Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, would the Senator further yield for a question?

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator. I think the Senator is raising some very significant issues concerning this constitutional amendment to balance the budget. The Senator was mentioning the fact that so many of the opponents of this balanced budget amendment call it a gimmick. My response has always been if it were a gimmick, Congress would have passed it long ago. As the Senator knows, over the years we have had a number of statutory approaches. Now there have been suggestions under the Daschle amendment and the so-called right to know that somehow we should pass implementing legislation to tell the American public how we plan to balance the budget over the next 7 years. But that is also statutory language. On the other hand, they are saying the constitutional amendment we would not necessarily have to enforce. How do we know the Congress in the year 2002 will actually enforce a constitutional amendment? Would the Senator not agree that this is the only way, given your experience here in this institution, to get a balanced budget for the American people and for future generations, is through a constitutional amendment to balance the budget?

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield for a question?

Ms. SNOWE. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I certainly do. Having been involved, of course, in this last election, I certainly understood the concerns of the people of my State of Maine, which was that we needed to be accountable for our actions and to be fiscally responsible. People are no longer prepared to accept the notion we were going to continue with the economic as well as the political status quo. They understand we have not been accountable fiscally in the past. They are concerned not only about their own futures; they are concerned about their children's futures, as well. They know the impact of the deficit has affected their standard of living, whether it is through loss of jobs, the loss of productivity, the loss of savings that allowed this country to grow--it has prevented us from making the necessary investments in our infrastructure so we can invest in the future of this country. We cannot grow if the pie is getting smaller because we are consuming greater and greater pieces of that pie to pay the interest on our growing national debt. The American people understand that. I know my constituents in the State of Maine understood that. For those people who are not involved-- and I know the Senator was involved in an election last November--but for those who were not involved, they clearly misunderstood the message if they think the American people do not want a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. They do. They do not understand, as the Senator has mentioned, that the Federal Government does not balance its budget. Because everybody else in America does. They cannot understand why the United States Congress is not required to meet the same bottom line as every State save one in America, every family, and every business. So in the election last November, that was the message. I think, in the final analysis, if we fail to pass this constitutional amendment, it really will send a message to the American people that somehow we do not get it. I think that would be unfortunate. As the Senator from Texas would agree, the American people deserve more than that.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I certainly do agree. I am sure that she will agree the fact is these amendments that are being offered--certainly the Daschle amendment is an attempt ultimately to kill the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Which, as the Senator has mentioned, this will be our last occasion. This is our window of opportunity, because we have seen a historic vote take place in the House of Representatives last week. For the first time, that body enacted a constitutional amendment. The last time the Senate enacted a constitutional provision and the House did not was in 1982. As I said, since that time, we have seen a 309-percent growth in the debt. That is $3.5 trillion since the last time the U.S. Senate enacted a constitutional provision. We certainly cannot put that onto future generations by failing to do what is important here today. I think all of these amendments that are being offered are being offered in the spirit of killing the constitutional amendment to balance the budget, because they know full well we will in the final analysis balance that budget because we will take that action now. Does the Senator not agree we would obviously begin that process to achieve that goal of balancing the budget so we can be prepared for meeting the final goal in the year 2002? I know when I was in the House working on this issue, and we worked on to 1992, and in 1994 we in fact had planned to begin to set the process forward, in the first year and the second year, of course, as we are here, to begin the process of gliding us toward that path of a balanced budget in the year 2002, in anticipation of and presuming the States would ratify the constitutional amendment.

Ms. SNOWE. Would the Senator be surprised to know that half of the citizens of this country, half under the age 35 have only witnessed Congress balancing the budget just once? I guess it would not be surprising, given the fact we have seen on so many occasions Congress has avoided that responsibility. As the Senator knows, before the Senate is pending the Daschle amendment, the right-to-know amendment. Do you think it is fair, I would like to ask the Senator, that we would present a budget, according to the Daschle amendment, a balanced budget plan to the American people knowing full well that that might not be the plan in the year 2002 because we have three intervening elections with two Presidential elections, different makeups of Congress, different priorities, different emergencies that might arise? If we only recall what has happened in the 7 years since 1988, we can only appreciate Under the Daschle amendment, we are being asked to set forth a balanced budget plan, right to know, send it out to all the States accompanying the ratification of the constitutional amendment. People will be making their decisions thinking that this will be the balanced budget plan in the year 2002 when in fact, of course, it would not because in the meantime Congress will be making all kinds of changes to that balanced budget plan. So, Mr. President, I would ask the Senator, do you think it is fair to present that kind of plan to the American people knowing full well that that will not be the plan ultimately in the year 2002?

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation I originally drafted and introduced in the last Congress as a Member of the other body. This legislation would deny U.S. visas to known members of terrorist organizations. Under current law, a visa can be denied to a known member of a terrorist organization only if the United States has compelling evidence that the individual was personally involved in a past terrorist act or if it is known that the person is coming to the United States to conduct such an act. Current law requires extraordinary steps to override the presumption that mere membership in a terrorist group is not grounds for denying a visa. high-level determination is required by the Secretary of State that permitting entry of the individual will be damaging to American foreign policy interests. My legislation will reverse that presumption. Under this bill, a known member of a group that conducts acts of terrorism will be excluded from the United States unless the Secretary of State determines on an individual basis that granting the visa would advance U.S. foreign policy interests. I discovered this dangerous loophole in our immigration laws last Congress 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. 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 planning and approving a second wave of terrorist acts in the New York City area. Last year, I also found out through the investigation of the senior Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] that the State Department has in the past used this legal loophole to grant a visa to Tunisia's Sheikh Rashid el-Ghanoushi, the convicted leader of the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organization Ennadha. At this very moment, the State Department is still considering a visa request by Sheikh Ghanoushi. A letter I received from the State Department on this matter confirmed that they interpret current law to require them to issue a visa to Ghanoushi--an acknowledged member of a terrorist organization--unless they can prove that he personally was involved in a terrorist act. Apparently his conviction in Tunisia for his part in an assassination plot against Tunisia's pro-Western President Ben Ali is not enough. Nor is the fact that he fled his country after his underground Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group launched violent attacks against the Government. Nor, apparently, do his virulently anti-Western and anti- Israeli statements have any relevance to the visa decisions, as far as the State Department is concerned. Mr. President, after the recent rash of terrorist bombings in Israel, Argentina, Panama, and Britain, many countries are waking up to their vulnerability to terrorists. As reported in the July 28, 1994 Christian Science Monitor, the British Parliament is considering enacting legislation similar to this bill. Furthermore, this fall, the Anti- Defamation League--an organization whose very purpose is to protect the civil and religious liberties of all Americans--also included my bill in their proposed legislative package on terrorism. It is well known that many foreign terrorist organizations depend on money raised in the United States for a major portion of their funding. There are also disturbing indications that many of these organizations are working to develop networks of members and supporters in our own country. Last week, the administration took the useful step of freezing the U.S. assets of certain terrorist organizations working against the peace process in the Middle East. But this action needs to be strengthened by also slamming the door on members of terrorist organizations who continue to travel freely to and within our country unfettered by our visa laws. Mr. President, I am confident that in the Senate this matter will receive the kind of fair treatment here that it deserves. I also note and welcome recent statements by the administration claiming that it too is now taking the terrorism issue seriously. After finding no need for my legislation last Congress, on January 20, 1995, the Secretary of State gave a speech at Harvard University in which he announced that the administration was going to strengthen its efforts against international terrorism. He specifically stated, ``we will toughen standards for obtaining visas for international criminals to gain entry to this country.'' I hope this means that the administration is finally willing to support legislation needed to accomplish this goal. The urgency of passing the Terrorist Exclusion Act 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 great 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. Mr. President, I hope that this issue will be addressed swiftly by the 104th Congress. I hope that we do not put off its consideration yet again, only to have the issue suddenly reappear in reaction to what might have been an avoidable loss of American lives.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Absolutely. I think the Senator makes an excellent point about that because clearly what we are doing is just deferring to future generations for payment of the bills. There is no doubt about it. I think the Senator from Oklahoma recognizes, having served in the House of Representatives over the years, as well, that it is institutionally incapable of making those decisions. Ironically, the only time we had a lower deficit was back when we had the was a tool to force the Congress to meet certain targets. But I know that many times in which I have been engaged in deficit reduction efforts as a member of the House Budget Committee in the last Congress, and previously back in the mid-1980's, I offered specific budget cuts on the floor in conjunction with some of my colleagues so that we could reach a balanced budget statutorily. And on each and every occasion, we had people objecting to every cut. There was a reason. For one, we could not cut any program. So there are always those who have to make some tough choices. But I think the American people can do it fairly and prudently, and to prioritize and decide. What can we afford or can the American people afford? I think the American people have lost confidence in this institution, in the fact that their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely, because we have never been forced to make any choices here other than to spend and spend and tax and tax. As the Senator from Oklahoma will recall, in the last Congress, we provided specific line-item reductions in numerous programs that we offered as Republicans in the House Budget Committee, and with the support of the Senator and all other Republicans on the floor. Those specific line-item cuts were ignored. We ultimately got the largest tax increase in the history of this country. Ironically, the CBO just indicated that we will get lower-than-anticipated revenues from those tax increases.

Ms. SNOWE. I will be happy to yield.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the legislation before us: a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Mr. President, this year marks an important anniversary in our national history: the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. But as we celebrate the victory of one struggle, this year we also mark the anniversary of a loss in another battle--one whose fiscal implications are almost as prophetic as the battles of 50 years ago. But this anniversary is one that Congress has in fact marked each year since 1969--26 years of continually running budget deficits. This is one of the longest losing streaks in Congressional history. It is a fiscal losing streak that every American citizen has had to pay for over the past generation. But let us be sure of one thing--this debate is not about yesterday. It is not really even about today--1995. But it is most assuredly about America's future; it is about our children's future. As one American said when he was asked about his concern for our tomorrow, ``Of course I am concerned about the future. It is where we will spend the rest of our lives.'' Yet, tragically, we are squandering our future in spiralling debt-- mortgaging our children's future down a vacuum of debt as we selfishly avoid the challenge of balancing our Federal budget. Now we have another remarkable opportunity--an historic opportunity-- to pass this amendment to the Constitution. I would like to commend our leader, Senator Bob Dole, for bringing this legislation to the floor at such an early date. I would also like to especially thank the sponsors of this bill--the Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for providing exceptional leadership on this issue, and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] for providing bipartisan support for this measure--as well as the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] for his ongoing efforts on this critical amendment. An early debate in this session of Congress is gratifying for many of us who have been working for more than a dozen years for a balanced budget amendment. We have already seen our efforts produce positive results--just recently, a requisite two-thirds majority in the other Chamber passed a resolution calling for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The decision our colleagues made on that vote to pass this legislation for the first time, Mr. President, presents us with a renewed opportunity to act--and pass--this amendment in this Chamber, getting the requisite two-thirds majority. We in Congress are at a precipice--a crossroads--in our relationship with the American people. We can either rise to the occasion and meet their expectations, or, we can merely do nothing and uphold the economic status quo. Congress' focus on this measure comes after the American people cast resounding votes for change in November. By pulling the lever for action and progress, they also issued a call for an end to the economics-as-usual, an end to recurring deficits. An end to trillion- dollar debts and an end to fiscal irresponsibility and reckless spending. In this debate, we have another opportunity to show the American people that, yes, we did listen to them, and we do get it. And, perhaps most importantly, they voted to make Congress accountable for its actions. Thus far in this session we have taken great strides toward that responsibility. We passed legislation on congressional accountability, mandating Congress to abide by the same laws that we have passed onto the American people. And we passed legislation that will curb unfunded Federal mandates on State and local governments, which is presently being debated in the House of Representatives. message of accountability to the people by passing the balanced budget amendment. We will demonstrate our commitment to the American people. We will balance our budget, and put our Nation's fiscal house in order--permanently. I am confident that this is the right thing to do: Every American family must balance their budget; they are not at liberty--as the Federal Government has been--to simply run annual household deficits. They play by the rules. They live by the rules. And Congress should not be living by any other standards. For too long, we have spent without regard to our income, and in the process, we have squandered our children's future. How can we support the fiscal status-quo of increasing national debts and bequeath misery on the next generation of Americans? We can begin a new regimen this year by facing up to our responsibilities. This is what accountability is all about. We must set our priorities within our income. We must stop borrowing against our children's future. Without question, these will be difficult decisions, but we are not alone in facing these decisions. Nearly every State, every small business, every family, and every citizen faces similar choices each year in keeping spending under control. I have seen firsthand the tough choices that must be made. For the past 8 years, my husband served as Governor of Maine. Like the Governors of 48 other States, he was required to balance our State's budget, irregardless of economic conditions or the State's financial status. This means that Congress will have to make tough choices. But, with discipline these decisions are as possible as they are necessary. And lest anyone think that the States do not consider a balanced budget worthy of being a part of the U.S. Constitution, 49 States already require a balanced budget. If accountability and discipline work at the State level, we can and should make it work at the Federal level. Congress should be able to confront the economic realities and challenges that 49 States--and every American--face as well. They have made the difficult choices even with declining revenues and a declining economy. When we speak of interest payments, deficits, and the debt--we throw around numbers in the millions, billions and trillions. We paint a big picture that sometimes obscures the direct impact this issue has on each and every American family. We must now focus on exactly what these numbers mean in terms of people's daily lives. There is little doubt that deficits and debt place a crippling burden on hard-working families in my home State of Maine and across our great land. An analysis compiled by the Concord Coalition, for example, suggests that the deficit takes an alarming toll in national productivity. In real terms for American families, increased productivity would mean an average American family income of $50,000 annually, instead of the current $35,000 a year. Lost income of $15,000 and untold costs, Mr. President: our constituents do not deserve this injustice. How many children, I wonder, go without a proper education because of that missing $15,000? How many couples or single parents forego proper, safe child care because of these numbers? How many Americans make difficult choices on health care coverage because they do not have these funds to provide coverage to their spouses or children? Is this what has become of the American Dream when, by ignoring the deficit, we deny American families the opportunity to prosper financially, or survive economically? But even more devastating for our workers looking for stable jobs with a good wage, the Federal deficit has had an alarming impact on our Nation's economic growth and job creation. The New York Federal Reserve Bank attributes a reduction in savings to the deficit, and says that in the 10 years from 1979 to 1989, this reduced growth in the gross national product and in personal income by 5 percent. This has a devastating effect on jobs in our Nation: 3.75 million jobs in 10 years--650,000 for every percentage point in the GNP--lost because of the deficit, according to a study by the Congressional Budget Office. That is an astounding cost for our inaction that rests on the shoulders of every American worker. Unfortunately, the statistics and examples of the burden our debt and deficit inflicts on each American continues to be staggering: Since 1980, our national debt has grown from $1 trillion to $4.7 trillion. This is expected to grow to $6.3 trillion by 1999--a 453-percent rate of growth since 1980. During the same timeframe, the annual interest we pay on our growing national debt has ballooned out of control, rising from $117 billion in 1982 to almost $300 billion in 1994 to $373 billion in 1999, or a 219-percent growth rate between 1982 and 1999. These numbers mean that in the next 5 years, the burden of this debt for every man, woman, and child in the United States will rise from $17,938 to $22,909--growing by about $5,000 in just 5 years. Just in 1\1/2\ years that per capita debt had increased by $1,300. As the distinguished Senator from New Mexico [Mr. domenici] has emphasized, our national debt represents the most unfair tax ever imposed. The Office of Management and Budget has already estimated that if we continue our current spending spree, future generations will be forced to suffer a tax rate of 82 percent in order to pay our bills. Those same generations have no say, no voice, and no vote. But the prices of our inaction do not just come on an annual basis. Every day, we add $819 million of daily interest to the national debt. One would think that, in the face of this track record that Congress would have mustered the courage long ago to meet the challenge of a balanced Federal budget, stopping short of an amendment. That is a major debate here as to whether or not we should have a constitutional amendment or a statutory approach. It is interesting to note in the last 15 years in the Congress we have had seven opportunities to consider a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Time and time again we heard from critics of such constitutional approach that we can do it, we do not need a constitutional amendment. All we need is to have the will and the courage and the discipline to make those choices. We have learned otherwise from that approach.

Ms. SNOWE. I think the Senator makes outstanding points, and I think we agree. What is more fundamental than providing fiscal order, especially for the future of this country, in making those kinds of choices, albeit difficult, but ones that are compelling and ones that need to be made? I thank the Senator for the points he has made. In conclusion, Mr. President, might I just say, in terms of what we can expect for future deficits, it is disturbing to note the trend. The Congressional Budget Office, in fact, testified before the Senate Budget Committee recently and indicated that according to their recalculations, the deficit will increase by $25 billion over the next 5 years. So we can expect more debt over the next 5 years than we originally anticipated because of interest rates and, in fact, lower than anticipated revenue from the income tax increases and other tax increases of 1993. Between now and 2002 we will add a cumulative total of nearly $2 trillion to the existing debt if we make no changes in fiscal policy. One further point. The CBO, in their testimony, indicated that, obviously, one of the positive benefits of a balanced budget would be to increase productivity because of less debt, but also, most importantly, increase the amount of personal savings in this country. And if you look at the testimony that was provided by Mr. Greenspan, that is clearly essential for the future, because the personal saving rate, in his words, has been running at its lowest level in nearly half a century. He said, If we were a high-saving nation, we might be in a position to better tolerate the Federal fiscal imbalance. But, as you can see in the chart, the Federal deficit has generally been absorbing half or more of the available domestic saving since the early 1980's. Looking back at the history of the past century or more, the record would suggest that nations ultimately must rely on their domestic savings to support domestic investment. He went on to say, The challenge for the United States over the coming decade is clear. We must sustain higher levels of investment if we are to achieve a healthy increase in productivity and be strong and successful competitors in the international marketplace. To support that investment, we shall need to raise the level of domestic saving. Absent a rise in private saving, it will be necessary to eliminate the structural deficit in the Federal budget. So that is what it is all about--making choices, increasing the standard of living, not only for the present but for future generations, by improving productivity, job creation, and finally, I should say, improving the way in which we approach our budgetary process. There was some testimony presented to the Budget Committee by Mr. Fosler, President of the National Academy of Administrators, saying we should have performance-based budgeting. This is an idea whose time has come, is long overdue, and in fact was proposed at the beginning of this century. I hope we will take these creative and innovative approaches as we begin the historic debate on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Let me close with words of hope for a brighter future for our entire Nation. As Winston Churchill said in the days of World War II: ``This is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.'' I hope that will be the case, because if you say ``no'' to a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, you are saying ``yes'' to the economic status quo, ``yes'' to the continued levels of deficits of $200 to $300 billion. I assure you, that is not an answer the American people want to hear, and it is one they do not deserve to hear. I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, look where we are today in terms of the level of debt since that period of time. The Senator mentioned that he was a State senator. I, too, was a State senator in the State of Maine. We had to balance our budgets. We have had to balance our budgets in some very difficult economic times regardless of the downturn in the economy, which certainly has been the case in New England and in the State of Maine, where we have had the most difficult downturn since the Depression. They have had to balance the budget. They made tough choices. I know in the debate on the floor in the House of Representatives, the Senator will recall in the last Congress and back in 1992, Members of the House said, ``How can we possibly and accurately estimate revenue projections? How can we estimate inflation rates or interest rates or unemployment rates?'' That is going to be a very difficult and taxing responsibility. That is what every State has to do in the country, and every local government, every business, and each family does, in the final analysis. They have to make those projections and they have to correct those projections. So they have made those choices. They do not live in fiscal fantasyland like we have here in Congress. I think the American people have recognized that, and that is why they are demanding this most important and fundamental change.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I say to the Senator that 25 years ago was the last time we had a balanced budget. The Senator from Oklahoma will probably agree that we are hearing today, ``We will produce a 7-year budget to achieve the balanced budget amendment.'' We know it is a give-and-take process. But more than that, I say the burden of proof is on those opponents of the balanced budget amendment because the statutory approach has failed. They have had an opportunity, let us say, over the last 15 years, when they objected to a balanced budget amendment, to come up with a statutory approach. We have had statutory remedies, all of which have failed. So now we are at the point of deciding the future of this country. Do we enact a constitutional amendment? There are those who will probably fundamentally disagree with having a balanced budget whatsoever. They disagree in principle. I happen not to. I think it is most important that we do it for the country, as the Senator does. But I think it is ignoring the choices that we are required to make. I think that this is the only way in which we are going to make those tough decisions on what exactly is affordable and acceptable to the American people.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I think the amendment pending before the Senate today is an example of why we should have invoked cloture, because it is nongermane to the pending subject of unfunded mandates. As has already been mentioned during the course of this debate, this nongermane amendment has not had a hearing from the committee that rightfully would consider it and is responsible for tax legislation-- that is, of course, the Finance Committee. There was one hearing on this issue in the last Congress that was held in the Small Business Committee. Last night I joined the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] in opposing this amendment because it not only oversimplifies an issue that should be properly discussed and analyzed by the Finance Committee, but it also disregards the true balance that exists between the mail order companies and local businesses with the already tested options and the viable options that are available to States and mail order companies, and certainly the options that have been pursued already by the State of Maine. There is nothing that precludes any State in America from collecting these taxes. We have already demonstrated that in the State of Maine. Taxpayers in the State have a choice. They either can pay a flat tax percentage of their income on their income tax return, or they can pay for the specific tax on their out-of-State purchases. No one questions the veracity of the citizens of the State of Maine with respect to submitting that information on their income tax return. In fact, it is interesting to note that in the last 2 tax years in the State of Maine, we have collected more than $3.5 million on sales from out-of-State mail order companies or other kinds of purchases from other companies. So it can work. And it has worked. And it can work for other States as well. What will be the impact of the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas? We have already held it is certainly going to exact more costs to companies. They will be required to contend with 46 sets of procedures and 6,000 different tax jurisdictions throughout the United States that will result in 6.5 times greater costs to the mail order companies in order to comply with this amendment. Who is that fair to? Should the consumer be denied a choice in ordering from a mail order company? No. I happen to live in a very rural State. People like to have choices in rural districts and they certainly should not be denied that choice. In Maine, taxpayers pay for those purchases by, again, placing it on their income tax return. So it is not only going to result in more costs to the mail order companies, it is certainly going to result in lost jobs because of the increased costs in terms of compliance and increased cost in taxes. Some have suggested a blended tax rate. Who is that fair to, since many of the taxpayers then will have to pay a higher tax rate and some a lower tax rate than they would already be required to pay? The industry has worked in the past, as Senator Cohen mentioned--they had worked out a tentative agreement. I think we should encourage such an agreement between the mail order industry and their associations and tax administrators and the tax commission, so that we can encourage that kind of resolution to this issue that would be fair and not onerous and not be applying greater costs in terms of taxes and administrative burdens on the mail order companies. That is only fair. This is a very complex issue. It does deserve the benefit of consideration, of hearings, and of different perspectives. It certainly is going to result in more costs to the mail order companies. In fact-- we have mentioned L.L. Bean. Their compliance costs alone would be at least $500,000 in order to hire additional workers for administrative, legal, and accounting costs. So I do not think in the final analysis this benefits anybody. It does not prevent States right now from collecting this kind of tax. I hope my colleagues here in the Senate will reject such an amendment because this deserves more consideration than this issue has been given here on the floor, in terms of the ramifications for not only the companies but also the consumers who live in the various States, who choose to make their purchases through mail order companies. So I urge the defeat of this amendment and I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. Probably about 8 minutes.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Arkansas, and I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the Senator from Maine, [Mr. Cohen]. I guess in hearing the arguments presented by the Senator from Arkansas tonight one would think this is a very simple matter. In fact, it would put national marketers and mail order companies as well as consumers at a disadvantage, and certainly would hurt the thousands of jobs that are provided by these companies. There is no tax advantage for mail order companies, as the Senator from Maine indicated. They have to charge for postal rates, and many times these charges exceed the cost of local taxes the benefits from having their presence in a local community like many of the local merchants and, therefore, do not create additional costs do a local community. In a State like Maine, we have taken a very reasonable approach. What we have done is require the taxpayer to play a flat rate on their tax return when they file it in April for the amount of the taxes they owe in out-of-State purchases. That is the requirement. Granted, it requires a good-faith effort on the part of the taxpayers in Maine, but it has worked and it is a far better approach than applying this kind of a tax through a bill that has no relation to the issue before us in the Senate. This amendment would impose a major new burden on many companies throughout the country without the benefit of hearings to explore the ramifications of such a tax on mail order companies. We are not only talking about the imposition of a tax, we are talking about compliance costs, and those are not minimal, if you consider the fact that mail order companies would be required to cope with no less than 46 types of procedures and exemptions from over 6,000 State and local tax rates. The compliance tax alone would be 6.5 times greater for mail order companies than for local retailers who must only contend with one tax rate and one set of exemptions. The Senator from Arkansas mentioned L.L. Bean. For L.L. Bean, that would cost $500,000 per year for compliance, just in the administrative accounting and legal fees that would be involved, not to mention the fact that, of course, a blended tax rate would mean that for many customers, in fact, for probably half the customers, they would pay more tax than they actually owe. So, of course, that would contribute to a loss of confidence and erode sales for the company. I suspect the 100 million Americans who shop by mail order today would also find such an unfair tax scheme unjustifiable. This amendment would have an economic impact on everyone. Jobs would be lost in Maine and elsewhere in the country. This is an unfair imposition, it is an unreasonable administrative burden when there are other approaches that can be taken and, in fact, are being pursued. As Senator Cohen mentioned, there has been an approach taken by the industry to look at resolving this matter in a way which could be fair to the industry without creating additional and onerous burdens, as well as excessive costs far beyond the local taxes that they would be required to collect, and they are working on such an agreement. I think we ought to encourage a negotiated settlement that would satisfy both parties without unnecessarily burdening companies or consumers and costing thousands of jobs all across this country. The revenues raised under this proposal, according to the Senator from Arkansas, would be about $1.6 billion. But, in fact, it would be far less than that when you deduct compliance costs. This amendment would require States to audit out-of-State firms. It would certainly add costs to the States as well as to the mail order companies. The Senator from Arkansas mentioned that this would benefit local merchants and small businesses, but it is interesting to note that the one organization that represents thousands of small businesses and merchants all across America undertook a survey last year asking their clients whether or not they support such a collection by mail order companies. Only 25 percent said yes and 67 percent said no to such a mandate. It is because they recognize that it would hurt many local economies across America. It would cost jobs, and the administrative burden would be a nightmare. It would be very difficult to comply with such a mandate and that the tax structure would be so complex that there would be many mistakes in the process of calculation. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas because, clearly, it would not result in the kind of benefits that he mentioned this evening and certainly would result in the loss of thousands of jobs and additional regulatory costs. Now is not at a time when we can afford these economic losses. I thank my colleagues and yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Three physicians at the Penobscot Bay Women's Health Center in Rockport, ME, decided to cease offering full services because of concern for the safety of patients and the staff after 3 years of protests. After a week of picketing and threats, Dr. Gregory Luck chose to close the medical clinic in Falmouth, ME, offering a full range of women's health services that has been opened for more than 10 years, rather than risk violence against his patients and staff. Dr. Luck, in closing his practice, said he could not guarantee the safety of his patients. Women, he said ``have been subjected to harassment irrespective of whether they planned to visit my office or any other office and irrespective of what medical service they required,'' he said in announcing the decision. As we have seen in U.S. News & World Report this week, it says ``physicians under fire,'' having to wear bullet-proof vests, and carrying guns and weapons to protect themselves, to provide for the safety of their employees. It is regrettable in this country we have reached this point in time. Mr. President, safe, affordable and accessible reproductive health services are crucial to the well-being of women. We must send a message to would-be terrorists that violence and threats of violence and vandalism at these centers will not be tolerated and will be punished under the fullest extent of the law. Congress needs to act on behalf of the families and friends of those who have tragically died because of their belief in a woman's right to decent medical services. Congress needs to act on behalf of low-income women who depend on such clinics for their personal health needs, the rural woman who already faces burdens and barriers to access, but most importantly, for all women and their families who depend on safe access to the health care that they need and that they deserve. So I urge my colleagues to support this very important amendment. Again, I want to thank the Senator from California and the Senator from Idaho for yielding me this time. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator for yielding. Mr. President, as someone who is deeply committed to ensuring choice and quality of women's health I certainly rise in strong support of the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from California. I, first of all, want to also thank and commend the Senate majority leader for ensuring the consideration of this amendment during the deliberations of unfunded mandates. This issue is very timely. It is a matter of life and death, when we consider what has happened in abortion clinics all over America. I am pleased we are able to consider this resolution. I am sorry it is under the circumstances under which we are considering it in light of what happened in Brookline, MA, with the recent killings. This amendment is appropriate because it expresses the sense of the Senate that the U.S. Attorney General should fully enforce the law. The Attorney General must use all the tools at her disposal to protect persons seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services from violent attacks. We have seen in recent months, regrettably and tragically, an alarming trend toward violence and terrorism against reproductive health clinics. Too often, those extremists who oppose a woman's right to reproductive health have resorted to intimidation and even violence in order to prove their point. Peaceful civil disobedience is one thing, but these acts have far crossed the line of acceptable behavior. We are a nation that prides ourselves on our diversity, diversities of views, ideas, and values. As a nation of laws we simply cannot and we simply will not tolerate cold-blooded murder. Nor can we tolerate bombings, vandalism, assault, bombings, arson, destruction of property, and the physical prevention of people from entering medical clinics. Yes, we are a nation of diversity, and that diversity depends first and foremost on our adherence to the laws this fact that distinguishes our democracy from other forms of government and that has contributed over time to our Nation's peace and prosperity. Last year, as we all know in response to many of these tragic incidents, the 103d Congress considered, deliberated, and enacted the freedom of access to clinic legislation. As a Member of the House of Representatives, I was an original cosponsor and worked with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in both bodies in this institution, in order to ensure that it became the law of the land. This new law makes it a Federal offense to block the entrance to a medical clinic offering reproductive services, and to use force or the threat of force to intentionally interfere with or injure anyone attempting to obtain or provide reproductive services. The Supreme Court has made clear that these rights of peaceful protest do not extend to threats and violence, as made clear in recent decisions. In a 6 to 3 ruling last June the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Madsen versus Women's Health Center that restrictions of protesters were constitutional, including the establishment of a buffer zone between the clinic entrance and elsewhere. In 1993, the court filed a unanimous opinion in the case of Wisconsin versus Mitchell, a hate crimes case. The Court held that physical assault was not among the forms of allowable ``expressive conduct,'' and decried violence as a form of civil disobedience. But the terrorist acts at medical clinics in the past months have crossed the lines of peaceful disobedience, and they mark the beginning of an alarming trend. According to the National Abortion Federation, 61 percent of nonhospital abortion providers report being the target of some form of harassment including personal harassment of themselves and of their families away from the facility. From 1977 to 1983 there were 149 incidents of violence against health clinics. Since then, reproductive health providers have reported almost 1,500 acts of violence. Not always shootings, not only in Norfolk and Brookline, but also kidnapping, burglary, arson, telephone threats, stalking, invasion, and vandalism. In 1994 there were over 130 incidents nationwide of violence or harassment directed at clinics and the people who work there. In the horrifying shootings of Brookline, MA, which resulted in the tragic deaths of two women are clear indication that the violence is continuing. As many others have indicated here this evening, what kind of clinics have been targeted for the terrorist tactics? Clinics which provide not just reproductive health services, but clinics which provide essential pediatric care, prenatal care, childhood immunization, diagnosis and treatments of STD's, contraceptive services, mammograms, Pap smears and other forms of counseling for women. In fact, more than 90 percent of clinics provide these health services in addition to reproductive health services. In my home State of Maine, Mr. President, medical clinics and physicians have been targeted. So far, thankfully, without the life- threatening violence that occurred in Brookline.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to first of all congratulate and commend the Senator from Idaho for his leadership in bringing this very important legislation to the floor of the Senate and the Senator Glenn for being a leader on this issue as well. Mr. President, I also rise today to join the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and countless State and local governments in support of S. 1, a bill curbing the imposition of unfunded Federal mandates. I have consistently fought to return accountability to the Federal Government and fiscal priority-setting and decisionmaking to the levels of Government closest to the people. In the 102d Congress, I introduce the first bill that would have banned all future unfunded Federal mandates. I reintroduced this bill in the 103d Congress, and have now offered it here--in the Senate--as S. 139. My first preference is for this sort of legislation, that eliminates all unfunded mandates, of any kind. But I recognize the importance of moving forward on this important legislation, and taking steps necessary to curb and ultimately eliminate unfunded Federal mandates. This is why I am particularly pleased that the majority leader has made this legislation to curb unfunded mandates a priority in the 104th Congress. As one of the first pieces of legislation we will consider, we have an outstanding opportunity to enact this legislation into law and ensure more fairness for State and local governments in the future. Moreover, as a new member of the Senate Budget Committee, I will work closely with my colleagues on the committee, including the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, to ensure that laws requiring State and local spending are paid for. Our relationship with State and local governments must be built on trust, and this legislation will help us to build on a foundation of that trust. During my 5\1/2\ years as a State legislator, and 16 years as a Member of Congress, I have seen the burden of unfunded Federal mandates. For 8 years, I watched as my husband, as Governor of Maine, worked to balance a State budget in the face of declining Federal support. Yet Maine saw fit to do the right thing, the honest step for our citizens. We banned unfunded mandates. Maine's motto, Mr. President, is Dirigo, which means ``I lead.'' And we took a crucial leadership step in the debate on unfunded mandates. Maine has eliminated unfunded mandates from State government onto county and local governments. State government--albeit belatedly--is regaining the trust of local governments. And the partnership between governments is beginning to work again. Perhaps that is why I prefer to simply ban unfunded mandates. My philosophy is simple: ``No money, No mandate.'' Unfortunately, the trend has been just the opposite. As budgets have grown tight and spending became more and more an issue, Congress and the Federal Government have relied increasingly on mandates that pass costs along to local and State governments. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations recently conducted a study of Federal statutes that created explicit mandates. The study found that from 1941 to 1960, no laws were enacted with unfunded but mandated costs on local governments. From 1960 to 1969, nine laws were enacted with unfunded mandates. From 1970 to 1979, 25 unfunded mandates were created. And in the 1980's, 27 of these mandates were created. And the cost of these rose even more. A Federal Funds Information Service study shows that between 1981 and 1990, Federal discretionary funding for programs rose from inflation, however, this results in a decrease of 28 percent in funding for local and State governments--despite our mandates. Mr. President, during debate of congressional reform legislation this past week, we have talked a great deal about the need for change and about changing the status quo. I believe that is exactly what the American people want us to do. While we have already adopted legislation to make Congress accountable to the laws it passes onto the American people--we must now make Congress a more responsible institution. One of the most important components of our mission of change is to restore the faith and trust that once existed between the Federal Government and States and local governments and to reestablish an institutional partnership. In my view--and in the view of the vast majority of the American people and State legislators--the key to restoring that faith and trust is passing legislation prohibiting unfunded Federal mandates, and giving State and local governments a voice in regulatory development. Mr. President, what better way to show the American people that we can not only act quickly to change the fiscal status quo, but to show them that we can do so in a bipartisan manner that brings together elected officials from both parties, from all levels of government, and from the smallest town mayors to the biggest State Governors? While the concept of accountability and responsibility has always been clear to the American people, the Federal Government has denied one simple fact throughout the recent history of unfunded mandates: unfunded Federal mandates are nothing less than a hidden Federal tax. And every one of us is paying the price for this lack of responsibility and lack of accountability. Mr. President, it is time for us to stop the seemingly endless burden of unfunded mandates on State and local governments. In order for Government to work, we must uphold a trust with governments at other levels. We should work cooperatively to identify policies that will offer solutions to problems; to pass laws that implement those policies; to offer funding support for those policies we deem most important. We have already opted to terminate the general revenue sharing, which gave State and local governments a stake in tax structure. The General Revenue Sharing Program was terminated in 1986, saving $4.5 billion annually. And, just as top-down management rarely leads to a dynamic and responsive work force--regulations drafted in isolation and sanitized in the Washington beltway rarely address the unique and ever-changing circumstances of State and local governments. That is the spirit of S. 1, the Federal Mandate Accountability and Reform Act of 1995. This legislation will go far in restoring the faith, trust, and partnership that should exist between the Federal Government and States and municipalities. It will also demonstrate our willingness to change the fiscal status quo and make the legislative process more responsible as well as more accountable. This legislation is not only timely, but reasonable and necessary as well. Above all, it is absolutely vital to the economic survival and financial stability of our State and local governments. The passage of S. 1 can and will alter the course of our country, allowing us to meet our true priorities and address the needs of our taxpayers, families, and workers at the State and grassroots level. At last year's annual meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, its 200 members passed a resolution stating that, ``the increase in * * * mandates to cities is having a profound adverse financial impact on America's cities. That resolution may explain why S. 1 has the support of a majority of U.S. Senators from both parties in this Chamber, as well as the consideration of the President of the United States, who, as a former Governor, knows first hand the damage done by unfunded mandates passed on year after year. And, today, it is worthwhile to note that the Senate majority leader has kept a pledge he made to the Nation's Governors at a recent meeting in Williamsburg, VA. It is a tribute to Mr. Dole's leadership, resolve and vision that we are considering legislation to bring a stop to unfunded Federal mandates so early in the 104th Congress. Every year, Congress passes laws telling local and State governments what to do, and then refuses to give them the funds necessary to enforce the regulations. It is far too easy to pass a bill with ambitious and worthy goals and forget that the legislation comes with a price. Perhaps in Washington, with our bottomless bank account, we can say ``a million here, a million there--pretty soon, we're talking real money.'' Well, in my home State of Maine, there is no bottomless bank account. Every program, every goal and every project is paid for with real money. This is an appalling arrogance of Government, Mr. President. Year after year, we abdicate an enormous responsibility that we have been entrusted with by the people who elected us, and we simply return the favor by placing the burden squarely on the shoulders of States, counties, and small towns. Congress assumes that since it doesn't have to balance its budget, it can simply pass along the cost of legislation to State and local governments--most of which are required to balance their budgets each year. As my colleague from Idaho stated recently, ``unlike Washington, most cities just can't print money when they're in a bind.'' And make no mistake about it--when we adbictate this repsonsiblity, we may as well send a tax bill directly to each American family. It is they who pay the price for our inaction on unfunded mandates. That price, that cost, is growing larger and larger each year. The facts paint a grim picture. According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Federal Government imposed only 17 cost-bearing regulations on cities and States between 1960 and 1985. Only a few years later, however, the Federal Government found its financial escape hatch: from 1982 to 1992, the Federal Government mandates 88 such regulations in the area of toxic management alone. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost to State and local governments of unfunded mandates enacted in this period exceeded $200 million each. The cost of unfunded mandates, a figure which I am sure will be repeated many times on the floor of this Chamber today, amounts to $430 billion each year. Half a trillion dollars--and I assure you that is no typo. There was a time when Federal mandates were imposed on State and local governments, and funding were provided through block grants and revenue sharing programs. Funding for the programs ceased in the 1980's, even as Federal aid to State and local governments sharply declined. In fact, over the last 15 years, the Federal contribution to State and local governments has actually shrunk--from 18.6 percent in 1979, to about 14.3 percent in 1991--the last year data was available-- and that even includes a recent upswing. Adding insult to injury, one hundred new mandates were forced on States during the same decade. This decrease isn't small change, either. This is precisely what unfunded mandates cost the American economy and American taxpayers every single year--a figure that represents almost 2\1/2\ times the size of our national budget deficit. About $231 billion each year in Federal aid now goes to State and local governments--unfunded mandates amounts to almost twice what the Federal Government gives back to States and localities. With figures like that, it's no wonder the American people still feel that our economy is on the wrong track. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cumulative cost of new Federal regulations imposed on State and local governments between 1983 and 1990 exceeded $8.9 billion. And according to the Vice President's National Performance Review, environmental mandates alone are expected to increase by an estimated $44 billion by the year 2000, when adjusted for inflation. A 1990 study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency titled ``Environmental Interests: The Cost of a Clean Environment'' estimated the annual costs of environmental mandates will increase from $22.2 billion in 1987 to $37.1 billion in the year 2000. That's an increase of 67 percent in costs-- control. Price Waterhouse concluded in November 1993 that unfunded mandates will cost local governments $90 billion over the next 5 years. Cities will pay $6.5 billion this year and $54 billion over the next 5 years. These same cities report that Federal mandates consume an average of 11.7 percent of locally raised funds. America's counties fare no better. They will pay $4.8 billion this year and $33.7 billion over the next 5 years, even as 12.3 percent of their revenues are absorbed by mandates. The study also showed that, since 1960, Congress has enacted 42 major statutes that impose new regulations and requirements on States. This is nearly equal to all such laws enacted during the previous two decades combined. The harsh truth is that my home State of Maine has paid dearly for this avalanche of unfunded mandates. The Maine State government estimates that Federal unfunded mandates will cost Maine $234 million in fiscal year 1995. Maine's small cities and towns currently face a combined cost of $1.5 billion in order to meet mandates stemming from the requirements of environmental legislation alone. This amount is more than Maine communities collectively raise in property taxes in an entire year. This figure doesn't even include the cost of mandates relating to labor, Medicaid, voter registration or others passed down by the Feds. Lewiston, Maine's second-largest city, is my home town. In 1992, my neighbors and I were saddled with $75.87 million in unfunded mandates-- all for a city of 40,000 people. This amounts to a burden of $664 per year, per household in Lewiston. In Auburn, city officials estimate that to comply with Federal unfunded environmental mandates alone, the city will be forced to find $2 million. Bangor, which is the hometown of Maine's distinguished senior Senator, Bill Cohen, city efforts to comply with clean water requirements on the sewer system will cost $22 million. Bangor's sewer fees have increased 10 percent every 6 months for the past 5 years, while the same rate of increase is expected for the next 4 years. Finally, in Maine's capital city of Augusta, implementation of new sewage treatment requirements would raise the average yearly user charge by more than $1,500 per year over a 30-year period and ensure that the next generation will be faced with the same crisis as ours. And we cannot ignore the fact that many of my State's small towns have local tax caps which make it difficult--if not impossible--to raise the revenue needed to comply with these mandates. What this has meant for these cities and towns is a curtailing or even elimination of vital local service programs. Unfunded mandates have forced local budget planners like Bob Mulready in Lewiston to choose between meeting the bottom line of unfunded mandates and meeting the needs of Lewiston's taxpayers. In Lewiston, this has caused cutbacks in such services as fire protection resources, the local police force, and it has forced the abandonment of plans to minimize property tax increases. Are unfunded mandates important? They are so important that taxpayers everywhere--at the State, county, and local levels have declared an annual National Unfunded Mandates Day to draw attention to the problem of these unfunded mandates. But the problem has become so large that Dana Lee--the town manager of Mechanic Falls in southern Maine--said in his statement on National Unfunded Mandates Day that every day should be declared unfunded mandates day. Mechanic Falls residents will face numerous mandates in the coming years, including the requirement for sand and salt shed replacement-- the removal of underground tanks. All told, the cost of Federal mandates alone will total $300,000 for this small town--an alarming cost for taxpayers, and a cost that eats in to the other vital services that communities and States provide, from local law enforcement protection to job creation and infrastructure investments. Clearly, the grassroots of America are crying foul over Washington's practices, and they're crying out for our help. They understand full well what is at stake here. It's high time for Congress to get with the program and stop bankrupting our Nation's cities, counties, and States. Yet Congress continues to speed toward more and more unfunded mandates--many of them worthy programs, but programs that are unaffordable for an already bankrupt Federal Government, and unaffordable to State and local governments, either in the red or on the brink. Regardless of how worthy or well-intentioned a mandate is, someone needs to pay for it--and that someone has rarely been the Federal Government. It's been said, in fact, that the road to bad legislation is paved with good intentions. If this is true, Mr. President, then the National Motor-Voter Registration Act just built a new interstate highway in Maine. You see, in rural Maine--which comprises more than three- quarters of the State--town clerks frequently sit adjacent to the general assistance officer--sometimes, in fact, the town clerk is in charge of general assistance. It would make sense that someone applying for general or welfare assistance would be advised to walk the additional 20 or 30 steps to reach the clerk's office to register to vote. But that would be too easy. Instead, motor-voter has been interpreted to mean that the general assistance office must offer voter registration each and every time GA eligibility is determined--which is at least every 30 days, in Maine-- and file a report on why the individual did or did not register. As a result, the general assistance office is required to complete a blizzard of voter registration paperwork on a continuous basis, and at greater cost, all while voter registration in person is just a few steps away. Good intentions. Bad legislation. That is why the legislation before us today is a major step forward. S. 1 is similar to the bill that gained wide, bipartisan support in this Chamber last year--one that simply said ``If Congress is willing to pass the bill, it can no longer pass the buck.'' It stems from the simple logic that, if Congress believes Federal legislation is important enough to place mandates on States and communities, then the Federal Government has a responsibility and obligation to pay for them as well. Not only does this legislation seek to control the proliferation of unfunded mandates, but it also gives State and local governments a voice in the regulatory process. Too often, agencies in Washington draft regulations with little or no input from the communities and regions affected by the rules. This bill will give State and local governments a voice in Washington and a voice in their own future. S. 1 will link together good intentions with good deeds, so that the Government actually pays for its mandates--and upholds its trust with the State and local governments on which it relies to implement these programs. But let me close, Mr. President, by saying that I believe many of the mandates passed by the Federal Government do serve useful and important environmental, health and safety purposes. I am not arguing that these important laws be banned. But I do even more firmly believe that if Congress considers a mandate important enough to pass onto State and local governments, then it surely must be important enough for the Federal Government to provide accompanying funds. We simply cannot continue to pass new laws and expect State and local governments to pick up the entire tab. I know Mainers deserve better. My colleagues know that America deserves better. That's why I believe that if the Federal Government is willing to pass the buck, the Federal Government must be willing to foot the bill. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this critical and historic bill. S. 1 does not undo the damage already done to State and local budgets. But it does take Congress in the right direction. State and local governments only ask that we allow them to prioritize spending in response to actual needs, and in conjunction with the tight fiscal restraints they face. I do not believe that they are asking too much. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair. New Hampshire.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Madam President. It is with great pride that I appear today to speak on the floor of the U.S. Senate as Maine's new Senator, particularly because of the legislation that is before us today on the Congressional Accountability Act. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Senate majority leader for setting this as a high priority in the 104th session of Congress. In a year when people are talking about change, and looking for more accountability and accomplishments from Congress, there is no more important message that we could send than this: that we will play by the rules, and we will abide by the laws--and Congress will no longer set itself above the law of the land. Madam President, this is basic fairness, and I congratulate my colleague from Iowa, as well, for his tireless efforts to bring this legislation forward. It was a decade ago, Madam President, when I first testified in support of the principles embodied in this legislation before the Senate today. Ten years ago, I spoke before the House's Post Office and Civil Service Committee about the need for Congress to treat its employees in the same way we require private businesses to treat their employees. And I have made the application of our Nation's laws to this Congress a chief objective since that occasion 10 years ago. The issue then, as now, was fairness. Congress should not live above the law. In both of the last two Congresses, I introduced legislation in the other body to extend coverage for Congressional employees under the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination Act, as well as OSHA. Last year, I testified before the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress [JCOC], which was established in 1993 to review and improve the legislative process. And last September, I expressed my support for this Chamber's congressional compliance legislation in a bipartisan letter sent to former majority leader and fellow Mainer George Mitchell, as well as to other Members of this body. Madam President, I have remained vigilant in working for this legislation because we must show the American people that we are willing to abide by the same laws that we require of them. The elections last November made clear that the American people expect more of Congress--that they want changes in the way this institution does business. This is one of the most important and necessary pieces of legislation this body will consider in this Congress, and I am proud that it is among the first we will consider this session. We must support this legislation, not only to heed the wishes of the American people to change Congress, but also to deliver on our promise to do what is right. Congress simply cannot continue to live above the law and call itself a body that is ``representative'' of the America we live in today. After all, what kind of message does Congress send to Americans when it sets itself above the law? What kind of message does Congress send to America when it believes it is beholden to different standards? And how can Congress claim to pass laws in the best interest of the American people if Congress refuses to abide by those very same laws. Madam President, Congress should be the very last institution in America to Rather, Congress should always be the very first institution to be covered by the laws of the land, especially as the body legislating such laws. I am well aware of the arguments made in opposition to this legislation in the past. Some Members have expressed concerns that our Founding Fathers intended the three branches of Government to remain separate, and that is as it should be. But, at the same time, we also know that the legislative branch has been entirely incapable of policing itself. A General Accounting Office study of the House's Office of Fair Employment Practices and its internal grievance process indicated that just 16 staffers in 4 years had enough confidence in the office to file complaints. Of those complaints, only four cases went to the end of the grievance process that was established under the Office of Fair Employment Practices. Strong enforcement measures are absolutely necessary if we are going to make Congress abide by the same laws that apply to the private sector. And that is why I am pleased with the legislation before the Senate today that will establish the entire independence of that office to ensure that the congressional employees of the legislative branch will be treated very fairly. The U.S. Constitution and arguments about the constitutionality of this bill are used as a cover by those who want to declare Congress ``special''--and somehow deserving of special treatment. Clearly our forefathers felt differently, as we have heard today on numerous occasions about James Madison who made it clear that Congress, in fact, cannot make itself above the law. Members have also expressed opposition in the past to making Congress comply with OSHA regulations, citing cost considerations. OSHA requires covered employers to provide a place of employment that is free from recognized hazards that may cause serious physical harm or death, and to comply with the act's occupational safety and health reporting standards. I have heard from many private sector employers who are concerned about the cost of OSHA regulations. If this body is covered by the same regulations, then perhaps Congress will find a way to ensure that employees are guaranteed a safe workplace without unduly burdening employers. We have extended workplace and antidiscrimination laws to our constituents because the Congress has felt, rightly in my opinion, that the American people wanted this from their leaders and their government. That is what representative government is all about. Now, we must make the Congress representative not only of our constituents, but of our laws as well. Applying the 10 laws included in this legislation to Congress will not extract any great pain or price from our way of working. But it will send a signal to Americans who are frustrated with Congress--who do not believe that we get it. In the past, passionate debates have been held, both in this Chamber as well as in the House, about the need to provide America's working men and women with a fair living wage. We have gone to great lengths to ensure a living wage, fair workplace practices, and high standards. We are justifiably proud of these standards, and our constituents willingly meet them, often voluntarily. If the proprietors of the many stores, factories, and employers in my State and other States have to meet labor standards laws, should not the Congress of the United States as well? The same holds true for other laws included here: not only OSHA, as I mentioned, but Family and Medical Leave and the Americans With Disabilities Act. This legislation is a first step toward regaining its credibility as a law-making and law-abiding institution--one that claims as its master the American people, and not the other way around. Madam President, Congress has shown great skill over the last 20 years in passing laws barring discrimination and in passing regulations and requirements on America's small businesses. Unfortunately, Congress has shown even greater skill in avoiding those same laws. While small businesses struggle to pay for renovations that would make it pass an OSHA inspection, the Capitol--and our own offices, I might add--has never hosted an OSHA visit. And dare I say they would not pass an OSHA inspection, either. Why? Because, unbelievably, it has never had to. That is why passage of this bill is an absolutely critical step in giving this institution the reform it desperately needs and the reform the American public so clearly wants. Now is the time to restore the public's faith in Congress and the democratic process. And now is the time to show the American people that, yes, we do listen, yes, we are accountable, and yes, we are delivering on our solemn promises of change. And let us also take this opportunity to demonstrate that we can do so in a bipartisan manner. That, Madam President, no institution should be above the law, especially Congress. No institution should be exempted from the law, especially Congress. And no one should ignore the law, especially Congress. Madam President, I would urge my colleagues to vote for the passage of this very important legislation. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today marks a day of historic opportunity for all Americans. On November 8th, a message was delivered to Congress by the citizens of Bangor, ME and San Luis Obispo, CA--residents of International Falls, MN and Corpus Christi, TX. The message was simple: change the manner in which Congress does business and change the course our nation has taken. Ironically, many people thought this same message delivered in 1992-- but most Americans believe it fell on deaf ears once it reached the Beltway. Congress continued to pursue legislative efforts that were either out of sync with the American people or ran in direct opposition to their demands. I heard the message from the citizens of Maine loud and clear and recognize that my election is revocable trust. If we fail to respond to the message of the electorate now, the trust which has been placed in our hands will be taken away from us and placed in the hands of others. I intend to treat that trust with humility and respect. The legislation which I first introduced in 1991 and am introducing again today strikes at the heart of what it is Americans don't like about the way Congress does business and it is a necessary step toward regaining the trust of the American people. The people are tired of a Government that shows reckless disregard for responsibility and accountability--the people are tired of unfunded mandates. In recent years, Congress has approved measures that require State and local governments to provide certain services and meet certain standards. At the same time it has approved this legislation, Congress has neglected to provide adequate federal funds for States and localities to meet these mandates. We must, as a fundamental matter of responsibility, ensure that the costs of mandates are reasonably capable of being met by other levels of government. Assuming that the State and local governments have the funds to foot the bill is not responsible policy. The costs of existing mandates are staggering. In the State of Maine, the two most intrusive and expensive mandates are the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act. It is estimated that the citizens of my state will be forced to pay $1.5 billion to comply with these two mandates alone. While the intentions of these laws are not malicious-- the effects of these unfunded mandates are devastating to local communities. The Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) mandate contained in the Clean Water Act will cost the communities of Maine more that $960 million to correct. In the City of Lewiston, $35 million will buy a small improvement in water quality, while Auburn will spend $10 million for the same limited end. The CSO requirement in Augusta, Maine may cost as must as $100 million and would produce an average sewer bill of more than $1,500 annually for 30 years. Finally, the residents of Oakland, Maine will see their water rates increase by 174 percent in 1995--all as a result of the Act. My bill directly addresses the essence of the problem. It would prohibit the Government from imposing requirements on States and local governments that did not include funding to meet the costs. Quite simply, it would end unfunded mandates. This legislation represents a comprehensive and straight-forward effort on the part of the Federal Government to live up to its responsibility to provide resources for programs it requires States and municipalities to implement. Mr. President, the impression exists among many State and local officials that the Federal Government, no longer satisfied with simply bankrupting itself, is determined to bankrupt their governments. We know that is not our goal, and we can take a simple step to make that clear: end unfunded mandates. We have it within our prerogative to do so. And I hope that Congress will see fit now to end these unfair requirements. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this vital legislation. The American people demand responsibility and accountability--now, we need to recommit ourselves to the task of accomplishing it.