Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would first like to thank my colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, for crafting and offering this amendment as well as my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, for his leadership. Mr. President, I want to speak to you today not just as a U.S. Senator, or a citizen of Maine, or even as a Republican. I want to speak to you as a woman, and I want to speak to you on behalf of the 135 million women of America about an issue that has more likely than not touched each of our lives at some point in time. Let me just say that it is not an uncommon occurrence in Congress for either Chamber to authorize funding for a particular program but not to fully fund that program at the authorized levels. It happens often, and, in some circumstances, there may be justifiable reasons to take such a course of action. By not fully funding some wasteful programs, we might even save the taxpayers of America some of their hard earned tax dollars and use them towards programs that work and that make a difference in the daily lives of America's families. But I think it would come as a great surprise to many Americans-- especially to those 135 million women--to know that a program such as the Violence Against Women Act, which was passed as part of last year's crime bill in Congress, has not yet been fully funded. Now, I think it is safe to say that the Violence Against Women Act is one program that deserves its full funding. It is not wasteful. It is not unnecessary. It is not--and should not be--a target of waste watchers. And it is not to be overlooked. But it has been. Fortunately, today, we have an opportunity to correct this oversight. For those who may be wary of its funding--or who may doubt its necessity in this era of penny-pinching and budget scrutiny--let me just take a moment to paint a picture of life in America's streets and homes for some women. It is a picture where more than 2.5 million women annually are victims of violent crimes. It is a picture where an estimated 5,000 women are beaten to death each year. [[Page S 14511]] It is a picture where in the 1990's, one out of every eight women have been the victim of a forcible rape. It is a picture where every 15 seconds in America, a woman is battered--and where every 6 minutes, a woman is raped. It is a picture where, between 1989 and 1993, the number of known rape offenses increased by 11 percent--despite more awareness of violence against women. It is a picture where a woman in our country is more likely to be assaulted, injured, raped, or killed by a male partner than by any other assailant. It is a picture where at least a third of all female emergency room patients are battered women, while a third of all homeless women and children are without shelter because they are fleeing domestic violence. And the litany of tragedy and violence goes on to paint an even fuller, starker, and more disheartening picture. This is an issue about a woman's safety, a woman's rights, and our ability as a nation to protect those inalienable rights as guaranteed under the Constitution. But how can we defend a woman's right to ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'' when we cannot protect her from ``rape, battery, and the onslaught of violence.'' Mr. President, the Violence Against Women Act is a critical tool in our fight to combat domestic violence across America. It is an essential bill for our mothers, our daughters, our sisters, our relatives, our friends, and our coworkers. It contains provisions that enhance penalties for sex offenders; provides grants to States to improve law enforcement, prosecution, and victims services in cases of violent crimes against women; authorizes over $200 million for rape prevention and education programs; provides funds for the creation of a national domestic violence hotline as well as battered women's shelters; and does much more. These provisions will help become a shield for women and deliver justice to victims of hateful and brutal assaults. Already, within the past year, two individuals have been imprisoned for life terms under this act for beating their spouses or girlfriends. While I will be the first to say that violence knows no gender barriers and is clearly a threat to both men and women alike, no one can turn a blind eye to the fact that women are especially to be found in the scope of danger and crime. Consider that women are six times--6 times--more likely than men to experience violence committed by an intimate. Consider that women and girls are victimized by relatives at four times the rate of males. And consider that an astounding 95 percent of violence victims are, in fact, women. But the men of America have a stake in this legislation as well, which is why the fight here on the floor has been joined by such men as Senators Biden and Hatch. Namely, the fathers, sons, and brothers of the women of America who face the threat of violence each and every day. They deserve to know that the women who mean the most to them and their lives are safe on the streets of our cities. It is for these reasons that I and 29 of my Senate colleagues requested that we fully fund the Violence Against Women Act in an August 9 letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Violence Against Women Act should be fully funded as it is supposed to be fully paid for out of the crime trust fund that Congress created last year. But the bill before us does not provide for it. Rather, the moneys within the crime trust fund have been what they call ``re-prioritized,'' which in English means that the Violence Against Women Act has been short-changed to the tune of about $75 million. In fiscal year 1995, total funding for this program was $26 million. The House Appropriations Committee appropriated $125 million for the program for fiscal year 1996, and the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee funded $100 million--a threefold increase over current funding, but still far short--woefully short--of what American women need and deserve to combat violence and domestic abuse. Today, we are proposing a remedy to meet this crisis of funding head- on. The amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Texas provides the additional $75 million needed to fully fund the Violence Against Women Act. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that--as a former Cochair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues--I understand and know first-hand the importance of making women's health and women's safety a priority for Congress, because we must speak out for the 135 million women and girls of America. We cannot let them down. We can no longer treat the Violence Against Women Act as a political football and simply fumble away women's needs and concerns. I urge my colleagues to support the Biden-Gramm amendment. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. About 8 minutes.

Ms. SNOWE. I ask for 5 additional minutes.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Vermont for yielding me time. I certainly want to express my position on this issue with respect to international family planning and the amendment that was offered by Senator Helms, because I think that this is a very important issue. I certainly oppose the restrictions that would be placed by the Helms amendment with respect to funding for UNFPA, which has been a very effective organization in providing for family planning services throughout the developing world. I think it is important to understand, first off, that the current law already contains strong conditions on U.S. contributions to UNFPA. For more than a decade, no United States funds provided to UNFPA have been spent in China. In addition, it requires half of the United States contribution to UNFPA to be spent after March 1 so that Congress can review the amount that UNFPA has budgeted for activities in China as reported to Congress in mid-February. This is important because it provides us with the opportunity to ensure that UNFPA has not taken any action to increase the amount of money it spends in its programs in China so there is no direct correlation between the United States contribution to UNFPA and the amount that it provides to China. It also will ensure, for those who have been critics of our contributions to UNFPA, that our funds are not fungible and that United States funds are used in China even indirectly. I think it is important to note that our contributions to UNFPA cannot be commingled with UNFPA's funds at all. They are maintained in separate accounts and cannot be spent on UNFPA's activities in China. I think that is important, because we want to make sure that our funds are in no way linked, No. 1, but second, to ensure we are not doing anything directly or indirectly to enhance their program activities in China. But I think we should understand what the funding of UNFPA is not about. First of all, it is not about abortion. UNFPA has a firm policy against any involvement in abortion services advocacy. [[Page S 14043]] Second, and I think we all recognize and are concerned about China's controversial population program, human rights abuses in China have continued despite, not because of, UNFPA's small presence in China. It is unfortunate this has occurred not only at the central level of Government in China but also that the abuses and the policies have been promoted by the independence of the provincial governments as well in China. So many of the worst abuses appear to be happening at the provincial level. But I think it is essential to underscore the fact that UNFPA's presence in China is to do everything that it can to prevent those abuses from occurring. UNFPA has had a very successful voluntary program with respect to family planning throughout the developing world. It has had a presence in more than 140 countries, and nearly half of UNFPA's support is in the area of maternal and child health care and family planning. There are other areas, including education, population data collection and analysis and research on demographic and socioeconomic relationships. I would like to reemphasize, because it is important, that UNFPA does not provide support, nor has it ever provided a policy of support for abortions or abortion-related activities anywhere in the world. UNFPA was established back in 1969, interestingly enough, with strong encouragement from the United States. It happens to be the largest multilateral provider of population and family planning assistance to the developing countries. Approximately one-third of all population assistance to developing countries go through UNFPA. So it has a presence in a number of countries where it plays a very critical role. Consider the facts. According to the World Health Organization, of the 500,000 women who die each year of pregnancy- related causes, 99 percent are in the developing world. So we should be doing everything as a country to support the activities of organizations like UNFPA and what they are doing in many of these Third World countries. We should be for family planning programs. We should not be doing everything to undermine the value of family planning programs in these countries. As a matter of fact, the United States was the leader, the forerunner in support of these family planning programs internationally. We did everything to encourage, as I said, organizations like UNFPA and IPBF to do everything that they can to support strong programs in the developing world regarding family planning programs. So I think that it is unfortunate that, as we discuss our contributions to such valuable organizations, we are now getting it interspersed and intertwined with the abortion debate. We all have our disagreements on the issue of abortion. But no one should be able to disagree on the issue of family planning. That is why we should be supporting such organizations, because the more they can do in providing family planning services to these countries, the more we will reduce not only the incidence of death, but of abortion as well. So I hope that Members of the Senate will oppose the Helms amendment. We all know that rapid population growth is becoming a very critical problem. If you consider the fact that the world population is going to grow by 90 million people this year alone, this is like adding a new country the size of Nigeria to the world every year, or a city the size of New York City every month. Based on various assumptions about fertility rates, the U.N. population projections for the middle of the next century range between 8 and 12 billion people. This rapid population growth has serious implications for global economic, and social stability. Ground water supplies are dwindling; rivers and lakes are fouled with pollutants from industries, municipalities, and agriculture. Tropical forests are being cleared at the rate of 17 million hectares a year. Rapid population growth, especially when overlaid with sharp social or economic divisions, places great strains on political institutions. So to the extent that population pressures contribute to weakening economic and political structures, the adversely affect international stability and peace. This directly affects our own national security interests around the world. Let us consider for a moment the benefits of population assistance, because they are substantial. A cost-benefit analysis of Thailand's family planning program, which reduced the average number of children per woman from 6 in the late 1960's to 2.1 in 1991, found that the average return on each dollar invested was estimated to be more than $7.

Ms. SNOWE. A similar study in Mexico concluded for every peso invested in family planning, 9 pesos are saved that would have to be spent on maternal and child health care. In Indonesia, each dollar spent on family planning will result in $12.5 of savings in public expenditures for health and education. This does not even take into account the benefits that accrue to every single person on this planet from reduced environmental trauma, reduced immigration pressures, improved standards of living, and improved social and political stability. So I think that the benefits are clear of international family planning programs, and that is why we should not impede the ability of organizations, like UNFPA, that have done so much to enhance family planning services in the developing world. In the 28 countries with the largest U.S.-funded family planning program, the average number of children born per family has dropped from 6 in the 1960's to 4 today, a decline of one-third. Since the 1960's, births for women in developing countries have dropped 37 percent, child mortality by 50 percent, and primary school enrollment is up by 38 percent. None of this would have been accomplished without U.S. leadership in international family planning. To forestall the still-looming world population crisis, we need to strengthen and continue our leadership and not pull away from our leadership. So I hope that we will defeat the Helms amendment because I think we have to do everything that we can to support these services. I want to repeat, once again, that UNFPA is not involved in any of the abuses or coercive programs that have been advanced by the Government of China, or the provincial government within China. In fact, they have done everything to discourage it. It is more important that they have a presence there. But the fact is that they will, at the end of their 5 years, be reexamining their program. They are doing everything they can to reduce the abuses that are occurring in China. We should do everything that we can to assist them in the process. We have limited our contributions to UNFPA in the past. We know that our funds are not being used for UNFPA's program in China. Our appropriation process already places restrictions so that our funds are not comingled in any way with UNFPA's program in China. So we have already in place the necessary procedures and restrictions to ensure that our money is not being used in any way, directly or indirectly, in China. So I urge my colleagues to support the committee position and oppose this amendment, so that we can continue to permit our U.S. leadership in the effort to stabilize the world's population through voluntary family planning services. We can only do this by supporting the efforts of UNFPA and the private organizations that have had a proven record of effectiveness and efficiency. We must maintain our international leadership, not just to assist the poor countries of the world that need our assistance, but, first and foremost, we need to continue our leadership in international family planning programs for our own Nation and our own future. With that, Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time. [[Page S 14044]]

Ms. SNOWE. I thank you, Mr. President. I certainly want to join in this discussion because I think it is critical as chair of the Subcommittee on International Operations in this Senate, and I have been the ranking member of the same subcommittee in the House of Representatives for the last 10 years. It is surprising to hear the tenor of this debate here today about the consolidation proposal. First of all, I think it should be understood that the administration never submitted a State Department authorization, which is a first, at least to my knowledge and with the experience I have had on that subcommittee for the last 10 years, there has never been a case where the President has not submitted his own proposals with respect to the State Department authorization. This consolidation issue is not something that just developed in recent days or weeks. In fact, it was first initiated by the current Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, back in January, only to be rejected by the President. Interestingly enough, the Secretary of State's proposal for consolidating the State Department and the other agencies that we are referring to today, by Chairman Helms, pretty much approximates what this consolidation proposal is all about. In response to Secretary Christopher's proposal and in rejecting it by the administration, on January 26, Vice President Gore issued a press release announcing the second phase of the national performance review. ``It is anticipated that the overall review of international affairs programs and agencies will result in savings of at least $5 billion over 5 years and a substantially enhanced capacity to deliver more effective programs overseas and provide value to the American taxpayers.'' I remind my colleagues that the administration and, indeed, the Vice President, proposed $5 billion over 5 years. This consolidation proposal is referring to $3 billion over 4 years. The $3 billion was determined by the Budget Committee, but it is less than what the administration proposed for consolidating and cutting within the State Department and its related agencies. I think the bottom line here is that the administration, the President on down--and what we are hearing today and is reflected in the comments made by the Senator from Massachusetts--is that they do not want any consolidation proposal. I should remind you we started out consolidating three agencies, and the Senator from Massachusetts and I had a number of conversations. In fact, we had hearings at the subcommittee level and at the full committee level. This is an issue that has been discussed throughout this year. The President does not want a consolidation proposal. We started out with three agencies to be merged into the State Department. Chairman Helms recommended yesterday that we will take two agencies. In fact, the Senator from Massachusetts, before the committee, had recommended one agency for consolidating and merging to State Department. In fact, Chairman Helms said he would accept that. Now we are down from three to two to one, and we are still not able to reach an agreement. Yes, it should not be on this bill. We hoped we could complete the State Department authorization bill. That should have been done long before the recess. In fact, it was here on the floor, but it was clear we were not making any progress, that a stalemate had occurred because of this consolidation proposal. So really that is what it is all about, that the President does not want to consolidate these agencies. The President will not even submit a plan to tell us how we reach this goal of $3 billion or tell us where he stands on anything other than opposing consolidation. He does not even put forward his own proposals. So we have to move forward because the American people deserve to have a more innovative approach to the problems we are facing. They certainly deserve to have consolidation and savings within the State Department. We want to do it on a reasonable basis. I think going from three agencies to consolidate to two, to one is a very fair compromise. It is more than compromising. Yet we do not seem to be making any progress. Over this last year we were told time and again, ``We want to work with you to produce an agreement.'' We started out last winter, we had our hearings, we had more hearings because they said they needed to examine this issue further. And I say that is fair because this is serious business. We do not take this consolidation lightly. We do not say we have all the right answers with respect to this proposal. Clearly we could not be that far off the mark since Secretary of State Warren Christopher proposed essentially the same proposal for consolidating. [[Page S 14025]] Then it came to the committee markup, and the Senator from Massachusetts did propose an alternative at the last minute but we said again ``Let's work before we go to the floor.'' We went to the floor and nothing happened. It went on and on, and it was clear we had to move on to other subjects pending before the Senate. So here we are now on the appropriations bill. What we would like to know is, how do we move beyond this so we can resolve this question, complete the State Department authorization, and also do what we need to do with respect to savings? We have to achieve $3 billion in savings, and that is the issue here. I cannot believe that the President would oppose consolidation within the State Department. There are five former Secretaries of State and two former National Security Advisers who have endorsed this proposal. That represents many years of experience with respect to foreign relations. I cannot believe we would just systematically reject out of hand the idea of consolidation. At a time when we are driving to balance the budget over the next 7 years, we are saying we are not going to do it with respect to the State Department and related agencies. A proposal was put forward--come your way, down to one agency--and we have still yet to make any progress. I think that is regrettable. I certainly have not experienced this in all the years in which I have addressed this issue. Believe me, we had many contentious issues with previous administrations on the State Department, but we were able to resolve them. At the very least, we had a President who was willing to submit a proposal. This President has not. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as a cosponsor, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Smith. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire for his tireless efforts on behalf of the families of American POW's and MIA's. As a Vietnam veteran, he has always kept first in his [[Page S 13941]] concern the fate of those American men and women who never returned from this most divisive of all of our wars. This amendment puts aside the controversies over President Clinton's decision to grant full diplomatic relations to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Rather, this amendment simply says that Vietnam will not receive most favored nation trading status, or other trade benefits until the President reports to Congress that Vietnamese officials are fully meeting United States expectations on the POW/MIA issue. I would like to emphasize that the criteria the President would have to certify are drawn directly from the President's own past statements on the strict standards he would use for judging whether the Vietnamese have indeed been entirely cooperative in achieving the fullest possible accounting of America's MIA's. We all have the same goal, which is to achieve the fullest possible accounting for those Americans who did not return from Vietnam. But the families and loved ones of those Americans are not able to so easily put this issue behind them. They have a need to know; they have a right to know. And that leads to what I believe this issue is all about: that is, what does this nation stand for? My personal belief is that a basic principle is at stake here. What America is all about requires us to keep our faith with the families of those who remain missing and who are unaccounted for from the Vietnam war. This argues for using the leverage we have to ensure the greatest possible accounting for these missing Americans. To this end, the United States has already come half way. Indeed, we have come more than half way. In just the past 19 months, the United States lifted its economic and trade embargo, permitting full trade relations and investment by U.S. companies in the country. In addition, we reached an accord with Vietnam settling property claims between our two governments; we have established in Hanoi a United States liaison office staffed by American diplomats and functioning as a lower-level diplomatic presence; we have signed a diplomatic agreement protecting United States citizens who may reside in or travel to Vietnam; and we have established full diplomatic relations with Vietnam. For years the Government of Vietnam refused to provide even the slightest assistance in resolving these MIA cases. Vietnam only began-- grudgingly--to assist in accounting for these missing Americans when the country lost its patron with the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the words of the American Legion, ``Vietnam's cooperation on the resolution of the POW/MIA issue has not fulfilled reasonable expectations.'' The National League of Families of American Prisoners and Missing in Southeast Asia has also criticized those, ``commending Vietnam for full POW/MIA cooperation despite evidence to the contrary.'' In fact, the league has noted that actions the United States already took leading up to the President's normalization decision have, ``signaled Vietnam that unilateral actions on their part are not expected nor required to achieve their political and economic objectives.'' And since the President ended the United States embargo on Vietnam, only eight Americans who were captured or became missing in action in North Vietnam have been accounted for. I believe that we should have been more insistent in using the considerable leverage we have with Vietnam--leverage that we are in danger of throwing away if this amendment is not approved. Vietnam is anxious to establish close economic and political ties to the United States as a counter-weight to China, its traditional rival to the north. But to me, and I believe to most Americans, full cooperation in accounting for our remaining MIA's should have been an absolute threshold that Vietnam was required to meet before we took the final step of rewarding the Vietnamese Government with a full United States trade relations. The only step remaining is the granting of full trading relations to Vietnam. I believe that the status of our relations with Vietnam are still too new and too uncertain for such a precipitous step. Granting this final concession now is simply too great a risk, given continuing grave uncertainties about the true level of Vietnamese knowledge about the fate of the many of the Americans who never returned. And the POW/MIA issue does remain in question. The names of 58,196 Americans have been etched into the reflective walls of the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial. Listed with them, each marked with a simple cross, are the names of 2,205 Americans still unaccounted for in Vietnam. This means that for every 25 young Americans who gave their life in Vietnam, an additional American simply disappeared and was never heard from again. A much more reasonable approach, I believe, is the approach proposed by the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Smith. The Smith amendment would ensure that our duty and obligation as a nation is fully met to our MIA's and their families before we in the U.S. Senate endorse full trade relations between our two countries. I urge adoption of the Smith amendment, and I yield the floor. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the D'Amato amendment, I would like to express my strong support for his proposal to reduce our economic assistance to Turkey. The D'Amato amendment would cut economic aid to Turkey by $25 million, capping aid to Turkey next year at $21 million. A similar amendment passed overwhelmingly in the House earlier this year. Mr. President, this bill represents cuts of $1.2 billion from the fiscal year 1995 appropriated level. It is $2.4 billion less than the administration's $14.8 billion request. I support the fiscal responsibility of this bill, and I believe that this amendment will help to bring the Turkish account into line with other reductions contained in this bill. [[Page S 13922]] But there are more important reasons to make this cut than just achieving budgetary savings. For decades, Turkey has had a consistent record of human rights abuses against its own people and against its neighbors. I would like to emphasize that this cut will only affect economic assistance, not military assistance. There are a great number of reasons to support this amendment, but I would like to list just a few: Turkey has illegally occupied 40 percent of the territory of neighboring Cyprus for 21 years. Turkey has consistently refused to withdraw its 35,000 occupation troops, and has impeded efforts to reunify the island. The Turkish army has forcibly evacuated or destroyed nearly 2,000 Kurdish villages. More than 2 million of Turkey's Kurdish citizens have been made refugees in their own country. Over 10,000 Turkish Kurds have been killed by Turkish Government forces. More than 5,000 of these deaths have come in just the past 5 years. American weapons and equipment have been used repeatedly by Turkey in their internal and external atrocities, including the 1974 invasion of Cyprus and the attacks against Kurds in U.N. protected areas of northern Iraq earlier this year. Torture, extrajudicial execution, and unlawful detention continue to be common in Turkey. This has been confirmed by State Department human rights reports and all credible private human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Turkey persists in blocking the delivery of desperately-needed humanitarian assistance to Armenia, a land-locked neighboring country. This is particularly egregious because of Turkey's own past atrocities toward the Armenian people during World War I. This is commonly referred to the Armenian Genocide, in which 1.5 million Armenians--or half of all the Armenian people at that time--died. Seven European countries have cut off all arms sales to Turkey, and the European Union has refused to even consider a free trade agreement with Turkey because of the treatment of the Kurdish people. Against its own international agreements, in 1971 Turkey shuttered the seminary school of the Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate. This was done in an effort to undermine and eventually destroy this most hallowed institution revered by over 200 million Eastern Orthodox faithful around the world. Mr. President, I frankly do not understand why we continue to provide such high levels of economic assistance to Turkey. But the purpose of this amendment is not to totally cut off all aid to Turkey, only to send a strong message that Turkey must reform its human rights record both with its neighbors and with its own people. I urge passage of the D'Amato amendment, and I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I request permission to engage the senior Senator from Maine and the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee in a brief colloquy. As the chairman knows, new fungicide- resistant strains of the late blight potato fungus are causing serious damage to potato crops in a number of potato-growing States. Maine has been hit particularly hard by late blight over the past several years. To address this problem, the Congress provided $1.4 million for late blight control and research in Maine through extension in 1994, and it provided $800,000 for the Maine program in the current fiscal year through the Smith-Lever pest management funds. USDA officials have informed our offices that another $800,000 has been included in the President's budget for this purpose in fiscal year 1996 under pest management.

Ms. SNOWE. On behalf of the Maine delegation, I would like to thank the Chairman for clarifying this matter. agricultural research service

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of a comprehensive overhaul of our Nation's welfare system. I would like to commend the distinguished Majority Leader, Senator Dole, and many of my colleagues for bringing a much-needed and timely bill to the floor of the Senate for action. I am also looking forward to what I believe can be a genuine spirit of bipartisanship as we seek to address some of the aspects of our welfare system that have hurt, rather than helped, Americans forge a better future for themselves and their families. Although it has been characterized as such, welfare reform should not be a conservative-versus-liberal issue, or a Democrat-versus-Republican issue. It should be an issue where we seek to involve and include various constructive points of view for a cause whose worth stretches beyond partisan political lines. Simply put, what we must strive for in this debate is to end welfare as a way of life for millions of Americans and their families, while at the same time preserving a safety net for those in our society who need a leg-up rather than a hand-out to succeed in their personal quest of the American dream. What we must be compelled to accomplish is to require more individual responsibility, a strengthened work ethic, and a sense of discipline and order to the family, all while continuing to maintain our historic and compassionate commitment to those who need our help in those dark times that are a part of everyone's life at some time or another. Mr. President, I believe we can--and must--give them change with a human face. It is not necessary to be less compassionate or less understanding, but it is possible to be less spendthrift and less generous to those who have taken undue advantage of our system. As we begin to meet these challenges and others, I am eager to work with all my colleagues to further improve this legislation and, in the process, craft a better America and set our Nation on a new and more responsible course into the 21st century. Everything we and our parents have worked for to give us a better life and instill in us a sense of national purpose as well as personal responsibility is at stake in this debate. We, in America, all too frequently judge our Nation and measure our country's worth as a people by standards of economic statistics, by gold, silver and bronze medals won at world tournaments, or by military might as the world's greatest democracy. But to judge America in terms of a society, clearly we are lacking in many respects. In today's society, it is hardly uncommon for an individual to be smoking or drinking by the time they are 10; to be caught stealing by the time they are 11; to be hooked on drugs by the time they are 12; to be sexually active by 13 years of age; to be pregnant by the time of their 14th birthday; to be on welfare at 15; to be a high school drop- out at 16; and to have the American dream be nothing more than a pipe dream at 17. Mr. President, to many this may be nothing less or nothing more than a worst-case scenario. But, unfortunately, in the 1990's it has become an acceptable scenario in America. How tragic; and how wrong. Welfare in America has become a way of life, a culture of despondency, a tradition of dismay, and has bequeathed a sad inheritance of dependance for millions of our citizens. Our challenge in these proceedings is not to make their lives more difficult by our efforts here, or to perpetuate any negative stereotypes, or to treat harshly those people in need of help; our solemn challenge is to give them a new chance, a new beginning, and to show them a different and better way of life. In the 1960's, when many welfare programs were designed and implemented by the Federal Government, we were willing to risk the involvement of central government in people's lives for the benefit of helping them to help themselves. Instead, welfare in the 1990's is out of touch, out of cash, and out of tune with people's lives. In an August 1993 Yankelovich poll, respondents were asked, ``Do you think our current welfare system helps more families than it hurts, or hurts more families than it helps?'' Twenty-four percent said that it helps more, while a commanding 62 percent said it hurts more. Many might wonder what it is that we have bought with over $5 trillion in welfare funds over the past 30 years. Many might wonder what the returns have been on an investment we made three generations ago. It is a disappointing litany of our shortcomings as a society and as a compassionate democracy. Mr. President, what we are doing is rewarding the failure of the individual spirit to strive for greatness and personal responsibility. As one pollster said, ``Welfare rewards what life punishes.'' Moreover, these social and cultural trends play a major role in other trends involving crime and violence, both on the streets and in our homes; they affect education, urban decay, and our economy. Their link to each other is unmistakable. As former Education Secretary William Bennett said: Over the last three decades we have experienced substantial social regression. Today, the forces of social decomposition are challenging--and in some instances, overtaking--the forces of social composition. And when decomposition takes hold, it exacts an enormous human cost. These figures exact the toll and tally that cost. Since 1960, illegitimate births have soared by more than 400 percent; while only 5.3 percent of all births were out-of-wedlock in 1960, illegitimate births rose to 30 percent of all births by 1992. The pregnancy rate among unmarried teenagers has more than doubled since the early 1970's, amounting to over one million--one million-- teen pregnancies every single year. While America's marriage rate has declined spectacularly for 20 years by almost one-third to an all-time low, America's divorce rate has increased by nearly 300 percent in the past 30 years, subjecting more of our children to more broken families than ever before. The Congressional Budget Office reports that 77 percent of unmarried adolescent mothers become welfare recipients within 5 years of the birth of their first child. And many of them are staying on welfare for a long time. In fact, more than half of the 9.5 million children receiving AFDC have parents who never married each other. Single-parent families account for 65 percent of poor families with children, and they account for over half of all poor families. I should mention that studies show that almost 1 out of every 4 children from one-parent families will be in poverty for 7 years or more, compared with only 2 percent from two-parent families. And, despite an explosion in welfare spending, more children live in poverty today--22 percent--than in 1965; 15 percent, which is when the famous--or infamous--War on Poverty began. What does 22 percent mean in real terms? Try over 15 million children living in poverty in America today. The percentage of all American children dependent on AFDC welfare increased from 3.5 percent in 1960 to over 13 percent in the 1990's. While we are talking about AFDC--it has become a $23 billion Federal- State program supporting approximately 14.5 million people--and that is a 31-percent increase not over 1960 or 1965 or even 1970, but a 31- percent increase over 1989; only 6 short years ago. Probably worst of all, among these terrible numbers, are these: First, of the 4.5 million households currently receiving AFDC benefits, well over half will remain dependent on the program for over a decade--10 years--and many will remain dependent for 15 years or even longer. Second, and even worse, children raised in single-parent families are three times more likely to become welfare recipients themselves as adults--a clear continuing legacy of failure and the unmistakable mark of what the Heritage Foundation calls intergenerational dependence. That is highlighted by the fact that 60 percent of welfare recipients today are the children of welfare dependents from the previous generation. As I mentioned, America has spent $5 trillion in welfare assistance since the start of the War on Poverty. Mr. President, we are losing--badly losing--the war within our borders against poverty and social decay. But through the haze and maze of this debate, we can learn from some of the success stories of people who were once on welfare and had the courage and stamina to leave the system and seek a better life. For some, welfare meets a critical need; sometimes, a critical lifeline in troubled times. Our challenge is to reform this system so that it works for more people, encourages more to leave the system for good and return to wage-earning jobs, and yet retains the vital portions of the safety net for the neediest among us. It can happen. It can work. We can make it a reality. I know because I have met the success stories firsthand. Take Melissa Brough from Portland, ME. She succeeded in welfare. Sadly, she succeeded despite the system, not because of it. Listen to what she has to say: I started out just needing some subsidized child care so I could find a job to support us. I ended up trickling down through the system for 4 years. What a way to build self- confidence and self-esteem! It's no wonder people get trapped in the welfare system, when competing resources seem to have money and statistics in mind instead of individuals * * * [L]et's provide the resources and support * * * to help people along the road to self-sufficiency. Mr. President, Melissa is right. Self-sufficiency should be our goal, and the system we design must provide the resources and support to help people along that road. Sometimes, getting to success and self-sufficiency requires short- term sacrifices and tough choices. But there are stories to show that they are worth it. Tecia Girardin is a proud mother of three sons living in Readfield, ME. She works 50 hours a week and takes home $350 weekly in pay through her job at Progressive Distributors, a warehouse distribution center. She is now getting $345 a month in child support, and 2 years ago put a downpayment on 48 acres of land, where she hopes to build a house in the near future. But it was not always this way for Tecia and her boys. Years ago, she counted on food stamps to put food on her table at night. She used to rummage for aluminum cans to pay for the rent. Looking back, Tecia recalls, ``It was a nightmare, but we made it.'' She adds, ``I was determined to make it on my own. I just do not think a life of dependency is good--whether it is dependency on alcohol, drugs, or government assistance * * * I wanted to be free of welfare.'' With her pride and her self-confidence, Tecia broke the shackles of welfare and took several tough jobs before landing a position at Progressive Distributors, where she has now been for 5 years. She is off food stamps and off Medicaid, and it is been 4 years since her last benefit check. But times are still tough for her and her family. We still need to do more to help people like Tecia break free of the system. I believe the majority leader's plan makes a good attempt to help people break free of the labyrinth of welfare. This legislation recognizes that the Federal Government does not have the ability to create a one-size-fits-all welfare program. Instead, it has made a necessary and bold change: States are awarded block grants to design a local program that meets unique State needs. I support this basic concept, and believe it is essential that welfare reform give States the flexibility to address the unique problems of their citizens. At the Federal level, we simply do not know what will work. Each State should have the flexibility to address the problem as they understand it. In Maine, the principle reason that families go on welfare is divorce or separation. That is the No. 1 reason: 42 percent of all AFDC recipients are forced onto welfare as a result of divorce or separation. In Maine, 61 percent of adult AFDC recipients have obtained their GED. The people behind these statistics may require quite different welfare programs than people in densely populated States. That is why flexibility is a crucial tool--missing from existing welfare programs--that must be extended to the States. I also support the restoration of AFDC as a temporary assistance program, rather than a program which entangles and traps generation after generation after generation. The legislation before us allows States to provide benefits for 5 years, but after that point benefits are terminated. As soon as a recipient is work ready, he or she will be required to work for their benefits. All recipients will be required to work after receiving benefits for 2 years. Nothing like a time-limited welfare system has ever been tried in this country. But we need to send a message to recipients that there are responsibilities associated with receiving a welfare check: responsibility brings dignity. And to promote responsibility, there must be consequences to action or inaction. This bill also makes progress in another critical area of concern, one that, for many welfare recipients, has forced them into poverty: child support enforcement. Child support enforcement is one of the most important provisions in our campaign to revamp the welfare system of this country. It affects every State--children at every income level--and it affects both single-mothers and single-fathers. As a national problem, child support enforcement merits a national solution. And we must demonstrate our leadership by providing it. I am proud to have worked in a bipartisan manner with the majority leader, Senator Dole, and the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, to develop a sound and comprehensive national child support enforcement solution. The major provisions of our legislation have been incorporated into this proposal. To strengthen efforts to locate parents, the bill expands the federal parent locator system and provides for State-to-State access of the network. To increase paternity establishment, the bill makes it easier for fathers to voluntarily acknowledge paternity and encourages outreach. To facilitate the setting of effective child support orders, it calls for the establishment of a National Child Support Guidelines Commission to develop a national child support guideline for consideration by Congress, and provides for a simplified process for review and adjustment of child support orders. And to facilitate child support enforcement and collection, the bill expands the penalties for child support delinquency to include the denial of professional, recreational, and driver's license to deadbeat parents, the imposition of liens on real property, and the automatic reporting of delinquency to credit unions. This provision has proven very effective in my own State of Maine, where the State has collected more than $21 million in child support payments by sending letters to delinquent parents with a very real threat to revoke professional licenses. This bill also grants families who are owed child support the right of first access to an IRS refund credited to a deadbeat parent and permits the denial of a passport for individuals who are more than $5,000 or 24 months in arrears. Mr. President, as I have pointed out, this legislation seeks to implement on a national level some of the successful child support enforcement mechanisms being utilized by some innovative States, like my home State of Maine. Clearly these efforts pay off. But we can--and must--do much more. We have the tools to replicate the successes of States like Maine on a national level and begin to ease and eventually lift the economic and emotional burdens caused by delinquent child support payments. Mr. President, as we reform the system to encourage welfare recipients to work, we must also ensure that we provide for appropriate and adequate child care for mothers with young children. And in instances where that child care is not available, we cannot penalize mothers with young children at a very fragile and unstable time in their lives as they struggle to make ends meet. When we in this chamber talk about the need to protect the neediest in society and to protect some of our less fortunate citizens by casting a so-called safety net, nothing could represent that support more than helping mothers care for their children as they seek to make the move from the world of welfare to the world of work. We must not condone a situation where a woman would be forced to choose between her children's well-being and her job and benefits. We cannot allow, for example, a woman to leave her two young children at home alone, unattended, because she is required to work. To do so would be to give them a Catch-22 choice, a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea. And many more women could be faced with that difficult choice than ever before under this bill. By requiring work participation rates to reach 50 percent by fiscal year 2000, it is estimated this will add an additional 665,000 children to those currently in need of child care. The truth is, we have a long way to go before we can assure access to child care--let alone affordable child care. In dozens of States across America, there are long waiting lists for child care. In Alabama, for example, there are nearly 20,000 children on the waiting list for child care, adding up to an average wait between one and one-and-a-half years. In Texas, a staggering 35,692 children are on the waiting list, with waits as long as two years. In my home State of Maine, there are more than 3,000 children on the child care waiting list. Fortunately, there is light at the end of what for many women in this country is a very long tunnel. I am extremely pleased to be able to say that the majority leader has decided to incorporate a major provision, I authored along with some of my colleagues, into this proposal to help address the issue of child care for parents on welfare. This is a critical issue for welfare reform, and one I have been working to address since the debate on welfare began. With this new provision incorporated into the proposal, States will be prohibited from sanctioning mothers with children aged 5 or under if the State cannot provide adequate and affordable child care for those recipients whom it requires to go to work. This is important considering that the Department of Health and Human Services has estimated that almost 62 percent of welfare recipients have children aged 5 or under. I am also pleased to have been involved in a bipartisan effort by working with Senators Orrin Hatch, Christopher Dodd, Bill Cohen, John Chafee, Jim Jeffords and Nancy Kassebaum to allocate an additional $3 billion over 5 years in child care services funding. Under this agreement reached with the majority leader, the States will be required to match child care funds at the Medicaid match rate. This additional funding, when combined with the $1 billion that Senator Hatch's amendment sets aside for child care, will go a long way to ensuring that we make our welfare reform proposals viable and realistic options for single parents who need care for their children in this country. Adequate child care funding is a major issue that the Governors themselves--in a letter to Majority Leader Dole dated September 13-- called the largest part of the up-front investment needed for successful welfare reform. And they are right. This provision on child care funding is a significant point of agreement and consensus for all of us in this historic legislation, and I am heartened to see its addition to the bill. We have also made progress in another area that I consider critical to our reform efforts--and that is the important issue of State maintenance of effort. I, along with many of my colleagues, believe this area is a central component to the success of the reforms before us because we believe it is essential to continue the shared Federal-State partnership in welfare. Since 1935 when title IV of the Social Security Act was signed into law, welfare has been a shared Federal-State responsibility. As we move to reengineer the system, both sides must renew their commitment to the partnership--and by this I mean both their moral commitment and their financial obligations. Indeed, the States, like the Federal Government, face many competing forces for funding. With the mandate from the public to reduce spending and balance State budgets, Governors and State legislatures face the same tough choices that we in Congress are in the process of making. Some have written that this ``is not a question of trust.'' But I believe it is, and some States are working hard to meet that trust, and they are succeeding. Many States, like my State of Maine, have already made a strong commitment to welfare reform and I know that they will continue to do so. But my concern is that some States--precisely because of those competing forces for funding--may not. States have a tremendous stake in the success of our welfare system. They should have a financial commitment as well, both in the cost as well as in the potential savings. That is why we must include provisions requiring States to continue the Federal-State partnership. Let me be clear about one point: We are not asking the States to increase their financial contribution, but we need to make sure that they do contribute. Toward that end, I supported and was cosponsor of the Breaux amendment to make those figures a 90 percent contribution over five years. In response, the leadership agreed to include language that would require States to provide 80 percent of their fiscal year 1994 contribution to welfare for 5 years--the full lifespan of this bill. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that, like all broad- reaching Government reforms, this is not a perfect solution to the vast challenges that face our welfare system. There are some aspects that can--perhaps should--be improved. But I believe that this legislation moves us closer to a workable solution. We have already spent countless billions on a welfare system that has made little progress in resolving the problems of the poor. We cannot afford to simply do nothing--to maintain the status quo, with all of its perverse incentives. Instead, we must act now, and begin the process of ending welfare as a way of life, and restoring welfare assistance to its original purpose, to provide temporary help to our neighbors in need. Americans have long demonstrated their generosity and their commitment to help our neighbors, families, and children in need. Yet Americans deserve to see results for their efforts and their investment in assisting the neediest. For 30 years, our welfare system has delivered positive results sporadically at best. Americans are demanding more for their investment, and we in Congress must heed their call and help States achieve welfare's noble goals. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you. I share that concern because the House does not include any maintenance of effort, no percentage in that regard. So we go in, and we know there is going to be much less than that because of the House's position. So we are at 90 percent. We are going to come out with much less. And I think that is why this amendment is preferable in that regard. I think it is essential to have a 5-year commitment. If we go in with less than 5 years, we know we will probably, at best, probably get maybe 3 years. But I do think it is important that we have both the 90 percent and the 5 years to go with a strong position into the conference.

Ms. SNOWE. Yes, I share the Senator's concern in that regard because there is no maintenance of effort whatsoever.

Ms. SNOWE. If States want to reduce their commitment, then the Federal share will be reduced as well. It is not preventing the States from reducing their share, but if they do, then we have a proportionate reduction of the Federal share as well. I will be glad to yield.

Ms. SNOWE. I rise in support of the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux], because I do think it is essential that we ensure a continued Federal-State partnership with respect to welfare programs, and certainly regarding the welfare reform we are attempting to make in the Congress today. The amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana underscores a very essential point, and I think it gets to the heart of what welfare reform is all about--that it is in fact a mutual cooperative effort between the Federal Government and the States to get Americans off welfare, so that they can pursue opportunities to self-sufficiency, personal responsibility, and discipline. Since 1935, when title IV of the Social Security Act was adopted, welfare has always been a Federal-State partnership. And as we attempt to reengineer the welfare system in America today as we know it, I also think we should renew our commitment to that partnership. The bottom line is the States have a tremendous stake in the success and outcome of welfare reform. At the same time, I think it is also essential that they have a financial commitment and a financial stake in this reform. Many States--and I think we all can understand this--will continue to extend their programs to the neediest, as they do today, but they are also facing the same antitax, antigovernment, antiexcessive spending sentiment that we are in the Senate and in the entire Congress. [[Page S 13320]] These States at the same time also have balanced budget requirements and commitments. In fact, most States do throughout the country. So they will be facing competing demands and interests for money. Under the legislation that is pending before the Senate with respect to welfare reform, there is no requirement that the States contribute what they have spent in the past with respect to welfare. That is a concern which I have and one I share with the Senator from Louisiana. In the last 20 years, cash assistance by the States toward welfare has been reduced by 40 percent when you take into account inflation. That is 40 percent. I do not think there is any question, as we pursue welfare reform, that we are going to still make a commitment, probably as great as what we are making today, in order to ensure that those individuals who are on welfare will move toward self-sufficiency in the future. As the Senator from Louisiana mentioned, Governor Thompson, who has had a very successful welfare reform program in the State of Wisconsin, had to make a commitment of fivefold toward job training and child care in order to make it a success. For every dollar they invested, they got $2 in return from benefits. Now, the Breaux amendment says that if the States do not wish to make their commitment of 90 percent of their spending at the 1994 level toward welfare, they can reduce it, but at the same time the Federal share will be reduced as well, dollar for dollar. I do not think that is unfair. I think the Federal Government should share in the benefits and the success of the program as well as the savings because this should be a shared partnership. If we are able to save money, the Federal taxpayers should save it as well. We should stand to gain from the successes as well as the savings. So we are asking the States to spend 90 percent of what they spent at the 1994 level over 5 years. I think it is essential there is a 5-year commitment toward the maintenance of effort. It is not that we are saying that we do not expect States to make a commitment, but there have been some States who made a greater commitment toward welfare in the past than others. It is not saying we do not trust the States. I do not think it is a question of trust. It is a question of shared responsibility and the question of fairness. Without the requirement for a fiscal commitment by the States to at least spend 90 percent at the 1994 level toward welfare, some States may not keep their end of the deal. Now, welfare reform was not designed to get the States off the hook. We are trusting them immensely through the enormous flexibility that is being granted to them through the block grant program. They stand to gain enormously in terms of how they implement a welfare reform program that is tailored to their particular State and to their constituency. And we think that they can do a better job than the Federal Government. But we also know that it is going to continue to require a commitment on their part in terms of contributions. And that is, as we were having this debate this week on the issue of child care, we know we are going to need a tremendous commitment toward child care. And that is why I was pleased that Senator Dole included language that I and others proposed with respect to child care so that those families who have children of 5 years or under who demonstrated a need for child care and were unable to obtain it because of distance or affordability will not be sanctioned. And I think that is an important provision in the legislation. But I also think that we have to ensure that the States will continue to make their commitment toward child care or job training or health care. And they will have the flexibility under this legislation to transfer from one to the other. But the fact of the matter is, they should make a maintenance of effort toward what they have contributed in the past, and we are asking them to provide 90 percent, which is less than what the Federal share would be, because the Federal Government would be required to pay 100 percent of their share of their contributions to the States at the 1994 funding level. I think this is a very important principle to adopt, Mr. President, because combined Federal and State spending approximates more than $30 billion. The States contribute about 45 percent of the total amount of money spent in this country on welfare. That is 45 percent. So without the Breaux amendment, we risk having nearly half of what is now spent on welfare siphoned off to other programs. That may mean that we will not have the kind of commitment toward child care or job training or education programs that are absolutely essential and necessary if we are going to make welfare reform work. We want the States to reduce the rolls, absolutely. But the question is how they reduce those rolls. We want to make sure they do it in a way that we reach the final goal of allowing welfare recipients to become independent and self-sufficient. That is the bottom line. Because that is in the best interest of this country. So I think it is important to have a maintenance-of-effort requirement in this legislation because we know that essentially the States cannot spend much less than what they are spending today on welfare and think that we are going to have a successful welfare reform program. I do not believe it can happen, as you can see, in the State of Wisconsin, when Governor Thompson made a fivefold commitment toward an increase in commitment toward education, job training and child care. So I think that this is a very important amendment. And as I said----

Ms. SNOWE. Five minutes.

Ms. SNOWE. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. SNOWE

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

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this amendment is also being cosponsored by Senator Bradley of New Jersey. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment.

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

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

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

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to address the severe human rights violations that are occurring today against a small, remnant minority in an occupied region of their own country. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by my distinguished colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski. The human rights abuses addressed in this bill are little known outside the country in which they are occurring. The country is the island nation of Cyprus, which for 21 years has seen much of its territory under the illegal military occupation of neighboring Turkey. Mr. President, two decades ago, Turkey's brutal invasion drove more than 200,000 Cypriots from their homes and reduced them to the status of refugees in their own land. More than 2,000 people are still missing, including 5 American citizens. The Turkish Army seized 40 percent of the land of Cyprus, representing 70 percent of the island's economic wealth. Today, Turkey continues to maintain 35,000 troops on the island, which forms the bedrock of the continuing political impasse. During Turkey's invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974, the areas now under Turkish control suffered from a near-complete ethnic cleansing of the over 200,000 Greek-Cypriot majority population. There remains in northern Cyprus, however, a remnant population of 497 enclaved Greek- Cypriots. These Cypriot citizens are often simply referred to as the enclaved of Cyprus, because during 1974 they mostly resided in remote enclaves and thus were not able to flee the fighting and were not immediately expelled. According to reports, this small population suffers from a series of severe human rights restrictions. These include: Restrictions on the freedom to worship, including restrictions on times and places for such worship; Restrictions on communication with individuals living outside of the area in which the enclaved reside, including a requirement that representative of the controlling power be present during any such communication; Prohibition on the possession of telephones in homes; A requirement that an enclaved individual receive permission from the controlling power before leaving the enclaved area; Censorship of mail sent to and out from the enclaved area; A requirement that enclaved males aged 18 to 50 report once a week to those in control; Education restrictions such as a lack of educational opportunities beyond the elementary level, travel restrictions on those who must leave the region for middle and high school, and a prohibition on returning to those who leave for higher education; Violation of property rights, including confiscation of property without compensation; and Inadequate protection from physical abuse, including beatings, rape and murder. Mr. President, the enclaved in northern Cyprus are forced to live under the kinds of extreme restrictions that were once the hallmarks of totalitarian states. Clearly, these severe human rights abuses are intended to achieve the complete ethnic cleansing of northern Cyprus through means just short of physical expulsion. This bill does more than just raise awareness of the shocking human rights violations occurring today in Turkish-occupied northern Cyprus. It also calls on the President to use the influence of the United States to work to bring these abuses to an end. Among the means to be used are bringing the issue before the U.N. Human Rights Commission and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, addressing the issue in the State Department's annual human rights report, and creating a humanitarian assistance program out of existing foreign assistance funds to directly assist the enclaved in northern Cyprus. Mr. President, the measures called for in this bill are, frankly, the least we can do. While we work to address the human rights abuses against the enclaved, we must also be working separately to bring the long-standing dispute on Cyprus to an end in a manner that will entail the total withdrawal of Turkish troops--and possibly even the entire demilitarization of the island, as has been proposed by Cypriot President Glafcos Clerides--and a restoration of Cyprus' sovereignty over its entire territory with the full respect of the rights of all Cypriots. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.