Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, Robert Louis Stevenson once said, ``These are my politics: To change what we can to better what we can.'' With today's vote, we have the chance to do both. Like so many other times in this great Nation's history, we are standing today before the American people on the cusp of monumental change. We have inherited the challenges and the responsibilities of leadership of previous generations of Americans, Americans who have stood in this Chamber and voted for difficult votes that molded the image of their generation. In this century alone we had women's suffrage, the declaration of World War II, and civil rights laws. Each of these events ended the status quo of one generation and ushered in a new beginning for the next. The prophetic nature of this debate cannot be understated in the annals of America's history. This is a defining moment for our generation. This is our chance to be remembered for what is just and right in our time. This is our last chance to roll back the years of indebtedness. This legacy of debt is not just an imbalance between revenues and expenditures. It is an imbalance between trust and responsibilities. The last time the on the noon. If there is one thing that we have learned in the last 26 years, it is this: We cannot balance our budget in the absence of a stronger force than politics.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as I have done on so many previous occasions in Congress, I rise today in strong support of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It is my hope--and that of the American people--that we will pass this amendment tomorrow and begin to chart a new course for this Nation. And there is now question that our Nation needs to change direction-- both politically and economically, and put an end to the fiscal status quo. That message was made clear to all of us after the results of last November's elections. It is time to hear and act on that clarion call for change. Tomorrow, we will have a chance to put to an end some of the hallmarks, some of the monuments, of America's status quo: our growing national debt and annual deficits. I graduated from the University of Maine in 1969, and since the day I graduated, Congress has been unable--even unwilling--to pass one Federal budget that would have brought revenues in line with expenditures. That's right--we have not experienced one balanced budget since 1969, 26 years ago. It is almost hard to believe that we haven't passed a balanced budget since the year America put a man on the Moon. But with today's $4.7 trillion debt, we could walk to the Moon and back on a bridge of dollars bills stacked end to end from that debt. As I have said before, this 26-year dry stretch represents one of our Nation's worst losing streaks, and it is Congress' very own fiscal losing streak. But, today, we stand at the precipice of monumental change--the kind of change the American people voted for last November. The kind of desire for change that brought me here to this Chamber as a U.S. Senator. Today's vote on this measure will help the American people, ``to know the change and feel it,'' in the words of the English poet, John Keats. Today is our opportunity to rise to the occasion and meet the expectations of the citizens of this country, or, we merely do nothing and uphold the malaise of economics-as-usual. Passing the balanced budget amendment will help restore a lost sense of confidence and trust that our institutions of Government have been lacking for the past generation. Tomorrow's vote marks our generations' chance to make a positive difference for all other future generations of Americans. And as we act on this proposal, we should remind ourselves that what we do--or do not do--tomorrow on the floor on this amendment affects a generation that currently has no say, no voice, and no vote. But they will pay the price. They will foot the bill. They will bear a terrible burden. While today's vote has the promise of marking a new beginning for America, we must understand that it is only part of the means to the end--not the end of the process itself. If and when we decide to pass this balanced budget amendment, we begin a process that our Founding Fathers envisioned to be in the best interest of democracy and the welfare of the American people. Let us be clear about one thing: with tomorrow's vote, we will not be ratifying the balanced budget amendment. We will merely be giving the 50 States the opportunity--the chance--to ratify the amendment before us. Congress has an obligation and a responsibility to let the American people's voice be heard throughout the Nation, in every people support the balanced budget amendment, according to a recent survey by KRC Research and Consulting. Nearly three-quarters of all Democrats--73 percent--support the amendment, 88 percent of all Republicans, and 79 percent of all unenrolled voters. Mr. President, I am confident that, when given the chance, the States and the American people will say ``yes'' to a new regimen of spending within our means; they will say ``yes'' to fiscal responsibility, they will say ``yes'' to putting our Nation's fiscal house in order on a permanent basis, and they will say ``yes'' to a Congress accountable to them and their needs. After almost 4 weeks of continuous debate in the Senate and almost 13 years after this Chamber passed this same measure by one vote, and after 26 years of continuous deficits and growing debts, it is hard to believe we have again come to this point. We have arrived at this juncture not necessarily by choice, but because economic and financial circumstances have compelled us to act. Our failure to take responsible action to end years and years of spiralling debt and deficit spending in the past is forcing our hand today. But make no mistake about it, tomorrow's vote is about tomorrow's generation. Although the figures and statistics about our debts and deficits have often been mentioned during Senate debate on the balanced budget amendment, they bear repeating once again in order to show the American people--and opponents of this measure--the devastating costs of our fiscal irresponsibility and lack of action. I think the American people and opponents of this measure need to be reminded that, since 1980, our national debt has grown from $1 trillion to a staggering $4.7 trillion for a growth rate of 309 percent. And our national debt is expected to grow to a whopping $6.3 trillion by 1999, for a growth rate of 453 percent since 1980. And an astounding 17 percent of our national debt--$800 billion--is held by other nations or people in other nations--so even control over our own indebtedness has been handed to foreign banks and foreign creditors. The American people and opponents of this measure need to be reminded that in the next 5 years alone, the personal burden of this debt and these interest payments for every American man, woman, and child will rise from $17,938 to $22,909--that's growth of nearly $5,000 in just 5 years. In fact, it should be pointed out that the Office of Management and Budget has already estimated that if we continue our current cycle of deficit spending, future generations--those who will inherit a Nation beset by fiscal problems we could not solve--will be forced to suffer a tax rate of 82 percent in order to pay the bills we left behind. The American people and opponents of this measure need to be reminded that the annual interest we pay on our ever-increasing national debt has grown almost exponentially, rising from $177 billion in 1982--the only year when the Senate passed this measure--to almost $300 billion in 1994. And our annual interest payments are expected to balloon to $373 billion in 1999, for a 219-percent growth rate between 1982 and 1999. To appreciate the impact of interest costs on our annual deficits, one only need look at the chart behind me. If we continue our current fiscal course, the interest costs related to servicing the debt will continue to exceed our total annual deficits. The American people and opponents of this measure need to be reminded that every day, we add $819 million in daily interest to the national debt. That figure will rise to $1 billion in interest every single day of the year. In fact, as I speak here for about 8 minutes on behalf of the balanced budget amendment, we will have added almost $5 million to the debt. Unfortunately, even when I do stop speaking, the debt keeps on growing--and growing, and growing like the ``Energizer Bunny of our fiscal irresponsibility.'' The American people and opponents of this measure need to be reminded that these interest payments on the debt already consume 14 percent of our annual Federal budget. These interest payments consume 57 percent of all personal income taxes each year, while the interest payments we make on our debt are eight times higher than what we spend on our children's education, 50 times higher than what we spend on job training for our workers, and 55 times higher than what we spend on Head Start programs. With these interest payments out of the way, Congress can finally prioritize its spending to where the American people want their tax dollars to be spent. The American people are painfully aware that the estimates of future deficits aren't getting any smaller no matter how much Congress procrastinates its fiscal discipline. Only a few months ago, the Congressional Budget Office told Congress that the estimated deficit in the current fiscal year would reach $162 billion, steadily rise upward to $197 billion by 1998, and climb again to $257 billion in the year 2000, and $319 billion in 2002. The CBO now estimates that the deficit will be higher than prior projections by an average of $25 billion per year over the next 5 years. This year's deficit has already been increased to $176 billion, $222 billion in 1998, $284 billion in 2000, and $421 billion in 2005. Not only that, but between now and 2002, we will add a cumulative total of nearly $2 trillion to the existing debt if we make no change in fiscal policy. But the American people also need to know that these numbers have a direct impact on their lives and on the future of their families. And they need to know that a balanced budget amendment would have a positive impact on their futures and on the economy of the Nation. The New York Federal Reserve Board, in an often referred to study, showed how America lost five percent growth in gross domestic product-- a loss in economic growth that translates into a 3.75 million job loss during the decade spanning 1979 and 1989--jobs in rural America, jobs in our inner cities, jobs on America's farms, and jobs for America's youth. The Concord Coalition study showed that a loss of national productivity has caused a sharp decline in America's family incomes, resulting in an average family income of $35,000 rather than the estimated $50,000 it would have been in the absence of our structural deficits and burgeoning debt. In June 1992, the General Accounting Office released a report showing a gradual decline in America's quality of life and standard of living if our deficit spending is not brought under control. But the report also showed that if we did balance the budget by the year 2001, then by the year 2020 the average American will have real growth in quality of life and income by 36 percent. The econometrics firm DRI/McGraw Hill reported that a balanced budget is worth $1,000 a year to the average American household over the next 10 years. A balanced budget would boost long-term economic growth: national interest rates would drop by 2.5 percent and by the year 2002, half the savings that is said to be needed in our budget simulations could come from lower interest costs. So the balanced budget amendment is not a gimmick--it does yield positive results. Most importantly, it puts into law what Congress has been unable and unwilling to do for the past two decades: that is, muster the courage and discipline necessary to balance the budget without an amendment to the Constitution. Over the years--and often to stem the tide toward a balanced budget amendment--Congress has tried to balance the budget through statutory means. And on each and every one of these efforts Congress has failed. The simple fact is statutory laws are easy to ignore. They are a paper tiger. During the past 26 years, Congress has operated without this amendment, but with eight statutes designed to lower or eliminate deficits. Looking at this chart, it is clear what the results have been. Passing this amendment is the only way--our last choice, our last resort--to put our fiscal house in order. I share the sentiments of whose who say Congress should be able to balance the budget without a constitutional amendment. But it is also said that you can learn from history. Mr. President, if the past 26 years have taught us anything, it is that Congress and the President are unwilling and unable to balance the budget absent a force the United States. If the states ratify this amendment, Congress will be beholden to a law with as much weight as the original Bill of Rights. Congress will be prohibited from ignoring annual deficits. We will be compelled by law to act. Each of us in this Chamber will have a duty to follow our solemn oaths of office to uphold and protect the Constitution. When we pass this measure, we will be beholden to following through on that oath. Mr. President, today we can make history. Today, we should make history. We can make history by molding a better, brighter future for the next generation and for every generation thereafter. I hope today we will make the right kind of history, and chart a new course for America, one where balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility become the norm, and not the exception to the rule. vice president and balanced budget amendment

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as many stories in the national media have reported, the New England groundfish industry is now facing the most difficult challenges in its long history. Scientists report that once plentiful stocks of cod, haddock, flounder, and other fish species have reached historic lows. In response to these stock assessments, the New England Fishery Management Council has approved severe restrictions on fishing that will probably force many fishermen out of business. These restrictions include a 5-year program to cut fishing efforts in half, mandatory use of large-mesh nets, a moratorium on new entrants into the fishery, and the emergency closure of large areas on the George's Bank fishing grounds off Massachusetts. Most fishermen in Maine recognize that the groundfish stocks are low and that effective conservation measures are needed to help rebuild the fishery. But too many fishermen also believe that the specific program approved by the council will not succeed at restoring groundfish populations, and will place unnecessary economic burdens on public hearings, dismissed too many of their recommendations despite the fact that they and others before them have been fishing the waters off New England for three centuries. In short, they have no support for or confidence in the council-developed management program under which they must operate. The success of any regulatory program depends in large part on the confidence of the regulated community that the action takes their views into account, will achieve its ends, and is sensible and necessary. I am introducing legislation today that aims to restore the confidence of New England fishermen in the credibility of the Federal fisheries management process by giving them and other citizens with an interest in fisheries the ability to participate directly in that process. My bills bring the concept of negotiated rulemaking or regulatory negotiation to fisheries management. The concept was established in Federal law by the negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990. Under negotiated rulemaking, representatives of all stakeholder groups involved in a dispute negotiate directly on the regulatory solution with the aid of a professional facilitator. It provides a collaborative, consensus-based dispute resolution tool that agencies can use to develop potentially controversial regulations. If the negotiating group can reach consensus, then the agency can propose the agreement as a new regulation or rule. Negotiated rulemaking has been used--sometimes successfully, sometimes unsuccessful--by other Federal agencies, and it is time that this tool be made available in the fisheries management process. The first bill that I have introduced today gives the Secretary of Commerce explicit authority to use negotiated rulemaking to develop fishery management plans or plan amendments. Under the Magnuson Act, the Secretary can only submit management plans or plan amendments under limited circumstances which preclude his flexibility in using this important tool effectively. Also, negotiated rulemaking is specifically used to develop rules, but fishery management plans are not technically rules. My bill removes these potential obstacles and clears the way for the Secretary to use this dispute resolution tool on controversial issues. The second bill directs the Secretary to use negotiated rulemaking in the specific case of the New England groundfish fishery. Alternative dispute resolution is used more and more commonly in lieu of the traditional adversarial regulatory process, and I believe that it should be tried in the case of the New England groundfish issue. These bills do not directly affect any existing fisheries management programs, or impose new management measures. They only offer an alternative route for devising plans that will restore fish stocks off the coast of New England and other parts of the country. They could lead to new management measures that not only do a better job of rebuilding fish stocks, but do so in a manner that minimizes the economic impact on fishermen and coastal communities, and in a manner that gains the confidence and support of most fishermen. Surely, given the extremely high stakes in an area like New England these days, we must explore every opportunity, every possibility, for achieving such critically important results.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Guardianship Rights and Responsibilities Act of 1995, which establishes a bill of rights for adults who, because of physical or mental incapacity, become wards of the courts. Wards are individuals whose legal rights, decisionmaking authority and possessions have been transferred to the control of a guardian or conservator based on a judgment that the person is no longer capable of handling these affairs. This legal system severely limits an individual's personal autonomy and has considered problems and widespread abuses. Horror stories abound about guardians who force unnecessary nursing home care, embezzle assets, or otherwise abuse their wards. The Guardianship Rights and Responsibilities Act of 1995 would require States to adopt and enforce laws to provide basic protection and rights to wards as a condition of receiving Federal Medicaid funds. It would assure due process protections such as counsel, the right to be present at their proceedings and to appeal decisions. Also required would be: clear and convincing evidence to determine the need for a guardianship; adequate court monitoring; and standards, training and oversight for guardians. This legislation will help to protect the most vulnerable elderly and disabled from exploitation, and will help to assure them the highest possible autonomy. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, on behalf of myself and Senator Dole, the Child Support Responsibility Act of 1995. This bill improves upon existing child support enforcement mechanisms and establishes new enforcement systems where none currently are in place. Furthermore, it recognizes that the issue of child support enforcement goes far beyond parochial interests or state lines, that as a national problem for our children and their families, child support enforcement merits a national solution. When two people, whether married or not, have a baby, they incur an obligation to provide for and care for their child. When parents live apart, the parent not living with, and providing day-to-day care for, the parent is expected to provide financial assistance for the child. Consider the facts: millions of American single parents and children continue to suffer from the consequences of a parent who financially and emotionally abandons them. For mothers who have obtained a child support order--and more than 40 percent have not--only half of those actually receive what is owed--the other half receives partial payments or nothing. Never-married single parents have a particularly difficult time obtaining child support--1990 census data indicates that of all never-married custodial mothers, 75 percent did not have child support orders and more than 50 percent had household incomes below the poverty line. These statistics add up to significant economic and emotional burdens for single parents and their dependent children. The Child Support Enforcement Program was first created in 1975 and significantly modified in 1984 and 1988. The program's purpose is to strengthen existing State and local efforts to locate noncustodial parents, to establish paternity for them, to obtain child support orders and collect child support payments. My proposed legislation, a companion to the House bill introduced by Congresswomen Johnson and Roukema, would assist the Child Support Enforcement Program with each of these goals. To strengthen efforts to locate parents, it expands the Federal parent locator system and provides for State-to-State access of the network. To increase paternity establishment, the bill simplifies paternity procedures, facilitates voluntary acknowledgment, and encourages outreach. To facilitate the setting of effective child support orders, it calls for the establishment of a National Child Support Guidelines Commission to develop a national child support guideline for consideration by Congress, and provides for a simplified process for review and adjustment of child support orders. And to facilitate child support enforcement and collection, the bill expands the penalties for child support delinquency to include the denial of professional, recreational, and driver's license to deadbeat parents, the imposition of liens on real property, and the automatic reporting of delinquency to credit unions. It also grants families who are owed child support the right of first access to an IRS refund credited to a deadbeat dad and permits the denial of a passport for individuals who are more than $5,000 or 24 months in arrears. registry of child support orders, developing centralized State registries, and requiring States to adopt the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, as approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in August 1992. Through the enactment of this child support legislation I would like to begin to ease, and eventually lift, the economic and emotional burdens caused by delinquent child support payments. Noncustodial parents must begin to accept and bear responsibility for their children, who will reap the support they so justly deserve and desperately need.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to focus attention on the special health needs of women by establishing offices of Women's Health within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the Food and Drug Administration. The directors of these offices of women's health will assess the current level of activity regarding women's health within their respective agencies, established short-range and long-range goals and objectives for women's health, identify projects in women's health that should be conducted or supported, consult with health professionals, nongovernmental organizations, consumer organizations, and other appropriate groups on their agency's women's health policies, and coordinate agency activities on women's health. Congress has already taken a first step in recognizing that women's unique health needs should be addressed separately. In the 103d Congress, the 1993 NIH revitalization bill established an Office of Woman's Health within the National Institutes of Health. We must build upon that progress in the 104th Congress. For too long, women have been systematically excluded from medical research studies, received less aggressive treatment for heart disease and other serious ailments, and lacked access to important preventive services. By statutorily establishing offices of Women's Health in Federal agencies which research and disseminate information about health, we ensure that women's needs and concerns will be given the consideration they deserve.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address the serious problem of crime in America, while offering stronger protection to the victims of crime. My legislation will propose mandatory minimum sentences for criminals who use a firearm while committing violent State crimes; require truth-in-sentencing provisions so that criminals complete at least 85 percent of their sentences; eliminate prison luxuries that coddle prisoners, and require courts to order restitution for the victims of crimes. Many of these proposals--which are designed to strengthen the crime package passed by Congress last year--are not new. Some have already won passage in the Senate as part of the Senate-passed crime bill. But they are important proposals--and it is important for our citizens and especially for our crime. When 23 million households will suffer from crimes this year, it is no wonder that crime is the number one concern of most Americans, whether in a relatively safe State like Maine, or here in the District of Columbia. As Americans scan the front page of the newspapers every morning, word of crimes right in our own neighborhoods catches our eye, puts us on guard--and keeps the American people on edge. We have been raised in a humane and advanced nation--and our citizens place a premium on safety, security. For too many Americans, the home is no longer a castle. Too many Americans must lock up their homes like a fortress, and walk through our streets with fear because of the scourge of violent crime. Indeed, Americans no longer feel safe in their own neighborhoods. In the 35 years since 1960, the population of the United States has increased by 44 percent. Over that same time, violent crime in America has increased by more than 500 percent. Our Nation has lost its edge in law enforcement and in humane social efforts that meet the root causes of crime. Indeed, according to a recent study published in Business Week, crime bears an enormous cost: The total direct and indirect cost of crime in America is a staggering $425 billion. Sadly, crime does not discriminate across regional or social boundaries. Crime reaches to us all--and exacts a devastating personal toll on its victims and their families and loved ones. Few among us have escaped the devastating impact of crime. Every day, 14 Americans are murdered, 48 are raped, and 578 are robbed. In our lifetimes, one- third of all Americans will be robbed. Three-fourths will be assaulted. In the course of the average day in America, there is a murder every 21 minutes. Rape is committed once every 5 minutes. Robberies occur every 46 seconds. Burglaries occur every 10 seconds. Imagine: A boy born in 1978 stands a greater chance of being murdered in the United States than one of our brave soldiers in World War II stood of dying in combat. Last year, Congress passed the President's crime bill--a package that took steps to punish violent criminals and keep them off the streets, and to address the root problems of crime. Unfortunately, however, the President's bill stopped short of proposals that I believe will give our Nation's anticrime laws teeth. My legislation includes tough provisions to provide mandatory minimum sentences for violent State crimes, or State drug trafficking crimes involving the use or possession of a firearm. Clearly, we must crack down on the violent offenders who have been proven responsible for the vast majority of crimes. Studies by the criminologist Marvin Wolfgang show that just 7 percent of each age group was responsible for two-thirds of all violent crime, including three-fourths of all rapes and robberies--and virtually every murder. According to Mr. Wolfgang's study--conducted in Philadelphia over a 13-year period--this 7 percent of the population had five or more arrests by the age of 18. For every arrest, each individual had gotten away with another dozen crimes. Indeed, it is estimated that last year, more than 1,100 convicted murderers did not go to prison; more than 6,900 convicted rapists did not go to prison; more than 37,000 individuals convicted of aggravated assault did not go to prison. My proposal will impose tough mandatory minimum sentences on violent criminals. For first-time offenders, we will direct the courts to impose sentences of 10 years for those who possess a firearm; 20 years if they discharge that firearm with the intent to harm another person; and 30 years for possession of a machine gun or other weapon equipped with a firearm silencer or muffler. Too often, however, even a tough first sentence is not enough to stop the endless cycle of crime. More than 40 percent of murderers released from State prisons are re-arrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years--more than 20 percent for another violent crime. Of the 50,000 violent criminals who are put on probation this year, more than 9,000 will not learn their lesson. They will be re-arrested in the same State within 3 years for another violent crime. An astonishing 10 percent of America's jail population--39,000 people in 1989--committed their current crime while out on parole. So for second-time offenders, we will make our mandatory minimum sentences tougher; 20 years for possession of a firearm, 30 years for discharge of a firearm with the intent to injure another person, and life in prison for possession of a machine gun. And for a third offense? Three strikes and they're out--for life imprisonment for any violent offender. My provisions for mandatory minimum sentences will prohibit States from offering probation or suspended sentences, and we will direct the courts that sentences cannot run concurrently. This legislation also provides for Good Samaritans or for citizens who act in self-defense: the provision will not apply to those acting in defense of person or property during the course of a crime committed by another person. Criminals have also learned, over times, that the odds in sentencing are in their favor. For every 100 violent crimes reported, only 4 criminals go to prison. The risk of punishment for a serious criminal offense has declined by two-thirds since 1950, while the annual number of serious crimes is seven times greater than it was then. This fact is not lost on criminals, who know that if they scoff at the criminal justice system--and hire a good lawyer--they can go free in little, if any time. Even when criminals are convicted and sent to prison after appeals, they know that the average violent offender--who in 1990 received a sentence of 7.8 years--will serve just over 3 years in jail. To make sure that convicted criminals serve their time, my legislation will enact truth-in-sentencing provisions. In order to be eligible for prison funding under the 1994 crime bill, this legislation will require that States change their laws to require violent offenders to serve a minimum of 85 percent of their required sentence. Prison is not meant to be a pleasant experience: it is meant, instead, to serve as both a deterrent to crime and to rehabilitate criminals so that they can again become productive members of society. Too often, however, our criminal justice system has coddled prisoners with luxury items that even hard-working Americans can not afford. Indeed, our Federal prison system has earned the nickname ``Club Fed'' because of its luxury. I believe our Federal prison system must instead address the root causes of crime as it rehabilitates prisoners. We should eliminate the luxuries in our prisons from expansive weight lifting equipment to X-rated movies, cable television, computer, even miniature golf. Instead, we should require every able-bodied prisoner to work, and begin to return to society part of what the prisoner has taken. My legislation will give the Attorney General 120 days to implement and enforce regulations mandating prison work for able-bodied inmates in Federal penal and correctional institutions. In addition to these provisions that get tough on criminals and make our tough sentences stick, my legislation includes provisions to require increased fairness--and awareness--of the victims of crimes. For the 5 million people each year who are victims of violent crimes-- such as rape, murder, robbery or assault--these provisions will provide increased security and peace of mind. While criminals can pursue one legal remedy after another, victims of crimes quickly exhaust their options and are frequently forced to quietly bear the brunt of the crime, alone, and without restitution. Victim restitution presently can be ordered by courts, at the discretion of the court. My legislation will require courts to order restitution, and extends to the victims of crimes the same sort of safeguards that we extended to women in the Violence Against Women Act, which I cosponsored in the House. This legislation will state that victims should be reimbursed for all necessary expenses related to the investigation and prosecution of crime, whether child care, transportation or prosecution serve as a deterrent that could keep victims from vigorously pursuing justice. This legislation also will require reimbursement to the victim for medical services resulting from physical, psychiatric or psychological care, physical and occupational therapy costs due to rehabilitation, and all other losses suffered by the victim because of the crime. I believe that these provisions provide basic fairness for the victims of crime, and begin to balance our criminal justice system again by keeping in mind the needs of crime victims. Mr. President, the people of Maine and America have a right to be personally secure, free from the fear of violent crime. My legislation combines positive steps that punish criminals and keep them off the streets, and to meet the often-overlooked needs of the victims of crime. This is legislation that is overdue, and will improve our nation's crime-fighting efforts. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would establish the Northern Border States Council on United States-Canada Trade. The purpose of this Council is to oversee cross- border trade with our Nation's largest trading partner--an action that I believe is long overdue. The Council will serve as an early warning system to alert State and Federal trade officials to problems in cross- border traffic and trade. And the Council will help the United States more efficiently manage the administration of its trade policy with Canada by applying the wealth of insight, knowledge and expertise that resides in our northern border States on this critical policy issue. Yes, we already have the Department of Commerce and a U.S. Trade Representative. But the fact is that these both are federal entities, responsible for our larger, national U.S. trade interest. Too often, they do not look after the interests of the 12 Northern States that share a border with Canada. The Northern Border States Council will provide State trade officials a mechanism to share information about cross-border traffic and trade. The Council will then advise the Congress, the President, the United States Trade Federal and State trade officials on United States-Canada trade policies, practices, and relations. Canada is America's largest trading partner. Trade with Canada accounts for approximately one-fifth of total United States exports and Canada is the top purchaser of U.S. exports. Canada is also the largest supplier of United States imports. Canada needs to maintain close trade ties with the United States to assure its survival. The Canadian economy is heavily oriented on exports, and most--roughly 75 percent-- of that trade is directly with the United States. Over the last decade, Canada and the United States have signed two major trade agreements--the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement in 1989, and the North American Free-Trade Agreement in 1993. Notwithstanding these trade accords, numerous disagreements have caused trade negotiators to shuttle back and forth between Washington and Ottawa. Most of the more well-known trade disputes with Canada have dealt with agricultural commodities such as durum wheat, peanut butter, dairy products, and poultry products, and these disputes have impacted more than just the 12 northern border States. But each and every day an enormous quantity of trade and traffic crosses the United States-Canada border. There are literally thousands of businesses, large and small, that rely on this cross-border traffic and trade for their livelihood. Any disruption in that flow of traffic and trade, whether intentional or not, would have traumatic economic consequences on hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in the 12 northern border States. The people best qualified to monitor that cross-border traffic and trade live in the States along our northern border--States that share that border with Canada. This is why it is important that the members of this Council be from those States. My own State of Maine has had a long-running dispute with Canada over that Nation's unfair policies in support of its potato industry. Specifically, Canada protects its domestic potato growers from United States competition through a system of nontariff trade barriers, such as setting container size limitations and a prohibition on bulk imports from the United States. This bulk import prohibition effectively blocks United States potato imports into Canada. At the same time, Canada artificially enhances the competitiveness of its product through domestic subsidies for potato growers. Another trade dispute with Canada, specifically with the province of New Brunswick, served as the inspiration for this legislation. In July 1993, Canadian Federal Customs Officials began stopping Canadians returning from Maine and collecting from them the 11-percent New Brunswick provincial sales tax [PST] on goods purchased in Maine. Canadian Customs Officers had already been collecting the Canadian Federal sales tax all across the United States-Canada border. The collection of the New Brunswick PST was specifically targeted against goods purchased in Maine--not on goods purchased in any of the other provinces bordering New Brunswick. The premier of New Brunswick even admitted that his province had no intention of trying to collect the PST along any of its provincial borders. Only along the border with Maine. After months of imploring the United States Trade Representative to do something about the imposition of the unfair tax, Ambassador Kantor agreed that the New Brunswick PST was a violation of NAFTA, and that the United States would include the PST in the NAFTA dispute settlement process. It has languished in that process for almost a year because Canada and Mexico have been stubbornly refusing to finalize the details of the NAFTA dispute resolution process. Throughout the early months of the PST dispute, we in the State of Maine had enormous difficulty convincing our Federal trade officials that the PST was in fact an international trade dispute that warranted their attention action. We had no way of knowing if the PST was a national problem, or a localized one. If a body like the Northern State Trade Council had been in existence when the collection of the PST began, if would have immediately started investigating the issue to determine its causes and make recommendations on how to deal with it. In short, the Northern Border States Council will serve as the eyes and ears for our States that share a border with Canada, and are vulnerable to fluctuations in cross-border trade and traffic. The Council will be a tool for Federal and State officials to use in monitoring their cross-border trade. It will help ensure that national trade policy regarding America's largest trading partner will be developed and implemented with an eye toward the unique burdens and opportunities present to the northern border States. The Northern Border States Council will be an advisory body, not a regulatory one. Its fundamental purpose will be to determine the nature and course of cross-border trade issues or disputes, and to recommend how to resolve them. The duties and responsibilities of the Council will include, but are not limited to, providing advice and policy recommendations on such matters as taxation and the regulation of cross-border wholesale and retail trade in goods and services; taxation, regulation and subsidization of food, agricultural, energy, and forest-products commodities; and the potential for Federal, State, and Canadian provincial laws and regulations--including customs and immigrations regulations--to act as nontariff barriers to trade. As an advisory body, the Council will review and comment on all Federal and/or State reports, studies, and practices concerning United States-Canada trade, with particular emphasis on all reports from the dispute settlement panel established under the North American Free Trade Agreement. These Council reviews will be conducted upon the request of the U.S Trade Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, any Member of Congress from a Council State, and the Governor of a Council State. If the Council determines that the origin of a cross-border trade dispute resides with Canada, the Council must determine, to the best of its ability, if the source of the dispute is the Canadian Federal Government or a Canadian provincial government. My goal is not to create another Federal trade bureaucracy. The Council will be made up of individuals nominated by the Governors and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. Each Northern border State will have two members on the Council. The Council members will be unpaid, and serve a 2-year term. The Northern Border States Council on United States-Canada Trade will not solve all of our trade problems with Canada. But it will ensure that the voices and views of our northern border States are heard in Washington by our Federal trade officials. For too long their voices were ignored, and the northern border States have had to suffer severe economic consequences at times because of it. This legislation will restore our northern border States to their rightful position as full partners in administering and managing corss-border trade and traffic with America's largest trading partner. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, breast cancer is the most common form of cancer in American women. One out of every eight women in the United States will develop breast cancer in her lifetime--a staggering increase from the 1-out-to-14 rate in 1960. An estimated 2.6 million women in America are living with breast cancer--1.6 million who have been diagnosed and an estimated 1 million do not yet know they have the disease. And every 12 minutes, a woman will die from breast cancer. We do not know what causes breast cancer, or how to cure it. Women with breast cancer are dying at the same rate today as they did in the 1930's, and the same basic methods of treatment are being used-- surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Clearly, we need to promote research into the cause of, optimal treatment of, and cure for breast cancer. However, another importance weapon in fighting the battle against breast cancer is detecting breast cancer in its early stages. Survival rates drop dramatically the later the disease is diagnosed. And one of the most important tools for early detection is mammography, a low-dose x ray used to examine a woman's breasts. Recognizing the important of consistent guidelines on breast cancer screening, the American College of Radiology convened a series of meetings in 1987. As a result of those meetings, in June 1989, 12 U.S. medical organizations including the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, and the National Cancer Institute endorsed breast cancer screening guidelines which advised that asymptomatic women should begin having mammograms at age 40. However, in 1993, the National Cancer Institute rescinded its guidelines stating that there was no evidence that the examinations significantly reduced breast cancer deaths in that age group. It seems clear, upon closer inspection, that studies used to reach the National Cancer Institute's conclusions did not warrant a rescission of the guidelines because there were significant variations in design, technology, screening intervals, the inclusion or exclusion of clinical breast examination, and quality between studies. Furthermore, the National Cancer Institute's statement has caused widespread confusion and concern among women and physicians, eroded confidence in mammography, and reinforced barriers and negative attitudes that discourage women from seeking mammograms. Consequently, I am introducing this resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that adequately designed and conducted studies are needed to determine the benefit of screening women ages 40 to 49 through mammography and other emerging technologies, that the National Cancer Institute's statement on breast cancer screening should clearly state that the uncertainty of evidence for women in this age groups is due to limitations of studies conducted prior to the rescission of its guidelines, and that the National Cancer Institute should reissue its guidelines. Hopefully, by reducing the barriers which presently discourage women from seeking mammograms, the adoption of this resolution will add to our limited arsenal of weapons to fight breast cancer.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today, I, along with Senator Cohen, am introducing legislation designed to make the regulatory process for bottled water more efficient and responsive, while expanding health protections for the consuming public. This bill, the Bottled Water Standards Act of 1995, requires the FDA to publish final regulations for a contaminant in bottled water no more than 6 months after EPA has issued regulations for that same contaminant in public drinking water. It may come as a surprise to some Senators that public drinking water and bottled water are regulated by different agencies of the Federal Government. But in fact, the FDA has the responsibility for ensuring the safety of bottled water, while EPA maintains separate authority for regulating public drinking water supplies. Unfortunately, the FDA has not always been timely in issuing its regulations for bottled water after EPA publishes its standards for tap water. On December 1, 1994, FDA published a final rule of 35 contaminants in bottled water. Nearly 4 years earlier, however, in January 1991, the EPA regulations for these contaminants have already been issued. In the interim period, bottled water producers and consumers were left in limbo. Their product was subject to industry safety standards and various State rules, but the Federal standards that provide an important additional assurance for bottled water had not been completed. This circumstance was very unfair to both producers and consumers of bottled water and we should not let it continue. My bill 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 bill would allow the FDA to simply issue such findings in the Federal Register before the deadline periods expire. The bill 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. Mr. President, it is my hope that this legislation will prompt the FDA to coordinate its regulatory activities for drinking water contaminants with the EPA. The bill 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 our constituents. The bottled water industry generates sales in the billions, and it serves millions of American consumers. Surely, these producers and consumers alike deserve the kind of consideration from their Government that my bill guarantees. Last year, Members in both the House and the Senate agreed with this commonsense approach. Language very similar to that found in my bill was included in the House and Senate versions of the Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization bills considered last year, and it was included without controversy. I hope that the Bottled Water Standards Act of 1995 will enjoy similar support in the Senate this year.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, long-term care means different things to different people. It means home-health care for those who need some help, but do not require round-the-clock care. It means respite care so those families who are struggling to keep a loved one at home can have a short break and some time to themselves. And it means nursing home care for those in need of institutional services. As we continue the debate on health care reform this year, it is important that we all remember that any major reform of our health care system will be incomplete if it does not address some of the problems facing our long-term care system. I am introducing legislation today that addresses four areas that are in need of change: setting standards for private long-term care insurance; changing the tax code to make insurance more affordable; providing respite care tax credits for family caregivers; and providing a tax credit to those who care for Alzheimer's victims at home. Private insurance coverage for long-term nursing home care is very limited with private insurance payments amounting to 1 percent of total spending for nursing home care in 1991. In 1986, approximately 30 insurers were selling long-term care insurance policies of some type and an estimated 200,000 people were covered. As of December 1991, the Health Insurance Association of America [HIAA] found that more than 2.4 million policies had been sold, with 135 insurers offering coverage. HIAA estimates that the long-term care policies paid $80 a day for nursing home care and $40 a day for home health care; they had a lifetime 5 percent compounded inflation protection; a 20-day deductible period and a 4-year maximum coverage period. These policies had an average annual premium in 65, and $5,627 when purchased at the age of 79. We need to make sure that these policies are not only affordable, but that they deliver the benefits they promise. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners [NAIC] has produced standards for long-term care policies which cover the spectrum of issues--from disclosure to clearly defining the benefits, cost and time period covered. The Federal Government should require that all States meet this standard in any long-term care policies sold in their States. My bill would put the NAIC standards into law. There is general agreement that we need to change the tax code to take away any disincentives to purchasing long-term care insurance. In addition, the change may encourage employers to offer long-term care policies as an optional benefit, as they would be able to deduct the cost, too. This bill will treat private long-term care insurance policies like accident and health insurance for tax purposes. It would also define a dependent as any parent or grandparent of the taxpayer for whom the taxpayer pays expenses for long-term care services. This change will allow children and grandchildren to deduct the long-term care expenses they pay. Current law requires that an individual must pay 51 percent of the expenses for a dependent before they can be deducted. Over 80 percent of disabled elderly persons receive care from their family members, most of whom are their wives, daughters, or daughters- in-law. Family caregivers provide between 80 and 90 percent of the medical care, household maintenance, transportation and shopping needed by older persons. Numerous studies have found that family caregivers give up their jobs, have reduced their working hours or have rejected promotions in order to provide long-term care to loved ones. My bill will expand the dependent care tax credit to make it applicable for respite care expenses and make the credit refundable. A respite care credit would be allowed for up to $1,200 for one qualifying dependent and $2,400 for two qualifying dependents. This money could go, for example, toward hiring an attendant for an elderly dependent during the work day, or for admittance to an adult day care center. The credit for respite care expenses would be available regardless of the caregiver's employment status. Such a respite care credit will save dollars for both caregiving families and the Government by postponing, or even avoiding, expensive institutionalization. Finally, this legislation will provide tax deductions from gross income for individual taxpayers who maintain a household which includes a dependent who has Alzheimer's disease or a related disorder. It would allow deductions of expenses, other than medical, which are related to the home health care, adult day care and respite care of an Alzheimer's victim. In most cases of Alzheimer's disease, families will bear the brunt of the responsibility of care. Many caregivers of dementia victims spend more than 40 hours a week in direct personal care. These families are trying to cope with the needs of a dependent older Alzheimer's victim with little or no financial or professional help. In the face of the continued and intense involvement of the family caregiver, services that provide respite from the ongoing pressures of care become essential in the caregivers' ability to support the Alzheimer's victim at home. Home health care, adult day care and long- term respite care all provide opportunities to free caregivers from their caregiving responsibility and are crucial in enabling employed caregivers to continue working. Most caregivers willingly provide care for dependent and frail elderly family members. Even so, the presence of these supportive services can be a crucial factor in continued caregiving activities. It is important to provide some tax relief for those expenses related to their continued care in the home. Perhaps by such action we can delay the institutionalization of dementia victims. Surely we can provide some financial relief to their caregivers. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I introduce a package of legislation that will guide the Federal Government in a role that is becoming more and more important to communities across America--defense conversion. In today's economic climate, the American people are demanding greater accountability for every dollar spent, so that even as we reduce spending we do so wisely, and in a way that does not compromise our Nation's economic security. The legislation I will introduce today will help the Federal Government live up to its defense conversion responsibilities by reassigning and consolidating coordination of our efforts to the Executive Office of the President; providing tax credits for training and defense conversion efforts, and ensuring that economic development tools are available first to communities and industries hardest-hit by defense base closings. With the end of the cold war and the disintegration of the Soviet military threat to Western Europe, the new environment of international security makes it possible to reduce the level of defense spending. I believe that any defense reductions must be made, however, in a careful and thoughtful manner because we must keep in mind the unrest in regions from Bosnia to Chechnya has threatened this fragile peace. I believe that sound defense planning must be focused on the level of military capability this Nation would need in wartime. While an austere defense posture may seem adequate in peacetime, even a limited international crisis can upset these perceptions almost overnight. It has been more than 5 years since the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the end of the cold war. The dramatic change in superpower relations has permitted the United States to make significant cuts in defense spending. That has led to a debate about how much to cut from the defense budget, and along with many of my colleagues, I believe that defense spending has been cut too much, too fast. Since 1987, the Defense Department's procurement budget has been cut by 47 percent. This will be the 12th year in a row that inflation-adjusted defense spending has declined, and the first year that defense spending was exceeded by another area of America's budget, spending on entitlements and human services. Even as we reduce the defense budget, however, the Federal Government still has a responsibility to help the industries, communities, and individuals adversely affected by these drastic cuts in defense spending and by the closure or major realignment of military installations across the country. The challenges of successful defense conversion are enormous. And as we address these enormous challenges, we must provide the economic policies, tools, and incentives needed to stimulate both the economy and defense conversion initiatives.My home State of Maine has endured a great deal of hardship brought on by cuts in defense spending. Defense-related enterprises in Maine span the spectrum of defense activities, ranging from the large Brunswick Naval Air Station and Kittery-Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, to smaller bases such as Cutler Naval Telecommunications Station and the Listening Station at Winter Harbor. Maine is also proud of the numerous large and small private companies that do business with the Pentagon. These range from the State's largest private employer--Bath Iron Works--to smaller firms such as Saco Defense and Fiber Materials. And we must not forget the hundreds of subcontractors and vendors that do business with these bases and companies. It is these smaller firms that are often overlooked when defense conversion is discussed. The fact is that defense-related jobs reach into every county in my home State of Maine. Every one of those jobs is important--military or civilian, large company or small. And whether in Maine or across the Nation, defense-related industries provide good jobs for hundreds of thousands of workers. The closure of Loring Air Force Base this past September 30 exemplifies the defense conversion challenge facing Maine. Loring's closing resulted in the loss of nearly 20 percent of the employment, 14 percent of the income, and about 17 percent of the population of Aroostook County. At the other end of the State, Kittery-Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has seen its workforce cut almost in half since the fall of the Berlin Wall, from over 8,000 employees to just 4,100. And Bath Iron Works has seen its employment drop from a peak of 12,000 to just under 9,000 as a result of cuts in the defense budget. These stark numbers graphically illustrate the importance of successful defense conversion to the long-term health of Maine's economy. Successful defense conversion does not happen overnight, and this legislation reflects that understanding. We cannot be imposed from the top down by the Federal Government. Instead, the Federal Government must work with industries and communities in crafting defense conversion strategies and options that can help those same industries and communities in their efforts to overcome the severe economic consequences of defense downsizing. The Department of Defense has always been the dominant government agency involved in defense conversion. Yet virtually every one of its defense conversion programs were imposed upon it by either the President or the Congress, not designed by the Pentagon itself. My legislation proposes to change this relationship, and consolidates responsibility for most of the Federal Government's defense conversion activities squarely where it belongs: within the Executive Office of the President. Companion legislation that I am introducing today would also, in effect, establish a defense conversion czar, a high-level executive official who is directly responsible to the President for the implementation and coordination of this critical effort. The simple fact of the matter is that of all the agencies within the Federal Government, the Defense Department is institutionally unsuited to direct such a crucial government venture. The central purpose of the Defense Department is to provide, equip and train the military forces needed to ensure the security of the Nation, to deter war, and to fight and win wars if deterrence fails. These institutional goals run counter to the basic premise of defense conversion--to help people, communities, and industries become less dependent on defense spending. A report issued last year by the General Accounting Office underscored that the Pentagon and defense conversion are fundamentally mismatched. That GAO report cited an evaluation by the Defense Department's own Inspector General of the department's defense conversion programs. After closely examining one of those programs, the inspector general found that ``ineffective planning and oversight had resulted in implementation problems.'' Implementation problems. I don't believe that the working people of Maine who depend on wise defense conversion for their jobs and livelihood will understand implementation problems. I don't believe that the communities of Maine and America will tolerate implementation problems. This is why we must consider the advice of the congressional mandated Defense Conversion Commission, which 3 years ago took a hard look at the Federal Government's defense conversion efforts. Along with other Members of Congress whose State and districts have a big stake in the success of defense conversion efforts, I appeared before the Commission, and closely followed its findings. In its final report, the Commission made an even stronger case for decreasing the influence of the Defense Department. The Commission noted that: While the Department of Defense has a large role to play, overall direction for defense conversion and transition actions must come from the Executive Office of the President. I agree with the Commission's conclusion. The legislation I am introducing today will consolidate America's defense conversion efforts within the Executive Office of the President--a step that, based on this sort of unequivocal report, should have been taken long ago. The thousands of Maine workers who depend on defense-related industries for their livelihoods, the millions of Americans who are watching our actions today, and indeed, all of our citizens need to know that the Federal Government will wisely consider conversion efforts. Americans should know that one individual, reporting directly to the President, is responsible for the effective implementation and coordination of our overall defense conversion strategy. I have long believed that tax credits can provide an excellent incentive to encourage economic development and growth. Two of the bills that I am introducing today utilize this concept. The first provides tax credits to help give employers the inventive to hire workers who have lost their jobs through either the closure of a military installation or from reductions-in-force at a military installation. It will also provide those same tax credits to employers who have hired laid off workers from a defense contractor or major subcontractor. The second bill will provide tax credits to defense- dependent industries to invest in worker retraining and retooling in order to help them diversify into commercial markets. Finally, the Economic Development Administration [EDA] within the Department of Commerce is actively involved in numerous successful defense conversion efforts throughout the country. The legislation I am introducing today amends the fiscal year 1991 Defense Authorization Act, which has served as the guidance for the EDA's defense conversion duties when utilizing funds authorized in defense bills. Under current law, the EDA does not give any special preference to defense conversion projects. This legislation specifically directs that, when funds are authorized for use by the EDA through the Defense Authorization Act, the EDA will ``ensure that [these] funds are reserved for communities identified as the most substantially and seriously affected by the closure or realignment of a military installation or the curtailment, completion, elimination, or realignment of a major defense contract or subcontract.'' Mr. President, defense conversion ultimately boils down to another form of economic development--albeit one which affects the livelihoods of millions of Americans. Our mission is to ensure that the Federal Government makes successful defense conversion a reality. We must give our citizens the tools they need to literally turn swords into plowshares. While this will take a great deal of time and hard work, I believe that a partnership between private enterprise and government will make it a reality. The legislation that I introduce today will help move that effort along. As I said on the Floor of the House in 1991, our responsibilities to the American people do not end with the base closure process. Instead, our responsibilities are only beginning. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this package of legislation to ensure sound defense conversion policies into the future.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to correct an inequity that exists in our Social Security system. Currently, when a Social Security beneficiary dies, his or her last monthly benefit check must be returned to the Social Security Administration. This provision often causes problems for the surviving spouse because he or she is unable to financially subsidize the expenses accrued by the late beneficiary in their last month of life. Current law makes an inappropriate assumption that a beneficiary has not incurred expenses during his or her last month of life. I know that my colleagues have heard, as have I, from constituents who lost a husband or wife toward the end of the month, received the Social Security check and spent all or part of it to pay the bills and then received a notice from Social Security that the check must be returned. For many of these people, that check was the only income they had and they are left struggling to find the money to pay back the Social Security Administration and pay the rest of the expenses their spouse incurred in their last month. Therefore, my legislation would allow the spouse of the beneficiary who dies in the first 15 days of the month to receive one half of his or her spouse's regular benefits, and the spouse of the beneficiary who dies in the latter half of the month to receive the full monthly benefit. I believe this is a fair and direct approach to an unfair situation. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, February 14, 1995, marks the 75th anniversary of the founding of the League of Women with more than 1,100 chapters and 150,000 members throughout the country. In 1848, the first national convention for women was held in Seneca Falls, NY, to discuss the conditions and rights of women in America. The suffrage movement grew out of this meeting, and in 1890 the National American Woman Suffrage Association was formed. In 1920, this organization became the League of Women Voters. Due to the efforts of the National American Woman Suffrage Association and later the League of Women Voters, the 19th amendment to the Constitution was declared ratified by the legislatures of 36 of the 48 States. This amendment, which declares that the rights of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex, was first proposed to the State legislatures for ratification by the 66th Congress on June 5, 1919. My own State of Maine was the 19th State to ratify the amendment on November 5, 1919. Fortunately for the millions of Americans over the last 75 years who have benefited from the work of the league, the vision of Carrie Chapman Catt, the league's founder, was much larger than the single- minded achievement of the ratification of the 19th amendment. She envisioned an organization which would continue to educate and motivate Americans for citizenship and responsible voting. And the league has done an excellent of achieving this vision. For example, in my own State of Maine, the Maine League of Women Voters has over 400 members, with local branches in Portland, Brunswick, and Mount Desert Island, in addition to many members-at- large. One very important objective of the Maine League is to understand and improve the way Maine's government works. I am particularly proud of the way the Maine League carefully analyzes issues to develop consensus and follows that with strong advocacy efforts. Issues studied recently include health care, families at risk, and the environment. I would like to submit for the record two very informative articles which were recently printed in the Brunswick Times Record. One article, written by Julie D. Stevens, discusses the history of the National League of Women Voters, while the other, written by Nan Amstutz, discusses the history of the Maine League of Women Voters. Together, these articles illustrate the profound impact of the league on Maine and America, and I ask unanimous consent that these full articles be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I want to respond to a couple of points of the Senator from California. I will be very brief. The point is she makes reference to one project with respect to the fact they did not receive a supermajority remarks, the House and the Senate voted on emergency disaster funds with overwhelming votes. The fact is that out of 14 occasions since 1978, all but 2 were passed by voice vote here in the U.S. Senate. They were passed by overwhelming votes in the House every time there was a recorded vote taken. And I have before me a resolution that passed on October 26, 1989, a joint resolution, by a vote of 97 to 1 here in the Senate. It provides specifically for funding for reconstruction of highways which were damaged as a result of Hurricane Hugo in September 1989 and the Loma Prieta earthquake of October 17, 1989. In fact, that section refers to the fact that the $100 million limitation contained in that section shall not apply to the expenditures with reference to the reconstruction of those highways in either one of those disasters. The point is that time and time again the House and the Senate have demonstrated their compassion and their acknowledgment of the serious damage that has been done by the events beyond one's control. I think it is important to reference that. I know the Senator was making reference to my comments about a simple majority the other night. I should remind the Senator that often I was reminded in my campaign about the midnight pay raise that occurred here in the U.S. Senate a few years ago. But it did occur in the dead of night. And it may have been off the budget. But no one was informed of the fact that vote was going to be taken. The point in all of this is that we have been on record in recognizing disasters and that we were willing to take the action necessary. The Senator's amendment would really bypass and I think really render the balanced budget amendment ineffective by only requiring a simple majority--a simple majority--to waive the requirement of the balanced budget amendment. That is the issue here. We well know that this could easily circumvent the intent and the purpose of the balanced budget amendment. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair. I will do it on my time. I just want to respond to the Senator from California because the Senator is correct in suggesting that the State of Maine has benefited from emergency supplemental assistance in times of disaster, as have many States throughout the country, including her State of California. I think the point is that Congress has risen to that occasion, has demonstrated its compassion when it has been necessary to respond to emergencies and disasters as they have occurred in this country over the past years. And unfortunately and regrettably, California has had more than its share. I think the point is that we do not want to obviate the need for a balanced budget amendment, because I think what the Senator's amendment is doing is essentially, by requiring just a majority vote in each house, definitely eliminating the requirements of the three-fifths majority to raise the debt ceiling. So a simple majority could remove the requirements for a balanced budget amendment in making the decisions on supplemental appropriations. So really it is circumventing the entire intent of the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. As the Senator from Idaho indicated with his examples, time and time again the House and the Senate, far beyond a three-fifths requirement, have in fact approved many of the emergency supplementals to respond to the disasters that have occurred in California, Maine, and elsewhere. So we have demonstrated that on many occasions. I think the concern that I and many of us have about the amendment of the Senator is that basically it is going to undermine the effectiveness of the balanced budget amendment because it only requires a simple majority in the dead of night to remove the three-fifths requirement of the balanced budget amendment. That would really preempt the effectiveness of a balanced budget amendment, not to mention the amount of money that we might indebt ourselves because it would only be a simple majority. So I would like to respond to the Senator from California in that regard. We certainly understand what she is trying to do. But I think the point is here that the balanced budget amendment will take care of that with a three-fifths majority. In many cases that is exactly what has happened in the House and Senate without a balanced budget amendment. We have done that and will do that in the future. And a balanced budget amendment will not preclude our compassion in instances of disasters and when we recognize a justifiable need. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE. I would like to make a point. How much time does the majority have?

Ms. SNOWE. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Ms. President, today I am introducing legislation restoring the rights of States to decide for themselves whether to require the use of motorcycle helmets. My bill is quite simple: it repeals the penalties specified in section 153 of title 23 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA], passed in 1991. Section 153 imposed a penalty on those States that had not complied by September 30, 1994. These Federal sanctions forced States without helmet laws to divert 1.5 percent of their fiscal 1995 highway funds from three programs--the National Highway Safety Program, the Surface Transportation Program, and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program--and spend those funds instead on section 402 safety programs. For fiscal year 1996, the penalty doubled, taking a 3-percent chunk from the State highway construction account. This compulsory mechanism has the ironic effect of actually decreasing the safety of some highways, as funds available for needed repairs are diverted for safety education and awareness programs. Once again, the Federal Government is trying to micromanage State transportation budgets, imposing a heavy-handed Federal mandate upon more than half of our States. And make no mistake, Mr. President: this is no carrot and stick. It is a mandate, and despite the broad reach of Federal law, section 153 has failed in its explicit intent. Fewer than half of the States are in compliance with this Federal law. Two years into these intrusive Federal sanctions, 28 States remain without helmet laws and are subject to financial penalties. These States disagree with the Federal Government's intrusion into what has traditionally been within the jurisdiction of individual States. And although Federal penalties doubled last year, none of these States have passed laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets. The estimated penalties facing States under section 153 total $106.6 million--$106.6 million that is no longer available to upgrade roads in the National Highway System Program--$106.6 million that is unavailable to construct and maintain highways--$106.6 million that is no longer available to promote mass transit--$106.6 million that is unavailable to make sure that this crucial transportation infrastructure is not only modern but safe. Instead, these valuable Federal dollars will be spent on highway safety programs, which most States already fund quite generously. States--and motorcyclists in the States--have been at States have funded State motorcycle safety programs, most of which are paid for by the motorcyclists themselves, through motorcycle registration and license fees. Motorcyclists understand that their safety is at risk on highways--and they want to make sure that their fellow riders and drivers of passenger cars and trucks have good awareness of motorcycle safety. Nevertheless, the Federal Government--through section 153--insists of forcing States to redirect their precious Federal resources to programs that are already well-funded. Frankly, I don't believe that we should compel States to direct desperately needed highway construction funds into highway safety programs that are already well funded. The most recent data shows that States have already been doing an excellent job promoting highway safety. since 1983, the number of accidents has decreased from 3,070 per 10,000 registered motorcyclists to 206. Fatalities have similarly declined from 8 per 10,000 registered motorcyclists to 6 per 10,000 registered motorcyclists. Even without a motorcyle helmet law, the number of motorcycle occupant fatalities declined 58.9 percent, from 5,097 in 1980 to 2,398 in 1992 when no mandatory Federal helmet law existed. Accidents declined by 53.4 percent in this same period. This substantial decline in motorcyle fatalities demonstrates that States are capable of addressing safety issues without intervention by the Federal Government. It is also interesting to note that of the 10 States with the lowest motorcycle accident rate, 8 had motorcycle rider education programs. In fact, the 10 States with the lowest motorcycle accident rates spent 64.4 percent more on motorcycle rider education programs than States with the 10 highest motorcycle accident rates. Clearly, safety programs do work, and we should allow them to continue to work. The penalty provisions of section 153 affect States in dire need of their highway construction funds. For my State of Maine, the estimated penalty was $853,194 in fiscal year 1995, increasing to $1,706,387 in fiscal year 1996. I believe that section 153 runs contrary to the principles of federalism, as the Federal Government tries to thwart the efforts of States to rebuild their transportation infrastructure in order to coerce States to pass helmet laws. And it is poor public policy, because poorly-maintained roads are often quite hazardous to the motoring public. I have always strived to protect the interests of our communities by allowing them and the individual States to make the important decisions on how their affairs should be run. I believe that each State and each community should, to the extent of their ability, be allowed to make their own policy decisions. This is consistent with the ideas of the Founding Fathers. State governments are closer to their citizens than the Federal Government. Surely, these democratic institutions understand the best interests of their citizens on this important issue, and the Federal Government should respect their decision. Yet section 153 erodes the very freedoms and liberties of our democracy, and on which our Nation was founded. Through provisions such as section 153, we are gradually stripping away the limited autonomy of the States. Where will we draw the line? How far will Congress go in the debate over State freedoms? The National Conference of State Legislators expressed a clear and solid view during testimony before Congress in 1993: the mandatory helmet and seat belt law provision, it said, is one of the most infringing provisions on the right of individual States included in ISTEA. Clearly, we must continue to do everything we can to make our roads safer, and to reduce the number of fatalities and severe injuries that occur on our Nation's highways. But I believe there are better ways for us to achieve these goals, without resorting to penalties on our financially burdened States. At a time when Congress has already acted to eliminate future unfunded mandates on the States, we understand the burden that our actions can impose on the States. Surely, we can remove this unnecessary and intrusive mandate and restore authority to State Governments where they belong. I will continue to work with my colleagues, however, to support the grant incentive provisions of section 153 and, and to explore additional options for enhancing highway safety. In the meantime, we should give the States some credit for keeping their roads and highways safe and repeal the insulting penalties contained in section 153. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Will the Senator yield? I think the Senator is absolutely correct in referring to performance-based budgeting which was part of the testimony that was submitted to the Senate Budget Committee recently. The Senator is correct in suggesting that what we should do is look at every Federal agency, look at Federal programs, examine how we can deliver them more efficiently. Perhaps they are best delivered by the States and local governments. How can we be innovative and creative rather than just accepting the status quo. We have hundreds and hundreds of programs that we have been delivering for years and years in pretty much the same manner, and there has been no incentive to address them differently or to rework them in a way where it could save taxpayers money. I think the taxpayers of this country understand full well that the Federal Government should be balancing its revenues with its expenditures because ultimately that debt is being passed on to future generations. So the Senator is correct in saying that we should examine--and I gather that is what the Senator is recommending--all of these Federal programs and agencies so that we have a better understanding of what we can afford, what is best left to the States to address and perhaps the Federal Government should not be implementing some of the services programs that we currently do. We have never looked at it from that standpoint in the past. It has never been a performance-based driven budget, and we have no innovation and creativity delivered in a way that will save taxpayers money. The constitutional amendment to balance the budget will clearly be incentive considering there has been no incentive in the past other than to divert and avoid the statutory requirements of balancing the budget.

Ms. SNOWE. Will the Senator further yield? I think the President has in the past, as the Senator referred to, challenged us to offer specific cuts. As I said, I served on the House Budget Committee for the last 2 years and the last two budgets that we presented had very specific cuts of $435 billion in reduction in spending over 5 years. And then for the 1995 budget, we proposed an additional $150 billion. The fact is, there was another budget that was offered on the floor, in addition to the Republican-offered budget, and that was a budget that would have provided additional spending cuts over the worth of spending reductions in the Federal budget over 5 years. But the fact is, no one is prepared to accept those spending reductions and recommendations unless we are forced to because there is no discipline, and I think the American people are savvy enough to recognize that we are not going to take that self-enforced action unless we are required to. That has been the past and clearly will be the future without a balanced budget amendment. The Senator was referring to the issue of restraining growth as proposed by the Joint Economic Committee in terms of what we could do to balance the budget just by restraining the growth in Federal spending. It is remarkable. If we were to restrain growth in spending by 2.4 percent exempting Social Security, we could save $28 billion in new spending every year. That is $28 billion. Increased spending based on growth is $420 billion over the next 7 years and we can increase spending by half that amount. I do not think there is anybody in America who would not think that is a substantial amount or sufficient enough to address some of the issues and some of the programs and the needs of this country and our changing priorities because over the next 7 years I would expect that we would have some changing priorities and needs and concerns as they arise.

Ms. SNOWE. Again, I think the Senator is focusing on some key issues that I think are important focal points for this debate. The Senator was referring to the President's budget. Were you not surprised to see the President did not sufficiently address spending reductions in his budget, basically accepting the economic status quo? In fact, the variances in his package on projected deficits between now and his package of 1993 is more than an 11 percent change in the deficit, for the worse.

Ms. SNOWE. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. SNOWE. Will the Senator yield? I think that is exactly the question. Would you not agree that those who are opposed to a constitutional amendment have a greater burden to prove how they could enact a balanced budget statutorily, because all previous attempts have failed time and again? There has been obfuscation, diversion, delays, distraction, and, in the final analysis, we have only seen our debt grow. We have heard some discussions how the deficit has come down in recent years, but what we do not hear is the fact the deficit is going to go back up for the remainder of this decade. In fact, since the last time the Senate passed a balanced budget amendment in 1982, the debt has grown 309 percent. Even the President's own budget, interestingly enough--we hear so much talk about the President's tax package in 1993, and I well recall that because I served on the House Budget Committee. We were challenged to bring up our own specific line-item cuts. As Republicans on the committee, we did. We did $435 billion worth of specific line-item reductions in the budget. Guess what? They were all rejected. So we got a tax increase, which happens to be the largest tax increase in the history of the country. It was supposed to reduce the deficit. To some extent it did, but, again, what happened is the deficit continues to rise. In fact, one of the reasons why it is rising is that the revenues projected from that tax increase are less than had been anticipated and projected by the administration. As a matter of fact, the Congressional Budget Office has recalculated the deficit by $25 billion for each of the next 5 years, and that is based on an 11-year economic expansion. That would be 3 years longer than the longest postwar expansion. And so we can understand what is going to happen; we are just going to see more debt. There will be obfuscation here about the right to know, what we ought to do, we should do implementing legislation. But the bottom line is, are we willing to balance the Federal budget? As the Senator has mentioned, the only way that can be done is through a constitutional amendment because we have all taken an oath of office. That is why the opponents of this amendment do not want this amendment enacted, to become law, because they know that we will take our responsibilities seriously and we will be obligated to balance that budget.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as the Senator was mentioning, the constitutional amendment establishes a very important framework, as our forefathers established through our Constitution. We obviously take an oath of office, individually; we take an oath of office, on behalf of this institution and on behalf of the American people. So, we logically would follow up in enforcing that constitutional amendment. As the Senator was mentioning about the various pieces of legislation that have been enacted over the years in Congress, for example, in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings to which she was referring, again, numerous adjustments were not made. It gets back to the budget through the Constitution, statutory approaches. But we know the statutory approaches have already failed on numerous occasions, stretching back to the year 1921. We had the Budget Accounting Act, the Revenue Act, the Byrd Act. We have adjusted the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act on numerous occasions because we could not meet the requirements within that legislation for balancing the budget, believe it or not, by 1993 and then again in 1995, and in the 1990 revision of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. So it is clear that that has not worked. Now, as the Senator knows, this amendment that is before the Senate concerning the right to know, I think the American people do not agree that we are right in terms of what we are enacting in this hypothetical budget that has been suggested here, that we would pass accompanying the Constitution an amendment which would somehow be the budget that would be operative in the year 2002. Of course it would hot. Would the Senator not agree that this approach is somewhat of a dilatory action, or hypothetical sideshow not to enact a constitutional amendment, knowing full well that we will get a balanced budget through a constitutional amendment and not through a statutory approach?