Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague and friend, the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, in 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 family members because they are unable to financially subsidize the expenses accrued by the late beneficiary in their last month of life. The bill we are introducing today is based on legislation I have introduced during the last four Congresses. My original legislation prorated the Social Security benefit based on the date of death. If the beneficiary died before the 15th, the surviving spouse received 50 percent of the benefit, if the beneficiary died after the 15th, the surviving spouse received the entire check. The bill Senator Mikulski and I are introducing today expands on this bill by making other family members eligible to receive the check if there is not a surviving spouse. 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 Senator Mikulski and I, from constituents who have lost a husband or wife, father or mother, toward the end of the month, received the Social Security check and spent all or part of it to pay the bills, only to receive 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 expense their family member incurred in their last month. I would like to read a part of a letter I received from a constituent about the experience of his family when his brother-in-law died. This letter, along with Senator Mikulski's own experience when she lost a loved one, serves to highlight why this bill is necessary. On February 29, 1996, at 9:20 p.m. he passed away. . . . he was alive for 99.99617% of the month missing a full month by 0.0038314%. With this evidence in hand, the SSA then decided that his check for the month of Feburary had to be returned to them. Unfortunately, his debts for the month didn't disappear just because he failed to live the extra 0.0038315% of the month. . . . it would be nice to see some kind of pro- rating system put into place for the rest of the people who are going to encounter this ghoulish practice. I know that my colleagues have all received letters like this. For many of these people, that Social Security check is the only financial resource available to deal with the costs incurred during their loved one's last day of life. Without it, they are left struggling to find the money to pay back the Social Security Administration. I believe that this legislation provides a fair solution to an unfair situation and I hope my colleagues will join un in supporting this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague and friend, the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, in 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 family members because they are unable to financially subsidize the expenses accrued by the late beneficiary in their last month of life. The bill we are introducing today is based on legislation I have introduced during the last four Congresses. My original legislation prorated the Social Security benefit based on the date of death. If the beneficiary died before the 15th, the surviving spouse received 50 percent of the benefit, if the beneficiary died after the 15th, the surviving spouse received the entire check. The bill Senator Mikulski and I are introducing today expands on this bill by making other family members eligible to receive the check if there is not a surviving spouse. 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 Senator Mikulski and I, from constituents who have lost a husband or wife, father or mother, toward the end of the month, received the Social Security check and spent all or part of it to pay the bills, only to receive 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 expense their family member incurred in their last month. I would like to read a part of a letter I received from a constituent about the experience of his family when his brother-in-law died. This letter, along with Senator Mikulski's own experience when she lost a loved one, serves to highlight why this bill is necessary. On February 29, 1996, at 9:20 p.m. he passed away. . . . he was alive for 99.99617% of the month missing a full month by 0.0038314%. With this evidence in hand, the SSA then decided that his check for the month of Feburary had to be returned to them. Unfortunately, his debts for the month didn't disappear just because he failed to live the extra 0.0038315% of the month. . . . it would be nice to see some kind of pro- rating system put into place for the rest of the people who are going to encounter this ghoulish practice. I know that my colleagues have all received letters like this. For many of these people, that Social Security check is the only financial resource available to deal with the costs incurred during their loved one's last day of life. Without it, they are left struggling to find the money to pay back the Social Security Administration. I believe that this legislation provides a fair solution to an unfair situation and I hope my colleagues will join un in supporting this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designated to standardize coverage for bone mass measurement for people at risk for osteoporosis under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. This legislation is similar to my bill which was enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Act to standardize coverage of bone mass measurement under Medicare. The bill I introduce today guarantees the same uniformity of coverage to Federal employees and retirees as Congress provided to Medicare beneficiaries only a few months ago. Osteoporosis is a major public health problem affecting 28 million Americans, who either have the disease or are at risk due to low bone mass; 80 percent of its victims are women. The disease causes 1.5 million fractures annually at a cost of $13.8 billion--$38 million per day--in direct medical expenses. In their lifetime, one in two women and one in eight men over the age of 50 will fracture a bone due to osteoporosis. A woman's risk of a hip fracture is equal to her combined risk of contracting breast, uterine, and ovarian cancer. Osteoporosis is largely preventable and thousands of fractures could be avoided if low bone mass were detected early and treated. We now have drugs that promise to reduce fractures by 50 percent. However, identification of risk factors alone cannot predict how much bone a person has and how strong bone is. Experts estimate that without bone density tests, up to 40 percent of women with low bone mass could be missed. Unfortunately, Federal Employee Health Benefits Program [FEHBP] coverage of bone density tests is inconsistent. Instead of a comprehensive national coverage policy, FEHBP leaves it to each of the over 400 participating plans to decide who is eligible to receive a bone mass measurement and what constitutes medical necessity. A survey of the 19 top plans participating in FEHBP indicated that many plans have no specific rules to guide reimbursement and cover the tests on a case-by-case basis. Several plans refuse to provide consumers with information indicating when the plan covers the test and when it does not. Some plans cover the test only for people who already have osteoporosis. Mr. President, we owe the people who serve our Government more than that. That is why my legislation standardizes coverage for bone mass measurement under the FEHBP. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, in order to help prevent the 1.5 million fractures caused annually by osteoporosis.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague from Vermont to express my disappointment and regret that the Senate has missed an opportunity today to coalesce around a middle ground that would allow campaign finance reform to advance. Together with Senator McCain, who deserves our gratitude for his courage and tenacity in bringing this issue to the fore, along with Senator Jeffords and Senator Specter, I have worked over the past week to forge a compromise that would address the two concerns that have emerged as the chief stumbling blocks to Senate passage of campaign fiance reform. Namely, the objection of Republicans to a package that does not address the issue of protecting union members from having their dues used without their permission for political purposes with which they may disagree. And the objection of Democrats to singling out unions while not providing similar protections for members of other organizations, or for shareholders in corporations. Last week, in response to concerns which had been raised by the minority leader, we proposed an alternative that would provide the same protections to members of organizations across the board, and to shareholders of corporations. Together with Senator Jeffords, Senator Specter and Senator McCain, we fine-tuned the proposal into a balanced approach with the potential to move this debate forward. It appeared our plan was the best hope of preventing a filibuster and advancing campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, our efforts to make the process work in this instance will not succeed today. Despite our willingness to forge a compromise which would address the concerns of both sides--we have not been able to secure an agreement to ensure passage of the compromise. The criticisms of our proposal from both sides are typical of the concerns when a proposal strikes a balance between two dies. Nobody really likes it. One side feels we go too far. The other side feels we don't go far enough. But in the legislative arena, when both sides are committed to moving forward and finding a solution, that is how we do it. Both sides give. While we have not been able to reach a conclusion today, given the artificially short time limits imposed by the nature of the parliamentary procedure under which we are forced to consider this issue, I believe if Senators are truly committed to campaign finance reform, then it is definitely dead in this session of Congress. I am saddened, because we have not only an obligation to provide legislative solutions, but to restore the public's faith in the integrity of the process. If we ultimately fail to coalesce around a middle ground, it would serve only to confirm the public's belief that we lack the will to address this issue in a fair and bipartisan manner. And it will certainly point to the consequences of a shrinking middle in American public life. Mr. President, I have worked hard over the last week with my colleagues on this compromise because I earnestly believe that's what people expect of us. They expect that the U.S. Senate will conduct itself as the deliberative body it was designed to be, and they have a right to that expectation. We should be putting our heads together, not building walls between us with intractable rhetoric and all-or-nothing propositions. I have been part of the legislative process in Congress for over 18 years. I am here because I believe in finding solutions. That is our job, Mr. President: finding solutions. Now, I've been here long enough to know that that is not always possible. And I've been here long enough to know that it is always difficult. But then we were sent here to do a difficult job. So I say let's have the difficult conversations and really give thoughtful consideration to how we can hurdle our most challenging obstacles. That's the way it should be--that's how we end up with better legislation. The fact is, this issue will not go away. The public disillusionment with our campaign finance system will not disappear absent meaningful reform. It will come back again and again and again. I believe each and every time it will come down to the basic issue of enacting reform that does not unfairly disadvantage either party. As long as we have two-party government, no reform will ever pass unless it truly levels the playing field. This is an issue that need not be intractable, as we demonstrated with the proposal we put forward in this debate. It is my belief that eventually the basis for evenhanded reform is embodied in the middle ground approach we proposed. Unfortunately, that day will not be today. Finally, I want to issue a challenge to the majority leader and the minority leader. It is the duty of leaders to lead. I urge them to do just that by appointing a bipartisan working group of Senators who want to make the system work. I entered public service to help make Government work. It is a task made more daunting by the mounting chorus of partisanship that has engulfed our Nation's politics. The status quo, Mr. President, is unacceptable to virtually everyone except apparently to many Members of this body. There are, however, those of us on both sides who want to resolve this problem. What we need is the leadership to bring this spirit to life. We need to devote less energy to criticizing and judging each other and more to forging consensus and understanding. Only then can we come together and enact legislation that the majority of Americans feel is sensible and long overdue. Let's make, then, a historic statement that the old ways of doing business must be relegated to the annals of history. Let's return elections to the American people and restore confidence in our Government. Mr. President, I would like to yield to my colleague and friend, the Senator from Vermont, who has worked so hard on the compromise that we try to put forward today.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, in introducing the Child Support Performance Improvement Act of 1997. This bill establishes a new formula for State child support incentive payments, in order to reward those States which truly excel at collecting child support. Over the years, Senator Rockefeller has shown an extraordinary commitment to children and families across America, and his leadership on this bill represents more of the same. Mr. President, States need to crack down on deadbeat parents who renege on their financial responsibilities to their children. While noncustodial parents owed $47 billion in child support in 1995, States collected only $14 billion. Collections increased to approximately $16 billion in 1996, and are likely to further increase as the result of tough new child support reforms which I authored and which were contained in the Welfare Reform Act. States performance in collecting child support varies tremendously. For example, Maine has worked very hard to successfully improve its child support collections. While Maine has collected over $580 million since 1975, half of that amount--$286 million--was collected within the past 5 years. Last year alone, Maine collected almost $72 million, representing a 10-percent increase over the previous year. This considerable improvement is due to comprehensive State reforms pioneered under Governor John McKernan in 1993, and Federal child support reforms contained in the Welfare Act. But not all States share this heightened commitment to collecting support. That is why my child support provisions in the Welfare Reform Act required the Secretary of HHS, in consultation with the States, to develop a new formula for State incentive payments that is based on performance, in order to further improve State collections, and to report back to Congress on the subject. The bill that Senator Rockefeller and I introduce today is based on that report. Under current law, the Federal Government provides States with an extra incentive payment in order to increase child support collections. The current formula for incentive payments is based on the cost- effectiveness of a State's child support collection program--the collection-to-cost ratio--meaning that States are rewarded for bringing in more dollars for each dollar they invest in the program. Incentive payments start at 6 percent of collections, and rise as high as 10 percent for the most cost-effective States. In fiscal year 1995, Federal incentive payments to States were $400 million, nearly 33 percent of the gross Federal share of child support collections. Mr. President, the current system does not make sense in that every State, no matter how dismal its record in collecting child support, receives a minimum incentive payment. This perpetuates mediocrity and does not serve children. Instead, States should be rewarded on the basis of performance outcomes that will help children, such as establishing paternity and support orders quickly, obtaining medical support, and collecting support on a regular basis so families can rely on it. The Child Support Performance Improvement Act establishes a formula which takes into account performance-based measures and standards in five areas: establishing of paternity; establishing child support orders; collecting currently-owed support; cost-effectiveness; and collection of past-due support. The first three measures receive the most weight in the formula because they translate most directly into support that helps keep families financially self-sufficient. Giving them more weight will help concentrate State efforts where they matter most. Under our bill, States would only qualify for incentive payments if they meet threshold performance requirements in these five areas. States that perform below the threshold level can qualify for minimum incentive payments only if they significantly improve their performance compared to performance in a prior year. The bill also requires the Secretary of HHS to establish standards for collecting medical support to be implemented later, to ensure that children of divorced parents have health insurance. Finally, the bill requires States, for the first time, to reinvest their incentive payments back into the child support system, so they can further improve collections and better serve children. Mr. President, this bill will significantly help families to obtain the child support owed to them so they can remain financially self- sufficient. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Coast Guard Authorization Act for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. The Coast Guard is one of our Nation's truly essential agencies. It aids people in distress on our bays, oceans, and waterways, preventing injuries and loss of life on these waters. It enforces all Federal laws and treaties related to the high seas and U.S. waters. It is the lead Federal agency for preventing and responding to major pollution incidents in the coastal zone. It makes our ports and shipping lanes safe for efficient marine transportation and commerce. And, as one of the five armed forces, it provides a critical component of the Nation's defense strategy. A few statistics graphically illustrate the Coast Guard's importance to the Nation. Last year, it saved 4,750 lives, assisted more than 90,000 individuals in distress, and saved or protected nearly $6 billion in property. As part of its law enforcement mission in 1996, the Coast Guard confiscated 29 tons of cocaine and marijuana that was destined for the United States. It intercepted over 9000 immigrants headed to our shores. During the same year, the Coast Guard responded to more than 17,000 pollution incidents. And the maritime cargo activities that the Coast Guard monitors and protects are estimated to contribute $74 billion annually to our GDP. Fortunately for the American people, the Coast Guard performs these and other essential missions with a high degree of professionalism. Last year, Congress enacted the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996, which authorized the Coast Guard through fiscal year 1997. The bill we are introducing today reauthorizes the Coast Guard for the next 2 years--fiscal years 1998 and 1999. It authorizes both appropriations and personnel levels for these 2 years. And it also contains various provisions that are designed to, among other things, provide greater flexibility to the Coast Guard on personnel administration, streamline the inventory management process, eliminate an unnecessary reporting requirement, and enhance the effectiveness of the Coast Guard Investigative Service. The bill also provides authority to transfer excess property to the Coast Guard Auxiliary, protects personal information from release to the public during marine casualty investigations, conforms the U.S. territorial sea definition in certain laws to the 1988 Presidential Proclamation extending it from 3 to 12 miles, provides for some noncontroversial property conveyances, and contains other provisions. One provision that deserves particular mention relates to marine safety. Needless to say, we must have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to the use of alcohol and illegal drugs by anyone involved with the operation of a vessel. Unfortunately, some problems have arisen in recent years with the implementation of the Coast Guard's chemical testing requirements that apply in the aftermath of serious marine incidents like oil spills. Last year, after the oil tanker Julie N hit a bridge in Portland, ME, and spilled 170,000 gallons of oil, it was revealed that the pilot of the vessel failed to complete a test for alcohol, as required by regulation. Consequently, we will never know whether he was under the influence of alcohol when he hit the bridge. And this is not the only case of such a lapse. The National Transportation Safety Board, with whom I consulted on this language, has identified approximately 20 cases in recent years in which chemical testing procedures have not been properly complied with after serious marine incidents. This bill contains a provision designed to address the problem. Whereas current regulations only require the marine employer to ensure that alcohol tests are promptly conducted, the bill adds a provision that will require the Coast Guard to ensure that these tests are conducted, one way or another, within 2 hours of the accident being stabilized. The provision also increases the civil penalty for failure to comply with Coast Guard chemical testing procedures from $1,000 to $5,000. With these two changes, we will now have a clear chain of accountability in the testing process and a powerful incentive that should prevent testing lapses--and hopefully accidents related to intoxication--from occurring the in the future. Mr. President, this is a good bill that enjoys bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. I look forward to moving this bill to the Senate floor at the earliest opportunity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Coast Guard Authorization Act for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. The Coast Guard is one of our Nation's truly essential agencies. It aids people in distress on our bays, oceans, and waterways, preventing injuries and loss of life on these waters. It enforces all Federal laws and treaties related to the high seas and U.S. waters. It is the lead Federal agency for preventing and responding to major pollution incidents in the coastal zone. It makes our ports and shipping lanes safe for efficient marine transportation and commerce. And, as one of the five armed forces, it provides a critical component of the Nation's defense strategy. A few statistics graphically illustrate the Coast Guard's importance to the Nation. Last year, it saved 4,750 lives, assisted more than 90,000 individuals in distress, and saved or protected nearly $6 billion in property. As part of its law enforcement mission in 1996, the Coast Guard confiscated 29 tons of cocaine and marijuana that was destined for the United States. It intercepted over 9000 immigrants headed to our shores. During the same year, the Coast Guard responded to more than 17,000 pollution incidents. And the maritime cargo activities that the Coast Guard monitors and protects are estimated to contribute $74 billion annually to our GDP. Fortunately for the American people, the Coast Guard performs these and other essential missions with a high degree of professionalism. Last year, Congress enacted the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996, which authorized the Coast Guard through fiscal year 1997. The bill we are introducing today reauthorizes the Coast Guard for the next 2 years--fiscal years 1998 and 1999. It authorizes both appropriations and personnel levels for these 2 years. And it also contains various provisions that are designed to, among other things, provide greater flexibility to the Coast Guard on personnel administration, streamline the inventory management process, eliminate an unnecessary reporting requirement, and enhance the effectiveness of the Coast Guard Investigative Service. The bill also provides authority to transfer excess property to the Coast Guard Auxiliary, protects personal information from release to the public during marine casualty investigations, conforms the U.S. territorial sea definition in certain laws to the 1988 Presidential Proclamation extending it from 3 to 12 miles, provides for some noncontroversial property conveyances, and contains other provisions. One provision that deserves particular mention relates to marine safety. Needless to say, we must have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to the use of alcohol and illegal drugs by anyone involved with the operation of a vessel. Unfortunately, some problems have arisen in recent years with the implementation of the Coast Guard's chemical testing requirements that apply in the aftermath of serious marine incidents like oil spills. Last year, after the oil tanker Julie N hit a bridge in Portland, ME, and spilled 170,000 gallons of oil, it was revealed that the pilot of the vessel failed to complete a test for alcohol, as required by regulation. Consequently, we will never know whether he was under the influence of alcohol when he hit the bridge. And this is not the only case of such a lapse. The National Transportation Safety Board, with whom I consulted on this language, has identified approximately 20 cases in recent years in which chemical testing procedures have not been properly complied with after serious marine incidents. This bill contains a provision designed to address the problem. Whereas current regulations only require the marine employer to ensure that alcohol tests are promptly conducted, the bill adds a provision that will require the Coast Guard to ensure that these tests are conducted, one way or another, within 2 hours of the accident being stabilized. The provision also increases the civil penalty for failure to comply with Coast Guard chemical testing procedures from $1,000 to $5,000. With these two changes, we will now have a clear chain of accountability in the testing process and a powerful incentive that should prevent testing lapses--and hopefully accidents related to intoxication--from occurring the in the future. Mr. President, this is a good bill that enjoys bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. I look forward to moving this bill to the Senate floor at the earliest opportunity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, in the introduction of the Oceans Act of 1997. This bill will establish a commission like the Stratton Commission of 1966 to review the many ocean and coastal issues facing the United States, and to develop a comprehensive, coordinated, national ocean and coastal policy. Prior to introduction, I raised a few concerns with Senator Hollings on some provisions of the draft bill. Basically, I had recommended some language that made it clear that as we develop a new ocean and coastal policy for the Nation, we keep in mind the facts that our fiscal resources are limited, and that our Federal investments in ocean and coastal resources must be spent efficiently and wisely. I also raised some concerns about the fact that the original draft had the President appointing all of the members of this important commission. Mr. President, Senator Hollings has graciously agreed to make some changes to the bill pursuant to my recommendations. For instance, the bill now authorizes the Congress to appoint more than half of the commission members, and the commission is directed to identify opportunities to reform Federal ocean programs to improve efficiency and effectiveness. I commend Senator Hollings for his willingness to work with me and other Republican Senators before introduction of the bill. After introduction, I look forward to working with the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, a Senator who worked on the original Stratton Commission bill 30 years ago and who is a true champion of ocean protection, in the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee on any further refinements along these lines that might be constructive. Again, I thank Senator Hollings and commend him upon introduction of this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, in the introduction of the Oceans Act of 1997. This bill will establish a commission like the Stratton Commission of 1966 to review the many ocean and coastal issues facing the United States, and to develop a comprehensive, coordinated, national ocean and coastal policy. Prior to introduction, I raised a few concerns with Senator Hollings on some provisions of the draft bill. Basically, I had recommended some language that made it clear that as we develop a new ocean and coastal policy for the Nation, we keep in mind the facts that our fiscal resources are limited, and that our Federal investments in ocean and coastal resources must be spent efficiently and wisely. I also raised some concerns about the fact that the original draft had the President appointing all of the members of this important commission. Mr. President, Senator Hollings has graciously agreed to make some changes to the bill pursuant to my recommendations. For instance, the bill now authorizes the Congress to appoint more than half of the commission members, and the commission is directed to identify opportunities to reform Federal ocean programs to improve efficiency and effectiveness. I commend Senator Hollings for his willingness to work with me and other Republican Senators before introduction of the bill. After introduction, I look forward to working with the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, a Senator who worked on the original Stratton Commission bill 30 years ago and who is a true champion of ocean protection, in the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee on any further refinements along these lines that might be constructive. Again, I thank Senator Hollings and commend him upon introduction of this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to highlight the millions of family caregivers across this country, by calling on the Census Bureau to count family caregivers in the Census 2000. This bill is a companion to House legislation introduced by Representative Canady. I would like to thank Senators Jeffords, Mikulski, Allard, Harkin, and Grassley for joining me in support of family caregivers by cosponsoring this bill. As the population of this country ages, more and more Americans have and will assume the role of family caregivers--people who provide noncompensated care for an elderly or disabled family member in their own home. Today, nearly 80 percent of elderly people needing long-term care services are estimated to reside outside the nursing home setting, and many nonelderly people are cared for by a family member as well. In fact, family caregivers provide two-thirds of all home care services in this country. The decision to care for a loved one who is ill or incapacitated on a full-time basis requires significant personal sacrifice on the caregiver's part. Yet the compassionate services provided by family caregivers to those who are unable to care for themselves is invaluable. Without the contributions of caregivers, immense pressure would be brought to bear on our nursing home and health care systems. Unfortunately, caregivers and their contributions to the Nation's public health system have historically gone unrecognized. While the issue of family caregivers has obvious policy implications, adequate statistical and survey information is not available to help policymakers address issues concerning these individuals. That is why I am introducing legislation to request that family caregivers be counted by the Census Bureau in the Census 2000. By counting caregivers in the census, we will be able to collect more information about this rapidly- growing group and form policy solutions that will take into account their special needs. In her book, ``Helping Yourself Help Others,'' former First Lady Rosalynn Carter reminds us that there are only four kinds of people in the world: those who have been caregivers, those who are caregivers, those who will be caregivers, and those who will need caregivers. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and to draw attention to the needs of family caregivers.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, yesterday Senator Kerry and I introduced the North Atlantic Fisheries Resource Conservation Act. Unfortunately, we neglected to specifically ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. In order to ensure that the public has easy access to the bill's language, I now ask that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in keeping with the old adage that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it, I am introducing a bill today with Senator Kerry which is designed to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past in fisheries management. Most of the major commercial fisheries in both the United States and the world are either fully exploited or overexploited. In many instances, these fisheries have approached or reached an overfished condition because the fishing fleets which targeted them became overcapitalized before the management system in place could respond effectively to this excess fishing capacity. As a result, we find ourselves today faced with case after case of having to make wrenching management decisions to reduce fishing effort that have substantial socioeconomic impacts on coastal communities that depend on fishing for their livelihoods. In the cases of Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel, however, we still have time. Through torturous but ultimately fortunate historical circumstances, the offshore stocks of these fisheries remain, at least according to the best information presently available, fairly abundant. And because of their relative abundance, these fisheries have attracted increasing attention from fishermen in the Northeast and the mid- Atlantic, many of whom have been displaced from the now-depleted New England groundfish fishery. Earlier this year, however, a dramatic new proposal came to light which could alter the planned course of sustainable development for these fisheries. A United States-Dutch group intends to bring a 369 foot factory trawler into the Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries by the spring of 1998. This vessel is more than twice the size of any other vessel currently fishing in New England, and it intends to harvest 50,000 tons of fish annually. Many concerns have been raised from Maine to New Jersey about the potential impacts that this enormous vessel will have on the herring and mackerel stocks, and on the composition of the fisheries that have been developing in recent years through the hard work of many people in the region. To take one example of these concerns, while the National Marine Fisheries Service indicates that herring is, according to the best information, fairly abundant off Georges Bank and southern New England, there are legitimate concerns about the health of the Gulf of Maine stocks which form the major source of supply for the sardine and lobster bait industries, and which do appear to interact and aggregate with the offshore stocks at certain times of the year. Unfortunately, today's science cannot tell us with a high degree of precision what impacts the increased fishing of offshore stocks would have on all of the key Gulf of Maine stocks. The uncertainties surrounding the Atlantic Star proposal are the kinds of things that must be carefully reviewed, and the most appropriate forums for reviewing these questions are the regional fishery management councils established to manage our fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Unfortunately, neither of the councils with jurisdiction over herring and mackerel had addressed the issues raised by the Atlantic Star before the vessel's owners were able to get it permitted. The Atlantic herring fishery does not have a federal fishery management plan, meaning that it is largely unregulated. And the existing management plan for mackerel was developed before it was known that the Atlantic Star would seek to operate in that fishery. To ensure that the Atlantic Star and other vessels of its class receive the thorough consideration intended in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the bill introduced by Senator Kerry and I calls a temporary timeout on the entry of very large vessels into the herring and mackerel fisheries until the councils have time to act. Our bill states that no vessel over 165 feet or with greater than 3,000 horsepower can harvest these species unless the appropriate council specifically authorizes it in a fishery management plan or plan amendment. But unlike other bills that have been introduced on this issue, our bill ensures that this matter is addressed in a reasonable timeframe. It establishes deadlines for action on the Atlantic Star by the councils and the Commerce Department of September 30, 1998, whether the decision is favorable or unfavorable. Mr. President, this bill simply ensures that the analytical and deliberative process outlined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act has a chance to work as it was intended. And when the issue is the introduction of a dramatically different new fishing technology into two relatively healthy fisheries of substantial importance to many people who live in the region, the integrity of this process could not be more important. It is unfortunate that this issue was not resolved by the councils and the Commerce Department sooner, but the fact is that it was not, and Congress, if it is to ensure that our fisheries are managed responsibly, must intervene in a responsible manner. The remedy that we have proposed is responsible, temporary, and reasonable.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in keeping with the old adage that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it, I am introducing a bill today with Senator Kerry which is designed to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past in fisheries management. Most of the major commercial fisheries in both the United States and the world are either fully exploited or overexploited. In many instances, these fisheries have approached or reached an overfished condition because the fishing fleets which targeted them became overcapitalized before the management system in place could respond effectively to this excess fishing capacity. As a result, we find ourselves today faced with case after case of having to make wrenching management decisions to reduce fishing effort that have substantial socioeconomic impacts on coastal communities that depend on fishing for their livelihoods. In the cases of Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel, however, we still have time. Through torturous but ultimately fortunate historical circumstances, the offshore stocks of these fisheries remain, at least according to the best information presently available, fairly abundant. And because of their relative abundance, these fisheries have attracted increasing attention from fishermen in the Northeast and the mid- Atlantic, many of whom have been displaced from the now-depleted New England groundfish fishery. Earlier this year, however, a dramatic new proposal came to light which could alter the planned course of sustainable development for these fisheries. A United States-Dutch group intends to bring a 369 foot factory trawler into the Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries by the spring of 1998. This vessel is more than twice the size of any other vessel currently fishing in New England, and it intends to harvest 50,000 tons of fish annually. Many concerns have been raised from Maine to New Jersey about the potential impacts that this enormous vessel will have on the herring and mackerel stocks, and on the composition of the fisheries that have been developing in recent years through the hard work of many people in the region. To take one example of these concerns, while the National Marine Fisheries Service indicates that herring is, according to the best information, fairly abundant off Georges Bank and southern New England, there are legitimate concerns about the health of the Gulf of Maine stocks which form the major source of supply for the sardine and lobster bait industries, and which do appear to interact and aggregate with the offshore stocks at certain times of the year. Unfortunately, today's science cannot tell us with a high degree of precision what impacts the increased fishing of offshore stocks would have on all of the key Gulf of Maine stocks. The uncertainties surrounding the Atlantic Star proposal are the kinds of things that must be carefully reviewed, and the most appropriate forums for reviewing these questions are the regional fishery management councils established to manage our fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Unfortunately, neither of the councils with jurisdiction over herring and mackerel had addressed the issues raised by the Atlantic Star before the vessel's owners were able to get it permitted. The Atlantic herring fishery does not have a federal fishery management plan, meaning that it is largely unregulated. And the existing management plan for mackerel was developed before it was known that the Atlantic Star would seek to operate in that fishery. To ensure that the Atlantic Star and other vessels of its class receive the thorough consideration intended in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the bill introduced by Senator Kerry and I calls a temporary timeout on the entry of very large vessels into the herring and mackerel fisheries until the councils have time to act. Our bill states that no vessel over 165 feet or with greater than 3,000 horsepower can harvest these species unless the appropriate council specifically authorizes it in a fishery management plan or plan amendment. But unlike other bills that have been introduced on this issue, our bill ensures that this matter is addressed in a reasonable timeframe. It establishes deadlines for action on the Atlantic Star by the councils and the Commerce Department of September 30, 1998, whether the decision is favorable or unfavorable. Mr. President, this bill simply ensures that the analytical and deliberative process outlined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act has a chance to work as it was intended. And when the issue is the introduction of a dramatically different new fishing technology into two relatively healthy fisheries of substantial importance to many people who live in the region, the integrity of this process could not be more important. It is unfortunate that this issue was not resolved by the councils and the Commerce Department sooner, but the fact is that it was not, and Congress, if it is to ensure that our fisheries are managed responsibly, must intervene in a responsible manner. The remedy that we have proposed is responsible, temporary, and reasonable.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will end a common abuse of the budget process in the Congress: the attachment of nonemergency provisions to emergency spending bills. Senator Abraham and Senator Gramm are also original sponsors of this legislation. At a time when Congress and the President have come together and agreed on a plan to balance the budget by the year 2002, I believe it is appropriate that we now seek to ensure that all future spending decisions be fully weighed and considered before the tax dollars of hard-working Americans are spent. We must ensure that the costs and benefits of a proposal are thoroughly reviewed through our carefully structured budget process--not allowed to be pushed through the Congress with minimal debate and consideration. The legislation I am introducing today would address one of the ways in which spending programs are pushed through Congress with minimal budget scrutiny: the attachment of nonemergency provisions to emergency spending bills. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, emergency spending bills have been afforded special treatment because of the unique problems they address. While the annual budget and appropriations process typically takes months to complete, emergency spending legislation often receives special, accelerated consideration that can lead to its adoption in days or weeks. This expedited treatment is understandable: When a flood, earthquake, or other natural disaster imperils the lives and safety of the American people, Congress and the President should be ready and able to respond quickly. We have even made special exceptions for emergency spending bills within our budgetary rules to ensure that disasters and other emergencies are quickly addressed. While we generally require that new spending be offset to ensure the deficit is not increased, we allow this requirement to be waived if the moneys are being spent on an emergency item. In addition, we waive our annual budgetary spending caps if the moneys are being spent to address an emergency or disaster. Because of their expedited treatment and budgetary exceptions, emergency spending bills have become a magnet for nonemergency items. Rather than subject a proposal to the regular budget and appropriations process, provisions are often attached to emergency spending bills that are moving through Congress on a virtual fast track. Although nonemergency items in an emergency spending bill are still subject to the annual spending caps, no offset is required if such spending would be below the annual limit. Furthermore, even if a nonemergency item is offset in an emergency spending bill, the expedited consideration of that legislation often does not allow for a thorough analysis in the broader context of the budget. Rather than subjecting the nonemergency spending provision to the same scrutiny as other programs in the budget and weighing its merits accordingly, Congress is forced to make a rapid decision. Delaying the process and carefully weighing these nonemergency items would also mean risking the timely delivery of assistance to those who have been affected by an emergency or disaster. Such a delay is simply not acceptable. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today would eliminate this problem and this practice by ensuring that all nonemergency spending items are subject to the same budget scrutiny and same budgetary rules. If my legislation is adopted, emergency spending bills would no longer be a convenient vehicle for spending money on nonemergency items. Rather, emergency spending bills would be just that: emergency spending bills--not Christmas trees with other goodies and presents tucked beneath them. Under my bill, nonemergency provisions in an emergency or disaster spending bill would be subject to a new three-fifths majority point of order. If a nonemergency item is included in an emergency spending bill or related conference report--or is contained in an amendment that is being offered to such a bill--this new point of order could be raised by any Member, and a three-fifths majority vote would be required to waive it. I believe the Members of this body are familiar with the Byrd rule and its impact on the reconciliation process, and my new provision would be administered in much the same way. The only difference would be that while the Byrd rule applies to budget reconciliation bills, this rule would apply to emergency spending bills. Mr. President, we must no longer allow nonemergency items to be attached to emergency spending bills. We have created an expedited process for considering emergency spending bills for very sound reasons--but providing a vehicle for nonemergency items to be rushed through Congress was not one of them. As we work toward a balanced budget in the year 2002, I would urge that Congress and the President carefully weigh the merits of every spending program and make priorities accordingly. My legislation would help us achieve this objective by ensuring that nonemergency items are not rushed through Congress while riding on the back of emergency spending bills. I urge that my colleagues join me in this effort and support this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will end a common abuse of the budget process in the Congress: the attachment of nonemergency provisions to emergency spending bills. Senator Abraham and Senator Gramm are also original sponsors of this legislation. At a time when Congress and the President have come together and agreed on a plan to balance the budget by the year 2002, I believe it is appropriate that we now seek to ensure that all future spending decisions be fully weighed and considered before the tax dollars of hard-working Americans are spent. We must ensure that the costs and benefits of a proposal are thoroughly reviewed through our carefully structured budget process--not allowed to be pushed through the Congress with minimal debate and consideration. The legislation I am introducing today would address one of the ways in which spending programs are pushed through Congress with minimal budget scrutiny: the attachment of nonemergency provisions to emergency spending bills. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, emergency spending bills have been afforded special treatment because of the unique problems they address. While the annual budget and appropriations process typically takes months to complete, emergency spending legislation often receives special, accelerated consideration that can lead to its adoption in days or weeks. This expedited treatment is understandable: When a flood, earthquake, or other natural disaster imperils the lives and safety of the American people, Congress and the President should be ready and able to respond quickly. We have even made special exceptions for emergency spending bills within our budgetary rules to ensure that disasters and other emergencies are quickly addressed. While we generally require that new spending be offset to ensure the deficit is not increased, we allow this requirement to be waived if the moneys are being spent on an emergency item. In addition, we waive our annual budgetary spending caps if the moneys are being spent to address an emergency or disaster. Because of their expedited treatment and budgetary exceptions, emergency spending bills have become a magnet for nonemergency items. Rather than subject a proposal to the regular budget and appropriations process, provisions are often attached to emergency spending bills that are moving through Congress on a virtual fast track. Although nonemergency items in an emergency spending bill are still subject to the annual spending caps, no offset is required if such spending would be below the annual limit. Furthermore, even if a nonemergency item is offset in an emergency spending bill, the expedited consideration of that legislation often does not allow for a thorough analysis in the broader context of the budget. Rather than subjecting the nonemergency spending provision to the same scrutiny as other programs in the budget and weighing its merits accordingly, Congress is forced to make a rapid decision. Delaying the process and carefully weighing these nonemergency items would also mean risking the timely delivery of assistance to those who have been affected by an emergency or disaster. Such a delay is simply not acceptable. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today would eliminate this problem and this practice by ensuring that all nonemergency spending items are subject to the same budget scrutiny and same budgetary rules. If my legislation is adopted, emergency spending bills would no longer be a convenient vehicle for spending money on nonemergency items. Rather, emergency spending bills would be just that: emergency spending bills--not Christmas trees with other goodies and presents tucked beneath them. Under my bill, nonemergency provisions in an emergency or disaster spending bill would be subject to a new three-fifths majority point of order. If a nonemergency item is included in an emergency spending bill or related conference report--or is contained in an amendment that is being offered to such a bill--this new point of order could be raised by any Member, and a three-fifths majority vote would be required to waive it. I believe the Members of this body are familiar with the Byrd rule and its impact on the reconciliation process, and my new provision would be administered in much the same way. The only difference would be that while the Byrd rule applies to budget reconciliation bills, this rule would apply to emergency spending bills. Mr. President, we must no longer allow nonemergency items to be attached to emergency spending bills. We have created an expedited process for considering emergency spending bills for very sound reasons--but providing a vehicle for nonemergency items to be rushed through Congress was not one of them. As we work toward a balanced budget in the year 2002, I would urge that Congress and the President carefully weigh the merits of every spending program and make priorities accordingly. My legislation would help us achieve this objective by ensuring that nonemergency items are not rushed through Congress while riding on the back of emergency spending bills. I urge that my colleagues join me in this effort and support this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce legislation that will address a serious need of America's workers: The need to receive training that will prepare individuals for the workplace of the 21st century. My legislation, entitled the ``Working American Training Voucher Act,'' would provide $1,000 training vouchers to 1 million working men and women who typically have little or no access to employer-provided training. Mr. President, many Federal programs focus on the needs of those whose challenges and difficulties are most easily recognized and tangible. When we see a hungry child, an unemployed adult, or an impoverished senior citizen, we justifiably want to reach out and do what we can to help. Indeed, I am proud to be an active voice for those whose challenges and pains we can sometimes only imagine. However, it is oftentimes difficult to recognize the needs of those whose challenges are less tangible, whose concerns are less evident, or whose sense of insecurity about the future is known only by the individual and their family. It is this difficulty that confronts many American workers today. In the face of increasing global competition, many workers wonder if the job they have today will be there for them tomorrow. They are concerned that the advent of new technologies is making their skills and talents less useful for their current employers which, in turn, makes them feel more vulnerable and expendable. And they wonder if the skills they posses today are even marketable if they are downsized or otherwise put out of work. Unfortunately, these types of concerns and anxieties oftentimes do not show on the surface, so it can be difficult for others to recognize or address them. It is too easy for many to assume that because a man or woman is already holding down a job, all is well and his or her future is secure. After all, how bad can it be if you're punching a time clock and getting a paycheck? Unfortunately, such a view is not only shortsighted, it is also misguided and could prove disastrous. We should not wait until a worker has been laid off from their job, or a company shuts its doors and shutters its windows, to take steps to help the American worker. Rather, we should take steps to ensure that our Nation's work force is confident of their future and feels prepared to address the changes that tomorrow will bring. Not only does this help the individual, but I think we would all agree that the best way to reduce the impact and cost of unemployment is to take steps to keep those who are already employed on the job. Admittedly, many policies and decisions play an integral role in creating a vibrant job market. The tax burden we place on businesses, the trade agreements we sign with foreign governments, and the regulatory load we place on employers all have a significant impact on our economy's ability to produce and sustain good jobs. However, for the individual, many of these polices seem too macro to have an impact on their own employment prospects. In fact, an individual may not even recognized the direct impact these broader policies have on their job from day to day. There is, however, one issue that truly strikes at the heart of how an individual feels about the future: The degree to which he or she knows that their skills match the needs of their current employer or other prospective employers in the marketplace. Without this knowledge, it does not matter to an individual if the unemployment rate is as low as economists consider the natural rate of unemployment or if the newspapers tell him or her that the economy couldn't be better. The simple fact is that unless an individual personally feels that their skills are up-to-date and marketable, there will never be a complete sense of security on the job from one day to the next. And that's what the legislation I am introducing today is all about. The Working American Training Voucher Act addresses the needs of the average American worker--the individual who has a job today, but doesn't know if he or she has the skills needed for the jobs of tomorrow. The person who's collecting a paycheck now, but is concerned that the rapidly changing work environment may put an end to that soon. Mr. President, we all know new technologies and new products are entering the workplace at an unprecedented rate and the changes these technologies bring are substantial. Few professions and few jobs have gone untouched by these changes--and even fewer will be immune from change in the future. Indeed, just as computers have changed the face of manufacturing, they have also changed the world of art and design. Even labor intensive tasks at assembly shops have taken on a high-tech flair thanks to new technologies. For an individual who understands these technologies or received training in their use, these changes present exciting new opportunities that improve performance and ultimately give one a sense of assurance that their skills are in demand. But for those who do not understand these technologies or do not receive training in their use, these technologies are nothing more than a threat and cause for anxiety. Regrettably, even as the demand for training at all levels in the workplace continues to grow because of these changing technologies, the United States has historically lagged far behind our global competitors in training workers. In fact, a study by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment concluded: ``When measured by international standards, most American workers are not well trained.'' While some U.S. companies devote a substantial amount of money to training, many of our global competitors spend considerably more. A study by the American Society for Training and Development highlighted this point when it found that U.S. companies spend--in the aggregate-- approximately 1.4 percent of their payroll on training, while a number of our competitor nations actually require companies to spend 2 to 4 percent. While I would not espouse a mandatory training budget for any business, I believe we can and should seek to improve the availability of training for our Nation's workers--and especially for those who need it most but are least likely to receive it. And that's precisely who the working American training voucher is designed to reach. Mr. President, the working American training voucher would provide access to critically needed training for workers at businesses with 200 or fewer employees. Why is it targeted to workers in small businesses? Quite simply, because these are the individuals who are the least likely to receive--or be offered--employer-provided training. The same report by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment summarized the plight of employees at small businesses quite succinctly: ``Many (employees) in smaller firms receive no formal training.'' A recent report--completed by Prof. Craig Olson at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and presented to the Senate Manufacturing Task Force this past September--looked at the difference between the likelihood an individual would receive training and the level of educational achievement he or she attained, or the field he or she chose to enter. Dr. Olson's study found that individuals with a bachelor's or master's degree had a 50 percent chance of receiving training in the past year, while individuals with a high school diploma had only a 17 percent chance. Those who dropped out of high school fared even worse; their odds of receiving training were only 5 percent. When viewed by occupation, individuals who worked in production- or service-related jobs had only a 16 percent and 18 percent chance of receiving training respectively, while those in management had a 50 percent chance. When considering that only one in four American workers received training in the past 12 months, these odds don't bode well for many employees at small businesses whose educational attainment and occupations fall in the categories that are the least likely to receive training. One might understandably ask: Why is it that small businesses often provide so little training? The answer: cost. Small businesses are quite often unable to afford the cost of sending an employee to a training program. When your business is just trying to make ends meet, it's impossible to send an employee to a training class that costs the business both money and time away from work. Mr. President, the working American training voucher is designed to address this problem in a straightforward and efficient way. These vouchers--valued at up to $1,000 each--would be made available to employees at small businesses through the existing job training system that is already in place as a result of the Job Training Partnership Act, or JTPA. As my colleagues in the Senate know, State and local governments--joined by the private sector--have primary responsibility for the development, management, and administration of job training programs in the JTPA, so no new distribution network would be necessary to conduct this voucher program. The only major requirement for receiving a voucher would be that the employee and employer must agree on the specific training that will be purchased with the voucher. This will ensure that the training will be targeted specifically to the needs of the individual and the business-- money would not be spent on generic training programs that teach skills that are of little, if any, use in a particular field or job. Furthermore, such an agreement will ensure that workers are actively engaged in pursuing training that will help their careers, even as employers will be urging employees to undertake training that will help the business. The Senate Labor Committee will soon be preparing legislation to recraft and consolidate many of our federally-run job training programs in the JTPA. I am greatly concerned that none of our current 128 job training programs is specifically targeted to training for currently employed individuals--and I believe that the working American training voucher would fill this void for those who need access to this training the most. Therefore, I am hopeful that my legislation and this concept will be incorporated in the job training reform bill when it is reported from the Senate Labor Committee and is considered on the floor of the Senate. Mr. President, I believe that as we prepare our work force for the next century, we should be encouraging workers to develop new skills that will improve their longevity in their current jobs even as they gain confidence that their skills will be needed in the future. Not only will these new skills increase the confidence and performance of the individual worker, but they will also improve the productivity of the business who employs them. And we all know that if we improve a business' productivity and output, that business is more likely to survive and thrive--which means that this voucher may ultimately assist in preserving businesses and jobs in the long run. Furthermore, better skills and training will ensure that individuals are able to rapidly transition to new jobs in the unfortunate event their current job is lost for reasons beyond their control. Regardless of how favorable the Tax Code is made or how many burdensome regulations we remove, we will never be able to guarantee an individual that his or her job will be around forever. But we can provide a worker with access to training that will keep his or her skills up to date and marketable no matter what the future holds. Mr. President, the working American training voucher would be a tangible, concrete, and definable program that would address a core issue facing American workers. It will ensure that those who typically have the least access to training will be able to acquire the skills needed for their current jobs, while improving their jobs in the future. It is targeted to those who are most in need of assistance, and will ensure that we no longer wait until an individual is out of work to provide help. The Federal Government often promises the American people many things, but we can never offer peace of mind to a worker who doesn't know if his or her skills are adequate to keep them employed. Let's take a step in the right direction and at least ensure that those who have a job will not lose it due to a lack of access to training and new skills. Let's pass the Working American Training Voucher Act.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce legislation that will address a serious need of America's workers: The need to receive training that will prepare individuals for the workplace of the 21st century. My legislation, entitled the ``Working American Training Voucher Act,'' would provide $1,000 training vouchers to 1 million working men and women who typically have little or no access to employer-provided training. Mr. President, many Federal programs focus on the needs of those whose challenges and difficulties are most easily recognized and tangible. When we see a hungry child, an unemployed adult, or an impoverished senior citizen, we justifiably want to reach out and do what we can to help. Indeed, I am proud to be an active voice for those whose challenges and pains we can sometimes only imagine. However, it is oftentimes difficult to recognize the needs of those whose challenges are less tangible, whose concerns are less evident, or whose sense of insecurity about the future is known only by the individual and their family. It is this difficulty that confronts many American workers today. In the face of increasing global competition, many workers wonder if the job they have today will be there for them tomorrow. They are concerned that the advent of new technologies is making their skills and talents less useful for their current employers which, in turn, makes them feel more vulnerable and expendable. And they wonder if the skills they posses today are even marketable if they are downsized or otherwise put out of work. Unfortunately, these types of concerns and anxieties oftentimes do not show on the surface, so it can be difficult for others to recognize or address them. It is too easy for many to assume that because a man or woman is already holding down a job, all is well and his or her future is secure. After all, how bad can it be if you're punching a time clock and getting a paycheck? Unfortunately, such a view is not only shortsighted, it is also misguided and could prove disastrous. We should not wait until a worker has been laid off from their job, or a company shuts its doors and shutters its windows, to take steps to help the American worker. Rather, we should take steps to ensure that our Nation's work force is confident of their future and feels prepared to address the changes that tomorrow will bring. Not only does this help the individual, but I think we would all agree that the best way to reduce the impact and cost of unemployment is to take steps to keep those who are already employed on the job. Admittedly, many policies and decisions play an integral role in creating a vibrant job market. The tax burden we place on businesses, the trade agreements we sign with foreign governments, and the regulatory load we place on employers all have a significant impact on our economy's ability to produce and sustain good jobs. However, for the individual, many of these polices seem too macro to have an impact on their own employment prospects. In fact, an individual may not even recognized the direct impact these broader policies have on their job from day to day. There is, however, one issue that truly strikes at the heart of how an individual feels about the future: The degree to which he or she knows that their skills match the needs of their current employer or other prospective employers in the marketplace. Without this knowledge, it does not matter to an individual if the unemployment rate is as low as economists consider the natural rate of unemployment or if the newspapers tell him or her that the economy couldn't be better. The simple fact is that unless an individual personally feels that their skills are up-to-date and marketable, there will never be a complete sense of security on the job from one day to the next. And that's what the legislation I am introducing today is all about. The Working American Training Voucher Act addresses the needs of the average American worker--the individual who has a job today, but doesn't know if he or she has the skills needed for the jobs of tomorrow. The person who's collecting a paycheck now, but is concerned that the rapidly changing work environment may put an end to that soon. Mr. President, we all know new technologies and new products are entering the workplace at an unprecedented rate and the changes these technologies bring are substantial. Few professions and few jobs have gone untouched by these changes--and even fewer will be immune from change in the future. Indeed, just as computers have changed the face of manufacturing, they have also changed the world of art and design. Even labor intensive tasks at assembly shops have taken on a high-tech flair thanks to new technologies. For an individual who understands these technologies or received training in their use, these changes present exciting new opportunities that improve performance and ultimately give one a sense of assurance that their skills are in demand. But for those who do not understand these technologies or do not receive training in their use, these technologies are nothing more than a threat and cause for anxiety. Regrettably, even as the demand for training at all levels in the workplace continues to grow because of these changing technologies, the United States has historically lagged far behind our global competitors in training workers. In fact, a study by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment concluded: ``When measured by international standards, most American workers are not well trained.'' While some U.S. companies devote a substantial amount of money to training, many of our global competitors spend considerably more. A study by the American Society for Training and Development highlighted this point when it found that U.S. companies spend--in the aggregate-- approximately 1.4 percent of their payroll on training, while a number of our competitor nations actually require companies to spend 2 to 4 percent. While I would not espouse a mandatory training budget for any business, I believe we can and should seek to improve the availability of training for our Nation's workers--and especially for those who need it most but are least likely to receive it. And that's precisely who the working American training voucher is designed to reach. Mr. President, the working American training voucher would provide access to critically needed training for workers at businesses with 200 or fewer employees. Why is it targeted to workers in small businesses? Quite simply, because these are the individuals who are the least likely to receive--or be offered--employer-provided training. The same report by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment summarized the plight of employees at small businesses quite succinctly: ``Many (employees) in smaller firms receive no formal training.'' A recent report--completed by Prof. Craig Olson at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and presented to the Senate Manufacturing Task Force this past September--looked at the difference between the likelihood an individual would receive training and the level of educational achievement he or she attained, or the field he or she chose to enter. Dr. Olson's study found that individuals with a bachelor's or master's degree had a 50 percent chance of receiving training in the past year, while individuals with a high school diploma had only a 17 percent chance. Those who dropped out of high school fared even worse; their odds of receiving training were only 5 percent. When viewed by occupation, individuals who worked in production- or service-related jobs had only a 16 percent and 18 percent chance of receiving training respectively, while those in management had a 50 percent chance. When considering that only one in four American workers received training in the past 12 months, these odds don't bode well for many employees at small businesses whose educational attainment and occupations fall in the categories that are the least likely to receive training. One might understandably ask: Why is it that small businesses often provide so little training? The answer: cost. Small businesses are quite often unable to afford the cost of sending an employee to a training program. When your business is just trying to make ends meet, it's impossible to send an employee to a training class that costs the business both money and time away from work. Mr. President, the working American training voucher is designed to address this problem in a straightforward and efficient way. These vouchers--valued at up to $1,000 each--would be made available to employees at small businesses through the existing job training system that is already in place as a result of the Job Training Partnership Act, or JTPA. As my colleagues in the Senate know, State and local governments--joined by the private sector--have primary responsibility for the development, management, and administration of job training programs in the JTPA, so no new distribution network would be necessary to conduct this voucher program. The only major requirement for receiving a voucher would be that the employee and employer must agree on the specific training that will be purchased with the voucher. This will ensure that the training will be targeted specifically to the needs of the individual and the business-- money would not be spent on generic training programs that teach skills that are of little, if any, use in a particular field or job. Furthermore, such an agreement will ensure that workers are actively engaged in pursuing training that will help their careers, even as employers will be urging employees to undertake training that will help the business. The Senate Labor Committee will soon be preparing legislation to recraft and consolidate many of our federally-run job training programs in the JTPA. I am greatly concerned that none of our current 128 job training programs is specifically targeted to training for currently employed individuals--and I believe that the working American training voucher would fill this void for those who need access to this training the most. Therefore, I am hopeful that my legislation and this concept will be incorporated in the job training reform bill when it is reported from the Senate Labor Committee and is considered on the floor of the Senate. Mr. President, I believe that as we prepare our work force for the next century, we should be encouraging workers to develop new skills that will improve their longevity in their current jobs even as they gain confidence that their skills will be needed in the future. Not only will these new skills increase the confidence and performance of the individual worker, but they will also improve the productivity of the business who employs them. And we all know that if we improve a business' productivity and output, that business is more likely to survive and thrive--which means that this voucher may ultimately assist in preserving businesses and jobs in the long run. Furthermore, better skills and training will ensure that individuals are able to rapidly transition to new jobs in the unfortunate event their current job is lost for reasons beyond their control. Regardless of how favorable the Tax Code is made or how many burdensome regulations we remove, we will never be able to guarantee an individual that his or her job will be around forever. But we can provide a worker with access to training that will keep his or her skills up to date and marketable no matter what the future holds. Mr. President, the working American training voucher would be a tangible, concrete, and definable program that would address a core issue facing American workers. It will ensure that those who typically have the least access to training will be able to acquire the skills needed for their current jobs, while improving their jobs in the future. It is targeted to those who are most in need of assistance, and will ensure that we no longer wait until an individual is out of work to provide help. The Federal Government often promises the American people many things, but we can never offer peace of mind to a worker who doesn't know if his or her skills are adequate to keep them employed. Let's take a step in the right direction and at least ensure that those who have a job will not lose it due to a lack of access to training and new skills. Let's pass the Working American Training Voucher Act.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the American people watched with horror and disgust as the incidents of sexual misconduct at Aberdeen Proving Ground unfolded last fall. As details emerged at Aberdeen and other Army training facilities, the extent and seriousness of this problem became increasingly and terribly evident. As a result of these events, the Secretary of the Army, Togo West, commissioned his senior review panel and tasked the Army Inspector General to conduct two separate widescale investigations of sexual harassment within the Army. Today, the Secretary released the results of these two studies. Both reports delivered a scathing indictment of the climate and lack of leadership that permits sexual harassment to permeate all levels of the Army. Mr. President, in each case involving leaders and trainees, the sexual misconduct which occurred at Aberdeen and elsewhere within the Army was a result of abuse of authority. The key to solving this problem is to eliminate the systemic conditions which created the atmosphere which allowed these outrageous and egregious instances of abuse to occur. The Army's equal opportunity system, which is supposed to provide a safety valve when all else fails, is itself a complete and utter failure--devoid of support by the chain of command and lacking credibility by those it seeks to protect. The stark reality is that only 5 percent of the 9,000 people surveyed, as part of the Army's own review, said they would use the formal complaint mechanism provided by the equal opportunity system. Mr. President, what kind of program engenders confidence in only 5 percent of the population? The answer is simple. One that is badly broken, and in desperate need of repair. The reports released today found that sexual harassment exists throughout the Army, crossing gender, rank, and racial lines. They also found that the Army leadership is the critical factor in creating, maintaining, and enforcing an environment of respect and dignity, yet too many leaders have failed to gain the trust of their soldiers. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have taken a long hard look at sexual harassment throughout the military. I have made visits to Fort Jackson, SC, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, and Camp Lejeune, NC. As part of these visits, I asked the Army about the quality of its sexual harassment training designed to sensitize both instructors and trainees to the problems of sexual harassment. Army officials assured me that the training was adequate, but today's shocking report reveals otherwise. The Inspector General's survey reported that professionals and leaders who are expected to deal with soldiers reporting incidents of inappropriate sexual behavior need to be trained and qualified, indicating that is obviously not the case today. Army officials must act swiftly and aggressively to change the climate that has allowed sexual harassment to permeate the Army. These same officials must also vastly improve the education provided to both instructors and trainees to ensure beyond the shadow of a doubt that all parties understand their responsibilities with regard to sexual harassment. The equal opportunity system has clearly failed and must be repaired so that victims of sexual harassment will have confidence that Army leadership will act on valid complaints and actively seek to eliminate sexual harassment. Today's acknowledgment by the Army is a first step that identifies the alarming scope of this problem. Now, it is incumbent upon the military and on our civilian leaders to put an end to sexual harassment once and for all. I will again meet with Army officials tomorrow and will continue to aggressively pursue changes to eliminate the poisonous environment that allows such pervasive levels of sexual harassment to undermine the good order and discipline of the United States Army, so crucial to our national security.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. On rollcall vote No. 229 I voted yea. It was my intention to vote no. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to change my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of that vote.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the junior Senator from Illinois. This amendment would repeal a provision that was inserted in the recently enacted Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 at the last minute that could potentially reduce the cost to tobacco companies of the proposed global settlement of tobacco litigation. Mr. President, as my colleagues are aware, a global settlement on tobacco litigation was announced on June 20. This settlement would resolve lawsuits brought by 40 States against the tobacco industry that sought to recoup State Medicaid spending for smoking related illnesses. Under the terms of the settlement, the industry would pay an estimated $386 billion over the next 25 years to compensate State and individuals for tobacco-related health costs and to finance nationwide antismoking programs. The settlement would further restrict the advertising of tobacco products and impose new labeling requirements on cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. At the same time, the tobacco industry would gain closure to the State lawsuits, and protect the industry from all but individual lawsuits in the future. Mr. President, in light of this proposed agreement, I was very disappointed that a provision was included in the recently enacted tax cut package that would potentially reduce the cost to the tobacco industry of their proposed settlement. Specifically, the provision-- which was agreed to by the administration and congressional negotiators at the last minute--would allow the tobacco industry to treat the excise tax on tobacco products as a credit against their proposed $368 billion payment, assuming that the settlement is codified. Although the enactment of that settlement is far from certain, the value of this potential credit is estimated to be $50 billion over 25 years. Mr. President, regardless of whether or not Congress and the President ultimately enact, modify, or reject the proposed tobacco settlement, I do not believe that the already-enacted Federal excise tax on tobacco products--which is paid by consumers and is intended to help provide health insurance for uninsured children--should potentially become a downpayment by the industry on their proposed settlement. The fact that the Clinton administration and congressional negotiators agreed to include this provision at the last minute does not mean it should remain in law indefinitely--so I have cosponsored the Durbin amendment to repeal this provision. Mr. President, I regret that this provision was inserted in the tax agreement without providing the House and Senate with an opportunity for consideration. As my colleagues will remember all too well, the negotiated tax package was a take-it-or-leave-it proposition: Members were unable to remove this or any other specific provision without taking the risk that the entire agreement would unravel and be killed. Fortunately, we now have the opportunity to consider this provision independent of the broader tax agreement, and I would urge that my colleagues vote to repeal this settlement-reducing provision by supporting the Durbin amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support a critically important piece of legislation affecting small businesses across our Nation--S. 1139, the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997. I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Bond and ranking member Kerry for their leadership and perseverance on this bill. We would not be here today considering S. 1139 if it were not for their dedication to the small business community. As a Senator from Maine, a State whose future economic well-being is dependent on small business enterprise, I am extremely supportive of the role the Small Business Administration [SBA] plays in promoting small business development and growth. The Small Business Committee, of which I am a member, held five hearings this past year on SBA's finance, noncredit, and Microloan programs. As a direct result of testimony given during those hearings by small businesses, the SBA and various industry organizations, the committee drafted a comprehensive bill that reauthorizes and improves upon even the most successful of SBA's programs. I am particularly pleased that the committee accepted an amendment that I offered regarding the Small Business Development Center [SBDC] Program. The SBDC Program is a public-private partnership that leverages Federal dollars with State, local, university, and private resources to provide one-stop management and technical assistance to small businesses. My amendment increases the SBDC minimum Federal contribution so that no State will receive less than $500,000. This will ensure that small State SBDC's will continue to be able to provide quality business management assistance, which is essential to the future successes of America's small businesses. If entrepreneurs are not sufficiently prepared with the financial, managerial, and technical knowledge needed to own and operate a business, then our Nation's future businesses have failed before they have been given the opportunity to succeed. One of the many reasons I support the SBDC program is because it serves as a successful example of what can be achieved when the private sector, the educational community and Federal, State and local governments work together. In fact, the SBDC program generates more in tax revenues that it costs to run the program itself. For example, in my home State of Maine, $6.15 in new Federal, State and local tax revenues is generated for every $1.00 invested in our state's SBDC. Nationally, the return is $4.53. While my amendment provides only a modest funding increase at the Federal level, the additional resources provided to a small State like Maine will have a disproportionately large and positive impact on Maine's economy. And I thank Chairman Bond for including my amendment in the Small Business Reauthorization Act. I would also like to thank Chairman Bond for his leadership on S. 208, the HUBZone Act of 1997, because the revitalization and community development of economically distressed regions with significant unemployment is a critical challenge confronting this Congress. It is essential that we discover ways to stimulate business and residential activity within these economically and socially distressed communities, which is why I believe that it is so important that the HUBZone Act was incorporated into the Small Business Reauthorization Act. The HUBZone Act will provide Federal contracting opportunities to small businesses located in historically impoverished urban and rural areas known as HUBZones. This bill will create a new class of small businesses that employ at least 35 percent of its workforce from a HUBZone eligible for Federal Government contract preferences. The purpose of the bill is to create incentives for small businesses to locate and operate in our country's most economically disadvantaged inner-cities and rural counties. At the same time, these businesses will foster job creation and community development in these economically underutilized areas. In Maine, Washington County with an extremely high unemployment rate of 12.5 percent--7.6 percent above the national average--will qualify as a HUBZone. Qualified small businesses located in this county will not only receive Federal contracting set-asides but also will play a vital role in revitalizing this distressed area by encouraging job creation. Additionally, because of an amendment Senator Enzi and I offered, both Aroostook and Somerset Counties with a 10.4 percent and 9 percent unemployment, respectively, will qualify as rural HUBZones. The Enzi- Snowe amendment establishes that economically distressed regions with extremely high unemployment rates will quality as HUBZones and receive much-needed relief. We must take action to stimulate business activity within these areas that face high unemployment rates and I believe that the HUBZone Act of 1997 does just this. The Small Business Reauthorization Act also includes another important piece of legislation, the Welfare-to-Work Microloan Pilot Program Act of 1997, of which I am an original cosponsor. This innovative pilot program will provide grants to community-based organizations, known as Microloan intermediaries, to help welfare recipients start their own small businesses. These intermediaries will provide technical assistance to potential small entrepreneurs who are on public assistance. This program is unique because it will provide up-front business assistance before a participant receives a loan. The future entrepreneur will learn basic business skills--how to develop a business plan, start a business and apply for small loans. In addition to this technical assistance, program participants will receive assistance with the high cost of child care and transportation, both of which are directly related to program participation. If a mother is unable to afford to put her child in day care or if she does not have the money to get to the training sessions, she simply will not go. The combination of business training and child care and transportation assistance will assure greater success for the participants receiving public assistance. This approach has been successfully piloted in several state programs. Iowa, for example, has a success rate of 70 percent in contrast to a national small business failure rate average of 80 percent. I believe that these programs are successful because they target the true cause of the high failure rate of small businesses--lack of business education. Small businesses are playing an increasingly important role in America's future prosperity, and they should play a vital role in any effort to revitalize our urban and rural communities and to solve the long-term problem of getting individuals off, and keeping them off, public assistance. This is exactly why I am a cosponsor of the HUBZone Act and an original cosponsor of the Welfare-to-Work Microloan Pilot Program. And, that is why I strongly support the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997 and encourage my distinguished colleagues to join me in supporting this critically important bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, to introduce the Child Care Access Means Parents in School Act [CAMPUS Act]. Senator Dodd and I have worked together to ensure access to quality child care, and this bill represents the next step in our shared commitment to this important issue. I am also pleased Senator Kennedy has joined us as a cosponsor of this legislation, which provides grants to colleges in order to provide child care for low-income students. Mr. President, this is the time of year when countless American students return to college. At this time, we should remind ourselves that many Americans face obstacles that prevent them from participating in higher education. The absence of affordable and accessible child care is, unfortunately, one such obstacle. For many parents with young children, the availability of oncampus child care services is central to their ability to attend college. Campus-based child care is conveniently located, available at the hours that fit students' schedules and often available at a lower cost than community-based child care centers. Student parents rate access to campus-based child care as an important factor affecting their college enrollment. Unfortunately, such services are often in very short supply, particularly for low-income parents who may find the cost of existing services prohibitive. Moreover, in order to meet the high demand for child care created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, States may divert funds away from programs currently providing campus-based child care services for low-income students and use the funds to provide child care to welfare recipients, because educational activities do not count as work under the act. This may leave students with less access to child care services. If we want to fulfill the goals of the welfare reform act and ensure that families are able to remain financially self-sufficient, we need to ensure that low-income parents have access to higher education and affordable and convenient child care. This is crucial given that people who receive public assistance and then complete college are far more likely to leave welfare permanently than those who do not. There is no question that a person's earning potential increases dramatically with a college degree. According to the Census Bureau, in 1990 the average income for high school graduates was almost $18,000. Those who had 1 to 3 years of college education, however, earned an average of $24,000. And those who graduated from college received an average salary of $31,000. Higher education is crucial to getting a job in today's global job market. More than half of the new jobs that have been and will be created between 1995 and 2000 will require education beyond high school. While nearly 40 percent of American jobs are currently in low- skill occupations, only 27 percent will fall in that category by the year 2000. Over the same period, high-skill occupations will grow from 24 to 41 percent of the work force. Getting the skills necessary to meet these market demands simply requires higher and higher levels of educational achievement. For many low-income students who are parents, the availability of campus-based child care is key to their ability to receive a higher education and thus achieve the American dream. Student parents are more likely to remain in school, and to graduate sooner and at a higher rate if they have campus-based child care. Child care services are particularly critical for older students who choose to go back to school to get their degree or to improve their skills through advanced education. This is especially important in today's economy where people need to continuously train and retrain in order to meet the demands of high-technology jobs. Children placed in campus-based child care also reap numerous benefits, given its very high quality. In fact, children in high- quality child care exhibit higher earnings as adults, higher rates of secondary school graduation, lower rates of teen pregnancy, and a reduced need for special education or costly social services. We also know that quality child care is cost efficient--the public saves $7 for every $1 invested in child care. The bill we are introducing today will help bring the American dream within the reach of numerous American parents who need child care in order to attend college. The CAMPUS Act will amend title IV of the Higher Education Act to help provide campus-based child care to low- income parents seeking a college degree. Under the bill, the Secretary of Education will award 3-year grants to institutions of higher education to support or help establish a campus-based child care program serving the needs of low-income student parents. The Secretary will award $60 million in grants--equal to 1 percent of total Pell grant funding--based on an application submitted by the institution, and the grant amount will be linked to the institution's Pell grant funding level. Under the bill, Pell grant recipients will be eligible for child care, to ensure that services target low-income students. In 1995-96, there were approximately 3.6 million Pell grant recipients, and almost 17,000 Maine residents received Pell grants. Students typically qualify for Pell grants if their income is under $30,000 per year. This bill will make a true difference in the lives of many low-income students who need child care to attend school. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation which will truly make a difference in the lives of numerous American parents who wish to attend college.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, to introduce the Child Care Access Means Parents in School Act [CAMPUS Act]. Senator Dodd and I have worked together to ensure access to quality child care, and this bill represents the next step in our shared commitment to this important issue. I am also pleased Senator Kennedy has joined us as a cosponsor of this legislation, which provides grants to colleges in order to provide child care for low-income students. Mr. President, this is the time of year when countless American students return to college. At this time, we should remind ourselves that many Americans face obstacles that prevent them from participating in higher education. The absence of affordable and accessible child care is, unfortunately, one such obstacle. For many parents with young children, the availability of oncampus child care services is central to their ability to attend college. Campus-based child care is conveniently located, available at the hours that fit students' schedules and often available at a lower cost than community-based child care centers. Student parents rate access to campus-based child care as an important factor affecting their college enrollment. Unfortunately, such services are often in very short supply, particularly for low-income parents who may find the cost of existing services prohibitive. Moreover, in order to meet the high demand for child care created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, States may divert funds away from programs currently providing campus-based child care services for low-income students and use the funds to provide child care to welfare recipients, because educational activities do not count as work under the act. This may leave students with less access to child care services. If we want to fulfill the goals of the welfare reform act and ensure that families are able to remain financially self-sufficient, we need to ensure that low-income parents have access to higher education and affordable and convenient child care. This is crucial given that people who receive public assistance and then complete college are far more likely to leave welfare permanently than those who do not. There is no question that a person's earning potential increases dramatically with a college degree. According to the Census Bureau, in 1990 the average income for high school graduates was almost $18,000. Those who had 1 to 3 years of college education, however, earned an average of $24,000. And those who graduated from college received an average salary of $31,000. Higher education is crucial to getting a job in today's global job market. More than half of the new jobs that have been and will be created between 1995 and 2000 will require education beyond high school. While nearly 40 percent of American jobs are currently in low- skill occupations, only 27 percent will fall in that category by the year 2000. Over the same period, high-skill occupations will grow from 24 to 41 percent of the work force. Getting the skills necessary to meet these market demands simply requires higher and higher levels of educational achievement. For many low-income students who are parents, the availability of campus-based child care is key to their ability to receive a higher education and thus achieve the American dream. Student parents are more likely to remain in school, and to graduate sooner and at a higher rate if they have campus-based child care. Child care services are particularly critical for older students who choose to go back to school to get their degree or to improve their skills through advanced education. This is especially important in today's economy where people need to continuously train and retrain in order to meet the demands of high-technology jobs. Children placed in campus-based child care also reap numerous benefits, given its very high quality. In fact, children in high- quality child care exhibit higher earnings as adults, higher rates of secondary school graduation, lower rates of teen pregnancy, and a reduced need for special education or costly social services. We also know that quality child care is cost efficient--the public saves $7 for every $1 invested in child care. The bill we are introducing today will help bring the American dream within the reach of numerous American parents who need child care in order to attend college. The CAMPUS Act will amend title IV of the Higher Education Act to help provide campus-based child care to low- income parents seeking a college degree. Under the bill, the Secretary of Education will award 3-year grants to institutions of higher education to support or help establish a campus-based child care program serving the needs of low-income student parents. The Secretary will award $60 million in grants--equal to 1 percent of total Pell grant funding--based on an application submitted by the institution, and the grant amount will be linked to the institution's Pell grant funding level. Under the bill, Pell grant recipients will be eligible for child care, to ensure that services target low-income students. In 1995-96, there were approximately 3.6 million Pell grant recipients, and almost 17,000 Maine residents received Pell grants. Students typically qualify for Pell grants if their income is under $30,000 per year. This bill will make a true difference in the lives of many low-income students who need child care to attend school. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation which will truly make a difference in the lives of numerous American parents who wish to attend college.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Kyl amendment to the fiscal 1998 Labor, Health and Education appropriations bill, which would devastate an already underfunded Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Although I am a strong supporter of the Pell Grant Program, which provides critical assistance and access for needy students, I cannot support the Kyl amendment, knowing that it will reduce the low-income fuel assistance limited funding. I regret the Senator from Arizona has offered this amendment to reduce the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program in order to provide an increase to the Pell Grant Program. I hope we can follow the House lead in this regard, by providing an increase in the Pell Grant Program but without affecting the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The bottom line is LIHEAP provides invaluable assistance to low-income and elderly households in America that must not be sacrificed. Make no mistake about it, this means-tested program is specifically targeted to those who already are in desperate need of financial assistance. To be precise, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, more than two-thirds of the households receiving Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program assistance have annual incomes of less than $8,000 a year, and more than half have incomes below $6,000 a year. While I believe that all programs must be asked to contribute their fair share in our efforts to balance the budget, it is worth noting that the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program has already taken more than its fair share of budget cuts in recent years. Overall, the funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program has fallen consistently and dramatically since 1985. In fiscal year 1985, the program received $2.1 billion. This year, it will receive $1 billion. In real terms, this represents a cut of more than 65 percent. Yet, despite this dramatic cut, the Senator from Arizona is proposing we further reduce this critically important but limited low-income assistance funding by an additional $528 million, or 53 percent of its already paltry budget. Furthermore, we should not be proposing a cut to a program that is already woefully underfunded and serves only a minority of its eligible recipients. Because of past spending cuts, LIHEAP now provides benefits to only 20 percent of all eligible households. This means that 80 percent of America's households meet the income qualifications to receive benefits, but there is simply not enough money to provide assistance to them all. Needless to say, this proposed $528 million reduction represents a very real risk of keeping many low-income families from being able to heat their homes in the winters ahead, even as it eviscerates a program that has already contributed more than its fair share to deficit reduction. It is also worth noting that even for those families that do receive Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program benefits, it is not a very high sum. In my home State of Maine, the average benefit last year was $308. In the midst of a severely cold winter, that $308 was the only way that 33,000 low-income and elderly Mainers were able to heat their homes. So, although a $528 million reduction may seem small in the overall budget of the U.S. Government, and $308 may not sound like much to many people, it means a great deal to the residents of my State who do not want to be forced this winter into the position of choosing between heat and food. The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program has already taken more than its fair share of reductions since its inception back in 1981, and simply cannot afford any further reductions in this very critical program. Any additional cut in this already underfunded program represents a very serious risk to low-income and elderly households in my State of Maine and all the cold weather regions of this country that rely on this very important, essential program. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Kyl amendment and adopting the approach that has been taken by the House that provides for increased support for the Pell Grant Program but without reducing LIHEAP that is so critical to many people in my State and so many other States who are located in cold weather areas of our country. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, in the introduction of the Oceans Act of 1997. This bill will establish a commission like the Stratton Commission of 1966 to review the many ocean and coastal issues facing the United States, and to develop a comprehensive, coordinated, national ocean, and coastal policy. Prior to introduction, I raised a few concerns with Senator Hollings on some provisions of the draft bill. Basically, I had recommended some language that made it clear that as we develop a new ocean and coastal policy for the Nation, we keep in mind the facts that our fiscal resources are limited, and that our Federal investments in ocean and coastal resources must be spent efficiently and wisely. I also raised some concerns about the fact that the original draft had the President appointing all of the members of this important commission. Mr. President, Senator Hollings has graciously agreed to make some changes to the bill pursuant to my recommendations. For instance, the bill now authorizes the Congress to appoint more than half of the Commission members, and the Commission is directed to identify opportunities to reform Federal ocean programs to improve efficiency and effectiveness. I commend Senator Hollings for his willingness to work with me and other Republican Senators before introduction of the bill. After introduction, I look forward to working with the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, a Senator who worked on the original Stratton Commission bill 30 years ago and who is a true champion of ocean protection, in the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee on any further refinements along these lines that might be constructive. Again, I thank Senator Hollings and commend him upon introduction of this bill.