Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I think it is important for the American people to know how significant and important this debate is on the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I served 16 years in the House of Representatives and am now in my third year in the U.S. Senate. Some have argued that when we debate this amendment, we are hearing the same old argument over and over again. That is true, because we have the same problem year in and year out. That is why those of us who support a constitutional amendment feel so strongly about the necessity to have this amendment in the Constitution of the United States because it will ensure stability and security for the future of this country and for our children and our grandchildren. Having served in this overall institution for 19 years now, we have heard the debate on the constitutional amendment. This is about our eighth time in either the House or the Senate, or both, that we have been debating this issue. Guess what? Each and every time we have heard the same arguments over and over again as to why we don't need a constitutional amendment, that it is not necessary, that we can do it on our own, that if only we had the will or the discipline, we could enact a balanced budget, that it is simply not necessary. Well, if that was the case, why then don't we have a balanced budget? Why is it that we are still trying to enact a balanced budget? Why is it that we are still trying to reach an agreement with the President of the United States on a balanced budget? The President said the other day in his State of the Union Address, ``We don't need to rewrite the Constitution of the United States. All we need is your vote and my signature.'' Well, we gave him our vote on a balanced budget. It was submitted to the President of the United States last year. Guess what? We didn't get his signature. That is the problem. We can all have our disagreements about the particulars. But in the final analysis what is required in a balanced budget amendment is that you have to agree to the bottom line. There is a bottom line. What this amendment says is that total outlays will not exceed total receipts in any fiscal year. I know that is a concept that is difficult to understand in this institution because it is nothing that we have ever been required to do. What we feel is important to the security interests of this country is to ensure that we have balanced budgets in perpetuity. Almost every State in the country is required to have a balanced budget. Yes. Most of them are required to balance their budgets because of a constitutional amendment in their State constitution, like my State of Maine. My husband served for 8 years as Governor. Believe me, they didn't argue with particulars of the constitutional amendment. They understood what they had to do because they took an oath of office as each and every one of us does in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. We are required to uphold the Constitution of the United States as each and every Governor is required to uphold their State constitution. So what they did in good faith is reach an agreement on a budget, and in their case a biennial budget. Yes, if their estimates were wrong, they made adjustments. Their constitutions are not prescriptions for perfection. It is an attempt to comply with the constitution. That is what the Governors and the State legislatures do all across the country. If their estimates are wrong, if their projections for interest rates, unemployment rates, or inflation rates are wrong, they make adjustments throughout the year or at the end of the year, because they understand they are required to balance the budget. So, I find it sort of nothing short of extraordinary that we sit here and argue, ``Well, this amendment is providing too much flexibility because we are relying on estimates.'' Yet, on the other hand we are facing numerous challenges and propositions to a constitutional amendment to balance the budget that would enhance our flexibility because there are those who argue, from across the aisle and other opponents, who say, ``Well, a constitutional amendment is too restrictive, we can't respond to circumstances such as recessions or downturns of the economy, a national economic emergency of some kind.'' So we are getting it from both sides--from those who say it is too restrictive and other opponents who argue saying it isn't restrictive enough. That is the problem here. Because in the final analysis, if we are truly interested in ensuring that we balance our budget, I suggest that we could overcome our institutional opposition by passing a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. As I have said in the past to those who argue that, ``Well, it is just really a gimmick,'' if there was a gimmick, Congress would have passed it long ago because Congress loves gimmicks. But this constitutional amendment isn't a gimmick. It is an attempt to put our fiscal house in order. It is interesting. We get this coming and going, if you listen to the debate. We have charts that show declining deficits. But what about the charts that show the deficits moving up beyond the turn of the century and even before that time? We will be required in the year 2002 alone to reduce the deficit to balance the budget by $188 billion. But the opponents will not tell you about the deficits in future years that will double and triple--double and triple. In the year 2025 alone, the deficit will be in that one year alone $2 trillion. You know 2025 isn't that far away, if you think about your children and your grandchildren and the staggering debt that they will be required to assume because we are just passing it on. In fact, if we do not manage this debt, the next generation will be required to pay an 82-percent tax rate and see a 50-percent reduction in their benefits. And that is a fact. Are we not required or obligated to address that question? An 82- percent tax rate and a 50-percent reduction in benefits. That is what we are leaving to the next generation. I know I and others as strong proponents of this amendment share a true responsibility to begin to address this question. I would like to think that we have faith in this institution sufficient enough to know that this can happen. But it will not and it has not. The last time we balanced the budget in the U.S. Congress was the same year that Neil Armstrong landed on the Moon. That is what these 28 unbalanced budgets on this desk represent. That is the point. Since 1950, we have only had five surpluses--five. In a century, practically speaking, 27 times. That is the track record. That is the historical track record. Is that the gamble we want to take for the next generation? I say not. And that is why I am prepared to take the risk in terms of the interpretation of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, because it is that important to our future. And so each and every time we hear everybody saying: ``We can do it; it is important, I agree; we should have a balanced budget; we can do it on our own,'' just think for a moment. We have not had one since 1969. The fact is we cannot even agree statutorily. We had that debate last year for a long time. In fact, a group of us on a bipartisan basis offered our own plan to try to serve as a catalyst for this debate. In fact, we received 46 votes. And I did not like everything in that budget, I have to tell you. But I was willing to agree to it because I thought the bottom line was that important. I do not doubt for a moment that it is difficult to reach an agreement among 100 Senators or 435 Members of the House, so a total of 535, plus the President of the United States. But there has to be some give-and-take in this process, some flexibility in order to reach the bottom line. Unfortunately, we have too much flexibility because we are not required to balance the budget. Oh, sure, we have some statutes, but Congress has long ignored those statutory requirements to balance the budget--long ignored them. That is why a constitutional amendment is so important. I frankly think there is no greater issue, no issue more central to the economic future of our country as well as to our children and to our grandchildren than balancing the budget. I know the administration is touting an economic recovery, but I have to tell you there are not a lot of people in my State participating in a full economic recovery. Many people are feeling very anxious about the future, about their children's future. The overwhelming majority of Americans--in fact, some polls say as high as 88 percent--have said that they do not believe the next generation will achieve the American dream. I say that is disheartening, and yet I can understand why people would feel pessimistic, because they know they are working hard to try to make ends meet, and they know their children will be working hard to make ends meet in order to maintain a decent standard of living. We have heard, well, household income is up. But the real household income in America today is down below the levels of 1990 when we were facing a recession. And certainly my State and New England, California were the hardest hit regions in this country. But that is because there are more people working in the family today; they are having more jobs in order to make ends meet. There was a cartoon last year showing the President touting the millions of jobs that had been created, and the waiter serving him lunch said, ``Yeah, and I have four of them.'' That is the point. People are having to work longer and harder than ever before to make ends meet. So then you look at the tax burden. We have heard a lot of discussion about taxes. The tax burden is high. It now represents 38 percent of a family's income--more than food, shelter, and clothing combined. So not only are people working longer and harder in more jobs, but also they are facing a rising tax burden. Then we hear about economic growth, and we have seen the projections for the future--2.3, 2.1, 2.5, but the average projected growth for America in the next 5 years is about 2.3 percent. If we had had that growth rate for the last 30 years, we would not have achieved today's economy until the year 2003. We would have had 13 million fewer jobs in America. The point is that this balanced budget is crucial to American families because it means more income in their pockets. That is the bottom line. That is the mathematics of it all, because the less the Government spends, the less it borrows, the more money American families will have in their pockets. That means savings to them. It means their car loans, their student loans, their mortgages will be less costly. That is a fact. In fact, all combined, they could realize a savings of $1,500 a year because interest rates will be less. That is real money to the average American family. It is less money they have to give to their Government. It is more money that they have to spend. Frankly, that is what this debate is all about, how we can improve the standard of living for American families and begin to think about our priorities here in the Congress and the priorities for our Nation. But when you do not have to meet a bottom line like every family does in America, every business, every State, you do not have to think about what is a priority anymore. You do not have to think how well or efficiently or effectively we will spend the hard-earned taxpayers' dollars. We just do not have to think about it because we can just incur deficits year in and year out. Even the President's budget that he submitted to the Congress last week adds another $1 trillion over the next 5 years. And that is supposed to be a balanced budget. That is what we are talking about. So that is why I happen to think a constitutional amendment to balance the budget is the only course of action that we can take to ensure prosperity for the future. I know we can have our differences, but in the final analysis we ought to agree that this is the one step we can take. A balanced budget will be great for American families. It will be great for America because it will expand economic growth, and economic growth is the engine that drives a healthy economy. It will help to increase wages, create more jobs, unleash millions, billions of dollars in capital to allow this country to expand and to grow. I do not think we ought to accept budgets that compromise our economic standards, our economic opportunities, because that is what unbalanced budgets do. We are facing a very competitive future in this global economy. The American people understand that. They understand that, and they are worried because they are not certain how their children will be able to prepare for that competitive economy. That is why education has become a central issue and a central part, I know, of our agenda here in the Senate, and a central part of the President's agenda--because we are going to have to prepare to make investments in education, not only for the basic education needs of Americans but also in continuing education so they are constantly prepared for the changes in skills and technology. But, in order to make those investments, we have to set priorities in our budgets. We have to have more money to spend. That is why I think balancing the budget and investing in education are not mutually exclusive goals; that you can be fiscally responsible but at the same time be visionary, be compassionate about the investments that we need to make as priorities for America. That is what a constitutional amendment to balance the budget will do, because it will require us to do it each and every year, to examine and reexamine our priorities and how well these programs are functioning. We have an obligation to make sure that every dollar that is spent is spent wisely and efficiently. Under the current budget process, there is no such requirement. John F. Kennedy once said, ``The task of every generation is to build a road for the next generation.'' I cannot think of a more important road than the one that leads to fiscal security for future Americans. We have no less an obligation to ensure that, because never before has one generation delivered to the next generation a lower standard of living. But we are in danger of doing that now, and that is why I think it is so important that we grapple with reality and reach the conclusion that the only way we can ensure that prosperity and security for Americans is by enacting a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I yield floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on Teamwork for Employees and Managers, during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 12, 1997, at 9:30 a.m.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Finance be permitted to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, February 12, 1997, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 215-Dirksen.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 6, 1997, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. the purpose of this hearing is to consider S. 210, to amend the Organic Act of Guam, the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands, and the Compact of Free Association Act, and for other purposes.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 6, 1997 at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed business meeting.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing entitled ``Women-Owned and Home-Based Businesses'' on Thursday, February 6, 1997, which will begin at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to receive testimony from committee chairman and ranking members on their committee funding resolutions for 1997 and 1998 on Tuesday, February 4, Wednesday, February 5, and Thursday, February 6, all at 9:30 a.m.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 10 a.m. on Thursday, February 6, 1997, to receive testimony on the worldwide threat facing the United States.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. That is correct. We are going to recess from 3 to 4 for a Republican conference.

Ms. SNOWE. For the information of all Senators, a rollcall vote is now scheduled to occur at approximately 3 o'clock on the nomination of Rodney Slater. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. I ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 2:30 p.m. today, the Senate turn to executive session to consider the nomination of Rodney Slater under a previous consent agreement.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I think we all accept the fact that this body faces so many great decisions on such a regular basis that it is sometimes difficult to focus on one vote or one debate that stands apart as a truly monumental decision, a truly monumental vote. But, let me be clear. I think the Senate is now entering such a debate, and later this month, this body will face such a vote. The stakes could not be higher. With a balanced budget constitutional amendment, this Senate will face perhaps its defining moment as we lay the foundation for our fiscal agenda of our Nation's coming century--as we decide how this Nation will conduct its affairs. Who can doubt that future generations will look upon this debate and this vote with great historical interest as a crossroads in our country's national affairs. Who can doubt, with this vote, these future generations will praise us for bringing America's economic house in order, or they will blame us for simply passing the buck when we could have stopped a mounting national crisis. Mr. President, as an idea, the concept of a balanced budget is hardly new. Many in this body have rightly championed it for many, many years. Leading economists across our Nation have spoken and written of its value, and many of the Nation's brightest business minds from Wall Street to Main Street have urged its passage. There is no politics in any of these voices. They simply speak the truth: A balanced budget is the first step on the road to long-term prosperity for America. But perhaps most convincingly, Mr. President, the balanced budget constitutional amendment is not just supported by these impressive voices. It is also championed by a nation of citizens who, for months and years, have been urging this body to take action, to pass the balanced budget constitutional amendment for the sake of our Nation and our children. According to a CBS-New York Times poll conducted January 30 and February 1, an astounding 76 percent of our citizens favor this amendment. From parents who care about the economic future of their children to teenagers who are worried about their future, the call for a balanced budget has been loud. Some would say it has been deafening. Yet, the regrettable reality still exists. Unable to pass the balanced budget amendment, our Nation has run staggering deficits year after year that stifle our Nation's economic growth and prosperity, suffocate our future generations, and ultimately eradicate public confidence in our Nation's fiscal management to the point where only 12 percent of the American people, according to a CBS-New York Times poll, think we will balance the budget by the year 2002. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the American people are losing confidence in our willingness and ability to act. They have lost confidence in our ability as a nation to face the challenges as we approach the 21st century. So let us in this debate consider some of the facts, because facts, as has often been said, are stubborn things. And the facts, when properly considered, point us unequivocally toward the merit of a balanced budget amendment. First, I want this body to listen carefully to an assessment issued just last May by the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO, as my colleagues well know, is not a partisan voice; it has no real stake in this debate, except to ensure the facts are properly considered. But its assessment of deficit spending could not be more troubling. According to the CBO report: ``The budget deficits projected for future years are so large that they could put an end to the upward trend in living standards that the Nation has long enjoyed. Thus, current U.S. budget policies cannot be sustained without risking substantial economic damage.'' Substantial economic damage, that's right, Mr. President, is what we run the risk of bringing to this Nation if we do not act now. The CBO report goes further. Should we fail to bring our deficits to a halt, our economy will enter what CBO calls a period of ``accelerating decline.'' ``Accelerating decline,'' ``substantial economic damage''--in my 18 years in Congress, I have read a lot of CBO reports, a lot of analyses of our Nation's economy, and I can tell you, the warnings and the wordings do not get more dire than these. I know there are some who may say, ``Yes, I, too, support balanced budgets, and I, too, oppose deficits, but a balanced budget amendment, well, that goes too far, that binds us unnecessarily.'' Mr. President, let us be clear about two further facts. First, these past three decades have shown that our political culture, the ways of our democratic governance, great as they are, do not always lend themselves well to fiscal prudence. My colleagues will recall that we tried before to reduce our deficits through statutory means. You can see right here that these number of budgets for the last 28 years have shown that we have failed. Let's look at the history of our efforts. Next to me, I have two charts. The first documents 33 years of good intentions--5 more years than these unbalanced budgets--statutory efforts that required or promised to balance the budget of our Nation. All the greatest hits from the past are here from the Revenue Act of 1964 through Gramm-Rudman-Hollings of 1987, and more recently was the infamous Budget Act. But as we can see on this chart, the statutes don't work. Gramm- Rudman-Hollings II; Gramm-Rudman-Hollings I; Recodification of title 31, 1982; Bretton Woods agreement, 1980; debt limit increase, 1979; Byrd amendment; Humphrey-Hawkins Act; Revenue Act of 1978; and Revenue Act of 1964. These are just some of the examples of our statutory efforts in the past. I might also add, over the years, we have had a number of balanced budget amendments in both the House and the Senate, and I point back to October 1, 1982. The House failed to pass a resolution getting two- thirds, and the Senate adopted a balanced budget constitutional amendment, August 4, 1982. Unfortunately, we didn't pass it in Congress, but as far back as 1982, we debated a balanced budget amendment. Each and every time, when we have had those debates on the amendments, everybody said, ``We can do it on our own if we only have the will. We really don't need a constitutional amendment.'' Yet, Mr. President, this graph speaks for itself. Statute after statute has been passed by this body, but this deficit has kept right on marching. The lesson, I think, is clear--fail to pass this amendment and we reject perhaps the greatest fiscal lesson of modern times. This deficit is not going to be halted through statutes. I think this is a good indication with these 28 years of unbalanced budgets. The last time we had a balanced budget is when Neil Armstrong landed on the Moon. The only way we are going to stop deficit spending and reach a balanced budget is through an amendment. The second chart I have behind me reveals some other important aspects to this entire debate. First, a close examination of our budget history dating back, I might add, to 1905, reveals that deficits have been the norm, not the exception, as we can see. The deficits are in the red bars below the line. And the green--you can barely see it--is above the line, which would represent the years in which we have had surpluses between 1905 and 2005. Some of those are estimates for the projections by CBO for future years. That is last year's estimate. They may be a little bit better than that with this year's estimate. But, nevertheless, it gives a broad indication of the fact that we are going to continue to have major deficits in the future. It also has shown that we have had generally a century of deficits with very few exceptions. These deficits go back decades. Very rarely we found efforts in which we have been able to have a surplus. So I think that this chart reveals that we have had a century of failure of statutory efforts to balance the budget. Now, some have said, well, a balanced budget amendment is just a gimmick. As I have said before on the floor, and I will say it again, if this amendment was really a gimmick, we would have passed it long ago because Congress loves gimmicks. Mr. President, this is no gimmick. This is the first necessary step-- a brave, bold and thoughtful step--on the road to fiscal sanity. The second point, in response to these critics, is that the balanced budget amendment does allow us in the event of some national crisis, disaster or massive economic downturn to run a deficit. With a three- fifths majority we can take the steps necessary to address any existing crisis that threatens our Nation and requires a commitment of our national financial resources above and beyond a balanced budget. When Members of this body vote yes for a balanced budget amendment, they are not prohibiting our country from ever running a deficit. We are simply making it the rare exception. So, Mr. President, I view this as a most responsible approach to the problem. I know some may be thinking that certainly we can escape this debate one more time, we can duck the big question one more time, we can conveniently leave this decision to others one more time. Well, again, Mr. President, facts are stubborn things, and they suggest a very different reality. The deficit of this Nation was $107 billion last year. Left unchecked, according to CBO, it will double by the year 2004. And by the year 2007, if we fail to act, it is expected to reach a staggering $278 billion. Put another way, the deficit comprised 2 percent of the GDP in 1995. Should we stand aside and do nothing? According again to statistics from CBO, this deficit will rise to 5 percent of the GDP by the year 2010 and 37 percent by the year 2030. The message of those statistics could not be more blunt: Time is ticking. In fact, in the year 2025 alone--in that year alone--the deficit will be $2 trillion. So the deficit, obviously, in future years is going to double and triple. Lest there be any doubt about the ramifications of all this, consider this. If we can prevent these staggering deficits and bring the budget into balance permanently through this constitutional amendment, our Nation will be the big winner. We will experience a 25 percent growth in the GNP per capita by the year 2030, according to CBO--a 25 percent growth per person, Mr. President. That means growth for our Nation's economy. It means jobs. It means higher standards of living. It means a positive difference in people's lives and their futures and their children's futures. These are the things that this Senate must take very, very seriously. So to those who say, well, the balanced budget amendment is just a product of deficit hawks, I say, take a close look at these CBO numbers. This is an economic growth initiative. This is about the future. This is about our children and our grandchildren. This is about economic security. It is about providing for a stronger standard of living, not a lower standard of living, because we are incurring debts and deficits to bequeath to the next generation. What about interest rates? I know this body knows well that growth is intimately linked to the rates of borrowing. That is no secret. Pay higher interest rates for a car, higher interest rates for a house, and you soon find less and less people able or willing to make that purchase. Production goes down, jobs get fewer. That, too, is no secret. But consider for a moment, Mr. President, the actual impact the amendment can have on our citizens. Look at the projections for lower interest rates if we pass a constitutional amendment to ensure the continuity of balanced budgets into the future, year after year after year, not just the year 2002. We have had estimates by the Joint Economic Committee that says that we could have a 2 percentage point decline in interest rates by the year 2002 if we have a balanced budget. The DRI-McGraw-Hill projection says that interest rates could drop even further, could drop more than 2.5 percent if we pass this amendment. That means lower cost to people in terms of their mortgages and car loans and student loans, whatever the case may be in terms of borrowing. And that is real money to the average American family. It means that Americans who now pay $570 a month on an $80,000 mortgage, when that mortgage is paid at an interest rate of 7.7 percent, if we pass the constitutional amendment, this rate would fall to an estimated 5.7 percent, bringing that mortgage payment down to $464 a month according to the Joint Economic Committee. The result is a $1,272 mortgage savings per year for this family, all because we have taken the right steps through an amendment. That again is real money to the average American family who works hard and sees more of their hard-earned dollars being taken in terms of taxes. We have seen the tax burden escalate in this country. It is the highest historically because taxes consume more now than food, shelter and clothing combined. But also look at what a balanced budget amendment would mean in savings--in excess of $1,500 to the typical middle-income family, counting their interest savings on all of these loans, on mortgage loans and car loans and student loans, according to the Joint Economic Committee. Now, Mr. President, President Clinton is talking about building a bridge to the 21st century. That is fine. But, with this vote, we will go far in defining what kind of bridge this will be. This bridge to the 21st century can be solid, constructed on strong beams, capable of moving the American people safely and securely, or it can be a hazardous and rickety bamboo bridge suspended by worn ropes over the chasm of our national deficit. Pass the balanced budget amendment and we lay the ground for a solid foundation for this bridge into the next century. Pass the buck on the balanced budget amendment and we cross this bamboo bridge literally on borrowed time. So the decision will be ours. I think we know the right thing to do. We know the danger, indeed, the very threat, to our Nation of ongoing deficits and deficits. We know that we need stronger steps of fiscal self-discipline. I doubt that any Member of this great body, knowing what they know about the dangers of deficits and our historical inability to end them without this amendment and the many benefits of this amendment, can rise in good conscience to defend the status quo. Now only one question remains, and it is this: Will we have the strength and the courage and the wisdom to implement it? Mr. President, let this Senate answer this vital question without hesitation. For the sake of our Nation and its future, let this answer be yes. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would establish a Northern Border States Council on United States- Canada Trade. The purpose of this Council is to oversee cross-border trade with our Nation's largest trading partner--an action that I believe is long overdue. The Council will serve as an early warning system to alert State and Federal trade officials to problems in cross-border traffic and trade. The Council will enable the United States to more effectively administer trade policy with Canada by applying the wealth of insight, knowledge and expertise that resides in our northern border States on this critical policy issue. Within the U.S. Government we already have the Department of Commerce and a U.S. Trade Representative. But the fact is that both are Federal entities, responsible for our larger, national U.S. trade interests. Too often, such entities fail to give full consideration to the interests of the 12 northern States that share a border with Canada, the longest demilitarized border between 2 nations anywhere in the world. The Northern Border States Council will provide State trade officials a mechanism to share information about cross-border traffic and trade. The Council will then advise the Congress, the President, the U.S. Trade Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, and other Federal and State trade officials on United States.-Canada trade policies, practices, and problems. Canada is America's largest and most important trading partner. Canada is by far the top purchaser of U.S. export goods and services, as it is the largest source of U.S. imports. With an economy one-tenth the size of our own, Canada's economic health depends on maintaining close trade ties with the United States. While Canada accounts for about one-fifth of U.S. exports and imports, the United States is the source of two-thirds of Canada's imports and provides the market for fully three-quarters of all of Canada's exports. The United States and Canada have the largest bilateral trade relationship in the world, a relationship that is remarkable not only for its strength and general health, but also for the intensity of the trade and border problems that do frequently develop. Over the last decade, Canada and the United States have signed two major trade agreements--the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement in 1989, and the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993. Notwithstanding these trade accords, numerous disagreements have caused trade negotiators to shuttle back and forth between Washington and Ottawa. Most of the more well-known trade disputes with Canada have involved agricultural commodities such as durum wheat, peanut butter, dairy products, and poultry products, and these disputes have impacted more than just the 12 northern border States. Each and every day, however, an enormous quantity of trade and traffic crosses the United States-Canada border. There are literally thousands of businesses, large and small, that rely on this cross- border traffic and trade for their livelihood. My own State of Maine has had a long-running dispute with Canada over that nation's unfair policies in support of its potato industry. Specifically, Canada protects its domestic potato growers from United States competition through a system of nontariff trade barriers, such as setting container size limitations and a prohibition on bulk imports from the United States. This bulk import prohibition effectively blocks United States potato imports into Canada. At the same time, Canada artificially enhances the competitiveness of its product through domestic subsidies for potato growers. Another trade dispute with Canada, specifically with the province of New Brunswick, served as the inspiration for this legislation. In July 1993, Canadian federal customs officials began stopping Canadians returning from Maine and collecting from them the 11-percent New Brunswick Provincial Sales Tax [PST] on goods purchased in Maine. Canadian Customs Officers had already been collecting the Canadian federal sales tax all across the United States-Canada border. The collection of the New Brunswick PST was specifically targeted against goods purchased in Maine--not on goods purchased in any of the other provinces bordering New Brunswick. After months of imploring the U.S. Trade Representative to do something about the imposition of the unfairly administered tax, Ambassador Kantor agreed that the New Brunswick PST was a violation of NAFTA, and that the United States would include the PST issue in the NAFTA dispute settlement process. But despite this explicit assurance, the issue was not, in fact, brought before NAFTA's dispute settlement process, prompting Congress last year to include an amendment I offered to immigration reform legislation calling for the U.S. Trade Representative to take this action without further delay. Throughout the early months of the PST dispute, we in the State of Maine had enormous difficulty convincing our Federal trade officials that the PST was in fact an international trade dispute that warranted their attention and action. We had no way of knowing whether problems similar to the PST dispute existed elsewhere along the United States- Canada border, or whether it was a more localized problem. If a body like the Northern Border State Trade Council had existed when the collection of the PST began, it could have immediately started investigating the issue to determine its impact and make recommendations on how to deal with it. In short, the Northern Border States Council will serve as the eyes and ears of our States that share a border with Canada, and are most vulnerable to fluctuations in cross-border trade and traffic. The Council will be a tool for Federal and State trade officials to use in monitoring their cross-border trade. It will help ensure that national trade policy regarding America's largest trading partner will be developed and implemented with an eye towards the unique opportunities and burdens present to the northern border States. The Northern Border States Council will be an advisory body, not a regulatory one. Its fundamental purpose will be to determine the nature and cause of cross-border trade issues or disputes, and to recommend how to resolve them. The duties and responsibilities of the Council will include, but not be limited to, providing advice and policy recommendations on such matters as taxation and the regulation of cross-border wholesale and retail trade in goods and services; taxation, regulation and subsidization of food, agricultural, energy, and forest-products commodities; and the potential for Federal and State/provincial laws and regulations, including customs and immigration regulations, to act as nontariff barriers to trade. As an advisory body, the Council will review and comment on all Federal and/or State reports, studies, and practices concerning United States-Canada trade, with particular emphasis on all reports from the dispute settlement panels established under NAFTA. These Council reviews will be conducted upon the request of the United States Trade Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, a Member of Congress from any Council State, or the Governor of a Council State. If the Council determines that the origin of a cross-border trade dispute resides with Canada, the Council would determine, to the best of its ability, if the source of the dispute is the Canadian Federal Government or a Canadian provincial government. The goal of this legislation is not to create another Federal trade bureaucracy. The Council will be made up of individuals nominated by the Governors and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. Each northern border State will have two members on the Council. The Council members will be unpaid, and serve a 2-year term. The Northern Border States Council on United States-Canada Trade will not solve all of our trade problems with Canada. But it will ensure that the voices and views of our northern border States are heard in Washington by our Federal trade officials. For too long their voices were ignored, and the northern border States have had to suffer severe economic consequences at times because of it. This legislation will bring our States into their rightful position as full partners in issues that affect cross-border trade and traffic with our country's largest trading partner. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to create additional office closure certification criteria for National Weather Service offices located in geographical areas of concern designated by the National Research Council. The amendment is designed to guarantee that weather services will be fully maintained in these areas after the National Weather Service completes its modernization plan. My bill adds a new paragraph to section 706(e) of the Weather Service Modernization Act of 1992. This section deals with ``special circumstances'' under which the Secretary may not close or relocate a NWS field office unless he meets certain specified certification criteria in addition to the standard certification criteria that apply to all field offices. This legislation would create another special circumstance category for offices that serve parts of the country identified as ``areas of geographic concern'' in the National Research Council's June 1995, report on the modernization program. The NRC identified 32 such areas of concern across the country, including Caribou, ME, Williston, ND, Baton Rouge, LA, and Kalispell, MT, in which a National Weather Service field office has been proposed for closure under the modernization plan and the people who live in the area have expressed serious concerns about the impacts of it. My bill would prohibit the Secretary from closing or relocating these offices unless he first evaluates the effect of a closing or relocation on all weather information and services provided to local users; and, second, he includes in the standard certification required under section 706(b), a determination that at least an equivalent level of weather services will be provided in the future. This amendment provides an additional but very important layer of scrutiny to NWS plans to close field offices in areas of the country--a number of which are sparsely populated and rural--specified in the NRC report. It provides an extra safeguard for these communities to ensure that they will continue to receive at least the same level of weather information and services that they currently receive. Without adequate safeguards, the rural communities described in the amendment will face greater threats to public safety, infrastructure, private property, agricultural production, and the economy generally when a local weather office closes. As experience shows, the rural field offices, in particular, play a special role in gathering weather information from diverse and disparate locales across a large region, and in disseminating this information, along with standard NWS forecasts and flood warnings, to all citizens of the region. Field offices located outside these service areas may not be able to devote the same level of comprehensive, real- time attention to weather events affecting these areas. Given the importance of accurate and timely weather information to rural areas subject to severe weather conditions, we cannot let the quality of weather services for these areas diminish. My legislation will help to prevent that from happening. Mr. President, this is good-government legislation. It helps to ensure that an essential Federal agency makes very well-informed and prudent decisions, and it enhances the protection of our citizens' lives and property. I introduced this legislation as an amendment to the NOAA reauthorization bill in the Commerce Committee last year. The amendment was adopted unanimously, but unfortunately the full Senate did not have an opportunity to consider the bill before adjournment. I intend to resume my efforts on this issue at the earliest opportunity in the new Congress. I hope other Senators will join me in cosponsoring this bill and in working toward its enactment.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am introducing two bills today to assist workers who have lost their jobs as a result of closure or cutbacks at defense installations or the loss of defense contracts by private industry. The first bill extends the existing targeted jobs tax credit to employers who hire individuals who have lost their jobs at a Federal military installation through a closing, realignment or reduction in force. The credit equals 40 percent of the first $6,000 in wages paid to each newly hired worker. The second bill I am introducing provides defense contractors with an income tax credit for 20 percent of costs incurred in retraining employees for nondefense-related jobs. Since 1988, the Department of Defense has undertaken four base realignment and closure [BRAC] rounds--in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995. In total the BRAC process has authorized the closing of 261 military facilities, including 98 major defense installations where 300 or more civilian and/or military jobs were eliminated. Many base closings and realignments under the BRAC process are still in progress and their full impact has not yet been felt. In addition, reductions in force continue to be the order of the day at the Pentagon. In December, the Navy announced plans to reduce civilian employment by 11,000 positions at 240 facilities. The economic impact of defense downsizing on the affected individuals and surrounding communities can be devastating. In my own State of Maine, the closure of Loring Air Force Base in 1994 resulted in the loss of nearly 20 percent of the jobs in Aroostook County, affecting 3,000 military personnel, 900 civilians and an additional 6,000 private sector jobs which were dependent on the air base. The annual loss of income to Maine's economy from the Loring closure totaled more than $370 million. At the other end of the State, Kittery-Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has seen its workforce cut from 8,600 employees in 1989, when the Berlin wall fell, to 3,600 today with another reduction of 454 Navy civilian jobs planned for 1997. And Bath Iron Works, Maine's largest defense contractor, has seen its employment level drop from a high of 12,000 in 1990 to 7,500 today. Smaller defense contractors in Maine have experienced similar job losses. Mr. President, defense downsizing and economic conversion can be an excruciatingly slow and painful process for those households and communities in Maine and across the country who are going through it. I feel strongly that our obligation to the military and civilian workers who, after all, helped win the cold war, does not end with adoption of the BRAC recommendations. Successful defense conversion is a long-term process requiring a multi-pronged strategy that must include coordinated Government assistance to affected communities, workers, and businesses. The two tax credit proposals I am introducing today form an essential part of that strategy. They will encourage the private sector to hire workers whose jobs have been lost from Federal defense facilities and will encourage defense contractors to retrain workers for employment in nondefense areas. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting these important legislative initiatives.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am introducing two bills today to assist workers who have lost their jobs as a result of closure or cutbacks at defense installations or the loss of defense contracts by private industry. The first bill extends the existing targeted jobs tax credit to employers who hire individuals who have lost their jobs at a Federal military installation through a closing, realignment or reduction in force. The credit equals 40 percent of the first $6,000 in wages paid to each newly hired worker. The second bill I am introducing provides defense contractors with an income tax credit for 20 percent of costs incurred in retraining employees for nondefense-related jobs. Since 1988, the Department of Defense has undertaken four base realignment and closure [BRAC] rounds--in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995. In total the BRAC process has authorized the closing of 261 military facilities, including 98 major defense installations where 300 or more civilian and/or military jobs were eliminated. Many base closings and realignments under the BRAC process are still in progress and their full impact has not yet been felt. In addition, reductions in force continue to be the order of the day at the Pentagon. In December, the Navy announced plans to reduce civilian employment by 11,000 positions at 240 facilities. The economic impact of defense downsizing on the affected individuals and surrounding communities can be devastating. In my own State of Maine, the closure of Loring Air Force Base in 1994 resulted in the loss of nearly 20 percent of the jobs in Aroostook County, affecting 3,000 military personnel, 900 civilians and an additional 6,000 private sector jobs which were dependent on the air base. The annual loss of income to Maine's economy from the Loring closure totaled more than $370 million. At the other end of the State, Kittery-Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has seen its workforce cut from 8,600 employees in 1989, when the Berlin wall fell, to 3,600 today with another reduction of 454 Navy civilian jobs planned for 1997. And Bath Iron Works, Maine's largest defense contractor, has seen its employment level drop from a high of 12,000 in 1990 to 7,500 today. Smaller defense contractors in Maine have experienced similar job losses. Mr. President, defense downsizing and economic conversion can be an excruciatingly slow and painful process for those households and communities in Maine and across the country who are going through it. I feel strongly that our obligation to the military and civilian workers who, after all, helped win the cold war, does not end with adoption of the BRAC recommendations. Successful defense conversion is a long-term process requiring a multi-pronged strategy that must include coordinated Government assistance to affected communities, workers, and businesses. The two tax credit proposals I am introducing today form an essential part of that strategy. They will encourage the private sector to hire workers whose jobs have been lost from Federal defense facilities and will encourage defense contractors to retrain workers for employment in nondefense areas. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting these important legislative initiatives.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would establish a Northern Border States Council on United States- Canada Trade. The purpose of this Council is to oversee cross-border trade with our Nation's largest trading partner--an action that I believe is long overdue. The Council will serve as an early warning system to alert State and Federal trade officials to problems in cross-border traffic and trade. The Council will enable the United States to more effectively administer trade policy with Canada by applying the wealth of insight, knowledge and expertise that resides in our northern border States on this critical policy issue. Within the U.S. Government we already have the Department of Commerce and a U.S. Trade Representative. But the fact is that both are Federal entities, responsible for our larger, national U.S. trade interests. Too often, such entities fail to give full consideration to the interests of the 12 northern States that share a border with Canada, the longest demilitarized border between 2 nations anywhere in the world. The Northern Border States Council will provide State trade officials a mechanism to share information about cross-border traffic and trade. The Council will then advise the Congress, the President, the U.S. Trade Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, and other Federal and State trade officials on United States.-Canada trade policies, practices, and problems. Canada is America's largest and most important trading partner. Canada is by far the top purchaser of U.S. export goods and services, as it is the largest source of U.S. imports. With an economy one-tenth the size of our own, Canada's economic health depends on maintaining close trade ties with the United States. While Canada accounts for about one-fifth of U.S. exports and imports, the United States is the source of two-thirds of Canada's imports and provides the market for fully three-quarters of all of Canada's exports. The United States and Canada have the largest bilateral trade relationship in the world, a relationship that is remarkable not only for its strength and general health, but also for the intensity of the trade and border problems that do frequently develop. Over the last decade, Canada and the United States have signed two major trade agreements--the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement in 1989, and the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993. Notwithstanding these trade accords, numerous disagreements have caused trade negotiators to shuttle back and forth between Washington and Ottawa. Most of the more well-known trade disputes with Canada have involved agricultural commodities such as durum wheat, peanut butter, dairy products, and poultry products, and these disputes have impacted more than just the 12 northern border States. Each and every day, however, an enormous quantity of trade and traffic crosses the United States-Canada border. There are literally thousands of businesses, large and small, that rely on this cross- border traffic and trade for their livelihood. My own State of Maine has had a long-running dispute with Canada over that nation's unfair policies in support of its potato industry. Specifically, Canada protects its domestic potato growers from United States competition through a system of nontariff trade barriers, such as setting container size limitations and a prohibition on bulk imports from the United States. This bulk import prohibition effectively blocks United States potato imports into Canada. At the same time, Canada artificially enhances the competitiveness of its product through domestic subsidies for potato growers. Another trade dispute with Canada, specifically with the province of New Brunswick, served as the inspiration for this legislation. In July 1993, Canadian federal customs officials began stopping Canadians returning from Maine and collecting from them the 11-percent New Brunswick Provincial Sales Tax [PST] on goods purchased in Maine. Canadian Customs Officers had already been collecting the Canadian federal sales tax all across the United States-Canada border. The collection of the New Brunswick PST was specifically targeted against goods purchased in Maine--not on goods purchased in any of the other provinces bordering New Brunswick. After months of imploring the U.S. Trade Representative to do something about the imposition of the unfairly administered tax, Ambassador Kantor agreed that the New Brunswick PST was a violation of NAFTA, and that the United States would include the PST issue in the NAFTA dispute settlement process. But despite this explicit assurance, the issue was not, in fact, brought before NAFTA's dispute settlement process, prompting Congress last year to include an amendment I offered to immigration reform legislation calling for the U.S. Trade Representative to take this action without further delay. Throughout the early months of the PST dispute, we in the State of Maine had enormous difficulty convincing our Federal trade officials that the PST was in fact an international trade dispute that warranted their attention and action. We had no way of knowing whether problems similar to the PST dispute existed elsewhere along the United States- Canada border, or whether it was a more localized problem. If a body like the Northern Border State Trade Council had existed when the collection of the PST began, it could have immediately started investigating the issue to determine its impact and make recommendations on how to deal with it. In short, the Northern Border States Council will serve as the eyes and ears of our States that share a border with Canada, and are most vulnerable to fluctuations in cross-border trade and traffic. The Council will be a tool for Federal and State trade officials to use in monitoring their cross-border trade. It will help ensure that national trade policy regarding America's largest trading partner will be developed and implemented with an eye towards the unique opportunities and burdens present to the northern border States. The Northern Border States Council will be an advisory body, not a regulatory one. Its fundamental purpose will be to determine the nature and cause of cross-border trade issues or disputes, and to recommend how to resolve them. The duties and responsibilities of the Council will include, but not be limited to, providing advice and policy recommendations on such matters as taxation and the regulation of cross-border wholesale and retail trade in goods and services; taxation, regulation and subsidization of food, agricultural, energy, and forest-products commodities; and the potential for Federal and State/provincial laws and regulations, including customs and immigration regulations, to act as nontariff barriers to trade. As an advisory body, the Council will review and comment on all Federal and/or State reports, studies, and practices concerning United States-Canada trade, with particular emphasis on all reports from the dispute settlement panels established under NAFTA. These Council reviews will be conducted upon the request of the United States Trade Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, a Member of Congress from any Council State, or the Governor of a Council State. If the Council determines that the origin of a cross-border trade dispute resides with Canada, the Council would determine, to the best of its ability, if the source of the dispute is the Canadian Federal Government or a Canadian provincial government. The goal of this legislation is not to create another Federal trade bureaucracy. The Council will be made up of individuals nominated by the Governors and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. Each northern border State will have two members on the Council. The Council members will be unpaid, and serve a 2-year term. The Northern Border States Council on United States-Canada Trade will not solve all of our trade problems with Canada. But it will ensure that the voices and views of our northern border States are heard in Washington by our Federal trade officials. For too long their voices were ignored, and the northern border States have had to suffer severe economic consequences at times because of it. This legislation will bring our States into their rightful position as full partners in issues that affect cross-border trade and traffic with our country's largest trading partner. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. 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 create additional office closure certification criteria for National Weather Service offices located in geographical areas of concern designated by the National Research Council. The amendment is designed to guarantee that weather services will be fully maintained in these areas after the National Weather Service completes its modernization plan. My bill adds a new paragraph to section 706(e) of the Weather Service Modernization Act of 1992. This section deals with ``special circumstances'' under which the Secretary may not close or relocate a NWS field office unless he meets certain specified certification criteria in addition to the standard certification criteria that apply to all field offices. This legislation would create another special circumstance category for offices that serve parts of the country identified as ``areas of geographic concern'' in the National Research Council's June 1995, report on the modernization program. The NRC identified 32 such areas of concern across the country, including Caribou, ME, Williston, ND, Baton Rouge, LA, and Kalispell, MT, in which a National Weather Service field office has been proposed for closure under the modernization plan and the people who live in the area have expressed serious concerns about the impacts of it. My bill would prohibit the Secretary from closing or relocating these offices unless he first evaluates the effect of a closing or relocation on all weather information and services provided to local users; and, second, he includes in the standard certification required under section 706(b), a determination that at least an equivalent level of weather services will be provided in the future. This amendment provides an additional but very important layer of scrutiny to NWS plans to close field offices in areas of the country--a number of which are sparsely populated and rural--specified in the NRC report. It provides an extra safeguard for these communities to ensure that they will continue to receive at least the same level of weather information and services that they currently receive. Without adequate safeguards, the rural communities described in the amendment will face greater threats to public safety, infrastructure, private property, agricultural production, and the economy generally when a local weather office closes. As experience shows, the rural field offices, in particular, play a special role in gathering weather information from diverse and disparate locales across a large region, and in disseminating this information, along with standard NWS forecasts and flood warnings, to all citizens of the region. Field offices located outside these service areas may not be able to devote the same level of comprehensive, real- time attention to weather events affecting these areas. Given the importance of accurate and timely weather information to rural areas subject to severe weather conditions, we cannot let the quality of weather services for these areas diminish. My legislation will help to prevent that from happening. Mr. President, this is good-government legislation. It helps to ensure that an essential Federal agency makes very well-informed and prudent decisions, and it enhances the protection of our citizens' lives and property. I introduced this legislation as an amendment to the NOAA reauthorization bill in the Commerce Committee last year. The amendment was adopted unanimously, but unfortunately the full Senate did not have an opportunity to consider the bill before adjournment. I intend to resume my efforts on this issue at the earliest opportunity in the new Congress. I hope other Senators will join me in cosponsoring this bill and in working toward its enactment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in conclusion I would like to make several final points. First of all, I would like to commend Senator Specter for his commitment and devotion for years on this issue, and in particular tomorrow for holding a hearing as the chairman of the Labor-HHS Committee on Appropriations which I think will be very significant in highlighting and profiling the importance of this issue. Finally, I also would like to say that I think it is critical that he send a very strong message to the Cancer Institute advisory panel that will be meeting later this month to revisit this issue, and, if they see that we have a very strong vote here in the U.S. Senate from all Senators across the political aisle, clearly I think they will rescind the statement that they made last month in not making any recommendation for women in their forties. I think it is an abdication of their responsibility, and an abdication of their knowledge of medical science in terms of what is best for women. I am very pleased as well that all nine women here in the U.S. Senate--all Republican and all Democratic women--are cosponsors of this resolution. I do hope that we can get unanimous support of this issue so that we can correct what I think has been a wrong decision on the behalf of women in America and does nothing to advance women's health. That is why this resolution becomes a critically important statement to the lives, health, and safety of women in America. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution in conjunction with my colleague, the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, who has been a longtime advocate, proponent of advancing women's health in America. We responded to the January 23 decision that was made by the advisory panel to the National Cancer Institute that recommended that women should refrain from having mammograms in their forties. I want to thank the majority leader, Senator Lott, the assistant majority leader, Senator Nickles, and Senator Jeffords, chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee for their assistance in getting this resolution to the floor so quickly. I would also want to thank the Democratic leader and my friends on both sides of the aisle for allowing us to consider this resolution under a unanimous-consent agreement. Breast cancer is an issue that transcends party and politics. My resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that NCI should conduct studies to determine, once and for all, the true benefit of mammograms for women in their forties. It also urges the Advisory Board to NCI, which will meet later this month, to consider reissuing the mammography guideline it rescinded in 1993 recommending that women in their forties seek routine mammograms. NCI must put an end to the unfortunate confusion that may cost some women their very lives. Breast cancer is one of the most pressing public health crises facing American women today, striking one in every eight women during their lifetime. It will strike 180,000 American women this year, and kill 44,000 women--more than 10,000 of whom will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their forties. For women in this age group, it is the leading killer, and more women this year will be diagnosed with cancer in their forties than in their fifties. Mammograms are the most powerful weapon we have in the fight against breast cancer. They enable us to detect and treat breast cancer at its earliest stages when the tumors are too tiny to be detected by a woman or her doctor, providing a better prognosis for treatment. An estimated 23.5 million mammograms were performed in 1992 at a cost of approximately $2.5 billion--a valuable downpayment in our fight against an unmerciful killer. The question about whether women in their forties should seek regular mammograms has been an open question for years. On January 23, an NCI consensus panel decided not to recommend that women in their forties seek routine mammograms. To justify their position, they argued that the costs associated with routine mammograms for women in this age group potentially exceed the benefits. In making its decision, the panel gave undue weight to hypothetical risks, such as false-negative results that potentially provide women with a false sense of security, false-positive results that produce unnecessary anxiety, the potential for overtreatment, and radiation exposure. If we ever hope to improve survival rates for breast cancer, women of all ages must receive accurate and consistent information regarding the importance of mammograms. Women and their doctors look to the Nation's preeminent cancer research institution--the National Cancer Institute-- for clear guidance and advice on this issue. Confusion on this issue is not new. In 1989, NCI, along with the American Cancer Society and the American Medical Association, issued breast cancer screening guidelines which advised women to begin having mammograms at age 40. In 1993, NCI rescinded these guidelines, stating that their review of clinical trials produced no evidence that mammograms significantly reduced breast cancer deaths for women in their forties. At the time, Congress and many experts questioned the appropriateness of this conclusion, based on the available scientific evidence. This is when I first introduced legislation urging NCI to reexamine this issue. By rescinding its guideline, NCI produced widespread confusion and concern among women and physicians regarding the appropriate age at which to seek mammograms. This confusion eroded public confidence in mammography. It also reinforced the information barrier which discourages women from seeking care. Four years later, we are still mired in this controversy. Yet new studies strongly suggest that routine mammograms for women in their forties can save lives. For example, investigators found a 24- percent lower death rate among women who received mammograms in their forties when the world's population-based trials were combined; and Swedish researchers in 1996 in two studies found a 44- and 36-percent lower death rate among women who received mammograms in their forties. And several studies have concluded that breast tumors in women under 50 grow far more rapidly than breast cancer in older women, suggesting that annual mammograms are of value to women in their forties. In studying the research and scrutinizing the statistics, the panel appears to have lost sight of the human dimension of this question, and gave undue weight to the costs of screening, rather than the benefits. The panel emphasized that 2,500 women would have to be screened to save one life. But this 1 life represents someone's mother, wife, sister, or daughter. The panel also emphasized that up to one-fourth of all invasive breast cancers are not detected by mammography in women in their forties. Yet, the flip side of this statistic is that three-fourths of all cancers in this age group are detected through mammography. While it may not be perfect, that clearly amounts to saved lives. Finally, the NCI Panel also overemphasizes the risks of false- positives, suggesting that many women would undergo unnecessary surgical procedures. Yet, most women with positive findings subsequently undergo more refined diagnostic tests, including diagnostic mammograms, ultrasounds, and needle biopsies to confirm the presence of cancer, before any treatment decisions are made. Appropriately, the Director of NCI, Dr. Richard Klausner, expressed his surprise and disappointment over the decision of the consensus panel, and has asked the NCI Advisory Board to convene next month to revisit this issue. Former NIH Director, Dr. Bernadine Healy, affirmed his views. I am asking the Senate to consider my resolution today because women and physicians deserve to have guidance on this issue. My resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that NCI should conduct studies to determine, once and for all, the true benefit of mammograms for women in their forties. It also urges NCI's Advisory Board, which will meet later this month, to consider reissuing the mammography guidelines it rescinded in 1993 which recommended that women in their forties seek routine mammograms. Alternatively, NCI should direct women to other organizations which have issued clear guidelines on the issue, such as the American Cancer Society. This resolution does not dictate science-- it simply helps to provide women with clearer guidance as they look to answer a potentially life or death question--should they get mammograms in their forties?

Ms. SNOWE. I just respond to the Senator from Maryland by commending her for her very strong statement, her commitment, and a resoluteness to this issue in the hope that women get the best health care in America. She has shown strong leadership on this issue throughout the years. As she mentioned, we worked on women's health issues beginning in the House of Representatives in making some extraordinary changes within the National Institutes of Health to create an Office of Women's Health, which was absolutely vital because women were excluded--as well as minorities, I might add--from clinical studies. I thank the Senator and commend her for all she has done on behalf of women. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina.

Ms. SNOWE. How much time remains on this side?

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the John Bapst Memorial High School Band which honored Maine and America with its outstanding performance during 1997's Presidential Inauguration. Personally selected by President Clinton to attend the festivities, the John Bapst band had audiences on their feet with rousing renditions of ``The Maine Stein Song,'' ``Camino Real,'' and ``Acclamations,'' to name a few. The band performed on the National Mall, along with bands such as the Count Basie Orchestra, and also at the prestigious Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. This is not the first time that Maine has been made proud by the John Bapst band. In 1991, the band was on hand to welcome troops returning home after the Gulf war. For many, their stop in Bangor was the first time on American soil since their deployment. I am certain they will never forget the warm greetings they received in Bangor--which garnered national attention--and John Bapst band played a special part in honoring our servicemen and women. The tradition continued when John Bapst played for President Clinton last November. The President was so impressed with the group that he pledged to invite them to inaugural festivities should he be reelected. Mr. President, this band represents the very best characteristics of America's young people. Band members set a goal of excellence and worked hard to achieve it, and I believe their efforts should be highlighted. In an era of conflicting and often dubious influences for young men and women, and in a time when negative stories abound in the media, our children should have positive examples to follow. That is why we should shine a spotlight on groups like the John Bapst band, which represent the finest qualities and aspirations of America's youth. I applaud the band members and their director, Julie Ewing, for showing our youth what can be accomplished through commitment and hard work. In closing, I would once again like to thank the John Bapst Memorial High School Band for their tremendous contribution to the 1997 inaugural festivities, and for making the State of Maine very proud.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Old Town Marching Band of Old Town, ME. The band made the entire State of Maine proud with its extraordinary performance in the 1997 Inaugural Parade. Countless hours of practice and preparation go into such an effort, and the students' dedication to excellence was obvious and stood as a wonderful tribute to the late Old Town Superintendent of Schools, Dr. John Grady. I was approached early last year by Dr. Grady, who shared with me his dream of having the Old Town Marching Band represent Maine at this year's inaugural parade. Sadly, Dr. Grady passed away, but his dream lived on in the hearts of bandmembers and the Old Town community. Old Town was one of more than 400 groups seeking to perform in the parade-- only 23 were selected, and of those only 9 were high school bands. Old Town's participation in the 1997 Inaugural Parade is the latest of a long list of accomplishments. The band is nationally recognized, having won numerous awards including first place at the 1994 Saint Anselm College New England Jazz Festival, the Jazz Ensemble Grand Champions at the 1996 Orlando Musicfest, and an award-winning appearance at the 1995 Cherry Blossom parade in Washington, DC. Mr. President, this band represents the very best characteristics of America's young people. Band members set a goal of excellence and worked hard to achieve it, and I believe their efforts should be highlighted. In an era of conflicting and often dubious influences for young men and women, and in a time when negative stories abound in the media, our children should have positive examples to follow. That is why we should shine a spotlight on groups like the Old Town Marching Band, which represent the finest qualities and aspirations of America's youth. I salute the band as well as its director, Jeffrey Priest, for showing young people what can be accomplished through hard work and commitment. In closing, I would once again like to thank the Old Town Marching Band for their tremendous contribution to the 1997 inaugural parade, and for making Old Town and the State of Maine very proud.