in response to one of the previous speakers, Senator Burns. First of all, the language that has been incorporated in the legislation before the Senate that was offered by Senator Rockefeller, Senator Kerrey, Senator Exon, and myself in committee extended the already existing universal service provisions within the legislation. Universal service has been a fundamental part of our telecommunication policy, and rightly continues to be part of our telecommunication policy before this Senate. We extended the provisions to include schools, libraries, and hospitals because we think it is in the public interest. It is in our national interest. Furthermore, I think it is important to note that this ultimately will save money. When we talk about the deregulation of the telecommunication industry, which is what this legislation is all about, many providers will reap enormous benefits as a result of the goal of this legislation. We want to make sure that the rural areas also reap benefits, that they are not removed from affordable access to the technological growth and development of the information superhighway. It will save money through telemedicine. Making sure schools have access will ultimately increase the economic growth of this country. This language is a wise investment that will ultimately save money. In talking to rural health care centers and hospitals, they point out that through telemedicine they could communicate with some of the specialists, without transporting the patient or going to another hospital in order to get those services. They can do it through telemedicine. Access may be there to some citizens, in a limited fashion in some rural health care centers, as Senator Burns mentions. It is not pervasive, and certainly not in my State. Without this language in the bill, then rural areas will not reap the full benefits of the information age because it will be more economically feasible for carriers to provide those services in densely populated areas, in urban areas--not in the rural areas of our country. We have to ensure that there is a minimal threshold of affordable access to telecommunications services to our schools and our libraries and rural hospitals. We cannot make it more basic than that. Finally, I would like to note that three of the Bell telephone companies support our provisions. We refined our language to conform to some of their concerns. NYNEX, Ameritech, and Bell Atlantic do not oppose these provisions. I hope Members of this body will defeat the McCain amendment, which would strike the language that we have incorporated in the legislation before the Senate. I move to table the McCain amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my tabling motion and to vitiate the yeas and nays.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President I would like to recognize the outstanding work being done by both students and faculty at Nokomis Regional High School in Newport, ME. What is happening at Nokomis is truly exciting. Students and faculty, in their commitment to educational excellence, are making vital links between the classroom and the world around them. Whether in clubs that foster an appreciation for wildlife, testifying before legislative committees, conducting research for State agencies, or helping to save the black tern, Nokomis students are already making a positive difference in the world while at the same time gaining valuable skills and knowledge. Nothing mankind does occurs in a vacuum--neither should our education. It is important that students and educators alike have a strong feel for how knowledge gained today can have a direct impact on the world of tomorrow. It is not simply enough to memorize information--you must also know why the information is important, and how it can be used for the betterment of our world. It is clear that the students and faculty at Nokomis High School have positioned themselves at the forefront of this philosophy. Educators at Nokomis should be acclaimed for nurturing a love for learning; students deserve credit for opening themselves to the opportunities presented to them. All are to be commended for innovative and pro-active approaches to education. They are giving all of us perhaps the greatest gift of all--the chance for a brighter future, and a better world for generations to come. The importance of what is happening at Nokomis cannot be overstated, particularly in an age which will increasingly require skilled and knowledgeable professionals in a wide variety of fields. In particular, scientists with an environmental background will be in great demand as the strain on the world's resources increases with global population. Indeed, efforts at Nokomis are an ideal model for others to follow, and I would encourage anyone in the field of education to look closely at what is being done at Nokomis. Education is a top priority to me as a United States Senator, and I want to thank the students and faculty of [[Page S8048]] Nokomis High School for setting the standard by which educational initiatives should be judged. I believe that as the Nation charts a course for education, we need look no further than Nokomis Regional High School in Newport, ME as a shining example of our goals.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleagues in supporting S. 735, the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act. This legislation contains a broad range of needed changes in law to enhance our country's ability to combat terrorism, both at home and from abroad. The managers of this bill have described its provisions in some detail, so I will not repeat their comments. Briefly, however, this bill would increase penalties: for conspiracies involving explosives, for terrorist conspiracies, for terrorist crimes, for transferring explosives, for using explosives, and for other crimes related to terrorist acts. The bill also contains habeas corpus reform to curb the abuse of habeas corpus and to address the acute problems of unnecessary delay and abuse in death penalty cases. The bill also includes provisions to combat international terrorism, to remove aliens, to control fundraising for foreign terrorists, and procedural changes to strengthen our counterterrorism laws. Among those strengthening laws are a requirement to use chemical tagging in plastic explosives, to criminalize a threat to use a weapon of mass destruction, and to add conspiracy crime to certain terrorism offenses. Finally, the bill authorized increased funding for Federal law enforcement agencies, providing $1.5 billion over 5 years for the FBI, DEA, assistant U.S. attorneys, the INS, and the U.S. Customs Service. Mr. President, I would like to concentrate the remainder of my comments of two provisions of mine that are included in this bill with the assistance of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and our distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole. These two provisions are the Terrorist Exclusion Act and the Law Enforcement and Intelligence Sources Protection Act, both of which I have introduced separately this session of Congress. Traditionally, Americans have thought of terrorism as primarily a European, Middle Eastern, or Latin American problem. While Americans abroad or U.S. diplomatic facilities have been targets, Americans have often considered the United States itself largely immune from acts of terrorism. Two events have changed this sense of safety. The first was the international terrorist attack of February 26, 1993, against the New York World Trade Center, and the second was the shocking domestic terrorist attack this April 19 against the Federal building in Oklahoma City. I first introduced the Terrorist Exclusion Act in the House 2 years ago, and this year I have reintroduced the legislation in the Senate with Senator Brown as my original cosponsor. The Terrorist Exclusion Act will close a dangerous loophole in our visa laws which was opened up in the Immigration Reform Act of 1990. That bill eliminated then- existing authority to deny a U.S. visa to a known member of a violent terrorist organization. The new standards required knowledge that the individual had personally been involved in a past terrorist act or was coming to the United States to conduct such an act. This provision will restore the previous standard allowing denial of a U.S. visa for membership in a terrorist group. The elimination of authority to exclude a foreigner from the United States for mere membership in a terrorist group happened in the context of Congress' rewrite of the old McCarran-Walter's Act. The McCarran- Walter's Act contained a wide range of visa exclusions for ideological or associational reasons. But in narrowly refocusing all visa exclusions on personal acts, it perhaps inadvertently treated foreigners who join violent terrorist organizations no differently than if they had merely joined a political club, or fraternal order. This removed a valuable tool for protecting American lives. In my view, and I am sure the view of the vast majority of Americans, there is a difference. I discovered this dangerous weakness in our visa laws in early 1993 during my investigation of the State Department failures that allowed the radical Egyptian cleric, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, to travel to and reside in the United States since 1990. I undertook this investigation in my role as ranking Republican of the House International Operations Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over terrorism issues, a role I have continued in the Senate as chair of the International Operations Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee. Sheikh Rahman is the spiritual leader of Egypt's terrorist organization, the Islamic Group. His followers have been convicted for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, and the sheikh himself is now on trial for his alleged role in planting and approving a second wave of terrorist acts in the New York City area. The significance of Sheikh Abdel Rahman is that he was clearly excludable from the United States under the old pre-1990 law, but the legal authority to exclude him ended with enactment of the Immigration Reform Act that year. He was admitted to this country through an amazing series of bureaucratic blunders. But then, the 1990 law came into effect, and the State Department was forced to try to deport him on the grounds that he once bounced a check in Egypt and had more than one wife, rather than the fact that he was the known spiritual leader of a violent terrorist organization. This was before the World Trade Center bombing. A high-ranking State Department official informed my staff during my investigation that if Sheikh Abdel Rahman had tried to enter after the 1990 law went into affect, they would have had no legal authority to exclude him from the United States because they had no proof that he had ever personally committed a terrorist act, despite the fact that his followers were known to have been involved in the assassination of Anwar Sadat. The urgency of passing this provision comes from the sad truth that every day American lives continue to be put at risk out of deference to some imagined first amendment rights of foreign terrorists. This is an extreme misinterpretation of our cherished Bill of Rights, which the Founders of our Nation intended to protect the liberties of all Americans. In my reading of the U.S. Constitution I see much about the protection of the safety and welfare of Americans, but nothing about protecting the rights of foreign terrorists to travel freely to the United States whenever they choose. The second of my bills contained in S. 735 is the Law Enforcement and Intelligence Sources Protection Act. This legislation would significantly increase the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share information with the State Department for the purpose of denying visas to known terrorists, drug traffickers, and others involved in international criminal activity. This provision would permit denials of U.S. visas to be made without a detailed written explanation for individuals who are excluded for law enforcement reasons, which current law requires. These denials could be made [[Page S7838]] citing U.S. law generically, without further clarification or amplification. Individuals denied visas due to the suspicion that they are intending to immigrate would still have to be informed that this is the basis, to allow such an individual to compile additional information that may change that determination. Under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act [INA], a precise written justification, citing the specific provision of law, is required for every alien denied a U.S. visa. This requirement was inserted into the INA out of the belief that every non-American denied a U.S. visa for any reason had the right to know the precise grounds under which the visa was denied, even if it was for terrorist activity, narcotics trafficking, or other illegal acts. This has impeded the willingness of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share with the State Department the names of excludable aliens. These agencies are logically concerned about impeding an investigation or revealing sources and methods if they submit a name of a person they know to be a terrorist or criminal--but who we do not want to know that we know about their activities--who then goes on the lookout list, is denied a visa, and then is informed in writing that he or she was denied a visa because of known drug trafficking activity. That drug trafficker then will know that the DEA knows about his or her illegal activity and may be developing a criminal case. This information is something the United States would want to protect, until the case against is completed and, hopefully, some law enforcement action is taken. At the same time, however, for the protection of the American people we should also make this information available to the Department of State to keep the individual out of our country. The key issue is that travel to the United States by noncitizens is a privilege, not a constitutional right. There is no fundamental right for extensive due process in visa decisions by our consular officers overseas. While I believe that our country should do what we can to be fair in our treatment of would-be visitors to the United States, in cases where providing information to an alien would harm our own national security, complicate potential criminal cases or potentially reveal sources and methods of intelligence gathering, we should err on the side of protecting Americans, not the convenience of foreign nationals. Mr. President, I again congratulate Senator Dole, Senator Hatch, and all of my other colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--who have been instrumental in bringing this comprehensive counterterrorism bill to the Senate floor for swift action. This is an example of our capacity to act quickly on a bipartisan basis and in cooperation with the administration on critical issues. It is my hope that this bill is an example of what we can accomplish together in this body, and I hope we will continue to approach issues important to the future of our Nation in this manner. I urge adoption of the bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Will the Senator yield?