Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to welcome Father Peter Chrisafideis to the United States Senate this morning, and to thank Dr. Ogilvie for graciously extending his hospitality to him. Allowing guest chaplains to open the United States Senate with prayer helps to highlight the important role that clergy of different faiths play throughout the United States--from the largest cities to the smallest towns. It is a statement that we are a nation of men and women for whom spiritual guidance and fulfillment is a vital part of daily life. Our country's spiritual leaders play an indispensable role in helping us to forge a sense of community, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank each and every one of them for their service. For me personally, growing up, the Greek Orthodox religion was a constant and important presence in my life. My father was a Greek immigrant; my mother, the daughter of immigrants. So, ever since my early childhood, Greek Orthodox religious traditions have been at the center of my upbringing, and have helped shape my beliefs and my life. Father Peter, as he is referred to by his congregation, has been a part of that tradition for me, serving formerly at Holy Trinity Church in Lewiston, Maine, where I am a member of the congregation. In fact, while it's hard for me to believe it could have been that long ago, Father Peter officiated at my own wedding almost exactly ten years ago. And he must have done a great job, because we are still going strong and looking forward to the next ten years! Today, Father Peter leads the congregation of the St. George Greek Orthodox Church, where he serves the spiritual needs of Greek-Americans in the greater Bangor community. In addition, he has served a number of parishes outside the State of Maine throughout the years, helping members of the Church to nourish their beliefs and come to know their faith. I again want to thank Father Peter for his service to the Church, as well as his personal friendship and support. And I want to extend my appreciation once more not only to Dr. Ogilvie, but to all of the nation's spiritual leaders for the tremendous inspiration and wise guidance they provide in helping people to live happier, better, and more fulfilling lives.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am honored to serve as an original co-sponsor of the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999 in the name of the hundreds of thousands of men and women trained to deter, fight, and win our wars. I also thank Senators Warner, Allard, Levin, and Cleland for their bipartisan support of the legislation's universal 4.8 percent pay raise and thrift savings proposals as well as the constructive amendments on G.I. bill reform incorporated in the committee-reported version of the bill. The Bill of Rights Act legalizes the concept that military personnel should receive the same retirement benefits based not on the arbitrary factor of when they joined, but on the timeless standard of willingness to sacrifice. It is notable, therefore, that the Senate's opening legislation of the year increases soldier pay for the first time in a generation and strips away the layers of unfairness in a military retirement system based solely on the date of entry rather than the length of service. Unilke the current arrangement, which is more generous to active duty personnel who started working before 1986, our proposal of benefits and bonuses offers the same retirement package to all men and women in uniform who build a military career of at least 20 years. Today, we also commit ourselves to a comprehensive pay raise of 4.8 percent--the largest since 1982--that narrows the gap between military and civilian salaries. We commit ourselves, as Secretary Cohen did last month in recommending salary increases for noncommissioned and mid-grade commissioned officers, to retention and promotion bonuses that reward the skills of 21st century war fighters. We commit ourselves for the first time ever to making long-term savings plans available to uniformed service members so that they can build a foundation for family security. We commit ourselves to increases the monthly G.I. benefit for Service people who serve at least for 2 years while eliminating the punitive $1,200 entry fee for young men and women who want to take advantage of a college education under this historic program. And we commit ourselves to financial independence for the junior enlisted ranks by making available a special subsistence allowance of $180 per month as an alternative to food stamp subsidies. This provision will remove from the welfare rolls an estimated 11,900 military personnel in the lowest pay grades. Beginning last September and continuing through the new year, the committee constructed a public record of the financial and operational strains that our military people have endured in recent times. We found that the total value of the Army's retirement package had eroded by 25 percent since 1986. We also found that inadequate pay left the Navy short of 7,000 sailors, the Air Force short of 2,000 pilots, and the Marine Corps short of combat engineers by a threshold of 30 percent. Last month, General Henry Shelton, the nation's senior official in uniform, told the Armed Services Committee that ``reforming military retirement remains the Joint Chiefs highest priority.'' Echoing General Shelton, the Air Force Chief of Staff told the committee that ``restoring the retirement system as a retention incentive is our top priority.'' The Commandant of the Marine Corps told the committee that ``unit commanders routinely cite dissatisfaction with . . . retirement . . . as one of the foremost reasons for separation.'' And the Chief of Naval Operations told the Committee that ``pay and retirement benefits rank among our sailors' top dissatisfiers.'' As the chairwoman of the Armed Services Seapower Subcommittee, I must report that inadequate pay has directly strained our maritime Special Operations forces--famously known as the Navy SEALS. The SEALS conduct vital intelligence-gathering and enemy infiltration activities in advance of, or as an alternative to, higher risk conventional military campaigns. Intense training schedules and exciting missions have traditionally held SEAL recruitment and retention levels traditionally exceed those for most other naval components by between 20 and 30 percent. But today, the SEAL re-enlistment rate exceeds that for the rest of the Service by only 2 percent. The SEALS now face an overall shortfall of 300 men, and the senior enlisted member of the organization told the San Diego Tribune last week that while morale was still high, the pay was too low. Beyond the SEALS, Mr. President, the Navy struggles with skilled personnel shortages throughout the Service. Thirty-five percent of naval aviators elect to take retention bonuses while the Pentagon's goal in this area stands at 50 percent. Enlisted retention overall has decreased 6 to 8 percent below normal requirements. Finally, the most acute turnover rates faced by our sailors come from the ranks of those who lead them: the mid-level officers who command our surface ships and submarines. The Bill of Rights Act responds in an aggressive way to these disturbing developments. With this law, we declare that while Congress cannot equalize the financial benefits of all Armed Services and private sector jobs, it can devise compensation plans upholding the value of military careers regardless of the state of the economy. It's fair to ask, Mr. President, why the Joint Chiefs did not identify problems like a ballistic missile strike from North Korea or Iraq's chemical weapons as more serious threats to military preparedness than pay levels or retirement benefits. The answer rests with a fundamental but overlooked fact: only people can deliver the capabilities to protect America and her interests overseas. We must therefore ensure that the military's pay and retirement policies provide strong retention incentives to skilled and motivated troops. Military strength not only comes from adequate spending on technology and hardware. It also comes from compensation packages that inspire officers and enlisted personnel alike to remain in service with fair pay and to anticipate a secure retirement with a fair pension. Because the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999 recognizes the critical human dimension of defense preparedness, I urge the Senate's enthusiastic support for this bill. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, now that we have come to the end of the process required by the Constitution, I feel we have arrived at an appropriate time to consider a measure required by the President's conduct. I rise in support of censure because while I do not find that the President's behavior constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors requiring removal, I do believe that it compels us to record for history our recognition of the damage we all acknowledge he has inflicted upon the Office of the Presidency and the Nation. Acquittal must not be the last word. And while I have felt that it would have been more appropriate for the Senate to issue findings of fact in the impeachment case against the President, I am now prepared to support censure so that there is no mixed message for posterity about what the Senate thinks of the President's actions. As I said yesterday, the President's behavior is indefensible, and I for one have no interest in seeing another shameless ``Rose Garden Jubilee'' after today's vote by the Court of Impeachment. Acquittal is not exoneration. Nothing we do here today in any way absolves the President's responsibility for the harm he has inflicted--and the President must know this. Indeed, this has been a sordid chapter in the history of the Presidency, and it deserves to be closed with a stern warning and a strongly worded rebuke that will leave no doubt to future generations that this process was not simply much ado about nothing. It was, in fact, about something very important--the sanctity of public service. That's why I worked with Senators Feinstein and Bennett to include language expressing the will of this Senate that this resolution not be revoked by a future Congress. I also want to thank them for their willingness to include language that makes clear the Senate believes the President should be treated like any other citizen facing criminal allegations once he leaves office in 23 months. The fact is, even while this body has acquitted the President on Articles of Impeachment, the framers provided for an additional remedy for his conduct in standard criminal court. Why? Because they had known a country where some men were above the law, and some below. And they were determined to create a nation where the level of justice served was not proportional to a person's pocketbook, social rank or political power. I believe acquittal, though the proper outcome, by itself could present a skewed picture of the Senate's findings, and runs the risk that the President will claim exoneration for his actions. Such a claim, evidence of which is already apparent, is quite simply and obviously, wrong. The President may not have committed high crimes and misdemeanors, but what he has done--in my mind including unlawfully influencing a potential witness--deserves a formal rebuke by the Senate. Censure would be an appropriate and constitutionally permissible way to do this. For a President who from the very beginning promised the most ethical administration any of us would ever see, censure would be a well- deserved legacy of a promise broken and a Presidency sullied. I will vote for this censure motion and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished colleagues, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the Chief Justice for his wisdom, for his infinite patience, and for conferring upon this body the judicial temperament envisioned by the Framers. I would also like to commend both the Senate majority and minority leaders for upholding the dignity of this body, by preserving judiciousness and fairness, and maintaining bipartisanship and civility. Colleagues, we have arrived at a juncture in our public lives that will largely define our place before the judgment of history, and I think it will be said that justice and the Constitution were well served. Indeed, the consequences of our decision are manifest in the words of Alexander Hamilton, who wrote of ``the awful discretion which a court of impeachment must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community.'' Those words should weigh heavily upon us. But while the gravity of our task is humbling, the genius of our Constitution is ennobling; for we deliberate not under the imposing shadow cast by the exceptional men who framed this Nation, but in the illuminating light of their wisdom. Impeachment was designed by the Framers to be a circuitbreaker to protect the Republic, when ``checks and balances'' would not contain the darker vagaries of human nature. Impeachment empowers the Senate-- under the most extraordinary of circumstances--to step outside its legislative role, reach into the executive branch, and remove a popularly elected President. Impeachment was not, however, devised as an adjunct or independent arm of prosecution. It is not for the U.S. Senate to find solely whether the President committed statutory violations. Rather, we have a larger question--whether there is evidence that persuades us, in my view beyond a reasonable doubt, that the President's offenses constitute high crimes and misdemeanors that require his removal. Here is the precise point of our challenge--to give particular meaning to the elusive phrase, ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' This task is critical, because impeachment is not so much a definition, as it is a judgment in a particular case--a judgment based not upon an exact or universal moral standard--but upon a contemporary and historical assessment of interest and need. ``High crimes and misdemeanors'' speak to offenses that go to the heart of matters of governance, social authority, and institutional power--offenses that, in Hamilton's words, ``relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.'' And these crimes must be of such magnitude that the American people need protection, not by the traditional means of civil or criminal law--but by the extraordinary act of removing their duly elected President. For removal is not intended simply to be a remedy; it is intended to be the remedy. The only remedy by which the people--whose core interests are meaningfully threatened by the President's conduct--can be effectively protected. This, to me, is what President Woodrow Wilson meant when he referred to ``nothing short of the grossest offenses against the plain law of the land.'' This, to me, is what Framer George Mason meant when he emphasized ``great and dangerous offenses.'' So in determining whether this President has committed a ``great and dangerous offense'' requiring removal, we must first weigh all of the credible evidence to identify which acts were actually committed. Then, we must assess the gravity or degree of the misconduct. This process requires that we review the acts from their origin, and the circumstances in their totality. The allegations in article I do not paint a pretty picture. Indeed, we are all struggling with having to reconcile the President's lowly conduct with the Constitution's high standards. And we should all be concerned with the minimal threshold that he has set, and the poor example he has created for leadership in this country. The President himself admits he gave evasive and incomplete testimony. He admits he worked hard to evade the truth. He admits he misled advisers, Congress, and the Nation. And he looked all of America in the eye--wagging his finger in mock moral indignation when he did it. The fact is, the truth is not our servant. The truth does not exist to be summoned only when expedient. And I find his attempts to contort the truth profoundly disturbing. A President should inspire our most noble aspirations. Unfortunately, he has fueled our darkest cynicisms. And I resent the ordeal he has put this country through--and we should make no mistake about it--whatever else may be said, we are here today because of the President's actions. I resent the shadow he has cast on what should be--and I feel still is--an honorable profession; public service. And I think all of us who take our oaths to heart should resent it. Finally, as a woman who has fought long and hard for sexual harassment laws, I resent that the President has undermined our progress. No matter how consensual this relationship was, it involved a man in a position of tremendous power, with authority over a 21-year- old female subordinate, in the workplace--and not just any workplace. He has shaken the principles of these laws to their core and it saddens me deeply. But as I work my way through my distaste, my dismay, and my disappointment, I return to the discipline that the Constitution imposes upon us as triers of fact. My job here is to review the evidence, and to measure that evidence against my standard of proof, and the constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. So let's look at the evidence. Article I does not go to perjury about the underlying relationship--that charge was dismissed by the House. Instead, the article before us alleges perjury based on statements about statements about conduct. Unfortunately, what this comes down to is a case of ``perjury once removed''--an inherently tenuous charge. As triers of fact, we are asked under article I not to find whether the President lied, but whether he committed the specifically defined act of perjury. Here, the law is clear that there must be proof that an untruth was told; that it was told willfully; and that it was told about a subject matter material to the case. These are the hard rules of the statute. In this instance, article I alleges perjury in statements the President made explaining the nature and details of the relationship. Significantly, the underlying subject matter of most of these statements was ruled irrelevant and inadmissable in the underlying civil case that was itself dismissed and settled. To me, these facts undermine the materiality of these statements. Article I also alleges perjury in the President's statements explaining his concealment of that relationship. Here, I find insufficient evidence of the requisite untruth and the requisite intent. Given, again, that we are talking here about ``perjury once removed,'' I cannot conclude that the President is guilty on article I. As I look at article II, I have similar concerns and conflicts. Are there any among us who can look at the disturbing pattern that has been laid out for us and not be deeply troubled? Just look at the allegations. The President may have influenced the filing of an affidavit. The President may have initiated the concealment of potential evidence. And the President may have accelerated a job search, in hopes of influencing a witness. But for all of this, there is only circumstantial evidence. Despite a 64,000 page record and countless hours of argument and testimony, there is no direct evidence supporting any of these allegations. To the contrary, where there is direct evidence, the testimony is against the allegations. Indeed, not one witness with firsthand knowledge has come forward since the beginning of this matter to corroborate the charges. So, while I can draw inferences from the evidence, I cannot draw conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt. The Framers clearly prescribed caution when measuring high crimes, and such caution is all the more important when a case rests on purely circumstantial evidence. Mindful of this caution, I still find that one allegation stands out from the rest; the President's attempt to influence the potential testimony of his personal assistant. Let's look at the facts. In the President's civil deposition, the President suggested, at least three times, that the attorneys should ask questions of his personal assistant. At the end of the deposition, the judge reminded him of the confidentiality order not to discuss the testimony with others. Within 2\1/2\ hours, the President called his personal assistant to arrange a rare Sunday meeting. At that meeting, the President disclosed to her the contents of his deposition. In a manner that all but reveals the President's motives, he included in his discussion with her false statements about the circumstances of his relationship. Indeed, she would later testify that she believed the President sought her agreement with those statements he was posing. Consider this critical exchange in the testimony of the President's assistant: She was asked, ``Would it be fair to say then--based on the way he stated it and the demeanor he was using at the time he stated it to you--that he wished you to agree to that statement?'' The President's assistant nodded. She was then asked, ``And you're nodding your head yes, is that correct?'' And she answered, ``That's correct.'' And he again violated the gag order when he revisited these statements with her several days later. As an experienced lawyer, the President knew that, by the force of his own testimony, he made his assistant a potential witness. As a former State attorney general, the President knew he was violating the confidentiality order when he spoke with her. As a defendant who repeatedly named his assistant, the President knew that his assistant would be subpoenaed. And she was subpoenaed just 3 days later. But even if she hadn't, the President did not need absolute or direct knowledge that his assistant would testify. Under the law of obstruction, which, unlike perjury, does not expressly require materiality, he only had to know that she could offer relevant facts. Make no mistake about it, I find the President's behavior deplorable and indefensible. If I were a supporter, I would abandon him. If I were a newspaper editor, I would denounce him. If I were an historian, I would condemn him. If I were a criminal prosecutor, I would charge him. If I were a grand juror, I would indict him. And if I were a juror in a standard criminal case, I would convict him of attempting to unlawfully influence a potential witness under title 18 of the United States Code. However, I stand here today as a U.S. Senator, in an impeachment trial, with but one decision--does the President's misconduct, even if deplorable, represent such an egregious and immediate threat to the very structure of our Government that the Constitution requires his removal? To answer this broad question, we need to ask several finer questions. Do the people believe that their liberties are so threatened that he should not serve his remaining 23 months? Is the President's violation on par with treason and bribery? What are the inescapable and unprecedented effects of removing a duly elected President? And can the President's wrongdoing be more effectively remedied by criminal prosecution, in a standard court of law, after he leaves office? These are the questions which drive our consideration of the ``gravity'' and ``degree'' of the President's conduct. To this end, I return to the words of another Maine Senator, William Pitt Fessenden, who during the Andrew Johnson trial said that removal must ``be exercised with extreme caution'' and in ``extreme cases.'' It must, he said, ``address itself to the country and the civilized world as a measure justly called for by the gravity of the crime . . '' In this case, I understand how reasonable minds could differ, for I have struggled long and hard with my own decision. But the Constitution tempers our passion and measures our judgment. And the Constitution requires each of us to determine not just whether the President violated a statute. For had the Framers intended the offenses charged in this case to require removal in any and all circumstances, they would have specifically included them in the impeachment provisions of the Constitution. Because they did not, we are compelled to ask ourselves whether the nature and circumstances of his conduct are such that we have no choice but to inflict upon him what one of the House managers called ``the political equivalent of the death penalty.'' If I could conclude that this President's conduct is of that nature, I would vote to remove him. Because if there is one thing I've learned throughout my 25 years in elective office, it is that the really tough decisions leave us with but one choice--doing what we know to be right and true. In this instance, among the seven allegations charged in article II, I have only been persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that the President committed one of them. After due consideration of all the factual circumstances relating to this one finding, and the constitutional dictates and implications of this matter as a whole, I am persuaded that the President's wrongdoing can and should be effectively addressed by the additional remedy expressly provided by the Framers in the Constitution--namely, trial before a standard criminal court. And I am further persuaded that future Presidents, and future generations can be effectively deterred from such wrongdoing by this impeachment and a potential prosecution. The President's behavior has damaged the Office of the Presidency, the Nation, and everyone involved in this matter. There are only two potential victims left--the Senate and the Constitution--and I am firmly resolved to allow neither to join the ranks of the aggrieved. From the day I swore my oath of impartiality, I determined that the only way I could approach this case was to ask myself one question, ``if I were the deciding vote in this case, could I remove this President under these circumstances?'' The answer, I have concluded, is ``no''--and therefore, I will vote against both articles of impeachment. Mr. Chief Justice, I came to this process with an open notebook and an open mind, determined to honor my oath to do impartial justice and serve the best interests of the Presidency, the American people, and the Nation. I stand confident that in doing so, my manner has been impartial, and my judgment has been measured. Therefore, in my mind and in my heart, I believe to a moral certainty that my verdict is just. As men and women of honor, that is the highest expectation to which we can aspire. For we are writing history with indelible ink, but imperfect pens. In the end, when future generations dust off the record of what we have done here, may they say we validated the Framers' faith in the Senate. May they say we reached within ourselves to discover our most noble intentions. And may they say we achieved a conclusion worthy not just of our time, but of all time. 

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution in support of veterans suffering from Alzheimer's disease. When I first came to Congress 20 years ago, not a single piece of legislation devoted to Alzheimer's disease had even been introduced. We have come a long way since then, as today Alzheimer's is a household word. It is also the most expensive uninsured illness in America. That is why I recently introduced legislation to allow families to deduct the cost of home care and adult day and respite care provided to a family member suffering from Alzheimer's disease. The resolution I am submitting today is targeted to the challenges faced by veterans suffering from Alzheimer's disease and their families. I worked closely with the Maine Department of the Veterans of Foreign Wars [VFW] of the United States on this approach, after learning of the prevalence of this disorder in the veterans population in Maine and nationwide, and the need to improve treatment regimes. The resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that in authorizing veterans medical facility projects, such as nursing homes, Congress should authorize projects for facilities in urban and rural areas specifically designed to treat veterans with Alzheimer's disease and conducting research into the disorder. The resolution also expresses support for innovation in the methods used by VA personnel in treating veterans with Alzheimer's disease, and encourages the sharing of information on Alzheimer's disease among VA facilities and health care personnel. Facilities authorized under this bill would provide a model for existing VA nursing homes that treat Alzheimer's disease and future homes dedicated exclusively to the treatment of Alzheimer's. These specially designed homes will formulate new protocols for the treatment of this devastating condition. Currently, veterans homes have an average of 30 percent Alzheimer's patients. Serious questions have been raised concerning whether it is appropriate to treat this disorder in the traditional nursing home setting. Yet, the VA does not operate any facilities exclusively targeted at Alzheimer's disease, and the VA budget for construction funds for veterans nursing homes does not authorize construction of any unique long-term care projects. Authorizing the VA to explore new ways of treating Alzheimer's disease will enable the Department, which administers one of the largest health care networks in the country, to prepare for the future, when the aging of the veterans population is expected to hinder the ability of traditional veterans homes to care for Alzheimer's patients. One of the most important components of this resolution is that a demonstration facility authorized by Congress will give the VA the freedom to design new and more effective protocols for treating Alzheimer's patients--including new approaches to care, administration, staffing, quality assurance, and other issues. Facilities are currently forced to comply with existing long-term care regulations, laws, building codes, and traditional medical models, which are often not compatible with the unique needs of patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Advances made by facilities designed specifically to treat veterans with Alzheimer's will ultimately benefit all those who suffer with this disorder. Therefore, Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am submitting a concurrent resolution which calls for a United States effort to end the restrictions on the freedoms and violations of the human rights of the enclaved people in the occupied portion of Cyprus. I have introduced this legislation in the past, and I regret that these concerns are still with us. Mr. President, I am aware that developments on Cyprus are not known to most Americans. Yet if I were to tell them that a small nation has had part of its land illegally occupied by a neighboring state for over 23 years, I know they would be both shocked and outraged. The 23 years since the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus have seen the end of the cold war, the collapse of the USSR, free elections in South Africa and a reunited Germany. Yet while the line through the heart of Berlin is gone, the line through the heart of Cyprus remains. Over two decades ago, Turkey's brutal invasion drove more than 200,000 Cypriots from their homes. Turkey still controls about one- third of the island of Cyprus and maintains about 30,000 troops there. However, there remains, in northern Cyprus, a small remnant of 497 enclaved Greek-Cypriots. The reason they are referred to as the enclaved of Cyprus is that during the fighting in 1974 they mostly resided in remote enclaves and therefore were not able to flee the fighting and thus were not immediately expelled. Mr. President, I believe that this resolution is important in serving to bring to the attention of the American people and the world community, the hardships and restrictions endured by these enclaved individuals. In 1975, representatives of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities agreed that the Greek-Cypriots in the northern part of the island were to be given every help to lead a normal life. Twenty-two years later this is still not the case. The presence of the Turkish-Cypriot police in the lives of the enclaved Greek-Cypriots is constant, and there are restrictions on land travel. Other human rights restrictions and deprivations include: Restrictions on private telephones; Restrictions on hand-carried mail and newspapers; Difficulties in receiving full educational opportunities; Restricted access to and religious use of the monastery at Apostolos Andreas; A requirement that enclaved males aged 18-50 must report once a week to those in control; and A lack of investigation with regard to harassment, beating, rape and murder. Mr. President, this situation calls out for justice. By bringing these human rights violations to the attention of the American people, it is my hope, that we can bring the plight of these people to the World's attention. My resolution urges the President to undertake efforts to end the restrictions on the freedoms and human rights of the enclaved people. I will remain actively involved in this issue until their rights and freedoms are restored. This is the least we can do for these people. While this resolution addresses the plight of the enclaved people of Cyprus, work must not cease on efforts to bring about a withdrawal of Turkish forces and a restoration of Cyprus' sovereignty over the entire island with the full respect of the rights of all Cypriots. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which will establish a mandatory minimum sentence for State crimes involving the use of a firearm. This bill also imposes work requirements for prisoners and prohibits the government from providing such amenities as televisions, stereos, or other amenities in the cell of any inmate. As a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I believe laws are needed to punish criminals, without imposing on a law-abiding person's right to own a firearm. This legislation would not apply to individuals who use a firearm in self-defense. It applies only to criminals who are convicted of committing a crime of violence which is punishable for a year in jail. Because it is not illegal to defend oneself, individuals who use firearms in self-defense are not subject to the provisions of this bill, nor would they be incarcerated for a year or more for properly defending themselves. This bill states clearly that the sentences apply only after a criminal is convicted of a crime. As such, this bill poses absolutely no threat to individuals who use firearms legally, including as a means to defend themselves. The most important domestic function of the Federal government is the protection of the personal security of individual Americans through the enactment and enforcement of laws against criminal behavior. Tough Federal laws, such as mandatory minimum prison sentences for violent crimes committed with a firearm and truth-in-sentencing, would serve as deterrents to persons who might be disposed to commit violent crimes. It is also important to keep in mind, the penalties of this bill apply only after a criminal has been convicted, they are not available to a prosecutor until after the state investigation has been completed and the case is closed. Therefore, federal law enforcement agencies are given no role in the state's investigation and no authority in state jurisdictions. This prevents Federal Agencies from imposing itself on the jurisdictions of the states. In addition, my bill clearly states that the bill is not intended to supplant the efforts of states to curtail violent crime and that the Attorney General must given ``due deference'' to state and local prosecutors in their work. This legislation is also needed to ensure prisons remain punitive and do not digress further into vacation locations. With passage of this legislation, the Attorney General will implement and enforce regulations mandating prison work for all able-bodied inmates in Federal correctional institutions. These regulations will also prohibit the Federal Government from providing televisions, radios, stereos, and other similar amenities in the cell of any inmate. I would encourage my colleagues, who are serious about combating crime, to join me as a co-sponsor of this important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am submitting two pieces of legislation to address some of the most critical issues affecting our relations with the United Nations--the U.S. arrearage in financial contributions to the United Nations, and sharing of intelligence information with the U.N. The first bill, the United Nations Reform Act is a bill that I have been working on for several years beginning in my former capacity as chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations. With the United Nations now entering its second half- century, the question being raised is not whether the United Nations can continue its growth for another 50 years, but whether it can survive as an important international institution in the short term. I believe we must genuinely restore a bipartisan consensus on the United Nations within Congress and among the American people. That is the intent of this legislation, which sets reasonable and achievable reform criteria for the United Nations, linked to a 5-year repayment plan for the arrearages that have build up on the U.N. system. The plan would set up a five-step/five-year process under which the President would each year have to certify that specific reform guideposts have been met at the United Nations, permitting payment each year of one-fifth of outstanding U.S. arrearages. In the first year, the President would have to certify that a hard freeze zero nominal growth budget at the United Nations had been maintained and that budgetary transparency at the world body had been enhanced through opening up the United Nations to member State auditing and fully funding the new U.N. inspector general office. In the second year, the President would have to certify that U.S. representation had been restored to a key U.N. budgetary oversight body the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions [ACABQ]. In the third year, the President would have to certify that a long- standing U.N. peacekeeping reform goal had been achieved. This reform would ensure that the United States receives full credit or reimbursement for the very substantial logistical and in-kind support our military provides to assessed U.N. peacekeeping missions. In the fourth year, the President would have to certify that a significant reform in the United Nations' budget process had been achieved. This reform would be to divide the U.N. regular budget into an assessed core budget and a voluntary program budget. The source of much of the United Nations' problems stems from the fact that the United Nations' assessed budget is increasingly used for development programs and other activities that should not be included in our mandatory dues for membership. This reform can be achieved without a revision in the U.N. Charter. Finally, in the fifth year the President would have to certify that a major U.N. consolidation plan has been approved and implemented. This plan must entail a significant reduction in staff and an elimination of the rampant duplication, overlap, and lack of coordination that exists throughout the U.N. system. Clearly, there is an urgent need to turn around the United Nations' dangerous slide into constant crisis, which could ultimately threaten the organization's usefulness as an important tool for addressing world problems. I am convinced that this can only be achieved through the kind of bold reform agenda that is set forth in this legislation. Mr. President, I believe it is useful for us to look back on the original purpose of the United Nations, as it was envisioned 51 years ago. The United Nations was created from the ashes of World War II, with the hope of avoiding future world-wide conflagrations through international cooperation. The main focus for this mission was the Security Council, the only entity empowered under the U.N. Charger to act on the great questions of world peace. The General Assembly was intended to be a forum for debate on any issue that any nation wanted to bring before the assembled nations of the world. The U.N. Secretariat was to be a small professional staff needed to support the activities of the Security Council and General Assembly. The U.N. system was also to conduct specific activities in technical cooperation, such as those undertaken by the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Telecommunications Union. Finally, the United Nations was to have an important roe in responding to international humanitarian crises. Most critical is the work of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, who today protects millions of the world's most vulnerable men, women, and children--particularly women and children, who comprise 80 percent of the world's refugees. Regrettably, the United Nations system that exists today falls short of the intentions of its founders. There are two interrelated, fundamental problems with U.N. system. One is that there are those who attempted to use the world organization to advance agendas that frankly do not reflect world realities. The more the United Nations is used to transcend what some see as the harsh realities of the world and its Nation-State system, the less relevant the United Nations becomes to the real world in which we all live. Closely related has been the massive and uncoordinated growth of the United Nations and its specialized agencies. The U.N. General Assembly and its related bodies in the specialized agencies have used the tool of the budget to grow the U.N. bureaucracy far beyond what is needed to respond to real world problems. The small professional staff of the U.N. Secretariat now approaches 18,000--counting the proliferation of consultants and contract employees--and the staff of the U.N. system worldwide now exceeds 53,000. Too many nations simply do not find a compelling need for efficiency and budgetary restraint in the U.N. system. Of the U.N.'s 185 member nations, a near-majority are assessed at the minimum .01 percent rate, paying essentially nothing toward U.N. budget. The top ten assessed countries--United States, Japan, Germany, France, Russia, Britain, Italy, Canada, Spain and Brazil--are billed for almost 80 percent of the U.N. budget, with the United States paying more than any other country. In just 10 years of supposed zero-growth budgets, the U.N.'s budget doubled. Over the last two decades, the U.N.'s budget has tripled. There are those who argue that all of the U.N.'s problems come from the United States. But the United Nation's difficulties with the United States arise from these deeply rooted problems within the U.N. structure itself. Even many supporters of the United Nations have characterized today's U.N. system as bloated, inefficient, duplicative, and disorganized. For instance, Canadian businessman and six-time U.N. Under-Secretary-General Maurice Strong has stated that the United Nations could work better than it does today with less than half as many people. The surprising thing is that among serious analysts of the United Nations there is remarkable agreement on what needs to be done. The U.N. system needs to be significantly reduced in size and needs true consolidation among its far-flung, duplicative elements. The budget process needs similarly dramatic reform. The United Nations needs to concentrate on a few key achievable missions--security, humanitarian relief, purely technical cooperation--and refrain from its proliferating exercises in internal nation-building and grandiose missions of global norm-setting. All of these basic reform needs have been addressed in the U.N. reform legislation I am introducing today. This legislation, I believe, will go a long way toward setting a new course in our relations with the United Nations. If we in Congress fail to rise to the challenge; if the U.N. attempts to defend an unsustainable status quo; if the Administration's new foreign policy team does not reach out to Congress to achieve a genuine bipartisan consensus on the need for U.N. reform; if the U.N.'s dangerous slide to expensive irrelevance continues, then we will have lost a unique opportunity for reform. If this should happen, it is not at all clear to me whether such an opportunity will soon return. As a complement to my U.N. reform bill, I am also introducing this U.N.-related bill which I sponsored in the last two Congresses to protect U.S. intelligence information which is shared with the United Nations or any of its affiliated organizations by requiring that procedures for protecting intelligence sources and methods are in place at the United Nations that are at least as stringent as those maintained by countries with which the United States regularly shares similar types of information. This requirement may be waived by the President for national security purposes but only on a case by case basis and only when all possible measures for protecting the information have been taken. This legislation grew out of my concern about reports of breaches of U.S. classified material by the United Nations in 1993, 1994, and in 1995 when the United Nations pulled out of Somalia. I am pleased to note that some attention has been paid by this body to the problems that can result when U.S. intelligence information is shared with international bodies. Condition 5 of the resolution of ratification for the Chemical Weapons Convention, which protects U.S. intelligence shared with the Organization for the Protection of Chemical Weapons, was based on my intelligence-sharing legislation. This legislation, I believe, will go a long way toward addressing the problems we have witnessed in the past concerning intelligence information sharing with the U.N. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider the legislation I am introducing today as the best course for restoring the bipartisan consensus in this country on the United Nations. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce on behalf of myself and Mr. Jeffords the Advancing Truth and Accountability in Campaign Communications Act of 1999, or ATACC, which represents an effort to attack the problem of stealth advocacy advertising in federal elections and shine the spotlight of disclosure on those who would attempt to fly under the radar screen of our campaign finance laws. Before I begin, I want to thank and commend Senator Jeffords for all his valuable input and hard work in helping to craft this legislation, which was originally introduced as an amendment last year to the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill. And I want to thank Senators McCain and Feingold themselves, who encouraged our efforts. In the past several elections, we've seen a proliferation of advertisements over the airwaves which cloak themselves in the innocuous guise of ``issue advocacy'', or voter education. The sponsors of these ads would have us believe that they are performing a public service by running these ads, and do not intend for them to affect the outcome of federal elections. They claim that because they do not use words like ``vote for'', or ``vote against'', they are exempt from federal campaign finance laws. They even argue that no one has the right simply to know who is sponsoring the ads. And yet, these ads say things like: ``Mr. X promised he'd be different. But he's just another Washington politician. Why during the last year alone, he has taken over $260,000 from corporate special interest groups. . . . But is he listening to us anymore?'' I defy anyone to argue, with a straight face, that that message is anything other than a blatant attempt to influence a federal election. And yet, under current law, any person, labor union, or corporation, has a right to run such ads without even disclosing the most basic information, such as who they are, or how much they are spending. And that is just plain wrong. During the 1996 elections, the Annenberg Public Policy Center estimates that anywhere between $135 million and $150 million was spent by third party groups not associated with candidates' campaigns on such radio and television ads. I say ``estimates'' because we really don't know for sure. There is no official record kept, nor is anyone required to submit the kind of information needed to keep such records. And lest there be any doubt of the real intent of these ads, the Annenburg Report found that nearly 87 percent of them mentioned a candidate for office by name, and over 41 percent were seen by the public as ``pure attack'' ads--that's the highest percentage recorded among a group that also included Presidential ads, debates, free-time segments accorded candidates, and news programs. If anything, not surprisingly, the problem got worse in the 1997-1998 election cycle. The Annenberg Center has completed their study of this time period, and has determined that issue ad spending in the last cycle doubled the amount spent in 1995 through 1996--to total between $275 and $340 million. Of those ads, over 53 percent mentioned candidates by name during the cycle--a number which rose to over 80 percent in the final two months. Further, 51.5 percent of issue ads aired after September 1, 1998, were pure attack ads in terms of their content. At least 77 groups ran broadcast issue ads in 1997 and 1998. As Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute has stated, ``(These are) conservative number(s), since there is no disclosure of (these) media buys or other spending.'' To put this in perspective, 1998 was the first billion dollar election--meaning that about a quarter of the money spent was on what I call ``stealth advocacy'' advertising. One quarter of all the money spent--which the Annenberg Center estimates is roughly equivalent to what candidates themselves spent on their own campaigns--was unaccounted for, unreportable and unregulated in any fashion. And, as Norm Ornstein has pointed out, 1998 was an ``off-year'', and ``without campaign reform, we can probably look forward to the $2 billion or $3 billion election in 2000, with a half-billion of it disguised as issue advocacy.'' Let me explain how this bill will get to the core of this problem; how it works; and why it is much more likely to pass court muster than previous attempts to get at this issue. The premise of this bill was developed in consultation with noted constitutional scholars and reformers such as Norm Ornstein; Josh Rosenkrantz, Director of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU; and others. The approach is a straightforward, two tiered one that only applies to advertisements that constitute the most blatant form of electioneering. It only applies to ads run on radio or television, 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election, that identify a federal candidate. And only if over $10,000 is spent on such ads in a year. What is required is disclosure of the ads' sponsor and major donors, and a prohibition on the direct or indirect use of corporation or union money to fund the ads. We called this new category ``electioneering ads''. They are the only communications addressed, and we define them very narrowly and carefully. If the ad is not run on television or radio; if the ad is not aired within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, if the ad doesn't mention a candidate's name or otherwise identify him clearly, if it isn't targeted at the candidate's electorate, or if a group hasn't spent more than $10,000 in that year on these ads, then it is not an electioneering ad. If it is an item appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through a broadcast station, it is also not an electioneering ad. Plain and simple. If one does run an electioneering ad, two things happen. First, the sponsor must disclose the amount spent and the identity of contributors who donated more than $500 to the group since January 1 of the previous year. Right now, candidates have to disclose campaign contributions over $200. Second, the ad cannot be paid for by funds from a business corporation or labor union--only voluntary contributions. The clear, narrow wording of the bill is important because it passes two critical First Amendment doctrines that were at the heart of the Supreme Court's landmark Buckley versus Valeo decision: vagueness and overbreadth. The rules of this provision are clear. And the requirements are strictly limited to ads run near an election that identify a candidate--ads plainly intended to convince voters to vote for or against a particular candidate. Nothing in this bill restricts the right of any group to engage in issue advocacy. For example, the following ad--which was actually run in 1996--would be completely unaffected by this bill. The text of the ad--which is a pure issue ad in the true sense of the term--says, ``This election year, America's children need your vote. Our public schools are our children's ticket to the future. But education has become just another target for attack by politicians who want huge cuts in education programs. They're making the wrong choices. Our children deserve leaders who will strengthen public education, not attack it. They deserve the best education we can give them. So this year, vote as if your children's future depends on it. It does.'' That is not an electioneering ad, and that conclusion is not simply based on perception. It is based on the fact that it does not meet the clearly delineated criteria put forth in our bill, and therefore, exists completely outside the realm of this legislation. For that matter, nothing prohibits groups from running electioneering ads, either. Let me be clear on this: if this bill becomes law, any group running issues ads today can still run issue ads in the future, with no restrictions on content. And any group running electioneering ads can still run those ads in the future, again with absolutely zero restrictions on content. The argument that will no doubt be leveled by opponents to this approach--those advocates of secrecy who do not want the public to know who is financing these ads, and for how much--is that it is inconsistent with the First Amendment of the Constitution. This is simply not so, and that's not just my opinion. Constitutional scholars from Stanford Law to Georgia Law to Loyola Law to Vanderbilt Law have endorsed the approach of this bill. The fact is, the only restrictions in the bill--namely, the use of union and corporation treasury money to pay for electioneering ads--are rooted in well-established case law that has long allowed for the regulation of the use of such money for electioneering purposes. Further, the threshold for disclosure is more than double what it is for candidates who receive contributions, and absolutely no disclosure is required whatsoever from any person or entity which spends less than $10,000. And it bears repeating that nothing in this bill affects any printed communications in any way, shape, or form--so voter guides are completely outside the universe of communications that are covered by this measure. Mr. President, ATACC is a sensible, reasonable approach to attacking a burgeoning segment of electioneering that is making a mockery of our campaign finance system. I would ask my colleagues, how can anyone not be for disclosure? How can anyone say that less information for the public leads to better elections? Don't the American people have the right to know who is paying for these stealth advocacy ads, and how much? Apparently, the majority of the Senate thought so. Last year, when this measure was approved as an amendment and incorporated into the McCain-Feingold legislation, the bill garnered 52 votes--bringing the majority of the Senate on board. Unfortunately, the will of the majority did not ultimately prevail, as we were unable to break the sixty votes necessary to end a threatened filibuster and institute real, fair and meaningful reform in the way in which American elections are financed. But we have heard before that it can't be done, only to see the House of Representatives do it. Today, we have new members of this body-- members who have seen first hand the effects these electioneering ads are having on campaigns and elections in this country, and I invite them to join with Senators Jeffords and I in supporting this bill. I would say to them that we, as candidates and Senators, are accountable to the people. We're required to file disclosure reports as candidates. PACs are required to disclose. But hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on these ads without one dime being reported. Not one dime. Mr. President, I come to this debate as a veteran supporter of campaign finance reform. As someone who has served on Capitol Hill for twenty years, I understand the realities, and I know that there are concerns on both sides of the aisle that whatever measure we may ultimately pass, it must be fair, equitable, and constitutional. This bill passes all three of these tests. And it represents one, significant step we might take to ensure that the first elections of the next century--the next millennium--are more open, more fair, and more representative of the will of the individual. That's what this bill is really all about, Mr. President. It's about putting elections back into the hands of individuals by letting them have the facts they need to make informed decisions, and by ensuring that electioneering ads are paid for by voluntary, individual contributions. That's all, Mr. President. No plot to subvert the First Amendment. No scheme to silence any group or person. No plan to control what anyone says or when they say it. Just an honest, constitutionally sound attempt to bring some honesty and accountability back into electioneering advertising, and return some sense of confidence to the American people that their elections belong to them. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this sensible, incremental approach, and join in the fight to attack secrecy and promote honesty in campaign advertising.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will restore an important benefit for our nation's veterans--disability compensation benefits for those with tobacco-related illnesses or disabilities. The President's budget proposal for FY99 restricted disability compensation benefits for tobacco-related illnesses, such as lung cancer. I might ask, once we start restricting service-related disabilities treated through the VA, where does it end? I am very concerned that the VA will become a target for further erosions of veterans benefits. The VA is already having difficulty making good on its promise to provide essential benefits to veterans. What benefit will be repealed next? Some may argue that military personnel made the decision to smoke. Nobody forced them. But this ignores that fact that these choices were facilitated, and perhaps even encouraged, by the inclusion of free cigarettes in individual supply kits and discounts on tobacco products. Many military personnel may have smoked for the first time while on active duty. That is why I have fought to restore veterans disability compensation for tobacco-related illnesses and disability--because I believe that Congress circumvented the process and undermined fairness when it repealed this benefit to fund the ISTEA legislation. Mr. President, there should have been a full airing of this issue before we voted to rescind the benefit. There was little debate on the Senate floor on this matter. This is not how those brave Americans who sacrificed for freedom should be treated by the government they fought to preserve. During the Senate's consideration of the FY99 Budget Resolution, I opposed efforts to repeal the benefit and voted for an amendment to sustain it. In addition, I supported an amendment submitted by Senator McCain to the tobacco bill providing $600 million over five years to veterans for smoking-related diseases and health care. Finally, during the Senate's consideration of the FY99 VA-HUD Appropriations Act, I supported an amendment to restore the benefit. Unfortunately, this amendment was rejected 54-40. I continue to believe we should debate the matter fully, we should have a vote, and we should pass legislation that will right this wrong. We must not ignore the fact that the military has been one of the largest distributors of tobacco products for decades. The military glamorized the use of tobacco and distributed free cigarettes during World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. We cannot turn a blind eye to this lethal legacy. We must not turn our backs on those who continue to suffer the consequences of their service. That is why I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort, and restore this important benefit.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation I introduced late in the 105th Congress to address a serious health concern for veterans--specifically the health threat posed by the Hepatitis C virus. The legislation I am introducing today would make Hepatitis C a service-connected condition so that veterans suffering from this virus can be treated by the VA. The bill will establish a presumption of service connection for veterans with Hepatitis C, meaning that the Department of Veterans Affairs will assume that this condition was incurred or aggravated in military service, provided that certain conditions are met. Under this legislation, veterans who received a transfusion of blood during a period of service before December 31, 1992; veterans who were exposed to blood during a period of service; veterans who underwent hemodyalisis during a period of service; veterans diagnosed with unexplained liver disease during a period of service; veterans with an unexplained liver dysfunction value or test; or veterans working in a health care occupation during service, will be eligible for treatment for this condition at VA facilities. I have reviewed medical research that suggests many veterans were exposed to Hepatitis C in service and are now suffering from liver and other diseases caused by exposure to the virus. I am troubled that many ``Hepatitis C veterans'' are not being treated by the VA because they can't prove the virus was service connected, despite the fact that Hepatitis C was little known and could not be tested for until recently. Mr. President, we are learning that those who served in Vietnam and other conflicts, tend to have higher than average rates of Hepatitis C. In fact, VA data shows that 20 percent of its inpatient population is infected with the Hepatitis C virus, and some studies have found that 10 percent of otherwise healthy Vietnam Veterans are Hepatitis C positive. Hepatitis C was not isolated until 1989, and the test for the virus has only been available since 1990. Hepatitis C is a hidden infection with few symptoms. However, most of those infected with the virus will develop serious liver disease 10 to 30 years after contracting it. For many of those infected, Hepatitis C can lead to liver failure, transplants, liver cancer, and death. And yet, most people who have Hepatitis C don't even know it--and often do not get treatment until it's too late. Only five percent of the estimated four million Americans with Hepatitis C know they have it, yet with new treatments, some estimates indicate that 50 percent may have the virus eradicated. Vietnam Veterans in particular are just now starting to learn that they have liver disease caused by Hepatitis C. Early detection and treatment may help head off serious liver disease for many of them. However, many veterans with Hepatitis C will not be treated by the VA because they must meet a standard that is virtually impossible to meet in order to establish a service connection for their condition--this in spite of the fact that we now know that many Vietnam-era and other veterans got this disease serving their country. Many of my colleagues may be interested to know how veterans were exposed to this virus. Many veterans received blood transfusions while in Vietnam. This is one of the most common ways Hepatitis C is transmitted. Medical transmission of the virus through needles and other medical equipment is also possible in combat. Medical care providers in the services were likely at increased risk as well, and may have, in turn, posed a risk to the service members they treated. Researchers have discovered that Hepatitis C was widespread in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war, and that some blood sent from the U.S. was also infected with the virus. Researchers and veterans organizations, including the Vietnam Veterans of America, with whom I worked closely to prepare this legislation, believe that many veterans were infected after being injured in combat and getting a transfusion or from working as a medic around combat injuries. The Hepatitis C infected veteran is essentially in a catch 22 situation: the VA will not introduce any flexibility into their established service connection requirements--and many veterans cannot prove that they contracted Hepatitis C in combat because the science to detect it did not until recently. Without legislative authority to treat these veterans, thousands of veterans infected with Hepatitis C in service will not get the VA health care testing or treatment they need. Mr. President, I believe the government will actually save money in the long run by testing and treating this infection early on. The alternative is much more costly treatment of end-stage liver disease and the associated complications, or other disorders.s Some will argue that further epidemiologic data is needed to resolve or prove the issue of service connection. I agree that we have our work cut out for us, and further study is required. However, there is already a substantial body of research on the relationship between Hepatitis C and military service. While further research is being conducted, we should not ask those who have already sacrificed so much for this country to wait--perhaps for years--for the treatment they deserve. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, well respected both within and outside of the medical profession, has said, ``In some studies of veterans entering the Department of Veterans Affairs health facilities, half of the veterans have tested positive for HCV. Some of these veterans may have left the military with HCV infection, while others may have developed it after their military service. In any event, we need to detect and treat HCV infection if we are to head off very high rates of liver disease and liver transplant in VA facilities over the next decade. I believe this effort should include HCV testing as part of the discharge physical in the military, and entrance screening for veterans entering the VA health system.'' Veterans have already fought their share of battles--these men and women who sacrificed in war so that others could live in peace shouldn't have to fight again for the benefits and respect they have earned. We still have a long way to go before we know how best to confront this deadly virus. A comprehensive policy to confront such a monumental challenge cannot be written overnight. It will require the long-term commitment of Congress and the Administration to a serious effort to address this health concern. I hope this legislation will be a constructive step in this effort, and I look forward to working with the Veterans Affairs Committee, the VA-HUD appropriators, Vietnam Veterans of America, and others to meet this emerging challenge.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to give the administration an incentive for developing a more coherent foreign policy by pooling the defense, diplomatic, intelligence, and economic resources of the federal government. I have labeled this bill the Prevention and Deterrence of International Conflict Act--``PREDICT''--because the Clinton Administration failed or willfully suspended its ability to anticipate a string of foreign calamities last year. The 1998 calendar of global surprises for the United States revealed the continuing challenge to this administration of analyzing evidence adequately for the President to act against the aggressive military actions of India, Pakistan, North Korea, Yugoslavia, and Iraq. Although we had satellite images and early warning signs, the second series of nuclear explosions by India in May eluded the detection of the intelligence authorities. Although we had the campaign pledges of India's Prime Minister to expand the country's nuclear program, no one took them as an omen of action. Although we had differing agency assessments of whether the export of commercial satellite technologies posed the risk of improving China's military communications capabilities, the president never saw them. Although Pentagon officials told the Senate Armed Services Committee on August 24, 1998 that the intelligence community could detect in advance any launching of a multiple-stage rocket by North Korea, they professed surprise as a Taepo Dong missile soared over Japan seven days later. And although we had indicators that the simmering conflict in Kosovo could unravel into a major Balkan security crisis, we did not know who led or supplied the provincial insurgency movement. Furthermore, before finally approving military action against Iraq last month, the White House had lurched towards two previous strikes only to call off the missiles after Saddam Hussein opened his seven- year old script to repeat the hollow lines that he would cooperate with the U.N. on his own terms in his own time. These examples highlight a pattern of fragmentation in the decision- making apparatus of the Executive Branch. Information that could tilt the course of a crisis too often remains hidden or undiscovered in the flow of advice to the White House. Beyond this disjointed process of making policy, the other critical issue tying together these episodes of tension centers on the threat of weapons proliferation fueled by unresolved civil conflicts or the ambitions of regional tyrants. The uncertain political status of the territory of Kashmir, for example, served as a convenient excuse for Indian officials to justify their nuclear testing last Spring. At the same time, the Pakistanis cited national prestige and the need to stabilize the governing coalition, rather than any threat of attack, in explaining their nuclear response to India's provocation. In both of these cases, political judgments overshadowed sober considerations of whether the two nations posed immediate military risks to one another. Yet China's hunger for technology, Mr. President, derives less from an ongoing civil conflict than it does from a military establishment eager to develop the precision capabilities used by the United States during the Persian Gulf War. These capabilities, in turn, will gradually advance Beijing's quest to displace the United States and Japan as the dominant Asia-Pacific power. The PREDICT bill, therefore, brings together the broad range of foreign policy experts throughout the government into one Federal Task Force on Regional Threats to International Security. The Federal Task Force would include representatives of the Departments of State, Defense, and Commerce, as well as military and foreign intelligence organizations, to advise the president in three categories: How the United States can foster diplomatic resolutions of regional disputes that increase the risk of weapons proliferation; Trade and investment programs to promote the market-based development of countries that pursue or possess weapons of mass destruction; And the implementation of intelligence analysis procedures to ensure that the president has all of the data necessary before he makes any decision regarding this category of arms. The President must establish the Task Force no later than 60 days after the effective date of the law, and the panel's authority would expire on October 1, 2001 unless an executive order or an act of Congress renews the operating charter. PREDICT, therefore, outlines a clear and comprehensive process for foreign policy development without prejudging what steps the President should take. He must create the Task Force. He must consider the information that it presents, and he must determine whether to accept it. After two years, both the administration and Congress can judge the record of the Task Force to decide whether it should continue to function. What this legislation proposes that does not exist is an integrated advisory body to analyze the military, diplomatic, and economic options available to the president for controlling regional conflicts and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Further more, the Task Force deliberately includes intelligence representatives so that policy options reflect the most updated information on the intentions of foreign leaders and the capabilities of their armed forces. A comprehensive perspective remains central to the execution of prudent foreign policies. The administration needs to harness the talent and expertise of the federal government to ensure that the regional civil, military, and political disputes fostering weapons proliferation do not present a sustained threat to international security. For this compelling reason, I urge Congress to renew America's national security organizations by passing the PREDICT Act.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for their support in the last Congress for my legislation on behalf of the towns of Tremont and East Boothbay, Maine, which passed the Senate in the 105th Congress. S. 1531 sought to deauthorize certain portions of the navigational project for Bass Harbor, and S. 1532 sought to deauthorize the final portions of East Boothbay Harbor. I also want to thank my colleagues for their support and Senate passage of the reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act of 1998, or WRDA, which not only included these two stand alone bills, but also contained legislation that deauthorized the Federal Navigation Project area within the limits of Boothbay Harbor's inner harbor. The town's representatives had voted unanimously to request this deauthorization of the FNP area. Also, WRDA was amended on the floor to add language that would allow for the dredging of Wells Harbor. After many contentious years, this important federal project is set to go forward because a historic Memorandum of Agreement was reached amongst the town of Wells, the Save our Shores Wells coalition, the Wells Chamber of Commerce and the Maine Audubon Society. Bass Harbor has the greatest concentration of fishing boats on Mt. Desert Island and all mooring spaces are currently full, with a long waiting list to obtain future moorings. When the townspeople approached the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to obtain a permit for expansion, they were told that no improvements could be made until the federal project area boundary was moved to the proper location by legislative action. I am happy to do this on their behalf. The Selectmen, Town Manager, and Harbor Committee will not be working with the Corps and the State in anticipation of having the harbor dredged, which last occurred in 1966, so that they may make space available for more and larger boats. The bill for East Boothbay Harbor deauthorize the remainder of the federal navigational project at Boothbay Harbor. The current marina owners purchased the former shipbuilding yard in East Boothbay in 1993 and have since turned it into a full service marina. In the process of getting all the permits together for further economic development, the marina discovered that parts of the harbor, while no longer used as such, were still deemed a federal navigation project created back in 1913, when mine sweepers and other ships were being built there for World War I. Because part of the federal navigation project is still considered active, the Corps told the town that nothing could be done in the water until the entire area was deauthorized. My bill takes care of this final deauthorization, the rest of which was accomplished in the last reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act, but the coordinates were ultimately found to be inaccurate. This legislation, with the assistance of the Corps, addresses that small section still requiring deauthorization. The Town of Boothbay Harbor, Maine has requested legislation be enacted that will deauthorize the Federal Navigation Project area within the limits of Boothbay Harbor's inner harbor. To this end, I am introducing a bill, drafted with the assistance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and approved unanimously by the town's representatives. I am also introducing legislation to address the dredging of Wells Harbor, which will deepen and maintain the harbor and, at the same time, protect an important federal wildlife refuge. The language, which was also included in the Senate passed WRDA of 1998, gives the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) the authority to proceed with the project. The dredging of this federal project, contentious since 1988 because of concerns from environmental groups, is now set to go forward because of a historic Memorandum of Agreement that has been reached amongst the community and town officials, and the Maine Audubon Society. Interestingly, approximately 185,000 cubic yards of the sand to be dredged will be used to nourish adjacent eroding beaches in the town of Wells, so the project is a win-win situation for all concerned. My stand alone bill, which will also once again be incorporated into WRDA, will allow the Corps to conduct maintenance dredging in Wells Harbor based on a design capacity for the harbor of 150 vessels, of which approximately 10 percent are commercial fishing boats. A small craft fleet of 150 is the original congressionally authorized design capacity for the harbor, and was a crucial part of the Agreement. In addition, all parties to the settlement have agreed to a modification of the federal project, requiring Congressional action, that would realign and redesignate the existing federal channel, anchorage, and realign with the harbor settling basin, so as to maximize the use of the natural channels in the harbor for navigation and anchorage purposes. This will eliminate the impact of dredging on the intertidal sand bar, which is considered to be the geologically stabilizing force for the estuary. The language, drafted with Corps assistance, will create a new settling basin in the outer harbor, relocate the inner harbor channel to the east side of the harbor, and redesignate portions of the current channel and settling basin as anchorage. The State of Maine issued water quality certification and coastal zone management consistency in November of 1998, conditioned on the project modifications in my legislation and that were passed by the Senate in the WRDA of 1998. Another critical component of the Agreement for all the parties is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's request, also supported by the Maine Audubon Society, that the Corps expand the area covered by the bathymetric survey work that it will already be conducting as part of the monitoring program for the harbor. The State and the parties have agreed that the additional survey will provide important and useful information about the erosional impacts of dredging in the harbor. I have asked the Corps to make a good faith effort to honor this request. Again, I congratulate the parties in the state for what I realize is a fragile Agreement and wish to help bring this long standing matter to the best conclusion possible both for the economy of the town of Wells and the environment of the harbor, the Rachael Carson Wildlife Refuge nearby and the Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve, in which the harbor lies. I want to thank Senator Chafee and his Environment and Public Works Committee for their work for successful Senate passage for these bills in the last Congress. When passed again by the Senate and by the House--and signed into law--the legislation will allow the Maine towns involved to get on with much needed harbor economic development and dredging. I once again thank my colleagues and ask for their continued support for passage of these bills, and I especially want to urge the House to also move forward on WRDA reauthorization. One project in one district in one state should not hold up the passage of this important legislation as was the situation last year. This legislation will help the economy of small towns in Maine--and many other lotions around the country--who desperately need harbor reauthorization or dredging.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, I rise today to introduce the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1999. We supported this bill in the 105th Congress when it was championed by my friend, the Senator from New York, Mr. D'Amato, and we are reaffirming our support for this important issue by reintroducing this bill today. Last year we did make some progress on this bill as one piece--requiring insurance companies to cover reconstructive surgery was included in the final Omnibus spending bill enacted into law last October. This bill is about doing what's best for women facing the crisis of a cancer diagnosis and a potential mastectomy. Because right now some women are being denied the best health care available. That is simply not acceptable in a country of such vast medical resources. This year, millions of Americans will face the possibility of a cancer diagnosis, and 180,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. Our bill provides women with breast cancer and all Americans facing a cancer diagnosis with some basic protections. First, it ensures that doctors are not pressured by health plans to release mastectomy patients before it is medically appropriate. Currently, some insurers have guidelines recommending that mastectomies be performed on an outpatient basis. A mastectomy is a very complicated surgical procedure and complications can arise as a result. Sending a woman home immediately after the surgery is not always the right thing to do. They may not have the information they need nor, more importantly, the care. We want to make sure--and this bill will--that the decisions are made in the context of the medical well being of the patient as opposed to being made by an insurance company bureaucrat. This decision must be returned to physicians and their patients. The physical scars left by a mastectomy can be complicated and difficult to care for, and often require supervision. Women prematurely released may not have the information they need, and some dangerous complications can arise hours after the operation. And all of this is happening in context of the intense emotional trauma that comes with losing part or all of a breast. Finally, all Americans who face the possibility of a cancer diagnosis must be able to make informed decisions about appropriate medical care. To do that, they need access to all the information available. Our bill requires insurance companies to pay full coverage for secondary consultations with a specialist whenever any cancer has been diagnosed or a treatment recommended. This will reduce senseless deaths resulting from false diagnoses and empower individuals to seek the most appropriate available treatment. Women with breast cancer and all Americans facing a cancer diagnosis cannot wait any longer. I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill in order to provide the protections granted under this bill now.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will address a serious need of America's workers: the need to receive training that will prepare individuals for the workplace of the 21st Century. My legislation, entitled the ``Working American Training Voucher Act,'' would provide $1,000 training vouchers to 1 million working men and women who typically have little or no access to employer-provided training. Mr. President, many Federal programs focus on the needs of those whose challenges and difficulties are most easily recognized and tangible. When we see a hungry child, an unemployed adult, or an impoverished senior citizen, we justifiably want to reach out and do what we can to help. Indeed, I am proud to be an active voice for those whose challenges and pains we can sometimes only imagine. However, it is oftentimes difficult to recognize the needs of those whose challenges are less tangible, whose concerns are less evident, or whose sense of insecurity about the future is known only by the individual and their family. It is this difficulty that confronts many American workers today. In the face of increasing global competition, many workers wonder if the job they have today will be there for them tomorrow. They are concerned that the advent of new technologies is making their skills and talents less useful for their current employers which, in turn, makes them feel more vulnerable and expendable. And they wonder if the skills they posses today are even marketable if they are ``down-sized'' or otherwise put out of work. Unfortunately, these types of concerns and anxieties of oftentimes do not show on the surface, so it can be difficult for others to recognize or address them. It is too easy for many to assume that because a man or woman is already holding down a job, all is well and his or her future is secure. After all, how bad can it be if you're punching a time clock and getting a paycheck? Unfortunately, such a view is not only shortsighted, it is also misguided and could prove disastrous. We should not wait until a worker has been laid-off from their job, or a company shuts its doors and shutters its windows, to take steps to help the American worker. Rather, we should take steps to ensure that our nation's workforce is confident of their future and feels prepared to address the changes that tomorrow will bring. Not only does this help the individual, but I think we would all agree that the best way to reduce the impact and cost of unemployment is to take steps to keep those who are already employed on-the-job! Admittedly, many policies and decisions play an integral role in creating a vibrant job market. The tax burden we place on businesses, the trade agreements we sign with foreign governments, and the regulatory load we place on employers all have a significant impact on our economy's ability to produce and sustain good jobs. However, for the individual, many of these policies seem too ``macro'' to have an impact on their own employment prospects. In fact, an individual may not even recognize the direct impact these broader policies have on their job from day to day. There is, however, one issue that truly strikes at the heart of how an individual feels about the future: the degree to which he or she knows that their skills match the needs of their current employer or other prospective employers in the marketplace. Without this knowledge, it does not matter to an individual if the unemployment rate is as low as economists consider the ``natural rate of unemployment'' or if the newspapers tell him or her that the economy couldn't be better. The simple fact is that unless an individual personally feels that their skills are up-to-date and marketable, there will never be a complete sense of security on the job from one day to the next. And that's what the legislation I am introducing today is all about. The ``Working American Training Voucher Act'' addresses the needs of the average American worker--the individual who has a job today, but doesn't know if he or she has the skills needed for the jobs of tomorrow. The person who's collecting a paycheck now, but is concerned that the rapidly changing work environment may put an end to that soon. Mr. President, we all know new technologies and new products are entering the workplace at an unprecedented rate and the changes these technologies bring are substantial. Few professions and few jobs have gone untouched by these changes--and even fewer will be immune from change in the future. Indeed, just as computers have changed the face of manufacturing, they have also changed the world of art and design. Even labor intensive tasks at assembly shops have taken on a high-tech flair thanks to new techologies. For an individual who understands these technologies or receives training in their use, these changes present exciting new opportunities that improve performance and ultimately give one a sense of assurance that their skills are in demand. But for those who do not understand these technologies or do not receive training in their use, these technologies are nothing more than a threat and a cause for anxiety. Regrettably, even as the demand for training at all levels in the workplace continues to grow because of these changing techologies, the United States has historically lagged far behind our global competitors in training workers. In fact, a study by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment concluded: ``When measured by international standards, most American workers are not well trained.'' While some U.S. companies devote a substantial amount of money to training, many of our global competitors spend considerably more. A study by the American Society for Training and Development highlighted this point when it found that U.S. companies spend--in the aggregate-- approximately 1.4 percent of their payroll on training, while a number of our competitor nations actually require companies to spend 2 to 4 percent! While I would not espouse a mandatory training budget for any business, I believe we can and should seek to improve the availability of training for our nation's workers--and especially for those who need it most but are least likely to receive it. And that's precisely who the ``Working American Training Voucher'' is designed to reach. Mr. President, the ``Working American Training Voucher'' would provide access to critically needed training for workers at businesses with 200 or fewer employees. Why is it targeted to workers in small businesses? Quite simply, because these are the individuals who are the least likely to receive--or be offered--employer-provided training. The same report by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment summarized the plight of employees at small businesses quite succinctly: ``Many (employees) in smaller firms receive no formal training.'' A 1997 report--completed by Professor Craig Olson at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and presented to the Senate Manufacturing Task Force during the 105th Congress--looked at the difference between the likelihood an individual would receive training and the level of educational achievement he or she attained, or the field he or she chose to enter. Dr. Olson's study found that individuals with a bachelor's or master's degree had a 50 percent chance of receiving training in the past year, while individuals with a high school diploma had only a 17 percent chance. Those who dropped-out of high school fared even worse: their odds of receiving training were only 5 percent. When viewed by occupation, individuals who worked in production- or service-related jobs had only a 16 percent and 18 percent chance of receiving training respectively, while those in management had a 50 percent chance. When considering that only one in four American workers received training in the past 12 months, these odds don't bode well for many employees at small businesses whose educational attainment and occupations fall in the categories that are the least likely to receive training. One might understandably ask: Why is it that small businesses often provide so little training? The answer: cost. Small businesses are quite often unable to afford the cost of sending an employee to a training program. When your business is just trying to make ends meet, it's impossible to send an employee to a training class that costs the business both money and time away from work. Mr. President, the ``Working American Training Voucher'' is designed to address this problem in a straightforward and efficient way. These vouchers-valued at up to $1,000 each--would be made available to employees at small business through the existing job training system that is already in place as a result of the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). As my colleagues in the Senate know, state and local governments--joined by the private sector--have primary responsibility for the development, management, and administration of job training programs in the JTPA, so no new distribution network would be necessary to conduct this voucher program. The only major requirement for receiving a voucher would be that the employee and employer must agree on the specific training that will be purchased with the voucher. This will ensure that the training will be targeted specifically to the needs of the individual and the business-- money would not be spent on generic training programs that teach skills that are of little, if any, use in a particular field or job. Furthermore, such an agreement will ensure that workers are actively engaged in pursuing training that will help their careers, even as employers will be urging employees to undertake training that will help the business. Last year, JTPA programs were re-crafted and consolidated as part of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998--a law that greatly improved the delivery of federal job training monies. Specifically, up until the passage of the WIA, there was virtually no federal money for workers that are already employed. But with WIA's enactment, we are beginning to place some much needed attention on the needs of incumbent workers, and the ``Working American Training Voucher Act'' will vastly expand access to training for those who need it most. Mr. President, I believe that as we prepare our workforce for the next century, we should be encouraging workers to develop new skills that will improve their longevity in their current jobs even as they gain confidence that their skills will be needed in the future. Not only will these new skills increase the confidence and performance of the individual worker, but they will also improve the productivity of the business who employs them. And we all know that if we improve a business' productivity and output, that business is more likely to survive and thrive--which means that this voucher may ultimately assist in preserving businesses and jobs in the long run. Furthermore, better skills and training will ensure that individuals are able to rapidly transition to new jobs in the unfortunate event their current job is lost for reasons beyond their control. Regardless of how favorable the tax code is made or how many burdensome regulations we remove, we will never be able to guarantee an individual that his or her job will be around forever. But we can provide a worker with access to training that will keep his or her skills up-to-date and marketable no matter what the future holds. Mr. President, the ``Working American Training Voucher'' would be a tangible, concrete, and definable program that would address a core issue facing American workers. It will ensure that those who typically have the least access to training will be able to acquire the skills needed for their current jobs, while improving their jobs in the future. It is targeted to those who are most in need of assistance, and will ensure that we no longer wait until an individual is out of work to provide help. The Federal government often promises the American people many things, but we can never offer peace of mind to a worker who doesn't know if his or her skills are adequate to keep them employed. Let's take a step in the right direction and at least ensure that those who have a job will not lose it due to a lack of access to training and new skills. Let's pass the ``Working American Training Voucher Act.''

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bills which build on progress made in the 105th Congress in the difficult and challenging fight against breast cancer. Our challenge was summed up by one breast cancer advocate when she stated, simply and eloquently, ``We must make our voices heard, because it is our lives.'' Indeed, breast cancer continues to claim the lives of our mothers, sisters, daughters, and wives. With about 1 in 8 women at risk for developing breast cancer, there is scarcely a family in America unaffected by the disease. By the end of this year alone, over 178,000 women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer. Over 43,500 will have died. And with each life stolen, our nation is weakened immeasurably. We took an important step forward in the last Congress to combat this deadly foe. In the Food and Drug Administration Reauthorization Act, Congress included language based on a bill I introduced with the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, to create a ``one-stop shopping information service'' for individuals with life-threatening diseases looking to obtain information about privately and publicly funded clinical trials. This service provides information describing the purpose of the trial, eligibility criteria and the location. It gives individuals, their families and physicians an 800 number to call to obtain the latest information about these trials--trials that could save a loved ones life and trials that could help put us a step closer to our ultimate goal--finding a cure. Much remains to be done before we conquer breast cancer, so today I am reintroducing a bill, the Improved Patient Access to Clinical Studies Act of 1999, to prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage for services provided to individuals participating in clinical trials, if those services would otherwise be covered by the plan. This bill would also prevent health plans from discriminating against enrollees who choose to participate in clinical trials. This bill has a two-fold purpose. First, it will ensure that many patients who could benefit from these potentially life-saving investigational treatments but currently do not have access to them because their insurance will not cover the associated costs. Second, without reimbursement for these services, our researchers' ability to conduct important research is impeded as it reduces the number of patients who seek to participate in clinical trials. The second bill will give breast cancer advocates a voice in the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) research decision-making. The Consumer Involvement in Breast Cancer Research Act urges NIH to follow the Department of Defense's lead and include lay breast cancer advocates in breast cancer research decision-making. The involvement of these breast cancer advocates at DOD has helped foster new and innovative breast cancer research funding designs and research projects. While maintaining the highest level of quality assurance through peer review, breast cancer advocates have helped to ensure that all breast cancer research reflects the experiences and wisdom of the individuals who have lived with the disease, as well as the scientific community. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting these two bills which will help those suffering from breast cancer and their families as well as our researchers who are seeking the cure for this devastating disease.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would establish a Northern Border States Council on United States- Canada trade. The purpose of this Council is to oversee cross-border trade with our Nation's largest trading partner--an action that I believe is long overdue. The Council will serve as an early warning system to alert State and Federal trade officials to problems in cross-border traffic and trade. The Council will enable the United States to more effectively administer trade policy with Canada by applying the wealth of insight, knowledge and expertise of people who reside not only in my State of Maine, but also in the other eleven northern border States as well, on this critical policy issue. Within the U.S. Government we already have the Department of Commerce and a U.S. Trade Representative, both Federal entities, responsible for our larger, national U.S. trade interests. But the facts is that too often such entities fail to give full consideration to the interests of the 12 northern States that share a border with Canada, the longest demilitarized border between two nations anywhere in the world. The Northern Border States Council will provide State trade officials with a mechanism to share information about cross-border traffic and trade. The Council will then advise the Congress, the President, the U.S. Trade Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, and other Federal and State trade officials on United States-Canada trade policies, and problems. Canada is our largest and most important trading partner. Canada is by far the top purchaser of U.S. export goods and services, as it is the largest source of U.S. imports. In 1997, for instance, Canada imported over $151.7 million worth of U.S. goods. With an economy one- tenth the size of our own, Canada's economic health depends on maintaining close trade ties with the United States. While Canada accounts for about one-fifth of U.S. exports and imports, the United States is the source of two-thirds of Canada's imports and provides the market with fully three-quarters of all of Canada's exports. The United States and Canada have the largest bilateral trade relationship in the world, a relationship that is remarkable not only for its strength and general health, but also for the intensity of the trade and border problems that do frequently develop--as we have seen this past year with actual farmer border blockades in some border states because of the unfairness of agricultural trade policies. Over the last decade, Canada and the United States have signed two major trade agreements--the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement in 1989, and the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, in 1993. Notwithstanding these trade accords, numerous disagreements have caused trade negotiators to shuttle back and forth between Washington and Ottawa, most recently for solutions to problems for grain trade, wheat imports, animal trade, and joint cooperation on Biotechnology. I might add at recent negotiations, there was still no movement towards solutions for the potato industry, but I have been promised by the USDA that it is now the top priority for discussion. Most of the more well-known trade disputes with Canada have involved agricultural commodities such as durum wheat, peanut butter, dairy products, and poultry products, and these disputes, of course, have impacted more than just the 12 northern border States. Each and every day, however, an enormous quantity of trade and traffic crosses the United States-Canada border. These are literally thousands of businesses, large and small, that rely on this cross-border traffic and trade for their livelihood. My own State of Maine has had a long-running dispute with Canada over that nation's unfair policies in support of its potato industry, and I know that the upper mid-west and the western states have problems as well. Specifically, Canada protects its domestic potato growers from United States competition through a system of nontariff trade barriers, such as setting container size limitations and a prohibition on bulk shipments from the United States. This bulk import prohibition effectively blocks United States potato imports into Canada and was one topic of discussion during an International Trade Commission investigations hearing on April 30, 1997, where I testified on behalf of the Maine potato growers. The ITC followed up with a report stating that Canadian regulations do restrict imports to bulk shipments of fresh potatoes for processing or repacking, and that the U.S. maintains no such restrictions. These bulk shipment restrictions continue, and, at the same time, Canada also artificially enhances the competitiveness of its product through domestic subsidies for its potato growers. Another trade dispute with Canada, specifically with the province of New Brunswick, originally served as the inspiration for this legislation. In July 1993, Canadian federal customs officials began stopping Canadians returning from Maine and collecting from them the 11-percent New Brunswick Provincial Sales Tax [PST] on goods purchased in Maine. Canadian Customs Officers had already been collecting the Canadian federal sales tax all across the United States-Canada border. The collection of the New Brunswick PST was specifically targeted against goods purchased in Maine--not on goods purchased in any of the other provinces bordering New Brunswick. After months of imploring the U.S. Trade Representative to do something about the imposition of the unfairly administered tax, then Ambassador Kantor agreed that the New Brunswick PST was a violation of NAFTA, and that the United States would include the PST issue in the NAFTA dispute settlement process. But despite this explicit assurance, the issue was not, in fact, brought before NAFTA's dispute settlement process, prompting Congress in 1996, to include an amendment I offered to immigration reform legislation calling for the U.S. Trade Representative to take this action without further delay. But, it took three years for a resolution, and even then, the resolution was not crafted by the USTR. Throughout the early months of the PST dispute, we in the state of Maine had enormous difficulty convincing our Federal trade officials that the PST was in fact an international trade dispute that warranted their attention and action. We had no way of knowing, whether problems similar to the PST dispute existed elsewhere along the United States- Canada border, or whether it was a more localized problem. If a body like the Northern Border States Council had existed when the collection of the PST began, it could have immediately started investigating the issue to determine its impact and would have made recommendations as to how to deal with it. The long-standing pattern of unsuccessful negotiations is alarming, with no solution on the horizon from the federal entities in charge, as the industry in Maine and other states in the U.S. continues to strive to stay competitive despite the trade barriers thrown up against their potatoes. In short, the Northern Border States Council will serve as the eyes and ears of our States that share a border with Canada, and who are most vulnerable to fluctuations in cross-border trade and traffic. The Council will be a tool for Federal and State trade officials to use in monitoring their cross-border trade. It will help insure that national trade policy regarding America's largest trading partner will be developed and implemented with an eye towards the unique opportunities and burdens present to the northern border states. The Northern Border States Council will be an advisory body, not a regulatory one. Its fundamental purpose will be to determine the nature and cause of cross-border trade issues or disputes, and to recommend how to resolve them. The duties and responsibilities of the Council will include, but not be limited to, providing advice and policy recommendations on such matters as taxation and the regulation of cross-border wholesale and retail trade in goods and services; taxation, regulation and subsidization of food, agricultural, energy, and forest-products commodities; and the potential for Federal and State/provincial laws and regulations, including customs and immigration regulations, to act as nontariff barriers to trade. As an advisory body, the Council will review and comment on all Federal and/or State reports, studies, and practices concerning United States-Canada trade, with particular emphasis on all reports from the dispute settlement panels established under NAFTA. These Council reviews will be conducted upon the request of the United States Trade Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, a Member of Congress from any Council State, or the Governor of a Council State. If the Council determines that the origin of a cross-border trade dispute resides with Canada, the Council would determine, to the best of its ability, if the source of the dispute in the Canadian Federal Government or a Canadian Provencal government. The goal of this legislation is not to create another Federal trade bureaucracy. The Council will be made up of individuals nominated by the Governors and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. Each northern border State will have two members on the Council. The Council members will be unpaid, and serve as 2-year term. The Northern Border States Council on United States-Canada Trade will not solve all of our trade problems with Canada. But it will ensure that the voices and views of our northern border States are heard in Washington by our Federal trade officials. For too long their voices have been ignored, and the northern border States have had to suffer severe economic consequences at various times because of it. This legislation will bring our States into their rightful position as full partners for issues that affect cross-border trade and traffic with our country's largest trading partner. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to give agricultural producers, including potato producers, some important and badly needed new tools for combating injurious increases in imports from foreign countries. The Trade Act of 1974 contains provisions that permit U.S. industries to seek relief from serious injury caused by increased quantities of imports. In practice, however, it has been very difficult for many U.S. industries to actually secure action under the Act to remedy this kind of injury. The ineffectiveness of the Act results from some of the specific language in the statute. Specifically, the law requires the International Trade Commission, when evaluating a petition for relief from injury, to consider whether the injury affects the entire U.S. industry, or a segment of an industry located in a ``major geographic area'' of the U.S. whose production constitutes a ``substantial portion'' of the total domestic injury. This language has been interpreted by the ITC to mean that all or nearly all of the U.S. industry must be seriously injured by the imports before it can qualify for any relief. Thus, if an important segment of an industry is being severely injured by imports that compete directly with that segment, the businesses who comprise this portion of the industry do not have much recourse--even though the industry segment in question may employ thousands of Americans and generate billions of dollars annually for the U.S. economy. In other words, our current trade laws leave large segments of an industry that serve particular regions and markets, or have other distinguishing features, practically helpless in the face of sharp and damaging import surges. In addition, even if large industry subdivisions could qualify for assistance, the time frames under the Trade Act for expedited, or provisional, relief for agricultural products are too long to respond in time to prevent or adequately remedy injury caused by increasing imports. At a minimum, three months must elapse before any relief can be provided, irrespective of the damage that American businesses may suffer during that time. And three months is an absolute minimum. In reality, it could take substantially longer to provide expedited relief. Mr. President, when it comes to agricultural products, the problems in U.S. trade law that I have described remain acute. Due to their perishable nature, many agricultural products cannot be inventoried until imports subside or the ITC grants relief--if the industry is so fortunate--many months or even years later. And most agricultural producers, who are heavily dependent on credit each year to produce and sell a crop, cannot wait that long. They need assistance in the short- term, while the injury is occurring, if they are going to survive an import surge. Also, because crops are grown during particular seasons and serve specific markets related to production in those growing seasons, the agricultural industry is more prone to segmentation. Finally, many of the agricultural industry entities that would have to file a petition for relief under the Trade Act are really grower groups that do not necessarily have the financial wherewithal to spend millions of dollars researching, filing, and pursuing a petition before the ITC. The bill that I have introduced today is designed to empower America's agricultural producers to seek and obtain effective remedies for damaging import surges. It will make the Trade Act more user friendly for American businesses. Unlike the current law, which sets criteria for ITC consideration that are impossible to meet and that do not reflect the realities of today's industry, my bill establishes more useful criteria. It permits the ITC to consider the impacts of import surges on an important segment of an agricultural industry when determining whether a domestic industry has been injured by imports. This segment is defined as a portion of the domestic industry located in a specific geographic area whose collective production constitutes a significant portion of the entire domestic industry. The ITC would also be required to consider whether this segment primarily serves the domestic market in the specific geographic area, and whether substantial imports are entering the area. Rather than rely solely on an industry petition to initiate an ITC review of whether provisional, or expedited, relief deserves to be granted, my bill would permit the United States Trade Representative or the Congress, via a resolution, to request such review. Because the time frames in the present law for considering and providing provisional relief are so long that the damage from imports can already be done well before a decision by the ITC is ever issued, this bill would shorten the time frame for provisional relief determinations by the ITC by allowing the commission to waive, in certain circumstances, the act's requirement that imports be monitored by the USTR for at least 90 days. And, finally, the bill expands the list of agricultural products eligible for provisional relief to include any potato product, including processed potato products. Under current law, only perishable agricultural products and citrus products are eligible to apply for expedited relief determinations. But this narrow eligibility list unreasonably excludes important U.S. agribusinesses, such as our frozen french fry producers, from the expedited remedies available in the Trade Act. For too long, American agriculture has been trying to combat sophisticated foreign competition with the equivalent of sticks and stones. My bill strengthens the position of American agricultural producers in the competitive arena, and will help provide effective remedies for agricultural producers, and provide effective deterrents to the depredations of their competitors from other countries. I hope other senators with a interest in fair play for our domestic agricultural producers will join me I cosponsoring this important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to help America's small business. This legislation will assist small businesses by requiring an estimate of the cost of a bill on small businesses before Congress enacts the legislation, and by creating an Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Small Business. Small business is the driving force behind our economy, and in order to create jobs--both in my home State of Maine and across the Nation-- we must encourage small businesses expansion. Nationwide, an estimated 13 to 16 million small businesses represent over 99 percent of all employers. They also employ 52 percent of the workers, and 38 percent of workers in high-tech occupations. Small businesses account for virtually all of the net new jobs, and 51 percent of private sector output. In my home State of Maine, of the 36,660 businesses with employees in 1997, 97.6 percent of the businesses were small businesses. Maine also boasts an estimated 71,000 self-employed persons. In terms of job growth, small businesses are credited with all of the net new jobs in a survey of job growth from 1992 to 1996. Small businesses are the most successful tool we have for job creation. They provide a substantial majority of the initial job opportunities in this country, and are the original--and finest--job training program. Unfortunately, as much as small businesses help our own economy--and the Federal Government--by creating jobs and building economic growth, government often gets in the way. Instead of assisting small business, Government too often frustrates small business efforts. Federal regulations create more than 1 billion hours of paperwork for small businesses each year, according to the Small Business Administration. Moreover, because of the size of some of the largest American corporations, U.S. commerce officials too often devote a disproportionate amount of time to the needs and jobs in corporate America rather than in small businesses. My legislation will address two problems facing our Nation's small businesses, and I hope it will both encourage small business expansion and fuel job creation. One, this legislation will require a cost analysis legislative proposals before new requirements are passed on to small businesses. Too often, Congress approves well-intended legislation that shifts the costs of programs to small businesses. This proposal will help ensure that these unintended consequences are not passed along to small businesses. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, small business owners spend at least 1 billion hours a year filling out government paperwork, at an annual cost that exceeds $100 billion. Before we place yet another obstacle in the path of small business job creation, we should understand the costs our proposals will impose on small businesses. This bill will require the Director of the Congressional Budget Office to prepare for each committee an analysis of the costs to small businesses that would be incurred in carrying out provisions contained in new legislation. This cost analysis will include an estimate of costs incurred in carrying out the bill or resolution for a 4-year period, as well as an estimate of the portion of these costs that would be borne by small businesses. This provision will allow us to fully consider the impact of our actions on small businesses--and through careful planning, we may succeed in avoiding unintended costs. Two, this legislation will direct the U.S. Trade Representative to establish a position of Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Small Business. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is overburdened, and too often overlooks the needs of small business. The new Assistant U.S. Trade Representative will promote exports by small businesses and work to remove foreign impediments to these exports. Mr. President, I am convinced that this legislation will truly assist small businesses, resulting not only in additional entrepreneurial opportunities but also in new jobs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, long term care is an issue that continues to tug at Congress and this country. In 1995 the federal and state governments spent $23 billion on long term care and another $21 billion for home care. And it is estimated that those in need of long-term care will grow from 7.3 million today to 10-14 million by 2020--potentially a doubling of those in need. The appropriate care for an individual should be an issue that is made by that individual and their loved ones. But we all know the truth is that in many cases it comes down to the financial realities of the family. For many people, remaining at home is their choice. It allows them to remain with their loved ones in familiar surroundings. We need to do more to assist these people and their families if this is their choice. Toward that end I am reintroducing a bill that provides a tax credit for families caring for a relative who suffers from Alzheimer's disease. When I first came to Congress 20 years ago, not a single piece of legislation devoted to Alzheimer's disease had even been introduced. We have come along way since then, as today `Alzheimer's' is a household word. It is also the most expensive uninsured illness in America. Alzheimer's will consume more of our national wealth- approximately $1.75 trillion--than all other illnesses except cancer and heart disease. And the number of those affected by this disease is rising and will continue to rise dramatically, from 4 million today to over 14 million by the middle of the 21st century. As staggering as these numbers are, they pale in comparison to the emotional costs this disease places on the family. We can help lessen that cost by providing some relief to Alzheimer's patients and their families. My bill would allow families to deduct the cost of home care and adult day and respite care provided to a dependent suffering from Alzheimer's disease. My second bill will strengthen the dependent care tax credit and restore Congress' original intent to provide the greatest benefit of the tax credit to low-income taxpayers. This bill expands the dependent care tax credit, makes it applicable for respite care expenses and makes it refundable. As more and more women enter the workforce combined with the aging of our population, we are continuing to see an increased need for both child and elder care. Expenses incurred for this care can place a large burden on a family's finances. The cost of full time child care can range from $4,000 to $10,000. The cost of nursing home care is in excess of $40,000 a year. Managing these costs is difficult for many families, but is exceptionally burdensome for those in lower income brackets. In 1976, the dependent care tax credit was created to help low- and moderate-income families alleviate the burden of employment-related dependent care. We haven't changed the DCTC since it was created 23 years and in fact, in the 1986 Tax Reform Act we indexed all the basic provisions of the tax code that determine tax liability except for DCTC. We need to make the credit relevant by updating it to reflect today's world. My legislation will do that by indexing the credit to inflation and making it refundable so that those who do not reach the tax thresholds will still received assistance. It also raises the DCTC sliding scale from 30 to 50 percent of work-related dependent care expenditures for families earning $15,000 or less. The scale would then be reduced by 1 percentage point for each additional $1,000 more of income, down to a credit of 20 percent for persons earning $45,000 or more. In order to assist those who care for loved ones at home, the bill also expands the definition of dependent care to include respite care, thereby offering relief from this additional expense. A respite care credit would be allowed for up to $1,200 for one qualifying dependent care and $2,400 for two qualifying dependents. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these two bills that will provide assistance to families that wish to provide long term care to their loved ones at home.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to improve the retirement security of women. Even with the increasing number of women entering the workforce, only 39 percent of part-time and full- time working women are covered by a pension plan. While women have come a long way, even now a woman makes only 75 cents for every dollar a man makes--and older women are payed even less: 66 cents for every dollar earned by a 55-year-old man. In addition, as we all know, women have spent more time outside the workforce because they have spent more time inside the household raising families. These two factors help explain why older women are twice as likely as older men to be poor or near poor; with nearly 40 percent of older women who live alone live in or near poverty. This bill makes a number of changes in current pension law including: helping to ensure that pension benefits earned during a marriage are considered and divided fairly in the event of divorce; closing loopholes in the civil service and railroad retirement laws that have resulted in the loss of pension benefits for widows and ex-spouses of beneficiaries in such plans and increases the amount of information available by establishing a pension ``hotline'' at the Department of Labor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to explain section 109 of Division C regarding the registration of container chassis. This section addresses the application of registration fees to trailers used exclusively for the purpose of transporting ocean shipping containers, which the Section refers to as ``container chassis.'' The section provides that a State, such as California, that requires annual registration and apportioned fees for container chassis may not limit the operation, or require the registration in the State, of a container chassis registered in another State, if the container chassis is operating under a trip permit issued by the non-registration State. Further, the non-registration State may not impose fines or penalties on the operation of such a container chassis for being operated in the non-registration State without a registration issued by that State. For example, the Attorney General of California or any other person in California, may not seek to impose fines or penalties from companies operating container chassis in California, when the container chassis are registered in another state such as Maine or Tennessee. Further, under this language, a State that requires annual registration of container chassis and apportionment of fees for such registration may not deny the use of trip permits for the operation in the State of a container chassis that is registered under the laws of another State. A trip permit provides for a daily use fee that is the prorated annual registration fees for the vehicle. Under the section, a trip permit is required only on days when the container chassis is actually operating on the State's roads and not, for example, when it remains at an ocean terminal for the entire day. This section also provides that a State, political subdivision or person may not, with respect to a container chassis registered in another State, impose or collect any fee, penalty, fine, or other form of damages which is based in whole or in part on the nonpayment of a State's registration related fees attributable to a container chassis operated in the State before the date of enactment of this section unless it is shown by the State, political subdivision or person that the container chassis was operated in the State without a trip permit issued by the State. This provision is intended to prevent the imposition of any liability on this basis for the current and past practice of many companies in the container shipping industry which register chassis in one State and operate them in another State under trip permits issued by the non- registration State. The provision is intended to ensure that past and current practices which are consistent with the objectives of this section will not be the basis for the imposition of fees, penalties, fines or other forms of damages on this segment of the Nation's intermodal transportation system. Using the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, this section is intended to facilitate movement of containerized cargo in interstate commerce and to remove an unreasonable impediment to interstate commerce. It simplifies and rationalizes registration requirements for this critically important segment of the Nation's interstate intermodal transportation system. It is important to note that extensive discussion and consideration was given to this section. Members from the Senate Commerce Committee, Appropriations Committee, and the House Appropriations and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee worked on this language and came to the conclusion that it is necessary. It is clearly the intent of both Chambers of Congress that States, such as California and others, which want to limit the operation of chassis that are not registered in their State, are prohibited from doing so. Further, it is clearly the intent of both Chambers of Congress that States, such as California and others, are prohibited from collecting fines or penalties from companies which register chassis in another State and operate under a trip permit issued by the State where the chassis is operated.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I recognize the concerns of the senior Senator from Michigan about this waiver. I will work with you to repeal the Jones Act waiver for the vessel Columbus.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Yes, that it is my understanding.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering S. 1259, the Coast Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1998, 1999, and 2000. Members of the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries have been working on this legislation for much of the past year. My substitute amendment incorporates changes made to the bill since the Commerce Committee reported it, and which enjoys strong bipartisan support. These changes are based on comments that we received from a number of senators. The Coast Guard is one of our nation's most important agencies. It aids people in distress, prevents injury and the loss of life, defends our oceans borders from the scourge of illegal drugs and other national security threats, maintains the safety of our waterways, and performs many other essential missions with a high degree of professionalism. My State of Maine has a 3,500 mile coastline, and the Coast Guard plays an indispensable role in the safety and economy of the many people who live along the coast. The same is true for every other coastal state in the nation. In 1996, we enacted the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996, which authorized the Coast Guard through fiscal year 1997. The substitute amendment before us today reauthorizes appropriations and personnel levels for the Coast Guard through fiscal year 2000. In each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000, it authorizes $100 million over the administration's fiscal year 1999 for drug interdiction activities. These increases will restore Coast Guard drug interdiction to the fiscal year 1997 level. The amendment also includes various provisions that, among other things, are designed to provide greater flexibility to the Coast Guard on personnel administration, streamline the inventory management process, eliminate an unnecessary reporting requirement, enhance the safety of marine transportation, and strengthen Coast Guard law enforcement activities. Several provisions of the amendment that are particularly important to people in Maine and other states deserve special mention. Section 301 requires the Coast Guard to ensure that alcohol testing of vessel crew members is conducted within 2 hours of marine accidents, unless safety considerations prevent it. This section also increases the maximum civil penalties for failure to adhere to alcohol/drug testing procedures and for operating a vessel while intoxicated. Section 310 requires the Coast Guard to issue a report identifying U.S. waters out to 50 miles that cannot currently be reached within 2 hours by a Coast Guard search and rescue helicopter. The report must identify options to ensure that these areas can be covered by a helicopter within 2 hours. Section 313 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish, in consultation with the International Maritime Organization, two mandatory ship reporting systems in Cape Cod Bay and the Great South Channel (east of Cape Cod). Ships entering these areas will have to report to the Coast Guard so that the Coast Guard may track their movements and provide them with information on whale sightings. The provision is intended to protect against ship strikes of the highly endangered Northern right whale. Title V of the bill contains S. 1480, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act, a bill that I have sponsored with a number of senators on both sides of the aisle. The Commerce Committee recently reported the bill with unanimous bipartisan support. It directs the administration to develop plans for dealing more effectively with harmful algal blooms like pfiesteria and hypoxia, or the dead zone, in the Gulf of Mexico. It also authorizes additional funding for NOAA's research and monitoring activities on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Mr. President, I wish to emphasize one very important point with respect to these plans in title V, particularly the plan on Northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxia. The language in its provision requires the plan to be developed in conjunction with the States. The intent of this language is to ensure that the States play a substantial and constructive role in each stage of the development of the plan, and that their concerns and recommendations will be address by the administration before a plan is completed. Finding creative and sensible solutions to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia problem will not be possible without the advice and cooperation of the affected States. This bipartisan bill reflects many months of painstaking effort and compromise. It will help to ensure that the Coast Guard will be able to perform its critical missions over the next 2 years. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.