Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, nowhere is the middle ground in American politics harder to find than in the debate over abortion. It is clear that the apparent inability of pro-choice and pro-life members to find common ground is one of the most divisive issues we face today. In debate after debate, it often appears that there is no middle ground. Well, I am extremely pleased that my colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, is joining me today to introduce legislation that will prove this statement untrue. Too often, pro-choice leaders do too little to convey that they are not pro-abortion. Likewise, abortion opponents too often fail to work constructively toward reducing the need for abortion. The failure of pro-choice and pro-life members to stake out common ground weakens our Nation immeasurably. Today that's going to change. The cosponsors of this bill come from different parties, and have very different views on abortion. Our voting records are clear: I am firmly pro-choice; Senators Reid is firmly pro-life. Yet, despite these fundamental differences, we agree that something can and must be done to reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion in this country. That is why we are joining forces and introducing bipartisan, landmark legislation to make contraceptives more affordable for Americans. And I am pleased that a number of my colleagues, including Senators Warner, Mikulski, Chafee, Durbin, Collins, Murray, and Jeffords are joining us as original cosponsors. The need is clear. This year, there will be 3.6 million unintended pregnancies--over 56 percent of all pregnancies in America--and half will end in abortion. These are staggering statistics. But what's even more staggering is that it doesn't have to be this way. If prescription contraceptives were covered like other prescription drugs, a lot more Americans could afford to use safe, effective means to prevent unintended pregnancies. The fact is, under many of today's health insurance plans, a woman can afford a prescription to alleviate allergy symptoms but not a prescription to prevent an unintended and life-altering pregnancy. It is simply not right that while the vast majority of insurers cover prescription drugs, half of large group plans exclude coverage of prescription contraceptives. And only one-third cover oral contraceptives--the most popular form of birth control. Is it any wonder that women spend 68 percent more than men in out-of- pocket health care costs--68 percent. It does not make sense that, at a time when we want to reduce unintended pregnancies, so many otherwise insured woman can't afford access to the most effective contraceptives because of the disparity in coverage. The lack of contraceptive coverage in health insurance is not news to most women. Countless American women have been shocked to learn that their insurance does not cover contraceptives, one of their most basic health care needs, even though other prescriptions drugs which are equally valuable to their lives are routinely covered. But until today, women could do little more than feel silent outrage at a practice that disadvantages both their health and their pocketbook. Now, the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act gives voice to that outrage. EPICC sends a message that we can no longer tolerate policies that disadvantage women and disadvantage our nation. When our bill is passed, women will finally be assured of equity in prescription drug coverage and health care services. And America's unacceptably high rates of unintended pregnancies and abortions will be reduced in the process. This EPICC approach is simple. It says that if insurers already cover prescription drugs and devices, they must also cover FDA-approved prescription contraceptives. And it takes the commonsense approach of requiring health plans which already cover basic health care services to also cover medical and counseling services to promote the effective use of those contraceptives. The bill does not require insurance companies to cover prescription drugs--it simply says that if insurers cover prescription drugs, they cannot treat prescription contraceptives any differently. Similarly, it says that insurers which cover outpatient health care services cannot limit or exclude coverage of the medical and counseling services necessary for effective contraceptive use in order to prevent unintended pregnancies. This bill is not only good policy, it also makes good economic sense. We know that contraceptives are cost-effective: in the public sector, for every dollar invested in family planning, $4 to $14 is saved in health care and related costs. And we also know that by helping families to adequately space their pregnancies, contraceptives contribute to healthy pregnancies and healthy births, reducing rates of maternal complications, and low-birth weight. Time and time again Americans have expressed the desire for their leaders to come together to work on the problems that face us. This bill exemplifies that spirit of cooperation. It crosses some very wide gulfs and makes some very meaningful changes in policy that will benefit countless Americans. As someone who is pro-choice, I firmly believe that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. Through this bill, I invite both my pro- choice and pro-life colleagues to join with me in emphasizing the rare. And I invite all who believe in sound public policy to join our alliance. Because we as a nation must be truly committed to reducing rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion. We must come together despite our differences. We must pass this EPICC bill into law.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the amendment that I am introducing today provides that the disentanglement of a marine mammal from fishing gear or debris does not violate the Marine Mammal Protection Act. This amendment is co-sponsored by Senators Kerry, Gregg, Collins, Kennedy, Smith, and Breaux. I would also like to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, for his efforts in helping us craft this amendment. Senator Stevens has been a leader on marine mammal issues since the act was first enacted in 1972, and we value his expertise. As a nation, we have taken great steps toward protecting marine mammals. The Marine Mammal Protection Act is an international model for minimizing adverse human impacts on marine mammal populations. Under the Act, the term ``take'' means ``to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal''. Takings are expressly prohibited without an exemption approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service, consistent with the MMPA. The takings language is clear. It is meant to prevent unnecessary injury to marine mammal populations. But unfortunately, as the law currently stands, the takings provision could be used to hold liable a person involved in attempting to rescue a marine mammal from entanglement. Perhaps nowhere else is this problem more critical than in my own State of Maine, where NMFS has recently proposed a rule to reduce the takings of large Atlantic whales. Many of the stakeholders who have been involved in the debate over this rule believe that improved disentanglement of whales is a crucial part of any take reduction plan. In fact, while the NMFS's rule, which is badly flawed, relies heavily on untested and unproven fishing gear modifications, many knowledgeable people believe that enhanced disentanglement is the most effective known method of reducing serious injury or mortality. However, fishermen and others will be very reluctant to participate in disentanglement efforts unless they have an ironclad guarantee that they would not be held liable for a taking. Thus, without a change in the law, the success of disentanglement programs would be severely limited. The Snowe-Kerry amendment provides that change, encouraging fishermen and others to help rescue a marine mammal by removing the threat of prosecution. And we need the help of our fishermen. The fishing community provides our eyes and ears on the sea, working across areas far larger than any single agency could hope to monitor. With the participation and support of fishermen, we can add to our understanding of marine mammal populations and reduce the incidence of serious injury. Mr. President, this amendment enjoys bipartisan support and is not controversial. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of three bills which address the most critical issues affecting our relations with the United Nations. These are the U.S. arrearage in financial contributions to the United Nations, the sharing of U.S. intelligence with the United Nations, and U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping activities. The United Nations Reform Act of 1997 is a bill that I have been working on for over a year in my former capacity as chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations. With the United Nations now entering its second half-century, the question being raised is not whether the United Nations can continue its growth for another 50 years, but whether it can survive as an important international institution for the next 5. With a new Secretary of State who formerly served as U.N. Ambassador, with a new U.N. Ambassador who formerly served as a respected Member of Congress, and with a new U.N. Secretary General, I believe that we have a unique opportunity over the next 2 years to genuinely restore a bipartisan consensus on the United Nations within Congress and among the American people. That is the intent of this legislation, which sets reasonable and achievable reform criteria for the United Nations, linked to a 5-year repayment plan for the nearly $1 billion in arrearages that have built up in the U.N. system over the past few years. The plan would set up a five-step annual process under which the President would each year have to certify that specific reform guideposts have been met at the United Nations, permitting the payment each year of one-fifth of outstanding U.S. arrearages. In the first year, the President would have to certify that a hard freeze zero nominal growth budget at the United Nations had been maintained and that budgetary transparency at the world body had been enhanced through opening up the United Nations to member State auditing and fully funding the new U.N. inspector general office. In the second year, the President would have to certify that U.S. representation had been restored to a key U.N. budgetary oversight body, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions [ACABQ]. In the third year, the President would have to certify that a long- standing U.N. peacekeeping reform goal had been achieved. This reform would ensure that the United States receives full credit or reimbursement for the very substantial logistical and in-kind support our military provides to assessed U.N. peacekeeping missions. In the fourth year, the President would have to certify that a significant reform in the United Nations' budget process had been achieved. This reform would be to divide the U.N. regular budget into an assessed core budget and a voluntary program budget. The source of much of the United Nations' problems stems from the fact that the United Nations' assessed budget is increasingly used for development programs and other activities that should not be included in our mandatory dues for membership. This reform can be achieved without a revision in the U.N. Charter. Finally, in the fifth year the President would have to certify that a major U.N. consolidation plan has been approved and implemented. This plan must entail a significant reduction in staff and an elimination of the rampant duplication, overlap, and lack of coordination that exists throughout the U.N. system. Clearly, there is an urgent need to turn around the United Nations' dangerous slide into constant crisis, which could ultimately threaten the organization's usefulness as an important tool for addressing world problems. I am convinced that this can only be achieved through the kind of bold reform agenda that is set forth in this legislation. Mr. President, I believe it is useful for us to look back on the original purpose of the United Nations, as it was envisioned 51 years ago. The United Nations was created from the ashes of World War II, with the hope of avoiding future world-wide conflagrations through international cooperation. The main focus for this mission was the Security Council, the only entity empowered under the U.N. Charter to act on the great questions of world peace. The General Assembly was intended to be a forum for debate on any issue that any nation wanted to bring before the assembled nations of the world. The U.N. Secretariat was to be a small professional staff needed to support the activities of the Security Council and General Assembly. The U.N. system was also to conduct specific activities in technical cooperation, such as those undertaken by the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Telecommunications Union. Finally, the United Nations was to have an important role in responding to international humanitarian crises. Most critical is the work of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, who today protects over 40 million of the world's most vulnerable men, women, and children--particularly women and children, who comprise 80 percent of the world's refugees. Regrettably, the United Nations system that exists today falls short of the intentions of its founders. There are two interrelated, fundamental problems with U.N. system. One is that there are those who attempted to use the world organization to advance agendas that frankly do not reflect world realities. The more the United Nations is used to transcend what some see as the harsh realities of the world and its Nation-State system, the less relevant the United Nations becomes to the real world in which we all live. Closely related has been the massive and uncoordinated growth of the United Nations and its specialized agencies. The U.N. General Assembly and its related bodies in the specialized agencies have used the tool of the budget to grow the U.N. bureaucracy far beyond what is needed to respond to real world problems. The small professional staff of the U.N. Secretariat now approaches 18,000--counting the proliferation of consultants and contract employees--and the staff of the U.N. system worldwide now exceeds 53,000. Too many nations simply do not find a compelling need for efficiency and budgetary restraint in the U.N. system. Of the U.N.'s 185 member nations, a near-majority 91 countries are assessed at the minimum .01 percent rate, paying essentially nothing toward U.N. budget. The top ten assessed countries--United States, Japan, Germany, France, Russia, Britain, Italy, Canada, Spain and Brazil--are billed for 78 percent of the U.N. budget, with the United States, at 25 percent, paying nearly twice that of any other country. In just 10 years of supposed zero- growth budgets, the U.N.'s budget has doubled. In the last 18 years the U.N.'s budget has tripled. There are those who argue that all of the U.N.'s problems come from the United States. But the United Nation's difficulties with the United States arise from these deeply rooted problems within the U.N. structure itself. Even many supporters of the United Nations have characterized today's U.N. system as bloated, inefficient, duplicative, and disorganized. For instance, Canadian businessman and six-time U.N. Under-Secretary-General Maurice Strong has stated that the United Nations ``could work better than it does today with less than half as many people.'' I believe it is significant, and encouraging, that the new Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, has appointed Mr. Strong to be his top adviser on reform issues. The surprising thing is that among serious analysts of the United Nations there is remarkable agreement on what needs to be done. The U.N. system needs to be significantly reduced in size and needs true consolidation among its far-flung, duplicative elements. The budget process needs similarly dramatic reform. The United Nations needs to concentrate on a few key achievable missions--security, humanitarian relief, purely technical cooperation--and refrain from its proliferating exercises in internal nation-building and grandiose missions of global norm-setting. All of these basic reform needs have been addressed in the U.N. reform legislation I am introducing today. As complements to my U.N. reform bill, I am also introducing two U.N.-related bills which I sponsored in the last Congress. The first would protect U.S. intelligence information which is shared with the United Nations or any of its affiliated organizations by requiring that procedures for protecting intelligence sources and methods are in place at the United Nations that are at least as stringent as those maintained by countries with which the United States regularly shares similar types of information. This requirement may be waived by the President for national security purposes but only on a case by case basis and only when all possible measures for protecting the information have been taken. This legislation grew out of my concern about reports of breaches of U.S. classified material by the United Nations in 1993, 1994, and in 1995 when the United Nations pulled out of Somalia. I am pleased to note that more attention is being paid by this body to the problems that can result when U.S. intelligence information is shared with international bodies. Condition 5 of the recently approved resolution of ratification for the Chemical Weapons Convention, which protects U.S. intelligence shared with the Organization for the Protection of Chemical Weapons, was based on my intelligence-sharing legislation. To complete the package of three bills, I am introducing today the International Peacekeeping Reform Act of 1997 which I also sponsored in the 104th Congress. Before any funds can be made available for U.N. peacekeeping activities, this legislation requires the President to certify to Congress that hostilities have ceased and all parties agree to a U.N. peacekeeping role, that the percentage of the U.S. assessed share of the total cost of the operation does not exceed the percentage of the U.S. assessed share for the regular U.N. budget, and that adequate measures have been taken to protect U.S. intelligence information provided in support of the operation. Furthermore, my bill would require that, if the operation is to include units of the U.S. Armed Forces to carry out combat missions, the President must certify that the operation advances U.S. security interests, that U.S. participation is critical to the operation's success, that the units will be under the operational command and control of the U.S. armed forces, and that the U.S. military personnel will be fully protected by the Geneva Convention of 1949 governing the treatment of prisoners of war. This legislation requires the President to notify Congress of the intent to support an international peacekeeping operation at least 15 days before any vote of the United Nations Security Council to establish, expand or modify such an operation. If the President determines that an emergency exists which prevents him from meeting the 15-day advance notice requirement, the notice is to be provided in a timely manner, but no later than 48 hours after the Security Council vote. The three measures I am introducing today will, I believe, go a long way toward setting a new course in our relations with the United Nations. If we in Congress fail to rise to the challenge; if the U.N. attempts to defend an unsustainable status quo; if the Administration's new foreign policy team does not reach out to Congress to achieve a genuine bipartisan consensus on the need for U.N. reform; if the U.N.'s dangerous slide to expensive irrelevance continues, then we will have lost a unique opportunity for reform. If this should happen, it is not at all clear to me whether such an opportunity will soon return. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider the legislation I am introducing today as the best course for restoring the bipartisan consensus in this country on the United Nations. Mr. Prsident, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of three bills which address the most critical issues affecting our relations with the United Nations. These are the U.S. arrearage in financial contributions to the United Nations, the sharing of U.S. intelligence with the United Nations, and U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping activities. The United Nations Reform Act of 1997 is a bill that I have been working on for over a year in my former capacity as chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations. With the United Nations now entering its second half-century, the question being raised is not whether the United Nations can continue its growth for another 50 years, but whether it can survive as an important international institution for the next 5. With a new Secretary of State who formerly served as U.N. Ambassador, with a new U.N. Ambassador who formerly served as a respected Member of Congress, and with a new U.N. Secretary General, I believe that we have a unique opportunity over the next 2 years to genuinely restore a bipartisan consensus on the United Nations within Congress and among the American people. That is the intent of this legislation, which sets reasonable and achievable reform criteria for the United Nations, linked to a 5-year repayment plan for the nearly $1 billion in arrearages that have built up in the U.N. system over the past few years. The plan would set up a five-step annual process under which the President would each year have to certify that specific reform guideposts have been met at the United Nations, permitting the payment each year of one-fifth of outstanding U.S. arrearages. In the first year, the President would have to certify that a hard freeze zero nominal growth budget at the United Nations had been maintained and that budgetary transparency at the world body had been enhanced through opening up the United Nations to member State auditing and fully funding the new U.N. inspector general office. In the second year, the President would have to certify that U.S. representation had been restored to a key U.N. budgetary oversight body, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions [ACABQ]. In the third year, the President would have to certify that a long- standing U.N. peacekeeping reform goal had been achieved. This reform would ensure that the United States receives full credit or reimbursement for the very substantial logistical and in-kind support our military provides to assessed U.N. peacekeeping missions. In the fourth year, the President would have to certify that a significant reform in the United Nations' budget process had been achieved. This reform would be to divide the U.N. regular budget into an assessed core budget and a voluntary program budget. The source of much of the United Nations' problems stems from the fact that the United Nations' assessed budget is increasingly used for development programs and other activities that should not be included in our mandatory dues for membership. This reform can be achieved without a revision in the U.N. Charter. Finally, in the fifth year the President would have to certify that a major U.N. consolidation plan has been approved and implemented. This plan must entail a significant reduction in staff and an elimination of the rampant duplication, overlap, and lack of coordination that exists throughout the U.N. system. Clearly, there is an urgent need to turn around the United Nations' dangerous slide into constant crisis, which could ultimately threaten the organization's usefulness as an important tool for addressing world problems. I am convinced that this can only be achieved through the kind of bold reform agenda that is set forth in this legislation. Mr. President, I believe it is useful for us to look back on the original purpose of the United Nations, as it was envisioned 51 years ago. The United Nations was created from the ashes of World War II, with the hope of avoiding future world-wide conflagrations through international cooperation. The main focus for this mission was the Security Council, the only entity empowered under the U.N. Charter to act on the great questions of world peace. The General Assembly was intended to be a forum for debate on any issue that any nation wanted to bring before the assembled nations of the world. The U.N. Secretariat was to be a small professional staff needed to support the activities of the Security Council and General Assembly. The U.N. system was also to conduct specific activities in technical cooperation, such as those undertaken by the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Telecommunications Union. Finally, the United Nations was to have an important role in responding to international humanitarian crises. Most critical is the work of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, who today protects over 40 million of the world's most vulnerable men, women, and children--particularly women and children, who comprise 80 percent of the world's refugees. Regrettably, the United Nations system that exists today falls short of the intentions of its founders. There are two interrelated, fundamental problems with U.N. system. One is that there are those who attempted to use the world organization to advance agendas that frankly do not reflect world realities. The more the United Nations is used to transcend what some see as the harsh realities of the world and its Nation-State system, the less relevant the United Nations becomes to the real world in which we all live. Closely related has been the massive and uncoordinated growth of the United Nations and its specialized agencies. The U.N. General Assembly and its related bodies in the specialized agencies have used the tool of the budget to grow the U.N. bureaucracy far beyond what is needed to respond to real world problems. The small professional staff of the U.N. Secretariat now approaches 18,000--counting the proliferation of consultants and contract employees--and the staff of the U.N. system worldwide now exceeds 53,000. Too many nations simply do not find a compelling need for efficiency and budgetary restraint in the U.N. system. Of the U.N.'s 185 member nations, a near-majority 91 countries are assessed at the minimum .01 percent rate, paying essentially nothing toward U.N. budget. The top ten assessed countries--United States, Japan, Germany, France, Russia, Britain, Italy, Canada, Spain and Brazil--are billed for 78 percent of the U.N. budget, with the United States, at 25 percent, paying nearly twice that of any other country. In just 10 years of supposed zero- growth budgets, the U.N.'s budget has doubled. In the last 18 years the U.N.'s budget has tripled. There are those who argue that all of the U.N.'s problems come from the United States. But the United Nation's difficulties with the United States arise from these deeply rooted problems within the U.N. structure itself. Even many supporters of the United Nations have characterized today's U.N. system as bloated, inefficient, duplicative, and disorganized. For instance, Canadian businessman and six-time U.N. Under-Secretary-General Maurice Strong has stated that the United Nations ``could work better than it does today with less than half as many people.'' I believe it is significant, and encouraging, that the new Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, has appointed Mr. Strong to be his top adviser on reform issues. The surprising thing is that among serious analysts of the United Nations there is remarkable agreement on what needs to be done. The U.N. system needs to be significantly reduced in size and needs true consolidation among its far-flung, duplicative elements. The budget process needs similarly dramatic reform. The United Nations needs to concentrate on a few key achievable missions--security, humanitarian relief, purely technical cooperation--and refrain from its proliferating exercises in internal nation-building and grandiose missions of global norm-setting. All of these basic reform needs have been addressed in the U.N. reform legislation I am introducing today. As complements to my U.N. reform bill, I am also introducing two U.N.-related bills which I sponsored in the last Congress. The first would protect U.S. intelligence information which is shared with the United Nations or any of its affiliated organizations by requiring that procedures for protecting intelligence sources and methods are in place at the United Nations that are at least as stringent as those maintained by countries with which the United States regularly shares similar types of information. This requirement may be waived by the President for national security purposes but only on a case by case basis and only when all possible measures for protecting the information have been taken. This legislation grew out of my concern about reports of breaches of U.S. classified material by the United Nations in 1993, 1994, and in 1995 when the United Nations pulled out of Somalia. I am pleased to note that more attention is being paid by this body to the problems that can result when U.S. intelligence information is shared with international bodies. Condition 5 of the recently approved resolution of ratification for the Chemical Weapons Convention, which protects U.S. intelligence shared with the Organization for the Protection of Chemical Weapons, was based on my intelligence-sharing legislation. To complete the package of three bills, I am introducing today the International Peacekeeping Reform Act of 1997 which I also sponsored in the 104th Congress. Before any funds can be made available for U.N. peacekeeping activities, this legislation requires the President to certify to Congress that hostilities have ceased and all parties agree to a U.N. peacekeeping role, that the percentage of the U.S. assessed share of the total cost of the operation does not exceed the percentage of the U.S. assessed share for the regular U.N. budget, and that adequate measures have been taken to protect U.S. intelligence information provided in support of the operation. Furthermore, my bill would require that, if the operation is to include units of the U.S. Armed Forces to carry out combat missions, the President must certify that the operation advances U.S. security interests, that U.S. participation is critical to the operation's success, that the units will be under the operational command and control of the U.S. armed forces, and that the U.S. military personnel will be fully protected by the Geneva Convention of 1949 governing the treatment of prisoners of war. This legislation requires the President to notify Congress of the intent to support an international peacekeeping operation at least 15 days before any vote of the United Nations Security Council to establish, expand or modify such an operation. If the President determines that an emergency exists which prevents him from meeting the 15-day advance notice requirement, the notice is to be provided in a timely manner, but no later than 48 hours after the Security Council vote. The three measures I am introducing today will, I believe, go a long way toward setting a new course in our relations with the United Nations. If we in Congress fail to rise to the challenge; if the U.N. attempts to defend an unsustainable status quo; if the Administration's new foreign policy team does not reach out to Congress to achieve a genuine bipartisan consensus on the need for U.N. reform; if the U.N.'s dangerous slide to expensive irrelevance continues, then we will have lost a unique opportunity for reform. If this should happen, it is not at all clear to me whether such an opportunity will soon return. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider the legislation I am introducing today as the best course for restoring the bipartisan consensus in this country on the United Nations. Mr. Prsident, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I introduce a package of three bills which will have a significant impact on the lives of American families. The first bill I am reintroducing today provides a tax credit for families caring for a relative who suffers from Alzheimer's disease. Today, ``Alzheimer's'' is a household term. But it was not always so. For many years, victims of Alzheimer's disease and their families struggled in isolation against this illness. However, President Reagan's poignant disclosure in 1994 that Alzheimer's disease was attacking him as he entered the ``twilight years'' of his life captured the collective heart of our Nation, and brought new attention to this devastating disease. We have come a long way from when I first came to Congress over 18 years ago, when there was not a single piece of legislation devoted to Alzheimer's disease. Thankfully, that has changed. Alzheimer's disease is now the most expensive uninsured illness in America. The financial costs are staggering. Alzheimer's will consume more of our national wealth--approximately $1.75 trillion--than all other illnesses except cancer and heart disease. The number of Americans affected by Alzheimer's is rising and will continue to rise dramatically, from 4 million today to over 14 million by the middle of the 21st century. In addition to the significant financial costs related to caring for a family member with Alzheimer's disease, there is also a tremendous emotional cost as well. It is a cost born by the millions of spouses, children, relatives, and friends of Alzheimer's victims who see their loved ones slowly overwhelmed by the disease. We can, however, lessen both the emotional and financial costs of this disease by passing the bill I am reintroducing today which will provide some relief to Alzheimer's patients and their families. My bill would allow families to deduct the cost of home care and adult day and respite care provided to a dependent suffering from Alzheimer's disease. The second bill I am reintroducing today will strengthen the dependent care tax credit and restore Congress' original intent to provide the greatest benefit of tax credit to low-income taxpayers. My legislation expands the dependent care tax credit, makes it applicable for respite care expenses, and makes it refundable. The increase in women entering the work force and the aging population have brought a corresponding increase in the need for both child and elder care. Expenses incurred for such care can significantly strain a family's budget. In 1993, full-time child care costs averaged approximately $4,000. Managing these costs is difficult for many families, but is exceptionally burdensome for those in lower income brackets. In 1976, Congress enacted the dependent care tax credit to help low- and moderate-income families alleviate the burden of employment-related dependent care. Over the years, the DCTC has provided significant Federal assistance to millions of families with child and adult dependent care expenses. Under current law, parents can deduct up to $2,400 annually for employment-related child care expenses for one children, and up to $4,800 for two or more children. Parents can deduct an amount equal to 30 percent of their child care expenditures if they have earnings below $10,000, with the percentage decreasing on a sliding scale to 20 percent if their income is above $28,000. The credit is nonrefundable, meaning that an individual can only receive the credit if he or she pays taxes. Unfortunately, the value of the dependent care tax credit for low- and moderate-income families has eroded in recent years. This is largely due to the lack of inflationary indexing and refundability. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 provided for inflationary indexing of all the basic provisions of the Internal Revenue Code that determine tax liability except for DCTC. As a result, fewer and fewer families with incomes low enough to take advantage of the maximum credit amount, 30 percent, have any tax liability. The result is a shift in DCTC benefits away from low-income families and toward moderate-income families. Fewer and fewer low-income family's annual income reach the tax threshold necessary to receive the tax credit; and those low-income individuals who do reach the threshold lose out on the maximum credit available. Therefore, rather than helping low-income families with dependent care expenses, which was Congress' original intent, the DCTC is evolving into assistance for less needy middle-income families. I believe it is critical to get the DCTC back on track helping those families most in need in our country. If we do not address these issues now, each year increasing tax thresholds will prevent more and more low-income individuals from benefiting from the DCTC. The legislation I am reintroducing would make the adjustments necessary to restore this important benefit to low-income individuals and families. It indexes the DCTC to inflation, and makes it refundable so that those who do not reach the tax thresholds still receive Federal assistance for their dependent care expenses. My legislation, however, goes even further to help families struggling with dependent care expenses. Recognizing the realistic costs of dependent care, my bill raises the DCTC sliding scale from 30 to 50 percent of work-related dependent care expenditures for families earning $15,000 or less. The scale would then be reduced by 1 percentage point for each additional $1,000 more of income, down to a credit of 20 percent for persons earning $45,000 or more. Finally, this legislation expands the definition of dependent care to include respite care, thereby offering relief from this additional expense. A respite care credit would be allowed for up to $1,200 for one qualifying dependent care and $2,400 for two qualifying dependents. The credit for respite care expenses would be available regardless of the caregiver's employment status. Congress intended the dependent care tax credit to help low- and moderate-income families manage the costs of dependent care assistance which is vital to so many families' economic livelihood. However, each year that we do not address the issues of inflationary indexing and refundability, we deny those very families assistance, and, instead, help families with greater financial means. The third bill I am reintroducing today is the Guardianship Rights and Responsibilities Act of 1997, which establishes a bill of rights for adults who, because of physical or mental incapacity, become wards of the courts. Wards are individuals whose legal rights, decisionmaking authority, and possessions have been transferred to the control of a guardian or conservator based on a judgment that the person is no longer capable of handling these affairs. This legal system severely limits an individual's personal autonomy and has considerable problems and widespread abuses. Horror stories abound about guardians who force unnecessary nursing home care, embezzle assets or otherwise abuse their wards. The Guardianship Rights and Responsibilities Act of 1997 would require States to adopt and enforce laws to provide basic protection and rights to wards as a condition of receiving Federal Medicaid funds. It would assure due process protections such as counsel, the right to be present at their proceedings, and to appeal decisions. Also required would be: Clear and convincing evidence to determine the need for a guardianship; adequate court monitoring; and standards, training, and oversight for guardians. This legislation will help to protect the most vulnerable elderly and disabled from exploitation, and will help to assure them the highest possible autonomy. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these important bills.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I introduce a package of three bills which will have a significant impact on the lives of American families. The first bill I am reintroducing today provides a tax credit for families caring for a relative who suffers from Alzheimer's disease. Today, ``Alzheimer's'' is a household term. But it was not always so. For many years, victims of Alzheimer's disease and their families struggled in isolation against this illness. However, President Reagan's poignant disclosure in 1994 that Alzheimer's disease was attacking him as he entered the ``twilight years'' of his life captured the collective heart of our Nation, and brought new attention to this devastating disease. We have come a long way from when I first came to Congress over 18 years ago, when there was not a single piece of legislation devoted to Alzheimer's disease. Thankfully, that has changed. Alzheimer's disease is now the most expensive uninsured illness in America. The financial costs are staggering. Alzheimer's will consume more of our national wealth--approximately $1.75 trillion--than all other illnesses except cancer and heart disease. The number of Americans affected by Alzheimer's is rising and will continue to rise dramatically, from 4 million today to over 14 million by the middle of the 21st century. In addition to the significant financial costs related to caring for a family member with Alzheimer's disease, there is also a tremendous emotional cost as well. It is a cost born by the millions of spouses, children, relatives, and friends of Alzheimer's victims who see their loved ones slowly overwhelmed by the disease. We can, however, lessen both the emotional and financial costs of this disease by passing the bill I am reintroducing today which will provide some relief to Alzheimer's patients and their families. My bill would allow families to deduct the cost of home care and adult day and respite care provided to a dependent suffering from Alzheimer's disease. The second bill I am reintroducing today will strengthen the dependent care tax credit and restore Congress' original intent to provide the greatest benefit of tax credit to low-income taxpayers. My legislation expands the dependent care tax credit, makes it applicable for respite care expenses, and makes it refundable. The increase in women entering the work force and the aging population have brought a corresponding increase in the need for both child and elder care. Expenses incurred for such care can significantly strain a family's budget. In 1993, full-time child care costs averaged approximately $4,000. Managing these costs is difficult for many families, but is exceptionally burdensome for those in lower income brackets. In 1976, Congress enacted the dependent care tax credit to help low- and moderate-income families alleviate the burden of employment-related dependent care. Over the years, the DCTC has provided significant Federal assistance to millions of families with child and adult dependent care expenses. Under current law, parents can deduct up to $2,400 annually for employment-related child care expenses for one children, and up to $4,800 for two or more children. Parents can deduct an amount equal to 30 percent of their child care expenditures if they have earnings below $10,000, with the percentage decreasing on a sliding scale to 20 percent if their income is above $28,000. The credit is nonrefundable, meaning that an individual can only receive the credit if he or she pays taxes. Unfortunately, the value of the dependent care tax credit for low- and moderate-income families has eroded in recent years. This is largely due to the lack of inflationary indexing and refundability. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 provided for inflationary indexing of all the basic provisions of the Internal Revenue Code that determine tax liability except for DCTC. As a result, fewer and fewer families with incomes low enough to take advantage of the maximum credit amount, 30 percent, have any tax liability. The result is a shift in DCTC benefits away from low-income families and toward moderate-income families. Fewer and fewer low-income family's annual income reach the tax threshold necessary to receive the tax credit; and those low-income individuals who do reach the threshold lose out on the maximum credit available. Therefore, rather than helping low-income families with dependent care expenses, which was Congress' original intent, the DCTC is evolving into assistance for less needy middle-income families. I believe it is critical to get the DCTC back on track helping those families most in need in our country. If we do not address these issues now, each year increasing tax thresholds will prevent more and more low-income individuals from benefiting from the DCTC. The legislation I am reintroducing would make the adjustments necessary to restore this important benefit to low-income individuals and families. It indexes the DCTC to inflation, and makes it refundable so that those who do not reach the tax thresholds still receive Federal assistance for their dependent care expenses. My legislation, however, goes even further to help families struggling with dependent care expenses. Recognizing the realistic costs of dependent care, my bill raises the DCTC sliding scale from 30 to 50 percent of work-related dependent care expenditures for families earning $15,000 or less. The scale would then be reduced by 1 percentage point for each additional $1,000 more of income, down to a credit of 20 percent for persons earning $45,000 or more. Finally, this legislation expands the definition of dependent care to include respite care, thereby offering relief from this additional expense. A respite care credit would be allowed for up to $1,200 for one qualifying dependent care and $2,400 for two qualifying dependents. The credit for respite care expenses would be available regardless of the caregiver's employment status. Congress intended the dependent care tax credit to help low- and moderate-income families manage the costs of dependent care assistance which is vital to so many families' economic livelihood. However, each year that we do not address the issues of inflationary indexing and refundability, we deny those very families assistance, and, instead, help families with greater financial means. The third bill I am reintroducing today is the Guardianship Rights and Responsibilities Act of 1997, which establishes a bill of rights for adults who, because of physical or mental incapacity, become wards of the courts. Wards are individuals whose legal rights, decisionmaking authority, and possessions have been transferred to the control of a guardian or conservator based on a judgment that the person is no longer capable of handling these affairs. This legal system severely limits an individual's personal autonomy and has considerable problems and widespread abuses. Horror stories abound about guardians who force unnecessary nursing home care, embezzle assets or otherwise abuse their wards. The Guardianship Rights and Responsibilities Act of 1997 would require States to adopt and enforce laws to provide basic protection and rights to wards as a condition of receiving Federal Medicaid funds. It would assure due process protections such as counsel, the right to be present at their proceedings, and to appeal decisions. Also required would be: Clear and convincing evidence to determine the need for a guardianship; adequate court monitoring; and standards, training, and oversight for guardians. This legislation will help to protect the most vulnerable elderly and disabled from exploitation, and will help to assure them the highest possible autonomy. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these important bills.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Bone Mass Measurement Standardization Act of 1997. Millions of women in their post-menopausal years face a silent killer, a stalker disease we know as osteoporosis. This unforgiving bone disease afflicts 28 million Americans; causes 50,000 deaths each year; 1.5 million bone fractures annually; and the direct medical costs of osteoporosis fracture patients are $13.8 billion each year, or $38 million every single day. This cost is projected to reach $60 billion by the year 2020 and $240 billion by the year 2040 if medical research has not discovered an effective treatment. The facts also show that one out of every two women have a lifetime risk of bone fractures due to osteoporosis, and that it affects half of all women over the age of 50 and an astounding 90% of all women over 75. Perhaps the most tragic consequences of osteoporosis occur with the 300,000 individuals annually who suffer a hip fracture. Twelve to thirteen percent of these persons will die within six months following a hip fracture, and of those who survive, 20% will never walk again, and 20% will require nursing home care--often for the rest of their lives. We all know that osteoporosis cannot be cured, although with a continued commitment to research in this area I remain hopeful that we will find one. We also know that once bone mass is lost, it cannot be replaced. Therefore, early detection is our best weapon because it is only through early detection that we can thwart the progress of the disease and initiate preventive efforts to stop further loss of bone mass. Bone mass measurement can be used to determine the status of a person's bone health and to predict the risk of future fractures. These tests are safe, painless, accurate and quick. Our expanding technology is adding new methods to determine bone mass and we need to keep up with this technology. The most commonly used test currently is DXA (Dual energy X-ray Absorptiometry). In order to ensure that we detect bone loss early, we need to ensure that older women have coverage for bone mass tests. Unfortunately, Medicare coverage is inconsistent in its coverage depending on where an individual resides. Instead of national coverage of the DXA test, Medicare leaves coverage decisions to local Medicare insurance carriers. The definition of who is qualified to receive a bone mass measurement varies from carrier to carrier. Some carriers require beneficiaries to have suffered substantial bone loss before allowing coverage for a bone density test. For example, in about 20 States, the carriers require x-ray proof of low bone mass or other abnormalities. Unfortunately, standard x-rays do not reveal osteoporosis until 25 to 40 percent of bone mass has been lost. One carrier allows pre-menopausal women to have a DXA test to determine whether hormone replacement therapy is indicated. However, it does not allow the test to determine treatment for the post-menopausal women--the majority of Medicare beneficiaries. Other carriers have no specific rules to guide reimbursement and cover the tests on a haphazard case-by-case basis. Frequency of testing also varies from carrier to carrier. Re-testing is important to monitor treatment, yet only eight states specifically allow coverage for people who are under treatment for osteoporosis. This patchwork coverage is confusing to beneficiaries, and means that an older woman who lives in one State will be covered, but if she moves to another state, she may not be. A woman may also lose coverage if she moves to another city within a given State. Mr. President, a woman shouldn't have to change zip codes to obtain coverage for a preventive test, especially when early intervention is the only action we can take right now to slow the loss of bone mass. Once it is lost, it cannot be replaced. The Medicare Bone Mass Measurement Standardization Act will clarify the Medicare coverage policy for DXA testing to make it uniform in all states. We all know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This bill will ensure that older women, regardless of where they live, will have access to bone mass measurement technology that will help detect bone loss and allow preventive steps to be taken. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in my view there is no greater threat to our nation's security than the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Among these is the scourge of chemical weapons which have been unleashed in this century with such horrifying effect in the trenches of the First World War, in the villages of Iraq a decade ago, and more recently in the Tokyo subway. In 1985 the United States took a bold unilateral decision to destroy our chemical weapons stockpiles because they serve no military purpose. And in 1990 the United States negotiated a bilateral chemical weapons destruction agreement with the Soviet Union in an effort to begin the process of reducing that country's stockpiles, the largest in the world. The leadership of the United States through the years has been crucial in forging the broad international consensus which produced the Chemical Weapons Convention. The whole world is watching us closely today to see whether or not the United States is going to continue its leadership role on this critical issue. The United States must not retreat from more than a decade of leadership on controlling chemical weapons. We must ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention before it comes into force on April 29--not just to maintain our leadership on this issue, but because it is in our best interests to do so. The issue is not whether the Convention will completely eliminate the threat of chemical weapons. There is no magic wand to do that. However, what the Chemical Weapons Convention will do is nevertheless substantial. It will establish--for the first time--an international standard against the production and use of chemical weapons. It will provide us with significant additional monitoring and inspection tools to detect chemical weapons activities. And it will impose trade restrictions that will make it more difficult for ``rogue'' states and terrorist organizations to start or continue chemical weapons programs. Opponents of the Convention argue that it is not adequately verifiable, although many of those same critics argue at the same time that the treaty is too intrusive. The fact is that the Convention includes the most extensive monitoring and inspection regime of any arms control treaty to date. The U.S. chemical industry--which will be the target of most of the monitoring and inspection under the Convention-- helped write these provisions and is comfortable with them. The U.S. intelligence community believes that the Convention will significantly enhance its current ability to detect suspicious patterns of chemical activity in other countries. I am particularly pleased with the Condition #5, which has been agreed to, that protects U.S. intelligence information that may be shared with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. It reflects the legislation I have introduced to protect U.S. intelligence which is shared with international organizations. The trade restrictions imposed by the Convention represent another key element in controlling the proliferation of chemical weapons. Building on the existing trade restrictions in chemicals under the informal Australia Group, the Convention limits trade in the most likely chemicals to be used in weapons production--Schedule I chemicals--to trade among countries that have already ratified it. The same restrictions will apply after three years to Schedule II ``dual- use'' chemicals which have both commercial and military applications. Therefore, if we do not ratify, we hurt our own chemical industry which will be excluded from commerce in Schedule I chemicals with some of our principal trading partners, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, and Canada. The economic loss to the United States is estimated to be $600 million annually. Opponents of the Convention also argue that it is contrary to our national security interests because countries like Iraq and North Korea will continue their chemical weapons programs while we destroy our own stockpiles. But the Convention will make it harder for these countries to obtain critical chemical ingredients for their weapons programs. And, by outlawing the production of chemical weapons for the first time, the Convention will allow the international community to take collective action to isolate ``rogue'' states intent on developing these weapons. The Pentagon's top military leaders have all testified that chemical weapons are not needed to deter other countries from using these weapons against the U.S. or our armed forces. In fact, chemical weapons serve no useful military purpose as a method of warfare. America's ability to inflict overwhelming destruction, without resorting to chemical warfare, serves as a sufficient deterrent to the use of chemical weapons against our armed forces. I agree strongly with Condition #11, which has already been agreed to, that requires the United States to maintain a robust program of chemical and biological defenses to ensure that our forces are provided with maximum protection in the event such weapons are ever used against U.S. forces. Such a policy is only matter of prudence and common sense. The resolution of ratification before the Senate today sets out further conditions that address widely-shared concerns about the Chemical Weapons Convention. For instance, conditions will ensure the primacy of the U.S. Constitution, limit U.S. financial obligations under the Convention, ensure appropriate cost-sharing arrangements, and require consultation with this body in cases of noncompliance with the treaty. By clarifying and reinforcing the Senate's views on these and other important issues, the conditions constitute a useful complement to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Mr. President, it is important to note that this Convention has a history of bipartisan support. Negotiations began under the Reagan Administration and were concluded by the Bush Administration. Former President George Bush has said, and I quote, ``This Convention clearly serves the best interests of the United States in a world in which the proliferation and use of chemical weapons is a real and growing threat . . . United States leadership is required once again to bring this historic agreement into force.'' A total of 162 countries have now signed the Chemical Weapons Convention and 74 countries have ratified it. Russia, China and Iran-- all with known chemical weapons programs--have signed the Convention, but it is unlikely that these countries will ratify it if the U.S. does not do so first. Mr. President, American leadership is needed once again. The U.S. must be among the original ratifying states in order to play a central role in setting up the new Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and to participate fully in the Convention's monitoring, inspection, and trade control activities. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution of ratification for the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Bone Mass Measurement Standardization Act of 1997. Millions of women in their post-menopausal years face a silent killer, a stalker disease we know as osteoporosis. This unforgiving bone disease afflicts 28 million Americans; causes 50,000 deaths each year; 1.5 million bone fractures annually; and the direct medical costs of osteoporosis fracture patients are $13.8 billion each year, or $38 million every single day. This cost is projected to reach $60 billion by the year 2020 and $240 billion by the year 2040 if medical research has not discovered an effective treatment. The facts also show that one out of every two women have a lifetime risk of bone fractures due to osteoporosis, and that it affects half of all women over the age of 50 and an astounding 90% of all women over 75. Perhaps the most tragic consequences of osteoporosis occur with the 300,000 individuals annually who suffer a hip fracture. Twelve to thirteen percent of these persons will die within six months following a hip fracture, and of those who survive, 20% will never walk again, and 20% will require nursing home care--often for the rest of their lives. We all know that osteoporosis cannot be cured, although with a continued commitment to research in this area I remain hopeful that we will find one. We also know that once bone mass is lost, it cannot be replaced. Therefore, early detection is our best weapon because it is only through early detection that we can thwart the progress of the disease and initiate preventive efforts to stop further loss of bone mass. Bone mass measurement can be used to determine the status of a person's bone health and to predict the risk of future fractures. These tests are safe, painless, accurate and quick. Our expanding technology is adding new methods to determine bone mass and we need to keep up with this technology. The most commonly used test currently is DXA (Dual energy X-ray Absorptiometry). In order to ensure that we detect bone loss early, we need to ensure that older women have coverage for bone mass tests. Unfortunately, Medicare coverage is inconsistent in its coverage depending on where an individual resides. Instead of national coverage of the DXA test, Medicare leaves coverage decisions to local Medicare insurance carriers. The definition of who is qualified to receive a bone mass measurement varies from carrier to carrier. Some carriers require beneficiaries to have suffered substantial bone loss before allowing coverage for a bone density test. For example, in about 20 States, the carriers require x-ray proof of low bone mass or other abnormalities. Unfortunately, standard x-rays do not reveal osteoporosis until 25 to 40 percent of bone mass has been lost. One carrier allows pre-menopausal women to have a DXA test to determine whether hormone replacement therapy is indicated. However, it does not allow the test to determine treatment for the post-menopausal women--the majority of Medicare beneficiaries. Other carriers have no specific rules to guide reimbursement and cover the tests on a haphazard case-by-case basis. Frequency of testing also varies from carrier to carrier. Re-testing is important to monitor treatment, yet only eight states specifically allow coverage for people who are under treatment for osteoporosis. This patchwork coverage is confusing to beneficiaries, and means that an older woman who lives in one State will be covered, but if she moves to another state, she may not be. A woman may also lose coverage if she moves to another city within a given State. Mr. President, a woman shouldn't have to change zip codes to obtain coverage for a preventive test, especially when early intervention is the only action we can take right now to slow the loss of bone mass. Once it is lost, it cannot be replaced. The Medicare Bone Mass Measurement Standardization Act will clarify the Medicare coverage policy for DXA testing to make it uniform in all states. We all know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This bill will ensure that older women, regardless of where they live, will have access to bone mass measurement technology that will help detect bone loss and allow preventive steps to be taken. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today on Take Our Daughters to Work Day, to encourage young women and girls across America to set their sights high, and to reach for their dreams. Since my childhood, the composition of the work force has changed dramatically, and job opportunities have significantly increased for young women and girls. Today, women comprise 46 percent of the paid labor force, and according to Bureau of Labor and Statistics, by the year 2000, roughly half of new entrants into the labor force will be women. Despite these gains, studies show that during adolescence, girls often receive less attention in school and suffer from lower expectations than do boys. They also set their future sights lower than their male counterparts. This is reflected in a New York Times/CBS poll, which found that over one third of girls surveyed believed that there are more advantages to being a man than a women. For many girls, low self-esteem can lead them to lose confidence in their abilities, which may prevent them from achieving their fullest potential later in life. In this day and age, we cannot accept reduced opportunities for girls and women from either an equity standpoint or an economic one. Today, women are equally responsible for the well-being of their families. So it is not just their own futures that are at stake, but the future of their children and their children's children. It is our responsibility to set high standards and provide them with the experiences and role models that will inspire them to be extraordinary leaders of the future. We need to do far more to challenge our daughters' notions of women's work. While most school-age girls plan to work, they do not plan for careers that could sustain themselves and their families. In 1992, 53.8 million women were employed and only 3.5 million were employed in nontraditional occupations. Further, women working in nontraditional jobs earn 20 to 30 percent more than women in traditionally female jobs. Women remain significantly under-represented in careers requiring math and science skills--women comprise only 11 percent of today's technical work force, and only 17 percent of all doctors are women. Nearly 75 percent of tomorrow's jobs will require the use of computers, but girls comprise less than one-third of students enrolled in computer courses. And a study by the Glass Ceiling Commission found that women occupy only 5 percent of senior-level management of the top Fortune 1000 industrial and 500 service companies. As leaders and as parents, we must do our best to ensure that American girls are prepared to step into those high-wage jobs and management positions that command higher salaries in the work force. I was honored to endorse again, this year, Take Our Daughters to Work Day, organized by the Maine's Women's Development Institute, in my home State. Girls in Maine and across the Nation will have another opportunity to see first-hand that they have a range of life options. In the past, Take Our Daughters to Work Day has encouraged young girls to reach out and use their creative spirit and I am confident that this special day will prove again to be a rich and rewarding experience for all parents and daughters alike. Today, millions of parents across the Nation will take their daughters to work. In 1996, in Maine alone, 10,000 Maine girls and 5,000 Maine businesses participated in Take Our Daughters To Work Day. These parents perform a great service by exposing their daughters to new and exciting experiences. They are not only expanding their horizons and helping them to explore opportunities, but teaching them important lessons about goal-setting as well. Take Our Daughters to Work Day has encouraged a new generation of young girls to envision a world where no goal is impossible.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill designed to rectify an inequity in child support law which will enable families to keep more of past-due support owed to them. I am extremely pleased that my colleague from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, has joined me today in offering this bill, and that Representative Nancy Johnson is offering a companion bill in the House. Last year, my bill, the Child Support Improvement Act of 1996, was enacted into law as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Welfare Reform Act). This bill contained comprehensive reforms to ensure that deadbeat parents could no longer renege on their responsibilities as parents to care for and support their children. It included provisions to dramatically improve States' ability to collect child support, particularly across State lines, and to take maximum advantage of computer technology in order to track down missing parents and ensure that child support gets paid promptly. It also will help increase the rate of paternity establishment, require the provision if health insurance coverage in child support orders, and improve the process for modifying support orders. In short, it promises to bring hope and financial stability to the millions of children and their single parents who depend on support from absent parents. I am introducing a bill today which will close one small loophole that remains outstanding. Prior to the enactment of the Welfare Reform Act last year, a State that collected child support arrearages for a family that had left welfare could choose to reimburse itself for welfare expenditures with the arrears that accrued before the during AFDC receipt, before it paid the family arrears that accrued after the family left AFDC. Two-thirds of States chose to pay themselves back for AFDC outlays before paying the family, leaving the family with little, if any, of the money that accrued after they left the rolls. The Welfare Act rightfully changes this to require States to first pay the family the arrears collected when the family was not on welfare, before it can reimburse itself for assistance outlays. This provision increases the likelihood of a family's success in leaving welfare by ensuring that the family receives more of the child support collected on its behalf. Unfortunately, a small provision inserted in conference creates an inequity for families, whereby arrears collected via a tax intercept (instead of wages garnished by the State) will not be affected by this change. It does not make sense that whether or not a family receives the funds depends on the method by which it is collected. This provision also rewards those States which do little to collect child support but rely instead on the Federal tax system to intercept the funds. My bill corrects this inequity by imposing the same distribution scheme on arrears collected through the tax intercept as it does on arrears collected by the States directly. This will ensure that families receive more of the past-due support that is owed to them, helping them to remain economically independent and to stay off welfare. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which not only promises to help families, but will further our goals of keeping families off of public assistance.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill designed to rectify an inequity in child support law which will enable families to keep more of past-due support owed to them. I am extremely pleased that my colleague from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, has joined me today in offering this bill, and that Representative Nancy Johnson is offering a companion bill in the House. Last year, my bill, the Child Support Improvement Act of 1996, was enacted into law as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Welfare Reform Act). This bill contained comprehensive reforms to ensure that deadbeat parents could no longer renege on their responsibilities as parents to care for and support their children. It included provisions to dramatically improve States' ability to collect child support, particularly across State lines, and to take maximum advantage of computer technology in order to track down missing parents and ensure that child support gets paid promptly. It also will help increase the rate of paternity establishment, require the provision if health insurance coverage in child support orders, and improve the process for modifying support orders. In short, it promises to bring hope and financial stability to the millions of children and their single parents who depend on support from absent parents. I am introducing a bill today which will close one small loophole that remains outstanding. Prior to the enactment of the Welfare Reform Act last year, a State that collected child support arrearages for a family that had left welfare could choose to reimburse itself for welfare expenditures with the arrears that accrued before the during AFDC receipt, before it paid the family arrears that accrued after the family left AFDC. Two-thirds of States chose to pay themselves back for AFDC outlays before paying the family, leaving the family with little, if any, of the money that accrued after they left the rolls. The Welfare Act rightfully changes this to require States to first pay the family the arrears collected when the family was not on welfare, before it can reimburse itself for assistance outlays. This provision increases the likelihood of a family's success in leaving welfare by ensuring that the family receives more of the child support collected on its behalf. Unfortunately, a small provision inserted in conference creates an inequity for families, whereby arrears collected via a tax intercept (instead of wages garnished by the State) will not be affected by this change. It does not make sense that whether or not a family receives the funds depends on the method by which it is collected. This provision also rewards those States which do little to collect child support but rely instead on the Federal tax system to intercept the funds. My bill corrects this inequity by imposing the same distribution scheme on arrears collected through the tax intercept as it does on arrears collected by the States directly. This will ensure that families receive more of the past-due support that is owed to them, helping them to remain economically independent and to stay off welfare. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which not only promises to help families, but will further our goals of keeping families off of public assistance.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills intended to protect innocent Americans from the violent will of criminals and fugitives. One need take only a quick review of recent statistics to realize the chilling scope of our nation's crime problems. For instance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that 11 million Americans were the victims of violent crime in 1994 alone. The Bureau of Justice Statistics also reports that approximately 3.5 million Americans were accosted at gunpoint during that same year. These statistics should galvanize us all into taking concrete steps to protect innocent Americans against senseless victimization and turn the tide against criminals once and for all. My bills will help to do just that. The first bill I introduce today, the Crime Control Act of 1997, will ensure that an individual convicted of committing a violent crime or engaging in drug trafficking activities while in possession of a gun, will go to jail for 10 years, and not a day less. If an offender fires a gun while committing those crimes, that offender will go to jail for 20 years. And should that criminal make the mistake of using a machinegun or a gun with a silencer to commit those crimes, that criminal will be incarcerated for 30 years. Once imprisoned, the Crime Control Act provides hardened criminals with no option for parole or reduced sentences that would allow them another chance to harm innocent citizens. Simply put, the passage of my Crime Control Act ensures that if you do the crime, you will most certainly do the time. And under my bill, that time won't be easy. A key initiative of the Crime Control Act is the creation of work programs for all able bodied prisoners by the Attorney General. In addition, my bill prohibits the government from providing any entertainment devices, like televisions, radios, or stereos, for use in individual prisoner cells. Federal prisons are not the place for entertainment. They are not intended to be fun. They are the places where individuals repay their debt to society and in the case of violent criminals, it is a very large debt indeed. My Crime Control Act makes sure that violent criminals pay that debt, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important and effective crime control measure. The second bill I introduce today applies directly to actions taken by fugitives who resist arrest. Over the past few years, America has witnessed an unfortunate trend involving standoffs between the U.S. Government and parties who reject its authority to enforce the laws of this land--specifically, the incidents in Waco, TX; Ruby Ridge, ID; and Garfield County, MT. Thankfully, the episode involving the Freemen did not escalate to violence or bloodshed. Regrettably, this does not hold true for Waco or Ruby Ridge, where there was a tragic loss of life to civilians and Government agents alike. Each of these situations jeopardized children's lives--innocent children who had no choice in the role they played in these standoffs. In Waco, 25 young children under the age of 15 died in the blaze that spread throughout the compound. These deaths occurred despite the repeated efforts by Federal agents to encourage Branch Davidians leaders to allow children to leave the compound. At Ruby Ridge, a 14-year-old died after being caught in gunfire. And during the Freeman standoff, Americans across the Nation held their breath--praying that violence would not erupt. Once again, the lives of children were placed in jeopardy. But thankfully, this time, the children--and adults--emerged unharmed. As we have seen, tragedy can occur in these very tense situations. Above all else, we need to ensure that children are kept out of these situations in the future. People who arm themselves after failing to comply with warrants or because they seek to avoid arrest must realize that, whether or not it is intended, children are implicated in these standoffs. We cannot allow this to continue any longer. We cannot allow another child's life to be endangered in this manner. This bill seeks to protect children from harm in these standoff situations. My bill would make it a crime to detain a child when two conditions are met: if a person is trying to evade arrest or avoid complying with a warrant, and that person uses force, or threatens to use force, against a Federal agent. Any person convicted of violating this act would be imprisoned for 10-25 years. If a child is injured, the penalty would be increased to 20-35 years. If a child is killed, the penalty would be life imprisonment. No law can ever assure that children will be kept free from harm. But this legislation will help assure that children do not become inadvertent, innocent pawns when violent situations arise. It will provide a deterrent to involving a child in any standoff--and severe penalties for those who ignore the law. Both of the bills I introduce today are aimed at protecting the innocents in our society, and I urge my colleagues to support them. America needs to be a place where innocent citizens do not have to fear for their life because gun-toting criminals and drug pushers linger on the streets. It needs to be a place where children are not the captives of adults intent upon resisting arrest. Freedom from violence and captivity are basic tenets of our society, which most Americans enjoy and respect. Those among us who don't share our respect for the laws of our society must realize that their actions are criminal, and that in America, criminal actions have repercussions. The passage of these bills will make sure that they do.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills intended to protect innocent Americans from the violent will of criminals and fugitives. One need take only a quick review of recent statistics to realize the chilling scope of our nation's crime problems. For instance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that 11 million Americans were the victims of violent crime in 1994 alone. The Bureau of Justice Statistics also reports that approximately 3.5 million Americans were accosted at gunpoint during that same year. These statistics should galvanize us all into taking concrete steps to protect innocent Americans against senseless victimization and turn the tide against criminals once and for all. My bills will help to do just that. The first bill I introduce today, the Crime Control Act of 1997, will ensure that an individual convicted of committing a violent crime or engaging in drug trafficking activities while in possession of a gun, will go to jail for 10 years, and not a day less. If an offender fires a gun while committing those crimes, that offender will go to jail for 20 years. And should that criminal make the mistake of using a machinegun or a gun with a silencer to commit those crimes, that criminal will be incarcerated for 30 years. Once imprisoned, the Crime Control Act provides hardened criminals with no option for parole or reduced sentences that would allow them another chance to harm innocent citizens. Simply put, the passage of my Crime Control Act ensures that if you do the crime, you will most certainly do the time. And under my bill, that time won't be easy. A key initiative of the Crime Control Act is the creation of work programs for all able bodied prisoners by the Attorney General. In addition, my bill prohibits the government from providing any entertainment devices, like televisions, radios, or stereos, for use in individual prisoner cells. Federal prisons are not the place for entertainment. They are not intended to be fun. They are the places where individuals repay their debt to society and in the case of violent criminals, it is a very large debt indeed. My Crime Control Act makes sure that violent criminals pay that debt, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important and effective crime control measure. The second bill I introduce today applies directly to actions taken by fugitives who resist arrest. Over the past few years, America has witnessed an unfortunate trend involving standoffs between the U.S. Government and parties who reject its authority to enforce the laws of this land--specifically, the incidents in Waco, TX; Ruby Ridge, ID; and Garfield County, MT. Thankfully, the episode involving the Freemen did not escalate to violence or bloodshed. Regrettably, this does not hold true for Waco or Ruby Ridge, where there was a tragic loss of life to civilians and Government agents alike. Each of these situations jeopardized children's lives--innocent children who had no choice in the role they played in these standoffs. In Waco, 25 young children under the age of 15 died in the blaze that spread throughout the compound. These deaths occurred despite the repeated efforts by Federal agents to encourage Branch Davidians leaders to allow children to leave the compound. At Ruby Ridge, a 14-year-old died after being caught in gunfire. And during the Freeman standoff, Americans across the Nation held their breath--praying that violence would not erupt. Once again, the lives of children were placed in jeopardy. But thankfully, this time, the children--and adults--emerged unharmed. As we have seen, tragedy can occur in these very tense situations. Above all else, we need to ensure that children are kept out of these situations in the future. People who arm themselves after failing to comply with warrants or because they seek to avoid arrest must realize that, whether or not it is intended, children are implicated in these standoffs. We cannot allow this to continue any longer. We cannot allow another child's life to be endangered in this manner. This bill seeks to protect children from harm in these standoff situations. My bill would make it a crime to detain a child when two conditions are met: if a person is trying to evade arrest or avoid complying with a warrant, and that person uses force, or threatens to use force, against a Federal agent. Any person convicted of violating this act would be imprisoned for 10-25 years. If a child is injured, the penalty would be increased to 20-35 years. If a child is killed, the penalty would be life imprisonment. No law can ever assure that children will be kept free from harm. But this legislation will help assure that children do not become inadvertent, innocent pawns when violent situations arise. It will provide a deterrent to involving a child in any standoff--and severe penalties for those who ignore the law. Both of the bills I introduce today are aimed at protecting the innocents in our society, and I urge my colleagues to support them. America needs to be a place where innocent citizens do not have to fear for their life because gun-toting criminals and drug pushers linger on the streets. It needs to be a place where children are not the captives of adults intent upon resisting arrest. Freedom from violence and captivity are basic tenets of our society, which most Americans enjoy and respect. Those among us who don't share our respect for the laws of our society must realize that their actions are criminal, and that in America, criminal actions have repercussions. The passage of these bills will make sure that they do.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, March 25, 1997, marks a special day for the Greek people and for all the friends of Greece around the world. It is the 176th anniversary of the day in 1821 when the people of Greece declared their independence from centuries of political, religious and cultural repression under the Ottoman Empire. Greek independence was recognized 8 years later only after a long, hard- fought struggle during which the people of Greece made countless sacrifices for their freedom. Contemporary American leaders, such as James Monroe and Daniel Webster, recognized that the ideals of the American Revolution-- individual liberty, representative democracy, and personal dignity-- were also the foundation for Greece's declaration of independence. Americans in the 1820's quickly identified with the struggle of the Greek patriots because they knew in their hearts that it was a continuation of their own struggle for political and religious freedom. The same spirit of democracy that was born and flourished in Greece a thousand years ago, and which fanned the flames of the American revolution, inspired the Greek patriots to persevere in their struggle against their Turkish oppressors. The United States and Greece are now old friends and trusted allies. Our two nations and people are bound by unbreakable bonds which link us through common interests, values, and political heritage. It is clear that our cherished ideals of democracy and freedom are as strong as ever and continue to inspire other countries to follow our example. One need look no further than to the fledgling democracies of Eastern Europe and the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union to see the huge impact these ideals are still having on our world as we enter the 21st century. Independence, of course, must be guarded vigilantly, and in the past 176 years Greece's independence has been challenged by forces both external and internal. Therefore, even as we recognize and celebrate Greece's long independence today, we must also be mindful of the threats which Greece faces in today's world. The ongoing dispute with Turkey over the islet of Imia and the Albanian Government's recent military action near the Greek border serve as troubling reminders of Greece's vulnerability and the instability of the Balkan region. On this, the 176th anniversary of Greek independence, let us extend our warmest congratulations to the people of Greece. And let us also rededicate America's commitment to Greece and to strengthening the solidarity that exists between our two great nations.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. My reason for investigating this nomination was simple: to make certain that this nominee could be counted on to defend United States. interests in the trade arena, and to ensure that her past legal work for Canadian entities would not in any way influence the exercise of her duties as United States Trade Representative. Ms. Barshefsky's written responses to my questions, and on her responses to the questions of other senators and the Finance Committee, indicate that her nomination does not pose any such problems. As has been widely reported, Ms. Barshefsky worked, while an attorney for a Washington, DC, law firm, for several Canadian entities. But as her responses to the Senate detail, this work amounted to a tiny fraction of the total over the course of her 18-year career as a trade attorney in private practice. In fact, Ms. Barshefsky has certified to me and to the Finance Committee that her work for all Canadian Government entities represents less than 1 percent of the total hours that she spent working while in private practice. Furthermore, Ms. Barshefsky states in her responses to me that she never lobbied the U.S. Government on behalf of any foreign government or political party. I also questioned Ms. Barshefsky closely regarding her commitment to defend American interests in the arena of international trade. Ms. Barshefsky's responses are unequivocal. She states that she will forcefully defend and advocate American business interests in all international trade disputes, negotiations, and discussions involving the United States. She states that she will aggressively pursue all effective remedies to unfair trade practices committed by other countries against American businesses. And she states that she will pursue the strict adherence to, and vigorous enforcement of, all United States trade laws. Ms. Barshefsky also specifically says that, if confirmed, she will ensure that the USTR's office raises the issues of concern to the U.S. potato industry during our bilateral meetings with Canada. In addition to her words on paper, we also have Ms. Barshefsky's track record. She served as Deputy U.S. Trade Representative from 1993 to 1996, and as Acting U.S. Trade Representative for the past year. Her experience in these positions has given us a body of work to evaluate, and a record upon which to judge whether Ms. Barshefsky means what she says. And from what I have seen in her performance of her duties in these positions, through my own dealings with her, and from what other Senators have said, I believe that her deeds will be consistent with her words after she is confirmed. I have spoken with and sought the assistance of Ms. Barshefsky on several occasions over the past year. In each instance, I have found Ms. Barshefsky to be responsive and cooperative. She displayed a genuine interest in the problems facing my constituents, and offered a number of options through which the administration could be of assistance. I think it is also instructive to look at the Canadian softwood lumber issue. Although Ms. Barshefsky had, while in private practice, represented Canadian interests on the countervailing duty case that the United States filed against Canada in 1991, she later served as the second-highest ranking trade negotiator in the United States Government and participated in the negotiation of a bilateral agreement approved in 1996 that curtails subsidized Canadian softwood imports into the United States. That agreement has restored a measure of fairness to the lumber trade between the United States and Canada. And we would not have successfully concluded the agreement without the strong support of our senior trade officials like Ms. Barshefsky because the Canadians were under no legal obligations to sign an agreement with us. The United States had lost a succession of binational dispute resolution panel decisions on the issue up to that point, and had no way to legally require Canada to negotiate. Mr. President, I was concerned when I first learned about some of Ms. Barshefsky's past work, but upon investigating this matter and questioning Ms. Barshefsky, I accept her assurances that this work will not influence her decisions and actions as the U.S. Trade Representative. And I am confident that she will defend and advocate American interests in the international trade arena, consistent with the policies of the Clinton administration. I cannot find anything in the record that compels opposition to Ms. Barshefsky's nomination, and I believe that she has earned the support of the Senate. Exhibit 1 Written Response to Questions from Senator Snowe Canada/Journal of Commerce The Journal of Commerce reported on November 15, 1996, that, as a lawyer in private practice, you were retained by the Canadian federal government and the Government of Quebec on issues involving trade with the U.S. in lumber and pork. What was the specific nature of the services that you provided on these governments on these issues, and at what times did you provide these services? Following is the verbatim response provided to the Senate Finance Committee Questionnaire Statement of Information for Potential Nominees, Question C.6 on Potential Conflicts of Interest: ``Before becoming the Deputy United States Trade Representative in May of 1993, I worked for 18 years as a lawyer with the Washington law form if Steptoe & Johnson. The vast majority of my work during those 18 years was in the international trade area, particularly in the area of trade litigation, including antidumping, countervailing duty, escape clause, and similar on-the-record litigations arising under the U.S. trade laws. My representation of foreign governments or foreign political parties was limited to Canada, viz, the Government of Quebec and the Embassy of Canada, which were disclosed at the time that I was confirmed in 1993 to serve as Deputy United States Trade Representative. At no time during the 18 years that I practiced law did I ever lobby on behalf of any foreign government or foreign political party.'' With respect to the Government of Quebec, my work involved providing guidance and legal drafting assistance to the Steptoe & Johnson lawyers responsible for the client in connection with on-the-record litigation in two trade cases: 1) the administrative reviews of countervailing duty orders on Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Pork from Canada (hereinafter Canadian Pork) and the appeal thereof to an FTA panel; and 2) the petition filed under Section 302 of the Trade Act of 1974 by the G. Heilman Brewing Company (later jointed by Stroh's Brewing Company) concerning Canadian beer practices (hereinafter Canadian Beer). I did not meet with any U.S. government officials or appear on behalf of Quebec in any proceeding, nor did my name appear on any of the briefs or submissions in any of the proceedings. With respect to Canadian Beer, neither I nor the firm were involved in the GATT Panel proceeding. My work related to the Government of Quebec began in October of 1989 and ended in March 1991, almost six years ago. My time on the Canadian Pork and Canadian Beer matters totaled approximately 240 hours, which represented just over 0.50 percent of my work while in private practice. With respect to the Embassy of Canada, my former law firm and I were retained by the Embassy to monitor developments in the United States concerning a broad range of substantive areas, including international trade. The contract with the Embassy of Canada for this monitoring work stated that Steptoe & Johnson was ``to provide legal advice to the Canadian Embassy, in Washington, D.C., on political, legislative and regulatory developments in the United States relating to trade and economic issues.'' The Embassy explicitly prohibited lobbying on its behalf and I did not lobby. We routinely reviewed developments in the international trade area, which included administrative, legislative and judicial actions on issues of relevance to the Embassy, ranging from changes in U.S. trade law to investment restrictions in various countries. I coordinated the work of other lawyers and paralegals in the firm as well, and routed to them pertinent materials for their use. Pursuant to the monitoring contract, the Embassy requested that I also provide advice with respect to two specific trade matters. First, I directed the preparation of memoranda on the options and legal consequences if Canada were to terminate its settlement agreement with the United States involving softwood lumber, as well as the implications of judicial, administrative and legislative developments in U.S. trade law on possible future trade litigation in the event that Canada decided to terminate the settlement agreement. I did not recommend to the Embassy what course of action Canada should take with respect to the lumber matter. At the time that I directed this work, the settlement agreement was in force; there was no pending trade litigation and there were no negotiations on softwood lumber between the United States and Canada. In fact, my work on the settlement agreement ended several months before the countervailing duty litigation on Softwood Lumber from Canada began.2 Second, I reviewed certain draft composite texts prepared by the Chairmen of the GATT working groups on antidumping and countervailing duty law for circulation to all of the approximately 117 countries that participated in the Uruguay Round MTN. The Chairmen's drafts that I commented on were prepared by the GATT Chairmen as an attempt to reflect the consensus of GATT members. They were not U.S. texts. My review of these draft texts involved comparative analyses of the Chairmen's drafts with past GATT provisions, GATT practice, prior Chairmen's drafts, and U.S. law, as appropriate, and an evaluation of the potential impact of these and alternative texts on U.S. law. My time spent on the MOU settlement agreement and MTN matters totaled approximately 145 hours, or slightly more than 0.30 percent of my work while in private practice. My work on these two matters was done intermittently from May 1990 to December 1991, and ended more than five years ago. What other Canadian governments, business, industry groups, or organizations have you represented on matters related to trade with the United States? What was the specific nature of the services that you provided to these entities, and at what times did you provide these services? As indicated in response to question 1, I represented the Canadian Forest Industries Council (``CFIC'') in the countervailing duty litigation on Softwood Lumber from Canada. CFIC is an unincorporated association comprised of trade associations in the Canadian forest products sector, private Canadian softwood lumber producers, Canadian exporters of softwood lumber, and U.S. importers of softwood lumber. The services provided included those required in an on-the-record trade litigation, such as brief writing, assistance with preparation of responses to Department of Commerce questionnaires, and oral advocacy. I was retained in October, 1991, and my involvement ended when I left my former law firm, Steptoe & Johnson, in April, 1993. Were you ever retained by a Canadian entity to work on a particular issue at a time when that entity was engaged in a formal dispute resolution proceeding with the United States related to that issue under trade agreements signed by the United States and Canada? If so, what was the specific nature of the work that you performed for that entity on that issue? See question 1 which describes all my work relating to foreign governments. As indicated above, I was retained by CFIC in the countervailing duty litigation on Softwood Lumber from Canada. Were you ever retained by a Canadian entity at a time when that entity was involved, either directly as a government, or indirectly as an interest lobbying a Canadian Federal or provincial government, in negotiations on bilateral and multilateral trade agreements to which the United States was a party? If so, can you please describe the specific nature of that work? With respect to being retained directly by the Canadian government, see response to question 1. I was never retained by any client to lobby Canadian Federal or provincial governments. Were you ever retained by the Canadian federal government, a provincial government, or any other Canadian entity to perform work related to the Uruguay Round negotiations of the GATT, particularly as these negotiations related to the United States? If so, can you please describe the specific nature of this work? See response to question 1. (a) Do you think your past work in the private sector on behalf of Canadian entities will in any way hamper your ability to perform your duties as the U.S. Trade Representative as those duties relate to Canada? (b) Do you feel compelled to recuse yourself on any matters that come before the U.S. Trade Representative's office on issues related to Canada? (a). No. (b) No. However, I have recused myself from any particular matter involving specific parties in which I served as counsel on that matter while in private practice, unless I have been authorized to participate in that matter under the provisions of 5 C.F.R. 2635, Subpart E. Can you assure me and other senators that your past work on behalf of any Canadian entity will not have any bearing on the performance of your duties as the U.S. Trade Representative? Yes, unequivocally. American businesses need a forceful, aggressive, and indefatigable advocate in the position of U.S. Trade Representative, particularly when dealing with intransigent and unscrupulous governments like Canada's. (a) Do you intend to forcefully defend and advocate American business interests in all international trade disputes, negotiations, and discussions involving the United States? (b) Will you aggressively pursue all effective remedies to unfair trade practices committed by other countries against American businesses? (c) Will you, to the extent authorized in the position of Trade Representative, pursue the strict adherence to and vigorous enforcement of all U.S. trade laws? (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes Do you intend to make full use of Sections 201, 202, and 203 of the Trade Act to assist American industries that are suffering from injurious import surges? Sections 201, 202 and 203 are the so-called escape clause or safeguards sections of our trade laws. These provisions are administered primarily by the International Trade Commission (ITC), not the USTR. The law permits an entity that is representative of an industry, including a trade association, firm, union or group of workers to petition the ITC for relief. Alternatively, the President, USTR or House Committee on Ways and Means or Senate Committee on Finance may request the ITC to conduct an investigation. the ITC's investigation is to ``determine whether an article is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported article.'' Once the ITC makes an affirmative injury determination, the ITC then recommends to the President certain actions to address the injury to the domestic industry. USTR is also involved in providing a recommendation to the President as to what course of action would best assist an industry in adjusting to a serge in imports. If confirmed as USTR, I would intend to review all recommendations by the ITC to grant relief to an injured industry in order to ensure that USTR provides the President with the most considered recommendation possible regarding remedy actions that might be taken. Based on our past discussions, I know that you are aware of the long-running trade problems that the potato industry in Maine and other states has had with Canada. If confirmed, do you intend to make the satisfactory resolution of potato- related trade disputes with Canada a high-ranking and continuous priority of the United States? Will you take steps to ensure that this issue is prominently featured on the agenda of any major bilateral trade discussions with Canada? As you know, in close consultation with the Maine potato industry, I sent a formal request to Marcia Miller, Chairman of the ITC, requesting a formal 332 investigation on conditions of competition in the fresh and processed potato industry. This investigation will focus on the factors affecting trade between the United States and Canada. I expect to receive this report by July 15. The report will provide information on Canadian prices and costs of production which may be useful to the Maine potato industry and the U.S. government. I have become very familiar with this issue and will work closely with you over the months ahead on finding ways to address the concerns of this important industry. You can be assured that we will continue to raise the issues of concern for the Maine potato industry at our bilateral meetings with Canada.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of Charlene Barshefsky's nomination as the United States Trade Representative. I have scrutinized Ms. Barshefsky's nomination very carefully. During the time of her confirmation hearing before the Finance Committee, I submitted a list of 10 specific questions concerning her past work on behalf of the Canadian Government, her commitment to aggressively defending and advocating United States trade interests before all foreign parties, and her commitment to raising issues of interest to Maine before the Canadian Government, particularly with regard to Maine's long-running problems on potato trade. I ask unanimous consent that these questions and her responses be printed in the Record after my statement.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I now yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Kansas.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding and compliment him on his leadership on this very important issue. Here we are having the same debate on the same issue and the same reversal of positions by Senators who have previously supported this amendment--the same excuses and the same problems. We don't have a balanced budget amendment. Two years ago the opponents of the balanced budget amendment said a constitutional amendment isn't necessary in order to achieve a balanced budget; that, in fact, the constitutional amendment is only an enforcement mechanism, but it isn't the balanced budget plan itself. They admonished Republicans by saying, ``Show us your plan. Show us your plan.'' The President, in the State of the Union Address in February, expressed the same sentiment. He said, ``Rewriting the Constitution isn't necessary to balance the budget. All we need is your vote and my signature.'' Exactly, Mr. President. Republicans delivered a balanced budget plan last year statutorily. We delivered a plan. We delivered it to the President of the United States. The President demonstrated with the swift stroke of the pen the need for a balanced budget amendment because he vetoed that legislation. History has proven that a force greater than politics is necessary in this institution in order to achieve a balanced budget. History has proven the repeated failures of statutory attempts to balance the budget. The last time we had a balanced budget was in 1969. We have only had a balanced budget five times since 1950. In fact, we have debated this amendment, in the last two decades, in 1982, 1986, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, and now here in 1997. And guess what? We don't have a statutory balanced budget. The fact is the opponents of the balanced budget amendment understand that you can't have a constitutional amendment without achieving a balanced budget.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I now yield 1 minute to the Senator from Kentucky.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

Ms. SNOWE. I now yield 1 minute to the Senator from Pennsylvania.