Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination of Charlene Barshefsky to be the next United States Trade Representative. In representing a State with a long history of trade with Canada, I have taken particular interest in President Clinton's nominee for USTR. I have had serious concerns about this administration's lack of aggressiveness in pursuing the concerns of Maine's farmers and businesses regarding unfair trade practices by neighboring Canada. Canada is Maine's No. 1 trading partner, and Mainers value this relationship, but we want it to be a fair relationship. When evidence is found that trading practices are not fair, the United States needs to take strong and effective action. To underscore my concern about this problem, I withheld my support for Ambassador Barshefsky until I had an opportunity to meet with her to discuss several trade issues important to the people of my State. Farmers, fishermen, and others in natural resource industries have long been concerned about unfair trade practices by the Canadian Government. Maine potato farmers, in particular, have labored under trade practices that have threatened the very survival of some farms. Particularly troubling are apparent subsidies from the Canadian Government that allow Canadian farmers to sell their products at artificially low prices, thus enabling Canadian farmers to dump large volumes of potatoes into the American market. At the same time, there is concern that Canadians may be erecting trade barriers that make it difficult for our farmers to sell their products in Canada. We cannot continue to tolerate Canadian trading practices that adversely affect Maine potato farmers, who have seen more than their share of hard times. However, I am encouraged by Ambassador Barshefsky's recent actions, which include asking the International Trade Commission to undertake an investigation to determine the nature and extent of Canadian potato subsidies. This is a step in the right direction and a good sign that these issues will finally get the attention they deserve. But it is only a first step. It is critical that the administration follow through and take action to assure a level playing field. Another issue I raised with the Ambassador was the frustration of some Maine shellfish companies with newly instituted inspection fees on shellfish products exported to Canada. Maine shellfish exporters have been concerned that the Canadians are unfairly targeting their products for inspection in an attempt to make it more difficult for Maine shellfish to be shipped to Canada. On this issue I found the Ambassador to be very responsive. She has been helpful with gathering information, and I am pleased USTR officials have begun meetings with their Canadian counterparts to review these onerous fees. Finally, I also raised the issue, which the distinguished Senator from South Carolina has talked about, and that is the issue of the U.S. tariffs on capacitors. As part of the Information Technology Agreement negotiated in Singapore last year, the administration agreed to a European proposal to eliminate the current 9 percent tariff on capacitors entering the United States. Under the agreement, the tariff would be eliminated in July of this year. The elimination of this tariff could pose a serious hardship on several American companies, one of which is in my State of Maine. The Ambassador and I discussed this hardship, and I made the case that the industry was unaware of even the potential that this tariff could be eliminated. I asked what measures could be taken to provide some relief. I was impressed with the Ambassador's knowledge on this issue, and I was very encouraged by a commitment she made to me to find middle ground with the Europeans that would give American manufacturers of capacitors more time to adjust to a tariff elimination. Specifically, we talked about the possibility of having a phaseout of the tariff, rather than the abrupt elimination in July. In closing, I would like to address the issue of the need to waive a provision passed last Congress as part of the lobbying disclosure act. This provision prohibits the appointment of any person who has represented a foreign government in a trade dispute with the United States from serving as USTR or deputy USTR. Like many of my colleagues, I was very concerned about the need to exempt someone from a law that is on the books and has been passed so recently. Since the foreign country involved is Canada, I was particularly concerned because of the contentious trading relationship that my State has had over the years with Canada on many important products. However, after addressing this issue with Ambassador Barshefsky, I learned that she was previously exempted from this provision in her capacity as deputy USTR. It, therefore, does seem reasonable to me to allow this waiver to follow her into her new duties as USTR, and I agree with the Finance Committee's unanimous recommendation to waive the law. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to meet with Ambassador Barshefsky and her staff to discuss these important issues. They are critical issues to my constituents. I found her to be very knowledgeable and responsive. I am hopeful that her tenure as USTR will bring about renewed interest, commitment and, most of all, action on trade issues confronting the people of Maine. I appreciate the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee yielding me time, and I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to urge Senate approval of the balanced budget constitutional amendment. Some have argued that a constitutional amendment is not needed to ensure a balanced budget, but history clearly demonstrates that, despite good intentions, we will not get the job done absent the constitutional requirement. Every President during the past two decades has pledged to balance the budget. In 1970, President Nixon said that he would recommend a balanced budget by 1971. President Ford pledged to achieve a balanced budget in 1976. In 1978, President Carter pledged to move rapidly toward a balanced budget. In 1983, President Reagan talked of achieving a balanced budget by the end of the decade. The list goes on and on. The simple fact is that the road to our huge national debt has been paved with good intentions. The old saying that ``we have met the enemy and it is us'' has never been more applicable. I know the pressures on Washington to spend money, even borrowed money. By and large, each Congress sets out to be fiscally responsible, but our national debt still grows. The truth is that experience has taught us that even in good times, we need the discipline of a constitutional amendment. Thank you, Madam President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, along with Senator Hutchison and Senator Wyden, I am pleased to submit this resolution to commemorate the 35th anniversary of the William Randolph Hearst U.S. Senate Youth Program. As the first graduate of the program to become a U.S. Senator, I can honestly say that the week I spent in Washington in 1971, as one of two delegates from Maine, profoundly influenced my life and career. Even though my family has a long and proud tradition of public service-- my great grandfather, my grandfather and my father all served in the State legislature, and both of my parents served as mayor of Caribou, ME--it was a week I spent in Washington with the Senate Youth Program that caused me to seriously consider a career in the public sector. For the past 35 years, the Senate Youth Program has selected two of the brightest and most active students in each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Department of Defense schools abroad to spend a week learning about our Nation's government first-hand. Over the years, 3,600 such students have participated in the program and gone on to serve our Nation in various capacities, including public service. Monday morning, I had the pleasure of addressing this year's delegates and was impressed with their enthusiasm, knowledge, and the high caliber of the questions they posed. I was delighted to see how the program has maintained--perhaps even surpassed--the high standards for which it is so well known. The continued generosity of the William Randolph Hearst Foundation enables students to come to the District of Columbia and see a side of government that few Americans see in their lifetime. Each year the delegates meet with top members of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. I remember how fascinated I was as a delegate to listen to Senators Byrd and Thurmond speak to us about the history of the Senate and the issues of the day. But the highlight of my week was the time I spent talking with my home State Senator, Margaret Chase Smith. I went to Senator Smith's office hoping to shake her hand; instead, she took me into her private office and spent 2 hours talking with me about the importance of public service and the difference one person can make. When I left her office, I remember feeling so proud that she was my Senator and that I could do anything I set my mind to. So, today it is my pleasure to sponsor this resolution paying tribute to the 3,600 delegates who have participated in the Senate Youth Program over the past 35 years, some of whom we may see here in the Congress, the Supreme Court, or even the White House in years to come. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to add my voice to those of my distinguished colleagues who have spoken in favor of a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is not surprising that with a national debt which is $5.3 trillion and still growing this debate is awash in statistics, each more staggering than the last. As someone who ran for office to fight for more opportunities and better jobs, I find the costs in those areas of our chronic failure to balance the budget to be particularly troubling. In light of the President's call for a crusade for education, one of the more telling statistics is that last year the Federal Government spent about $240 billion to service our national debt, an amount that is almost eight times greater than the amount we spent on education. Think about that. If we had been operating the Government without debt, we could have spent nine times more on educating our children. Now, that is what I call a crusade. Whatever the long-term benefits to the public sector from balancing the budget, they pale in comparison to the benefits to our families. The Concord Coalition has estimated that had we not run deficits for the past two decades, the average family's annual income would be $15,500 higher. Looked at prospectively, the General Accounting Office has said that we will increase per capita income by 26 percent over the next two decades if we balance our budget. These are not partisan statistics, just as this is not a partisan issue. The numbers I have cited to demonstrate the enormous costs of our past fiscal failures can be found in a recent letter to the editor from former Democratic Senator Paul Simon, a leader in the battle for a constitutional amendment, whose 22 years of congressional service ended before the goal to which he was so deeply committed could become a reality. The economic evidence that favors a balanced budget is overwhelming. But one legitimately may ask how I make the jump from the need for a balanced budget to the need for a constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget. That is a political not an economic issue but the evidence is equally as overwhelming. The simple fact is that the road to our huge national debt has been paved with good intentions. We have had the Deficit Reduction Act, the Gramm-Rudman Act, the Budget Enforcement Act, and yet we still have deficits. The old saying that ``We have met the enemy and it is us'' has never been more applicable. As a freshman Senator, I do not sit in judgment on my predecessors and say that I would have done it differently. I know the pressures on Washington to spend money, even borrowed money. By and large, each Congress sets out to be fiscally responsible, but our national debt still grows. The truth is experience has taught us that even in good times we need the discipline of a constitutional amendment. To those who say that this issue does not rise to the level of constitutional protection, I respectfully disagree. It is the unique genius of the U.S. Constitution that serves to protect our people and their property from the excesses of their Government. It is difficult to imagine a greater excess, at least in the realm of property, than a debt burden of more than $5 trillion. The legacy we are leaving our children and our grandchildren, many of them not yet born, is taxation without representation in its most egregious form. As I said earlier, this is a debate in which there has been no shortage of statistics and no shortage of speeches, but buried somewhere beneath that pile of numbers and mounds of rhetoric is a very simple principle. That is that all of us, including the Congress of the United States, must be personally responsible for our actions. In the context of the budget, personal responsibility means not spending what is not ours to spend. The 104th Congress struck a strong blow for personal responsibility in its welfare legislation. It told able-bodied welfare recipients that they could not live off the efforts of others; that they would have to earn their own way. For those who grew up in a culture of dependency, this was a harsh message. But it was the right message because responsibility for one's own actions is the core of the American effort. I think it important that the Congress and the President not hold themselves to any less of a standard of personal responsibility. During the past quarter century, a culture of dependency has developed right here in the U.S. Congress, and it is reflected in our dependency on the money of future generations. In each of the past 27 years, we have borrowed from our children and our grandchildren to buy things for ourselves, building up an immense debt with no end in sight. The legacy we are leaving, however, is not just financial. It is a legacy of excess, of taking advantage of those who cannot protect their own interests, of practicing not deferred gratification but, rather, deferred responsibility. I recognize that deficits are sometimes unavoidable and that, indeed, they are sometimes critical to finance wars or to get the economy moving out of a recession. The balanced budget amendment would still permit deficit spending in the event of war, recession, or other emergency, but deficit spending today is no longer a tool carefully used by Congress and the President to respond to emergencies. Rather, it has become a permanent feature of our fiscal landscape. Just how permanent deficit spending has become is reflected in the staggering fact that if every man, woman, and child in this Nation brought all of their currency to Washington, DC, it would not be enough to pay off our national debt. Those who argue that we do not need a constitutional amendment to solve this problem are simply ignoring our fiscal history. I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise to address my colleagues for the first time from the floor of the U.S. Senate, the world's greatest deliberative body. I am honored to be standing where once stood Senator Margaret Chase Smith, who was such an inspiration to me as a young girl growing up in Caribou, ME. In all of history, only 26 women have served in the Senate, only 15 of us elected in our own right. I am especially proud that my home State is the first to send two Republican women to serve in the Senate at the same time. And I am very pleased to be sharing that honor with my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe. During my youth, the people of Maine were fortunate to have an inspiring example of a woman who stood tall for her principles and for her State. As a Senator from 1949 to 1972, Margaret Chase Smith taught us that women could reach the highest levels of government and that hard work, common sense, and integrity are rewarded. Equally important, Senator Smith taught us how to govern. She recognized it is only through civil discourse and a spirit of cooperation that the people's business gets done. And she showed us all, through her deeds as well as her words, that there is a difference between the principle of compromise and the compromise of principle. Compromising one's principles is wrong. Compromising on how to achieve those principles is the essence of a healthy democracy. Each of us is called to serve, and the different ways in which we are called form the fabric of this great Nation. Some are called to heal and become doctors and nurses. Others are called to impart wisdom to the next generation and become teachers. Others are called to work in the businesses, large and small, that provide the products and services that enrich our daily lives. Still others are called to be the entrepreneurs who create the jobs that keep this country at the forefront of the world's economy. With a father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and great-great- grandfather who all served in the Maine Legislature, I heard the call to public service at an early age. And that call was not limited to the men in my family, as my mother served as head of the local school board, as mayor of Caribou, and as the chair of the board of trustees of Maine's State university system. With my family background, no greater honor could be bestowed upon me than to represent the people of Maine in the U.S. Senate. In undertaking my duties as Senator, Mr. President, I come to Washington not as an enemy of government but as one committed to improving it. We need a vigorous debate in this country about the role of government, a reassessment of what it can and cannot do. There are some problems that only the Federal Government has the resources and the authority to address, but many times the answers are found not in Washington but in our neighborhoods, our communities, our States, and ultimately in ourselves. If there is one change in government on which we should all be able to agree, it is that we need to start to be more forthright with the American people about the difficult challenges facing us. A well-known Maine business sells hunting boots, and if you buy a pair of them you can be confident they will withstand the test of time. Take them apart and you will understand why. They contain no bells or whistles. If our Federal budget were as honestly constructed as a pair of Maine boots, future taxpayers could sleep as well as Maine woodsmen. In assessing the role of government, we must never forget that the great advances we have made over the years can ultimately be traced to the energy and creativity of our citizens. Indeed, perhaps the most profound change in political thought around the globe during the past two decades has been the recognition that there is usually a correlation between less government and more progress. Government must foster the energy and creativity of our private sector. As Winston Churchill once said, ``Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon.'' I do see private enterprise as that sturdy horse, and in that wagon which it is pulling are the jobs that are so critical to all of our constituents. Wherever I travel in Maine, the primary concern of the people is jobs. In the past, they were worried about whether jobs would be there for their children and their grandchildren. Today, they are worried about their own jobs as well--some about getting jobs and many more about keeping the ones that they have. We live in the midst of an exciting and dynamic technological revolution, but it is accompanied by widespread anxiety about our futures. One need only visit with former mill workers in Millinocket or Biddeford, ME, to understand that fear. To respond to the concerns of our citizens, Government policies must promote job creation and retention, and the starting point is small business. In my State, it is the 30,000 small businesses that provide most of the new employment opportunities, and it is small businesses that will account for two-thirds of the new jobs in the next decade. Even though small businesses provide the spark that ignites many of the new ideas that benefit us all, Government policies often serve to inhibit rather than foster these enterprises. A glaring example is the onerous estate tax that deters families from passing on a successful business from one generation to the next. An owner of such a business in Maine once told me that he made the painful decision to sell his family business to a large out-of-State corporation rather than leave it to his children and force them to assume a large debt to pay the Federal estate tax. He was forced to abandon what he and his father before him had spent their lives building. Making matters worse, the new corporate owner consolidated its administrative operations out of State, costing Maine more than 50 good jobs. That is wrong. That is the kind of policy we must change. If excessive taxes cause the downfall of some enterprises, others are done in by unreasonable regulations. This occurred in Lubec, ME, located in one of the most beautiful but also one of the poorest parts of my State. During my Senate campaign, I toured the empty shell of the McCurdy Fish Co., a family owned business that had operated in Lubec for more than 90 years, providing 20 good, much-needed jobs to this area. It was closed down by new Federal regulations with which it simply could not afford to comply. Adding insult to injury, just across the border the company's Canadian competitor continued processing fish in the same manner as had the Lubec company and exported its product into the United States, free from these expensive regulations. Mr. President, another essential step to promoting an economic climate that creates jobs is balancing the Federal budget. It has been estimated that a balanced budget would reduce interest rates by more than 1 percent, a strong stimulus for growth and employment. To ensure long-term prosperity, we must learn to live within our means. Not since 1969 has this Nation seen a balanced budget. More than 25 years of skyrocketing spending and an unwillingness to make sacrifices have ballooned our debt to more than $5.2 trillion. We must act now or leave a legacy of crushing debt to the next generation. At the rate we are going, we may cross that bridge to the 21st century, only to arrive in a land of unkept promises and unpaid bills. To avoid this fate, one of my top priorities will be to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. History shows that it will take a constitutional requirement for Congress to embrace fiscal responsibility as a permanent obligation rather than as a passing fad. Fiscal responsibility also means Medicare and Social Security must be placed on a sound financial footing. Only through effective action on these fronts will we be able to keep our promises to our seniors without bankrupting our children. A third key to jobs is quality education. The fruits of the new age in which we live will be shared by most of our citizens only if the doors of opportunity are open wide. Contrary to what some would have you believe, we do not face a choice between the greed of a few and the well-being of the many. Rather, we need policies that will ensure that when an entrepreneur drops the stone of innovation into the technological pool, the benefits ripple throughout society. Government cannot and should not assure equality of outcomes. But without equality of opportunity, the American dream is unfairly denied. The reality of today's workplace is that 85 percent of the new jobs will require some sort of post-secondary education, whether that be a community college, a technical or vocational education, or a bachelor's degree and beyond. We must do what we can to open the doors to a post- secondary education for anyone who wants it, and to ensure that cost is not the barrier that separates those who pursue higher education from those who do not. Increasingly, we are finding that the growing gap between the rich and the poor in this Nation is an education gap. A final element in achieving broad-based participation in the new American-led industrial and technological revolution is fair trade. The primary victims of unfair trading practices are workers, particularly those with the fewest skills and the least education. Let me be clear: I am a strong advocate of free trade, but we cannot sustain majority support for that policy unless we take a strong stand against unfair practices. While mine is a message of jobs and opportunity, I know that there are those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to get by without help from their government. Hubert Humphrey once said, ``the moral test of a government is how * * * [it] * * * treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life--the sick, the needy and the handicapped.'' As we go about the difficult task of balancing the budget, of choosing among many worthwhile programs, we must take care not to leave behind those who truly need our help. Those are the principles upon which my vision of the future of America is based. And I bring one other principle to this body, one which will guide me more than any other as I embark upon this exciting journey, and that is a steadfast commitment to the people of Maine. Whether it is fighting for Maine's fair share of Federal contracts, urging a business to expand and create jobs in our State, or helping a constituent navigate the bureaucratic maze in order to receive veterans' benefits, it will be service to the people of my State that will be my highest priority as Maine's newest Senator. Just 1 year ago, I stood in Bangor, ME, with my family and my friends at my side, and announced my intention to seek a seat in the U.S. Senate. I told the people of Maine then that I would represent them with dignity and determination, with energy and enthusiasm. My approach will be simple and straightforward: I will listen to all points of view, I will engage in constructive dialog with my colleagues, I will compromise when compromise is warranted, but, after all is said and done, I will fight for those changes that will make the Federal Government better able to serve the people of Maine. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is a tremendous honor to be able to cast my second vote as a U.S. Senator to confirm my friend and mentor, Senator Bill Cohen, as this Nation's Secretary of Defense. In describing the characteristics that make Senator Cohen so well qualified for this job, it would be presumptuous and unnecessary for me to detail his expertise in defense matters to his former colleagues in the Senate. Most of you have worked closely with him on defense issues for many years, and all of you are certainly aware of the depth of his knowledge and experience in this arena. Simply put, Bill Cohen's understanding of the complexities of defense policy is unassailable. But I do want to attest personally to Bill Cohen's integrity and character, and on that basis there is simply no one more qualified for this enormous responsibility. Bill Cohen embodies the patriotism, the thoughtfulness, the steadfastness, and the intellect that the task of overseeing our Nation's security requires. He brings to the job a fierce dedication to his principles, a level-headed ability to never make a rash or uninformed decision, and the desire to make the Nation's defense stronger while at the same time making it more effective and more efficient. Most important of all, Bill Cohen will never put Americans troops at risk unnecessarily. In every decision involving the deployment of our men and women in uniform, he will see the faces of our troops, not just the statistics and logistics. He will bring to the Pentagon the reasoned, thoughtful approach that matters as weighty as war and peace require. I have known Bill Cohen for more than 24 years. I first met him when he was running for Congress in 1972, seeking the seat representing Maine's Second District. He was walking more than 600 miles across the sprawling district, introducing himself to the voters. I volunteered to drive the campaign car as he criss-crossed the roads of northern Maine. I was inspired by his determination to meet the people whom he wanted to serve in Washington and by his sincere interest in their hopes and fears. I was also impressed then, as I am now, by his commitment to public service, to doing what was best for the people he represented. Over the years, I saw countless examples of that commitment, whether he was representing the people of the Second District as a House Member, or the people of the whole State as a Senator. Now I have no doubt that he will bring the same dedication for public service to a job at the highest levels of public service, one that answers to the largest constituency of all--the Nation. In the more than two decades since I first met Bill Cohen, he has been my inspiration, my guide, and my friend. It gives me great pride to be able to be here today to endorse his nomination. I am delighted that the President has made such an outstanding nomination for such a critical Cabinet post. This morning I testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee to urge its prompt and favorable consideration of Bill Cohen's nomination. I am pleased that the committee was able to act so quickly to bring this outstanding nomination to the Senate floor. And I know my colleagues will join me in unanimously approving Bill Cohen's nomination.