Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce a vital piece of legislation which will help people with serious or life-threatening diseases obtain the information they desperately need about clinical trials. Easy access to this information is critical, because clinical trials provide cancer patients with potentially promising treatments which are otherwise unavailable and which may be on the cutting edge of medical research. In June of this year, I convened an important hearing with my colleagues, Senators Connie Mack and Dianne Feinstein, Cochairs of the Senate Cancer Coalition, to address recent developments in breast cancer treatments and research. We convened our hearing on the eve of the Seventh Annual National Race for the Cure, a race that raises millions of dollars each year for breast cancer research and education efforts. During the hearing, we heard testimony from breast cancer advocates on the difficulty patients and physicians face in learning about ongoing clinical trials. One witness, representing Breast Cancer Action in California, testified about the need for ``One Stop Shopping'' to find out what is available in terms of clinical trials for cancer treatments. She testified that the existing Cancer Information Service at the National Cancer Institute is helpful but underfunded, and provides only partial information because it lists only publicly funded trials. It does not list, however, the 300-plus clinical trials of private pharmaceutical companies, producing a major knowledge gap. This witness contrasted this difficulty faced by cancer patients with the ease with which AIDS patients obtain information about clinical trials. As the result of a 1988 amendment to the Public Health Service Act, AIDS patients need only dial a 1-800 number in order to obtain information about all clinical trials--both Government financed and private pharmaceutical trials. If you have cancer or some other life- threatening illness, however, you must rely upon your doctor's knowledge about clinical trials, which is likely to be limited. Moreover, information contained on commercial databases are costly to access, difficult to use or understand, and often incomplete. Since this hearing, I have heard similar complaints not only from cancer patients, but from patients suffering from a wide range of severe or life-threatening illnesses. Today, I rise to introduce legislation to rectify this knowledge gap. My bill is based closely on the existing language in the Public Health Service Act which created the AIDS database and which has been so successful in making information about AIDS clinical trials available to those who need it. Modeled on that language, my bill establishes a data bank of information on clinical trials and experimental treatments for all serious or life-threatening illnesses. The one stop shopping information service will include a registry of all private and public clinical trials, and will contain information describing the purpose of the trial, eligibility criteria for participating in the trial, as well as the location of the trial. The bill also requires HHS to set up information systems, including a toll- free number, for patients, doctors, and others to access this critical information. The database will also include information on the results of experimental trials, enabling patients to make fully informed decisions about medical treatment. Imagine facing a deadly disease and not having access to information about the latest treatment options. Imagine enduring great pain and not having access to a centralized source of information about existing clinical trials which may relieve your suffering or extend your life. Imagine the arduous effort needed to gather information about these clinical trials in order to potentially benefit from cutting-edge treatments. Then consider what this legislation will do for Americans. People with cancer, Alzheimers' disease, Parkinsons, cystic fibrosis, advanced heart disease, multiple sclerosis, or any other serious disease will be able to dial a 1-800 number from their home phone and access the information they need about clinical trials underway across the Nation. They will also be able to obtain information about the results of experimental trials, helping them to make treatment decisions. All parties will benefit from this legislation. First and foremost, it encourages patient choice and informed decisions. But pharmaceutical companies will also benefit, because this legislation will allow for easier and quicker recruitment of individuals willing to participate in experimental trials, expediting the approval process for investigational new drugs. And the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration will be better able to serve the public. This one-stop shopping service will provide hope to countless Americans. But most importantly, it will help to save lives and reduce the suffering of Americans who are stricken by serious or life- threatening illnesses. We know from experience that this language works. I call for the speedy enactment of this legislation which will be of enormous benefit to countless Americans in times of extraordinary need, and I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the 60th anniversary of Camp Natarswi in Baxter State Park, ME. In August, Girl Scouts from Maine and across the United States will reunite to mark this occasion, exemplifying the strong bond of friendship that young women gain through their Girl Scout experiences. Such relationships are vital for young women and foster an appreciation for helping others whether it be in the community, at school, or at home. It is clear that these women have cherished the spirit of the Girl Scout tradition as they now gather 60 years later to renew their friendships. Before this land in Baxter State Park became Camp Natarswi in 1936, it was used to house Civilian Conservation Corps workers who were building a road from Togue Pond to Roaring Brook. The property was leased from Great Northern Paper until 1975 when the paper company designated ownership to the Girl Scouts. Conducive to camping and scenic views, the young girl scouts found themselves inspired by this natural habitat while learning lessons on the environment and work ethics that would accompany them on their future endeavors. For the alumnae from 12 States as far away as California, Camp Natarswi will forever be a place where friendships flourished and lessons were learned about life and the importance of our natural resources. Most of all, these women were instilled with the Girl Scout tradition, something they have passed down to their children and grandchildren. I am pleased to recognize the 60th anniversary of this very special place for so many of my fellow Mainers.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the valor and courage of the 168th Engineer Combat Battalion, which celebrates the unveiling of its commemorative monument at Fort Devens, MA, later this month. During World War II, the 168th Engineer Combat Battalion was composed entirely of New Englanders, many of them residents of the State I have the good fortune to represent in this body: the great State of Maine. This brave group of soldiers defended freedom and democracy from the will of tyranny in the darkest days of World War II and the Vietnam conflict. As they reunite to remember their success and pay homage to their fallen comrades, I'd like to take a moment today to remember the unit's heroism. Mr. President, any retelling of the pivotal events of the Second World War in Europe must include the deeds of the 168th. They were there with General Patton in July 1944 when the Allies landed on the beaches of Normandy as part of the D-day Invasion. For 10 hard but glorious months thereafter, the 168th provided the American ground forces in Europe with invaluable logistic support and an iron will that was crucial in turning back the ruthless advance of the Nazis across Europe. Perhaps no single mission depicts the heroism, bravery, and grit of the 168th more clearly than its performance in the Ardennes offensive, also known as the Battle of the Bulge. When the forces of Hitler launched their desperate, last-ditch offensive into the heart of the Allied line during the winter of 1944, the 168th displayed the resiliency and courage for which it has come to be known. In hopes of fracturing the Allied line into its American and British components, the Nazi Army focused all of its lethal energy on breaking through the Allied line in Belgium. However, in doing so, the Nazis ran into the 168th, and the 168th stood fast. With their defiant stand at St. Vith, Belgium, the 168th was able to slow the Nazi assault and then provide the larger American force with the logistical support necessary to repel the Nazi war machine once and for all. In remaining at St. Vith, the 168th endured the loss of half its personnel to casualty or Nazi apprehension. Yet, with the loss of every comrade, the depleted 168th exhibited even firmer resolve to drive the Nazis back across the line. They did so for each other, and they did so for America. But most of all, they refused to succumb to the Nazis because at that moment, the cause of freedom depended upon them. For its valor in battle and efficiency in duty, the 168th was deservingly awarded the Distinguished Unit Citation by the U.S. Army. The 168th was also awarded the Belgian Croix de Guerre, which was given to foreign forces by the Belgian Government for the defense of its nation during World War II. As if the heroics of the 168th in World War II were not enough, it also served with distinction during the Vietnam conflict, 20 years later. Faced with the daunting task of establishing logistical lines of support in the harrowing jungles of Southeast Asia, the 168th again performed its tasks masterfully under heavy fire. For its repeated acts of bravery, the 168th received the Valorous Unit Citation and the Meritorious Unit Citation, and in doing so, reaffirmed its status as an elite unit of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. President, as the remaining members of the 168th gather to unveil their monument at Fort Devens, I think it is appropriate that we all remember the intrepid nature displayed again and again by the members of the 168th when they were most needed. Whether they were ordered to forge roadways and cross rivers in the snowy countryside of Western Europe, or devise ways to destroy the vast tunnel systems underneath the steamy jungles of Southeast Asia, the 168th has performed its duties with honor and distinction. It is due to the heroism and sacrifice of people like the members of the 168th Engineer Combat Battalion that Americans enjoy the fruits of freedom today, and for that, we all owe them a deep and heartfelt debt of gratitude. In honor of the contributions made by the 168th in the defense of freedom, I ask that the declarations honoring the 168th Engineer Combat Battalion made by the Governors of Maine and Massachusetts, as well as the Corps of Engineers poem be placed in the Record in their entirety to commemorate the unveiling of the 168th Engineer Combat Battalion later this month. The material follows: Proclamation--State of Maine Whereas, the 168th Engineer Combat Battalion was activated in 1943, consisting of a large number of New England residents, many from Maine and Massachusetts; and Whereas, since 1943, the 168th Engineer Combat Battalion has served with distinction in both World War II and the Vietnam War, earning five distinguished battle honors; and Whereas, during the Battle of the Bulge, the 168th Engineer Combat Battalion held its position at St. Vith, Belgium from December 16 through December 23, 1944, and stopped the German thrust through the Ardennes; and Whereas, following the Battle of the Bulge, the 168th Engineer Combat Battalion was awarded the Distinguished Unit Citation for extraordinary heroism against an armed enemy, and the Belgian Croix de Guerre for outstanding gallantry, heroic action, and bravery in the face of enemy action; and Whereas, during the Vietnam War, the 168th Engineer Combat Battalion again served with distinction and was awarded the Valorous Unit Citation for heroic combat action on or after August 3, 1963, the Meritorious Unit Citation for outstanding service during a period of combat, and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Award for meritorious service and outstanding accomplishments over and above the call of duty; and Whereas, it is appropriate that all Maine citizens recognize and honor the outstanding dedication, sacrifice, and tradition of the 168th Engineer Combat Battalion, Now, therefore, I, Angus S. King, Jr., Governor of the State of Maine, do hereby proclaim the week of December 16- 23, 1995 as the 168th Engineer Combat Battalion Days of Honor, throughout the State of Maine, and urge all citizens to recognize the many accomplishments of the 168th Engineer Combat Battalion.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, over the past few years, America has witnessed an unfortunate trend involving standoffs between the U.S. Government and parties who reject its authority to enforce the laws of this land--specifically, the incidents in Waco, TX; Ruby Ridge, ID; and Garfield County, MT. Thankfully, the most recent episode involving the Freemen did not escalate to violence or bloodshed. Regrettably, this does not hold true for Waco or Ruby Ridge, where there was a tragic loss of life to civilians and Government agents alike. Each of these situations jeopardized children's lives--innocent children who had no choice in the role they played in these standoffs. In Waco, 25 young children under the age of 15 died in the blaze that spread throughout the compound. These deaths occurred despite the repeated efforts by Federal agents to encourage Branch Davidians leaders to allow children to leave the compound. At Ruby Ridge, a 14-year-old died after being caught in gunfire. And during the Freemen standoff, Americans across the Nation held their breath--praying that violence would not erupt. Once again, the lives of children were placed in jeopardy. But thankfully, this time, the children--and adults--emerged unharmed. As we have seen, tragedy can occur in these very tense situations. Above all else, we need to ensure that children are kept out of these situations in the future. People who arm themselves after failing to comply with warrants or because they seek to avoid arrest must realize that, whether or not it is intended, children are implicated in these standoffs. We cannot allow this to continue any longer. We cannot allow another child's life to be endangered in this manner. Today, I am introducing a bill which seeks to protect children from harm in these standoff situations. My bill would make it a crime to detain a child when two conditions are met: if a person is trying to evade arrest or avoid complying with a warrant, and that person uses force, or threatens to use force, against a Federal agent. Any person convicted of violating this act would be imprisoned for 10-25 years. If a child is injured, the penalty would be increased to 20-35 years. If a child is killed, the penalty would be life imprisonment. No law can ever assure that children will be kept free from harm. But this legislation will help assure that children do not become inadvertent, innocent pawns when violent situations arise. It will provide a deterrent to involving a child in any standoff--and severe penalties for those who ignore the law. Tense standoffs between Federal law enforcement officers and hostile fugitives are no place for children. This bill will help encourage the removal of innocent children from such dangerous situations. As a nation, we should not tolerate the use of children as pawns or human shields when people choose to evade the laws of this land. I hope my colleagues support this important piece of legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, over the past few years, America has witnessed an unfortunate trend involving standoffs between the U.S. Government and parties who reject its authority to enforce the laws of this land--specifically, the incidents in Waco, TX; Ruby Ridge, ID; and Garfield County, MT. Thankfully, the most recent episode involving the Freemen did not escalate to violence or bloodshed. Regrettably, this does not hold true for Waco or Ruby Ridge, where there was a tragic loss of life to civilians and Government agents alike. Each of these situations jeopardized children's lives--innocent children who had no choice in the role they played in these standoffs. In Waco, 25 young children under the age of 15 died in the blaze that spread throughout the compound. These deaths occurred despite the repeated efforts by Federal agents to encourage Branch Davidians leaders to allow children to leave the compound. At Ruby Ridge, a 14-year-old died after being caught in gunfire. And during the Freemen standoff, Americans across the Nation held their breath--praying that violence would not erupt. Once again, the lives of children were placed in jeopardy. But thankfully, this time, the children--and adults--emerged unharmed. As we have seen, tragedy can occur in these very tense situations. Above all else, we need to ensure that children are kept out of these situations in the future. People who arm themselves after failing to comply with warrants or because they seek to avoid arrest must realize that, whether or not it is intended, children are implicated in these standoffs. We cannot allow this to continue any longer. We cannot allow another child's life to be endangered in this manner. Today, I am introducing a bill which seeks to protect children from harm in these standoff situations. My bill would make it a crime to detain a child when two conditions are met: if a person is trying to evade arrest or avoid complying with a warrant, and that person uses force, or threatens to use force, against a Federal agent. Any person convicted of violating this act would be imprisoned for 10-25 years. If a child is injured, the penalty would be increased to 20-35 years. If a child is killed, the penalty would be life imprisonment. No law can ever assure that children will be kept free from harm. But this legislation will help assure that children do not become inadvertent, innocent pawns when violent situations arise. It will provide a deterrent to involving a child in any standoff--and severe penalties for those who ignore the law. Tense standoffs between Federal law enforcement officers and hostile fugitives are no place for children. This bill will help encourage the removal of innocent children from such dangerous situations. As a nation, we should not tolerate the use of children as pawns or human shields when people choose to evade the laws of this land. I hope my colleagues support this important piece of legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Leahy to include a revised version of S. 1163, the Northern Forest Stewardship Act, in H.R. 3603. I thank my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, for his hard work on this legislation, and I thank the other cosponsors of the bill for their efforts. I would also like to thank Senator Lugar, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and the managers of the bill before us, Senator Cochran and Senator Bumpers, for their cooperation and acceptance of this amendment. Let me state at the outset what this amendment is not because I would like to clear up any misconceptions that may exist. This amendment does not, in any way, provide the Federal Government with new regulatory authority. This amendment does not, in any way, permit the Federal Government to intrude, uninvited, upon the affairs of any State. This amendment does not, in any way, allow the Federal Government to assume control over private timberlands in the Northern Forest region. This amendment does not, in any way, impose Federal mandates on the Northern Forest States. In actuality, the amendment reaffirms the primacy of the Northern Forest States in the management of their forests, and it is intended to help the States do what they want to do on these issues. That is why the affected States support this bill. A simple reading of the legislation will make these facts abundantly evident. Six years ago, the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York created the Northern Forest Lands Council to study problems facing the Northern Forest region, and to issue recommendations for State and Federal policies that would help to maintain the traditional patterns of land ownership and use in the region. The council was formed in response to public fears of significant conversion of the Northern Forest Lands to nonforest uses. These fears had been stoked by the attempted sale of Diamond International's timberland holdings by Sir James Goldsmith, who had acquired Diamond in a hostile takeover in 1987. It goes without saying that the 26-million-acre Northern Forest region is an extraordinary resource. It provides the largest expanse of unbroken forestland east of the Mississippi River. These forests provide excellent outdoor recreational opportunities, abundant wildlife habitat, and breathtaking scenic vistas. But these lands also form the foundation of the livelihoods of thousands of people in the region who harvest trees from the forest, and who convert the trees into valuable products like paper, lumber, and furniture. The Northern Forest is, and always has been, a multiple use forest. The council, which consisted of representatives from each State and from each of the major stakeholder groups with an interest in the forest, spent roughly 4 years and millions of dollars collecting and analyzing data, consulting with State officials, and holding many meetings and discussions with the public throughout the region. The council completed its recommendations in September 1994, and then disbanded. In its final report, the council requested that the U.S. Congress enact legislation to implement its Federal recommendations beginning in 1995. This legislation is the culmination of the council process, a process, I might add, that fostered very beneficial new working relationships between industry, landowners, and the environmental community on the critical issues related to our forests. The Leahy amendment embodies the latest version of S. 1163. This bill has undergone a series of revisions based on numerous comments from a diverse collection of individuals, organizations, businesses, and States in the region. And I think this bill responds to the opinions and recommendations of such a diverse group as well as any one bill can. The Northern Forest Lands process has always operated out of a strong desire for consensus, and the legislation before us reflects the desire of Senators from the Northern Forest region to maintain that practice. At its most basic, the Northern Forest Stewardship Act is designed to help conserve the Northern Forest lands, and its many values, for future generations. But unlike some past approaches to resource conservation in the Congress, this bill puts States in the driver's seat, which is most appropriate in this case because the great majority of these lands are privately-owned. In effect, the legislation assigns the Federal Government a role as cooperator in the region, consistent with the council's recommendations. It authorizes Federal agencies, primarily the State and Private Forestry division of the U.S. Forest Service, to provide technical and financial assistance to the Northern Forest States for activities such as developing benchmarks of sustainable forest management, conducting forest research, conserving valuable forest lands, and assessing water quality trends in the region. But the bill makes clear that this assistance can only be provided if the individual States request it. If the States do not request it, then no assistance can be provided under this legislation. As a region characterized by the private ownership of timberland, the legislation is replete with references and provisions reaffirming private property rights. The Land Conservation section, for instance, prohibits the use of any Federal funds authorized by this legislation for State land acquisition projects unless the owner willingly offers the property for sale. Recognizing the economic importance of the forest to the people who live in the region, the Leahy amendment also authorizes technical and financial assistance to the States, the forest products industry, and local communities to help expand value-added production and create sustainable new jobs in the forest products sector. Mr. President, as I said before, the basic purpose of this legislation is to implement the council's recommendations, and I think the bill succeeds on that account. But I want to point out that one very important component of the council's report has been necessarily omitted from this bill, and that is Federal tax policy. The council recognized that Federal taxes can create negative incentives that discourage landowners from maintaining their lands as forest, and it recommended changes to the Internal Revenue Code that would help reverse these incentives and encourage landowners to keep their lands forested. The council's recommendations emphasized reforms of estate taxes, capital gains taxes on timber sales, and passive loss rules for forest management, and they have been incorporated in a separate bill, S. 692, which was introduced by Senator Gregg, and which I have cosponsored. As a tax bill, this legislation will obviously have to proceed on a separate track through the Finance Committee, and, therefore, we were not able to include it in this amendment. But the Northern Forest Senators remain committed to it, and, in fact, we included language in the findings section of this legislation stating that Congress and the President should enact additional legislation to address the tax policies that negatively influence the stewardship of our forest lands. We hope to get these tax changes included in the next major tax bill that comes before the Senate. Mr. President, I would also like to address a few specific criticisms of the original version of S. 1163, and describe the way in which we have modified the bill language as a result. The cosponsors agreed to revise the Principles of Sustainability section so that it now reads as a sense-of-the-Congress resolution. Concern had been expressed that the provision, as previously drafted, could be loosely interpreted to impose a set of national best management practices for private timberlands, and that was not our intent at all. The latest change eliminates the possibility of such an interpretation in the future. We changed the Congressional ``Declarations'' section to a ``Findings'' section, conforming it to the traditional format for Federal legislation, and making it clear that this provision does not, in any way, create any new legal authorities. In the Land Conservation section, the legislation has been modified to clarify that Federal funding for land acquisition under the act can only be provided as part of a State-managed public land acquisition process, which is a policy with which most stakeholders in the region agree. What we have before us today, Mr. President, is a responsible proposal to encourage and facilitate the conservation of the Northern Forest resource for its outstanding ecological, economic, and recreational values. In keeping with longstanding tradition in the region, the States will lead the effort on Northern Forest-related policy issues, but the Federal Government should be available to assist the States in their efforts if called upon to do so, and this bill will help to ensure that appropriate assistance is available. The Northern Forest Stewardship Act offers a reasonable, constructive, and consensus-oriented approach to forest management in our region. This legislation enjoys the support of the four Northern Forest States, a wide range of environmental organizations, the Maine Forest Products Council, and major newspapers in Maine. This is one bill that is truly both pro-environment and pro-economy. I hope all of my colleagues will support the Leahy amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President. I rise today as a proud cosponsor of Senator Dodd's amendment to restore child care health and safety standards to this welfare reform bill. During consideration of last year's welfare reform bill, I worked with my distinguished colleague from Connecticut to add crucial child care funds to the welfare reform bill. In fact, the $3 billion in child care funds which we succeeded in adding to the bill resulted in an overwhelming vote of 87 to 12 in favor of the bill. I am pleased to join my colleague once again, as we consider a new welfare reform bill almost one year later, on another important child care issue. Maintaining health and safety standards for federally subsidized child care is a basic issue of accountability for Federal dollars. But above all, it is about guaranteeing the safety of this Nation's youngest and most vulnerable children. The amendment is a significant step toward ensuring that American children from low-income and working families receive safe child care. These health and safety standards were created as part of the child care and development block grant in 1990, with broad support from President Bush, Congress, and the Nation's Governors. The 1990 legislation did not dictate regulations governing child care facilities. Instead, it required child care facilities receiving Federal funds to meet basic requirements set by the states in three areas: building premises safety; prevention of infectious diseases; and training for child care providers. Again, I emphasize that these health and safety standards are set by the States. And because they are set by the States, they allow States the same State flexibility that motivates this welfare reform bill. Six years after the creation of these health and safety standards, we know that they work to protect this Nation's children. For example, California protects children through Trustline, which institutes background checks for providers that are exempt from State licensing requirements. Through these background checks, the State found that 5 percent of these providers had criminal records--of which 60 percent involved child abuse convictions. Yet despite their proven success, this welfare bill does not contain these crucial protections for children. Instead, it simply requires States to certify that they have State licensing requirements for child care. However, a significant percentage of child care facilities are exempt from State licensing requirements. In fact, only 9 States require all family child care homes to be regulated regardless of size. The children who attend these exempted facilities would do so with no assurances that these facilities met even minimal health and safety requirements. And yet Federal funds would pay for this potentially substandard care where children are offered no protections for their health and safety. This does not make sense. After all, we offer consumers protection when they buy food and cars, use public transportation on our highways, and have their hair cut. It does not make sense that this bill would leave the Federal Government with no way to ensure that children receiving public child care funds are in minimally healthy and safe settings. This amendment simply ensures that when Federal child care funds are used they will not be in settings where poisonous substances are within easy reach of children; where electrical outlets are left exposed and open; where unfenced play areas expose children to busy streets; where children are allowed to go unimmunized; and where child care providers have a criminal record. How can we allow public funds--taxpayer dollars--to be spent in such a reckless and uncaring manner? Finally, if we are talking about welfare reform helping people become self-sufficient, why wouldn't we want to ensure that children get off to a good start by having safe child care? Experts believe that the first few years of life--those years during which an increasing number of children are in child care --are the most crucial for a child's development. If children are to develop to their full potential, we need to ensure that they are cared for in safe environments by responsible adults who are knowledgeable about child development. Research shows that unregulated child care is generally of lower quality than regulated care. This means that children are less likely to receive the care they need to enter school ready to learn. The children that will receive child care under this bill are some of the most vulnerable children in our society. They should not be placed at greater developmental risk because they begin life in substandard child care. As a Nation, it is the least we can do to ensure that Federally funded child care meets minimum health and safety standards. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to recognize and congratulate 13 very special students from St. Dominic Regional High School in Lewiston, ME, whose team won honorable mention as a top-10 finalist in the ``We the People * * * the Citizen and the Constitution'' competition. Adam Feldman, Jay Fournier, Catherine Fredricks-Rehagen, Monique Gagnon, Nathan Hall, Rachel Lawrence, Carrie Luke, Jessica Morin, Peter Murray, Kathryn Piela, Paul Sheridan, Anne Theriault, and Jason Theriault have demonstrated exemplary understanding of the fundamental ideals incorporated in our Nation's most precious documents, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They, along with their teacher Rosanne Ducey, can be very proud of their accomplishment. The ``We the People * * * the Citizen and the Constitution'' challenge was established by the Center for Civic Education, which was founded in 1987, under the auspices of the Commission of the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution. The Center for Civic Education aims to improve civic education in elementary and secondary schools by increasing both students' and teachers' understanding of our constitutional democracy, and has served over 20 million American students during its 8-year existence. The ``We the People * * * The Citizen and the Constitution'' challenge held its national finals on April 27-29, where the St. Dominic class finished with honorable mention. This is a remarkable accomplishment, considering that high schools from throughout America are competing in this program. An incredible amount of preparation and commitment goes with competing in this challenge, and the success of these 13 students from St. Dominic Regional High School is a direct reflection on their dedication and hard work, as well as that of their instructor. It is so important that our young men and women have a firm understanding about the documents upon which our Nation was founded, and how those documents are as relevant to our lives today as they were when they were written. Indeed, through this challenge, students do so much more than simply learn the content of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. They come to think about the meaning of these documents, how they have been interpreted over the years, and the ways in which they are very much living documents which continue to evolve even today. As these young people grow into adulthood, and the responsibilities that come with being citizens of this great country, they will be able to analyze and approach issues of the day with a firm understanding of the underpinnings of our democracy. I am pleased and proud to know that these outstanding students from Maine will be well prepared for their further education, and to be full participants in and contributors to their country. Again, I congratulate these young Mainers and wish them all the best for what will certainly be a bright and successful future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for S. 1745, the Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997. The Armed Services Committee has done an outstanding job by bringing to the full Senate a bill that responsibly addresses this country's national security needs. Fortunately, the end of the cold war has reduced the most immediate threat of nuclear war. And while it is natural to feel relief that the struggle against Soviet expansionism has been won, it would be naive and short-sighted to conclude that real threats to our Nation's security no longer exist. The end of the cold war has uncapped a host of long-simmering regional conflicts around the globe. Combined with the proliferation of nuclear and missile technology as well as chemical and biological weapons, these limited conflicts carry the potential for far wider consequences. We must recognize that the world is still a dangerous place and that maintaining an adequate level of military preparedness must continue to be a national priority. The fact is that funding for national defense has been on a dangerous downward track for over a decade. Funding for national defense has fallen by 41 percent in real terms since 1985. The fiscal year 1997 defense budget will be at its lowest level since the Korean war buildup began in 1950. Even more alarming is the fact that military procurement has dropped by 71 percent over the last 10 years. The practical result is that our service men and women are forced to use aging equipment which will increasingly impair military readiness. The defense budget submitted by President Clinton for fiscal year 1997 would unwisely continue this neglect of our military hardware and would--not for the first time, I might add--postpone spending for critical weapons modernization programs into the future. The Armed Services Committee deserves credit for crafting a responsible bill that addresses the need for modernization and provides the necessary resources. The $12.9 billion added by the committee to the administration's defense funding request is mainly for additional procurement items including one DDG-51 destroyer, four F-16 fighter planes, six F/A-18's, and one C-17 cargo transport. Nearly 30 percent of the $12.9 billion added by the committee is for accelerated research and development for programs such as missile defense, the new attack submarine, and a new arsenal ship armed with cruise missiles. These add-ons reflect the concerns and priorities of the military services themselves. While upgrading and modernizing military hardware deserves a high priority, so too does ensuring that our Armed Forces personnel receive the benefits they deserve. The best military equipment in the world is of little value without the highly trained and hard-working service men and women on whom our national defense depends. I am therefore pleased that the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization bill authorizes a 3- percent military pay raise and a 4-percent increase in the basic allowance for quarters. Overall, the committee proposes a reasonable level of defense spending in the coming fiscal year, one which I believe acknowledges that defense resources are not unlimited. The committee's recommendation of $267.3 billion in defense spending for fiscal year 1997 is only $2.1 billion above the fiscal year 1996 level in nominal terms. Adjusted for inflation, the committee's recommended defense authorization level is actually $5.6 billion below the current level of defense spending in real terms. Mr. President, the people of Maine support a strong national defense and they have always been ready to do their part. Maine's Bath Iron Works is one of two private U.S. shipyards that build the Arleigh Burke class destroyer for the Navy. I am pleased that the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization bill authorizes $3.4 billion for four destroyers in fiscal year 1997 plus $750 million in advance procurement for one additional ship in fiscal year 1998. The advanced procurement for a fiscal year 1998 destroyer is crucial to implementing the Navy's acquisition plan of building three ships per year in each of the 4 years from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2001. As a result of this orderly and efficient procurement plan, the price per ship will drop significantly and the Navy will realize cost savings of $1 billion over the 4-year period. The bill also adds $45.3 million to continue the Navy's current strength of 13 active and 9 reserve squadrons of P-3 patrol aircraft. Four active and three reserve P-3 squadrons are based at Maine's Brunswick Naval Air Station, the only active military airfield in New England. These squadrons plays an important role in antisubmarine warfare in the North Atlantic sealanes and in the Navy's littoral warfare mission in Europe and the Mediterranean region. One of the active P-3 squadrons based at Brunswick Naval Air Station in Maine is targeted for decommissioning for budgetary reasons, not because there has been any change in the Navy's mission. The funds authorized in this bill will ensure that Brunswick NAS will maintain its current level of four active P-3 squadrons. Mr. President, S. 1745 embodies a well-balanced approach to our national defense in fiscal year 1997. It preserves our readiness to meet military emergencies, it emphasizes modernization and new weapons procurement, it continues research and development of promising new technologies, and it treats our military personnel fairly. Again, I congratulate the Armed Services Committee on their work, and I urge that the bill be adopted.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator for answering that question. The bottom line is we are treating these people as second-class citizens if they do not have access to the procedures guaranteed constitutionally under the law of the United States simply because of the Supreme Court ruling.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator for yielding. Would the present description of the law place an undue burden on women serving in the military overseas? In 1992, the Supreme Court decision about Planned Parenthood said that Government regulations may not constitute an undue burden on the right to an abortion, and this ban would be an undue burden by placing an obstacle in the path of the woman seeking an abortion. So would the Senator agree that this certainly would represent an obstacle in the path of a woman making this decision and having access to a safe medical procedure? Because certainly a combination of military regulations and the practical world would mean that someone who needs it, who made this decision, would face lengthy travel, serious delays, expenses, substandard medical options, restricted information, would have to fly home, and certainly in my opinion--I ask the Senator if she would agree--this ban appears to be unconstitutionally burdening the right of a woman to make this decision because it places a number of obstacles in the way of her making that decision and having access to the procedures that are available here in the United States which are legal under the law of the land.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Murray to repeal the ban on abortions in overseas military hospitals. I am very pleased to cosponsor this amendment as well. In listening to the debate here this afternoon, I cannot help but think ``here we go again'' on this issue, on a woman's personal right to choose. We have this debate year in and year out. Congress revisits this issue of reproductive freedom by seeking to restrict, limit, and eliminate a woman's right to choose. This ban on abortion in overseas military facilities, reinstated last year, represented just more of the same. I point out these efforts to turn back the clock on a woman's reproductive rights will never erase the fact that the highest court in the land reaffirmed a woman's basic and fundamental right to a safe and legal abortion time after time, again and again, in decision after decision. Last year's successful effort to reinstate that ban was another frontal assault on the principle of reproductive freedom and the dignity of women's lives. We all know that this ban denies the right to choose for female military personnel and dependents. It denies those women who have voluntarily decided to serve our country in the Armed Forces safe and legal medical care, simply because they were assigned to duty in other countries. What kind of reward is that? Why does this Congress want to punish those women who so bravely serve our country overseas by denying them the rights that are guaranteed to all Americans under the Constitution? It did not occur to me that women's constitutional rights were territorial. It did not occur to me that when American women in our Armed Forces get visas and passports stamped when they go abroad, they are supposed to leave their fundamental constitutional rights at the proverbial door. I think it is regrettable that in this debate we are talking about denying women their rights because they are serving in our military in overseas facilities. We are denying them their option to have a safe and legal medical procedure because they happen to be working for this country overseas. The taxpayers are not required to pay for this procedure. This procedure is paid for by the woman's personal fund. That is the way it was, under the law, between 1979 and 1988. And as we know, at that time, in 1988, the policy was reversed. It was reinstated to lift the ban in 1993. I, frankly, cannot understand why we are suggesting that there should be a two-tiered policy for women if they happen to serve in the military overseas. We are saying, by virtue of that fact, you will not have the same medical care in this legal procedure that is recognized under the law in this country, and has been reaffirmed time and again by the highest court in the land. Military personnel stationed overseas still vote, they pay taxes, they are protected and, as well, are punished under U.S. law. Whether we agree about the issue of abortion, or not, we do not have the right to deny them their right to have access to a legal and safe medical procedure. What we are saying is that this ban, basically, forces women to put their health at risk. They will be forced to seek out unsafe medical care in countries where the blood supply is not safe, in many instances, where the procedures are antiquated, where their equipment may not be sterile. I do not believe it is appropriate, nor right, to force our military personnel to make additional sacrifices beyond the ones they are already making in serving their country. Now, we are not saying that we should force any medical personnel to perform this procedure. There is a conscience clause for all three services in the Armed Forces. No one is required to perform this procedure. If they have a moral, religious, or ethical objection to abortion, they do not have to participate in this procedure. I think we all think that is reasonable. But what is unreasonable is saying to women: Sorry, we are not going to allow you to have the same medical rights if you serve in the military because you happen to be overseas. I do not see anything reasonable about that standard. It is unfair, and it is dangerous. Last year, the New York Times, I think, expressed the bottom line on this ban when they said in an editorial: ``They can fight for their country, they can die for their country, but they cannot get access to a full range of medical services when their country stations them overseas.'' I really think that this becomes an extreme policy. It puts women in a crisis position, and we in this Chamber have to stand up and say enough is enough. Unfortunately, someday, it may be too late when we finally do. So I hope that the Members of this Senate will support the amendment that has been offered by Senator Murray from Washington, because it is an appropriate, reasonable approach to a very difficult issue. I do not think that we want to be in a position of requiring women who serve in our military to be subjected to or be victim to unsafe medical procedures because we happen to differ with that procedure. This is their money, and it is their right to make this decision. It is a procedure recognized by the law of this country and by the Supreme Court. We owe it to them to have the right to make that decision and, obviously, they are going to pay for it. And now we are saying that we are sorry, we are going to deny them this option under very difficult circumstances. There are not many options available to a woman stationed overseas, who has to make this very difficult and personal decision to terminate a pregnancy. So I hope that we will consider this in the proper context. It is her right to make that decision under the law of this land. That should apply to them when they are serving this country overseas. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Ms. SNOWE. I would like 5 minutes.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise this morning in strong support of the conference budget resolution. I believe it provides us yet another opportunity in the 104th Congress to put our Nation's budget on a path toward balance, and does so in the spirit of compromise. Mr. President, as if we needed any further proof of the difficulty we face in balancing the budget after 27 consecutive years of fiscally irresponsible behavior, the last year and a half has further highlighted the challenges we face in achieving this goal. Even with an overwhelming majority in this Congress expressing strong support for a balanced budget--indeed, 64 Members of this body even voted for the balanced budget amendment just this past week--and a President expressing the same support, we have still not enacted the legislation necessary to put us on a path to balance. If there is anything that we have learned during these past 17 months, it is that some measure of compromise will be needed by all of us in order to get to what we claim to be a shared goal. The Democratic Party may control the White House, but they do not control the Congress. By the same token, the Republican Party controls the Congress, but not with a margin sufficient to unilaterally override a Presidential veto. Therefore, with neither side having control sufficient to simply make happen whatever they would like, we are forced to exercise give-and-take if we truly wish to move forward at all. Mr. President, I believe that the budget conference report that has been crafted demonstrates give-and-take, and is a sincere effort to forge a compromise before the 104th Congress adjourns sine die. By doing so, this resolution gives us a chance to move the process forward. And through continued compromise in reconciliation, legislation could then be enacted that would put us on a path toward balance in 2002. Therefore, I would like to commend the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Mr. Domenici, and all of the members of the House-Senate conference committee for their efforts in crafting this conference budget resolution. Their willingness and ability to put together a budget that strikes a compromise between the positions taken by the President and congressional leaders during months of often acrimonious negotiations is a testament to their commitment to balancing the budget sooner rather than later. Mr. President, during the debate on the Senate budget resolution just this past month, I was part of a bipartisan group of Senators that offered an alternative budget resolution that split the differences on contentious issues such as Medicare, Medicaid, and tax cuts. Although that resolution was ultimately defeated by a narrow margin, it proved that compromise was possible and that Republicans and Democrats could work together and find common ground. After the defeat of that bipartisan resolution, I voted in favor of the budget resolution crafted by Senator Domenici because I felt it offered a sound and reasoned approach to balancing the budget--and could also warrant bipartisan support. I regret that none of my Democratic colleagues voted in favor of that resolution because I believed that it not only offered a fiscally responsible and realistic path to achieving balance in 6 years, but it also demonstrated the ongoing commitment to compromise by the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Domenici. In an effort to gain support from Democrats as well as Republicans, Chairman Domenici incorporated a variety of the bipartisan budget group's 7-year savings targets in his 6-year Senate budget resolution. Now, following negotiations with the House, the Chairman is again presenting us with a plan that contains many of these similar savings targets. I therefore give this conference report my support--and am hopeful that my Democratic colleagues will reconsider their prior opposition to the Senate budget resolution. To reach balance, the total level of savings derived in the most contentious categories of the 1997 conference report are very similar to those contained in the bipartisan budget proposal. Specifically, the bipartisan budget assumed $154 billion of savings in Medicare, $62 billion in Medicaid, $58 billion in welfare and the EITC, and cut taxes by $130 billion. In comparison, the conference report would slow the growth of Medicare by $158 billion over 6 years, slow Medicaid growth by $72 billion, derive savings of $70 billion from reforms to the welfare and the EITC programs, and cut taxes by a net total of $122 billion. Mr. President, despite these similarities, I am sure that there are those who will criticize this conference budget resolution on the grounds that the policies that back the numbers are wrong. I would simply remind my colleagues that a budget resolution is a blueprint and not a final package of policies for balancing the budget. The policies that embrace these targets will be crafted during the reconciliation process. We will have ample time to debate the specific policies that achieve these targets in the coming months. Still others will argue that the savings targets contained in the 1997 conference report are unrealistic or hurtful. To those I would ask: Is it hurtful to save the Nation's Medicare Program from bankruptcy? Is it unrealistic to believe that Medicaid and welfare can be reformed in a manner that improves the delivery of services to those in need--especially the poor and elderly? The answer to all of these questions is the same: ``Of course not.'' One striking example of the unjustified vilifying of this budget resolution is in the Medicare program. As we all learned from the Medicare trustees this past week, the Medicare trust fund is now expected to go insolvent in 5 short years--which is 1 year less than we were told just over 12 months ago--and perhaps in as quickly as 4 years. We have a responsibility and an obligation to make the changes necessary to ensure that this program--which provides essential health care for millions of our Nation's senior citizens--be preserved for 10 years. Rather than embrace a broad budget goal for Medicare that would allow us to craft a package of reforms to preserve this program for 10 years, opponents contend that the President's plan --which contained real reforms that would only extend solvency of this trust fund for 1 additional year --should be embraced. We owe it to our senior citizens of today--and to those of tomorrow--that this vital program will not be imperiled simply because it appeared to be a good ``wedge issue'' for an upcoming election. By the same token, Mr. President, the entire balanced budget debate is not only about today, but also about tomorrow. We must never forget that balancing the budget is not merely an exercise in national accounting, rather it is about improving the lives of every American both now and in the future. Today, a balanced budget would mean improved financial conditions for our Nation's workers and families by providing for higher growth and lower interest rates. We would effectively be putting money in the bank accounts of working Americans because they would be paying less interest on their mortgages, less on their student loans, and less on their car loans. At the same time, balancing the budget is about preserving the future by ensuring that our children and grandchildren would not be subjected to an 82-percent tax rate or a 50-percent cut in benefits to pay for our profligate spending today. Every generation of Americans has sought to provide a brighter economic future for the next--but our unwillingness to exercise self control today is imperiling this goal for the generation of tomorrow. I believe John F. Kennedy said it most succinctly: ``It is the task of every generation to build a road for the next generation.'' I do not believe that building this road for the next generation can be put off any longer. I do not believe that we can stand idly by while our children's inheritance is squandered. This budget resolution provides us with an opportunity. An opportunity to forge a compromise now--not after the next election. We should not allow the forces of politics to overcome the force of responsibility. Mr. President, I support this budget agreement.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for yielding this time. I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring the preeminent Republican leader in the history of the U.S. Senate, Senator Bob Dole. Throughout his distinguished career, Senator Dole has served the people of Kansas, as well as this Nation, with honor, distinction, and integrity. We gather on this bittersweet occasion to pay tribute to a remarkable man for his lifelong commitment to America, as well as his unparalleled leadership in this august institution. As President Reagan said so eloquently in describing Senator Dole as a leader, ``It's not just a job description, it's a description of the man.'' His leadership has touched virtually every aspect of public policy, but I would like to speak specifically on a topic that has been of paramount importance to me throughout my career--an area where Senator Dole has been a champion, an area where he has made a difference, and that is on behalf of America's women. Mr. President, Senator Dole's commitment to ensuring fairness and opportunity for America's women is not a newfound phenomenon. In fact, it has always been an integral part of who Bob Dole is. Throughout his career, Senator Dole has fought to make America what Susan B. Anthony called the ``true Republic: men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.'' In his personal and professional life, Bob Dole has been guided by a singular belief that every individual--regardless of gender--has the right to fulfill his or her God-given potential. Bob Dole has always known that we cannot have a truly representative democracy unless women are represented at every level of government and society. Not content just to rely on words, he has taken action. As chairman of the Republican Party, over two decades ago, he appointed the first woman in the history of the party as deputy chair. As Senate majority leader, he appointed the first woman as Secretary of the Senate. And he was the first Senate leader in history, Republican or Democrat, to select a woman, whom we all have known, the extraordinarily capable and talented Sheila Burke, as his chief of staff. It is not just women on the Hill who have benefited from Senator Dole's efforts. The lives of women in small towns, big cities, and everywhere in between in America have been improved as a result of Senator Dole's leadership. From his Retirement Equity Act of 1983, which protected women from an arbitrary pension system that left them without a pension after their husbands died before retirement age, to his Sexual Assault Prevention Act, which finally expanded the rights of women after years of taking a back seat to criminals in our justice system, Bob Dole was at the forefront of the fight to guarantee economic opportunity and personal safety. Bob Dole recognized that 2.5 million women are battered annually, the single greatest cause of injury to American women, and he saw that as being unconscionable. It was under his leadership that the Violence Against Women Act was fully funded for the first time ever. But his leadership did not end there. Senator Dole also recognized that the highest echelons of corporate America did not reflect the true landscape of this Nation. Where others did not or would not, Bob Dole saw barriers which are rarely penetrated by women, and he believed those lines were made for crossing. As Senator Dole himself has said, ``The issues boil down to equal access and equal opportunity.'' Bob Dole knows there is something wrong when women are not represented in the upper levels of management in corporate America, and that is why he authored the Glass Ceiling Commission, the first ever Federal commission that created the most comprehensive report on how business could make full use of our Nation's human capital.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, Senator Dole's commitment to women goes beyond the workplace. Under his leadership, the Senate passed legislation to provide Medicare coverage of a drug that was proven effective in the fight against breast cancer. He created a tax credit for expenses associated with the long-term care of elderly spouses who are sick or family members, especially important for women because they represent 78 percent of our Nation's primary caregivers. For those who found themselves in need of a helping hand, Bob Dole has been the driving force behind meaningful, compassionate welfare reform, to transfer welfare into workfare and move people from the welfare rolls to the payrolls. He made sure it was not done on the backs of children by ensuring that we inserted $3 billion in additional child care funding, and this bill passed the Senate with 87 votes. In another commitment to women and families, he joined with me in providing for tough child support enforcement provisions to send a message to deadbeat parents that the days of parental irresponsibility are over. The bottom line is, Mr. President, the record goes on and on. The record shows that when it comes to America's women, you can count on Bob Dole. Finally, on a personal level, I would like to express my deepest appreciation for Senator Dole's friendship and wise counsel over the years, not only here in the U.S. Senate but throughout my years in the House of Representatives. As he takes leave of this institution he loves so much, he and Elizabeth take with them our profound respect, our great admiration, our heartfelt friendship, our deep gratitude and our prayers for Godspeed as he and Elizabeth embark on an exciting and historic new chapter in their lives. I am reminded of what Winston Churchill said when the tide had turned in favor of the allies. He said this: This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, rather, the end of the beginning. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise once again in strong support of the measure that will soon be before us: a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. No issue is more critical to the economic future of our Nation--and the economic future of our children and grandchildren--than that of balancing the budget. John F. Kennedy once said, ``It is the task of every generation to build a road for the next generation.'' Well, Mr. President, the road we are building for the next generation is laden with the cavernous potholes of deficits and debt that threaten to swallow up our children's future prosperity. And if we fail to take the bold steps necessary to halt our reckless and irresponsible pattern of deficit spending, the road we pass on to the next generation will be nothing more than a dead end. But, Mr. President, we have an opportunity today to alter the construction of that ``road to nowhere'' * * * and to begin to build a smooth, safe road for our children and grandchildren that will lead them into a bright future of economic security and prosperity that so many of our generation have enjoyed. Today marks yet another historic opportunity for the U.S. Senate and for the American people. Some of us have been working for more than a dozen years for a balanced budget amendment--while others have joined the fight more recently. As a Member of the House of Representatives, I dedicated myself to passing a balanced budget amendment. Beginning in 1981, I was one of four original cosponsors of legislation calling for a balanced budget amendment--and I have cosponsored four similar measures since that time--including the resolution we are discussing today. In the 103d Congress, I was once again one of four bipartisan sponsors of the amendment in the House, and we worked with my friend, the distinguished Senator from Illinois--Senator Simon--to overcome institutional opposition to the balanced budget amendment. Notwithstanding the opposition of the House leadership in the 103d Congress, we nearly reached the requisite two-thirds needed for passage, only to have our hopes dashed when the Speaker of the House and Democratic leaders whipped their members into line--and urged even some Democrat cosponsors to change their votes on the bill. Well, early in this Congress, a similar event undercut the balanced budget amendment here in the U.S. Senate. Democratic opponents--led by the President--argued that the balanced budget amendment was nothing more than a gimmick. They said balancing the budget requires nothing more than accounting sleights-of-hand. But as I have stated in the past, if the balanced budget amendment were a gimmick, Congress would have passed it long ago--because Congress loves gimmicks. Ultimately, the President and his fellow opponents succeeded in rejecting the will of 80 percent of the American people who support this amendment and defeated it by a single vote--a single vote that could have been provided by any one of the six Democratic Members that had switched their vote from the previous year. Fortunately, our distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, gave us the opportunity to revisit that short-sighted political decision by changing his vote and vowing that these six Members and other opponents would have the opportunity to reconsider their vote later in the 104th Congress. That opportunity is now upon us, and I would hope that these Members would--in the words of the majority leader prior to the last vote on this amendment--repent and vote to give the decision to enact this amendment to the citizens of their States. Mr. President, the Senate cannot allow the opportunity to complete the first leg of this journey to pass us by. We cannot allow arrogance to triumph over the will of the American people. This is a rare opportunity to do what is right: To set a path for a balanced Federal budget amidst a rare common purpose. The American people have asked to give them the power to decide if such an amendment is in their best interests--and I believe the Congress has the obligation to do just that. The action we take today will not alter the Constitution this week, this month, or even this year. Rather, our adoption of this resolution will simply allow the States to take up this proposal in the years ahead and--if those who sent us to this body also deem the balanced budget amendment worthy--only then will our Constitution be changed. To be sure, we have tried to meet the challenge of a balanced Federal budget through other measures short of an amendment. Mr. President, they have not worked . . . they will not work. Congress has repeatedly tried to balance the budget through statutory remedies. Each of these efforts--the 1978 Revenue Act, the 1978 Byrd amendment, the Humphrey-Hawkins Act of 1978, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings I, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings II, and the 1990 agreement following the budget summit--ended in failure. And, Mr. President, my confidence in the wisdom of the balanced budget amendment has only been increased in light of our most recent effort to balance the budget statutorily. As you will recall, the Republicans moved forward in presenting a bold plan to balance the budget despite the narrow defeat of the balanced budget amendment last year. Following 10 months of wrenching work and tough decisionmaking by the Republican majority, President Clinton--amidst immense demagoguery and obfuscation of the facts-- ultimately vetoed our carefully crafted budget plan that would have set our fiscal ship aright. This veto came from the same President who sat out the fight during those 10 months and did nothing to move the process of balancing the budget forward. In fact, President Clinton chose instead to first offer a budget that promised deficits in excess of $200 billion per year as far as the eye could see. Several months later, when he realized the political wind was shifting and the tide was turning in favor of a balanced budget, he pointed his boat in the direction of the wind, put up the spinnaker, and claimed that he too could balance the budget--but it would take 10 years. Well, not only did that plan prove to be nothing but a sham that produced annual deficits of $200 billion, but it also demonstrated President Clinton's willingness to renege on a campaign promise that he made exactly 4 years ago: His commitment to offer a plan to balance the budget in 5 years. Of course, since he took office, the President has had considerable difficulty deciding how long it would take to balance the budget. First it was 5 years, then 10 years, then 7 years, then 8 years, then 9 years. And today--as a result of the vacuum of Presidential leadership on this critical issue--we still have no balanced budget agreement. To make a long story short, the President's charade of offering balanced budget plans that did nothing but exacerbate our problems in coming years continued through all of 1995, until he finally crafted a plan that reached paper balance on January 6 of this year. The budget negotiations between the President and congressional leaders that had been undertaken at that time ultimately collapsed in late January, and we are once again faced with the daunting task of crafting a plan to balance the budget on our own with no sign of compromise from the President. In fact, rather than come forward with a plan that would demonstrate his willingness to reach consensus and provide a real path to balance, the President's fiscal year 1997 budget continued to rely on gimmicks such as the backloading of fully 60 percent of his spending cuts in the final 2 years of his plan. And then, less than 2 months ago, CBO told us that the President's budget did not reach balance on its own, and was in fact $81 billion out of balance in the year 2002. CBO further stated that the President would not only have to turn off his tax cuts in the year 2001 to reach balance, but discretionary spending--which is used to fund programs that many consider to be vital to our shared commitments to education and the environment--would also need to be cut by an additional $68 billion in the years 2001 and 2002 alone. Regrettably, the President has refused to budge from his insistence on using gimmicks and budgetary sleights-of-hand to reach balance--and his latest budget proposal made no meaningful strides toward gaining bipartisan support. In light of these events, I believe we can all agree that any hope for a balanced budget agreement prior to the November election now seems unthinkable. If we learned nothing else from the acrimonious debate on the budget of the past year and a half, it is that absent a force greater than politics, our ability to agree on a plan to balance the budget will always be held hostage to other short-term considerations. However, the enactment of the balanced budget amendment will force the Federal Government to live within its means because it will compel us to reach agreement. A balanced budget would no longer be an option, it would be an imperative. The President and the Congress would be forced to compromise or be held accountable for reneging on their sworn commitment to uphold the Constitution. Mr. President, if we pass the balanced budget amendment, our government will be forced to break its addiction to deficit spending. The full weight and measure of the Constitution will force us to live within our means. We will no longer be able to borrow against our children's future. And we will be required to set priorities among our programs. For 8 years, my husband served as Governor of Maine. During that time, I used to tell him that traveling between Washington and Maine was like going from fiscal fantasyland to fiscal reality for me. Because, like the Governors of 47 other States, he was required to balance the State's budget no matter what the economic conditions, or how much money they were short. That meant wrenching decisions, to be sure, but with discipline those decisions were possible. If accountability and discipline work at the State level, we can and should make it work at the Federal level as well. Congress should be able to confront the economic realities and challenges that 48 States-- and every American family--are forced to confront every day. Mr. President, our national debt places a crippling burden on hard- working families in Maine and across our great land. The Concord Coalition compiled an analysis that suggests that without the deficit, our productivity would be much higher, and that the average American family income would be $50,000, instead of the current $35,000 a year. How many children, I wonder, go without a proper education because of that missing $15,000? How many couples or single parents forgo proper, safe, child care because of these numbers? Is this what has become of the American dream when, by ignoring the deficit, we deny American families the opportunity to prosper financially, or even to survive economically? Mr. President, our constituents deserve--and need--to reap the windfall of a balanced budget. Perhaps the most devastating and alarming impact the deficit has had on our economy is its effect on economic growth and job creation. The New York Federal Reserve Bank says that from 1979 to 1989, we lost 5 percent growth in GNP and in national income because of a drop in savings caused by the deficit. According to the CBO, every percentage point lost in GNP means 650,000 jobs lost in this country. That is a devastating concept: On that basis, the deficit in those years resulted in the loss of roughly 3.75 million jobs. Ironically, opposition to the balanced budget amendment is once again coming from a President whose failed fiscal policies resulted in a growth in real GDP of only 1.4 percent in 1995. Contrary to what the administration would have us believe, this is the weakest economic recovery in 28 years. In fact, job growth following the most recent recession is half of what is typical in a normal recovery. The present recovery has yielded total growth of only 12.2 percent, while identical periods of recovery following the recessions of 1982 and 1975 were 22.6 percent, and 32 percent respectively. Balancing the budget--while not a silver bullet--would have a tremendous positive ripple effect across the economy: It has been estimated that balancing the budget would not only lead to growth in real GDP of 0.5 percent or more, but would also yield a drop in long- term interest rates of between 2.5 and 4 percent over the next 7 years. This is remarkable, because even a 2-percent decline in interest rates would create an additional 2.5 million jobs, according to the Joint Economic Committee. In human terms, that means that Americans would pay less on their home mortgages, car loans, and student loans for college. When you stop to think about it, the last time we saw interest rates that low, General Eisenhower became President Eisenhower. And while balancing the budget would result in immediate economic benefits, even more compelling reasons can be found in what will happen to our economy in the future if we fail to balance the budget. As Herb Stein of the AEI notes, ``The problem isn't the deficit we have now, it's the deficits we will have in the next century.'' You know the numbers: Under current economic policies, our debt--which has grown from $1 trillion in 1980 to more than $4.9 trillion today--will reach $6.4 trillion by the year 2002. And according to estimates from the President's own Office of Management and Budget, the deficit will double in 15 years, then double again every 5 years thereafter. And by the year 2025, OMB estimates that the deficit in that year alone will be $2 trillion. OMB also forecasts that if we continue our current spending spree, 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. As my colleague, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] has emphasized in the past, our national debt represents the most unfair tax ever imposed. The balanced budget amendment demands that we evaluate every one of our programs. It compels us to ask these important questions about every government program: Does it fit within our priorities? Can we afford it? Will it help the American people? And, the balanced budget amendment will force those of us in Congress to ask ourselves the fundamental question: Can we do our job better? Mr. President, the answer is yes--we can do our job better. And we must do it better. We have skirted the issue of the balanced budget for years now. We cannot continue to pass this onerous debt on to our children and grandchildren. We can no longer squander their future. I believe that we must also lead by living by the standards that every American must uphold in their daily lives. The American people have learned to live within their means. They balance their checkbooks each month, and adjust their spending as their income changes. We must do the same. Passage of the balanced budget amendment will restore accountability to the Federal budget process, and force our government to live within its means as well. How much proof of the devastating impact of this deficit do we need? How much debt is finally enough? And how much longer do we have to wait for Congress to have the will and the courage to act? Now is the time to pass the amendment, Mr. President. Recent events have proven that even with the passage of a balanced budget plan by a majority of Congress, months of negotiations between the President and Congress, and countless calls for compromise by the general public, the adoption of a balanced budget can still be thwarted by a force the average American has grown tired of: the force of politics. The passage of a constitutional amendment will change all that. We cannot afford to squander this opportunity yet again. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague and friend the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, in introducing legislation to correct an inequity that exists in our Social Security system. The Social Security Family Protection Act that we are introducing today expands upon legislation I have introduced since 1992 which calls for the prorating of Social Security benefits in the month in which the recipient dies. Currently when a Social Security beneficiary dies-- regardless of whether it is the first day of the month or the 29th day of the month, his or her last monthly benefit check must be returned to the Social Security Administration. The current system ignores the fact that the beneficiary runs up expenses during that last month and that the survivors are left to pay for those expenses, without the assistance of the Social Security check. In many cases, the loss of this benefit causes serious financial problems for the surviving family members because they are unable to financially subsidize the expenses accrued by the late beneficiary in their last month of life. My original legislation prorates the Social Security benefit based on the date of death and allows the check to go to the surviving spouse. Under the Social Security Family Protection Act, the beneficiary's check will be prorated and it will go to the surviving family members. Under the prorated system in the bill, if the beneficiary dies before the 15th, the family will receive 50 percent of the benefit, if the beneficiary dies after the 15th, the family will receive the entire check. The expansion of this bill is based on Senator Mikulski's own family experience with Social Security after her widowed mother died, at the end of the month. The Social Security Family Protection Act will correct the inappropriate assumption in current law that a beneficiary has not incurred expenses during his or her last month of life. I know that my colleagues have heard, as have Senator Mikulski and I, from constituents who have lost a husband or wife, father or mother toward the end of the month, received the Social Security check and spent all or part of it to pay the bills only to receive a notice from Social Security that the check must be returned. Under our bill, the surviving family members--whether it is a spouse, a son, or a niece--would be able to use the check to help pay the final bills incurred by their loved one. I would like to read a part of a letter I received from a constituent about the experience of his family when his brother-in-law died. This letter, along with Senator Mikulski's own experience, serves to highlight why this bill is necessary. On February 29, 1996 at 9:20 p.m. He passed away. The way I figure it, the month of Feb. has 696 hours in it. He was alive for 693 hrs and 20 min. of the month, missing a full month by 2 hours and 40 min. Or to put it another way, he was alive for 99.99617 percent of the month missing a full month by 0.0038314 percent. With this evidence in hand, the SSA then decided that his check for the month of Feb. had to be returned to them. Unfortunately, his debts for the month didn't disappear just because he failed to live the extra 0.0038314 percent of the month. And since they waited till April to let anyone know of this policy, we paid his out- standing bills with this money. Now they want their money back. . .. I really don't expect to see this resolved to my benefit, but it would be nice to see some kind of pro-rating system put into place for the rest of the people who are going to encounter this ghoulish practice. These people have, at this time, no recourse what-so-ever in this matter. I know that my colleagues have all received letters like this. For many of these people that Social Security check is the only financial resource available to deal with the costs incurred during their loved one's last days of life. Without it, they are left struggling to find the money to pay back the Social Security Administration. I believe that pro-rating Social Security checks for the month of death provides a solution to what is an unfair situation and I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join with Senator Mikulski in introducing the Women's Health Equity Act of 1996. I believe that this event is historic, not only because of the impressive breadth and depth of this legislation, but because five women Senators, including Senators Feinstein, Murray, and Moseley-Braun, have joined together to set an agenda for congressional action to improve women's health. For too many years, women's health care needs were ignored or poorly understood, and women were systematically excluded from important health research. One famous medical study on breast cancer examined hundreds of men. And another federally funded study examined the ability of aspirin to prevent heart attacks in 20,000 medical doctors, all of whom were men, despite the fact that heart disease is the leading cause of death among women. Today, Members and the American public understand the importance of ensuring that both genders benefit equally from the fruits of medical research and the delivery of health care services. Unfortunately, equity does not yet exist in health care, and we have a long way to go. Knowledge about appropriate course of treatment for women lags far behind that for men for many diseases. Research into diseases affecting predominately women, such as breast cancer, for years went grossly underfunded. And many women do not have access to critical reproductive and other health services. Throughout my tenure in the House and Senate, I have worked hard to expose and eliminate this health care gender gap and improve women's access to affordable, quality health services. And under my leadership as the co-chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, women legislators in the House called for a GAO investigation into the inclusion of women and minorities in medical research at the National Institute of Health. This study documented the widespread exclusion of women from medical research, and spurred the caucus to introduce the first Women's Health Equity Act [WHEA] in 1990. This comprehensive legislation provided Congress with its first broad, forward looking health agenda intended to redress the historical inequities that face women in medical research, prevention and services. Since the initial introduction of WHEA in the 101st Congress, women legislators have made important strides on behalf of women's health. Legislation from that first package was signed into law as part of the NIH Revitalization Act in June 1993, mandating the inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials at NIH. We established the Office of Research on Women's Health at NIH, and secured dramatic funding increases for research into breast cancer, osteoporosis, and cervical cancer. Today, I have joined forces with many of my women colleagues on a bipartisan basis to take the next crucial step on the road to achieving equity in health care. The Women's Health Equity Act of 1996 is comprised of 39 bills devoted to research and services in areas of critical importance to women's health. I have already introduced several of the bills contained in WHEA in the Senate: the Consumer Involvement in Breast Cancer Research Act; the Women's Health Office Act; the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1996; the Patient Access to Clinical Studies Act; the Medicare Bone Mass Measurement Coverage Act; and the Accurate Mammography Guidelines Act. Together, these 39 bills represent the high-water mark for legislation on women's health. The research bills contained in title I of WHEA continue to push for increased biomedical research in women's health at NIH and other Federal agencies, and address the need for social policy to keep pace with scientific technology. The impact of the environment of women's health, women and AIDS, osteoporosis, and lupus are all addressed in this title. The service-oriented bills contained in title II of WHEA target new areas such as the prevention of insurance discrimination based on genetic information or participation in clinical research as well as insurance protection for victims of domestic violence. Several bills address the need for education and training of health professionals and the importance of providing information about health risks and prevention to women. Adolescent health, eating disorders, postreproductive health, and breast and cervical prevention are also addressed, as well as the need to designate obstetrician-gynecologists as primary care providers for insurance purposes and to provide for minimum hospital stays for mothers and their newborns. Improving the health of American women requires a far greater understanding of women's health needs and conditions, and ongoing evaluation in the areas of research, education, prevention, treatment, and the delivery of services. I believe that the 39 bills comprising the Women's Health Equity Act will take a giant step in this direction, and the passage of this legislation will help ensure that women's health will never again be a missing page in America's medical textbook.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join with Senator Mikulski in introducing the Women's Health Equity Act of 1996. I believe that this event is historic, not only because of the impressive breadth and depth of this legislation, but because five women Senators, including Senators Feinstein, Murray, and Moseley-Braun, have joined together to set an agenda for congressional action to improve women's health. For too many years, women's health care needs were ignored or poorly understood, and women were systematically excluded from important health research. One famous medical study on breast cancer examined hundreds of men. And another federally funded study examined the ability of aspirin to prevent heart attacks in 20,000 medical doctors, all of whom were men, despite the fact that heart disease is the leading cause of death among women. Today, Members and the American public understand the importance of ensuring that both genders benefit equally from the fruits of medical research and the delivery of health care services. Unfortunately, equity does not yet exist in health care, and we have a long way to go. Knowledge about appropriate course of treatment for women lags far behind that for men for many diseases. Research into diseases affecting predominately women, such as breast cancer, for years went grossly underfunded. And many women do not have access to critical reproductive and other health services. Throughout my tenure in the House and Senate, I have worked hard to expose and eliminate this health care gender gap and improve women's access to affordable, quality health services. And under my leadership as the co-chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, women legislators in the House called for a GAO investigation into the inclusion of women and minorities in medical research at the National Institute of Health. This study documented the widespread exclusion of women from medical research, and spurred the caucus to introduce the first Women's Health Equity Act [WHEA] in 1990. This comprehensive legislation provided Congress with its first broad, forward looking health agenda intended to redress the historical inequities that face women in medical research, prevention and services. Since the initial introduction of WHEA in the 101st Congress, women legislators have made important strides on behalf of women's health. Legislation from that first package was signed into law as part of the NIH Revitalization Act in June 1993, mandating the inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials at NIH. We established the Office of Research on Women's Health at NIH, and secured dramatic funding increases for research into breast cancer, osteoporosis, and cervical cancer. Today, I have joined forces with many of my women colleagues on a bipartisan basis to take the next crucial step on the road to achieving equity in health care. The Women's Health Equity Act of 1996 is comprised of 39 bills devoted to research and services in areas of critical importance to women's health. I have already introduced several of the bills contained in WHEA in the Senate: the Consumer Involvement in Breast Cancer Research Act; the Women's Health Office Act; the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1996; the Patient Access to Clinical Studies Act; the Medicare Bone Mass Measurement Coverage Act; and the Accurate Mammography Guidelines Act. Together, these 39 bills represent the high-water mark for legislation on women's health. The research bills contained in title I of WHEA continue to push for increased biomedical research in women's health at NIH and other Federal agencies, and address the need for social policy to keep pace with scientific technology. The impact of the environment of women's health, women and AIDS, osteoporosis, and lupus are all addressed in this title. The service-oriented bills contained in title II of WHEA target new areas such as the prevention of insurance discrimination based on genetic information or participation in clinical research as well as insurance protection for victims of domestic violence. Several bills address the need for education and training of health professionals and the importance of providing information about health risks and prevention to women. Adolescent health, eating disorders, postreproductive health, and breast and cervical prevention are also addressed, as well as the need to designate obstetrician-gynecologists as primary care providers for insurance purposes and to provide for minimum hospital stays for mothers and their newborns. Improving the health of American women requires a far greater understanding of women's health needs and conditions, and ongoing evaluation in the areas of research, education, prevention, treatment, and the delivery of services. I believe that the 39 bills comprising the Women's Health Equity Act will take a giant step in this direction, and the passage of this legislation will help ensure that women's health will never again be a missing page in America's medical textbook.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I send to the desk.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator. I certainly appreciate that consideration. I rise in support of the bipartisan balanced budget that was worked on by more than 20 Members. There were numerous discussions, negotiations and votes in the course of the last few months. I commend Senator Chafee and Senator Breaux for their outstanding work and leadership in guiding us through those difficult negotiations. This has been an extraordinary effort and undertaking by more than 20 Members on a bipartisan basis to present a balanced budget plan. This effort really was derived from the time in which the balanced budget negotiations between the President and the Congress failed and we also had the subsequent Government shutdown. We were committed to the idea of creating a balanced budget plan and we feel the only way we can pass a balanced budget plan is on the basis of bipartisanship. I commend Senator Domenici for his work and the work he has done in the past on the issue of a balanced budget. One of the things we have recognized and have acknowledged is clearly we cannot get a balanced budget plan through this Congress unless we have strong bipartisan support. So our effort is not to condemn any other alternatives or the budget resolution that has been put forward by Senator Domenici and the Budget Committee, because it has been outstanding. Our effort is to move forward in unison, together, so we can pass a balanced budget plan. If you look to the future and the escalation of deficits, it is staggering. In the year 2002 we will have a $6.4 trillion debt. In the next 15 years it will double, 5 years thereafter it will double. And in the year 2025, in that year alone we will have a $2 trillion deficit. Given that current spending spurt, we will definitely be requiring the next generation to pay an 82-percent tax rate and they will see a reduction of benefits by more than 50 percent. I do not think that is the kind of legacy we want to leave to the next generation. That is why this proposal is so important. We made decisions that were not simple. We did not agree with all the proposals that were incorporated in this balanced budget plan. If we all had our druthers, we would probably make different recommendations. But we came together on a broad, bipartisan basis, to ensure in the final analysis we would develop a bipartisan balanced budget plan that could get the support of the majority here in the Congress. I hope Members of this Senate will look at this plan very carefully, because clearly it does split the differences on some very contentious issues between the President and this Congress. Although we might not like everything that is in this balanced budget plan, I daresay there would not be any balanced budget plan everybody would agree with when you are talking about reducing Federal spending by more than $700 billion. The deficits we are facing in the future, as I said earlier, are the ones we have to be concerned about. Everybody can make projections about how the deficit is coming down and the CBO reestimates based on previous efforts has reduced the deficit. The fact of the matter is, the deficits are astronomical in the next century and will only continue to grow. I do not think that is the kind of legacy we want to leave for future generations. If you look at the current indicators, we should be concerned. If you look at the Treasury bonds of 30 years, which is a good indication of the economic health in America, that interest rate has gone up by more than 1 percentage point over a 3-month period. We have seen this is the weakest recovery in more than 28 years, if you look at the job growth rate. So we really have to address the issue of the debt and the current deficit because, if we fail to do that, then clearly we are not going to show that we have the capacity to grow as a nation. We cannot grow with the kind of debt we are compiling for now as well as into the future. Again, I express my appreciation to Senator Chafee and Senator Breaux for giving me this opportunity to speak first on this amendment. I hope we will get some very good consideration for its passage. I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair. I thank, first of all, the distinguished chairman from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, for his tremendous efforts on this budget resolution. As chairman of the Budget Committee, he has an unusually difficult responsibility to set a fiscal course for this country. Although faced with great challenges, he certainly has assumed those responsibilities time and time again with great skill and has demonstrated true leadership. I truly wish to express my appreciation to him for what he has tried to accomplish this year as well as in the past in trying to achieve a balanced budget. The sense-of-the-Senate resolution I am proposing addresses the issue of education. I think it is critically important that the Senate go on record to reaffirm its commitment to higher education and to education in general. I think it is important that we establish a reaffirmation and support for a student loan program. I cannot think of a greater issue for the future of this country than to ensure that we provide an adequate funding level for higher education and in particular for student loans. That is one of the greatest issues to the American people at this point. In fact, a recent USA Today/CNN poll indicated for the first time the American people regarded education as the top priority beating out all other issues, and regardless of party, regardless of age, regardless of income group, it crossed all party lines, all age groups, all income groups with respect to this issue. In fact, two-thirds of the American people feel that their children will be no better off than they are, and they see education as the key to survival. That is why I think it is important to recognize just how significant student loans are. In the last resolution that we adopted and ultimately in the balanced budget reconciliation package that was passed by the Congress, we, indeed, restored almost $3.1 billion in funding to the student loan program. The final analysis was that there was no increase in cost to students or their parents, and that is what this sense-of-the-Senate resolution is all about. It is to restate that position and commitment for this fiscal year and for the process that we are adopting in this budget resolution, and with final acts down the road with respect to budget reconciliation. So my sense-of-the-Senate resolution would build upon the work we did last year. It would restate our commitment to the student loan program, and that in fact we would not increase the cost to students or their parents or decrease accessibility to student loans. Half of the students who are enrolled in classes today rely on the student loan program. As we look at the skills and the occupations that will be developing over the rest of this decade and into the next century, only 27 percent will be in the low-skill occupation categories. So it is going to require in the future higher education. In fact, today we have 40 percent of those jobs with low skills in that category, but those jobs will now require higher education in the future. And so it is all the more important that we here in the Congress make sure we provide adequate funding for the student loan program. We have seen that in the past it has contributed to our income growth as a country. In fact, the Brookings Institution did a study to look at the contributions that higher education funding by the Congress has made, that in fact it has contributed 37 percent to the income growth in America. For every dollar, based on another study that was done, the Federal Government has contributed to the student loan program, it has a return of more than $4, so you can see it makes an enormous difference to this country as well as to the collective ability of families and individuals to be able to achieve the American dream. And education and higher education has given that opportunity to so many who would otherwise not be able to afford a higher education. So it is not just an individual problem that they cannot afford an education. It is not just a State problem. It is a national problem. We are seeing the cost of higher education increasing by 6 percent over the last few years, and that cost is only going to continue to grow. So we must as a Nation try to do everything we can to support an individual and their families by providing this access to an affordable college education. It clearly is in our interest if we are going to remain as a major competitor in the global economy, particularly as we approach the 21st century, and we are going to have to emphasize continuing education and lifelong learning. The only way we can do that is to provide adequate support to the student loan program. If there is one issue that I hear from my constituents time and time again, it is the issue about having an affordable education for their children. Never have we had a generation that has not aspired to present a better world for the next generation. But now that is a cause of concern to so many people across America, because they see America as the opportunity to a better life and a higher standard of living than even their parents enjoy. So if they do not have that opportunity, clearly they are going to see the future with pessimism rather than with optimism. I hope we will get broad bipartisan support for this sense-of-the- Senate resolution to ensure that we maintain the commitment, not only to Americans all across this country, but to our Nation. I cannot think of a greater gift that we could give to the American people and to their families and to their children and grandchildren than the opportunity to better themselves. It is certainly a step forward. John F. Kennedy once said that the task for every generation is to build a road for the next generation. I cannot think of a more important road to build than education. So I hope the Senate will unanimously adopt this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.