Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chairman for clarifying this important issue and for crafting language that reflects this intent. I am very appreciative for your leadership and efforts to curb the practice of slamming, and commend the Senator for crafting legislation that will forcefully attack this growing problem.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, S. 1618 is a well-crafted bill that is designed to prevent the unauthorized transferring of a customer's phone carrier. This is accomplished through a variety of provisions, including the threat of strong penalties on telephone companies that engage in slamming. While I strongly believe that the penalties established in this legislation should be fully-enforced, I would like to clarify the type of conduct that these penalties are being targeted to address. Specifically, is it the Chairman's intent that the significant financial penalties contained in Section 1(f) be imposed for all cases of unauthorized carrier changes, including changes that are accidental or innocent mistakes, such as when an order to change service providers in improperly keyed-in by a customer service agent? Or are these penalties designed to address cases of slamming that involve willful or intentional misconduct on the part of companies? Mr. McCain. I appreciate the questions of the Senator from Maine, and believe it is important that the intent of this legislation be fully understood. This bill is designed to ensure that companies are deterred from the reprehensible practice of slamming, and that harsh penalties are imposed as a form of punishment if the practice is undertaken by an unscrupulous company. However, the penalties in this bill are not intended to be used for cases of innocent or accidental changes of carriers, such as the situation described by my colleague, Senator Snowe--and the language of this bill has been crafted accordingly. Specifically, the bill provides that the Commission can waive the minimum penalties if they determine that there are mitigating circumstances, which would include cases of innocent or accidental changes of carriers.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the legislation now before the Senate--S. 1618, the Consumer Anti-Slamming Act--and to urge for its adoption and enactment. This legislation--which was crafted by the distinguished Chairman of the Commerce Committee, John McCain, and the Ranking Member of the Committee, Ernest Hollings--will help eliminate a reprehensible practice of unscrupulous telephone companies, and I congratulate them for their leadership on this issue. As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I am pleased that my friend and colleague, Chairman McCain, has moved rapidly to address the slamming epidemic that is occurring in Maine by bringing this legislation to the floor of the Senate. In addition, I would also like to thank my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, for highlighting this issue by holding oversight hearings in her capacity as Chair of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Permanent Investigations, including a recent hearing in the State of Maine--and she has also offered legislation that is designed to combat slamming. In case there is any doubt about the importance of this issue in Maine, the involvement of both Senators should put that to rest! Mr. President, as many of my colleagues are aware, ``slamming'' is a term that has been used to describe any practice that changes a consumer's long-distance carrier without the consumer's knowledge or consent. A variety of tactics and techniques can be used to accomplish this goal, including vague or inaccurate phone solicitations; unsolicited ``welcome packages'' that look like an advertisement but automatically lead to a consumer changing phone companies unless the individual returns a rejection card; and ``drawings'' for giveaways that also serve as a means of unwittingly changing services. Regardless of the tactic used to slam a customer, the bottom line is that it's an unfair and illegal practice--and it's one that must be brought to a halt. Mr. President, phone customers expect high-quality phone service for a fair price. If a phone company is going to ``reach out and touch someone,'' it must be done legally and with fairness to the customer. Consumers who are slammed often receive lower-quality service or higher rates, and sometimes they are not even aware that they have been slammed until they get their bills. This is an outrageous practice and I think we can all agree that its demise is long overdue. Last year, in my home state of Maine, the number of slamming complaints doubled to a total of 1,000 between 1996 and 1997. Nationwide, more than 20,000 consumers filed slamming complaints with the FCC, the largest category of complaints the agency received. In 1996, it received more than 16,000 total slamming complaints. As a result of these complaints, the FCC has taken enforcement action against 15 companies for slamming violations over the past two years, while assessing more than $1 million in forfeitures and consent decrees with another $500,000 in additional penalties pending. Mr. President, as these numbers clearly indicate, this is a serious problem that is only going to get worse. In particular, the threat exists that--as competition develops in other communications markets-- slamming could extend into new services and become an even more onerous consumer problem if it is left unchecked. As has been indicated, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) already has the authority to combat this practice by assessing fines against telephone carriers that slam. But with a 25 percent increase in the number of slamming complaints that were filed in just the past year--and even with the level of fines and penalties that have already been imposed on companies--it is obvious that the FCC's current approach is not working. And it is for this reason that the legislation before this body is so critical. Mr. President, S. 1618 will put this reprehensible practice to an end by providing definitive procedures for telephone companies to follow in changing a customers's telephone service; giving federal and non- federal authorities the power to impose tough sanctions on companies that are guilty of slamming; and providing measures to ensure that slamming victims are fully-compensated. Specifically, to ensure that changes in phone service are made in a verifiable manner, the bill requires phone companies to obtain written, verbal, or electronic verification from a consumer who is changing providers. To ensure that customer complaints are dealt with in a timely manner, carriers accused of slamming will be required to defend their actions in no more than 120 days, and the FCC will have no more than 150 days to resolve any outstanding disputes. If slamming has occurred, the bill gives the FCC the authority to provide compensatory or punitive damages to consumers that companies would be required to pay within 90 days. In addition, provide a strong disincentive to potential slammers, the FCC would be required to impose fines on phone companies that are guilty of slamming of at least $40,000 for a first-time offense and $150,000 for repeat offenses. And If a company refuses to pay these fines, the bill provides that the FCC will also have the authority to prosecute slammers. Finally, if a consumer wishes to pursue redress through means other than the FCC, this bill allows consumers to pursue their grievances in court through state class-action lawsuits instead of through the FCC. And in the event a specific state does not believe these penalties are strong enough, the bill specifically retains the rights of each state to impose stiffer sanctions. This bill and the provisions it contains are based on common sense and good policy, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Mr. President, while this bill is a very sound approach to addressing the slamming epidemic, there is one additional technique that consumers already have at their disposal to prevent slamming from occurring, and I believe we should seek to fully-protect this consumer option in this bill. Specifically, if customers are concerned that they will be unwittingly tricked--or unknowingly forced--into changing their phone company, they can now ``freeze'' into place the long distance carrier of their choice at the local phone company. As a result, no order to change phone companies can be completed without the express, direct authorization of the customer to the local phone company. To ensure that this option is in no way impeded in the future, I have prepared an amendment that would ensure that no subsequent action by the FCC can be undertaken to restrict or impede the customer's ability to ``freeze'' in place the carrier of their choice. I understand that this amendment is acceptable to the manager's of the bill, and has now been included in the manager's amendment. Therefore, I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking member for addressing this issue and accepting my provision. Mr. President, the bottom line is, slamming is a serious crime, and this is a serious solution. Companies engaged in slamming will no longer be able to hide behind the anonymity of the phone lines. Phone companies and their customers should reach agreements on phone services, but slamming destroys that relationship. Therefore, this bill will restore an element of trust that has been lost through this abhorrent practice. Mr. President, slamming is nothing less than high-tech extortion, and the law must be changed to deal with this new criminal threat, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you. Mr. President, I thank Senator D'Amato for yielding me such time. I want to applaud him for his leadership on this very important issue for women in America. And I thank my colleague, Senator Feinstein, for her leadership as well and commitment that she has demonstrated on this issue. Mr. President, I regret that we have reached a point here where we cannot pass one bill because it is being held hostage to another. No one disagrees with the Senator from Massachusetts in terms of the importance of some of the issues that he has raised with respect to a Patients' bill of rights. But this legislation should not be held hostage to that legislation. We all know that there are many questions with respect to the approach that he has taken--relevant questions, understandable concerns--that should be appropriately discussed and explored in the committee process and then ultimately here on the floor. But this should not hold up this particular bill. And Senator D'Amato is absolutely correct, we should move forward, because this has strong bipartisan support. There is not a Senator on the floor who would not support this legislation. So the women of America should not be held hostage because of internal divisions, because of parliamentary maneuvers, because of legislative gridlock. This legislation has the support of Democrats as well as Republicans. We have 180,000 women every year who are diagnosed with breast cancer. One in eight women in their lifetime will be detected with breast cancer. We have now discovered that, in many instances, mastectomies are being performed on an outpatient basis, and we need to take action to prevent that. Mastectomies are very complicated surgical procedures. There is no way that that is a decision that should be made by a bureaucrat; but rather, the length of a woman's stay in a hospital, how that procedure will be handled, should be determined by her as well as her doctor. Those are the only two individuals who ought to be making that decision. It should not be a bureaucrat's bottom line. We have found time and time again women who have had to endure this procedure on an outpatient basis. The physical scars left by mastectomy, which can be complicated and difficult to care for, often require supervision. Women prematurely released may not have the information they need, let alone the care. And dangerous complications have arisen hours after the operation. And all of this is occurring within the context of a traumatic circumstance, and that is having a mastectomy. We want to make sure that this decision is made appropriately within the confines of medical supervision and medical providers. We have also found that breast reconstructive surgery is considered cosmetic surgery. Well, it is not. Forty-three percent of women who want to undergo breast reconstructive surgery cannot because it is deemed cosmetic. And that is wrong. Breast reconstructive surgery is designed to restore a woman's wholeness. Fortunately, my State has passed legislation to guard against that and to require health insurance companies to consider it as breast reconstructive surgery. But unfortunately for those who are employed by those who are self- insured, they do not receive this kind of coverage. That is why this legislation that is offered by Senator D'Amato is so essential. We cannot allow women to have to endure this kind of decisionmaking under the most arduous circumstances because of the indecision and the difficulties that have arisen here. This legislation had a hearing back in November of 1997 before the Senate Finance Committee. We are entitled to get this legislation through the legislative process. In fact, the President, during his State of the Union Address in January of 1997, had a physician in the gallery who drew attention to the need to change the guidelines that had encouraged outpatient masectomies. Therefore, he called on Congress in January of 1997 to pass this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Agricultural Research Conference Report. The bill, S. 1150 reauthorizes our agricultural research programs and provides $600 million in funding on a competitive grant basis for new and alternative uses of agricultural commodities and products, natural resources management, farm efficiency and profitability, agriculture biotechnology, and food safety, technology and nutrition. This is good news for our scientists and the agriculture community in Maine. They know their chances of receiving more competitive research funding are excellent because they know they can compete head to head with agriculture researchers from all around the country. This bill gives them that opportunity. As the Chairman of the Committee is aware, I do have some concerns with provisions in this conference report that were not part of either the House or Senate passed bills. In addition to the food stamp provisions, which have been widely discussed on the floor today, I am concerned with addition of the research title of the Northern Forest Stewardship Act that was included in conference. I voted to recommit the report to the conference committee in hopes that these two provisions, which are unrelated to the important agricultural research, would be removed from the report. Since the vote to recommit failed, I will vote for the report, and will continue to work with Chairman Lugar to address my concerns. I have been working with the Chairman and Subcommittee Chairman Santorum to obtain a field hearing in Maine on the Northern Forest Stewardship Act (NFSA) before any action was taken by the full Senate. I requested this hearing because many people in Maine are both interested and concerned with the potential impact of this bill on the economies of their rural communities. I was dismayed, therefore, when I learned that the research title from the NFSA bill was included in the Agriculture Research conference report. Also the language inserted in the report does not include the provision which requires that a governor's request is required before federal assistance can be made available to the state. This language is fundamental because it involves an elected state official in the process, ensuring that the state controls its land use decisions. I will be working to restore the role of the states in making the request for federal assistance, and I thank the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee for his offer of assistance in this matter. Historically, our state has been defined by our agriculture--from the natural resources of its extensive forests, to the potatoes crops of Aroostook County and to the Wild blueberries of the Down East area of Maine. The Wild lowbush blueberry is unique to Maine, and one of only three berries native to the U.S. that are utilized commercially. Virtually all of the commercial U.S. lowbush blueberries are produced in our state, with 99 percent of the blueberries being processed and used as a nutritious ingredient in many food products throughout the country. The industry is concentrated in the Down East region of Maine, which is an economically depressed region that relies heavily on natural resource based jobs, such as those in the Wild blueberry industry. An increase in competitive research grants funding will help to continue a series of research projects that target critical aspects of lowbush blueberry culture and processing challenges, and transferring research solutions to the growers and processors. Much of the research completed to date provides techniques for a sustainable approach to production with environmental benefits. Research objectives include implementation of a research program that is designed to ensure a consistently productive, high quality, low input crop that is successfully marketed in the U.S. and worldwide, with ongoing projects for such as pesticide reduction/efficacy, pollination alternatives, effects and reduction of low temperature injury, micro nutrient fertility requirements, and fruit quality improvements. The bill also funds the federal crop insurance program that will give a healthy measure of peace of mind to Maine's wild blueberry industry, who, until recently, could not participate in the program. This report will allow the wild blueberry industry to renew their contracts for crop insurance, giving them protection against an economically devastating total crop loss caused by circumstances beyond their control. Research for the potato industry is being conducted on new chemical- resistant strains of late blight, now detected in virtually every major potato growing state, and the last blight fungus is quickly developing into the most serious threat to potato production in the United States. History reminds of us the great potato famine in Ireland in the last century caused by late blight, and today's research helps us to never again realize such an devastating experience. In Maine, late blight has already resulted in millions of dollars in crop losses since 1993, which is not only a concern for our largest agriculture industry, but for potato states throughout the eastern U.S. since Maine is the primary source of seed potatoes for these states. Comprehensive late blight Integrated Pest Management research programs through current grants and future competitive research grants offered in the bill before us today will continue to prevent a full- scale epidemic from occurring in our region. Needless to say, this is one initiative in which a modest federal investment will help prevent a very costly crop disaster. The Hatch Act and the McIntire-Stennis Act are the cornerstones of the cooperative/federal/state research effort that has made the U.S. agriculture and forestry industries the world's leaders. Under these programs, and under broad federal guidelines, states can continue to further identify their local research priorities. Additional competitive research grants for the McIntire-Stennis Program will provide continued funding to 62 universities nationwide, including the University of Maine, that conduct research, teaching, and extension programs in forestry and related natural resource areas. The research focuses on the biology of forest organisms, forest ecosystem health, management of forests for wood, and forest product development. Each dollar of McIntire-Stennis funding is now matched with five dollars from nonfederal sources for these university programs. Wood utilization research contributes to research at six land-grant Regional Research Centers, including Maine. The work conducted at these universities specializes in the efficient use of wood resources, developing new structural applications for wood, exploiting wood chemical extractives for safer and less expensive alternatives to current pesticides, preservatives, and adhesives, and exploring the pharmacological properties of trees. Wood utilization research is particularly important to forest-based economies in rural areas. In Maine, the annual total contribution in forest products manufacturing is over $5 billion. Mr. President, our agricultural communities, some of the best stewards of our land, produce the safest, the most nutritious and reasonably priced food products in the entire world. Furthering the competitive grants research system through the Agricultural Research bill before us will go a long way towards the continued improvement of our nation's bountiful harvests and the continued health and productivity of our nation's forests.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am offering a resolution today which expresses the sense of the Senate that the United States, at the next meeting of the International Whaling Commission in two weeks, should remain firmly opposed to commercial whaling and should oppose so-called ``scientific whaling.'' This resolution is very timely and important. As we work here in the Senate today, representatives of nations from around the globe are preparing for a meeting in Oman later this month that could determine the fate of the world's whales. The International Whaling Commission, to which the U.S. and many other countries belong, will be meeting there to consider proposals to end the existing global moratorium on commercial whaling. I think that the adoption of any such proposals by the IWC would mark a major setback in the cause of whale conservation. It is imperative that the United States remain firm in its opposition to any proposals to resume commercial whaling, and that we, as a nation, continue to speak out against this practice. Commercial whaling has been prohibited for many species for more than sixty years, but whaling for some species persisted into the 1980's. Despite the partial protections in place for some species, however, commercially targeted whale stocks continued to decline and the IWC declared a global moratorium on all commercial whaling which went into effect in 1986. The United States was a leader in the effort to establish the moratorium, and since then we have consistently provided a strong voice against commercial whaling and have worked to uphold the moratorium. In addition, we have worked through the IWC process to establish sanctuaries around the world to permanently protect whales. Unfortunately, Norway, Japan, Russia and other countries have begun an aggressive campaign to eliminate the moratorium and to return to the days when whales were treated as commodities. In fact, Norway has begun killing hundreds of whales a year in defiance of the moratorium. Despite international efforts to protect and rebuild whale stocks, the number of whales harvested has increased in recent years, tripling since the implementation of the global moratorium in 1986. This is a dangerous trend that does not show signs of stopping. It is also time to close a loophole in the IWC rules used by nations to conduct so-called scientific whaling to kill whales without regard to the moratorium or established whale sanctuaries. The practice of scientific lethal whaling is outdated and the value of the data of such studies has been questioned by many scientists who work on the same population dynamics questions as those who harvest whales in the name of science. Japan is the most prominent practitioner of scientific whaling, killing 400 to 500 whales annually. Although the scientific merits of Japan's program are dubious at best, the meat taken from whales killed in the name of science is processed and sold in the marketplace. Also, Japan has reportedly killed many whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary established by the IWC around Antarctica. In response to Japan's practices, the Scientific Committee of the IWC has repeatedly passed resolutions calling for the cessation of lethal scientific whaling, particularly that occurring in designated whale sanctuaries. The resolution that I am offering today reaffirms the United States' strong support for a ban on commercial whaling at a time when our negotiators at the IWC most need that support. It also addresses the dubious practice of scientific whaling by stating that the U.S. should oppose scientific whaling unless it is specifically authorized by the Scientific Committee of the IWC. Mr. President, here at home we work very, very hard to protect whales in U.S. waters, particularly those considered threatened or endangered. Our own laws and regulations give whales one of the highest standards of protection in the world, and as a result, our own citizens are subject to strict rules designed to protect against the accidental taking or even harassment of whales. Intentional killing, including commercial whaling, is, of course, completely prohibited. Given what is asked of our citizens to protect against even accidental injury to whales here in the U.S., it would be grossly unfair to them if we retreated in any way from our position opposing commercial, intentional whaling in other countries. Whales migrate throughout the world's oceans, and as we protect whales in our own waters, so should we act to protect them internationally. Indeed, the sacrifices that we make here at home to protect whales would be seriously undermined if those same whales could be killed by commercial hunters the moment they leave the jurisdiction of the U.S. Whales are among the most intelligent animals on Earth, and they play a critically important role in the marine ecosystem. Yet, there is still much about them that we do not know. Resuming the intentional, large-scale harvest of whales is irresponsible, and it could have ecological consequences that we cannot predict. While the IWC was able to implement the global commercial moratorium, it has not had the opportunity to conduct thorough and updated population assessments to determine the status of whale stocks. Therefore, it is premature to even consider easing the current conservation measures. Mr. President, the right policy is to protect whales across the globe, to oppose the resumption of commercial whaling, and to halt the unscientific practice of scientific whaling. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the legislation before the Senate--H.R. 2676, the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. I beieve it is vital that this critically-needed legislation be passed by the Congress and enacted by the President as rapidly as possible. Mr. President, Congress has been working to reform many aspects of the Federal government and its programs over the past several years, including welfare, Medicare, and telecommunications laws. And now, with April 15--the deadline for filing tax returns--only a few weeks past, I can think of no better time for Congress to continue its reform efforts than with a substantial overhaul of the IRS. While reforming our tax system is an idea that has been bandied about for years--and will likely continue to be a topic of great interest in the months and years ahead--at the very least we have an obligation in this Congress to address the abuse of our nation's citizens by the agency that is responsible for enforcing federal tax laws: the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. President, the hearings that were conducted in the Senate Finance Committee over the past nine months have provided a chilling reminder of how government power can run amok. Tax files are used for information on boyfriends of IRS employees. IRS managers are trained that it is permissible to lie or mislead the public. Employees are evaluated on statistics based on seizures of personal property and finances. Some business owners are allowed to make monthly payments on delinquent employment taxes while others are forced into bankruptcy-- the decision is arbitrary and up to IRS management. And IRS agents that seek to report improper tactics and practices face demotion or outright replacement. While I wish that the horror stories told by the Finance Committee witnesses were isolated incidents, the real-life stories I have heard from constituents in Maine only reinforce the fact that these problems are occurring nationwide. Take for example the family in Lebanon, Maine, who was audited for the year 1993 after they saw their convenience store, home, and all their financial records destroyed by a 1994 fire. While they originally had no problem with the audit and anticipated a relatively brief process, it is now four years later and the IRS has finally just completed the 1993 audit. One can only imagine how long--and at what cost--the 1994 and 1995 audits they are being subjected to will last. Or consider the story of a sheet metal company employee in Maine who was taking money on the side for jobs--which meant that his employer wasn't being paid for the contracts that they thought were outstanding. As a result, when it came time for the business to pay their taxes, they didn't have the funds. Negotiations between the IRS and the company broke down, one thing led to another, and the company was behind to the point where the IRS took everything from the company's bank account. The result: the company was unable to pay its employees, it was seized by the IRS, and it was sold at auction to cover the taxes. Finally there is the waitress who, over the years, didn't pay all the taxes she should have on the tips she made. She was reported, found guilty, and it was estimated that she owed more than $100,000 in back taxes, penalties and interest payments. Fair enough, you might say, except for one twist: her husband never had a clue that his wife was cheating the IRS. But he's been paying the price ever since. He lost his home, his vehicles, and his camp in order to help pay his wife's debt. In the meantime, they divorced--and to this day the wife does not work because, if she did, she would still owe the IRS. Instead, she has remarried and is supported by her new husband, while the ex-husband remains responsible for the debt he never knew a thing about. Now, I'm not saying that the IRS doesn't do a good job in many--if not most--cases. They have a difficult and unpopular task, and the law must be enforced. The delays, unfair treatment, and--in some cases-- improper actions that have occurred with the IRS have undoubtedly been the result of a variety of factors, and the complexity of the tax code only compounds the problems for taxpayers who must interact with the IRS. In fact, to test the difficulty of the current income tax system, Money magazine had 45 different tax accountants prepare a tax return for the same family--and the result was 45 different returns that varied by 160 percent! When considering that there are 555 million words in the tax code, 480 different tax forms, and IRS employees give the wrong answers to taxpayers 30 percent of the time, it's no wonder the expects can't even agree on what a taxpayer owes! Therefore, although we won't be eliminating the complexity of the tax code today, I am pleased that the Senate is now considering comprehensive reform legislation that will attempt to end the abuse of already confused taxpayers by the IRS, and ensure that the enforcer of the tax law is no longer one of its greatest abusers. Mr. President, this legislation--which builds on the restructuring bill that was overwhelmingly passed by the House of Representatives this past November--includes a variety of critical reforms that will dramatically improve the oversight and management of the IRS. And, most importantly, the bill will make this agency more accountable to the very individuals they were intended to serve: the American taxpayer. Specifically, to improve the oversight and administration of the IRS, this legislation will establish an oversight board including the IRS Commissioner and six members from the private sector, which would have broad authority to review and approve strategic plans. In addition, it will establish local taxpayer advocates in every state, and strengthen the internal auditing of the agency. To create a more level playing field between the IRS and taxpayers, the bill will modify the practice of considering taxpayers guilty until they prove their innocence by shifting the burden of proof to the IRS in cases where the taxpayer is cooperative in providing information. It will also provide for greater taxpayer protection against interest assessments and penalties. To streamline congressional oversight of the IRS, it provides a means for ensuring that the IRS and Congress are aware of the most complicated aspects of the tax code that are generating the greatest compliance problems for taxpayers, and provide clear accountability to specific committees in the Congress. To be more responsive to taxpayers, this legislation provides critically needed relief to an ``innocent spouse'' who has no knowledge of the improper tax filings of his or her husband or wife; ensures that a taxpayer who has entered into an installment agreement to settle an outstanding tax bill will no longer be forced to pay ``failure to pay'' penalties during the period of repayment--which has never made any sense; and gives taxpayers more time to dispute IRS claims. And finally, to create a better IRS from the inside out, the bill provides increased flexibility for the IRS to recruit and retain the best agents possible, while establishing new performance measures that ensure agents are not ranked based on enforcement results or collections. Mr. President, the issue comes down to trust. The people of this nation must be able to trust that their government will be fair, will be discreet, will be responsive. Taxpayers should not fear the very institutions that are supposed to be serving them. We must ensure that government works for people, not against them. We must end the abuses at the IRS. The bill before us today will help restore taxpayer confidence in the system and rebuild the trust that has been eroded through years of egregious abuse. I commend the chairman of the Finance Committee for crafting and championing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as we approach a new century with a globally competitive economy that increasingly puts pressure on many domestic industries, I believe it is critical that Congress recognize and address a serious need in our nation's workforce: the need to provide increased access to training for incumbent workers at small businesses. As the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources are aware, many states have seen workers displaced as long-standing local businesses have been downsized or closed. In Maine, we have endured dramatic shifts in our labor force as footwear manufacturers, textile manufacturers, and paper mills have been closed, and workers have been forced out of long-standing jobs that had been the cornerstone of their communities. This shift in long- standing industries is occurring not only in Maine, but across the nation as cities, towns, and communities attempt to stay one step ahead of the changing demands of the global job market. These displacements have demonstrated time and time again that the only certainty in the workforce is uncertainty--and the most important attribute that any worker can have when a job is in jeopardy is to have a broad base of training and skills. For only with a wide array of skills can any worker be truly confident that they have the knowledge and abilities necessary to rapidly adapt to today's changing work environment on-the-job--and the changing business environment that is driven by global competition. Therefore, I believe it is critical that we increase access to training for American workers and bring them some peace of mind that they will be ready for the changing skills demand-- and the changing job market--that tomorrow will bring. In light of this need for increased training and skill development, I am particularly concerned about the plight of individuals who work at small businesses because--among all workers--these individuals are the least likely to receive training. I have had the opportunity to view this problem firsthand, and discuss it with individuals who have studied the problem extensively, as co-chair of the bipartisan Senate Manufacturing Task Force and as a member of the Senate Small Business Committee. Over and over again I have heard of the inability of workers at small businesses to have access to training--and the reason for this lack of access is clear: many small businesses simply do not have the financial resources necessary to provide training to their workers. Therefore, in response to the gaping training needs of workers at small businesses, I have offered legislation that is designed to directly address the inability of small businesses to afford training. Specifically, my legislation--S. 1170, the Working American Training Voucher Act--would provide $1,000 training vouchers to one million working men and women at small businesses across the United States. The legislation was crafted from the premise that 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 receive adequate training. Rather, we should take steps to ensure that our nation's workforce is confident of their future and feels prepared to address the rapid changes that are occurring both in the global economy and on-the-job--especially as new technologies are introduced in the workplace that require an ever-expanding base of skills. Increasing access to training for incumbent workers at small business will not only address this need, 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.

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Kennedy, for your interest in this important issue. I look forward to working with you as S. 1186 moves through the legislative process, as well as on S. 1170, the Working American Training Voucher Act.

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Kennedy. Mr. President, while my legislation has not yet been acted on, I believe the legislation now before the Senate--S. 1186, the Workforce Investment Partnership Act (WIPA) provides us with an excellent opportunity to address the training needs of incumbent workers at small businesses. Mr. President, as has been outlined on the floor of the Senate today, the WIPA restructures and streamlines federal job training programs to improve the delivery of these services to millions of Americans in need, including disadvantaged adults and dislocated workers. For crafting a bill that improves the delivery of job training services nationwide, I would like to commend the authors of this legislation: the Chairman of the Labor and Employment Subcommittee, Senator DeWine; the distinguished Chairman of the Labor Committee, Senator Jeffords; the Ranking Member of the Labor Committee, Senator Kennedy; and the Ranking Member of the Employment and Training Subcommittee, Senator Wellstone. While I am very supportive of this legislation, I urge that provisions be added and modifications made during the upcoming House- Senate conference on the bill to improve access to training for incumbent workers at small businesses. Specifically, I urge that the Senate conferees look for opportunities to improve such access during the consideration of the newly-created training vouchers in Section 315; the transfer authority of job training monies by local partnerships in Section 306; the demonstration and pilot projects in Section 367; and any other section in which increased flexibility of job training monies would lead to improved access to training for incumbent workers at small businesses.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate Old Orchard Beach High School of Old Orchard Beach, Maine, for winning first place at the Maine state competition of the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program, and for their strong effort at the national finals which took place here in Washington May 2 through May 4. I am proud that these outstanding young men and women have represented my home state. Their participation in the national finals is a direct reflection on the tremendous amount of hard work and commitment that the Old Orchard Beach students have invested in this project. The outstanding members of this class are: Lauren Asperschlager, Lucy Coulthard, Chad Daley, Rose Gordon, Krista Knowles, Nathan LaChance, Sarah Lunn, Sandra Marshall, Katie McPherson, Cindy St. Onge, Sam Tarbox, and Sharon Wilson. Also deserving of recognition is their teacher, Mr. Michael Angelosante, whose dedication to his students has played an integral role in their success. John Drisko, the Congressional District Coordinator, and Maine State Coordinator Pam Beal also each have contributed a great deal of time and effort to help Old Orchard Beach High's team. Mr. President, I am pleased that these students as well as others who competed from across Maine have increased their knowledge on the topic of our nation's governing document, the Constitution. One of the most critical components of a democracy is a knowledgeable citizenry. If our young people are to grow up to fully participate in their government, they must have a sound understanding of both the rights and responsibilities that come with citizenship in this great country. This program, ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'', is one innovative way in which we can help provide that understanding. Students, in a simulated Congressional hearing, answer questions, make arguments and defend positions on a variety of contemporary and historical constitutional issues. I am proud that my staff in Maine has been involved in this program over the years. Again, I am pleased to congratulate the students of Old Orchard Beach High School. They are a credit to Maine and have made us proud.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the disaster supplemental conference report. I would like to thank the conferees and Chairman Stevens for their efforts to meet the additional needs Maine and the other Northeast states identified after the January ice storm. Since early January I have worked with the State, FEMA, SBA and other federal agencies to ensure that the devastation from Ice Storm `98 would become a memory and not a long-term problem in Maine. The impact of the storm was such that every Mainer who lived through it, will always remember it--whether it be for the length of time they were without power, the loss of trees throughout the state, the amazing utility crews from up and down the East Coast who worked to restore power or simply the viciousness of mother nature. The conference report provides assistance in several areas where current federal programs simply couldn't handle the entire problem or where no program existed. Our forests are in shambles due to the damage inflicted on the trees by the ice. The conference report provides $48 million to the US Forest Service in order to help the states and private land owners assess the damage and develop plans for clean up and for ensuring a healthy future for the forests. There is an additional $14 million in the Tree Assistance Program for cleanup. This funding is much needed and very welcome. There is $4.48 million included in the Emergency Conservation Program to help the maple syrup industry. This money, which will be matched, will help restore tubing which was torn from the trees by the ice and replace taps that were lost. I am pleased that the conference report also contains funding for the Northeast dairy farmers. The lack of electricity prevented many farmers from milking their cows or from being able to store their milk at the necessary temperature. The $10.8 million in the report will help cover some of these losses as well as pay for stock that was lost as a result of the storm. The $130 million included for the Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG) is not as much as I would have liked, but I understand that the conferees had a large gap to negotiate as the House bill provided only $20 million while the Senate bill had $260 million. This money is very important to Maine as it will assist the state in covering disaster-related costs unmet by FEMA, including the biggest unmet need in Maine--the costs associated with the damages to our utility infrastructure. I wish to reiterate my appreciation for the support that the Committee Chairman has shown for the needs of Maine and the Northeast states. His leadership has been vital in ensuring that the recovery from the Ice Storm of `98 for Maine, Vermont and New York will be completed as quickly as possible. Again, I appreciate his assistance and attention to the special needs of our states because of this one hundred year storm, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the conference report.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on April 28, 1998, by the President of the United States: Treaty with Brazil on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Treaty Document No. 105-42.) I further ask unanimous consent that the treaty be considered as having been read for the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 11:45 a.m. on Wednesday, April 29. I further ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then resume consideration of the Smith-Hutchison amendment No. 2314 to the NATO enlargement treaty.

Ms. SNOWE. I further ask unanimous consent that at 11:45 a.m., the Senate proceed to a rollcall vote on or in relation to the Smith- Hutchison amendment, with 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to the vote.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the NATO enlargement treaty at 11:45 a.m. tomorrow morning. At 11:45 a.m., the Senate will immediately proceed to a rollcall vote on, or in relation to, the Smith-Hutchison amendment No. 2314 offered earlier today. The leader has indicated that he hopes that the Senate will complete action on the NATO expansion treaty by tomorrow evening or the close of business Thursday at the latest. Senators with amendments are encouraged to come to the floor to offer and debate those amendments so that good progress can be made during Wednesday's session. Therefore, Senators should expect rollcall votes throughout Wednesday's session on amendments to the NATO enlargement treaty or any other legislative or executive items cleared for action.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Ms. SNOWE

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

Ms. SNOWE. I rise to express my intention to vote for the admission of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In taking up this decision, the Senate takes up one of its basic constitutional mandates. A nation's most sacred obligation is to protect its citizens and its territory from hostile forces. The NATO alliance has been the cornerstone of our efforts to do so on behalf of free citizens for nearly 50 years. It has emerged as the most successful enterprise of common defense in human history. Any changes in the membership of the Alliance that we contemplate must undergo careful consideration. I have done so and am confident that this enlargement is in our national security interests and will ensure that NATO continues to do in the 21st century what it has done in the latter half of the 20th for the United States, and the people of Europe--guarantee their security, freedom and democratic forms of government. Mr. President, last year, I was asked by the Senate Majority Leader and the Senate Democratic Leader to join a bipartisan group of 28 Senators to study the issues associated with NATO enlargement. I was honored to join in such a task. The NATO alliance has been for nearly 50 years the greatest force for maintaining peace and security in the world. When it was funded, the United States had just emerged from fighting the most destructive war in history on the European continent and was just beginning to lead the fight against imperial Soviet communism--a Cold War against a totalitarian foe who was committed to imposing another form of tyranny first in Europe and then around the world. The nations of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland, therefore, faced the bitter prospect of exchanging one form of tyranny for another. I knew that if NATO was to continue to protect freedom and democracy in Europe, it needed to face the changing circumstances posed by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact and communist ideology. The Alliance had to change in form to preserve the principles that it had safeguarded in modern times. Today, the United States and the other 15 members of the Alliance hope to move the frontiers of NATO eastward at a time when there is not a visible threat to the security of any of its members. When the Alliance expanded between the 1950s and the 1980s to add Greece, Turkey, West Germany and Spain, the grim shadow of Soviet power menaced Europe and the West. I believe that the parallels with the decision to expand NATO in the 1990s are in some ways similar to those which existed at the end of World War II. At that time, the strategic security situation on the continent of Europe was also in flux. The threat from Nazi Germany had collapsed, but no protective machinery had yet been set up to prevent the emergence of a new tyranny. As the great statesman Winston Churchill noted, ``From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended upon the continent [of Europe].'' Unlike the era beginning at the end of World War I, when we retreated from victory to a fateful isolationism, the United States realized that our own security depended upon the building and maintenance of a free and democratic Europe. President Harry Truman, with the able leadership of Senator Arthur Vandenberg, began the shaping of what became known as the ``containment'' policy. The United States and its friends in Europe would resist the westward march of communism. Harry Truman and his generation were determined to block the Soviet Union from leveraging the political fate of a continent that had drawn millions of Americans into war by ensuring that its expansion not go any further. At first it was thought that economic assistance to Europe was sufficient. The Marshall Plan, named for the then Secretary of State George Marshall, was first articulated in 1947 and approved by the Congress in 1948. Just as today some believe that membership in the European Union is enough to ensure the security of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, it was hoped in the 1940s that economic aid alone would suffice in strengthening Europe to resist the designs of the Soviet Union. However, that was not to be the case. Both the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia, and the 1948 Berlin blockade, convinced the United States that more than economic aid was needed to protect freedom and democracy in the Western world. As a result, on April 4, 1949, the United States and eleven nations of Western Europe signed the North Atlantic Treaty in Washington. NATO was born, and for the first time in history, a military alliance was created for the sole purpose of defending freedom and democracy. And without firing one shot in 40 years, it gave ready firepower to the policy of containing Communism until that system collapsed under its own contradictions. Our commitment to security in the North Atlantic Treaty is spelled out in Article V. The words ``an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all'' signify the commitment of this country to forego isolationism and to play a critical role in helping to guarantee freedom and security in Europe. Today of course, there is no immediate threat to the security of Western Europe. The United States and the other 15 members of NATO face an incipient Russian democracy. Communism as a system and a power has receded from the tormented heart of Europe. The mighty Red Army of the 1940s is now a force that is in military decline. Today, we live in a different world--but not one without dangers or threats. Today, we face our own set of challenges--and we must create our own set of solutions. The end of the Cold War has not meant that freedom has suddenly become free-of-charge. While the Soviet Union has disintegrated and the threat of invasion from a much weaker Russia has receded, this development by no means signals that NATO's mission has evaporated. To the contrary, just as NATO protected and guaranteed the freedom of the United States and Western Europe during the latter half of the twentieth century, it can, and must, continue to do so for all of Europe as we prepare to enter the new millennium. For forty years, NATO could protect only the Western half of Europe-- the other half was trapped behind the Iron Curtain of communism. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, three of those nations--the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland are now poised to enjoy the freedoms that the totalitarians so long withheld and to take fresh responsibility for their political pluralism as members of a voluntary alliance. I know that some of my colleagues in this chamber, whose opinions I respect, assert that it is more important for Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to achieve membership in the European Union and to enjoy the economic benefits that it offers as a prelude to joining NATO. This proposal brings the echoes of history to the Senate if we recall that some advocates of the Marshall Plan thought economic health was sufficient for the protection of freedom and democracy. Unfortunately, it was not true then, and it is not true today. The European Union is not a substitute for the NATO alliance. If that were the case, then the nations of Western Europe would not need the benefits of NATO membership to ensure their security. They realize that the two entities each serve their purpose and reinforce rather than substitute for each other. The European Union is an economic entity that will shepherd the prosperity of Europe well into the next century. I have little doubt that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will eventually become members. However, membership will only be part of the way they help fulfill their desire--for the first time in over fifty years--to determine for themselves how they will ensure their security. NATO was and is more than a defensive military alliance. It reflects the civic values underpinning trans-Atlantic security through the cultivation of peaceful ties among governments that rest on the consent of the governed. It is a tangible symbol of the resolve of democratic nations, united in a common purpose, to promote freedom and democracy. While the threat in the Cold War was from a large conventional army led by the Soviet Union that could sweep across Germany, today the threat is far more subtle but just as real. Today we all face threats from terrorism, weapons of mass destruction in the hands of rogue states and nationalistic passions liberated from Cold War restraints. The Gulf War showed that the United States and the European members of NATO face threats far from their borders. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic must deal with these same threats, and they can overcome them as members of the NATO alliance. Already, we have seen a preview of some of the potential security benefits of having these nations--all of which are now strong democracies that have worked to strengthen civilian control of the military--as NATO members: All three have contributed to the success of the SFOR mission in Bosnia. Hungary's base at Taszar has been host to over 95,000 U.S. military personnel rotating in and out of IFOR and SFOR duty. And if there had been a need to fight Iraq, our new NATO members would have been ready to assist. Poland has chemical weapons experts ready to support us if necessary. The Czech Republic would also supply chemical weapons experts. Hungary's Foreign Minister would have urged his nation's parliament to open its airspace and airports to U.S. aircraft if military action had been needed. The spur to all of these actions was prospective membership in NATO, and the assumption of a fair share of responsibilities as full fledged members of the Western community. This enthusiasm should make us realize how important NATO is and how established members often take the Alliance and its benefits for granted. It would be unjust to deny the Poles, Hungarians and Czechs a role in safeguarding the freedom of the European-American community--a freedom, incidentally, we rhetorically upheld for these nations over the past four decades. It would be morally wrong to create an artificial dividing line in Europe just a decade after another such line was erased. Mr. President, what would happen if the Senate were to reject NATO expansion? I believe that we would signal the willingness of the West to confuse the tranquility of today with the potential turmoil of tomorrow for which history warns us to prepare. If we reject expansion now, we would also reject the enduring link, shown by our experience in NATO, between democratic institutions and the defense of peace. The incentive of NATO membership has furthermore stabilized democratic forces in all three candidate nations. Poland instituted civilian control of the military and formed a joint battalion with the Danes and Germans. Hungary and Romania, the latter a possible future member of NATO, signed a treaty respecting the rights of the Hungarian minority in Romania. If NATO membership did not provide the framework for these actions, the Poles, Czechs and Hungarians could still be struggling with the social and military legacies of authoritarianism. Mr. President, if we were to reject the logical first step of NATO membership for these three states, then the progress made by these nations might be reversed. All three nations could and would be entitled to feel that NATO and the West do not care about them. We in the Senate would be sending a message that while the United States and Western Europe are entitled to the benefits of freedom and the confidence that a military alliance will sustain them that NATO is an exclusive club which will not admit those willing to make it even better. All three nations might then form another military bloc. Such an organization might turn inward or Eastward to make security arrangements without the participation of the West. But I would rather see Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic work within the NATO alliance to address the concerns of the Baltic states and other regional parties. Another aspect of this issue which has concerned me and I know, many Senators, is the cost of this expansion. It is a legitimate concern. The General Accounting Office produced a report just last month concluding that the Defense Department's assessment of the NATO cost of expansion was reasonable if the current environment of a diminished military threat to the continent will continue for years into the future. New members, in turn, will sustain their own internal budgets for critical defense modernization. It is also up to them to meet their formal treaty commitments to the commonly-funded budgets of the Alliance. The governments of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have agreed to specific 10-year obligations on payments for the integration of military systems and command structures with existing Alliance members. I commend our prospective new partners and the Defense Department for developing this blueprint for enlargement. They must also expect that NATO as well as Congress will hold them accountable for it. Mr. President, Secretary Albright summed it up well last year when she said: ``Let us not deceive ourselves. The United States is a European power.'' We fought two world wars because much of Western Europe was threatened, invaded and occupied. The Cold War was fought because some of these nations were again threatened and others forced to endure Communist tyranny. The enlargement of NATO will mean that more of Europe is part of an alliance designed to protect freedom and democracy. That makes conflict and the defense of our security interests much greater. NATO will be stronger with the addition of more territory and more armed forces--200,000 in fact--a valuable addition if we account for the reductions in Western military forces since the end of the Cold War. Peace through strength may be a slogan to the cynics, but to me, it summarizes the invaluable lesson that we learned on the post-war ashes of a Europe leveled by aggression. One of the Senate's most illustrious members, Senator Arthur Vandenberg, said at the time of NATO's founding in 1949 that ``[NATO] is not built to stop a war after it starts . . . It is built to stop wars before they start.'' The admission of these three applicants will strengthen NATO's ability to prevent war. I cannot imagine that the United States and the other members of NATO would do nothing if the territorial integrity of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were threatened--even if they were not a part of NATO. But by having them become members, we would bring into the democratic family a region that has hosted the century's bloodiest conflicts. Furthermore, by formally extending NATO's territorial jurisdiction further east, the Alliance will be even better placed to prevent any security threat to all of its members. NATO's role has evolved from deterring an invasion of the West by the Soviet Union to preventing armed conflict on the continent of Europe, and admission of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will augment this shift in mission. Others will argue that NATO expansion will cause problems in relations with Russia; that expansion undercuts efforts to build democracy in Russia; that we are still treating Russia as a Cold War adversary, instead of a nation building a democracy and a free-market economy or that expansion will anger Russia at a time when we need to work together on issues such as Iraq and the danger of weapons proliferation. Mr. President, I do not agree with these arguments. Even if NATO had never promised to expand, the United States and Russia would continue to have international policy differences. There is also no evidence that the prospect of NATO expansion has hurt efforts to ratify arms control treaties or to address concerns over the need to control nuclear weapons of all varieties. I also do not believe that enlargement will harm efforts to build a secure and strong democracy across the 11 time zones of Russia. The stability an enlarged NATO will bring to Eastern Europe will provide a more secure environment in which democracy's roots can grow stronger. NATO is furthermore not building a military force which can threaten Russia, as demonstrated by its intention not to station either nuclear weapons or substantial forces in the territories of the new members. Finally, the United States and NATO have worked hard to address Russian concerns over expansion through the Founding Act and the creation of the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council. The Permanent Joint Council allows NATO and Russia to talk directly about ways to promote and enhance Europe's security. It offers a means to discuss matters of concern to either or both parties. If Russia chooses to work with the Permanent Joint Council in a cooperative manner, then this Council can help take NATO-Russia relations to a level of cooperation that benefits all of Europe. The Permanent Joint Council, however, will never substitute for or supersede any NATO policy making organs. Russia does not have a veto over NATO actions and must never be allowed to obtain one. It is not possible for NATO to remain static and at the same time effective in the post-Cold War environment of Europe. NATO is, and must remain a military alliance that will guarantee the security of its members. However, it does face a different set of challenges as the 21st century approaches. Because the threat to NATO's territorial integrity today is significantly diminished, the Alliance has the opportunity to vanquish the dangers posed by unbridled nationalism and great power policies and to replace them with free- market democracies that can grow and prosper. Mr. President, when Secretary of State Madeleine Albright testified before the Foreign Relations Committee, she quoted an individual who appreciates what freedom means and that is not to be taken for granted. Czech President Vaclav Havel stated that ``Even the costliest preventive security is cheaper than the cheapest war.'' By admitting the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, NATO will be taking a giant step toward insuring that the freedoms won by Eastern and Central Europe at the end of this century will survive and prosper in the next. By expanding NATO, the West will ensure that the freedoms it preserved through the darkest days of World War II and the Communist threat of the 20th century will survive and prosper through the millennium. In conclusion, NATO enlargement will enhance our national security and the stability of Europe. As my former Senate colleague and current Defense Secretary Bill Cohen stated, ``a stable Europe is necessary to anchor America's worldwide presence.'' The addition of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to NATO will mean a stronger NATO, and our approval of this enlargement will show that the United States is ready to do so in the 21st Century what it did for the latter half of this one: be a force, with other democracies, for the protection of freedom today and for the generations to come.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference report to H.R. 1757, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act. My opposition is tinged with a measure of regret, for this bill contains many provisions that I have worked on, first as Ranking member on the House International Operations Subcommittee for ten years and for two years as Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations. This bill consolidates our foreign policy apparatus by merging the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the United States Information Agency into the State Department--which will make our foreign policy machinery run more efficiently. With regard to arrearages owed to the United Nations, I supported the provisions of this bill--which are similar to provisions in my own UN Reform bill--which linked payment of funds owed by the United States to the United Nations implementing certain benchmark reforms including a reduction in the dues charged to the United States for the United Nations regular budget as well as our share of peacekeeping assessments. I have worked on six State Department authorization bills during my time in the Congress and know how difficult a process it is to assemble a consensus on the reorganization of the State Department. I was extremely pleased that this bill built upon the foundation the Foreign Relations Committee laid in the last Congress when I was Chair of the International Operations Subcommittee, I worked with Senator Helms on these most important foreign policy issues. The work done by Senators Helms and Biden on these matters is to be commended. However, this bill also contains a provision that would reinstate the Mexico City Policy in a way that imposes unacceptable restrictions in international family planning efforts. And for that reason I cannot support it. Mr. President, this issue is often referred to as the ``Mexico City policy'' issue because it was at the 1984 United Nations Population Conference in Mexico City that the Reagan Administration adopted for our international family planning programs a precursor of what became known as the ``gag rule'' for our own domestic family planning programs. Under the Mexico City policy, the Reagan Administration withheld international family planning funds from all groups that had even the slightest involvement in legal abortion-related services using their own private funds. Before I address what I believe to be the most troubling aspects of the current version of the ``Mexico City policy,'' let me first emphasize that no United States taxpayer funds are being used to pay for abortions overseas. Since 1973 an amendment, authored by the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, prohibits the use of United States funds for abortion services. That needs to be made clear in discussing United States funding for international family planning efforts. However, the current version of the so-called ``Mexico City policy'' contained in this bill is most troubling. Foreign nongovernmental organizations would still be barred from receiving family planning assistance if they, with their own funds, perform legal abortions. While the President can waive the ban on the performance of abortions, he is prohibited from using waiver authority granted him under section 614 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to permit these groups to lobby on abortion matters. As Secretary of State Albright noted, this lobby ban ``is basically a gag rule that would punish organizations for engaging in the democratic process in foreign countries and for engaging in legal activities that would be protected by the First Amendment if carried out in the United States.'' Let me take just a moment to illustrate what the practical effect this lobbying ban would have on international family planning efforts. If a foreign nongovernmental organization, or NGO, were to produce a paper that noted that a certain percentage of all maternal deaths in a certain part of the world are due to illegal abortion, it would lose their US family planning funds. The reason? This paper would be calling attention to ``defects'' in abortion laws. If the president of an NGO were to give a radio interview and make a ``public statement'' giving an opinion about his or her nation's own abortion law, that NGO would lose its US family planning funds. The reason? A question about abortion law was answered on the airwaves. These restrictions greatly concern me and they should concern anyone interested not only in the free exchange of ideas but the welfare of developing nations. Ever since the 1974 United Nations Population Conference in Bucharest, Romania the United States has been the traditional leader in international family planning assistance. Many of the world's developing nations at that time perceived family planning to be a western effort to reduce the power and influence of Third World nations. By the time of the Mexico City Conference ten years later, most developing nations had come to understand the importance of widely-available, voluntary family planning to their own nation's development potential. I believe that the absence of family planning assistance may well lead to more, not fewer, abortions being performed. If organizations such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation would be denied United States funds, we would be unable to support some of the most effective and capable family planning programs in the developing world. These programs are vital in preventing unplanned pregnancies, in reducing infant mortality and in promoting maternal and child health. I am also troubled by the message that this ``gag rule'' sends to nations all around the world about American values that I cherish-- freedom of speech and participation in the political process of one's country. Under the restrictions imposed by this bill, a foreign nongovernmental organization would be required to remain silent on this issue. This restriction on public debate is unhealthy for the democratic process and is something Americans would not tolerate if attempts were made to impose it here at home. Finally, I am troubled by the fact that these restrictions would place the weight of the United States government behind efforts to tell NGOs what they can and can not do with their own, let me repeat that, their own, funds. These groups should not have to check in with the United States whenever they wish to issue a public statement, sponsor a conference, or distribute materials with their own money. Mr. President, international family planning should not be held hostage to these restrictions. The benefits of population control are substantial. Funds invested in family planning yield savings in maternal and child health care costs. Lower population growth rates make it easier for developing nations to institute the types of free market reforms that offer them their best hope for long-term sustainable development. Lower population growth places fewer strains on these nations political institutions which means there is less of a risk to international stability and peace. Lower population growth also places less of a strain on the environment. Reduced environmental trauma, improved standards of living, and reduced immigration pressures benefit every single living person on the planet. This conference report endangers all of these potential benefits. For this reason I will oppose its adoption and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on the Executive Calendar: Calendar No. 578. I further ask unanimous consent that the nomination be confirmed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the nomination appear at the appropriate place in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back on the pending conference report.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my colleagues, Senator Collins from Maine and Senator Chafee from Rhode Island, in the wake of yesterday's 97 to 0 vote by the Senate to pass Senate Concurrent Resolution 90 acknowledging the historic Northern Ireland peace agreement reached just 2 weeks ago. The agreement was produced through the hard work and patience and goodwill of representatives of Northern Ireland's political parties, the Prime Ministers of both Britain and Ireland, President Clinton, and a man well known in this Chamber, the former Senator from Maine and former majority leader, George Mitchell. Senator Mitchell's skill, patience, and determination were largely responsible for bringing opposing parties to the point where they were able to broker a historic agreement that offers the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to put an end to the longstanding fear and suffering they have endured and to achieve a future that will be as bright as the spirit and potential of her extraordinary people. In describing Senator Mitchell's pivotal role, one of the participants in the talks said, ``Here the United States sent one of its most able, skilled, talented, humble politicians, a supreme diplomat, and frankly we didn't deserve him.'' Well of course, the people of Northern Ireland deserved his leadership that has provided, as we now know, the very best opportunity for these talks to succeed. After his retirement from the Senate, President Clinton invited Senator Mitchell to serve as a special economic adviser to Northern Ireland. However, before he finished his efforts to attract business investment to Northern Ireland, Senator Mitchell was selected by both the British and Irish governments to join a panel that recommended the decommissioning of arms by the paramilitary factions in Northern Ireland. He assumed responsibility for taking over the peace talks in June of 1996. Senator Mitchell faced tremendous obstacles in attempting to win the trust of the parties involved in seeking an agreement. After all, previous efforts resulted in failure. However, his patience, diligence and sincerity won them over. I know that Senator Mitchell's long experience in the Senate helped prepare him for this unique challenge. As one who served with him for more than 14 years in the Maine Congressional Delegation, I know he has an excellent ability to understand the concerns of whomever he is talking with--whether it is a constituent from Bangor, or Augusta or Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. Being an effective majority leader in the Senate, as we know, requires one to be a good listener, to know when to compromise, to know when to coax and cajole, to know when to be patient and to know when to be firm. All these qualities served George Mitchell well in this body and served him well in his most recent role which consumed 22 long, hard months of negotiations. This was by no means an easy task and often it must have seemed a hopeless one. However, the toll of the continuing violence in which over 3,200 people have died since 1969 led in the end to a deep yearning for peace. Individuals who grew up accustomed to violence were tired of going to funerals and watching their friends and family members die. Senator Mitchell led an effort that promised a way out--a path toward a future of peace and hope. In 1996 he proposed the decommissioning of weapons be addressed during the talks and that participants make a commitment to nonviolence. That was the same year that bombings took place in London and Manchester. Yet none of that deterred Senator Mitchell. When the agreement was concluded, he commented that ``no one wants to go back to the bitterness of the past.'' In his understated way, Senator Mitchell commented that ``This agreement is a reason to celebrate. But by itself, it guarantees nothing.'' I fervently hope that the agreement does indeed turn out to be the harbinger of a new era in Northern Ireland. Ultimately it is the Irish people, voting on May 22nd, who will determine whether or not this agreement will succeed. I am optimistic that it will. The agreement is a landmark achievement. There will be a 108 seat assembly in which Protestants and Catholics share responsibility and powers. It will be elected this June, and I hope those who are chosen in that election will share the dream that Senator Mitchell cited when he talked about the babies who were born in Northern Ireland on the same day his new son Andrew was born 6 months ago. Senator Mitchell said, ``I believe that they are entitled to the same chance in life that I want for my son. Peace, political stability and reconciliation are not too much to ask for. They are the minimum that a decent civilized society provides.'' Eloquent words that I am sure touched the hearts of mothers and fathers on both sides of the historic divide that has scarred Northern Ireland. In the agreement Senator Mitchell helped to forge, in addition to the afore-mentioned assembly, there will be a North/South Ministerial Council which will provide an opportunity for ministers from the Republic of Ireland to promote joint policymaking with the Northern Ireland Assembly. This council will have the opportunity to implement policies for the entire island of Ireland but only with the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Irish Parliament in Dublin. This remarkable opportunity will allow the benefits of peace to be provided and to be shared by all the Irish people. At the conclusion of the talks, Senator Mitchell said, ``It doesn't take courage to shoot a policeman in the back of the head, or to murder an unarmed taxi driver.'' But he knows it does take courage to finally face down the horrors of sectarian violence, that it does take courage to realize that sometimes you have to make compromises for a future of peace. When he first visited Belfast and saw a 30-foot wall dividing neighborhoods, I am sure he was reminded of the most famous wall of all, the Berlin Wall, which came down in 1989 when communism crumbled. Just 2 years before a new millennium, the wall in Belfast still divides people. But this agreement may bring us one day closer to the day it, too, crumbles. Senator George Mitchell has helped broker an agreement that will, I hope, be the spark for an era of peace and prosperity for Northern Ireland and bring to a close one of this century's most tragic and stubborn conflicts. This agreement is one that should be celebrated for all it can bring to Northern Ireland. It should also be celebrated as proof of how one remarkable individual can make a difference for his fellow human beings. It is my fervent hope that the people of Northern Ireland will long remember and celebrate the contributions of this one man, George Mitchell, toward providing them the key to a lasting peace. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.