Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, and the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Gregg, today to discuss an issue of utmost importance to Aroostook County, the Caribou Weather Service Office. The bill before us requires the National Weather Service [NWS] to consult with the subcommittee before making any reprogramming requests in relation to the top-to-bottom review that is currently underway. As part of their review, NWS will consider whether the Caribou Weather Service Office should be upgraded to a weather forecasting office. Under the National Weather Service's modernization plan, a weather forecasting office will have Doppler radar. The Doppler radar would give Caribou the ability to forecast warnings for sudden and severe changing weather patterns so that the communities the weather station serves will be able to respond quickly. At the present time, the nearest Doppler radar is in Gray, ME, more than 200 miles away. This is too far away to be of immediate help to Aroostook County. Aroostook County is one of the largest counties in the United States--the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined--and its economy is dominated by agriculture, trucking, and forest products industries, all of which rely heavily on timely and accurate weather information. The Caribou station provides vital information on a daily basis to northern Maine communities that must deal with a wide range of weather patterns from bitter cold and snow to severe thunderstorms and flooding. An upgrade from a weather service office to a weather forecasting office would improve the weather forecasting abilities of the Caribou station, thereby improving the ability of the affected towns to react to sudden and severe weather changes. Once the NWS has completed its review, I look forward to working with Chairman Gregg and the subcommittee to ensure that the recommended changes are funded in an expeditious manner.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the leader. I would like to comment on this issue because I think it is critically important, as chair of the Ocean and Fisheries Subcommittee. The fact is, the administration has requested that this issue be addressed expeditiously because of the agreement that we have entered into with 11 other countries. Second, we attempted to work with Senator Kerry and others on the committee for a compromise on this issue. To no avail, I might add. But irrespective of that, we incorporated a number of changes in the legislation that were recommended by Senator Kerry and others that I think makes substantial progress on the issues that have been raised by the Senator from California and others. But there is a point at which it contravenes the agreement that had been reached between the United States and these other countries. I hope we will have a chance to resolve these issues and to work on it, but we have to have good-faith efforts on the other side in order to resolve these issues without compromising the agreement. I should also mention there are a number of environmental conservation groups that are endorsing this agreement because they think this is the best way to protect not only dolphin and tuna but other species that have been affected because of the status quo and because of the current law. I should add other methods have affected the byproduct of other species to the detriment of a significant number of different fish that otherwise will continue to go on in this effort if we do not change it with this agreement. So I hope that the Senator from California will work in a good-faith effort to reach an agreement on this issue. Otherwise, it will be lost. I would also ask the President to work very vigorously. If he wants this legislation to come through, I think he certainly has to work to make sure that it does.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, on Monday, July 14, 1997, I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense appropriations bill which specifically appropriated funds for a program of basic research in the area of chemical and biological defenses. I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, and the ranking minority member, Senator Inouye, for accepting this very important amendment. This chemical and biological sensor research program was specifically authorized in the Defense authorization bill which was overwhelmingly passed by the Senate last week. The Senate Armed Services Committee recommended, and the Senate approved, an increase of $2 million in research and development funding for a joint service program to develop a prototype hybrid integrated sensor array for chemical and biological point detection. The Senate Armed Services Committee's intent was to accelerate the development of small sensors which would detect, in real time, the presence of chemical or biological agents. These sensors would be based on metal oxide and biochemical film technologies. In its report, the Senate Armed Services Committee emphasized its support for this program and for expanding the knowledge in military relevant fields of chemical and biological research. Our soldiers in the field need this technology to protect them from the possible threat presented by chemical and biological agents. Mr. President, I have reviewed the fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense appropriations bill which we are considering here in the Senate, and it is unclear as to whether the funding for this program, which was included in the Defense authorization bill, has sufficient appropriations. My intent, with this amendment, is to make clear that this bill appropriates funds for this very important program. Mr. President, the threat from chemical and biological weapons that faces our Nation's troops is very real and very dangerous. During the Persian Gulf war, we witnessed just how dangerous the threat of chemical and biological weapons was during that crisis and how this threat continues today. We must also consider the fact that chemical and biological weapons may also be a potential weapon of choice for use by terrorists. Continued research and development in the area of sensor development must continue in this field to counter these very real threats. There is an urgent need to have effective chemical and biological weapon sensors that can detect the presence of these weapons in real- time or near-real-time. The Department of Defense needs to rapidly develop these kinds of sensors, and that is the intent of this amendment. This amendment does not seek to go beyond the authorized funding amount. It seeks merely to insure that the program which the Senate has voted to authorize is fully funded in this bill. I thank my colleagues for their support of this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this amendment will address concerns that we have discussed here on the floor regarding the Base Realignment and Closure [BRAC] process. Before the Congress ever considers to authorize future BRAC commissions--a process which I strongly oppose, we should take a more detailed look at whether those elusive savings from infrastructure reductions will ever be achieved. That is what I accomplish by the amendment which I offer today. Mr. President, I have consistently asked what has happened to savings from the past four BRAC actions. The Pentagon estimated savings from the four previous base closing rounds to reach $57 billion over a 20- year period with annualized savings of $5.6 billion per year starting in 2001. In its April 1995 report, the GAO estimate for such savings projects the savings at less than half these numbers. GAO estimates that the 20-year savings may be $17.3 billion, with annual recurring savings possibly reaching $1.8 billion. Mr. President, GAO conducted further analysis and issued a following report in a April 1996. In this report, GAO found that the total amount of actual savings that may be estimated from BRAC actions is uncertain for several reasons. One of which is that DOD accounting systems do not provide adequate information or isolate their impact from that of other DOD initiatives. Despite the fact that DOD has complied with legislative requirements for submitting annual cost and savings estimates, the GAO further states that the estimates' usefulness is limited because the estimates are not budget quality, and that the inclusion of the estimates of reduced personnel costs by all the services are not uniform and further, the GAO determined that certain community assistance costs were excluded. In one example, GAO identified the fact that DOD BRAC cost estimates excluded more than $781 million in economic assistance to local communities as well as other costs. Mr. President, in its December 1996 report, CBO stated that it was unable to confirm or assess DOD's estimates of cost savings because the DOD is unable to report actual spending and savings from BRAC actions. So now Mr. President, we have the Pentagon, the GAO, and CBO with differing estimates on what has actually happened and what is supposed to happen as a result of the four previous BRAC rounds. There is no consensus on the numbers--and that is a significant problem. It seems everybody has a different number on the issue, and there are numerous inconsistencies on the estimates of what the savings are supposed to be. And the Congress has been assured that starting in the year 2001, the savings may in fact be realized. I question that assurance Mr. President, because I do not think we know what they will be. But what we do know now, is that any savings from the past four base closure rounds have yet to be realized. Mr. President, the intent of DOD to streamline its infrastructure cost is not lost on us. We must recognize that the need to fill the projected $17 billion gap between projected procurement funding and the procurement funding objective of $60 billion. Mr. President, throughout this year's DOD authorization process, the Congress has heard testimony from the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the respective service chiefs and service secretaries, and to a person, each has testified on the importance of modernizing our military forces for the 21st century. But Mr. President, that just is not happening. Mr. President, the projections for national defense outlays decrease 34.4 percent over the period from 1990 to 2002. We have all seen the downward pressure on defense spending. Yet the future years defense plan [FYDP] calls for a 40-percent increase in the military's modernization budget within the confines of an overall defense budget that will more likely be flat at best. We have seen procurement funding plummet from $54 billion in 1990 to today's level of just over $42 billion. The U.S. military has undergone a significant transformation in the post-cold-war period. Specifically, from 1989 to 1997, DOD reduced total active duty end strength by 32 percent, with further reductions to 36 percent by 2003 as a result of the QDR. After the completion of four previous base closure rounds, the world-wide base structure will have been reduced by 26 percent, and domestic facilities will have been reduced by 21 percent. In more tangible numbers 97 of 495 major bases, as well as hundreds of smaller facilities and housing areas, and the realignment of many other bases and facilities has already been accomplished by this process. However, we are chasing elusive infrastructure savings, and there is no straight line corollary between the size of our forces and the infrastructure required to meet two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. DOD has even admitted to GAO investigators that they do not have accounting systems in place to isolate the impact of specific initiatives, such as BRAC. The amendment which I offer states that it is the sense of the Senate that the savings through previous BRAC actions which are estimated by the Department of Defense be made available to the Department solely for the purpose of modernization of new weapons systems. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment so that the Congress will send a very clear message to this administration. The Congress recognizes the limited resources that are available to the Department of Defense, and that we have to insure that these dollars are invested wisely. Not only so our military forces can meet the commitments of today, but also so our military forces will be prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and continued to be the most capable military force in the world. Mr. President, we must send a very clear message that the past base closure process which has been so devastating to many local communities will actually result in savings that can be invested in our force modernization. Mr. President, that is what my amendment accomplishes, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Amendment No. 824 (Purpose: To conform limits for Department of Energy General Plant Projects to recommendations from the Department contained in a Congressionally mandated report on the subject) On page 425, line 12, strike ``$2,000,000'' and insert ``$5,000,000''. On page 425, line 17, strike ``$2,000,000'' and insert ``$5,000,000''. On page 429, line 6, strike ``$2,000,000'' and insert ``$5,000,000''.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the United States Air Force Reentry Vehicle Applications Program has been providing critical technologies required for the manufacture of reentry vehicles and components. Of special note is the meaningful program with both the prime and the sub-tier suppliers for the Mark 21 reentry vehicle. Funding for this program has advanced reentry vehicle technologies while sustaining the critical industrial base required to develop such technologies.

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the Senator from Washington for taking the initiative and leadership in offering this amendment to the DOD authorization bill because it is a very important issue. I remind this body that we voted to repeal this ban on abortions in military hospitals overseas last year, and I hope my colleagues would do the same again this year. Mr. President, year after year, debate after debate, Congress revisits the issues concerning women's reproductive freedoms by seeking to restrict, limit, and eliminate a woman's right to choose. This ban on abortions in overseas military hospitals, reinstated last year, represents just more of the same. I point out that these efforts to turn back the clock on women's reproductive rights will never erase the fact that the highest Court in the land reaffirmed, time after time, in decision after decision, a woman's fundamental right to a safe and legal abortion. This whole issue of banning abortions in overseas military hospitals represents another frontal assault on a woman's right to choose. It also represents a frontal assault on a woman's dignity. This ban denies a woman's right to choose for female military personnel and their dependents. It denies those women, who have voluntarily decided to serve their country in the Armed Forces, a safe and legal medical procedure. Because they were assigned to duty in other countries, it denies them equal protection under the law. What kind of reward is that for a woman who has made a decision to serve her country but denying her the rights that are guaranteed to her under the Constitution? It certainly didn't occur to me that women's constitutional rights were territorial. It certainly didn't occur to me that American women, when they go abroad serving our country, are leaving their constitutional rights behind. Between 1979 and 1988, women could use their own personal funds to pay for the medical care that they needed. And in 1988, we know that the Reagan administration announced a new policy prohibiting the performance of any abortions at military hospitals--even if that procedure was paid for by a woman's personal funds. In January 1993, President Clinton issued an Executive order removing that prohibition. But the point is that that Executive order did not change existing law in prohibiting the use of Federal funds to pay for that procedure. That is the issue here today. The issue isn't whether or not we are going to use Federal funds for abortions in overseas military hospitals; it is a question of whether or not a woman is entitled to have access to a safe, legal, and constitutional medical procedure with the use of her own personal funds. Removing this ban doesn't require medical providers to perform abortions. All three branches of Government have a conscience clause. It would not require medical personnel to perform that procedure if they have moral, religious, or ethical objections to doing so, and that is reasonable. But the ban prohibiting women from having access to the right to choose with her own personal funds is creating a level of substandard care. What kind of choice does a woman have who is serving her country overseas? What are her choices? To fly back to the United States? Well, we know the cost involved, let alone whether or not she would have the time in order to do so. She could possibly endanger her own health by seeking care in some of the foreign hospitals, whose quality of care cannot compare to ours. That is why we have our own separate medical facilities on military installations abroad. That is the whole point: to ensure that our military personnel have the best quality care available that they are entitled to and indeed that they deserve. Or we could require a woman to fly to another country to receive care. But the bottom line is that what we are imposing on a woman who serves in the military are some very dangerous and stark choices. Mr. President, the Supreme Court, in 1992, in a case called Planned Parenthood versus Casey, said that the Government regulation of abortion may not constitute an undue burden on the right to choose. An undue burden is defined as having the ``purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.'' When you consider the hurdles that a military woman seeking abortion faces-- lengthy travel, serious delay, high cost to fly home, or elsewhere, substandard medical care and options--there is no doubt that this ban unconstitutionally places an undue burden on a woman's right to choose; but, most important, prohibiting women from using their own funds to obtain abortion services at overseas military hospitals endangers their health. That is the jeopardy in which we are placing women, because in being stationed overseas there are often areas where local facilities are inadequate or provide substandard care and just do not meet the standards that our medical facilities do. That is the purpose of having them there. So this isn't a question of funding, it's a question of fairness, it's a question of whether or not the Government is going to dictate the kind of care a woman and her family will have access to if they are serving abroad in the military. It is not an issue of pro-life versus pro-choice; it's a question of whether or not we are going to create a disparate and discriminatory policy when it comes to a woman using her own personal funds. That is what this debate is all about. It is an unprecedented intrusion on the part of Government to say how an individual can spend their private funds when it comes to a legal, constitutional medical procedure. The amendment that is offered by the Senator from Washington will ensure and, indeed, safeguard us from creating a two-tiered system in this country--one for a woman who reside in the United States and serves in the military and another for those women who choose to serve their country in the Armed Forces overseas. I hope that this body will reject the ban that is included in the DOD authorization and accept the amendment that has been offered here today by Senator Murray, because failure to do otherwise is punitive for American women and for their families. I hope that we will follow the example that we established in the last Congress by voting to repeal the ban. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this body has few greater responsibilities than maintaining the effectiveness and accountability of our Nation's Armed Forces. This is one of the reasons that reports of widespread sexual harassment in our Nation's military deeply concerns us all. With Department of Defense statistics showing that sexual harassment is prevalent throughout the Armed Forces--we must do more than pay lip service to the problem. Mr. President, we must act. Today, with a full understanding that the time has come for serious action that is responsible and constructive, a provision that I authored was added to the 1998 defense authorization bill that will place us on the road to solving the crisis of sexual harassment. The legislation attacks the root of the problem--the lack of accountability when it comes to reporting and investigating incidents of sexual harassment. The Department of Defense conducted a survey in 1988 and found that 64 percent of women reported that they had experienced one or more incidents of sexual harassment in the 12 months preceding the survey. The Defense Department conducted another study in 1995 and found that the figure had only improved to 55 percent. I feel very strongly, Mr. President, that this is not progress. When I look at those statistics, I am shocked. On top of this, I have read in DOD statements that many cases of sexual harassment go unreported. In the 1995 Defense Department survey, only 24 percent of the victims chose to report their sexual harassment experiences. Is this the kind of environment to which we should subject our people? These numbers tell me that women essentially stand a 50-50 chance of being harassed. This cannot and should not be tolerated. Add to that the fact that over three-fourths of our people do not feel they can report the harassment that occurs and you have a very negative set of circumstances. How can you maintain good order and discipline in such an environment? This situation demands accountability. And it requires action to erase any perception that sexual harassment is tolerated in today's Armed Forces. Today, military members do not believe they can report sexual harassment and have their claims taken seriously. During Armed Services Committee markup of the defense authorization bill, I offered an amendment that requires the unit commander to report each and every sexual harassment incident to their next senior officer within 72 hours. Once reported, the unit commander appoints an investigating officer to investigate the complaint of sexual harassment. The unit commander has 14 days to report back to their commander with the results of the investigation. If the unit commander cannot complete the investigation within 14 days, that commander must report the interim results, every 14 days, until the investigation has been completed. Today when an incident is reported to a unit commander, the commander is not required to report the incident until a preliminary investigation recommends disciplinary action. This gives the unit commander tremendous latitude as to how the case is handled. In most instances this is a not a problem. But look what we saw at Aberdeen. We saw a company commander who was a bad apple and no bells or whistles to alert his superiors that there was a problem. Under the provisions of the national defense authorization bill each incident is immediately brought to the attention of a more senior officer. The most distinct advantage of this provision is that the decibel level of the problem rises by elevating the matter to the highest echelons of the services. The provision also requires that the senior officers who receive these reports of sexual harassment forward all the complaints they receive and the results of the investigations of those complaints to their respective Service Secretary by January 31 of each year, elevating the problem another notch within the military to the authors of the services' zero tolerance policies where they can be scrutinized. The Service Secretaries are then required to forward this information to the Secretary of Defense who in turn must report the information to Congress. Mr. President, this provision was unanimously approved by the Armed Services Committee and will put us on the road to help end sexual harassment in our military. We owe the men and women who serve our Nation an environment that includes accountability, good order, and discipline. But we also owe this to our Nation, which relies on our military to defend our great country and its interests. carbonizable rayon fiber

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I fully agree with my colleague, Senator Smith, and most strongly agree with his view on the Reentry Vehicle Application Program. Unfortunately, quantitative data to support such cost and performance tradeoffs are not always readily available. This information is especially important as the Congress considers funding for this and other programs. I am concerned that sufficient emphasis is not being placed on this critical program to sustain the technology base to conduct advance material studies which will sustain key technical staff, as well as fabrication capabilities and technologies.

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Smith; for joining me in discussing this issue. I urge the conferees for the Fiscal Year 1998 National Defense Bill to further consider this subject. Sexual Harassment Accountability

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, thank you. First of all, I would like to commend the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond, and the ranking member, Senator Levin, for their tremendous efforts in bringing the Defense Department authorization bill to the floor. I certainly think they have taken a great deal of initiative and leadership in putting this legislation together. I appreciate their efforts in that regard. I certainly want to associate myself with the remarks made by the Senator from Kansas, Senator Roberts, on the amendment that has been offered by our colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain. It is an amendment that I certainly will oppose in proposing more rounds of military base closures and realignment. I am certain the committee rejected the call for new base closings, and the Senate should follow suit. As we all know, the administration has asked for two more rounds of base closings with the intent of realizing $2.8 billion per year in savings from these new BRAC rounds. The administration further stated that these estimated savings are to be used to meet the well- established requirements for $60 billion in procurement funding which is necessary to modernize our forces to meet the challenges of the 21st century. I have consistently asked the question as to exactly what has happened to the savings in the past four BRAC rounds that started in 1988. The Pentagon estimated the savings to occur from those four rounds to be in the area of $57 billion over the next 20 years with the annualized savings of upwards of $5.6 billion per year starting in the year 2001. In its April 1995 report, the GAO estimated that such savings projects their estimates at less than $17 billion over the next 20 years, past the number that had been projected by the Department of Defense, with annual recurring savings possibly being in the area of $1.8 billion in the year 2001. Mr. President, GAO conducted a further analysis and issued a following report in April 1996. In this report GAO found that the total amount of actual savings that may be estimated from the four previous BRAC rounds is uncertain, for a number of reasons, the primary of which, according to the GAO, is that the DOD accounting systems do not provide adequate information or isolate their impact from that of other DOD initiatives. Despite the fact that the DOD has complied with legislative requirements for submitting annual costs and savings estimates, the GAO further stated that the estimates' usefulness is limited because the estimates are not budget quality and that the inclusion of these estimates of reduced personnel costs by all of the services are not uniform and, further, the GAO determined that certain community assistance costs were excluded. In fact, in one example, GAO identified the fact that DOD BRAC cost estimates included more than $781 million in economic assistance to local communities as well as other costs. In December 1996, the Congressional Budget Office, in its report, stated that it was unable to confirm or accept DOD's estimates of cost savings because the DOD is unable to report actual spending and savings from BRAC action. So now we have the Pentagon, the GAO, and the Congressional Budget Office with differing estimates on what has actually been saved and what is supposed to happen as a result of these four BRAC rounds since 1988. There is no consensus on the numbers. That, indeed, in my opinion, is a significant problem, if we are to predicate future closings on these savings and estimated savings for the future. The fact is we are chasing an elusive infrastructure savings because there is no straight-line corollary between the size of our forces and the infrastructure required to meet two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. The Department of Defense has even admitted to the GAO investigators that they do not have accounting systems in place to isolate the impact of specific initiatives such as BRAC. So, in fact, we have no comprehensive adjustment of the reduction of the infrastructure that has occurred as a result of the four previous rounds of base closings and the impact on munitions as well as our forces. In fact, when these base closing rounds were first initiated, one of the greatest concerns that I had was that they would underestimate the cost of savings and overestimate the savings to accomplish the base closings. Mr. President, the projections for national defense outlays decrease 34 percent over the period from 1990 to the year 2002. We have all seen the downward pressure in defense spending. In fact, we have seen a reduction of more than 40-percent in the defense budget since 1985. Future years' defense plans call for a 40 percent increase in the defense modernization budget within the confines of an overall defense budget that essentially will remain flat over the next few years. But yet, we have seen a procurement budget that has plummeted from $54 billion in 1990 to today's level of just over $42 billion. It is interesting, because in the same time that we are seeing a reduction in procurement, we have had four previous rounds of base closings. You might have thought that money would have been invested in the procurement budget, but, in fact, the contrary has happened because again the Department of Defense underestimated the cost that is required to close these bases and overestimated the savings. As of May 1997, the DOD has invested $14 billion in base closings. The total implementation costs of the four previous BRAC actions through 2001 are estimated at $23 billion. Through fiscal year 1996, the DOD estimates that it may have saved through cost avoidance approximately $10 billion. So, in simple terms, to date we have spent $14 billion to avoid costs of $10 billion. Yet, we are promised by the DOD that the savings is in the outyear savings--savings that even DOD's own budget analysts say they are not equipped to track. The promise for the outyears has been a recurring theme for the Pentagon over the last 4 years. How many times have each of us heard that the fix for the procurement account is in the outyears? And each year we see the administration's request for procurement steadily decline. In fact, in each of these 4 years since the Pentagon completed the Bottom-Up Review an investment in the procurement accounts has actually been postponed. The procurement request for 1998 is $42 billion, whereas the fiscal year 1995 program had projected reaching $54 billion by now. So we have not seen the funding promised, and the DOD cannot show it to us in its own budgets, and the reasons are obvious. The funding has migrated elsewhere. In its own Quadrennial Defense Review, the DOD said the $18 billion meant for procurement under the 1995 plan has disappeared. The QDR report tells us that the funding migrated to three places. First, it went to unprogrammed operating expenses such as contingency operations like Bosnia. The second place was unrealized savings from initiatives like outsourcing or business process reengineering which failed to achieve the objectives and expectations, similar to the failure to achieve the levels of savings expected in the previous four BRAC rounds. And the third, of course, was new program demands. The QDR stated national defense policy of shape-respond-prepare reinforces the fact that U.S. forces will conduct smaller scale contingency operations for peacetime engagement. These operations include, according to the report, intervention, limited strike, no-fly zone enforcement, peace enforcement, peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief. The QDR further projects that U.S. involvement in the smaller scale contingency operations will increase over the next 20 years. So we can expect more and more peacekeeping operations, far beyond the traditional missions of peacekeeping operations, that are going to require more robust military requirements. The QDR cites the obvious problem that DOD has had with the constant migration of funds which were planned for procurement ending up in operation and support activities. This certainly has been the case in the last few years to pay for operations like Bosnia and other areas where we have developed peacekeeping operations. Since 1991, in over 39 separate contingency operations in Southwest Asia, Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, et cetera, it is estimated that the taxpayers will pay over $17 billion for these operations. And as I illustrate in this chart here today, I think we can get an example of the multiple operations that the United States has been engaged in just in the decade of the 1990's. We know that in 1989 we spent less than $100 million in peacekeeping operations. In the decade of the 1990's alone we have spent the grand total of $17.2 billion and counting. We all know the administration has underestimated the costs of our participation in the forces in Bosnia, not to mention the length of time. It is estimated that we will spend upward of $6.8 to $7 billion until June 1998. My expectation is that we will have underestimated those costs as well. But we have spent a total of $17.2 billion in peacekeeping operations. That is an exorbitant price that we are now paying for unbudgeted, for the most part, operations and missions elsewhere--unanticipated and in most cases unbudgeted. The cost for Bosnia, as I said, has been over $7.2 billion, assuming we withdraw in June 1998. The cost for these operations have quadrupled--quadrupled-- since 1991. The fact is the Department of Defense has been heavily taxed to meet these deployments. We know that of the $17.2 billion that will have been spent in contingency operations through June 1998, about $8 billion of this amount was reimbursed to the Department of Defense by Congress through supplementals. The Department of Defense, however, has also told us that $2.3 of the $17.2 billion total were service absorbed costs, funding that was taken directly out of procurement and other accounts to pay for these operations. Mr. President, I suspect that the remaining difference of almost $7 billion was siphoned from procurement accounts as well as the operations and readiness accounts to pay for these contingency operations. We have asked the Department of Defense for these figures and they cannot provide them. As of 1997, we readily know that we were facing over 2.5 billion dollars' worth of unfunded contingency operations and that required, as we know, a supplemental appropriation which we passed a couple of weeks ago. But we must ask the question, because it has been asked but it has not been answered, how many modernization programs got impacted as procurement dollars were siphoned from the modernization programs by the DOD comptroller to pay for these unprogrammed operations? It is obvious that this is a persistent problem. We know that we can expect more of the same. In fact, the QDR report that was issued by the administration, as I said previously, expects that small scale contingency operations will be high over the next 20 years, so that we literally cannot anticipate the numerous unbudgeted operations in which the United States will participate. The State Department did a compilation in 1995 of the voluntary contributions of the United States in 13 other countries to support U.N. peacekeeping operations. The United States provided for 54 percent of those costs--54 percent--11 other countries, NATO countries and Australia, 45 percent, and Japan less than 1 percent. So it is obvious and clearly apparent that the United States is assuming an enormous cost and burden for these peacekeeping operations. And as I also said earlier, these peacekeeping operations are not within the traditional operations as we have known them in the past where we are upholding and enforcing a cease-fire agreement that has been reached by two or more parties. These operations have gone beyond that to peace enforcement where we are imposing a peace on recalcitrant parties. That requires more military expertise, weaponry, and requirements on the part of our own military as we have seen not only in Somalia but, of course, as we have seen in Bosnia. The point of all of this is that what we are seeing happening in the Defense Department's budget is that more and more of the funds are being drawn from operations and the readiness account, indeed, from modernization, because even the administration has not been able to meet its own procurements modernization goal of $60 billion. The fact is a $17 billion gap in the modernization goal because that money is being drawn away into these operations. I believe that the pressure to come up with more base closing rounds is premised on the need to finance these operations; that we will see whatever savings we can achieve from base closings will not be realized in the modernization accounts. The fact is we have no guidance from the administration in terms of what the administration is apt to spend on base closings because we know there are enormous up-front costs just in the environmental cleanup arena alone, not to mention all the other costs associated with base closings that require up-front expenditures. So we do not have the costs nor the real savings realized in the future. And yet at the same time we are spending more and more of the Defense Department's immediate funds on these peacekeeping operations for which we have not been able to precisely project what the costs will be in the future. These missions have quadrupled since 1991. We can expect more of the same. And yet we do not have a comprehensive analysis of the impact of the four previous rounds. They have not been completed. They have not come through yet. And so the administration is now asking for two more rounds without even knowing what the previous rounds have exacted in terms of the impact on our forces, our mission, as well as our infrastructure. We know that once a base is closed, it is lost forever; it is irreplaceable, and yet we have had no thorough analysis done on what the impact will be for the future. I believe that the pressure for more base closing rounds from the administration is due to the fact that more of these dollars are being siphoned away from modernization and into peacekeeping operations. So we could have two more rounds, but we do not know what the savings will be, we do not know whether or not it is going to go into modernization, and we do not know what the impact will be on our forces as well as our mission. I believe we are relying on a flawed approach to achieve the savings from infrastructure reductions that have yet to be realized, and we are finding that the Defense Department is spending billions of dollars on contingency operations which have little or no relevance to our vital national interests, and yet we are willing to cut the heart out of our military infrastructure within our sovereign borders without fully evaluating the impact to our national defense. The fact is I believe that we are on a collision course with less than expected savings from base closings and an increased number of contingency operations that will result in a further degradation of our force readiness and it will delay much needed procurement. I realize that we are facing limited resources within the Defense Department's budget and within our own overall Federal budget, but we must also be concerned for our troops and our resources, that they are not overtaxed in support of these numerous contingency operations over which we obviously have had little control. We have to take a more judicious approach to the deployment of our forces in view of our constrained resources as well as protecting our vital national interests, not only for today but also for tomorrow. So I ask the Senate to reject the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Arizona because I believe clearly that we have to begin a thorough examination of what has already transpired before we take any future actions that we will regret, and at the same time I hope that it will put some pressure on this administration to begin a thorough reexamination of the necessity of constantly deploying troops in areas that perhaps they should not be engaged. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you. Privilege of the Floor Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to two of my staff members, Tom Vecchiolla and Peggy Kline, during the pending consideration of the Defense authorization bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to recognize a distinguished civil servant and new resident of the State of Maine. My colleagues know the value of having experienced, wise, and seasoned legislators in our midst to work through many of the difficult and complex issues we face on a daily basis. We can all appreciate the tremendous loss, therefore, at the Department of Agriculture when Associate Chief Dave Unger retires from his post at the Forest Service at the end of this month. Mr. Unger has 40 years of experience working with natural resource issues in the public arena. Most recently he has been second in command at the Forest Service, engaged in the management of the National Forest System, the Forest Service research priorities, State and private forestry programs, international forestry issues, and administrative responsibilities. As one of the most heavily forested States in the country, Maine has benefitted from his leadership through technical assistance to landowners, advanced wood products manufacturing technology from the research program, and recreational opportunities in our own corner of the White Mountain National Forest. In addition to serving as Associate Chief for the Forest Service, Mr. Unger was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, Associate Chief for the Soil Conservation Service, executive vice president of the National Association of Conservation Districts, Director of the Pennsylvania State Soil and Water Commission, among other leadership posts in the natural resources and conservation arena. Recently, Mr. Unger was honored by the President of the United States with a Distinguished Executive Rank Award. In 1991, President Bush awarded him the Presidential Meritorious Executive Rank Award. He is a fellow of the Soil and Water Conservation Society and has been recognized by many other organizations for his contributions over a long and productive career helping farmers, conserving forests and protecting wildlife. I am also pleased to say that Mr. Unger has chosen one of the most beautiful places in the world to retire with his wife, Carolyn. He will become a permanent resident of Maine where I am sure our communities, farmers, foresters, and others will continue to reap the benefits of his illustrious career. I want to welcome the Ungers Downeast, congratulate Mr. Unger on a full and productive career, and wish them both the best in their retirement in Maine.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues a speech I gave today at the rededication ceremony for the Suffrage Statue. I ask that my speech be printed in the Record. The speech follows: Thank you, Lynn, for that kind introduction. It is a pleasure and honor to be here on a day that recognizes the importance of the role of women in our nation. Speaker Gingrich, you honor us with your presence and the women of America appreciate your efforts and support in returning this statue to its rightful place. And I would also like to commend Karen Staser and Joan Meecham, co-chairs of the Women's Suffrage Statute Campaign--what a wonderful day this must be to see your hard work come to fruition in such a splendid fashion. And make no mistake: this effort has meant a great deal of hard work, and the colleagues I join today deserve special recognition for their tireless crusade to ensure that this statue is part of these hallowed halls. The outstanding attendance at this ceremony here in the Rotunda speaks to the symbolic importance of this re-dedication. As you know, for years this statue was relegated to the crypt beneath our feet. In fact, a fitting title for the story of the women's suffrage statue could be ``Tales from the Crypt''. While Lady Liberty has stood proudly atop the dome of the United States Capitol, the ladies who fought to make that liberty real for women have languished in its basement. In 1995 when a number of us sought the relocation of the statue to its originally intended spot--the Rotunda--we thought that it was a little thing to ask. We never could have imagined that this request, which on its merits seemed so straightforward, would become so problematic. The bottom line is, the debate should not have been about the weight of the statue, but the weight of an argument . . . and the worth of a just cause. When Susan B. Anthony said, ``What is this little thing we are asking for? It seems so little, yet it is everything'' she was talking about a woman's right to vote-- but she could have been speaking about the moving of her own statue. The difficult and circuitous journey these ladies have had from Crypt to Rotunda is in many ways emblematic of women's struggles for justice and equality throughout our history. For too long, women in this country had to endure the myth of what--or where--a ``woman's place'' should be. According to the out-of-date stereotype, a woman's place used to be only in the parlor, the kitchen, and, I suppose, the crypt. Since then, a lot has changed. Today, a woman's place is in the House, the Senate, and yes, in the Rotunda. But it was not always this way. It took 73 long years beginning at the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848--spanning two centuries, eighteen Presidencies, and three wars--for women to get the right to vote. That's what it took before women won the right to shape their destinies through full participation in this republic. Well, it's hard to believe that it has taken them 76 more years--and fourteen more Presidencies--to earn a place of dignity for these three women who fought valiantly for that right . . . three women who changed America--Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Lucretia Mott. But the day has finally arrived and I am extremely pleased to help celebrate their long-overdue ``change of address'', one that is fitting for the accomplishments they bestowed on a grateful nation. There is no question about the symbolic importance of their new home. The Rotunda is the epicenter, if you will, of our American democracy. The Rotunda is ``the symbolic and physical heart of the United States Capitol'', according to the Architect of the Capitol. What that means is simply this: what adorns the Rotunda matters. And having this statue here will matter to the throngs of Americans who come to Washington to be inspired by its symbolism. It will matter to the young girls who tours The Capitol and ask of the significance of these heroines. And it matters that visitors from the furthest flung reaches of the globe leave with no doubt about the importance we place on the participation of women in the greatest democracy that this world has ever seen. The Rotunda's gilded halls will now not only reverberate with the images of our forefathers, but with our foremothers as well. Granted, the statues and monuments that have inhabited the Rotunda are of great men whose words and actions bequeathed a nation and people who today stand alone at the summit of civilization. But we also know that women have played their roles in reaching the summit, as did these three women--Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton--in dedicating their lives to getting women into voting booths and out of the shadows of civic life. How could we do no less than to fight to bring their memory out of the shadows of the Crypt? After all, if we are to celebrate all that women have accomplished in America, we must celebrate those who gave life to our dreams. If we are to appreciate all that we have, we must appreciate those who fought for our opportunity to have it. And if we are to exercise our rights with strength and wisdom, we must understand that they came to us not by entitlement but by struggle. As we bring the likenesses of these women into the light of day, so too do we take a step toward bringing history into the light of truth. Because for too long, women were the forgotten lines in the narrative of humankind. As these great ladies finally receive the recognition they have earned, let their spirit inspire us to honor and study other heroic women in history who also deserve recognition--like Sojourner Truth, who spoke so eloquently for African-American women. Indeed, it is my sincere hope that Sojourner Truth will soon join these ladies in the Rotunda where a woman of her courage and stature belongs. Truth and her remarkable story also highlights the importance of the effort that has begun to create a National Women's History Museum. When you consider that we have memorialized Archie Bunker's chair and Norm's bar stool in a museum in the Nation's Capital--and I think that's fine--it's not unreasonable to think that there should be a place in Washington to memorialize all that women have contributed to America. That's why I spearheaded a letter last month to President Clinton, signed by 20 of my Senate colleagues, urging him to establish a Task Force responsible for developing such a museum. This museum will ensure that women's accomplishments are never again relegated to the cellar of the annals of history. So let us celebrate today and honor these three great American women. They had courage. They had tenacity. They had strength. And they've certainly had patience. It's been 76 years since our country began to fulfill Susan B. Anthony's vision of ``Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less''. It was the first dramatic step toward the realization that a country founded on the vestment of power in the people would not survive if over half those people were silenced. Let the story these women have to tell be silenced no longer. Let everyone who passes through this grandest of buildings forever hear their voices, and be inspired by lives led in pursuit of justice.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to note that this week we celebrate the 25th anniversary of title IX, landmark legislation that has played an enormous role in leveling the playing field--literally--for women in sports. I was also pleased last week to join my colleagues, Senator Moseley-Braun, Kennedy, and Mikulski, to mark this anniversary by introducing the Fair Play Act, legislation which will take the next important step in increasing educational and athletic opportunities for young women. There is no question that sports are just as important an activity for girls and women as they are for boys and men. Through sports, girls and women can get a feel for the positive competitive spirit which was, until recently, the almost exclusive property of boys and men. Women and girls who participate in sports develop self-confidence, dedication, a sense of team spirit, and an ability to work under pressure--traits which enhance all aspects of their lives. In fact, 80 percent of women identified as key leaders in Fortune 500 companies have sports backgrounds. When I was a young girl growing up, girls and women did not have much opportunity to participate in competitive athletics. But the enactment of title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 changed all that, by requiring that women be afforded equitable opportunities to participate in high school and college athletics. Since title IX's enactment, women and girls across the Nation have met the challenge of participating in competitive sports in record numbers. Since 1972, the number of college women participating in competitive athletics has gone from fewer than 32,000 to over 110,000 in 1994-95. Before title IX, fewer than 300,000 high school girls played competitive sports. By 1996, that number had climbed to almost 2.4 million. Today, women across America are taking bats, lacrosse sticks, and javelins to the glass ceiling--shattering the myth that there are ``men's'' sports and there are ``women's'' sports. But a quarter- century after title IX's enactment, there is still much more to be done. According to a recent NCAA study, only 23 percent of all current college athletic budgets are allocated to women, and women receive only 38 percent of athletic scholarship dollars. Only 27 percent of funding spent to recruit new athletes target women. In high-school athletic competitions, there are two boys to every one girl participating. The Fair Play Act, which we introduced to mark the 25th anniversary of Title IX, is designed to strengthen this important legislation and therefore enhance women's athletic and educational opportunities. Under current law, colleges and universities are required to compile information about their men's and women's athletic programs, including participation rates, operating and recruitment budgets, the availability of scholarships, revenues generated from athletic programs, and coaches' salaries. They are required to update this information annually and make it available to prospective students and others upon request. Because there is no central repository for this information, however, it is difficult for students to obtain and evaluate it or put it into context. The Fair Play Act is designed to correct this by directing colleges and universities to send information they already collect on their men's and women's athletic programs to the Department of Education, and directs the department to publish an annual report and make this information widely available by distributing the annual report to high schools, and establishing a toll free number and a web site. This bill will give students and families access to the kind of information they need to make informed decisions about where to go to school, and will help the Department of Education enforce title IX compliance in the area of athletics. The first 25 years of title IX have been an enormous success. Now, it's time for us to help millions of other girls and women get off the bleachers, the sidelines, and the viewing stands and onto the fields, the pitchers' mounds, and the courts. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and look forward to seeing what the next 25 years hold for women's accomplishments in sports.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Hollings, the ranking member on the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and by Senators Gregg, Kerry, Reed, Glenn, and Breaux. Since its establishment in 1966, the National Sea Grant College Program has provided an invaluable service to the citizens of our Nation, and particularly to those who depend on our Nation's coastal and marine resources. Sea Grant operates programs in concert with 29 academic institutions covering the entire marine coastline of the United States, the Great Lakes region, and Puerto Rico. It serves as a kind of cooperative research and extension program for States and localities with a direct interest in ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources. Sea Grant is unique in the breadth of its programs, bringing together the natural and social sciences as well as educational institutions, the private sector, and State and local governments. By facilitating these interactions across institutional boundaries, Sea Grant makes important contributions to the development of management programs that effectively address both resource conservation and the needs of communities who use these resources. In my home State of Maine, the decline in groundfish populations has had a devastating impact on the fishing community. The joint Maine/New Hampshire Sea Grant Program has supported research looking at the economic and social impacts of this decline, as well as biological investigations into the ecology of the fisheries. With the results of these studies, Maine has been able to mitigate some of the losses these citizens have suffered. Management programs have been adapted to better account for the needs of local residents and the vagaries of an ever- changing ocean. In all of their programs, Maine Sea Grant has consistently reinvested in local communities, providing knowledge and tools for working with the sea. I know from my colleagues that the work I have witnessed in Maine is representative of the quality work Sea Grant programs are doing across the country. The wealth of benefits Sea Grant provides comes from a small Federal investment. By requiring matching grants, State Sea Grant Programs use their partnerships with industry and academia to generate a high return on every Federal dollar expended. This investment, in turn, helps to stimulate industry productivity and increase the efficiency of coastal management programs. In these cost-conscious times, Sea Grant is a model of being able to do more with less. This legislation will allow Sea Grant to continue its work by reauthorizing the program for 3 years. It caps the national administrative costs of the program at 5 percent of the total budget, and it repeals an international program and a postdoctoral fellowship program which have never been funded. The bill also responds to a National Research Council Report by clarifying the responsibilities of the Sea Grant director and streamlining the process for reviewing State program proposals. This bill is supported by the Sea Grant Association, whose membership includes many of the land grant universities and other institutions with an interest in the program, and it was drafted in close consultation with the Clinton administration. The legislation is deserving of broad bipartisan support in the Senate, and I look forward to working with my colleagues for its quick passage. 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 introducing legislation to reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Hollings, the ranking member on the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and by Senators Gregg, Kerry, Reed, Glenn, and Breaux. Since its establishment in 1966, the National Sea Grant College Program has provided an invaluable service to the citizens of our Nation, and particularly to those who depend on our Nation's coastal and marine resources. Sea Grant operates programs in concert with 29 academic institutions covering the entire marine coastline of the United States, the Great Lakes region, and Puerto Rico. It serves as a kind of cooperative research and extension program for States and localities with a direct interest in ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources. Sea Grant is unique in the breadth of its programs, bringing together the natural and social sciences as well as educational institutions, the private sector, and State and local governments. By facilitating these interactions across institutional boundaries, Sea Grant makes important contributions to the development of management programs that effectively address both resource conservation and the needs of communities who use these resources. In my home State of Maine, the decline in groundfish populations has had a devastating impact on the fishing community. The joint Maine/New Hampshire Sea Grant Program has supported research looking at the economic and social impacts of this decline, as well as biological investigations into the ecology of the fisheries. With the results of these studies, Maine has been able to mitigate some of the losses these citizens have suffered. Management programs have been adapted to better account for the needs of local residents and the vagaries of an ever- changing ocean. In all of their programs, Maine Sea Grant has consistently reinvested in local communities, providing knowledge and tools for working with the sea. I know from my colleagues that the work I have witnessed in Maine is representative of the quality work Sea Grant programs are doing across the country. The wealth of benefits Sea Grant provides comes from a small Federal investment. By requiring matching grants, State Sea Grant Programs use their partnerships with industry and academia to generate a high return on every Federal dollar expended. This investment, in turn, helps to stimulate industry productivity and increase the efficiency of coastal management programs. In these cost-conscious times, Sea Grant is a model of being able to do more with less. This legislation will allow Sea Grant to continue its work by reauthorizing the program for 3 years. It caps the national administrative costs of the program at 5 percent of the total budget, and it repeals an international program and a postdoctoral fellowship program which have never been funded. The bill also responds to a National Research Council Report by clarifying the responsibilities of the Sea Grant director and streamlining the process for reviewing State program proposals. This bill is supported by the Sea Grant Association, whose membership includes many of the land grant universities and other institutions with an interest in the program, and it was drafted in close consultation with the Clinton administration. The legislation is deserving of broad bipartisan support in the Senate, and I look forward to working with my colleagues for its quick passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize one of the extraordinary public figures of our time: Senator Strom Thurmond. As we know, Senator Thurmond recently became the longest serving Senator in the history of this august institution. His record of service--over 41 years and counting--is unparalleled, and his devotion to South Carolina and the United States is unquestioned. His has been a life committed to this Nation, and a life as rich and varied as the years that have passed since his birth in the fledgling days of this century. Indeed, the breadth and scope of Senator Thurmond's life is truly remarkable. Born just before the dawn of flight, Senator Thurmond is now chairman of a committee that oversees the world's most sophisticated air force. He has borne witness to an explosion of scientific knowledge, fundamental changes in economics and labor, and tremendous sociological transformations. Most remarkable of all, Senator Thurmond can even remember the last time the Boston Red Sox won the World Series in 1918. Senator Thurmond has been a full participant in this century of monumental events, and in no way is this more profoundly demonstrated than with his service in World War II. As a member of the 82d Airborne Division, Strom Thurmond was part of the invasion force that stormed the beach at Normandy, France on D-day, and he will forever be a heroic part of these events that changed the course of history. For his courage and valor, he was awarded 18 decorations, medals, and awards-- as well as the undying gratitude of America and free nations everywhere. Before World War II broke out, as a State senator, Strom Thurmond had already begun what would become a lifelong dedication to public service. That commitment came to the national stage for the first time with his run for the Presidency in 1948--almost 50 years ago--when as an independent candidate he garnered the third largest independent electoral vote in U.S. history. Six years later, he became the first person ever elected as a write-in candidate for the U.S. Senate. The rest, as they say, is history--history that is still being written every day by this remarkable and enduring man. The true iron man of the U.S. Senate, his energy, enthusiasm, and love for this institution is as inspirational to me as I know it has been for countless Members of this body--past and present. Here is a legislator whose labor of love is performed against a backdrop of institutional knowledge and historical perspectives unequaled among his 534 colleagues in Congress. One cannot place a value on such service. One can only express their respect and profound appreciation. That is why I feel privileged to be able to join with my colleagues in recognizing the extraordinary story that continues to unfold. And why I am especially honored to serve with Senator Thurmond on the Armed Services Committee. As a new member of the committee, Senator Thurmond has made me feel most welcomed and valued, and for his wise guidance I am most grateful. After all, he has been an integral part of the committee through change and crisis, cold war and detente, conflict and peace. The defense of this Nation and our responsibility in the world have always been of paramount importance to Senator Thurmond. He understands that we must remain vigilant even as the demise of the Soviet Union has left America as the world's last remaining superpower. Senator Thurmond has seen enough of the world to know that it remains, in many ways, a dangerous place--and that we are uniquely capable and indeed obligated to stand guard against the potential threats which still exist. And most of all, he knows first hand the importance of providing to our service men and women--people willing to put their lives at risk for this Nation--the best possible personnel, equipment, and resources so that their risk is as low as we can humanly make it. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, he has brought his breadth of experience and his reasoned voice to bear on such issues as immigration and crime. And when it comes to the matter of ethics, Senator Thurmond has always stood strong and tall for the forces of integrity, supporting limits on how much Senators can earn outside the Senate, and bans on lobbying for foreign countries by former Federal officials to name but a few of his initiatives in this regard. His commitment to the honor of the Senate and the confidence of the American people has been unflagging for over four decades, and that is a record of which he can be proudest of all. It is no wonder then that his Republican colleagues would elect him to be President pro tempore of the Senate. As one of only three constitutionally established officers in Congress, it is a position of tremendous respect and trust accorded only to those who have demonstrated an unwavering adherence to the finest ideals of public service and the U.S. Senate. I can think of no finer or more appropriate choice than Senator Strom Thurmond, and I am proud that he has come to embody this institution. Throughout this storied career--whether as a superintendent of education, circuit judge, State senator, Governor, or U.S. Senator-- Senator Thurmond has never forgotten the people of South Carolina. It is where his heart is, the place from which he draws his strength. And he is in turn beloved by South Carolinians--just ask the folks at the Strom Thurmond Soldier Service Center in Fort Jackson; the Strom Thurmond Educational Center in Union; the Strom Thurmond Federal Building in Columbia; or, most telling, the Strom Thurmond Center for Excellence in Government and Public Service at Clemson University. They know that the senior Senator from South Carolina has been a strong, steady, consistent voice for them. And they know he will always be so. Senator Strom Thurmond exemplifies a life worth living: courage, enthusiasm, service to others, a willingness to learn and grow, and a deep appreciation of the opportunities this life--this country--offers. The mark that he is leaving on the U.S. Senate is a positive and enduring one, and I am proud to serve with Senator Thurmond as he continues to make history.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank Senator Domenici. I understand the intent of the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota in terms of expanding the Pell Grant Program, and I am pleased the budget agreement includes increasing the maximum grant by $300. Unfortunately, the Senator's amendment is in violation of the budget agreement, so I am offering an amendment that says we shall include two types of tax cut proposals in the $35 billion postsecondary educational tax cut package in this budget agreement. One proposal would provide incentives for parents and students to save for a postsecondary education. The other proposal would be to try to offset the debt that is incurred by students as a result of borrowing to attend college. My amendment is consistent with the objectives that were put forward in the budget agreement, as agreed to by President Clinton and the negotiators, and I urge its adoption. Mr. President, as we all know, the budget resolution provides for $85 billion in net tax relief over the coming 5 years. In a May 15, 1997, letter to President Clinton, the Speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader agreed that the tax package ``must include tax relief of roughly $35 billion over 5 years for postsecondary education, including a deduction and a tax credit.'' The letter further stipulated that this package of postsecondary education tax cuts ``should be consistent with the objectives put forward in the HOPE scholarship and tuition tax proposals contained in the administration's fiscal year 1998 budget.'' Now, even before that letter was crafted, there had been concerns about the inclusion of any type of education tax cuts in the balanced budget plan. For some, the inclusion of such targeted tax cuts would undermine the overall effort to provide broad-based tax relief for as many Americans as possible. For others, the postsecondary tax cut proposals put forward by President Clinton were viewed as potentially counter-productive because they might actually encourage tuition increases or grade inflation. Regardless of how one feels about educational tax cuts in general--or President Clinton's postsecondary education tax cut proposals specifically--I think we can all agree that the objective of the $35 billion education tax cut package in this resolution, and President Clinton's fiscal year 1998 educational tax cut proposals, are clear: Postsecondary educational tax cuts must promote access to a higher education while addressing the needs of parents and students. And the amendment I am offering today would encourage that we do both. It is an amendment stating that our $35 billion postsecondary tax cut package shall provide tax incentives that encourage students and parents to save for a postsecondary education, and provide relief from the debt burden associated with borrowing to pay for a postsecondary education. These two proposals--and my amendment--are not only consistent with the objectives laid out by President Clinton in his own budget proposal, but also with the objectives outlined in the May 15 letter from the Speaker of the House and our majority leader. Mr. President, a strong commitment to education is included in this budget agreement because of a recognition that education is the great equalizer in our society that can give every citizen of our Nation-- regardless of race, income, or geographic background--the same opportunity to succeed in the global economy of the 21st century. It's the same reason I decided to make education a priority during the 1995 and 1996 balanced budget debate, and fought to preserve funding for the Student Loan Program--a program that ensures access to higher education for lower-income students. A bipartisan majority of the Senate shared that commitment, and we now have the opportunity to further strengthen access to higher education through the crafting of sound tax proposals within this balanced budget package. As we seek to identify proposals that would improve access to a higher education, it is critical that we first recognize the primary barrier that stands between a student and a post-secondary education: rising costs. According to the Institute of Higher Education Policy, students at the undergraduate level have seen tuition increases outpace inflation for more than a decade. As a result of these increasing costs, an estimated 7.6 million students will require and receive aid in 1997--and this number is expected to increase to 8.1 million in 1998. Similarly, due to the significant costs of graduate and professional school training, borrowing by these students is increasing even faster than the record rate of increase in total student loan borrowing overall. How much money is borrowed by students to meet these rising costs? According to a 1996 analysis by USA Group Loan Services, the typical student loan borrower--including undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral students--now accumulates more than $10,000 in educational debt. By the same token, the interest paid on this borrowing is enormous. In Maine alone, students pay $25 million in interest on their student loan debts every year. Clearly, these rising costs and accumulating debts place the future of our children and our Nation at stake. Many students may wonder if they will ever be able to pay off the debt burden they will absorb if they go to college--and others will simply drop the idea of pursuing a higher education altogether in light of these numbers. Mr. President, Congress must remain committed to ensuring that every individual has the opportunity to pursue a higher education while adopting policies that ensure students are not dissuaded from attending a post-secondary institution for financial reasons. While no tax cut can completely remove financial barriers to a higher education, we can certainly endorse sound policies as part of this resolution that adhere to the agreement reached with the White House and move us in the right direction. I believe that providing incentives for parents and students to save for a higher education, and providing tax relief for the debt accumulated by those who need to borrow, is among the policies we should adopt to move us in that direction. While the amendment I am offering today does not endorse any specific bill or plan, I would like to note that I offered legislation on May 1 that would accomplish both of these goals. S. 680, the ``Go to College!'' Tax Incentives Act, would promote savings by young Americans and their parents to prepare for the rising cost of a higher education, and ensure that students are not discouraged from applying for students loans simply because of the debt burden they would incur in seeking a higher education. First, the legislation provides an incentive for parents and children to put aside as much as $1,000 per child annually in an education savings account that would be allowed to grow tax free. Planning for the future is critical when one considers the rising cost of tuition, and my incentive to save would make such planning less difficult. Second, the legislation provides a tax credit of $1,500 for the interest paid on student loans, thereby encouraging students to borrow as necessary to go to college--not balk at the cost of a higher education and the related debt they need to incur. Many Members of this body have supported restoring the deduction for interest paid on student loans--as evidenced in both of the Republican and Democratic leader bills, S. 1 and S. 12 respectively. While I, too, have long supported the restoration of this deduction, the credit I am proposing in S. 680 would be even more beneficial. Simply put, a tax deduction lowers a student's gross income on the Federal income tax form--but a tax credit actually reduces the tax liability of a student. Although this provision would not benefit students immediately, they would be assured of substantial tax relief once they begin to pay off the student loan debt they accumulated when they chose ``go to college'' in the first place. Again, the amendment I am offering today does not call for the adoption of the ``Go to College!'' Tax Incentives Act--rather, I mention my bill only to show that there are proposals on the table that would achieve the objectives sought by President Clinton, and that can be further reviewed during budget reconciliation. Ultimately, any number of these proposals could effectively meet the objectives set forth by President Clinton and the majority leader, and I am hopeful that we will adopt the best such approaches during the reconciliation process. Therefore, although the amendment I am offering today does not endorse a specific bill, it ensures that we at least adopt two types of proposals that will move us in the right direction. Mr. President, we must ensure that our nation's students do not turn away from pursuing a higher education due to rising costs and increasing debt burdens. This amendment would ensure that we address these issues during the ongoing reconciliation process, while remaining consistent with the objectives laid out in this balanced budget agreement, and I urge its adoption. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, when it comes to our budget deliberations, the temptation of politics has often made our search for a balanced budget a difficult one. For a long time, I think all Members of this body would agree that too much time was spent aggressively defending narrow or partisan interests. Personal political interests were sometimes placed above pressing national interests. And common, bipartisan objectives were too seldom charted or pursued. The result for our Nation is now as widely known as it was troublesome: Spending kept expanding. Deficits kept rising. And confidence in Government kept diminishing. But here today, Mr. President, with a balanced budget plan before us for the first time in 28 years, it's encouraging to think that we may be reaching a new beginning. Much of the credit for bringing us to this point belongs to the chairman of the Budget Committee, Pete Domenici. The chairman has demonstrated his unwavering commitment to a balanced budget during his years of service on the Budget Committee, and, ultimately, it was his leadership that brought both sides to the table and made this day possible. For his ongoing efforts, I believe that the chairman is deserving of our thanks--and the thanks of generations of Americans to come. Let me also thank our majority leader, Trent Lott, for his effort and commitment to making this agreement possible, and the President of the United States for his willingness to negotiate and compromise. I know that it is the hope and expectation of most Americans that President Clinton will continue to stay focused on the balanced budget goal and see this plan through to fruition. And, finally, we should also recognize the other leaders of the House and the Senate who were engaged in this process. They, too, pursued this resolution with determination and vigor--and forged consensus on some very divisive issues. We would not be here today without their leadership. But Mr. President, we have also reached this encouraging point in our budget deliberations because--at last--there is a widespread recognition that deficits threaten this Nation in unacceptable ways-- and that decisive action is needed now to ward off economic crisis. The numbers speak for themselves. According to estimates from the President's own Office of Management and Budget, if we do nothing, the deficit will double in 15 years, then double again every 5 years thereafter. Left unchecked, according to OMB, the deficit would reach $2 trillion by 2025. We also know that such a scenario would prove intolerably costly to this Nation. OMB forecasts that if we fail to reign in the deficit now, future generations will suffer an 82-percent tax rate and a 50-percent reduction in benefits in order to pay the bills we are leaving them today. And the Congressional Budget Office has issued a similarly grave warning, arguing a year ago that: ``* * * current U.S. budget policies cannot be sustained without risking substantial economic damage.'' Eighty-two-percent tax rates. Fifty-percent reductions in benefits. Substantial economic damage. This is not some futuristic nightmare, Mr. President. This is the economy that lies ahead for America unless we act now, unless we lay the groundwork for long-term deficit elimination by adopting this resolution. Mr. President, this agreement provides us with an historic opportunity to place our country back on the right fiscal path. But it also provides the American people some assurance that our political process can work. After more than 2 years of competing proposals, acrimonious debates, and fruitless negotiations, many Americans have become understandably cynical of our ability and even willingness to ever agree on a plan to balance the budget. But this agreement should give us some hope. It proves that we can compromise on specifics without compromising on principle--that when an agreement indisputably benefits the American people, we can set aside partisanship and get the job done. Of course, while the resolution before us today is an encouraging one and should be celebrated, we should also recognize what it is not. This is only a first step, Mr. President, and no Member of this body can say with certainty that this resolution signals a conclusive end to the failed budget politics of old. Indeed, I believe that only a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution can ensure that fiscal prudence and responsibility will be exercised indefinitely into the future. And let me be clear about another matter. The budget resolution before us is not perfect. Are there flaws in it? Yes, Mr. President, I think there are. In fact, I suspect that every Member of this body could find aspects that trouble them in this resolution--aspects that they may have written in a slightly or even greatly different manner. For instance, some may criticize this resolution because it expands new entitlements or does too little to reform existing entitlements before the baby boom generation begins to retire. In fact, it is with the latter concern in mind that I am particularly troubled by the assumption of home health care being shifted from part A to part B of Medicare. I fear that this shift may actually imperil this vital program even as it masks the true problems of the Medicare trust fund, which must be addressed if we are to preserve and protect the Medicare Program for senior citizens in the future. Still others may criticize this plan as being insufficient in terms of deficit reduction because it would cut the deficit by only 1 percent of today's GDP over the next 5 years, or because it provides what they consider to be too much of an increase in discretionary spending. To put these types of concerns in the words of one analyst from the CATO Institute: ``On balance, this is a bad deal. Republicans should just say no.'' Conversely, there are those who may see the cuts quite differently and argue that this agreement goes too far in cutting certain programs and does too little to fund new initiatives. Still others do not support the tax relief included in this resolution, or argue that the package of tax cuts being discussed would disproportionately benefit higher income individuals or families. But Mr. President, after 28 years of deficit spending, we can no longer let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We can no longer let politics drive our budget decisions because for 2 years--2 years, Mr. President--Republicans and Democrats have squared-off over a variety of issues, while offering competing plans. And the result has been wholly unimpressive. There has been no agreement. No plan for a balanced budget. And I think it's worth noting that the only reason that we have this resolution before us today is that competing budget plans were unsuccessful. It is compromise that offers us this chance to reach agreement and lay the groundwork for long-term balance. But if each Member of this body rejects such compromise and demands instead that the plan do exactly what he or she would want in the ideal world, then only one thing is for sure: This plan will be derailed--and our historic opportunity will be lost. And lest we focus only on those parts of the budget that are less than perfect, let's not overlook the incredibly positive aspects of this plan. For instance, not only will this plan balance the budget in the year 2002, if its policies are continued, OMB tells us that it will lead to a surplus of $34 billion in the year 2007. And while many have cited the fact that the total deficit reduction in this plan will be only $204 billion over the next 5 years, they fail to mention that there will be more than $700 billion in additional savings during the 5 years thereafter. Consider for a moment the two dramatically different futures that potentially lie ahead for this Nation: If we reject this plan and continue with the status quo, we will add another $1.1 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. On the other hand, if we use the 2002 to 2007 surpluses to buy-down the debt, this plan will ensure that more than $800 billion would be available for useful investments, and not eaten up by the national debt. Perhaps most importantly, by putting us on a course to balance the budget in 5 short years, this plan will also allow us to address the significant long-term threats described by OMB and CBO because we will have laid the groundwork for even larger reforms in the coming years. And it will also hold future Congresses accountable to maintain this same level of fiscal responsibility. And let's not forget the important impact that a balanced budget will have on economic growth. I know that there are those who say that our economy is doing well. They point to the growth rate for the last economic quarter and the fact that we now have had continuous growth for 6 straight years, and they say things could not be rosier. And it's at least partly true, Mr. President. We are now approaching the post- World War II record for the longest period of growth without a recession. But no one is projecting that the economy will maintain this pace, and the average annual rate of growth during the current 6-year streak has been an unimpressive 2.5 percent--the lowest level of growth during a recovery in this century. But, tragically, even this lethargic annual rate of growth is not predicted to last--and cannot last--unless we tackle the deficit now. Look out to future years and we see that the economy is anticipated to grow at even more anemic rates; 2.0 percent in 1998; 2.1 in 2000. The numbers are not impressive. However, with the enactment of a balanced budget plan, CBO tells us that potential growth will be enhanced because resources now devoted to consumption can instead be used for investment. So, Mr. President, this resolution presents us with our most direct and tangible means of stimulating economic growth in the short-term, even as we seek to extend our current economic expansion for another 5 years. And, finally, to those concerned with various details of the plan, let's remember this: Within the framework of this resolution, there are specific levels of savings in various programs, specific levels of tax cuts and the resolution even includes some of the policies that should be used to achieve these targets. But, appropriately, this resolution does not spell out all of the details, and it leaves opportunities for the authorizing and appropriating Committees to fulfill the parameters and benchmarks that have been set. So let's remember that the goal of this resolution--a balanced budget in 2002--is in ink, but some of the details are still in pencil. And that's OK. The administration will continue to have the opportunity to encourage specific spending priorities, and Members of this body will also have their opportunity to influence and mold these decisions. Now, Mr. President, let me address one final question. Whenever there is a political initiative as significant as the one before us, pundits begin to ask: ``Who is the political winner in this agreement? Is it Republicans? Or is it Democrats?'' Well, let me suggest an answer: The winner in this resolution is our Nation and its people. Deficits have damaged this Nation and its citizens for 28 years and set us on an inevitable economic crash course. But today, with this resolution, we have an opportunity to avert this crash by ending these deficits in the short-term, which lays the groundwork for eliminating them completely in the long-term. What lies before us is a framework for achieving a balanced budget by 2002 and holding off the pending disaster that inaction invites. So I think our goal could not be more clear: We cannot let this opportunity slip through our hands. We must begin anew--never again permitting our Nation to be recklessly endangered by deficits and deficit spending. We must move forward with a recognition that our budget belongs to the people--and, as such, it must always be handled carefully and responsibly. These are our challenges--and, together, we can and must meet them. Mr. President, ``a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.'' I am reminded of this Chinese proverb today because this resolution represents such a monumental first step in our journey to a balanced budget. To be sure, our journey is not complete. And it will not be complete unless Members of this body, the House of Representatives, and the President maintain a strong commitment in the coming years to follow through and make this balanced budget goal a reality. We cannot falter in these coming challenges. But, in the meantime, we should celebrate today for all that it represents. Mr. President, this resolution places our Nation on the right path and, against a future of uncontrolled deficits and all that the dangers and problems that these deficits entail, this resolution gives us hope for a new beginning of fiscal sanity, economic growth, and prosperity. So I think our choice should be clear. We need to take this path--and we need to adopt this resolution. The benefit of doing so, Mr. President, is too great. The cost of failing to do so, conversely, is simply too severe.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to join with the majority leader in paying tribute to an extraordinary woman, J.L. Cullen. It would be accurate to say that J.L. worked for the House Rules Committee, but that wouldn't begin to capture the spirit of this wonderful person. Yes, she was an outstanding and dedicated staffer, but for those of us who have served in the House--especially women--she was so much more. She was our friend. From my first days in the House I was privileged to know J.L. and our relationship grew from there. Her wonderful sense of humor, her warmth and her intellect made an impression on all of us, as our distinguished majority leader can attest from his days in the House. As an unofficial morale officer, J.L. brought together women of the House of Representatives, on a number of occasions hosting my female colleagues and me for dinner at her home. I will always fondly remember dinners with J.L., Nancy Johnson, and Lynn Martin--for both the company and the cooking! J.L. knew her way around a kitchen as well as she knew her way around House procedure, and in fact ultimately opened up her own business selling pesto. No matter what she did, J.L. was always gracious, always hospitable. And in the House, she quietly but effectively fostered unity and camaraderie among Members. She was there through dark days as well as the bright ones, and she was a tremendous resource for us. When I last had the pleasure of seeing J.L. at a reception recently, despite her illness, she greeted me with her usual good cheer and humor. She is truly a remarkable person and the way in which she has handled her illness with strength and dignity is inspirational to me. J.L. is one of those rare people who lends perspective to what we do here in Washington and brings into sharp focus the things that are truly important in life. I hope J.L. is watching us today, to see and hear our comments, Mr. President. Because I want her to know how deeply she has touched the lives of those with whom she worked. J.L. may not be a Member of Congress, but she is as much a credit to this institution as any of its finest elected officials. And she is as much a part of this Congress as any one of us who are Members. So often, one hears of the unelected staff. For so many, they are the nameless faceless people who work in the shadow of the dome--out of the glare of public attention usually reserved for those elected to the House or Senate. J.L. Cullen is among the finest of those people. Uninterested in the spotlight, she measures her contributions solely by the lives she touches or the results she achieves. But today, I want the public to know her name. I want them to know that she is a person without whom the people's business--the work of this institution, indeed the work of this Nation--would not have been done. And I want America to know that she has been a public servant in the very finest sense of the word. J.L., if you're watching, please know that you are in my heart and in my prayers. You helped make this native-born Mainer feel at home in Washington, you helped me to do my job better, and you helped me to laugh along the way, too. I will forever cherish your caring and friendship, and remember your exemplary service to Congress and the Nation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to have supported the amendment offered by my colleague from Florida, Senator Mack, which expresses the sense of the Senate that Federal funding for biomedical research should be doubled over the next 5 years. This amendment is based on a resolution which I cosponsored, Senate Joint Resolution 15-- one of the first bills the Republican leadership introduced in the 105th Congress. That resolution, and the amendment we adopted last night, sends a message to the American people, as well as to scientists and policy makers, that Congress is committed to enhanced funding for this crucial research. Americans consistently identify increased funding for medical research as something they believe should be a national priority. They want researchers to unravel the mysteries of cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, HIV, multiple sclerosis, and countless other diseases which plague Americans today. And they do not want their national leaders or scientists to rest until there is a cure. We must bring the full force of our country's tremendous resources to bear on these diseases in the same way we rallied to be the first to set foot on the Moon. We are a nation that has split atoms, sent probes to the far reaches of the solar system, and eradicated polio from the face of the Earth. We ought to be able to conquer these diseases. Over the years, we have increased our Federal commitment to medical research. For example, 25 years ago, Congress allocated just $400 million to the National Cancer Institute. Today, total funding for cancer research at the National Institutes of Health for this fiscal year is $2.7 billion. This represents an increase of close to 700 percent. And this infusion of Federal funding is working. For the very first time since cancer mortality statistics were first collected in 1930, mortality rates from cancer are actually decreasing. Researchers are beginning to isolate the genes responsible for various diseases at a seemingly breathtaking speed, and gene therapy may someday offer exciting new treatments--or even a cure--for these diseases. Scientists are beginning to understand the very workings of cancer cells, and immunotherapy may offer cancer sufferers new hope. But how this knowledge may someday be translated into benefits for everyday Americans is yet unknown. We need to increase Federal funding so that we can capitalize on these important breakthroughs. Throughout my tenure in both the House and Senate, I have worked hard to increase funding for medical research. In fact, on the first legislative day of this session, I introduced a bill which would raise the reauthorization level for breast cancer funding to a record $590 million. The Mack resolution demonstrates the very same commitment to ensuring that Americans no longer suffer from diseases that cut their lives short and cause undue suffering. Our enhanced investment in medical research will save countless lives and health care dollars, and alleviate suffering in millions of Americans.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to report that we have made progress in our efforts to protect Atlantic large whales. As you may recall, on May 8th of this year, several of my colleagues joined with me in introducing the ``Good Samaritan Exemption'' to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The Good Samaritan Exemption provides that the disentanglement of a marine mammal from fishing gear does not violate the ``take'' provisions of the MMPA. We were able to have the exemption accepted as an amendment to S. 672, and, due to the broad support for this noncontroversial amendment, I am hopeful that it will be included in the conference report. However, during the drafting of the amendment a concern emerged that this exemption alone would not provide full protection for citizens involved in whale disentanglement efforts. On May 20th, I was notified by the administration that the necessary steps will be taken to ensure that fishermen and others who act as Good Samaritans will not be subject to prosecution under the nation's environmental statutes. I would ask to have printed in the Record a letter from Dr. D. James Baker, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmospheres, which addresses this issue. I am pleased that the administration was able to provide this assurance so that fishermen acting as Good Samaritans will not be treated unfairly by our laws. With this commitment from the administration, whale disentanglement efforts will be able to expand, improving the welfare and survival of these marine mammal populations. The letter follows: U.S. Department of Commerce, The Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, Washington, DC, May 20, 1997. Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Snowe: I am aware of the recent proposals to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) with a so- called ``Good Samaritan'' exemption, to allow the taking of a marine mammal if the taking is necessary to avoid injury or death to an animal entangled in fishing gear or debris. I am also aware that such a taking could be a violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), if the animal is listed as endangered or threatened under that statute. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) believes that Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act authorizes the Secretary to permit the taking of an endangered marine mammal in accordance with the conditions contained in the Snowe-Kerry ``Good Samaritan'' amendment. I am writing to you to express the commitment of NOAA to take the most appropriate administrative action under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA, to allow a ``Good Samaritan'' taking of an entangled marine mammal in the circumstances specified in the proposed MMPA amendment, specifically with regard to large whales. Thank you for your efforts to rationalize interactions between the fishing industry and marine mammals. Sincerely, D. James Baker.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senate minority leader for yielding me this time, but, more importantly, I secondly want to commend him for his refreshing approach in trying to craft a consensus on what is obviously a very difficult issue when it comes to the problem of late-term abortion. He has shown determination and persistence and dedication in arriving at this compromise. I think that if more people in this body took that approach on the most contentious issues, we would not be standing here today even debating this one. This is a very difficult issue. But the compromise that the Senate minority leader has worked out clearly represents a serious attempt in bridging the differences on this issue, but also an attempt to address a very divisive issue. I had to reread the legislation after I heard several interpretations of it today. The Senate minority leader's legislation will ban all postviability abortions. There is one area upon which we all agree, that no viable fetus should be aborted by any method unless it is necessary to protect the life and the health of the mother. The difference here today is one issue: It is whether or not we are prepared to provide a health exception. I am very grateful to my colleague from South Dakota for trying to find common ground on this issue. All Members, pro-choice and pro-life, ought to be able to come together and agree. Mr. President, 41 States, including my own State of Maine, already ban postviability abortions. We all agree that we need to ensure that healthy pregnancies are never terminated after a fetus is viable regardless of which procedure is used. That is why the Daschle approach is so important. Furthermore, the Daschle substitute will lower, actually lower the number of abortions in this country as opposed to the legislation offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania. The legislation of the Senator from Pennsylvania, S. 6, would not prevent a single abortion. Ironically, what it would do is force a woman to choose another potentially life-threatening procedure when it comes to her health. It clearly does not make any sense to me that we here in the U.S. Senate are prepared to place a woman's health in jeopardy, place a woman in an unacceptable risk, while doing nothing to lower the number of abortions that occur in this country. The Daschle amendment will decrease the number of abortions and will do so without putting a woman's life and health on the line. To critics who say the Daschle language contains a loophole because it leaves it to the doctor to determine when the fetus is viable, I ask, who is in a better position than doctors to determine this? Certainly not the Federal Government. Certainly not the U.S. Senate. I know some would think they are omnipotent, but certainly not the U.S. House of Representatives. Certainly not politicians making this determination. This is a determination that should be made by the physician and the physician alone. In fact, the report that has been touted here by the American Medical Association, which I find quite interesting, is a 35-page report. I know that proponents of S. 6 and the legislation supported by the Senator from Pennsylvania touts this report, but this report did not even come down in support of the Senator's legislation after 35 pages. But in this report that was released on Tuesday by the American Medical Association, it states, ``It is the physician who should determine the viability.'' Exactly. But it is not only the American Medical Association who says the viability of determination should be left to the doctor. It is also the Supreme Court. In Planned Parenthood versus Danforth, the Supreme Court said, The time viability is achieved may vary with each pregnancy, and the determination of whether a particular fetus is viable is, and must be, a matter for the judgment of the responsible attending physician. Only doctors are equipped to make this determination. It is not those of us here in the U.S. Senate. It is not a bureaucracy. It is not the Government. We want our physicians to make that determination. Now, critics say protecting a woman from a grievous injury to her physical health does not justify terminating a later stage pregnancy. I ask again. Who are these politicians to make this heart-wrenching decisions for a family when a woman's life is in jeopardy? To the critics who say the Daschle language contains a loophole because doctors can interpret the health exception any way they want, as I say, read legislative language. ``Grievous physical injury'' is defined as a ``severely debilitating disease or impairment caused by the pregnancy,'' or ``an inability to provide necessary treatment for a life-threatening condition.'' That is very clear. It is very plain. It is very strict. It is a very narrow definition. And, as the Senator from South Dakota indicated, the penalties are extremely harsh, if the doctor didn't make that determination according to this definition. If I were a doctor and I read the penalties in this legislation that became law, I can guarantee you the doctor would make that determination and that definition in terms of what was grievous, what was a severely debilitating disease or impairment caused by the pregnancy or an inability to provide necessary treatment for a life- threatening condition. Their definition is protecting women from the most serious and life-threatening health risk. This narrow definition comports with again the American Medical Association's position that postviability abortion should only be used under those extraordinary circumstances when it absolutely is necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother. The Daschle substitute is narrowly tailored to allow postviability abortions only under these extraordinary circumstances. This language could not be more clear. How can you second-guess what is grievous? How could you second-guess the penalties that are included in this legislation? How could you second-guess the notion of going to jail? There is no question that any abortion is an emotional and difficult decision for a woman. When a woman must confront this decision during the later stages of her pregnancy because she knows that the pregnancy jeopardizes her very life and health, such a decision becomes a nightmare. And we have heard example after example. These aren't faceless individuals. These are human beings. These are women--women we know who have faced these circumstances who do not want the U.S. Senate or the U.S. Congress making that decision for them in these very limiting exceptional health circumstances. We have no right to be making that decision. The Roe versus Wade decision was carefully crafted by the Supreme Court 24 years ago. It was designed to balance the rights of women in America with reproductive decisions that have to be made. And they said that the rights of women are paramount in those decisions. This decision held that women have a constitutional right to an abortion, but after viability States could ban abortions as long as they allow exceptions for cases in which a woman's life or health is in danger. Let me repeat that: Allow exceptions for cases in which a woman's life or health is endangered. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that decision time and time again. Forty-one States have passed legislation upholding that banning of abortions in the later stages of pregnancy, except when it comes to a woman's life or a woman's health. The legislation offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania does not allow the exception for health. It does not allow it. In the last year, we heard, ``Oh, it provides a health exception.'' But it is so broad. It just says health. It is so broad you could drive a truck through it. The Senate minority leader made a good-faith effort to come up with a very narrow definition of grievous injury. You couldn't get much stricter in its interpretation. So that in certain situations, where a woman's life and health is in severe jeopardy, an exception can be made. The health exception for grievous physical injury can only be invoked under two circumstances. The first involves those heart-wrenching cases where a wanted pregnancy seriously threatens the health of the mother. The Daschle language would allow a doctor in these tragic cases to perform an abortion because he believes it is critical to preserving the health of a woman facing cardiac failure: Peripartal cardiomyopathy, a form of cardiac failure which is often caused by the pregnancy which can result in death or untreatable heart disease; pre-eclampsia, or high blood pressure, which is caused by a pregnancy which can result in kidney failure, stroke, or death; uterine ruptures, which could result in infertility. Is anyone suggesting here that we should not allow exceptions in these very serious health circumstances--circumstances that are not excepted in the language that has been proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania? Imagine: A form of cardiac failure that causes death would not be excepted. High blood pressure that can result in kidney failure, stroke, or death would not be excepted, or exempted; or infertility. Or the second circumstance that would be provided for as an exception under the Daschle language: When a woman has a life- threatening condition that requires lifesaving treatment. It applies to tragic cases, for example, when a woman needs chemotherapy when pregnant. So the family faces a terrible choice of confronting the pregnancy, or providing lifesaving treatment. These conditions include breast cancer, lymphoma, which has a 50- percent mortality rate, if untreated; primary pulmonary hypertension, which has a 50-percent maternal mortality rate. Are we saying here that the U.S. Senate is saying, ``No, we will not provide any exception.'' I hope not. I hope that would not be the case. And the Daschle substitute allows for those very limiting but very serious instances of health circumstances that could jeopardize permanently a woman's life, if not resulting in death. If this Chamber passes this bill without the Daschle amendment, it will represent a direct frontal assault on the health of American women. Make no mistake. Innocent women will suffer. We must not overlook that women's lives and health are at stake. They hang in balance. Women who undergo these procedures face a terrible tragedy of later-stage pregnancy that has through no fault of their own gone terribly, tragically wrong. I urge my colleagues to support the Daschle language. It will ensure that no abortions will take place after viability unless it is absolutely necessary to avoid grievous physical injury to a woman while protecting the woman's life and health. I yield the floor. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, nowhere is the middle ground in American politics harder to find than in the debate over abortion. It is clear that the apparent inability of pro-choice and pro-life members to find common ground is one of the most divisive issues we face today. In debate after debate, it often appears that there is no middle ground. Well, I am extremely pleased that my colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, is joining me today to introduce legislation that will prove this statement untrue. Too often, pro-choice leaders do too little to convey that they are not pro-abortion. Likewise, abortion opponents too often fail to work constructively toward reducing the need for abortion. The failure of pro-choice and pro-life members to stake out common ground weakens our Nation immeasurably. Today that's going to change. The cosponsors of this bill come from different parties, and have very different views on abortion. Our voting records are clear: I am firmly pro-choice; Senators Reid is firmly pro-life. Yet, despite these fundamental differences, we agree that something can and must be done to reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion in this country. That is why we are joining forces and introducing bipartisan, landmark legislation to make contraceptives more affordable for Americans. And I am pleased that a number of my colleagues, including Senators Warner, Mikulski, Chafee, Durbin, Collins, Murray, and Jeffords are joining us as original cosponsors. The need is clear. This year, there will be 3.6 million unintended pregnancies--over 56 percent of all pregnancies in America--and half will end in abortion. These are staggering statistics. But what's even more staggering is that it doesn't have to be this way. If prescription contraceptives were covered like other prescription drugs, a lot more Americans could afford to use safe, effective means to prevent unintended pregnancies. The fact is, under many of today's health insurance plans, a woman can afford a prescription to alleviate allergy symptoms but not a prescription to prevent an unintended and life-altering pregnancy. It is simply not right that while the vast majority of insurers cover prescription drugs, half of large group plans exclude coverage of prescription contraceptives. And only one-third cover oral contraceptives--the most popular form of birth control. Is it any wonder that women spend 68 percent more than men in out-of- pocket health care costs--68 percent. It does not make sense that, at a time when we want to reduce unintended pregnancies, so many otherwise insured woman can't afford access to the most effective contraceptives because of the disparity in coverage. The lack of contraceptive coverage in health insurance is not news to most women. Countless American women have been shocked to learn that their insurance does not cover contraceptives, one of their most basic health care needs, even though other prescriptions drugs which are equally valuable to their lives are routinely covered. But until today, women could do little more than feel silent outrage at a practice that disadvantages both their health and their pocketbook. Now, the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act gives voice to that outrage. EPICC sends a message that we can no longer tolerate policies that disadvantage women and disadvantage our nation. When our bill is passed, women will finally be assured of equity in prescription drug coverage and health care services. And America's unacceptably high rates of unintended pregnancies and abortions will be reduced in the process. This EPICC approach is simple. It says that if insurers already cover prescription drugs and devices, they must also cover FDA-approved prescription contraceptives. And it takes the commonsense approach of requiring health plans which already cover basic health care services to also cover medical and counseling services to promote the effective use of those contraceptives. The bill does not require insurance companies to cover prescription drugs--it simply says that if insurers cover prescription drugs, they cannot treat prescription contraceptives any differently. Similarly, it says that insurers which cover outpatient health care services cannot limit or exclude coverage of the medical and counseling services necessary for effective contraceptive use in order to prevent unintended pregnancies. This bill is not only good policy, it also makes good economic sense. We know that contraceptives are cost-effective: in the public sector, for every dollar invested in family planning, $4 to $14 is saved in health care and related costs. And we also know that by helping families to adequately space their pregnancies, contraceptives contribute to healthy pregnancies and healthy births, reducing rates of maternal complications, and low-birth weight. Time and time again Americans have expressed the desire for their leaders to come together to work on the problems that face us. This bill exemplifies that spirit of cooperation. It crosses some very wide gulfs and makes some very meaningful changes in policy that will benefit countless Americans. As someone who is pro-choice, I firmly believe that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. Through this bill, I invite both my pro- choice and pro-life colleagues to join with me in emphasizing the rare. And I invite all who believe in sound public policy to join our alliance. Because we as a nation must be truly committed to reducing rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion. We must come together despite our differences. We must pass this EPICC bill into law.