Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I will speak to the Byrd amendment. The fact is, I am rather surprised that the Senator from West Virginia offered this amendment as a second-degree amendment, considering the fact that last night the Senate, in its wisdom, upheld the second- degree amendment that I offered to the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas.

Ms. SNOWE. I am happy to yield to the Senator. Unanimous Consent request

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Ms. SNOWE. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Georgia.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes of my time to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel.

Ms. SNOWE. I was going to yield to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel for 5 minutes, so the remainder of the time I yield to the Senator.

Ms. SNOWE. I yield to the Senator.

Ms. SNOWE. I appreciate the Senator's unanimous consent agreement.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to also quote a letter from the Senior Noncommissioned Officers of the Armed Forces of the United States, representing the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy. They said: As the Senior Noncommissioned Officers of the Armed Forces of the United States, we feel compelled to state our disagreement with a proposed amendment on recruit training that might be considered during the Senate's debate of the FY99 Defense Bill. A mandatory requirement to house recruits in completely separate barracks is unnecessary. Based on our experience, each Service is different and therefore has different needs in training its recruits to join operational units. The determination as to how to train recruits is best determined by the individual Services based on the specific needs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. Any attempt to make a training policy that applies across all Services is not in the best interests of the nation and will impact the readiness of the total force. Their many successes in our gender-integrated all-volunteer force is a direct result of the training the Services currently provide. We are grateful for Secretary Cohen's support of the Services in determining how best to conduct recruit training. We respectfully request the same vote of confidence from you as the Senate considers the fiscal year 1999 defense authorization bill. We also had a quote from the Army Research Institute study, and I think it is interesting to note, about the standards that have also been developed in this environment of basic training, so that there is no misunderstanding, unless there is any concern about the role that women are playing and their ability to perform during the course of basic training. I quote: Females trained in a gender-integrated environment improved their performance in all measures of physical fitness (push- ups, sit-ups, 2-mile run) and the males in gender-integrated training improved in two of three events. This has occurred without the Army fitness standards being changed or adjusted for gender-integrated training. In the December report of the Federal Advisory Committee, which is, of course, the Kassebaum-Baker commission, it said: The committee believes that the increasing number of women in expanded roles is an important reason why the United States is able to maintain an effective and efficient volunteer military force. Another letter, from the Secretary of the Army in 1997 to Congress. He said: Turning the clock back to gender segregated training will result in unrealistic training which degrades readiness. I mention these quotes, Mr. President, because I think it is important that we remind ourselves of the role that women do play in our military and will play in our military, and as they have in the last 100 years. They represent 14 percent of armed services, and the armed services cannot perform without them. I just believe it is important to make sure that we can ensure the stature and the well-being of all those who serve our country. That is why I believe we should follow the wisdom and the judgment of the Senate Armed Services Committee--indeed, the Congress last year, when we enacted a provision to create a congressional commission to examine all of these issues and to report back to the Congress next March. I hope the Senate will not adopt the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas that basically presumes to substitute for the operational conclusions thus far of the Secretary of Defense; the chiefs of the Army, Air Force, the Navy; the training commanders of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy; the senior noncommissioned officers of the Army, the Air Force and the Navy; the president of the Association of the United States Army; and the tens of thousands of recruits who train and live in security on a daily basis. I hope, Mr. President, that the Senate will adopt the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Michigan, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the Senator from Georgia, Senator Cleland, and myself to reaffirm the judgment that has been rendered by the Congress last year in creating this commission. The amendment that is offered by the Senator from Kansas mismatches a problem and a cure. Professional relationships and effective performance throughout the Armed Forces flow from a training world that overlaps with the real and the uncertain ones in which men and women will ultimately be deployed as we have seen in Bosnia, as we have seen in the Persian Gulf, as we have seen in Somalia over and over again. I urge the adoption of the amendment that has been offered by myself, Senator Cleland, and Senator Levin.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate this opportunity to address this body on the subject of an important issue and what it means, I believe, to the future of our Armed Forces. The participation of women in the armed services today is very important. As the Secretary of Defense said recently in reaffirming his support for gender-integrated training, and the recommendations of the services with respect to gender-integrated training, he said clearly that the military depends upon women. Women now represent 14 percent of our armed services. So their role and their well-being is an essential ingredient to upholding the importance of certain standards with respect to our national security and performance of our Armed Forces and personnel. I offered a second-degree amendment to the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas, because it will reaffirm the judgment that was made first in the Armed Services Committee last year to the DOD 1998 authorization. The amendment that was offered created a congressional commission to examine many of the issues that were raised by the Senator from Kansas. Obviously, they are not new issues. They are ones in which we have been wrestling with time and time again, not only here in Congress but, of course, within the Defense Department. There are no simple solutions. But what I find amazing in hearing the discussion with respect to women in the military and the gender- integrated training and the problems that have resulted from gender- integrated training, no one seems to raise the issue as to what about the responsibilities and the moral authority of those people who are in positions of leadership within our military? I have had the opportunity to visit many installations, including Fort Jackson, the one which the Senator from Kansas referred to and that his staff visited. I also visited that facility. I well remember the facilities that are there that separate men and women. Men and women are separated within the Army, within the Air Force, within the Navy. They have separate entrances. They have separate wings, separate bays, separate bathrooms, separate alarms. They have security guards, security cameras. So there are certain security measures that are already in place. Now the question has arisen as to whether or not we should have separate barracks. With all the misconduct and sexual harassment that has occurred that we have heard so much about over the last few years, much of it, interestingly enough, has occurred in advanced integrated training programs, not with basic training. But nevertheless, one of the critical areas that we must focus on is developing standards and upholding and enforcing those standards that are consistent with the well-being of both men and women who serve in our Armed Forces, the basic rights of all human beings, whether they are in the military or in the private sector. And these questions have to be considered as proposed by the Senator from Kansas through a simple disposition of an amendment? We in the committee last year said no, and, frankly, I was prepared to debate and fight this issue in the Chamber with respect to gender-integrated training, whether or not to have separate barracks, and so on and so forth. But in the good judgment and the wisdom of the committee, we decided to create a consensus-based amendment that was offered by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel, Senator Kempthorne, Senator Byrd from West Virginia, and myself. We knew that the Department of Defense had already created its own commission to evaluate these questions and many more. We decided that it was also important to create a commission that was independent to evaluate these issues as well. Now we have to decide in this Chamber whether or not we should subjugate the recommendations of the commission that will be coming forward next spring to the amendment that is offered by the Senator from Kansas. I say not. This is a major and fundamental issue. How we proceed is important, and that is why the Committee on Armed Services approved an amendment that was included in the 1998 authorization to create this commission that is now part of law, and it was approved in the Senate and approved by Congress. So now we have to decide whether or not we are going to allow the Senator from Kansas to override the judgment of the members of this commission that will come forward with recommendations next spring. There will be 10 members of this commission that are appointed by the chairman and ranking member of the House National Security Committee and the ranking member and the chairman of this Committee on Armed Services in the Senate with consultation with the majority and minority leaders in both bodies. They represent a cross-section of experience, expertise on some of these critical issues--that is what we are welcoming--that is independent of the kind of decision that we can make here in an amendment that is offered by the Senator from Kansas without the examination and the evaluation of these issues. We have represented on the commission a Marine Corps general who commanded a division during Operation Desert Storm; we have a former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management; a former Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower; a board member of the Virginia Military Institute; the Provost of the University of Michigan, two military sociologists, a former Marine Corps Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower and Reserve Affairs and a retired sergeant major from the Training and Doctrine Command. The men and women in our commission have held these positions or are currently holding them. We should give them the opportunity to meet their responsibilities under law. The proponents of the amendment that is offered by the Senator from Kansas would require by the year 2001 the construction of separate barracks. It basically will not allow any flexibility by the service chiefs with respect to the construction of those facilities; that, yes, will cost more than $167 million to construct. It will not permit trainees, instructors, commanders, to offer their own assessments of whether the way the recruits live supports the process for developing a soldier. They should be in a position of making those decisions--in fact, have had the ability to accept the decision that was recommended by the Kassebaum-Baker Commission. In fact, the Secretary of Defense gave the service chiefs the opportunity to respond within 90 days to that recommendation as to how they wanted to proceed and to develop criteria on the basis on which they decide they would advance or implement those recommendations. The service chiefs responded. They all upheld their current status because they have made adjustments in the living quarters. They are separate. They are not in separate facilities, but they are in separate wings and bays, as I mentioned earlier, and they believe that the current process is working. They support gender- integrated training because they feel that this is the way in which you build a cohesive unit. We have thousands and thousands of women who are currently serving in Bosnia without complaint. We have had thousands and thousands of women serving in the Persian Gulf without complaint. We have had more than 1,000 women who participated in our operations in Somalia, and we have had no complaints. Are we now not saying that it is possible for men and women, on the day in which they begin their basic training, cannot work and train together as they will be required to do after their basic training, as they are required to do right now in Bosnia? We have over 5,000 women currently serving in Bosnia. In fact, the Washington Post had an in- depth story last year that described the circumstances under which both men and women were serving, and they were doing an extraordinary job without hindrance, without barriers, without complications under some most arduous of conditions. We had 41,000 women in the Persian Gulf. Did we hear of complaints? No. It is because they trained together. They understood the professionalism of their responsibilities, and they carried them out as we could expect them to do. They upheld the highest moral standards. The amendment that I offer here today reinforces the recommendation that was made by the Armed Services Committee last year by the creation of this commission to examine many of the questions that have been raised. Frankly, I had my doubts as to whether or not it was necessary to create another commission, but I also personally had to recognize that, in fact, many here in this Chamber and elsewhere had concerns about basic training and about gender-integrated training, and that perhaps the best way to proceed was to create another commission that would represent a breadth of experience and professionalism and qualifications and skills that are necessary to make the kinds of decisions that we would expect of them. Their mandate is substantial. We have more than 10 different areas with respect to gender-integrated training and all of the other dimensions to the question--the living conditions, the impact on readiness, on morale, on fitness standards, the rationale for the establishment or the disestablishment of gender-integrated or gender- segregated basic training, the rationale that was used at the time in which these decisions were made by the services to integrate training or to segregate in the case of the Marines, or assess whether or not the concept of training as you will fight is a valid rationale for gender-integrated basic training; identify the requirements that are unique to each of the services that could affect a decision by the Secretary considering adopting a gender-integrated or gender-segregated format for basic training; to examine all the facilities for feasibility or the implications of requiring drill inspectors to be of the same sex. There are a number of issues that are embodied in this statute that was approved by the Congress last year to the authorization that will be examined by the men and women who are serving on this commission. So the question is, Should we adopt the amendment by the Senator from Kansas or should we adopt the amendment that I have offered as a second-degree to the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas that will give this commission the opportunity to evaluate these questions so that we can make a reasoned, informed decision as to what approach should be taken by the military? This amendment that I have offered is supported by the civilian, the officer, and the enlisted leadership of the Pentagon to retain the current training programs at each of the armed services until this Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related Issues files its final report in March of 1999. It reaffirms this decision. It reaffirms the bipartisanship and the consensus that was produced last year in the Senate Armed Services Committee and in the Congress on these difficult issues of obtaining the most comprehensive use of professionals and military leaders outside of Congress. And the charter stipulates very clearly the aspects that will be examined of the training practices and the policy directives and the regulations that enumerate the professional relationships between men and women in uniform. It also assigns the commission the obligation and responsibility to evaluate the findings of the Kassebaum-Baker panel on gender-integrated training and the Pentagon's rules regarding fraternization as well as adultery. So we have to decide here whether we are going to approve my amendment that is supported by the Secretary of Defense and the service chiefs and many of the Members here in this body, or are we going to support the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas that presumes to answer this in three pages this afternoon with a new regulation imposing a $167 million military construction cost on the Defense Department. I think we have an obligation to give the commission the opportunity to work its will as we have asked them to do. I would like to read to you, Mr. President, some excerpts from the various letters and statements that have been made by the service chiefs and by the Secretary of Defense about the issues concerning gender-integrated training and separate barracks. The Secretary of Defense wrote to the chairman of our committee, Senator Thurmond: Training in the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps is a complex matter given each Service's unique mission, traditions and conditions of service. Each Service has their own approach in how they conduct basic training. This training must not be characterized by any one issue such as billeting or any one policy such as the extent of gender integrated training. We must, however, identify the right set of standards to produce a safe and secure environment for the rigorous training our young men and women need for military service. This is exactly what the Department is doing. We are making sure that we have the very best personnel to staff our training establishments and to serve as role models for our new recruits. . . .

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the passage of S. 2138, the FY99 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. In particular, I thank my colleagues for approving $6 million for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' funding for the harbor dredge in Portland, Maine. I have supported the timely advancement of the harbor dredging because of public safety and environmental concerns and the project is the top priority for the state. Portland Harbor badly needs dredging, and it is to the great credit of the Portland Harbor Dredge Committee, made up of officials from the state, local, not-for-profit agencies and the private sector that the dredging project is now ready to begin, at least a year ahead of what the US Army Corps of Engineers expected. Corps officials had already made it clear that the project needed to begin this next winter in order to minimize environmental impacts, but could not be started until environmental determinations were made. The Dredge Committee, working together since 1994, was successful in obtaining the necessary permits, including allowing the bulk of the dredged material from Portland Harbor to be deposited at sea. As I pointed out in the Budget Committee back in March when I first brought up the harbor dredging during Budget Reconciliation, the Corps project simply could not wait another year for funding to be included in the federal budget. It is to the credit of the state, the surrounding communities and the agencies working for the dredging that the project is ready to begin, and the window for the dredging to occur so as to mitigate the environmental risks, according to the Corps, is from October, 1998 to April, 1999. This should now be possible if the Senate funding level is protected in conference with the House. I would also like to thank Senator Domenici and his Appropriations Subcommittee for federal funding for the Ft. Fairfield levee in rural Northern Maine, and also for including language in the appropriations bill that will allow construction of a levee to protect the town against further flooding. This Corps small flood control project is considered essential to the economic survival of Fort Fairfield. The town has experienced severe flooding over the last several years, and as recently as two months ago, was once again on emergency alert because of river flooding, and some senior citizens had to be evacuated from the their homes. Back in April 1994 alone, flood waters exceeded the 100-year flood plain and caused an estimated $7 million in property damages to businesses and residences. The town is prepared to embark on a redevelopment project once a levee has been built to prevent future floods. Once again, we thank the appropriations committee for realizing the importance of the levee to me and to this small rural town in Northern Maine.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 629, the Texas Compact Consent Act of 1997, as originally ratified by the three states of Maine, Vermont, and Texas to address the disposal of their low-level radioactive nuclear waste. The States of Maine, Vermont and Texas are now approaching the end of a long journey that started in 1980, when Congress told the states to form compacts to solve their low-level waste disposal problems. When this Compact is adopted as ratified by the three states, Mr. President, Texas, Maine and Vermont will become the forty second, forty third and forty fourth states to be given Congressional approval for forming a compact and will meet their responsibilities for the disposal of their low-level waste from universities, from hospital and medical centers, and from power plants and shipyards. It is very important for my colleagues to know that the language ratified by each state is exactly the same language, and if any amendments are included by the conferees, the Compact would have to be once again returned to each state for reratification. For the nine compacts that have been consented to by the United States Congress, not one of them has been amended by Congress. Not one of them. Let me be clear: the law never intended for Congress to determine who pays what, how the storage is allocated, and where the site is located. To the contrary: the intent of the law is for states to develop and approve these details, and for Congress to ratify the plan. The Compact before us does not discuss any particular site for the disposal facility, but only says that Texas must develop a facility in a timely manner, consistent with all applicable state and federal environmental, health, and public safety laws. It is the decision of Texas as to where the facility will be sited and is not within the purview of the U.S. Senate to decide for them. Further, absent the protection of the Compact, Texas must, I repeat must, open their borders to any other state for waste disposal or they will be in violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Compact gives Texas the protection that oversight commissioners, mostly appointed by the elected Governor of Texas but also with a say from Maine and Vermont, will decide what is best for Texas. As we send the Texas Compact to a Senate-House conference, I ask my colleagues to keep in mind that all that is required is the prompt approval of Congress for the Compact as originally ratified by Maine, Vermont, and Texas so that the Texas Compact members will be able to exercise appropriate control over their low level nuclear waste as Congress mandated. I thank the Chair and look forward to my colleagues continued support of the Texas Compact as ratified by the States when it returns from conference.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be the lead cosponsor of the Microcredit for Self-Sufficiency Act of 1998. This bipartisan measure is an excellent means of fighting poverty and allowing the world's enterprising poor to escape it. Microcredit programs extend small loans to very poor people for self- employment projects that generate income to allow them to care for themselves and their families. These loans are provided without collateral to poor people so they can start or expand small businesses. Microcredit encourages entrepreneurship and productivity among the poorest people in the world and allows them and their families to escape from poverty with dignity. I have always believed that the foreign assistance expenditures made by the United States should provide the maximum benefit in a cost- efficient manner. Microcredit meets this most important test. Microcredit loans are repaid by borrowers at commercial interest rates or higher, and repayment rates reach 95% and above. The money invested in microcredit programs is continually recycled, allowing lenders to reach more people over time. This assessment is borne out by the Foundation for International Community Assistance (FINCA) which is a non-governmental organization working in Latin America, Africa, Asia and the United States. It estimates that, over 5 years, $1 million invested in one of their microcredit programs generates $15 million in new loans. The microcredit concept has been a great success. Around the world, small investments have allowed an estimated 10 million poor people to begin self-employment ventures as opposed to relying on government handouts. Far more families could benefit from microcredit, but do not yet have access to such opportunities as this type of lending is not typically done by most financial institutions. It is microcredit institutions that will undertake such opportunities to provide a poor woman in Bangladesh, for example, with the funds to buy an extra cow or goat to increase her modest farming output. Indeed, one real-life illustration of the success of this program has been the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. In 1976, a man named Muhammad Yunus conducted an innovative research endeavor to examine the possibility of designing a credit delivery system to provide banking services to help the rural poor. These are individuals who want to escape poverty but find that conventional sources of lending are unavailable to them because they lack the collateral to get a loan. The Grameen Bank Project began with the goals of extending banking facilities to poor men and women, and creating opportunities for self- employment. It also aimed to reverse the vicious cycle of low income, low savings, and low investment by providing these individuals with credit that would yield greater investment and income. Today, the Grameen Bank is the largest rural credit institution in Bangladesh. It has over two million borrowers--94 percent of whom are women. The Grameen Bank covers more than half of all villages in Bangladesh and the repayment of its loans, which average $160 in United States dollars, is over 95%. The Bank has also helped train approximately 4,000 individuals from about 100 nations over the last 10 years. There have been 223 Grameen style programs replicated in some 58 nations in the last decade. This success story demonstrates what an individual is capable of when given the opportunity to help himself or herself escape poverty. Take the instance of Amena Begum, who in 1993, lived in poverty with her family in a village in Bangladesh. She and her family survived by living as squatters and earning money as day laborers or by operating micro-businesses in constant debt to loansharks. That same year, she convinced her husband to move the family to another village and joined the Grameen Bank. A neighbor told her ``We're all poor--or at least we all were when we joined. I'll stick up for you because I know you'll succeed in business.'' Well, she was elected secretary of her Grameen Bank group and repaid a loan she received to start a chicken and duck raising business. Grameen then gave her a second loan and, today, her business is growing and providing for her family's basic needs. A continent away in Ethiopia another woman, Alemnesh Geressu, her landless husband, and their seven children were also struggling. For several years, she bought grain from a trader and sold it in the local market. However, most of her profit went back to the lender who charged more than 10 percent interest per month. With loans from a Catholic Relief Services Program, she was able to buy grain at a lower price from nearby farmers and make higher profits. Her business grew dramatically and she now sells a local beverage, grows vegetables and even raised a cow--all in addition to her grain marketing activities. Alemnesh now pays back her loan at a commercial rate that is ten times less than she used to pay to the local money lenders. She has enough to feed her family well and to send two of her children to school. Alemnesh says she now has ``more confidence and skills in myself and I wish the program could accommodate more women to improve their lives.'' More families need to be touched by such programs. Just last year, at the 1997 Global Microcredit Summit, donor nations and international institutions established the goal of reaching 100 million of the world's poorest families, especially the women in those families with microcredit loans by the year 2005. I believe that this bill, the Microcredit for Self- Sufficiency Act of 1998, puts the United States on track to provide its share of funding to help achieve this worthwhile goal. This bill authorizes not less than $160 million in Fiscal Year 1999 for the United States Agency for International Development's microenterprise program. To ensure that microcredit assistance goes to those most in need of assistance, the bill targets at least half of these resources to institutions serving the world's poorest families, with loans under $300. Further, the bill channels a larger proportion of microcredit assistance through effective nongovernmental organizations that promote the development and expansion of microcredit programs worldwide. Mr. President, microcredit programs enjoy broad bipartisan support not only because they help millions to work their way out of poverty but because they also recycle foreign aid dollars through loan repayments. Microcredit programs are self-sustainable, can be replicated, and are powerful vehicles for social development. This bill would increase the number of families that have access to such programs. Microcedit programs would be raised to a higher priority among our nation's foreign aid initiatives. And the investments called for in this bill will help bring the possibility of financial independence to millions of potential entrepreneurs who struggle to survive on less than $1 a day.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be the lead cosponsor of the Microcredit for Self-Sufficiency Act of 1998. This bipartisan measure is an excellent means of fighting poverty and allowing the world's enterprising poor to escape it. Microcredit programs extend small loans to very poor people for self- employment projects that generate income to allow them to care for themselves and their families. These loans are provided without collateral to poor people so they can start or expand small businesses. Microcredit encourages entrepreneurship and productivity among the poorest people in the world and allows them and their families to escape from poverty with dignity. I have always believed that the foreign assistance expenditures made by the United States should provide the maximum benefit in a cost- efficient manner. Microcredit meets this most important test. Microcredit loans are repaid by borrowers at commercial interest rates or higher, and repayment rates reach 95% and above. The money invested in microcredit programs is continually recycled, allowing lenders to reach more people over time. This assessment is borne out by the Foundation for International Community Assistance (FINCA) which is a non-governmental organization working in Latin America, Africa, Asia and the United States. It estimates that, over 5 years, $1 million invested in one of their microcredit programs generates $15 million in new loans. The microcredit concept has been a great success. Around the world, small investments have allowed an estimated 10 million poor people to begin self-employment ventures as opposed to relying on government handouts. Far more families could benefit from microcredit, but do not yet have access to such opportunities as this type of lending is not typically done by most financial institutions. It is microcredit institutions that will undertake such opportunities to provide a poor woman in Bangladesh, for example, with the funds to buy an extra cow or goat to increase her modest farming output. Indeed, one real-life illustration of the success of this program has been the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. In 1976, a man named Muhammad Yunus conducted an innovative research endeavor to examine the possibility of designing a credit delivery system to provide banking services to help the rural poor. These are individuals who want to escape poverty but find that conventional sources of lending are unavailable to them because they lack the collateral to get a loan. The Grameen Bank Project began with the goals of extending banking facilities to poor men and women, and creating opportunities for self- employment. It also aimed to reverse the vicious cycle of low income, low savings, and low investment by providing these individuals with credit that would yield greater investment and income. Today, the Grameen Bank is the largest rural credit institution in Bangladesh. It has over two million borrowers--94 percent of whom are women. The Grameen Bank covers more than half of all villages in Bangladesh and the repayment of its loans, which average $160 in United States dollars, is over 95%. The Bank has also helped train approximately 4,000 individuals from about 100 nations over the last 10 years. There have been 223 Grameen style programs replicated in some 58 nations in the last decade. This success story demonstrates what an individual is capable of when given the opportunity to help himself or herself escape poverty. Take the instance of Amena Begum, who in 1993, lived in poverty with her family in a village in Bangladesh. She and her family survived by living as squatters and earning money as day laborers or by operating micro-businesses in constant debt to loansharks. That same year, she convinced her husband to move the family to another village and joined the Grameen Bank. A neighbor told her ``We're all poor--or at least we all were when we joined. I'll stick up for you because I know you'll succeed in business.'' Well, she was elected secretary of her Grameen Bank group and repaid a loan she received to start a chicken and duck raising business. Grameen then gave her a second loan and, today, her business is growing and providing for her family's basic needs. A continent away in Ethiopia another woman, Alemnesh Geressu, her landless husband, and their seven children were also struggling. For several years, she bought grain from a trader and sold it in the local market. However, most of her profit went back to the lender who charged more than 10 percent interest per month. With loans from a Catholic Relief Services Program, she was able to buy grain at a lower price from nearby farmers and make higher profits. Her business grew dramatically and she now sells a local beverage, grows vegetables and even raised a cow--all in addition to her grain marketing activities. Alemnesh now pays back her loan at a commercial rate that is ten times less than she used to pay to the local money lenders. She has enough to feed her family well and to send two of her children to school. Alemnesh says she now has ``more confidence and skills in myself and I wish the program could accommodate more women to improve their lives.'' More families need to be touched by such programs. Just last year, at the 1997 Global Microcredit Summit, donor nations and international institutions established the goal of reaching 100 million of the world's poorest families, especially the women in those families with microcredit loans by the year 2005. I believe that this bill, the Microcredit for Self- Sufficiency Act of 1998, puts the United States on track to provide its share of funding to help achieve this worthwhile goal. This bill authorizes not less than $160 million in Fiscal Year 1999 for the United States Agency for International Development's microenterprise program. To ensure that microcredit assistance goes to those most in need of assistance, the bill targets at least half of these resources to institutions serving the world's poorest families, with loans under $300. Further, the bill channels a larger proportion of microcredit assistance through effective nongovernmental organizations that promote the development and expansion of microcredit programs worldwide. Mr. President, microcredit programs enjoy broad bipartisan support not only because they help millions to work their way out of poverty but because they also recycle foreign aid dollars through loan repayments. Microcredit programs are self-sustainable, can be replicated, and are powerful vehicles for social development. This bill would increase the number of families that have access to such programs. Microcedit programs would be raised to a higher priority among our nation's foreign aid initiatives. And the investments called for in this bill will help bring the possibility of financial independence to millions of potential entrepreneurs who struggle to survive on less than $1 a day.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for their support of my legislation, S. 1531 and S. 1532, introduced on behalf of the towns of Tremont and East Boothbay, Maine. S. 1531 deauthorizes certain portions of the navigational project for Bass Harbor, and S. 1532 deauthorizes the final portions of East Boothbay Harbor. 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 was happy to do this on their behalf. The Selectmen, Town Manager, and Harbor Committee will now 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. S. 1532 deauthorizes 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 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. I am especially pleased for the towns of Tremont and East Boothbay, with whom I have worked in the long deauthorization process, so as to allow them to continue with much needed harbor development. I want to thank Senator Chafee and his Environment and Public Works Committee for moving these bills out of committee and to the Senate floor. When passed by the House and signed into law, the bills will allow the towns to get on with much needed economic development in their harbors.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to address the Senate this morning with respect to the national tobacco policy legislation that has been on the floor this week. I hope in the final analysis we will be able to come to a common agreement and find common ground on this critical issue and legislation. Clearly, the significance of this issue and the promise of related legislation cannot be overstated with respect to the fact that it certainly could improve the health of our Nation's children. As a Member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I had the opportunity to work on the original legislation that was reported out of the committee by a 19-1 vote. The committee voted overwhelmingly for the bill because we thought it was important and necessary to move the debate forward on this critical issue. There is no question that the bill which is now on the floor of the Senate is very different from the legislation that was considered in the Commerce Committee, where we began the process of defining and refining the issue, and knew full well that amendments would be offered on the floor to improve it and to reflect the interests and the desires of the Members of this body. Unfortunately, what ultimately occurred is that we had a total rewrite of the bill through the White House. It is not unusual to have the White House involved and be an integral part of the discussion in terms of shaping legislation. But, ultimately, the bill was significantly rewritten in most pieces. I can't say it wasn't improved in some places, but other areas raise significant questions. It is one thing to amend a bill and change it on the floor; it is quite another to have this issue altered in a way that is outside of the scope and purview of the committee, and which has now resulted in some of the problems that have contributed to the delay of this legislation and its passage. But be that as it may, I hope in the final analysis we don't overlook the reason why this legislation is on the floor of the U.S. Senate, what brought us to this point, why this legislation was crafted, and what we hope to accomplish from the passage, ultimately, of this legislation. First and foremost, we have to remember this legislation was the result of a settlement reached by the tobacco industry and 40 states attorneys general across the country more than 11 months ago. And the bottom line is that the proposed settlement would not have been reached if it weren't for one simple truth: tobacco products have been killing and continue to kill 420,000 Americans each and every year--and every day, 3,000 children become addicted to tobacco and one-third will eventually die as a result of tobacco-related disease. If it weren't for this simple truth, the tobacco industry would not have been subjected to years and years of lawsuits and litigation, and this comprehensive settlement would not have been reached. And the fact is, if not for this simple truth, the industry would not have settled with States such as Minnesota recently to the tune of $6 billion, and three other States across this country. And that is why they were interested in reaching this agreement, because they knew what the truth was. And the most insidious aspect of this whole tobacco debate is the fact that this dangerous and addictive product was marketed to children. In listening to the debate this past week and hearing the many arguments that have been put forward from divergent points of view, I believe that we cannot afford to forget, nor can we overlook the fact, that this product was deliberately, in a calculated fashion, targeted to young people and teens--even to children as young as 11-year-olds. This product was marketed to individuals who were not old enough to vote, not old enough to drink, not old enough to enlist in the military, not old enough to make any of the life-altering decisions that should be made by adults, and not old enough, ironically, to even purchase this product legally. By the way, these facts aren't just based on hypothetical views or assumptions or conjecture; these are based on more than 40,000 documents that have been unveiled during the course of recent litigation and in crafting the proposed settlement. When you look at the documents, it provides a disturbing glimpse into the mindset and tactics of the tobacco industry. From this paper trail, we have learned of repeated efforts by the industry to manipulate scientific research, racially stereotype minorities in marketing plans, contrive the nicotine levels in cigarettes, and play down the risks of smoking. They even demonstrated the manner in which they studied the smoking habits of teenagers, to the extent that they would exploit the teen market so they would have the lifelong support of a group of Americans. They even considered ways to make cigarettes taste better for teens. So this was a very deliberate, calculated effort to hook kids on tobacco. The thousands and thousands of documents outline this effort. That is the crux of this issue. This is not to say that Americans didn't know that smoking cigarettes was harmful; of course, they did. The question is, ``Did the industry deliberately contrive the nicotine levels to make it addictive and then to attract young people so they would smoke throughout their lifetime?'' For the answer, listen to some of the industry's own documents. ``The basis of our business is the high school students,'' said one memo. Another one said, ``It is a well-known fact that teenagers like sweet products. Honey might be considered.'' Another one said, ``If our company is to survive and prosper in the long run, we must get our share of the youth market.'' Another memo said, ``. . . to ensure increased and longer-term growth . . . the brand must increase its share penetration among the 14-24 age group . . . which represents tomorrow's cigarette business.'' Another one said, ``Today's teenager is tomorrow's potential regular customer.'' So these are glaring demonstrations of unscrupulous and unethical conduct on the part of companies. And that is what brings us to the floor of the Senate. The industry discovered and knew the truth, and they could not escape their past practices. And that is why they entered into a settlement with 40 attorneys general. While last June's proposed settlement may have been the catalyst for comprehensive tobacco legislation, it did not mean that Congress could not change that settlement. We were not a party to those negotiations, but we have a right to make changes, and it had to come to Congress. And what has been the result of these industry documents and their intent to market an addictive product to young people in America? This has been the result: More than 5 million children under the age of 18, alive today, will eventually die from smoking-related diseases unless current rates are reversed. Approximately 4.1 million kids age 12 to 17 are current smokers. Almost 90 percent of adult smokers began at or before age 18. Among high school seniors who have ever used smokeless tobacco, almost three-fourths began by the ninth grade. And 3,000 of our children will become addicted to this deadly product every day. That is what this is all about. That is the debate. That is the heart of this issue, Mr. President. In my State of Maine, we have one of the highest rates of teen smoking in America and we have the highest rate of smoking for individuals between the ages of 18 and 30. In fact, a full 38 percent of high school students in Maine currently smoke cigarettes, and 16 percent of high school boys use smokeless tobacco. That is what has happened. Smoking is habit-forming and 35 percent of males between the ages of 18 to 34 reported smoking cigarettes in 1996. That is the result of what we are talking about. That is why we are here in the U.S. Senate debating this comprehensive framework. If this habit was harmless, we would not be here today. But tobacco is not harmless, and we know it. Furthermore, this harm has been spread by an industry that has marketed to young people, which has resulted in a senseless loss of life. Now, we have the responsibility to take action. For those who oppose doing anything, regardless of what the content of this legislation is, I say to them: What is the alternative? What else will we do here in the U.S. Senate? The bottom line is that this is our only chance. We only have one opportunity and it is before the U.S. Senate. It is a historic opportunity to bring to an end these past practices and, more importantly, to help young people in America so they don't become addicted to this deadly tobacco product for the rest of their lives. That is what this debate is all about. I hope the essence of this issue doesn't get lost as we look at it from a variety of dimensions, because there is no possibility of ever dealing with this kind of framework ever again. This is our chance once and forever. So I hope that once we get to the point of having gone through all of the amendments, the debate and discussion, it doesn't defeat the ultimate passage of comprehensive tobacco legislation. Those objections cannot override this one important national interest, which is to change the tobacco culture in America, and to hopefully stop young people from smoking, or help them never to start in the first place. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent?

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator from Wyoming.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend morning business for 10 minutes following the current order.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997. Last week, our nation's intelligence apparatus was surprised by the Indian government's decision to test a hydrogen bomb. Pakistan may follow suit with a retaliatory test. The fact that last week's test caught our intelligence community by surprise raises serious questions about our ability to monitor such developments. However, while the prospect of a nuclear arms race on the Asian subcontinent could threaten our long-term security interests, the United States enjoys productive relations with the two regional adversaries. Iran, however, is neither a democracy nor a friend. While the new President, Mohammed Khatemi, is seen by some as a ``moderate,'' his government continues a twenty year tradition of bitter hostility towards the United States. Iran remains opposed to the peace process, its role in the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996 is still not known, and it is still vigorously pursuing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear capability. We must not be caught off guard with Iran as we have been with India and Pakistan. When this measure was introduced last fall, I had hoped that events would prove it unnecessary. I furthermore remained optimistic that the meetings of the Vice President with then Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin would have convinced Russia of the seriousness of the issue of Iran's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. I had hoped the Administration would have done a better job of convincing the Russians of the seriousness of this matter. I had hoped that the Russian government would have realized that whatever financial benefits they get from such help to Iran are far outweighed by the loss of investment from the United States. Even more importantly, I had hoped that Russia would realize that such assistance to Iran does not contribute to political stability in such a turbulent part of the world. Unfortunately, none of these developments have come to pass. I was disturbed to learn that Iranian nuclear officials just visited Moscow to view a demonstration of gas centrifuge technology--which if successfully mastered will provide Iran the easiest type of material to use in a nuclear weapon. If such a sale occurs it would be a gross violation of a promise made by President Yeltsin to the President in May 1995 when the Russians agreed not to sell centrifuges to Iran. This follows the sale of a radioactive gas called tritium which can be used to increase the size of nuclear warheads and that a second sale is being discussed. In addition to this development, I was disturbed to learn how close Iran came to obtaining some 22 tons of missile-grade stainless steel from Russia as reported in the April 25th edition of the New York Times. While I do not believe Russia supports the further development of weapons of mass destruction, I am concerned about the Yeltsin government's ability to stem the proliferation of dangerous weapons technology and equipment. When this shipment of steel can be halted by customs officers in Azerbaijan but not in Russia, we are entitled to ask serious questions about Russia's ability to cooperate in limiting the global spread of weapons components. Mr. President, I understand that Iran has begun a program to build a missile called the Shahab 3 which has an 800 mile range. This range is double the capacity of a SCUD missile and is long enough to reach Israel and Saudi Arabia. This type of missile would give Iran more power with which to threaten the West's strategic interests in the Middle East only seven years after we fought a war with Iraq--another state that may still be trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow Iran, just as President Bush did not allow Iraq, to assert control over the majority of the world's oil supply. Mr. President, we should not view this bill as an anti-Russian statement. This bill does not detract from our support for Russian democracy or Moscow's efforts to build a strong free-market economy. However, it does reflect our concern over the actions of many firms in Russia that have an interest in trading with either rogue states or nations that are inclined to develop the ability to deploy weapons of mass destruction. Under this legislation, Russian firms will have to choose with whom they want to do business--the United States or an Iranian regime that has yet to show the moderation promised by the election of President Khatemi. Since persuasion and shared intelligence with Russia may not be sufficient to stop Iran from acquiring dangerous weaponry, this bill has become regrettable but necessary. I urge my colleagues to support it today before this menacing military threat from Iran grows even larger tomorrow. Thank you and I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank Senator D'Amato for his leadership. I urge the Senate to move this legislation forward. We will have another day to raise the issues raised by the Senator from Massachusetts.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my good friend and colleague from West Virginia Jay Rockefeller, in offering the Consumer Protection Act as an amendment to the Consumer Anti-Slamming bill. Just as the slamming bill is designed to protect consumers from unscrupulous phone companies that change a customer's phone service without consent, this amendment will protect consumers from misleading or inaccurate billing practices by phone companies. Therefore, I urge that my colleges support this pro-consumer amendment that complements the underlying pro-consumer Anti-Slamming Act. Mr. President, our nation's $260 billion telecommunications industry is undergoing a period of rapid growth and change. This change is being driven by the enactment and progressive implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996--a law that is gradually shifting the industry from being one that is heavily-regulated to one that is open and competitive. As would be expected for an industry of this size, the transition from a regulated environment to a competitive environment has not been entirely smooth, nor has it been as rapid as many of us would prefer. To date, there have been countless proceeding at the FCC to restructure the way that services are delivered to consumers and the way that telecommunications companies pay each other for these services. In response to these restructuring efforts, there have been a variety lawsuits filed in court by telecommunications companies, and members of Congress have weighed-in when they believe the new rules do not accurately reflect the intent of the law. And--as would be expected in an emerging competitive market--there is non-stop haggling between the telecommunications companies that are now able to tread on each other's turf after years of being statutorily limited to their own market niche. But don't get me wrong . . . that's not a bad thing--that's what competition is all about. Mr. President, during this time of rapid transition and daunting change, it is critical that we not forget the individuals for whom the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was crafted in the first place: the American consumers. Afterall, this landmark law was not passed because Congress simply wanted to deregulate an industry--rather, it was passed because competition will bring consumers a wide array of new and advanced telecommunications services at lower prices. The amendment we are offering today is specifically designed to protect consumers during this time of transition in the telecommunications industry. Specifically, the Consumer Protection Act will require ``truth-in-billing''--a guarantee to consumers that what they see on their phone bills is thorough and accurate. Mr. President, as my colleagues have undoubtedly heard from their constituents--and may be experiencing themselves--there is a great deal of confusion being generated by new line-item charges that have been added to phone bills in recent months. Since January, many telephone companies have started to place new line-item charges on customer phone bills for a variety of purposes and under a variety of names, including ``national access charges,'' ``universal service charges,'' or both. While the descriptions for these charges vary, the central theme is that these new fees are being imposed because of recent federal actions stemming from the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In response to these new charges, telephone customers are understandably confused and angry, and want to know why Congress would pass a law--and the President would sign a law--that imposed a host of new costs on them with no apparent benefits. They were told that this legislation would bring competition and lower prices, but all they see is new charges on their phone bills. They want to know what happened to the benefits of deregulation! Mr. President, customers deserve an answer to these questions and they deserve to know that what they see on their phone bills is accurate. And the simple fact is that the implementation of the Telecommunications Act has brought--and will continue to bring-- countless benefits to consumers, and they deserve to know about them. For instance, in July 1997, access charges--which are the fees paid by long distance companies to local phone companies for use of their networks--were reduced by $1.7 billion. The long distance companies state that these reductions have been passed on to consumers in the form of reduced rates, and I won't dispute their contention. The problem is that their customers don't know the first thing about this federal action to benefit customers--all they know is that new line- items for various charges prescribed to the federal government have been added to their bills! By the same token, consumers have no idea that the phone companies stand to reap substantial benefits as new markets are opened for competition. As companies are allowed to enter the markets that were previously closed to them, those that are competitive will reap substantial profits that can greatly benefit their customers--but you'd never know this from reading a company's bill. To remove the confusion that these line-items have generated--and to ensure that companies exercise full disclosure on the impact of deregulation--the amendment we are offering does three things. First, it directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to investigate the billing practices of the telecommunications industry to ensure that all fees are being fairly described on bills. If any company is found to be using misleading billing practices, these agencies would be directed to consider disciplinary actions against that company. Second, the bill ensures that if a company puts a new line-item charge on a phone bill that are attributed to federal actions, it must also include line-items that delineate the benefits of federal actions as well. Customers deserve to know the whole story when it comes to federal regulatory actions--not just the side of the story that is in the company's best interests. Third, to ensure that the federal regulator of telephone service has all relevant documents available for review, the bill requires that companies submit the same financial disclosure forms to the FCC that they now submit to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This requirement won't impose a new, excessive burden on phone companies-- rather, it simply requires that they make a photocopy of the forms that are already being sent to the SEC and mail them to the FCC. Overall, this bill ensures that accurate information is being depicted on phone bills--and that customers are told the whole story about federal actions, not just the side that companies would like to tell. The bottom line is that changes are occurring as part of the transition to a more competitive telecommunications market that will bring substantial benefits to consumers and phone companies alike--but some companies would only like to tell their customers half of the story. That's simply not fair. The amendment that we are offering is fair. It is a fair for companies, and fair for consumers. Of critical importance, our amendment does not re-regulate the telecommunications industry--the companies will still decide for themselves if they want to use line items. Our amendment simply ensures that if a company does want to use a line-item for costs, it also will include line-items for benefits. In addition, it ensures that the billing practices of companies are properly examined and improper practices are eliminated. I would like to thank my friend from West Virginia for offering this amendment today, and urge that my colleagues support this bipartisan, pro-consumer amendment.