Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues as one of the original cosponsors of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998. The Rehabilitation Act, originally adopted almost 80 years ago, has developed during succeeding years into one of this country's most important efforts assisting disabled persons in achieving their potentials for employment. This law authorizes programs helping persons with disabilities attain their full employment potential as self-supporting, contributing members of society. It provides supported employment services for persons who cannot work independently and offers the services disabled persons need to lead independent lives even if an individual is not capable of working. Through the Rehabilitation Act, federal-state programs provide comprehensive services that help persons with physical and mental disabilities become employable, achieve independence, and participate more fully in society. The Rehabilitation Amendments of 1998, which we are introducing today, reaffirm the commitment of the federal government to its disabled citizens and continues the progress we have seen in previous reauthorizations. This bill advances Federal-State rehabilitation efforts in numerous ways. This morning I want to mention three of the changes I believe are the most significant: first, the linking of vocational rehabilitation services to other workforce investment programs; second, the authorization of core services to individuals not eligible for services under an order of selection; and third, the simplification of access to vocational rehabilitation services. This bill, which will be incorporated into the S. 1186, the Workforce Investment Partnership Act, will be functionally linked to the state workforce, job training, and vocational and adult education systems authorized by S. 1186. The Rehabilitation Act will thereby become part of the effort by Congress to replace a fragmented array of programs with an integrated federal system of workforce development without sacrificing the integrity and effectiveness of the vocational rehabilitation program. This process is already underway in Maine through the Maine Department of Labor's one stop career centers. This legislation will make it easier for Maine and other states to create a seamless system of employment assistance for our disabled citizens. The second improvement is the authorization of core services to all eligible disabled persons. Because the Rehabilitation Act requires the states to serve the most severely disabled individuals, large numbers of individuals with lesser disabilities have been cut off from services. The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 will permit a state to provide core services to those individuals who are not eligible for full services under the state's criteria for order of selection. Under this provision of the law the states may provide individualized counseling and guidance, individualized vocational exploration, supervised job placement referrals, and assistance obtaining reasonable accommodations even if the individual does not qualify for actual rehabilitation services. This will extend important and highly effective services to a large, deserving population and should greatly enhance these individuals' success in obtaining employment. A third advance is the simplification of the procedures by which eligibility for rehabilitation is established. Under these amendments, individuals receiving Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Disability Income are presumed to be eligible for services providing they intend to seek employment and have an impediment to employment caused by their disability. In addition to these significant changes that directly affect the clients of the vocational rehabilitation program, this act makes important changes that will make the administration of the vocational rehabilitation program more efficient and reduce a state's administrative burden. One example of this is the coordination of a states vocational rehabilitation plan with the submission of the other job training plans submitted under the Workforce Investment Partnership Act. This will help to eliminate duplicative provisions, submissions and reports. Another is the requirement for cooperation and collaboration through cooperative agreements among the state's vocational rehabilitation agency and other components of a state's workforce investment system. While these agreements will be most visible as they affect access and delivery of services, they will also bring about coordination of information and financial management systems leading to simplified and improved management of a state's job training efforts. I am proud to cosponsor the reauthorization of an act which has helped so many disabled individuals achieve employment and independent lives.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues as one of the original cosponsors of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998. The Rehabilitation Act, originally adopted almost 80 years ago, has developed during succeeding years into one of this country's most important efforts assisting disabled persons in achieving their potentials for employment. This law authorizes programs helping persons with disabilities attain their full employment potential as self-supporting, contributing members of society. It provides supported employment services for persons who cannot work independently and offers the services disabled persons need to lead independent lives even if an individual is not capable of working. Through the Rehabilitation Act, federal-state programs provide comprehensive services that help persons with physical and mental disabilities become employable, achieve independence, and participate more fully in society. The Rehabilitation Amendments of 1998, which we are introducing today, reaffirm the commitment of the federal government to its disabled citizens and continues the progress we have seen in previous reauthorizations. This bill advances Federal-State rehabilitation efforts in numerous ways. This morning I want to mention three of the changes I believe are the most significant: first, the linking of vocational rehabilitation services to other workforce investment programs; second, the authorization of core services to individuals not eligible for services under an order of selection; and third, the simplification of access to vocational rehabilitation services. This bill, which will be incorporated into the S. 1186, the Workforce Investment Partnership Act, will be functionally linked to the state workforce, job training, and vocational and adult education systems authorized by S. 1186. The Rehabilitation Act will thereby become part of the effort by Congress to replace a fragmented array of programs with an integrated federal system of workforce development without sacrificing the integrity and effectiveness of the vocational rehabilitation program. This process is already underway in Maine through the Maine Department of Labor's one stop career centers. This legislation will make it easier for Maine and other states to create a seamless system of employment assistance for our disabled citizens. The second improvement is the authorization of core services to all eligible disabled persons. Because the Rehabilitation Act requires the states to serve the most severely disabled individuals, large numbers of individuals with lesser disabilities have been cut off from services. The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 will permit a state to provide core services to those individuals who are not eligible for full services under the state's criteria for order of selection. Under this provision of the law the states may provide individualized counseling and guidance, individualized vocational exploration, supervised job placement referrals, and assistance obtaining reasonable accommodations even if the individual does not qualify for actual rehabilitation services. This will extend important and highly effective services to a large, deserving population and should greatly enhance these individuals' success in obtaining employment. A third advance is the simplification of the procedures by which eligibility for rehabilitation is established. Under these amendments, individuals receiving Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Disability Income are presumed to be eligible for services providing they intend to seek employment and have an impediment to employment caused by their disability. In addition to these significant changes that directly affect the clients of the vocational rehabilitation program, this act makes important changes that will make the administration of the vocational rehabilitation program more efficient and reduce a state's administrative burden. One example of this is the coordination of a states vocational rehabilitation plan with the submission of the other job training plans submitted under the Workforce Investment Partnership Act. This will help to eliminate duplicative provisions, submissions and reports. Another is the requirement for cooperation and collaboration through cooperative agreements among the state's vocational rehabilitation agency and other components of a state's workforce investment system. While these agreements will be most visible as they affect access and delivery of services, they will also bring about coordination of information and financial management systems leading to simplified and improved management of a state's job training efforts. I am proud to cosponsor the reauthorization of an act which has helped so many disabled individuals achieve employment and independent lives.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold a hearing entitled ``Medicare Fraud Prevention: Improving The Medicare Enrollment Process.'' This hearing will take place on Thursday, January 29, 1998, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Timothy Shea of the Subcommittee staff at 224-3721. committee on energy and natural resources

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words in honor of one of our Nation's most legendary Senators and one of Maine's most beloved public figures: Senator Margaret Chase Smith. December 14 marks the 100th anniversary of Senator Smith's birth. Since we will not be in session on the 14th, I would like to take the opportunity to speak in honor of her centennial today. Margaret Chase Smith has the distinction of being the first woman elected in her own right to both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. She served in the Senate from 1949 to 1972--the entire time that I was growing up in Maine. Throughout her tenure in Congress, she served as a great source of pride and inspiration for countless people throughout Maine and the Nation. Mr. President, I am one of those fortunate people whose life was touched personally by Senator Margaret Chase Smith. So it is with a great deal of gratitude and admiration that I speak about her legacy today in celebration of her centennial. Mr. President, when I was just 18 years old, a high school senior from Caribou, ME, Senator Margaret Chase Smith encouraged me to pursue a career in public service. Now I serve in the U.S. Senate, holding her very seat. Her example of moderation, independence and integrity continues to guide me every day as I seek to represent the people of Maine. Walking through the Halls of the Senate, I am frequently reminded of my first significant encounter with Senator Smith. In January 1971, I left my hometown of Caribou, ME, to spend a week here in Washington, DC. I was one of 100 high school students from around the Nation participating in the U.S. Senate Youth Program. The program consisted of VIP tours of Washington, formal dinners, and numerous high-profile speakers ranging from Supreme Court Justices to top White House officials. The highlight of my week, however, was the afternoon that we visited our respective Senators. When I arrived at Senator Smith's office, I was immediately ushered into her personal suite. Her office was bustling with activity, and yet it had a stately and serene quality. Senator Smith looked perfectly at home in the setting as the only woman in the Senate. Her green office suited her well and, of course, reminded me of the State of Maine. She shook my hand and invited me to sit down, and seemed genuinely interested in what I had to say. Much to my amazement, Mr. President, instead of just quickly posing with me for a picture, Senator Smith spent nearly 2 hours talking to me about her years in Congress. She stressed the importance of public service and the difference that one person could make. We talked about her opposition to McCarthyism and the necessity of standing tall for one's principles no matter what the cost. As I was leaving, she handed me a copy of her famous ``Declaration of Conscience'' speech to take with me. I was struck by her presence and I knew that she was a woman of enormous strength and integrity. I was so proud that she was my Senator. As I bid her farewell, I could not keep the smile from stretching across my face nor the dreams from racing through my mind. To me, Senator Smith was living proof that women, even those of us from small rural towns in Maine, could accomplish anything upon which we set our sights. I have since learned that my early impressions of Senator Smith are shared by thousands of others throughout our State and throughout the Nation whose lives she touched. But we in Maine are particularly fortunate to have had her as a role model and as our Senator. As one Congresswoman recently said to me, ``You know, it was much harder for women to get elected in my State because we didn't have Margaret Chase Smith.'' Senator Smith's 32 years of leadership epitomized the type of thoughtful, independent representation that sets a standard for public service. As I campaigned throughout Maine for the Senate last year, it was apparent to me that the name ``Margaret Chase Smith'' strikes a resounding chord with the citizens of my State. From Kittery to Calais to Fort Kent, people recognize and honor her name and her legacy as synonymous with thoughtful, independent, and honest representation. This above all else, Mr. President, is the legacy of Senator Smith and the tradition which those of us who are honored to follow in her footsteps strive to uphold. While Senator Smith served as an inspiration to me as a young girl and as a beacon of strength during my two statewide campaigns, it was not until I began my service in the Senate that I fully understood her legacy and the extraordinary courage she exhibited throughout her years in Congress. Margaret Chase Smith is perhaps best remembered for her principled and unabashed stance against Senator Joe McCarthy. Because the courageous stand that she took against McCarthyism is so familiar to all of us today--it seems to be so obviously the right thing to do--we sometimes forget and underestimate the risks that she took and the hardships she endured in this fight. From my new perspective as a U.S. Senator, I must say that the courage that Senator Smith showed during the McCarthy era is truly remarkable. Over the course of the past several months, I have had many occasions to reflect upon another of Senator Smith's principled positions. As a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I have been involved in investigating the fundraising abuses of the 1996 Presidential election campaigns. These hearings have examined some of the most deplorable and certainly most excessive fundraising practices in our Nation's history, such as operating the Lincoln Bedroom like a hotel, phony issue ads, fundraising coffees in the Oval Office and soft money contributions of staggering sums and questionable origins. In the 24 years since Senator Smith left office, fundraising has become an all-consuming and self-propelling institution. It is difficult for those of us who are in office today to remember that Senator Smith waged so many successful political campaigns without soliciting a single contribution. How we envy her. She believed that big money had the potential to be a corrupting influence in the system, and she has certainly been proven right. Throughout this past year--my first in the Senate--I have been reminded of one of Senator Margaret Chase Smith's most famous statements time and again. She once said that there is a ``difference between the principle of compromise and the compromise of principle.'' This sentiment has guided me through many tough negotiations and heated debates where it is sometimes difficult to know when it is best to be stalwart for the sake of principle and when it is time to seek common ground in the name of action. Compromising one's principles is wrong; but the principle of compromise, on the other hand, is the essence of a healthy democracy. Senator Smith's wisdom has helped me many times in reaching decisions on thorny issues. Mr. President, 25 years after my first encounter with Senator Smith, I fulfilled the dream that she fostered in me back in 1971, and was elected to her seat in the U.S. Senate. Just as Senator Smith was the first woman elected in her own right to both the House of Representatives and the Senate, upon my election, Maine became the first State in the Nation to be represented and to elect two Republican women Senators. This distinction is a fitting tribute and testament to the legacy of Margaret Chase Smith. If not for her 32 years of congressional service, many doors to and within the Capitol might still be closed to women today. In all of history, Mr. President, there have only been 15 women elected to the U.S. Senate in their own right, and 3 of us have been from the great State of Maine. Thanks to Senator Smith's decades of selfless service, principled leadership and pioneering efforts, the people of Maine know that leadership is not about gender; it is about decency and tenacity and service and integrity. Margaret Chase Smith embodied all of these traits, and so much more. Today, I honor her for paving the way for me, and countless others, and for establishing the thoughtful and independent approach to public service that Mainers have come to expect from their elected officials. I thank the Chair. And I also thank the Chair for presiding for me so that I could pay tribute on the 100th anniversary of the great Senator from Maine, Margaret Chase Smith. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 4 p.m., under the same terms as previously agreed to.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, along with my colleagues Senators Thompson and Bennett, that will require the Department of Justice to pay the legal fees of a former Federal employee, Sheila Heslin, who incurred these expenses as a direct result of the campaign finance investigations conducted by the Congress, the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Earlier this fall, Ms. Heslin testified before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee about actions she took while performing her official duties as an employee of the National Security Council. Everyone who observed her testimony was impressed with her honesty and courage in resisting high-level political pressure. Ms. Heslin told us how other governmental and political officials pressured her to approve a request that Roger Tamraz, a major contributor with an unsavory reputation, be allowed to meet with President Clinton. She resisted these overtures in an effort to protect the integrity of the White House and to ensure that our foreign policy was conducted appropriately. Of all the individuals who testified before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee about the campaign finance problems, Ms. Heslin provided the best example of how career Government officials ought to conduct themselves. She demonstrated courage and a high regard for the proper conduct of U.S. foreign policy. Ms. Heslin participated in these proceedings as a witness, not as the subject of any investigation. She has provided important information on events and activities that may well become the subject of prosecution. As a result, Ms. Heslin was forced to retain private counsel to advise her in the various investigations because representation by Government counsel would have presented a clear conflict of interest. It is my understanding that the Department of Justice has to date declined to reimburse Ms. Heslin for the legal fees relating to her testimony before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and other similar inquiries. She is now a private citizen with a new baby and without the personal wealth to afford the legal representation her service as a Government employee has required. As an important and fully cooperative witness in these investigations, she has set an example that ought to not be discouraged by denying Government payment for outside legal representation in a case involving appropriate actions taken during her Federal employment. Under existing regulations, the Department of Justice normally approves the payment of legal fees for Government employees when ``the actions for which representation is requested reasonably appears to have been performed within the scope of the employees's employment'' and payment is ``in the interest of the United States.'' Both requirements have been met in the case Sheila Heslin. Moreover, Mr. President, in connection with other investigations, the Department of Justice has paid the legal fees of hundreds of Government employees, some of whom were high-level political appointees. For example, in fiscal year 1996, political appointees at the White House and on the Vice President's staff were reimbursed thousands of dollars in attorneys' fees. To deny the payment of legal fees to Ms. Heslin, who is not suspected of any wrongdoing, while at the same time paying the legal fees of many other Government employees, some of whom were being investigated for possible illegal activities, is simply unfair. Earlier this month, I asked the Attorney General to personally address this matter and to reverse the decision denying reimbursement to Ms. Heslin. I am still waiting for Attorney General Reno's response to my letter. In the absence of action by the Department of Justice, I am introducing this bill which directs the Attorney General to pay reasonable attorney's fees incurred by Ms. Heslin as a result of the campaign finance investigations. To ensure that such payments are not excessive, it is intended that the amounts be determined in accordance with applicable Justice Department regulations. Mr. President, this bill is not only for Sheila Heslin. It is also to send a clear message to every career Government employee who in the future has to choose between succumbing to inappropriate political pressure or doing the right thing. It is also for the American people who are the ultimate beneficiaries when public servants put the interests of the country ahead of the interests of those seeking to buy access and influence for their own narrow purposes. Mr. President, it is regrettable that we cannot do more to reward people who follow the high standards of conduct we all espouse. At the very least, we should ensure that the actions of their Government do not penalize them. For that reason, I hope my colleagues will support this measure.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in the life of a country, as in the life of an individual, there are times when we must choose between moving forward and standing still. Our trade policy is at just such a crossroads: We must decide whether to help promote freer trade and more open markets or try to preserve the status quo. As we confront this issue, we must recognize that the world is changing and that even an economic superpower can do no more than postpone the inevitable. Our resolution of this issue will determine whether the United States continues to move forward on a wave of export-driven growth or risks permitting other economies to leave us behind. I believe it is time to stand behind our commitment to free trade and work to bring other countries into open trading relationships that will mean jobs and prosperity for our citizens in the century ahead. That is why, Mr. President, I have decided to support the fast track legislation. In developing my position on this legislation, I have been guided by one overriding consideration - will its enactment improve the lives of the people of Maine? Will it mean more customers for Maine businesses? Will it mean more opportunities for Maine entrepreneurs? And most important, will it mean more jobs for Maine workers? While free trade is not without problems, I firmly believe that the long-term answer to all of these questions is yes. International trade is an increasingly critical part of Maine's economy. In 1996, for example, my State exported more than 1.2 billion dollars worth of goods. Considering both the direct and indirect impact, those exports translated into 13,500 Maine jobs. But this export-led growth is just the beginning. I believe the people of Maine have the ingenuity, the drive, and the work ethic to flourish in a world of freer trade and more open markets for U.S. goods. From successful retailers like L.L. Bean, to manufacturers like Pratt & Whitney, to financial service companies like UNUM, to high- technology companies like Portland's ABB, to paper mills throughout my State, Maine enterprises have proven that they can compete in a global economy. These companies recognize that much of their future revenue and job growth will come from serving customers beyond our borders. This is well understood in Maine. The United Paperworkers International Union has pressed the administration to negotiate reductions in European tariffs to help open foreign markets to the products its members make in Maine and elsewhere and to generate more export-related jobs. As Prof. Charles Colgan of the University of Southern Maine, a noted trade expert, stated in a recent letter to me, ``The . . . vote on Fast Track authority for the President to negotiate additional trade agreements is an important vote for Maine. International trade is an increasingly vital part of the Maine economy. . . .'' Perhaps the clearest reason to support fast-track authority was set forth in a letter from the State of Maine's director of International Trade, who wrote as follows: ``I simply feel that our best hopes for long-term economic prosperity here in Maine lie in creating international opportunities for our people, and not in limiting our access to new and emerging economies. However, well-intentioned, restricting our ability to trade will never create new jobs for Maine people.'' Mr. President, I said earlier that we face the decision of whether to move forward. But in reality, the world will change with or without us, and thus, the real question is not whether we move forward, but whether we move forward wisely. That is the standard against which we should judge our trade policy, and against which we should judge this legislation. To me, this means that our trade strategy must meet three tests. First, since some citizens may be temporarily disadvantaged--through no fault of their own--by the changes freer trade can bring, we must assist them to adjust to changed conditions. Second, we must ensure that free trade is genuinely free, for that is what ``fair trade'' really means: If we do not insist that other countries open their markets to fair competition from U.S. goods, the system will collapse. Third, as we give the President the authority to negotiate trade agreements, we must preserve an appropriate role for Congress in this vital area of national policy. After weeks of studying this issue, listening to my constituents, and consulting with U.S. trade officials, it has become clear to me that the renewal of fast-track authority meets my three criteria and is very much in the best interests of my country and my State. First, while the rising economic tide that comes from free trade ultimately lifts all boats, it may impose costs upon some of our citizens in the short run. For this reason, I was greatly encouraged by the President's promise to expand Trade Adjustment Assistance programs--and to expand them to include not only workers directly affected by trade adjustments but also workers in businesses supplying affected companies. This change should prove particularly beneficial to small businesses in Maine and elsewhere. Second, I am pleased to have received assurances from the office of the U.S. Trade Representative that they share some of the important concerns of Maine's citizens with regard to ensuring that trade is really free. More specifically, Ambassador Barshefsky has made clear to me in writing that she regards Canada's bulk easement rules on potato imports to be an unfair trade barrier that must be pursued with the Canadian Government. Ambassador Barshefsky has committed to me that she will begin bilateral talks with the Canadian Government, beginning no later than March 1998. In addition, Ambassador Barshefsky has assured me that she views Canadian potato subsidies as a very serious matter that also must be addressed. Having established open markets as the norm, our trade officials must work--and, I have been assured, are working--to ensure that foreign governments keep their promises. Furthermore, I want to emphasize that passage of this legislation will not in any way hinder the ability of an industry to bring challenges under current trade laws against unfair trade practices, such as subsidies provided by foreign governments. Members of the farmed salmon industry in Maine have brought such a case. They seek relief from the adverse effects of dumping and subsidization, and of unequal conditions of competition, which give their Chilean competitors an unfair and illegal advantage. It was only after I became satisfied that fast track would not negatively affect the Maine salmon industry or its ability to pursue its legitimate grievances under current law that I decided to support this legislation. As a representative of the salmon industry recently advised me, what is most critical to them is ``the preservation of effective remedies under existing law and their vigorous enforcement.'' This legislation not only preserves existing remedies but also has as one of its objectives the pursuit of illegal activities by other nations. Thus, it recognizes that free trade is not achieved by the stroke of a pen on an agreement but rather by a commitment to the vigorous enforcement of our trade laws. Third, this bill carefully addresses the need to preserve the proper balance of powers and responsibilities within our Government. While it restricts Congress' power to amend the terms of trade agreements, it maintains our right to reject them. Indeed, it goes farther than any prior fast-track legislation to protect Congressional prerogatives. For example, it limits the application of the fast track to agreements which advance specifically enumerated negotiating objectives set out in the bill, which preserves our ultimate authority to set the goals of U.S. trade policy. Moreover, the Senate version of the legislation contains more elaborate procedures than ever before to ensure that Congress is consulted at every step as the President negotiates trade agreements. The President must consult with or notify the relevant committees--or Congress as a whole--on at least five different occasions during the process, even before Congress begins drafting an agreement's implementing legislation. These requirements guarantee that at all times we will be fully informed of the progress of ongoing trade talks. Most significantly, unlike past fast-track legislation, S. 1269 permits congressional disapproval of a trade agreement long before the stage of final ratification. After the President notifies Congress of his intent to negotiate a specific agreement, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee may vote to ``disapprove'' the idea--thus removing it from the fast-track process and making it subject to ordinary amendment. Under this legislation, what Congress gives to the President it may also take away. In short, the bill allows America to move more quickly in a rapidly changing world, while making Congress more of a real partner in the negotiation of trade agreements. The United States is one of the principal engines of the world economy in large part because it has long been one of the most open trading economies in the world. Continued progress in global trade liberalization--bringing other countries up to our high standards of market openness--is vital if we are to remain in the global driver's seat in the next century. The road to free trade will not be without bumps, but it is a road I believe we must take, for at the end of that road will be a more prosperous Maine, a more prosperous America, and a more prosperous world. For that reason, I intend to vote for the fast-track legislation. At this point, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters from Ambassador Barshefsky, the Maine International Trade Center, Unum Insurance Co., Pratt & Whitney, and ABB Environmental Services be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, along with my colleagues Senators Thompson and Bennett, that will require the Department of Justice to pay the legal fees of a former Federal employee, Sheila Heslin, who incurred these expenses as a direct result of the campaign finance investigations conducted by the Congress, the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Earlier this fall, Ms. Heslin testified before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee about actions she took while performing her official duties as an employee of the National Security Council. Everyone who observed her testimony was impressed with her honesty and courage in resisting high-level political pressure. Ms. Heslin told us how other governmental and political officials pressured her to approve a request that Roger Tamraz, a major contributor with an unsavory reputation, be allowed to meet with President Clinton. She resisted these overtures in an effort to protect the integrity of the White House and to ensure that our foreign policy was conducted appropriately. Of all the individuals who testified before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee about the campaign finance problems, Ms. Heslin provided the best example of how career Government officials ought to conduct themselves. She demonstrated courage and a high regard for the proper conduct of U.S. foreign policy. Ms. Heslin participated in these proceedings as a witness, not as the subject of any investigation. She has provided important information on events and activities that may well become the subject of prosecution. As a result, Ms. Heslin was forced to retain private counsel to advise her in the various investigations because representation by Government counsel would have presented a clear conflict of interest. It is my understanding that the Department of Justice has to date declined to reimburse Ms. Heslin for the legal fees relating to her testimony before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and other similar inquiries. She is now a private citizen with a new baby and without the personal wealth to afford the legal representation her service as a Government employee has required. As an important and fully cooperative witness in these investigations, she has set an example that ought to not be discouraged by denying Government payment for outside legal representation in a case involving appropriate actions taken during her Federal employment. Under existing regulations, the Department of Justice normally approves the payment of legal fees for Government employees when ``the actions for which representation is requested reasonably appears to have been performed within the scope of the employees's employment'' and payment is ``in the interest of the United States.'' Both requirements have been met in the case Sheila Heslin. Moreover, Mr. President, in connection with other investigations, the Department of Justice has paid the legal fees of hundreds of Government employees, some of whom were high-level political appointees. For example, in fiscal year 1996, political appointees at the White House and on the Vice President's staff were reimbursed thousands of dollars in attorneys' fees. To deny the payment of legal fees to Ms. Heslin, who is not suspected of any wrongdoing, while at the same time paying the legal fees of many other Government employees, some of whom were being investigated for possible illegal activities, is simply unfair. Earlier this month, I asked the Attorney General to personally address this matter and to reverse the decision denying reimbursement to Ms. Heslin. I am still waiting for Attorney General Reno's response to my letter. In the absence of action by the Department of Justice, I am introducing this bill which directs the Attorney General to pay reasonable attorney's fees incurred by Ms. Heslin as a result of the campaign finance investigations. To ensure that such payments are not excessive, it is intended that the amounts be determined in accordance with applicable Justice Department regulations. Mr. President, this bill is not only for Sheila Heslin. It is also to send a clear message to every career Government employee who in the future has to choose between succumbing to inappropriate political pressure or doing the right thing. It is also for the American people who are the ultimate beneficiaries when public servants put the interests of the country ahead of the interests of those seeking to buy access and influence for their own narrow purposes. Mr. President, it is regrettable that we cannot do more to reward people who follow the high standards of conduct we all espouse. At the very least, we should ensure that the actions of their Government do not penalize them. For that reason, I hope my colleagues will support this measure.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the senior Senator from Texas. I would like to clarify a statement regarding salmon imports that the Senator made during yesterday's debate on the motion to proceed to the fast track negotiating authority. Would the Senator agree that his comments yesterday were not intended to suggest any connection between the fast track legislation that is before the Senate and any pending trade cases regarding salmon imports from Chile?

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator for this clarification.

Ms. COLLINS. Would the Senator also agree that the passage of fast track authority would in no way countenance the continuation of any practices by the Chilean salmon industry that are in violation of United States trade laws?

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I object.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, last week I was pleased to join with my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, in introducing S. 1345, the Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act which is intended to improve the way we care for people at the end of their lives. Noted health economist Uwe Reinhardt once observed that ``Americans are the only people on earth who believe that death is negotiable.'' Advancements in medicine, public health, and technology have enabled more and more of us to live longer and healthier lives. However, when medical treatment can no longer promise a continuation of life, patients and their families should not have to fear that the process of dying will be marked by preventable pain, avoidable distress, or care that is inconsistent with their values or wishes. The fact is, dying is a universal experience, and it is time to reexamine how we approach death and dying and how we care for people at the end of their lives. Clearly there is more that we can do to relieve suffering, respect personal choice and dignity, and provide opportunities for people to find meaning and comfort at life's conclusion. Unfortunately, most Medicare patients and their physicians do not currently discuss death or routinely make advance plans for end-of-life care. As a result, about one-fourth of Medicare funds are now spent on care at the end of life that is geared toward expensive, high- technology interventions, and rescue care. While four out of five Americans say they would prefer to die at home, studies show that almost 80 percent die in institutions where they may be in pain, and where they are subjected to high-technology treatments that merely prolong suffering. Moreover, according to a Dartmouth study released earlier this month, where a patient lives has a direct impact on how that patient dies. The study found that the amount of medical treatment Americans receive in their final months varies tremendously in the different parts of the country, and it concluded that the determination of whether or not an older patient dies in the hospital probably has more to do with the supply of hospital beds than the patient's needs or preference. The Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act is intended to help us improve the way our health care system serves patients at the end of their lives. Among other provisions, the bill makes a number of changes to the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990 to facilitate appropriate discussions and individual autonomy in making difficult discussions about end-of-life care. For instance, the legislation requires that every Medicare beneficiary receiving care in a hospital or nursing facility be given the opportunity to discuss end-of-life care and the preparation of an advanced directive with an appropriately trained professional within the institution. The legislation also requires that if a patient has an advanced directive, it must be displayed in a prominent place in the medical record so that all the doctors and nurses can clearly see it. The legislation will expand access to effective and appropriate pain medications for Medicare beneficiaries at the end of their lives. Severe pain, including breakthrough pain that defies usual methods of pain control, is one of the most debilitating aspects of terminal illness. However, the only pain medication currently covered by Medicare in an outpatient setting is that which is administered by a portable pump. It is widely recognized among physicians treating patients with cancer and other life-threatening diseases that self-administered pain medications, including oral drugs and transdermal patches, offer alternatives that are equally effective in controlling pain, more comfortable for the patient, and much less costly than the pump. Therefore, the Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act would expand Medicare to cover self-administered pain medications prescribed for the relief of chronic pain in life-threatening diseases or conditions. In addition, the legislation authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to study end-of-life issues for Medicare and Medicaid patients and also to develop demonstration projects to develop models for end-of-life care for Medicare beneficiaries who do not qualify for the hospice benefit, but who still have chronic debilitating and ultimately fatal illnesses. Currently, in order for a Medicare beneficiary to qualify for the hospice benefit, a physician must document that the person has a life expectancy of 6 months or less. With some conditions--like congestive heart failure--it is difficult to project life expectancy with any certainty. However, these patients still need hospice-like services, including advance planning, support services, symptom management, and other services that are not currently available. Finally, the legislation establishes a telephone hotline to provide consumer information and advice concerning advance directives, end-of- life issues and medical decision making and directs the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research to develop a research agenda for the development of quality measures for end-of-life care. The legislation we are introducing today is particularly important in light of the current debate on physician-assisted suicide. As the Bangor Daily News pointed out in an editorial published earlier this year, the desire for assisted suicide is generally driven by concerns about the quality of care for the terminally ill; by the fear of prolonged pain, loss of dignity and emotional strain on family members. Such worries would recede and support for assisted suicide would evaporate if better palliative care and more effective pain management were widely available. I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, patients and their families should be able to trust that the care they receive at the end of their lives is not only of high quality, but also that it respects their desires for peace, autonomy, and dignity. The Advanced Planning and Compassionate Care Act that Senator Rockefeller and I have introduced will give us some of the tools that we need to improve care of the dying in this country, and I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, in introducing the Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act which is intended to improve the way we care for people at the end of their lives. Noted health economist Uwe Reinhardt once observed that ``Americans are the only people on earth who believe that death is negotiable.'' Advancements in medicine, public health, and technology have enabled more and more of us to live longer and healthier lives. However, when medical treatment can no longer promise a continuation of life, patients and their families should not have to fear that the process of dying will be marked by preventable pain, avoidable distress, or care that is inconsistent with their values or wishes. The fact is, dying is a universal experience, and it is time to reexamine how we approach death and dying and how we care for people at the end of their lives. Clearly there is more that we can do to relieve suffering, respect personal choice and dignity, and provide opportunities for people to find meaning and comfort at life's conclusion. Unfortunately, most Medicare patients and their physicians do not currently discuss death or routinely make advance plans for end-of-life care. As a result, about one-fourth of Medicare funds are now spent on care at the end of life that is geared toward expensive, high- technology interventions and rescue care. While four out of five Americans say they would prefer to die at home, studies show that almost 80 percent die in institutions where they may be in pain, and where they are subjected to high-technology treatments that merely prolong suffering. Moreover, according to a Dartmouth study released earlier this month, where a patient lives has a direct impact on how that patient dies. The study found that the amount of medical treatment Americans receive in their final months varies tremendously in the different parts of the country, and it concluded that the determination of whether or not an older patient dies in the hospital probably has more to do with the supply of hospital beds than the patient's needs or preference. The Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act is intended to help us improve the way our health care system serves patients at the end of their lives. Among other provisions, the bill makes a number of changes to the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990 to facilitate appropriate discussions and individual autonomy in making difficult discussions about end-of-life care. For instance, the legislation requires that every Medicare beneficiary receiving care in a hospital or nursing facility be given the opportunity to discuss end-of-life care and the preparation of an advanced directive with an appropriately trained professional within the institution. The legislation also requires that if a patient has an advanced directive, it must be displayed in a prominent place in the medical record so that all the doctors and nurses can clearly see it. The legislation will expand access to effective and appropriate pain medications for Medicare beneficiaries at the end of their lives. Severe pain, including breakthrough pain that defies usual methods of pain control, is one of the most debilitating aspects of terminal illness. However, the only pain medication currently covered by Medicare in an outpatient setting is that which is administered by a portable pump. It is widely recognized among physicians treating patients with cancer and other life-threatening diseases that self-administered pain medications, including oral drugs and transdermal patches, offer alternatives that are equally effective in controlling pain, more comfortable for the patient, and much less costly than the pump. Therefore, the Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act would expand Medicare to cover self-administered pain medications prescribed for the relief of chronic pain in life-threatening diseases or conditions. In addition, the legislation authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to study end-of-life issues for Medicare and Medicaid patients and also to develop demonstration projects to develop models for end-of-life care for Medicare beneficiaries who do not qualify for the hospice benefit, but who still have chronic debilitating and ultimately fatal illnesses. Currently, in order for a Medicare beneficiary to qualify for the hospice benefit, a physician must document that the person has a life expectancy of 6 months or less. With some conditions--like congestive heart failure--it is difficult to project life expectancy with any certainty. However, these patients still need hospice-like services, including advance planning, support services, symptom management, and other services that are not currently available. Finally, the legislation establishes a telephone hotline to provide consumer information and advice concerning advance directives, end-of- life issues and medical decisionmaking and directs the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research to develop a research agenda for the development of quality measures for end-of-life care. The legislation we are introducing today is particularly important in light of the current debate on physician-assisted suicide. As the Bangor Daily News pointed out in an editorial published earlier this year, the desire for assisted suicide is generally driven by concerns about the quality of care for the terminally ill; by the fear of prolonged pain, loss of dignity, and emotional strain on family members. Such worries would recede and support for assisted suicide would evaporate if better palliative care and more effective pain management were widely available, and I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be included in the Record. Mr. President, patients and their families should be able to trust that the care they receive at the end of their lives is not only of high quality, but also that it respects their desires for peace, autonomy, and dignity. The Advanced Planning and Compassionate Care Act that Senator Rockefeller and I are introducing today will give us some of the tools that we need to improve care of the dying in this country, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, in introducing the Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act which is intended to improve the way we care for people at the end of their lives. Noted health economist Uwe Reinhardt once observed that ``Americans are the only people on earth who believe that death is negotiable.'' Advancements in medicine, public health, and technology have enabled more and more of us to live longer and healthier lives. However, when medical treatment can no longer promise a continuation of life, patients and their families should not have to fear that the process of dying will be marked by preventable pain, avoidable distress, or care that is inconsistent with their values or wishes. The fact is, dying is a universal experience, and it is time to reexamine how we approach death and dying and how we care for people at the end of their lives. Clearly there is more that we can do to relieve suffering, respect personal choice and dignity, and provide opportunities for people to find meaning and comfort at life's conclusion. Unfortunately, most Medicare patients and their physicians do not currently discuss death or routinely make advance plans for end-of-life care. As a result, about one-fourth of Medicare funds are now spent on care at the end of life that is geared toward expensive, high- technology interventions and rescue care. While four out of five Americans say they would prefer to die at home, studies show that almost 80 percent die in institutions where they may be in pain, and where they are subjected to high-technology treatments that merely prolong suffering. Moreover, according to a Dartmouth study released earlier this month, where a patient lives has a direct impact on how that patient dies. The study found that the amount of medical treatment Americans receive in their final months varies tremendously in the different parts of the country, and it concluded that the determination of whether or not an older patient dies in the hospital probably has more to do with the supply of hospital beds than the patient's needs or preference. The Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act is intended to help us improve the way our health care system serves patients at the end of their lives. Among other provisions, the bill makes a number of changes to the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990 to facilitate appropriate discussions and individual autonomy in making difficult discussions about end-of-life care. For instance, the legislation requires that every Medicare beneficiary receiving care in a hospital or nursing facility be given the opportunity to discuss end-of-life care and the preparation of an advanced directive with an appropriately trained professional within the institution. The legislation also requires that if a patient has an advanced directive, it must be displayed in a prominent place in the medical record so that all the doctors and nurses can clearly see it. The legislation will expand access to effective and appropriate pain medications for Medicare beneficiaries at the end of their lives. Severe pain, including breakthrough pain that defies usual methods of pain control, is one of the most debilitating aspects of terminal illness. However, the only pain medication currently covered by Medicare in an outpatient setting is that which is administered by a portable pump. It is widely recognized among physicians treating patients with cancer and other life-threatening diseases that self-administered pain medications, including oral drugs and transdermal patches, offer alternatives that are equally effective in controlling pain, more comfortable for the patient, and much less costly than the pump. Therefore, the Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act would expand Medicare to cover self-administered pain medications prescribed for the relief of chronic pain in life-threatening diseases or conditions. In addition, the legislation authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to study end-of-life issues for Medicare and Medicaid patients and also to develop demonstration projects to develop models for end-of-life care for Medicare beneficiaries who do not qualify for the hospice benefit, but who still have chronic debilitating and ultimately fatal illnesses. Currently, in order for a Medicare beneficiary to qualify for the hospice benefit, a physician must document that the person has a life expectancy of 6 months or less. With some conditions--like congestive heart failure--it is difficult to project life expectancy with any certainty. However, these patients still need hospice-like services, including advance planning, support services, symptom management, and other services that are not currently available. Finally, the legislation establishes a telephone hotline to provide consumer information and advice concerning advance directives, end-of- life issues and medical decisionmaking and directs the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research to develop a research agenda for the development of quality measures for end-of-life care. The legislation we are introducing today is particularly important in light of the current debate on physician-assisted suicide. As the Bangor Daily News pointed out in an editorial published earlier this year, the desire for assisted suicide is generally driven by concerns about the quality of care for the terminally ill; by the fear of prolonged pain, loss of dignity, and emotional strain on family members. Such worries would recede and support for assisted suicide would evaporate if better palliative care and more effective pain management were widely available, and I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be included in the Record. Mr. President, patients and their families should be able to trust that the care they receive at the end of their lives is not only of high quality, but also that it respects their desires for peace, autonomy, and dignity. The Advanced Planning and Compassionate Care Act that Senator Rockefeller and I are introducing today will give us some of the tools that we need to improve care of the dying in this country, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold hearings entitled ``Oversight Review of the Treasury Department's Inspector General.'' These hearings will take place on Friday, October 31 and Monday, November 3, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. on both days, in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Timothy J. Shea of the subcommittee staff at 224-3721.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator for his kind comments. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to announce my intention to join my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, and vote for his motion to table the amendment offered by the distinguished majority leader to the McCain-Feingold campaign reform legislation. This has not been an easy decision for me. I strongly support the underlying objective, if not the precise language of Senator Lott's amendment. The principle that America's working men and women should not be required to contribute their hard-earned money to advance the campaign of candidates they do not support is a compelling one. The strong opposition of big labor to this reasonable proposal demonstrates their fear that many of the rank and file union members would not agree to the use of their dues for political purposes. But in the final analysis, my decision on this matter must be determined by considerations other than the merits of Senator Lott's amendment. The plain truth is that its adoption will kill campaign finance reform. That is not simply my judgment; it is the judgment of Senator McCain and Senator Feingold who have devoted so much time and energy to further the cause of reform. When I ran for the U.S. Senate, I made a clear and unambiguous promise to the people of Maine. I promised that I would fight for campaign finance reform. The people of my State responded by entrusting me to represent them in this body, and whatever other loyalties that I might have, I owe my ultimate allegiance to them. I kept that promise when I cosponsored the McCain-Feingold bill, and I am keeping it now by pledging to vote against what I have concluded is, in fact, a killer amendment. I do, however, want to say a few words to my Democratic colleagues. At the end of the day, we will not have campaign finance reform without sacrifices and courage on both sides of the aisle. If Senator Lott's amendment is not defeated, the spotlight will shift to the Democrats. So far, they have had the easy road, able to proclaim their passion for reform, knowing that it faces an uphill battle and confident that they can blame the Republicans if it does not pass. But if their response to the Lott amendment is simply to filibuster and not to offer a reasonable compromise on the union dues issue, an already skeptical public will reach the inevitable conclusion that Democrats are not serious about reforming the system. A number of Democrats have urged me to put principle over party, and to them I say, ``Your turn may come.'' Mr. President, a fair campaign finance system is essential to a healthy democracy. While not perfect, the McCain-Feingold bill would give us a fair system. Given the commitment of the people of Maine to fair play, I am confident that my position on this issue not only is right as a matter of principle, but also reflects the values of my home State. I want to also take this opportunity to commend Senator McCain and Senator Feingold for their unceasing efforts in this very important fight. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on (S. 1198) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide permanent authority for entry into the United States of certain religious workers. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1198) entitled ``An Act to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide permanent authority for entry into the United States of certain religious workers.'', do pass with the following amendments: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the amendments of the House.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Americans have long been urged by our doctors, our teachers, and our parents to eat at least five servings every day of fruits and vegetables. When we follow this good advice, we assume that the fruits and vegetables that we are consuming are wholesome. Recent reports, however, have raised questions about the safety of imported food products. Our markets are increasingly filled with imported food that may not meet U.S. food safety standards. Thus, American consumers seeking a healthy diet face the unappetizing risk of unknowingly subjecting themselves to tainted imported food. As the chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I am conducting an investigation into the safety of food imports. I have asked the General Accounting Office to examine whether or not the Federal Government adequately protects the American people from tainted imported food. We need to know how imports are currently being inspected, what resources are being devoted to food safety and whether the highest risks are being given the highest priority in the inspection process. We should make certain, Mr. President, that our food safety programs are effectively and efficiently managed to safeguard the public's health. Recent news reports have shown several instances where tainted imported food has caused serious illnesses. Food safety programs and food safety problems are not limited to beef and poultry, and it is not just food coming from domestic facilities that can cause health problems. Imported fruits and vegetables in increasing numbers are causing serious illnesses. In March, over 260 children and teachers from Michigan developed hepatitis after eating frozen strawberries that were imported from Mexico. Those berries were illegally provided to the School Lunch Program, which requires food used to be produced in the United States. Instead, the tainted Mexican berries had been shipped to over 1,500 locations across the country, including my home State of Maine. In another example, over 2,000 people were infected with cyclospora in the last 2 years from eating tainted raspberries from Guatemala, making it the largest outbreak of food-borne disease in recent years. Mr. President, I believe Congress must thoroughly examine the safety of imported food products. Currently, the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service have shared responsibility for the regulation and inspection of imported food. Agriculture officials are responsible primarily for meat and poultry, while the Food and Drug Administration regulates and inspects other food products. Standards in enforcement are thus different, depending on the type of food. In addition, the significant increase in food imports has resulted in a system where consumers cannot be assured of the safety of the food they eat. A New York Times article on September 29 of this year, just this past week, indicates that food imports have doubled since the 1980s, straining the limits of our current inspection system. Later this week, President Clinton is expected to announce several initiatives to increase and improve Federal attention to food safety. I welcome the President's increased interest in the safety of imported food products, and when his proposal is transmitted to the Congress, I will closely examine it to determine if it is, in fact, an effective and adequate response to this problem. As chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I want to make sure that our current programs are being effectively managed and that both existing and new resources are efficiently administered to promote safe food, especially imported food. Mr. President, the safety of food product imports is literally a life-and-death issue for many Americans, especially our elderly and our children. Food safety deserves close attention of the administration and the Congress, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the months ahead as my subcommittee continues its investigation and conducts hearings on this important matter.