Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Less than 5 minutes.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Child Support Improvement Act of 1996. Fourteen months ago, Senator Dole and I introduced our bill, the Child Support Responsibility Act of 1995, which later became an important piece of the welfare reform bill. Since that time, Congress has twice passed welfare reform, and twice it has been vetoed. And now, we are in much the same place we were 14 months ago. While it is my sincerest hope that child support will pass as part of a comprehensive welfare reform bill this year, I believe that we must seize this opportunity to move forward on child support. Because this issue is too important to the future of American children to stand by and wait any longer. For many of our Nation's children, the American dream is a rapidly fading mirage--one that they can see but are unable to firmly grasp. I'm talking specifically about the millions of children who suffer from the neglect of deadbeat parents--those parents who help bring a child into the world and then, for whatever reasons, renege on their responsibilities as a parent to care for them and give them the tools necessary to craft a better life than the one we enjoy today. At a time when one in four children grow up in single-parent households, the crisis of unpaid child support remains a heavy burden. It is a burden that has not only taken an emotional toll on single parents and their children, but an economic toll as well. And it is sapping the financial resources of our State governments. While many single parents have had some success in winning child support, only half of those who succeed actually receive what is owed. The other half receives partial payments or no payments at all. And an alarming 40 percent of single parents who seek child support do not succeed in winning any order at all. That means that, while the potential for child support collections is estimated to exceed $47 billion each year, only $15 billion or so is ever collected from noncustodial parents. Worse yet, those single parents who have never been married have a difficult time receiving any child support payments at all. Data collected from the 1990 census indicates that of all mothers who have never been married, 75 percent did not have child support orders and more than 50 percent had household incomes below the poverty level. These statistics translate into unprecedented burdens for single parents and their children, many of whom struggle to find good child care, quality medical care, warm clothes, or simply put food on the table. In all fairness, Congress has tried to strengthen child support enforcement mechanisms prior to this term. In 1975, Congress did pass the Child Support Enforcement and Paternity Establishment Program as part of the Social Security Act, and then it enacted further improvements to this effort by way of the 1984 Child Support Enforcement Amendments and the Family Support Act of 1988. Despite these actions, States have been hard pressed to keep pace with the virtual tidal wave of mothers seeking child support. States are faced with the daunting task of locating parents, establishing paternity, establishing child support orders, and collecting child support payments. Yet States have been hampered by a lack of leadership and technical support from the Federal Government. As a former Member of the House of Representatives, I have a long history of working to change and improve Federal laws governing child support enforcement, and introduced my own legislation to help relieve single parents and their children of the institutional barriers to progress on this issue. As cochair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, we made child support enforcement one of our top legislative priorities in previous Congresses, where some 30 bills were introduced to address this problem. But I believe we have come to a point where everyone agrees that child support enforcement is one of the most important aspects of our campaign to revamp the welfare system of this country. It affects every State--children at every income level--and it affects both single mothers and single fathers. As a national problem, child support enforcement merits a national solution. And we must demonstrate our leadership by providing it. That's why I have joined forces again with the distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, to introduce the Child Support Improvement Act of 1996. I should add, Mr. President, that this bill has true bipartisan support, and is intended to complement the efforts of my House colleagues, Congresswomen Nancy Johnson and Barbara Kennelly, who have introduced companion legislation in the House. Together, we have introduced the same child support provisions which received overwhelming support from both parties of Congress, as well as the administration, during welfare reform. By passing this legislation, we will send a clear signal to deadbeat parents that their days of irresponsibility are over. We will also send clear signal to States that the Federal Government will provide them with the assistance they need to collect child support on behalf of millions of American families. The bill contains commonsense reforms which achieve the following: To strengthen efforts to locate parents, it expands the Federal parent locator system by creating Federal and State data banks of child support orders, and allowing State-to-State access of the network. It also creates Federal and State directories of new hires, to allow for basic information supplied by employers from W-4 forms to be compared against child support data. To ensure that collected funds go to families as soon as possible, it establishes a centralized State collections and disbursements unit, and requires employers that garnish wages from employees to pay those withheld wages to the State within 5 days. To increase paternity establishment, our approach simplifies paternity procedures, facilitates voluntary acknowledgement, and encourages outreach. To ensure that child support orders are fair and equitable to children, it provides for a simplified process for review and adjustment of child support orders, and requires provisions for heath care coverage to be required in child support orders. And to facilitate child support enforcement and collection, it requires States to adopt the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, to encourage the seamless enforcement of child support orders across State lines. Finally, this bill expands the penalties for child support delinquency to include the denial of professional, recreational and driver's license to deadbeat parents, and permits the denial of a passport for individuals who are more than $5,000 in arrears. My husband, former Gov. Jock McKernan, pioneered a similar program in Maine in 1993. This program has been an amazing success in my home State. Between August 1993 and April 1996, $44 million was collected in outstanding child support payments from 15,000 individuals. In fact, in one case, a long-haul trucker who owed the State $19,000 drove to the State capitol and paid the amount in one lump sum. In another case, a real estate agent who owed more than $11,000 in child support money contacted the State and agreed to sell off some land to pay off his debt. Clearly, it's worth taking these steps. But we can do--and should do--much more. Mr. President, perhaps if we can replicate the successes of States like Maine on a national level, we can begin to ease and eventually lift the economic and emotional burdens caused by delinquent child support payments, and at last bring the justice, security, and equity to millions of single parents and their children. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that noncustodial parents begin to accept and bear responsibility for their children, who will reap the financial support they so justly deserve and desperately need.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Child Support Improvement Act of 1996. Fourteen months ago, Senator Dole and I introduced our bill, the Child Support Responsibility Act of 1995, which later became an important piece of the welfare reform bill. Since that time, Congress has twice passed welfare reform, and twice it has been vetoed. And now, we are in much the same place we were 14 months ago. While it is my sincerest hope that child support will pass as part of a comprehensive welfare reform bill this year, I believe that we must seize this opportunity to move forward on child support. Because this issue is too important to the future of American children to stand by and wait any longer. For many of our Nation's children, the American dream is a rapidly fading mirage--one that they can see but are unable to firmly grasp. I'm talking specifically about the millions of children who suffer from the neglect of deadbeat parents--those parents who help bring a child into the world and then, for whatever reasons, renege on their responsibilities as a parent to care for them and give them the tools necessary to craft a better life than the one we enjoy today. At a time when one in four children grow up in single-parent households, the crisis of unpaid child support remains a heavy burden. It is a burden that has not only taken an emotional toll on single parents and their children, but an economic toll as well. And it is sapping the financial resources of our State governments. While many single parents have had some success in winning child support, only half of those who succeed actually receive what is owed. The other half receives partial payments or no payments at all. And an alarming 40 percent of single parents who seek child support do not succeed in winning any order at all. That means that, while the potential for child support collections is estimated to exceed $47 billion each year, only $15 billion or so is ever collected from noncustodial parents. Worse yet, those single parents who have never been married have a difficult time receiving any child support payments at all. Data collected from the 1990 census indicates that of all mothers who have never been married, 75 percent did not have child support orders and more than 50 percent had household incomes below the poverty level. These statistics translate into unprecedented burdens for single parents and their children, many of whom struggle to find good child care, quality medical care, warm clothes, or simply put food on the table. In all fairness, Congress has tried to strengthen child support enforcement mechanisms prior to this term. In 1975, Congress did pass the Child Support Enforcement and Paternity Establishment Program as part of the Social Security Act, and then it enacted further improvements to this effort by way of the 1984 Child Support Enforcement Amendments and the Family Support Act of 1988. Despite these actions, States have been hard pressed to keep pace with the virtual tidal wave of mothers seeking child support. States are faced with the daunting task of locating parents, establishing paternity, establishing child support orders, and collecting child support payments. Yet States have been hampered by a lack of leadership and technical support from the Federal Government. As a former Member of the House of Representatives, I have a long history of working to change and improve Federal laws governing child support enforcement, and introduced my own legislation to help relieve single parents and their children of the institutional barriers to progress on this issue. As cochair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, we made child support enforcement one of our top legislative priorities in previous Congresses, where some 30 bills were introduced to address this problem. But I believe we have come to a point where everyone agrees that child support enforcement is one of the most important aspects of our campaign to revamp the welfare system of this country. It affects every State--children at every income level--and it affects both single mothers and single fathers. As a national problem, child support enforcement merits a national solution. And we must demonstrate our leadership by providing it. That's why I have joined forces again with the distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, to introduce the Child Support Improvement Act of 1996. I should add, Mr. President, that this bill has true bipartisan support, and is intended to complement the efforts of my House colleagues, Congresswomen Nancy Johnson and Barbara Kennelly, who have introduced companion legislation in the House. Together, we have introduced the same child support provisions which received overwhelming support from both parties of Congress, as well as the administration, during welfare reform. By passing this legislation, we will send a clear signal to deadbeat parents that their days of irresponsibility are over. We will also send clear signal to States that the Federal Government will provide them with the assistance they need to collect child support on behalf of millions of American families. The bill contains commonsense reforms which achieve the following: To strengthen efforts to locate parents, it expands the Federal parent locator system by creating Federal and State data banks of child support orders, and allowing State-to-State access of the network. It also creates Federal and State directories of new hires, to allow for basic information supplied by employers from W-4 forms to be compared against child support data. To ensure that collected funds go to families as soon as possible, it establishes a centralized State collections and disbursements unit, and requires employers that garnish wages from employees to pay those withheld wages to the State within 5 days. To increase paternity establishment, our approach simplifies paternity procedures, facilitates voluntary acknowledgement, and encourages outreach. To ensure that child support orders are fair and equitable to children, it provides for a simplified process for review and adjustment of child support orders, and requires provisions for heath care coverage to be required in child support orders. And to facilitate child support enforcement and collection, it requires States to adopt the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, to encourage the seamless enforcement of child support orders across State lines. Finally, this bill expands the penalties for child support delinquency to include the denial of professional, recreational and driver's license to deadbeat parents, and permits the denial of a passport for individuals who are more than $5,000 in arrears. My husband, former Gov. Jock McKernan, pioneered a similar program in Maine in 1993. This program has been an amazing success in my home State. Between August 1993 and April 1996, $44 million was collected in outstanding child support payments from 15,000 individuals. In fact, in one case, a long-haul trucker who owed the State $19,000 drove to the State capitol and paid the amount in one lump sum. In another case, a real estate agent who owed more than $11,000 in child support money contacted the State and agreed to sell off some land to pay off his debt. Clearly, it's worth taking these steps. But we can do--and should do--much more. Mr. President, perhaps if we can replicate the successes of States like Maine on a national level, we can begin to ease and eventually lift the economic and emotional burdens caused by delinquent child support payments, and at last bring the justice, security, and equity to millions of single parents and their children. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that noncustodial parents begin to accept and bear responsibility for their children, who will reap the financial support they so justly deserve and desperately need.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to express my deep appreciation to the managers of S. 1644, Chairman Simpson and Senator Kennedy, for their support for my two amendments that have been adopted en bloc. These are amendments Nos. 3873 and 3874, as amended. Mr. President, these two noncontroversial amendments relate to problems that have developed in recent years with the movement of persons along Maine's border with the Canadian province of New Brunswick. The first amendment expresses the sense of Congress on New Brunswick's discriminatory application of its Provincial sales tax only on those Canadians crossing the border with the United States and not on Canadians crossing the border from other Canadian provinces. The second amendment calls for the U.S. Customs Service to conduct a study of reports of harassment by Canadian Customs officials of Canadians returning to New Brunswick from Maine. Mr. President, nearly 3 years ago, in July 1993, Canadian Customs officers began collecting an 11 percent New Brunswick Provincial sales tax on goods purchased in the United States by New Brunswick residents. It immediately became clear that this tax collection at the United States-New Brunswick border was intended to discourage Canadians from shopping in Maine. This is evidenced by the fact that New Brunswick collects the tax only along its international border with the United States, not along its border with other Canadian provinces. Thus, the tax is being administered by Canadian authorities in a manner uniquely discriminatory to Canadians shopping in the United States. I would like to make it clear that while I regret such cross-border impediments to the movement of people and goods, New Brunswick's right to attempt to collect its sales tax on the purchase of goods outside the province by New Brunswick residents has never been questioned. The issue is the discriminatory application of New Brunswick's sales tax only on goods purchased in the United States, an application that runs directly counter to the letter and spirit of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Mr. President, this impediment to the cross-border movement of persons and goods not only violates Canada's NAFTA obligations, but it has severely damaged the economies of a number of communities in northern Maine who formerly provided services to significant numbers of New Brunswick residents. Soon after the imposition of the New Brunswick Provincial sales tax, I began working with the U.S. Trade Representative to seek redress under the then-existing dispute mechanism available under the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement. But before that dispute mechanism could be engaged, Congress approved the North American Free Trade Agreement, which required an entirely new dispute mechanism to be created. In February 1994, more than 2 years ago, the United States Trade Representative publicly stated that the United States would seek redress from Canada for the discriminatory application of New Brunswick's Provincial sales tax under the dispute resolution process contained in chapter 20 of the NAFTA. Trade Representative Kantor said that he would seek such redress as soon as the dispute resolution process was established. Mr. President, the dispute resolution process contained in chapter 20 of the NAFTA has now been in place for a year, but the USTR has still not submitted this case. Therefore, my first amendment simply states the sense of Congress that the United States should move forward without delay in bringing the Provincial sales tax issue before the NAFTA dispute resolution process. The people of Maine deserve their day in court. Mr. President, my second amendment would address disturbing reports of harassment by Canadian Customs officials of New Brunswick residents upon their return to Canada from northern Maine. The amendment asks the U.S. Customs Service to investigate these allegations, and to report back to Congress. If Customs officials find that such harassment has occurred, the amendment calls on the U.S. Customs Service to recommend actions that could be taken to address the problem. The amendment also calls on the Customs Service to consult with representatives of the State of Maine, local businesses, and any other knowledgeable persons who might be able to assist Customs in the completion of the study. This will ensure that the Customs Service has full access to all those in Maine who have received reports of Canadian Customs harassment of New Brunswick residents. Mr. President, these two amendments may seem minor to many of my colleagues, but they address issues that are critically important to the economic health and livelihood of many small communities in northern Maine. These communities have suffered severe economic harm from the discriminatory application of New Brunswick's Provincial sales tax and other actions taken by Canadian officials to impede cross border shopping by Canadians in the United States. Before we move forward on this important bill to better control our own borders, I believe that these issues simply must be resolved. Again, Mr. President, I would like to thank Chairman Simpson and Senator Kennedy for their critical support for these important amendments. f-1 visa holders

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today on Take Our Daughters to Work Day, to encourage young women and girls across America to set their sights high, and to reach for their dreams. When I was a young girl, most women worked in the home. Girls were not frequently asked, ``What do you want to be when you grow up?'' Our options appeared limited, and we had far fewer women role models telling us, ``If you work hard, you can be whatever you put your mind to.'' Some women broke the gender barrier, and served as role models for a whole generation of young women and girls. One such woman was Margaret Chase Smith, whose service in this body inspired many girls and young women in Maine and across the Nation to seek a career in politics. Since my childhood, the composition of the work force has changed dramatically, and job opportunities have significantly increased for young women and girls. Today, women comprise 46 percent of the paid labor force, and by the year 2000, two out of three new entrants into the labor force will be women. Despite these gains, studies show that during adolescence girls often receive less attention in school and suffer from lower expectations than do boys. They also set their future sights lower than their male counterparts. This is reflected in a 1994 New York Times/CBS poll, which found that over one-third of girls surveyed believed that there are more advantages to being a man than a women. For many girls, low self-esteem can lead them to lose confidence in their abilities, which may prevent them from achieving their fullest potential later in life. For others, this low self-esteem can lead to teen pregnancy, drug use and other problems which threaten women's professional and economic opportunity, not to mention their health and social welfare. In this day and age, we cannot accept reduced opportunities for girls and women from either an equity standpoint or an economic one. Today, women are equally responsible for the financial well-being of their families. Many American families find two incomes a necessity if they wish to thrive, and others require two incomes simply to stay above poverty. So it is not just their own futures that are at stake, but the future of their children and their children's children. We need to do far more to challenge our daughters' notions of women's work. While most school-age girls plan to work, they do not plan for careers that could sustain themselves and their families. Women and girls continue to be enrolled in education and training programs that prepare them for low-wage jobs in traditionally female occupations. Women remain significantly underrepresented in careers requiring math and science skills--women comprise only 11 percent of today's technical workforce, and only 17 percent of all doctors are women. Nearly 75 percent of tomorrow's jobs will require the use of computers, but girls comprise less than one- third of students enrolled in computer courses. And a study by the Glass Ceiling Commission found that women occupy only 5 percent of senior-level management of the top Fortune 1000 industrial and 500 service companies. As leaders and as parents, we must do our best to ensure that American girls are prepared to step into those high wage jobs and management positions that command higher salaries in the workforce. I am extremely pleased to participate on the steering committee for Take Our Daughters to Work Day, organized by the Maine's Women's Development Institute, in my home State. Girls in Maine and across the Nation need to see first-hand that they have a range of life options. They need that extra support to boost their confidence and believe in themselves and their potential. They need to be encouraged to reach out and use their creative spirit. It is our responsibility to set high standards and provide them with the experiences and role models that will inspire them to be the leaders of the future. Today, millions of parents across the Nation are taking their daughters to work. These parents perform a great service by exposing their daughters to new and exciting experiences. They are not only expanding their horizons and helping them to explore career opportunities, but teaching them important lessons about goal setting as well. Take Our Daughters to Work Day is of great importance to girls across the Nation, and to the women of tomorrow.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee for his comments. As the chairman may be aware, this is a critical issue for the State of Maine, as abuse of the user-fee program by airports that no longer qualify for that program have the potential of causing severe economic harm to Bangor International Airport, one of Maine's most important employers. If this abuse of the program is permitted to continue, flights that currently refuel and clear Customs in Bangor could decide to move their refueling operations to Canada, where the Government heavily subsidizes fuel costs at competing transit airports. Those flights could then continue on to Sanford Airport in Florida, a user-fee airport that has been able to gain an unfair competitive advantage because it can offer to international charter flights the ability to avoid the $6.50-per-passenger fee that must be paid by port-of-entry airports such as Bangor. Indeed, there can be little doubt that this diversion of air traffic will occur, as, according to press reports, Sanford Airport is scheduled to receive 325,000 passengers during the remainder of the year, a level far above the 15,000-passenger threshold for user-fee airports. I am very concerned that the expansion of the user-fee program, made possible by the lifting of the funding cap in this appropriations bill, will create an immediate threat to Bangor International Airport's business and have the unintended effect of diverting to a Canadian airport important international air traffic that currently uses American transit airport facilities. Can the chairman of the Finance Committee provide assurances that this problem will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible and that he will support a legislative remedy to close the loophole that currently provides user-fee airports engaged in substantial international business to circumvent the $6.50 per passenger fee?

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise this morning to join more than 20 of my colleagues in presenting our bipartisan balanced budget proposal-- the only bipartisan budget plan in Congress. Over the past 5 months, we have all observed the on-again, off-again budget negotiations, the two Government shutdowns, and several close calls on the debt limit. In the wake of these fiascoes, the unveiling of our budget offers reassurance and hope, because, despite everything you have seen or heard, this package proves that Republicans and Democrats can work together and find common ground on this--the most important issue facing our Nation. I would like to join my colleagues in thanking Senators Chafee and Breaux for their leadership in bringing this group together. Without their efforts, it would not have been possible to present this bipartisan plan today. Mr. President, we are in danger of becoming the first generation in the history of our Nation that will not leave a better standard of living for the next generation. For nearly 200 years, we took it for granted in this country that those who followed us would have a better life than we did. Well, that is simply not the case anymore. The fact is, the United States has not balanced its budget since 1969. And today--27 years later--our unwillingness to address its problem in a meaningful way is the ultimate example of politics as usual and status quo governing. And as a result of our Government's continuing failure to live within its means, we are bequeathing a legacy of debt and darkness to our children and grandchildren. Mr. President, the Members of this body who are presenting this bipartisan budget plan today believe that this reckless disregard for our children's future is unacceptable. Our bipartisan group has been working today with an eye on tomorrow, because as Herb Stein of the American Enterprise Institute notes, ``The problem is not the deficit we have now, it's the deficit we will have in the next century.'' Well, Mr. President, the next century is only 3\1/2\ years away. And every day we wait, deficit spending continues, interest on the debt accumulates, and our economy moves closer to the brink. Consider these numbers: Under current economic policies, the debt 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. With those numbers, it's no wonder babies come into the world crying. When six Republicans and six Democrats first gathered in Senator Chafee's office last December, it was out of a shared conviction that this Government has no right to leave such a crushing burden of debt to the next generation. We believe that balancing the budget is not an option, it's an imperative. We wanted to show that if we put the interests of the American people first, our system could work, that we could produce results. And with that vision in mind, we have come together, split the differences between the President's budget and the Republican plan, and have reached agreement on a plan that balances the budget while still maintaining the priorities shared by all Americans. Mr. President, the benefits of passing a balanced budget are enormous: Some economists estimate that a balanced budget would yield a drop in interest rates of between 2.5 and 4 percent. In practical terms, this means that the average family with a home mortgage, a car loan, or student loans would save about $1,800 a year. And real income for the average American would increase by an astounding 36 percent by the year 2002. Furthermore, the Joint Economic Committee projects that a 2.5-percent drop in interest rates would create an additional 2.5 million jobs. And in terms of economic growth, CBO estimates that balancing the budget would lead to a 0.5-percent increase in real GDP by the year 2002, and that over time, national wealth would increase by between 60 and 80 percent of the cumulative reduction in the deficit. More than 20 Republicans and Democrats have already agreed that this proposal is an acceptable way to reach balance. Bipartisanship was the key to turning our shared commitment for a balanced budget into a plan--and bipartisanship will be the key to Congress moving forward and enacting a balanced budget proposal this year. And, frankly, our plan represents perhaps the last, best chance for passing a balanced budget in this Congress. As with any balanced budget plan, there are provisions in this proposal that can be opposed by just about any person or any group. But the difference between our plan and any other plan being put forward is that this plan has bipartisan support. Our proposal has strong bipartisan support because--unlike some other proposals on the table--our plan does more than pay lip service to providing realistic, long-term protection to our shared commitments to education, the environment, and economic growth. While other proposals rely on unrealistic cuts in discretionary spending to reach balance, our proposal does not. Specifically, at the time our proposal was crafted, our bipartisan plan contained $30 billion less in discretionary spending cuts than the President's budget offer, and $81 billion less in discretionary spending cuts than the Republican proposal. As a result, while other proposals would leave future Congresses with the choice of providing adequate funding for some programs while utterly eviscerating others, our proposal does not. Mr. President, 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. In the words of John Kennedy, ``It is the task of every generation to build a road for the next generation.'' Mr. President, this bipartisan budget plan is the road toward fiscal responsibility that will give our children and grandchildren a better tomorrow. We cannot let this moment pass us by. We cannot allow the forces of politics to overcome the forces of responsibility. We must act now. I am very pleased to rise and express my appreciation to both Senator Chafee and Senator Breaux for their outstanding leadership. Without their efforts, it would not have been possible to not only assemble this bipartisan group but also to present the only bipartisan balanced budget plan in this Congress. I think over the past 5 months, we have all observed the on-and-off- again budget negotiations, the close calls on the debt ceiling and also the two Government shutdowns. In the wake of all those fiascoes, the unveiling of our budget offers reassurance and hope that despite everything you have seen and heard, that Republicans and Democrats can come together and reach common ground on one of the most important issues facing this country. Frankly, Mr. President, there is no more important issue to the economic future of this country than that of balancing the budget. There is no more important issue to the future of our children and our grandchildren than that of balancing the budget. Our unwillingness to address this issue really represents, unfortunately, the ultimate example of politics as usual and status quo governing. We, as a bipartisan group, look to the future. As Herb Stein of the American Enterprise Institute said recently, the problem we have with the deficit is not now. The problem is the deficit in the next century, and the next century is 3\1/2\ years away. Just consider the numbers. The debt will be $2.4 trillion in the year 2002. It will double in 15 years. Then it will double every 5 years. Then at the point in 2025, in that year alone, the deficit will be $2 trillion. It will require future generations to pay a tax of 82 percent and see a reduction in their benefits of 50 percent based on our current spending and economic policies of today. Our bipartisan group considered that a reckless disregard for future generations by bequeathing them that legacy of debt. I want to point out, as far as this bipartisan budget plan, a very significant factor and one which Senator Jeffords touched on, and that is the issue of discretionary spending. We have been paying lip service to the most important programs we have embraced in this institution, ones that everybody talks about. That is education and the environment, for example. Take a look at this chart, for example, on discretionary spending. We propose very realistic spending levels for discretionary spending. We took a hard freeze, which is $258 billion, and only proposed $10 billion more than that in terms of discretionary spending over the 7 years. But if you look at the GOP offer in January and the President's offer in January, we have, for example, the January offer by GOP, $258 billion, and beyond that $90 billion in cuts beyond a hard freeze. The President's offer is $258 billion in a hard freeze and $40 billion beyond that in terms of discretionary spending cuts. It is unrealistic. What is worse is that they postpone many of these cuts for discretionary spending to future Congresses, not even in the next Congress. It will be in the year 2001 or the year 2002 that most of those cuts will occur. I do not think it is fair to expect that any future Congress in the year 2001 or 2002 is going to have to cut anywhere between $40 to $90 billion in additional discretionary spending in order to reach their goal of a balanced budget. You know exactly what will happen. It will not happen. So we propose a very realistic level of discretionary spending on the very programs that we consider important to the American people, the very programs that already have been cut significantly over the last 10 years. So I hope that the Members of this Senate will look very carefully at this budget, recognizing that this is a major step forward, that it is achievable, that we split the differences to reach this common ground. I hope furthermore that we in this Congress will not allow the forces of politics to overcome the forces of responsibility. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I introduce the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1996. I join Representative Louise Slaughter, who introduced this bill in the House, in calling for an end to discrimination on the basis of genetic information in health insurance. Progress in the field of genetics is accelerating at a breathtaking pace. Who could have predicted 20 years ago that scientists today could accurately identify the genes associated with cystic fibrosis, cancer, Alzheimers' and Huntington's disease? Today, scientists can, and as a result doctors are increasingly able to identify predispositions to certain diseases based on the results of genetic testing, and to successfully treat and manage such diseases. These scientific advances hold tremendous promise for the approximately 15 million people affected by the over 4,000 currently known genetic disorders, and the millions more who are carriers of genetic diseases who may pass them on to their children. But as our knowledge of genetic predisposition to disease has grown, so has the potential for discrimination in health insurance. As a legislator who has worked for many years on the issue of breast cancer, and as a woman with a history of breast cancer in her family, I am delighted with the possibilities for further treatment advances based on the recent discoveries of two genes related to breast cancer-- BRCA1 and BRCA2. Women who inherit mutated forms of either gene have an 85-percent risk of developing breast cancer in their lifetime. Although there is no known treatment to ensure that women who carry the mutated gene do not develop breast cancer, genetic testing makes it possible for carriers of these mutated genes to take extra precautions--such as mammograms and self-examinations--in order to detect cancer at its earliest stages. This discovery is truly a momentous breakthrough. However, the tremendous promise of genetic testing is being significantly threatened by insurance companies that use the results of genetic testing to deny or limit coverage to consumers. Unfortunately, this practice is relatively common today. In fact, a recent survey of individuals with a known genetic condition in their family revealed that 22 percent had been denied health insurance coverage because of genetic information. In addition to the potentially devastating consequences health insurance denials on the basis of genetic information can have on American families, the fear of discrimination has equally harmful consequences for consumers and for scientific research. For example, many women who might take extra precautions if they knew they had the breast cancer gene may not seek testing because they fear losing their health insurance. Patients may be unwilling to disclose information about their genetic status to their physicians out of fear, hindering treatment or preventive efforts. And people may be unwilling to participate in potentially ground-breaking research trials because they do not want to reveal information about their genetic status. The bill I am introducing today addresses these serious concerns by prohibiting health insurance providers from denying or canceling health insurance coverage or varying the terms, premiums, or conditions for health insurance for individuals or their family members on the basis of genetic information. It also prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against individuals who have requested or received genetic services. My bill also contains important confidentiality provisions which prohibit insurance companies from disclosing genetic information about an individual without that person's written consent. And it prohibits an insurance provider from requesting someone to undergo, and from disclosing, genetic information about that person. Finally, the bill allows individuals to sue for monetary damages or injunctive relief if an insurance company violates, or threatens to violate, these nondiscrimination or disclosure provisions. I urge my colleagues to end the unfair practice of denying health care coverage to individuals on the basis of genetic information by supporting the bill I am introducing today.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I introduce the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1996. I join Representative Louise Slaughter, who introduced this bill in the House, in calling for an end to discrimination on the basis of genetic information in health insurance. Progress in the field of genetics is accelerating at a breathtaking pace. Who could have predicted 20 years ago that scientists today could accurately identify the genes associated with cystic fibrosis, cancer, Alzheimers' and Huntington's disease? Today, scientists can, and as a result doctors are increasingly able to identify predispositions to certain diseases based on the results of genetic testing, and to successfully treat and manage such diseases. These scientific advances hold tremendous promise for the approximately 15 million people affected by the over 4,000 currently known genetic disorders, and the millions more who are carriers of genetic diseases who may pass them on to their children. But as our knowledge of genetic predisposition to disease has grown, so has the potential for discrimination in health insurance. As a legislator who has worked for many years on the issue of breast cancer, and as a woman with a history of breast cancer in her family, I am delighted with the possibilities for further treatment advances based on the recent discoveries of two genes related to breast cancer-- BRCA1 and BRCA2. Women who inherit mutated forms of either gene have an 85-percent risk of developing breast cancer in their lifetime. Although there is no known treatment to ensure that women who carry the mutated gene do not develop breast cancer, genetic testing makes it possible for carriers of these mutated genes to take extra precautions--such as mammograms and self-examinations--in order to detect cancer at its earliest stages. This discovery is truly a momentous breakthrough. However, the tremendous promise of genetic testing is being significantly threatened by insurance companies that use the results of genetic testing to deny or limit coverage to consumers. Unfortunately, this practice is relatively common today. In fact, a recent survey of individuals with a known genetic condition in their family revealed that 22 percent had been denied health insurance coverage because of genetic information. In addition to the potentially devastating consequences health insurance denials on the basis of genetic information can have on American families, the fear of discrimination has equally harmful consequences for consumers and for scientific research. For example, many women who might take extra precautions if they knew they had the breast cancer gene may not seek testing because they fear losing their health insurance. Patients may be unwilling to disclose information about their genetic status to their physicians out of fear, hindering treatment or preventive efforts. And people may be unwilling to participate in potentially ground-breaking research trials because they do not want to reveal information about their genetic status. The bill I am introducing today addresses these serious concerns by prohibiting health insurance providers from denying or canceling health insurance coverage or varying the terms, premiums, or conditions for health insurance for individuals or their family members on the basis of genetic information. It also prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against individuals who have requested or received genetic services. My bill also contains important confidentiality provisions which prohibit insurance companies from disclosing genetic information about an individual without that person's written consent. And it prohibits an insurance provider from requesting someone to undergo, and from disclosing, genetic information about that person. Finally, the bill allows individuals to sue for monetary damages or injunctive relief if an insurance company violates, or threatens to violate, these nondiscrimination or disclosure provisions. I urge my colleagues to end the unfair practice of denying health care coverage to individuals on the basis of genetic information by supporting the bill I am introducing today.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of The Health Insurance Reform Act of 1995, and would like to thank the Chairwoman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kassebaum, for bringing this common sense health care reform bill to the floor. Her knowledge and efforts in the area of health care have made progress on this issue possible, and her ability to craft consensus on this complex issue deserves enormous praise from both sides of the aisle. I would also like to compliment the ranking Member, Senator Kennedy, and the rest of my colleagues who serve on the Labor and Human Resources Committee--the strong bipartisan vote that brought this bill out of Committee restores my hope that bipartisanship is not completely lost in this Chamber. It has been interesting to me, having ``survived'' the health care wars of the last Congress, to read some of the things that have been written about this bill. Talk about role reversal--you now have some members on this side of the aisle complaining that S. 1028 does not go far enough, and we have members on the other side of the aisle complaining that the bill isn't small enough. What a difference a year makes! But one thing that has not changed is the fact that the American people continue to demand changes in the health care system. This bill, while not as large or as complex as the changes we considered in 1994, would provide security to millions of Americans--25 million according to the General Accounting Office. It would reassure them that their health care coverage could not be taken from them if they changed jobs, if they became pregnant, if their family situation changed, or if they lost their jobs. It does not solve all our Nation's health care problems--but we tried the complicated, complex, approach with a more than 1,000 page bill in 1994 and we got nowhere. So what is wrong with taking a step in the right direction? It doesn't mean that this is the only change that Congress can or should make. It is said that every journey begins with a single step. So let us consider the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill before us today as Congress' first step on the road to overhauling our health care reform system so that all Americans will have access to affordable, quality health care by the provider of their choice that can never be taken away. The Health Insurance Reform Act of 1995 will achieve part of that shared goal by ensuring access to health care that can not be taken away. It will ensure that workers who are offered a new job opportunity with a different company will be able to accept it--instead of turning it down because they are afraid that a pre- existing condition will prevent them from obtaining health care coverage at their new firm. It will ensure that workers who lose their job and have had insurance coverage for the last 18 months will be able to obtain an individual policy. They will still have a lot to worry about--but at least they will know that they can obtain insurance for their family. And it will ensure that small businesses will no longer find themselves dropped from the insurance roles because one of their workers has medical problems. Every Senator--every Member of Congress--has received letters or spoken with individuals who have been denied coverage or had their coverage--or their firm's coverage--dropped because of a preexisting condition. Yet these are the people who need the coverage most. It is estimated that 81 million Americans suffer from a preexisting medical condition that endangers their access to health care coverage. This bill will provide them that protection. The Kassebaum-Kennedy bill restricts health insurance exclusions on preexisting conditions by prohibiting insurers and employers from limiting or denying coverage under group plans for more than 12 months for a medical condition that was diagnosed or treated during the previous 6 months. For example, if an individual had been covered under another employer's plan for 8 months, they would only have to work for 4 months in their new job before being covered. The bill also prevents group health plans from excluding any employee from coverage based on health status and requires insurers to renew coverage for both groups and individuals as long as the premiums were paid. Once an individual had been covered for 12 months, no new pre- existing condition could ever be imposed, even if they changed jobs or insurance plans. The bill also will help make health care coverage more affordable for America's small businesses by lifting barriers to the formation of private, voluntary coalitions to purchase health insurance. For states like Maine, where small businesses are the backbone of our economy, this provision will be particularly helpful. Banding together to obtain health insurance coverage will give our small businesses the ability to spread the risk among a larger population and to use their negotiation power to get quality coverage at the best price. This bill will give employers and employees the ability to obtain quality coverage at a competitive price. The Health Insurance Reform Act of 1995 is a commonsense approach to a serious problem in this country--access to affordable, quality health care that can never be taken away. It is not the complete answer to our health care problems, but it is a big step in the right direction and will help millions of Americans retain their health care coverage. I would like to address one of the arguments being made against this bill. Opponents of reform have argued that while the bill ensures access, the practical problem will be that the cost of premiums will soar, making coverage unaffordable for many. The American Academy of Actuaries, however, has estimated that any premium increases would be quite small, ranging between 2 and 5 percent. In fact, this potential increase is lower than the increases we have seen in recent years: over the last 10 years the average rate paid for individual insurance premiums has increased between 8 and 15 percent annually. And in my own State of Maine, which has had a law on the books guaranteeing issue for employers with fewer than 25 employees since 1992 and guaranteed issue for individuals since 1993, these changes have not resulted in premium increases that are outside the bounds of the normal increases in the cost of health care coverage. By passing this bill we will be renewing our commitment to the American public that we have heard and have understood their demand that we act on health care reform. It will provide security for millions of Americans who currently fear losing their health care coverage, and will provide access to more affordable coverage for our small businesses as they band together to enhance their purchasing power. Passage of this bill will leave us with a long road ahead of us to address the outstanding issues of health care reform, but at least we will finally be on the road. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of this bill and I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the conference report on S. 735, the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act. I would like to congratulate Chairman Hatch, Senator Biden, and the other Senate conferees on both sides of the aisle for their diligent work in conference with the other body. This bill left the Senate June 7, 1995, having passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 91 to 8. Then the bill went over to the House, where it languished for 9 months. When it finally came up in the House for a vote on March 13, the most important anti-terrorism provisions were stripped from the bill. When this occurred, many of us who strongly supported the Senate bill were dismayed and wondered whether it would even be possible for a conference committee to fashion a final bill that would garner the strong bipartisan support that the original Senate bill enjoyed. To emphasize the importance of this bipartisan support, I joined with Senator Lieberman on March 29, in sending a letter to all five Senate conferees urging that they work to defend in conference key Senate provisions dealing with international terrorism. These included authority to exclude from the United States members of terrorist groups and authority to prohibit terrorist fundraising within the United States, both of which were indeed retained in this final conference report. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this conference report, and I heartily congratulate our conferees for preserving these provisions. In fact, they went even further, and have given us a strong, positive antiterrorism bill that deserves our wholehearted support. This legislation contains a broad range of needed changes in the law that will enhance our country's ability to combat terrorism, both at home and from abroad. The managers of this bill have described its provisions in some detail, so I will not repeat their comments. Briefly, however, this bill would increase penalties: For conspiracies involving explosives, for terrorist conspiracies, for terrorist crimes, for transferring explosives, for using explosives, and for other crimes related to terrorist acts. The bill also includes provisions to combat international terrorism, to remove from the United States aliens found to be engaging in or supporting terrorist acts, to control fundraising by foreign terrorist organizations, and procedural changes to strengthen our counterterrorism laws. This legislation will enhance the ability of our law enforcement agencies to bring terrorists to justice, in a manner mindful of our cherished civil liberties. This bill will enact practical measures to impede the efforts of those violent rejectionists who have launched an unprecedented campaign of terror intended to crush the prospects for peace for the Israeli and Palestinian people. Most important is the provision in this bill that will cut off the ability of terrorist groups such as Hamas to raise huge sums in the United States for supposedly ``humanitarian'' purposes, where in reality a large part of those funds go toward conducting terrorist activities. These accomplishments are real, and this legislation deserves our support. Mr. President, I would like to concentrate the remainder of my comments on two provisions of mine that were retained in this conference report. These two provisions are the Terrorist Exclusion Act and the Law Enforcement and Intelligence Sources Protection Act, both of which I introduced separately last year. Traditionally, Americans have thought of terrorism as primarily a European, Middle Eastern, or Latin American problem. While Americans abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities have been targets in the past, Americans have often considered the United States itself largely immune to acts of terrorism. Two events have changed this sense of safety. The first was the internationally-sponsored terrorist attack of February 26, 1993 against the New York World Trade Center, and the second was the domestic terrorist attack just a year ago on April 19 in Oklahoma City. I first introduced the Terrorist Exclusion Act in the House three years ago, and last year I reintroduced the legislation in the Senate with Senator Brown as my original cosponsor. The Terrorist Exclusion Act will close a dangerous loophole in our visa laws which was created by the Immigration Reform Act of 1990. With its rewrite of the McCarran-Walters Act, Congress eliminated then-existing authority to deny a U.S. visa to a known member of a violent terrorist organization. The new standards required knowledge that the individual had been personally involved in a past terrorist act or was coming to the United States to conduct such an act. This provision will restore the previous standard allowing denial of a U.S. visa for membership in a terrorist group. I discovered this dangerous weakness in our visa laws in early 1993 during my investigation of the State Department failures that allowed the radical Egyptian cleric, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, to travel to, and reside in, the United States since 1990. I undertook this investigation in my role as ranking Republican of the House International Operations Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over terrorism issues, a role I have continued in the Senate as Chair of the International Operations Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee. Sheikh Rahman is the spiritual leader of Egypt's terrorist organization, The Islamic Group. His followers were convicted for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York. The Sheikh himself received a life sentence for his own role in approving a planned second wave of terrorist acts in the New York City area. The case of Sheikh Abdel Rahman is significant because he was clearly excludable from the United States under the pre-1990 law, but the legal authority to exclude him ended with enactment of the Immigration Reform Act that year. He was admitted to this country through an amazing series of bureaucratic blunders. Then in 1990, as the U.S. government was building its deportation case against him, the law changed. As a result, the State Department was forced to try to deport him on the grounds that he once bounced a check in Egypt and had more than one wife, rather than the fact that he was the known spiritual leader of a violent terrorist organization. A high-ranking State Department official informed my staff during my investigation that if Sheikh Abdel Rahman had tried to enter after the 1990 law went into affect, they would have had no legal authority to exclude him from the United States because they had no proof that he had ever personally committed a terrorist act, despite the fact that his followers were known to have been involved in the assassination of Anwar Sadat. It is urgent that we pass this provision. Every day in this country American lives are put at risk out of deference to some imagined first amendment rights of foreign terrorists. This is an extreme misinterpretation of our cherished Bill of Rights, which the founders of our nation intended to protect the liberties of all Americans. In my reading of the U.S. Constitution, I see much about the protection of the safety and welfare of Americans, but nothing about protecting the rights of foreign terrorists to travel freely to the United States whenever they choose. The second of my bills contained in S. 735 is the Law Enforcement and Intelligence Sources Protection Act. This legislation would significantly increase the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share information with the State Department for the purpose of denying visas to known terrorists, drug traffickers, and others involved in international criminal activities. This provision would permit a U.S. visa to be denied for law enforcement purposes without a detailed written explanation, which current law requires. These denials could be made citing U.S. law generically, without further clarification or amplification. Individuals who are denied visas due to the suspicion that they are intending to immigrate to the U.S. would still have to be informed that this is the basis, and they would then be allowed to compile additional information that may change that determination. Under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a precise written justification, citing the specific provision of law, is required for every alien denied a U.S. visa. This requirement was inserted into the INA out of the belief that every non-American denied a U.S.-visa for any reason had the right to know the precise grounds under which the visa was denied, even if it was for terrorist activity, narcotics trafficking, or other illegal acts. This has impeded the willing- ness of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share with the State Department the names of excludable aliens. These agencies are logically concerned about revealing sources or compromising an investigation by submitting the names of people known to be terrorists or criminals--but who do not know that they are under investigation by U.S. officials--if that information is then revealed to a visa applicant, as current law requires. This is information the United States should be able to protect until a case is completed and, hopefully, law enforcement action is taken. But for the protection of the American people we should also make this information available to the Department of State to keep these individuals out of our country. Mr. President, I again congratulate Chairman Hatch, and all of the other Senate conferees on this bill for their achievements in negotiations with the House. Obviously, there were some Senate provisions that had strong bipartisan support in this body that I regret could not be sustained in conference. But I urge my colleagues to concentrate on the very substantial and important achievements of this conference report, and I urge broad bipartisan support for its adoption.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I introduce two important pieces of legislation which promise to be of great significance to women with breast cancer: the Consumer Involvement in Breast Cancer Research Act of 1996, and the Improved Patient Access to Clinical Studies Act of 1996. Breast cancer is a national health crisis of enormous proportions. Each year, breast cancer strikes approximately 182,000 women, resulting in 46,000 deaths. It has become the most common form of cancer and the second leading cause of death among American women. An estimated 2.6 million women in the United States are living with breast cancer, 1.6 million have been diagnosed with the disease, and an estimated 1 million women do not yet know they have breast cancer. Some 1 out of 8 women in our country will develop breast cancer in her lifetime, up from one out of 14 in 1960. In fact, this year, a new case of breast cancer will be diagnosed every 3 minutes, and a woman will die from breast cancer every 11 minutes. Breast cancer is a crisis that has tragically claimed the lives of almost 1 million women of all ages and backgrounds since 1960. It has become the leading cause of death for women age 40 to 44, and the leading cause of cancer death in women age 25 to 54. In 1994, 900 Maine women were diagnosed with breast cancer. This is the most commonly diagnosed form of cancer among Maine women, and represents more than 30 percent of all new cancer among women in Maine. Over the past few years, we have made significant gains in funding for breast cancer research. In fiscal year 1991, Congress spent $92.7 million on breast cancer research at the National Institutes of Health. By fiscal year 1995, spending had increased to $308.7 million. Moreover, the Department of Defense has received $460 million over the past 3 years to undertake breast cancer research. However, funding alone is not enough. We must work to ensure that the most worthy and innovative projects are pursued and funded. This means funding projects which victims of breast cancer believe are important and meaningful to them in their fight to live with this disease. Over the past 3 years, the Department of Defense has included lay breast cancer advocates in breast cancer research decision making. The involvement of these breast cancer advocates has helped foster new and innovative breast cancer research funding designs and research projects. While maintaining the highest level of quality assurance through peer review, breast cancer advocates have helped to ensure that all breast cancer research reflects the experiences and wisdom of the individuals who have lived with the disease. In addition, breast cancer advocates provide a vital educational link between the scientific and lay communities. My bill, the Consumer Involvement in Breast Cancer Research Act of 1996, urges the National Institutes of Health to follow the DOD's lead. It urges NIH to include breast cancer advocates in breast cancer research decision making, and to report on progress that the Institute is making next year. I believe that this legislation provides the critical next step in making breast cancer research more responsive to the needs of millions of American women living with breast cancer. But it is not the only step we need to take. People suffering from diseases with no known cure often have access to the latest, most- innovative therapies only through clinical trials. This is often the case for women with breast cancer. Yet insurance companies regularly deny coverage for such treatments on the basis that they are experimental or investigational. As a result, many patients who could benefit from these potentially life-saving investigational treatments do not have access to them because their insurance will not cover the costs. Denying reimbursement for these services also impedes the ability of scientists to conduct important research, by reducing the number of patients who are eligible to participate in clinical trials. The second bill I am introducing today, the Improved Patient Access to Clinical Studies Act of 1996, addresses this problem. This bill would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage for services provided to individuals participating in clinical trials, if those services would otherwise be covered by the plan. This bill would also prevent health plans from discriminating against enrollees who choose to participate in clinical trials. Mr. President, March is Women's History Month. We should take this opportunity to celebrate the important gains we have made over the past few years in the area of women's health research. At the same time, we must also recognize how far we still have to go. I believe that the bills I have introduced today represent continued progress in the fight against breast cancer, and I urge my colleagues to support them.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I introduce two important pieces of legislation which promise to be of great significance to women with breast cancer: the Consumer Involvement in Breast Cancer Research Act of 1996, and the Improved Patient Access to Clinical Studies Act of 1996. Breast cancer is a national health crisis of enormous proportions. Each year, breast cancer strikes approximately 182,000 women, resulting in 46,000 deaths. It has become the most common form of cancer and the second leading cause of death among American women. An estimated 2.6 million women in the United States are living with breast cancer, 1.6 million have been diagnosed with the disease, and an estimated 1 million women do not yet know they have breast cancer. Some 1 out of 8 women in our country will develop breast cancer in her lifetime, up from one out of 14 in 1960. In fact, this year, a new case of breast cancer will be diagnosed every 3 minutes, and a woman will die from breast cancer every 11 minutes. Breast cancer is a crisis that has tragically claimed the lives of almost 1 million women of all ages and backgrounds since 1960. It has become the leading cause of death for women age 40 to 44, and the leading cause of cancer death in women age 25 to 54. In 1994, 900 Maine women were diagnosed with breast cancer. This is the most commonly diagnosed form of cancer among Maine women, and represents more than 30 percent of all new cancer among women in Maine. Over the past few years, we have made significant gains in funding for breast cancer research. In fiscal year 1991, Congress spent $92.7 million on breast cancer research at the National Institutes of Health. By fiscal year 1995, spending had increased to $308.7 million. Moreover, the Department of Defense has received $460 million over the past 3 years to undertake breast cancer research. However, funding alone is not enough. We must work to ensure that the most worthy and innovative projects are pursued and funded. This means funding projects which victims of breast cancer believe are important and meaningful to them in their fight to live with this disease. Over the past 3 years, the Department of Defense has included lay breast cancer advocates in breast cancer research decision making. The involvement of these breast cancer advocates has helped foster new and innovative breast cancer research funding designs and research projects. While maintaining the highest level of quality assurance through peer review, breast cancer advocates have helped to ensure that all breast cancer research reflects the experiences and wisdom of the individuals who have lived with the disease. In addition, breast cancer advocates provide a vital educational link between the scientific and lay communities. My bill, the Consumer Involvement in Breast Cancer Research Act of 1996, urges the National Institutes of Health to follow the DOD's lead. It urges NIH to include breast cancer advocates in breast cancer research decision making, and to report on progress that the Institute is making next year. I believe that this legislation provides the critical next step in making breast cancer research more responsive to the needs of millions of American women living with breast cancer. But it is not the only step we need to take. People suffering from diseases with no known cure often have access to the latest, most- innovative therapies only through clinical trials. This is often the case for women with breast cancer. Yet insurance companies regularly deny coverage for such treatments on the basis that they are experimental or investigational. As a result, many patients who could benefit from these potentially life-saving investigational treatments do not have access to them because their insurance will not cover the costs. Denying reimbursement for these services also impedes the ability of scientists to conduct important research, by reducing the number of patients who are eligible to participate in clinical trials. The second bill I am introducing today, the Improved Patient Access to Clinical Studies Act of 1996, addresses this problem. This bill would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage for services provided to individuals participating in clinical trials, if those services would otherwise be covered by the plan. This bill would also prevent health plans from discriminating against enrollees who choose to participate in clinical trials. Mr. President, March is Women's History Month. We should take this opportunity to celebrate the important gains we have made over the past few years in the area of women's health research. At the same time, we must also recognize how far we still have to go. I believe that the bills I have introduced today represent continued progress in the fight against breast cancer, and I urge my colleagues to support them.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman, and I want to thank you, Mr. President. I rise in strong support of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. As chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations, we have jurisdiction over these issues contained in this legislation, and I am very pleased with the report that the conference committee issued with respect to this important bill. I commend the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Chairman Helms. I know this has been a long and difficult road to bring this authorization bill to this point. Regrettably, we did not have enough assistance from the administration or the State Department to work out the differences that developed between the committee and this administration and the State Department. But regardless, I think the bill that has come before the Senate and has come before the House is a bill that certainly should be accepted by both sides. Frankly, as one who has been involved in this process as the ranking member of the similar subcommittee in the House for almost 10 years, I am somewhat surprised at the way in which the State Department or the President has refused to negotiate the differences on some of the issues that have been at the forefront of this authorization bill for more than 1 year. I have never been in a situation in being responsible for this authorization bill in which the President has never submitted an authorization request. We have not yet to date ever received a State Department authorization bill for the issues before us referring to the State Department authorization and the other related agencies, such as international broadcasting activities, international exchanges, as well as international organizations and our contributions to the United Nations as well. We have never yet in this entire process received a bill from the administration with respect to any one of these issues. And, as I said, this is the first time in all of the years in which I have had the responsibility of addressing the State Department authorization bill that a President has failed to submit a legislative authorization bill. But be that as it may, we worked it through the process, as Chairman Helms indicated. It was a difficult process, to say the least. But here in the Senate in December, the bill passed by a margin of 82 to 16. It received tremendous bipartisan support. So I would expect that this conference report should receive the same bipartisan support. If anything, this conference report is even stronger than the bill that passed the Senate back in December. But I think it is important to review what occurred over this last year to have reached this point and to demonstrate that the conference report that is before this body reconciled the differences, in fact, came a long way to accommodate the differences that the minority had in the committee or here on the floor or that the President had or that the State Department had, but every time we reconciled those differences, they moved the goal posts. They were unwilling to resolve and to reconcile the issues that are before us today. But I think it is important to review exactly how much we have accommodated the administration's concern, as well as the minority. First of all, when you are looking at the consolidation issue, it is important to remember that back in January of 1995, Secretary Christopher himself acknowledged that consolidation was possible. He, in fact, proposed to the administration that the consolidation of three agencies into the State Department was a realistic approach. The Vice President recommended that we could achieve savings in the State Department and related agencies of approximately $5 billion over 4 years. So that is the point at which we started this whole proposition. So the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with Chairman Helms, recommended that we consolidate three agencies with a savings of $3 billion. We started working through the differences. The minority members of the committee said, ``No, we don't want to support consolidating any agencies.'' But they did, in fact, agree to consolidating one agency with a savings of $2 billion over 4 years. The majority in the committee said we will consolidate three agencies with $3 billion over 4 years. So here we are at this point with a conference committee report, and what do we have? We have a conference committee report that says we have to reconcile the differences between the Senate and the House. And so the Senate position going into conference was no agency consolidation but a mandate requiring $1.7 billion over the next 4 years. The House, on the other hand, had a position of consolidating three agencies over the next 5 years, with no specified savings. So what did we do? We came out of the conference committee with one agency, a savings of $1.7 billion. That is very close to the position that was supported by the Senate back in December with a vote of 82 to 16. I guess it is hard to understand why anybody would suggest that this is an unrealistic or unachievable consolidation proposal. We have come from the Vice President's proposal of $5 billion down to $1.7 billion, and even the minority on the committee supported $2 billion worth of savings, and in the conference report we have $1.7 billion in savings, so even less than what even they supported. They supported one consolidation, one agency to be consolidated in the State Department. That is what came out of the conference committee. We got one agency requirement for consolidation or merging into the State Department. So we have come a long way to reconcile those differences. It is really hard to understand why there has been so much resistance to this effort and to make some accommodation to bridge the differences. We have certainly gone a long ways to reconciling those differences, not only within this body, but with the House as well. Then we had the issue of the international family planning proposals. Well, again, the House bill contains some very restrictive language with respect to UNFPA and Mexico City policy provisions that, in fact, those are the same provisions that endangered the foreign operations appropriations bill last year. But we were able to remove those onerous provisions from the conference report. We removed all of them. But yet at the same time, again, we had objections from the other side, because they said, ``Well, that's not enough. It is not enough that you took those provisions out. You should also have language in this conference report that overturns the restrictions and the reductions in international family planning programs in the appropriations bill.'' That is an interesting recommendation considering the fact that the minority did not want to have any development assistance proposals in the State Department bill, and that is why almost all of the foreign aid language was removed, rightfully so, because the Senate never had that opportunity to consider that legislation. So it was removed. We took out all the international family planning restrictions and all the development assistance legislation. But yet at the same time, they are saying, ``It is not enough because we think we should overturn the appropriations language.'' Well, that process is occurring right now, hopefully, in the conference committee on the omnibus appropriations bill. But certainly the conference report is not the vehicle to do it, since we have taken out all the other foreign aid components. I should say that the language that is in the current continuing resolution with respect to the international family planning programs are the very same programs in the very same continuing resolution that the President signed into law and was supported by Members of this body. The appropriate vehicle for resolving the appropriation differences on international family planning funding is in the conference committee on the omnibus appropriations. That is where that debate should occur, not here in this conference report. Our goal was to remove the restrictive language on international family planning and Mexico City provisions that would have set us back in those areas. We did that. That was a major accomplishment. There are important issues in this legislation that ought to be supported by all Members of this body. This legislation contains several important policy initiatives, such as the McBride Principles. This would codify the McBride Principles and place them in permanent law. The McBride Principles would establish a standard of nondiscrimination for any project or enterprise in Northern Ireland funded through our contributions to the International Fund for Ireland. This is a very important principle to uphold. I think this would be the first time that will provide an opportunity for all Members of this Senate to vote on the McBride Principles and to support codifying them into Federal law. Another important policy initiative that this bill would place into permanent law is the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. This provision, first enacted on a 1-year basis in the foreign operations appropriations bill, would require that recipients of American aid not block the delivery of any humanitarian aid to any neighboring country. While drafted generically, it is intended to send a strong signal to Turkey, which in the past has frequently attempted to block the delivery of desperately needed humanitarian assistance to the people of Armenia. A third major legislative initiative in this conference report is the Terrorist Exclusion Act, which I first introduced in the last Congress. This would restore the President's authority to exclude the entry into the United States of any individual who is a member of a violent terrorist organization. This is basically to restore the law prior to 1990. So, I guess it is hard again, going back to the administration's position, to understand why the President and the State Department have gone on record in opposition to this legislation, because the agency reorganization is essential, even by the Secretary of State's own admission, even by the Vice President's own recommendations to save $5 billion. I cannot imagine that anybody would suggest that we cannot merge one agency into the State Department, that we cannot merge the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. It is a modest agency of 250 people, that in this day and age when we need a new world order, when it comes to our own State Department and related agencies, we have to reorganize. It is important to have a unified, singular voice when it comes to delivering our foreign policy. That was the basic intent of this agency consolidation. But we have met resistance at every step of the way by the administration, even though at some point in time the administration or Members on the other side have indicated that they support such consolidation. Let us talk about the funding levels. The authorization level in this conference report represents probably a high point in funding levels for these agencies. In fact, it is in conformance with the budget resolution. The reductions in funding are modest, no more than $500 million under the 1995 funding level. The President has argued for cuts in domestic programs, but this is the one area in which he is recommending an increase. In fact, the President recommended a $1 billion increase in the foreign aid accounts. I think it is interesting that the President would recommend cuts in so many domestic discretionary programs in order to achieve a balanced budget, but insist on continued growth in foreign spending. But that is exactly the case, because in the statement that was issued by the administration, they objected to the funding levels that were incorporated in this conference report. There has been opposition by some because of the provision that addresses the International Housing Guarantee Program. This program is routinely criticized as one of AID's most ineffective and wasteful programs. In fact, GAO has conducted a study of this program which subsidized housing for citizens of other countries. The GAO found that this program is well on its way to wasting $1 billion in U.S. taxpayers' money--$1 billion. I cannot believe that the administration again is objecting to this provision to remove this program when it has already been demonstrated to lose for the taxpayers more than $1 billion. The overall program represents a 40 percent loss to the American taxpayers with respect to the inefficiency and the ineffectiveness of this program. Yet, again, the administration states as one of its objections the fact that it cuts this International Housing Guarantee Program. We come to the issue of Vietnam. The bill simply requires the President to certify that Vietnam is fully cooperating on the POW/MIA accounting prior to establishing even closer relations with Vietnam. Now, how can anyone find this objectionable? The President has already taken every opportunity to state his belief that Vietnam is fully cooperating. I may disagree with the President on that assertion, but be that as it may, if the President certifies that they are fully cooperating-- that is his own prerogative and initiative as described in this provision--then he can move forward to establish even broader diplomatic relations. So I cannot understand why the President would object to this language. Mr. President, it has been a long process with respect to this conference report. As I said earlier, again, I think it is important to remind Members of this body that we had no guidance, no counsel, from this administration. The fact is, in the process during the conference committee and prior to the meeting of the conference committee, members of the State Department, representing the administration and the Department, refused to offer language or to cooperate in the process throughout the month-long effort. I think we could have reached a consensus at some point. It is hard to believe they could not support this conference report, because I cannot imagine being more accommodating on all of the issues that were of concern to them originally in terms of how many agencies would be required to be merged into the State Department, or how much savings we would realize as a result. I mean, we basically went from three to one agency, and we went from $3 billion to $1.7 billion worth of savings as a result of agency consolidation and reorganization. From my estimation, I think that is a pretty reasonable compromise. I want to further remind this body again the Vice President said that we could achieve $5 billion worth of savings, the Secretary of State said and recommended to the administration that we ought to be able to consolidate three agencies into the State Department. But we are only talking about one here now. We are only talking about saving $1.7 billion. We have had no legislative recommendations from this administration with respect to this State Department authorization. Again, as I said earlier, for more than a decade that I have been working on this very issue, I have never had an administration not submit a legislative proposal with respect to authorization for the State Department and related agencies. The President, of course, can veto this legislation and has indicated he will. I hope that he will not because I do believe this conference report does strike a compromise between the House and the Senate. It accommodates the concerns and the views of the administration. I think it is unfortunate if the President moves forward with a veto because he will have failed to seize an opportunity to move forward in this consolidation process and to reorganize our foreign policy structure. It will be the President who vetoes that consolidation, and it will be the President who vetoes the savings in this bill. It will be the President who vetoes the McBride Principles and the codification of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. It will be the President who denies himself the authority he needs to prevent members of terrorist organizations from entering the United States and endangering the lives of American people. That is the bottom line here with respect to this conference report. I hope that Members will give this very serious consideration and adopt this conference report because it is, I think, a step towards the kind of goals we want to accomplish for our foreign policy structure, not only for the short term but for the long term. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution supporting the efforts of the U.S. Soccer Federation to bring the 1999 Women's World Cup tournament to the United States. Soccer is one of the world's most beloved sports, and its popularity in the United States has grown rapidly over the past 20 years. The Women's World Cup tournament, held every 4 years, is the single most important women's soccer event; the 1995 Women's World Cup was broadcast to millions of fans in 67 nations. Hosting this event will contribute to international goodwill and be a clear signal that America is serious about encouraging female participation in sports. Indeed, this tournament would serve as a showcase of the best female soccer athletes in the world, and something to which girls and young women could aspire. Already, girls' soccer has experienced an explosion in popularity. On the high school level, it is reported that 41,119 girls played soccer in 1980, while 191,350 played in the 1994-95 school year. That's a remarkable increase of over 400 percent. This increase is reflected on the collegiate level as well. In 1981, 77 schools sponsored women's soccer. By 1995, that number had swelled to 617. And a recent national survey indicates that of all the Americans who played soccer at least once during 1994, 39 percent percent were women. These are very encouraging numbers. They demonstrate that soccer is a very appealing sport to women, and they demonstrate that soccer is an excellent way to get girls and women excited about participating in sports. We all know that sports are just as important an activity for girls and women as they are for boys and men. Through sports, girls and women can get a feel for the positive competitive spirit which was, until recently, almost exclusively the property of boys and men. Women and girls who participate in sports develop self-confidence, dedication, a sense of team spirit, and an ability to work under pressure--traits which enhance all aspects of their lives. In fact, 80 percent of women identified as key leaders in Fortune 500 companies have sports backgrounds. Having the United States host the Women's World Cup in 1999 would be an inspirational way to highlight the excitement of participation in sports, and the heights of greatness which women can reach in athletics. Indeed, it would give Americans the chance to see their own outstanding female soccer players in action. The U.S. National Team won the inaugural title in 1991, and finished third in last year's event before sold out crowds. The success of the 1994 Men's World Cup Soccer tournament in the United States showed the world that we were ready to be the center of the soccer universe. Indeed, I think we all felt justifiable pride in providing the world with excellent venues as well as first-class transportation, security, communication, and accommodations. In order for the U.S. Soccer Federation to submit a formal bid to the Federation Internationale de Football Association [FIFA] to host the Women's World Cup, it must show Government backing. In 1987, a similar resolution was agreed to demonstrate support for the U.S. bid to host the 1994 Men's World Cup. By agreeing to this resolution, we will officially recognize their efforts and request that the President of the United States designate appropriate Federal agencies to work with the U.S. Soccer Federation to meet FIFA's requirements for the 1999 tournament's host country. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this worthwhile effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with a heart full of sadness, reflection, and fond memories of one of the true giants of this institution--former Senator Edmund S. Muskie of Maine. Like millions of Americans across the country, I awoke Tuesday to the news of Ed Muskie's passing. My heart goes out to his wonderful wife, Jane, their five children, grandchildren, and the entire Muskie family. I hope that their grief is tempered with the knowledge that their loss is shared by a Nation grateful for the life of a man who gave so much. Like many other Members of this body, upon hearing the news, I found myself looking back on the remarkable career and lasting legacy of this first son of Maine who became one of the legendary figures in American political life. Ed Muskie was a gentle lion. He sought consensus, but backed down from no one. He fought for what he believed in, and was loyal to his country. His greatest goal was to leave this Earth a better place for generations of Americans to come. And he succeeded. Mr. President, as every citizen of my home State knows, Ed Muskie transformed the political landscape of Maine. Before he was elected Governor in 1954, Ed was fond of saying ``the Democrats in Maine could caucus in a telephone booth.'' Well, much to the chagrin of some Republicans, Ed Muskie's election as Governor changed all that. He was literally the creator of the modern Democratic Party in Maine. After two 2-year terms as Governor, he went on to become the very first popularly elected Democratic Senator in Maine's history. And ultimately, his distinguished career culminated in his service to this Nation as Secretary of State. But of all the positions he held in public service, it was here--as a Member of this institution, Mr. President, that Ed Muskie left his most indelible mark on history. Whenever Washington gets mired down in partisan battles, I think of the example set by Senator Muskie and his Republican colleague, the late Senator Margaret Chase Smith, who died last year. They worked together across party lines on behalf of the people of Maine and the Nation. Although they may have had differences, they were united in their dedication to public service and to reaching consensus. They represented the best of what bipartisanship has to offer. In our present-day budget battles, I think of Senator Muskie, who helped shape the modern budget process as the first-ever chairman of the Budget Committee. Ed possessed a rare wisdom and discipline which allowed him to express in very simple terms why it is so difficult to achieve fiscal responsibility in the Congress. ``Members of Congress,'' he once said ``have won reelection with a two-part strategy: Talk like Scrooge on the campaign trail, and vote like Santa Claus on the Senate floor.'' Ed brandished that incisive wit many times in this very Chamber, Mr. President, and perhaps it was this humor, along with his commonsense approach to political life, that made Ed Muskie so effective throughout his remarkable career. During his 21 years in the Senate, Ed Muskie was known for his moderation but he did not hesitate to tangle with his colleagues when he felt passionately about an issue. His reputation as a fighter was established early in his Senatorial career when he went head-to-head with another giant of this body, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson. One day, as the story goes, the freshman Senator from Maine decided he just could not support the majority leader on a particular issue. Now, crossing the leader of your party is always risky, but that risk took on added significance when the leader was Lyndon Baines Johnson. But possessing a stubborn streak of downeast yankee independence that perhaps only a fellow Mainer can understand, Ed held his ground. He would not give in. So, in his typically forgiving--and nonvindictive--way, LBJ promptly assigned the freshman Senator his fourth, fifth, and sixth committee choices. From this rather dubious beginning, Ed Muskie landed a seat on the not-so-choice Public Works Committee. The rest, as they say, is history. It did not take him long to leave his mark on Washington--or on the land that stretches from the Allagash Wilderness of Maine, to the Florida Everglades, to the Redwood forests of California. You see, growing up in western Maine, Ed had developed a deep appreciation for the environment. Thoroughly committed and visionary, Senator Muskie helped transform the Public Works Committee and went on to become the founding father of environmental protection in America by sponsoring both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act of 1972. These two landmark pieces of legislation have both produced enormous benefits to the health and well-being of our Nation and its people. It is his unwavering commitment to environmental protection that is, perhaps, Ed Muskie's single greatest legacy to the American people. He was indeed Mr. Clean. With the news of his passing, my thoughts went back almost 2 years ago to the day--because Ed Muskie's birthday is March 28--when Ed and Jane Muskie, accompanied by their children and grandchildren, came to celebrate Ed's 80th birthday at the Blaine House, Maine's executive mansion, as the guests of my husband Gov. Jock McKernan and me. It was a great privilege for us to give Ed and Jane and their family an opportunity to come back to a place that held some of their fondest memories. It was a very special time for all of us. And they spent the night. It was a truly honorable moment in my life. That evening, Ed spoke passionately about the opportunities he enjoyed as a young man, and of the commitment and dedication that his parents had to their family and their community. And he spoke of the love and devotion that his father--a Polish immigrant--had for his new Nation. He spoke of how much his roots in the small town of Rumford, ME, meant to him. It was those deep roots, along with his strong sense of family, that gave Ed Muskie the foundation upon which he would stand as he became a leading figure in American political life. And he cherished his father's roots, and from the standpoint that he viewed it as America giving every opportunity to anybody who sought to achieve. I was struck with a very real sense of history listening to his reminiscences during that visit. I do not think it is possible for any Maine politician, regardless of party affiliation, to have come of age during the Muskie era and not have been influenced in some way by his presence. He was that preeminent in the political life of my State. Ed Muskie was a towering figure in every sense of the word. In his physical stature, in his intellect, in his presence on Capitol Hill, in the extent of his impact on the political life of Maine, and in the integrity he brought to bear in everything he did. And Ed was thoroughly and proudly a Mainer, with the quiet sense of humor associated with our State. Each year, the distinguished senior Senator entertained guests at the Maine State Society lobster dinner at the National Press Club by rubbing the belly of a live lobster, causing it to fall asleep, something only a real Mainer would know how to do. Personally, I will always remember and be grateful for the warmth, friendship, and encouragement that Ed Muskie gave me over the years. When I entered the U.S. House of Representatives in 1979, I was the newest member of the Maine congressional delegation. Ed was the dean of the delegation. We were congressional colleagues for only a year and a half, but our friendship lasted throughout the years. And when I was elected to the seat which he had held with such distinction, I was touched by his kindness, and grateful for his advice and counsel. Throughout his life, he never failed to answer the call of duty. He answered the call from the people of Maine * * * He answered the call from America's rivers and streams * * * And he answered a call from the President of the United States and a worried Nation when Senator Muskie became Secretary of State Muskie in a moment of national crisis. Mr. President, 75 years before Edmund Muskie was born, another famous Mainer, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, captured what I believe is the essence of the wonderful man we remember today. Longfellow wrote: Lives of great men all remind us we can make our lives sublime, And, departing, leave behind us footprints on the sands of time. Ed Muskie's footprints remain on those sands. They are there as a guide for those of us who would follow in his path. They are big footprints, not easily filled. But we would all do well to try. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to join with my colleagues, and with so many Americans--both of Greek and non-Greek descent--in celebrating March 25, Greek Independence Day. I am pleased to have been an original cosponsor of Senate Resolution 219, a bipartisan resolution that designated today ``Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy.'' That resolution was submitted by our distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and it was agreed to by the Senate unanimously on March 6. Today commemorates the 175th anniversary of the beginning of Greece's struggle for independence from the Ottoman Turkish Empire. After 400 years of foreign domination, and after 11 years of struggle against the despotic rule of the Ottoman Turks, Greece's independence was a cataclysmic event in European Affairs. At that time, outside of Britain and France, Europe was composed mainly of autocratic empires and states whose borders had little relation to their composite nationalities. The astounding accomplishment of the Greek people in achieving their independence from the vast Ottoman Empire acted as a catalyst in transforming the aspirations of Europeans across the continent. Greece's independence from the Turks was, in many ways, even a greater feat than the other great struggle for national independence 45 years earlier: the American Revolutionary War. Although the Greek people received support from many other countries, particularly from the United States, they enjoyed no advantage similar to a protective ocean or the active assistance of an ally such as France. During the last 175 years, the ideals of national independence and democracy, which were first expounded by the ancient Greeks, have spread widely throughout Europe and so much of the rest of the world. Greece's achievement of independence helped to spread not only the belief in the inherent right of national independence, but the belief that it is possible for a nation to assert its rights, despite seemingly impossible odds. Mr. President, it is appropriate to remember the meaning of March 25, which remains a powerful symbol of the ideals that America holds dear and upon which our own Nation was founded. But this is a symbol not only for the Greek and American people to celebrate. It should also be a day of commemoration for the many young, struggling democracies around the globe, as well as for the numerous nations and peoples still yearning to be free.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, for those who were becoming skeptical, the conference report before us demonstrates that bipartisanship is still alive and well in the U.S. Congress. First, I would like to express my appreciation to those who have contributed so greatly to the completion of this legislation--not only in the 104th Congress, but in some cases for more than a decade. The chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Pressler, has been instrumental in shepherding this legislation from the committee, to the Senate floor, into conference, and now back to the Senate floor. Also, Senator Rockefeller and Senator Gorton--whose commitment and leadership on this issue have been unsurpassed in the Senate, and without whose efforts we would not be voting on this conference report today--were invaluable in crafting this legislation. As I stated during the markup of S. 565 in the Senate Commerce Committee, and later during consideration of the bill on the floor of the Senate, I believe there is a compelling case for product liability reform in this country. I firmly believe the legislation the Senate adopted early last year was a critical and long overdue first step to reforming an area of law that touches each and every one of us as consumers in America. Therefore, I am now eager to see a well-conceived and balanced bill accomplishing this goal enacted during the 104th Congress. It is a goal I think we can and should reach. I believe the conference report before us is well-conceived and balanced, and am particularly pleased that it contains the punitive damage cap I offered, and which was adopted, during consideration of the Senate bill. In my statement on product liability on the floor of the Senate many months ago, I established my own personal checklist of critical issues I believed this legislation ought to address to make the bill fair, equitable, and effective. That is now also true for this conference report. First, we must allow safe consumer products to be developed to meet consumer needs, and ensure that consumers can seek reasonable compensation when injuries and damages occur. Second, the law must dissuade consumers from filing frivolous lawsuits, without discouraging Americans who have substantive complaints from filing legitimate suits. Third, a uniform law must encourage companies to police the safety of their own products--both by providing incentives for excellence in safety and strong punishment when product safety is breached. Last, and perhaps most importantly, one of our fundamental goals must be to ensure that this legislation protects the interests of the average American consumer who makes hefty use of products, but knows little of their innate safety or risk. I believe that this conference report--like the Senate-passed bill-- meets these criteria. One component of this conference report that I considered crucial to fulfilling these requirements is the cap on punitive damages. To understand the issue of a punitive damage cap, I think it is valuable to remember what punitive damages are--and are not. I believe this issue is particularly important before today's vote because of recent reports in various news sources that have confused a cap on punitive damages with a cap on pain-and-suffering, or a cap on economic damages. Punitive damages are punishment that serve an invaluable role in deterring quasi-criminal behavior by businesses. They have nothing to do with providing compensation to a person who has been harmed and are not intended in any way to make the plaintiff. That purpose is served by compensatory damages, which provide recovery for both economic damages--which include lost wages and medical expenses--and noneconomic damages, which include pain and suffering and other losses, such as those cased by the loss of one's sight, appendage, or reproductive organs. One of the overriding problems in our current system is the absence of any consistent, meaningful standards for determining whether punitive damages should be awarded and--if so--in what amounts. The absence of consistent standards not only leads to widely disparate and runaway punitive awards, but it also affects the settlement process. Individuals and companies that are sued often face a catch 22: pay high legal fees to fight a case through trial, verdict, and appeal--or simply settle out of court for any amount less than these anticipated legal fees. Even for the defendant who recognizes the cost of proving innocence to be too great, or simply hopes to avoid the lottery nature of a possible punitive award--seeking a settlement carries a hidden cost. The lack of a uniform national standard--or simply the existence of vague State standards--forces the defendant to include a punitive premium in their settlements, even when the likelihood of a punitive award is small or even nonexistent. In addition, the high reversal rate of punitive damage awards underscores the absence of clear and understandable rules. Therefore, in establishing a cap, I considered it vital that the measure we chose be fair, uniform, act as adequate punishment, and serve as an adequate deterrent. I believe a cap based on compensatory damages accomplishes all of these objectives, which is why I fought to include such a measure in the Senate bill. This measure is fair because it is blind to the socioeconomic position of the plaintiff. In addition, because a punitive cap that includes noneconomic damages in its formula is inherently unpredictable, one cannot argue that a business with quasi-criminal intents will be able to predict the ultimate cost of all possible punitive claims and make a financial decision to produce a dangerous product. At the same time, I do not believe that a cap based on a measure of economic damages alone would accomplish all of these objectives in all circumstances. Although such a measure might serve as adequate punishment and act as an adequate deterrent in many cases, it relies too greatly on the economic position of the plaintiff in establishing a sufficient level of punishment. While the Senate bill also included an additur provision that allowed the judge to impose a higher punitive damage award in particularly egregious circumstances--and this conference report also includes a modified additur provision--I believe the measure based on compensatory damages will work for everyone and will subject egregious offenders to strong punishment. This standard is fair and nondiscriminatory. It will apply to all litigants equally--whether you are a man or woman, wealthy or poor, a child or an adult. Therefore, I am particularly pleased that the conference report before us maintains the Snowe amendment on punitive damages. And while I believe that the additur will be proven to be unnecessary due to the inherently even-handed and unpredictable nature of total compensatory damages, I accept its inclusion in the conference report as a means of providing the opportunity for additional punishment in cases where a judge--staying within the parameters set by the jury--deems it necessary. Mr. President, the bill before us--as outlined by Senators Gorton and Rockefeller--is a targeted bill that brings common sense and reform to one class of lawsuits: those pertaining to product liability. I believe this legislation is sound and will benefit consumers and businesses. As a result, I share the disappointment of other Members of this body in President Clinton's statement that he would veto this bipartisan legislation. At the least, I found it surprising that President Clinton opposes legislation that he endorsed as a member of the National Governors' Association when he was Governor Clinton. I remain hopeful that President Clinton will reconsider his opposition in the coming days. I think a strong bipartisan vote in favor of this legislation is just what the President needs in order to see the light on this issue. Mr. President, we must be able to show the American people that we not only considered this essential and historic legislation, but that we passed it with strong bipartisan support as well. There is simply no question that, if enacted, this reform will have a positive and wide- ranging impact on millions of Americans. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE. How much time do I have remaining?

Ms. SNOWE. I will consume as much time as I require. I thank the Chair. I rise today to join the distinguished Senator from Indiana in offering an amendment that I think will address many concerns. In fact, I am pleased to have the opportunity to clarify some of the misinformation that has been expressed regarding this compromise amendment. No one can question whether or not it is appropriate to ensure quality care for women in America. No one can question that we need to maintain accreditation standards for medical institutions across this country. The fact remains that this amendment on which I worked in conjunction with the Senator from Indiana does not allow Federal funds to go to an unaccredited institution because they fail to provide for abortion training. Nothing could be further from the truth. This amendment accomplishes two things. One, it does protect those institutions and those individuals who do not want to get involved in the performance or training of abortion when it is contrary to their beliefs. Second, and just as important, it preserves the quality of health care that will be provided to women because it protects the universally accepted standards--there is only one set of standards--of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education that provides for quality standards for ob-gyn programs. So this amendment would not only make sure that women have access to quality health care with the strictest of standards when it comes to quality and safety but it also will ensure that they have access to physicians who specialize in women's health care. I do not think anybody would disagree with the fact--and I am pro- choice on this matter, but I do not think anybody would disagree with the fact that an institution or an individual who does not want to perform an abortion should do so contrary to their beliefs. But at the same time we have to make sure we preserve the accreditation standards that are established by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, that provides for the standards for more than 7,400 medical institutions in America. We want to make sure we do not undo 50 State licensure boards with respect to overturning or overriding this one set of accreditation standards. That is what we were dealing with, and hence this compromise here today, because whether we like it or not--and certainly I do not like it--in the House of Representatives they have already passed legislation that would allow Federal funds to go to an unaccredited institution. That is a fact, and that is unacceptable. That is why I worked with the Senator from Indiana to ensure that would not happen. Contrary to what has been said here today, 88 percent of medical institutions in this country do not provide abortion training even though it is implicitly required in the accreditation standards. So we are not broadening this issue to provide for an exodus from performing or participating in abortion training. Eighty-eight percent of the institutions currently do not provide it, even though there is a conscience clause. So this legislation is saying we do not want what is going to happen in the House of Representatives with the accreditation standards being dismissed and abandoned. That is an issue and that is a reality. That is why I worked with the Senator from Indiana to ensure that we preserve the one set of standards in America that the Federal Government relies on for the purposes of Federal funding, that medical students rely on for the purposes of Federal funding, that physicians rely on in terms of judging standards, that patients and consumers and States rely on in terms of determining their licensing procedures. So the choice was not to address the reality of what is taking place in the House or making sure, more importantly, that the Senate was on record in opposition to that kind of language and developing a compromise with the Senator from Indiana to ensure that we maintained the accreditation standards for all medical institutions to advance the quality health care for women and at the same time to allow training for abortion for those who want to participate in that training or for the institutions who want to provide it. Because that is the way it is done now. That is the status quo, and that is not changing. I know consensus and compromise is not the norm anymore. I think it is important on this issue because abortion is a very divisive issue. No one can challenge me on where I stand on this issue. But I think it is also important to make sure that we preserve quality health care for women in America. I do not want to see these accreditation standards undone, and that is what the legislation that was originally pending would have done. The House language went much further than that. This is a compromise to preserve those standards. This is a compromise to ensure that it does not jeopardize the 273 ob-gyn programs that otherwise would have been affected if this compromise was not before us. That is the risk, and that is why I worked with the Senator from Indiana to ensure that would not happen. It is inappropriate for this institution to be involved in the accreditation standards or curriculum, but that is not what we are dealing with here. It has already happened. I want to be able to go to conference to ensure that the House language is not adopted, and the best way to do that is to ensure we can pass language that everybody could agree on, that represents a consensus and does not jeopardize the kind of care that women in America deserve. That is what this compromise amendment is all about. I urge adoption of this compromise amendment. To do otherwise is to risk getting the House language in the final analysis. That, indeed, would set a very dangerous precedent. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Indiana.

Ms. SNOWE. Yes, I yield the Senator 2 additional minutes.

Ms. SNOWE. I yield 2 minutes.