Nancy Kassebaum

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, on Saturday South Africa defeated heavily favored New Zealand in the world rugby championship. I rise today to congratulate the South African rugby team, as well as the people of South Africa, on this historic victory. For years, because of its apartheid policies, South Africa has stood on the outside of international sports competitions. From the Olympics to the World Cup, South Africa--a country of intense sports fans--had become isolated and banned from many competitions. And more than most other sports, rugby had become closely associated with the former white government and its apartheid policies. After this history, the image of President Nelson Mandela--a man imprisoned for 27 years in his fight against apartheid--handing the World Cup trophy to the white captain of the rugby team is indeed a powerful symbol of the dramatic changes in South Africa. Throughout the country, whites and blacks alike celebrated the victory of the Springboks, the mascot of the national team. Mr. President, I join with the international community in congratulating the people of South Africa on winning the rugby World Cup. It has been a dramatic and historic time in South Africa. This victory, bringing together all South Africans, exemplifies the progress to date and the hope for the future of a great country.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, 50 years ago today, the victorious nations of World War II gathered in San Francisco to sign the charter that created the new United Nations. It was a time of enormous hope and promise, and the world's expectations ran high. No country had more influence in shaping that international organization than the United States. From the details in the charter to the name of the new organization itself, American leadership--then at its strongest on the heels of victory in the war--was everywhere in evidence. Just as American hesitation doomed the League of Nations a quarter-century earlier, so American leadership in 1945 gave the world the United Nations. I would like, Mr. President, today to express a strong belief that America must again lead in the significant reforms that are now necessary to save this valuable organization for generations to come. There is much criticism of the United Nations, and much of that is well-deserved. The Secretariat has ballooned into a collection of bloated, often ill-operated bureaucracies. The structure of the Security Council reflects a bygone era. The Trusteeship Council has outlived its usefulness. There is mismanagement, waste, and general lack of accountability. Too often, there is no focus and no real sense of priorities. But there also is much muddled thinking in America's approach to the United Nations. In much of the country--including Washington--there is much misunderstanding and confusion about the organization's purposes and structures. The standards by which we judge its success or failure have become unrealistic. And there are some who would take us again down the failed path of the League of Nations and sacrifice a valuable international organization for domestic political gain. I believe we must fix the United Nations, and only the United States can provide the leadership to get the job done. There are several reforms that I think we can achieve without amending the charter. First, we should lead those reforms that can be accomplished without amending the charter. I have joined with Congressman Lee Hamilton, the ranking member of the International Relations Committee in the House of Representatives, in putting forward some thoughts on reforms that can be accomplished without opening the Pandora's box of amending the charter. Let me summarize some of the suggestions: First, focus on the core agencies. The United Nations today has more than 70 agencies under its umbrella. We would finance only a handful of agencies that serve core purposes of the organization, for instance the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA], the World Health Organization, and the High Commission on Refugees. Other agencies should be abolished, merged, or financed at the discretion of one or more of the core agencies. Second, peacekeeping. This is a difficult one, Mr. President. In the heady days of the cold war, and after the cold war, expectations for peacekeeping grew far out of control. But the truth is that peacekeeping has inherent limits, and many of the failed hybrid operations we have undertaken--such as nation building in Somalia-- which probably ultimately turned out to be better than was assumed at the time that the forces were withdrawn, and peace enforcement in Bosnia--which has ignored those limits. Future peacekeeping should be limited to classic operations. Third, conferences. Conferences have come to dominate far too much of the United Nations time, resources, and attention. The United Nations should get out of the conference business and focus itself on more meaningful activities. Otherwise, we run the risk of just being a traveling road show from summit to summit. Last, accountability. Today, the United Nations is accountable to no one. We should significantly strengthen the Office of the Inspector General and give it some real teeth. The member states should also reform the process by which they select the Secretary-General, to ensure that his or her accountability and selection is primarily one of skills and ability to administer the Organization. I think this is enormously important and probably very difficult to achieve. It is one of the more sensitive areas to deal with, and yet it is the key to making much of it work as it should. I think we should take the lead in reforms that would require amending the charter. I, for one, believe membership in the Security Council should be reformed to better reflect the realities of contemporary international politics. Nations such as Japan and Germany, which pay large portions of the U.N.'s bills and are powerful international players, should have permanent seats on the Council; and, of course, the Charter's reference to them as enemy states should be struck. The number of nonpermanent members should be expanded to better accommodate major regional powers. We should also eliminate the Trusteeship Council established to handle the problems of decolonization. It has outlived its purpose. Rather than search for a new purpose for this Council, we should ask whether it should exist at all. Mr. President, the other major area for reform is in our thinking about what the United Nations is and what its role should be in American foreign policy. We cannot expect the United Nations to be clearer in purpose than is its most powerful member state. At its core, the United Nations is a collection of sovereign states and is beholden to them for guidance, funding, and, ultimately, legitimacy. The political decisions that drive the Organization and define its proper role in international politics must be made in national capitals, not in New York. I have grown increasingly concerned about the tendency toward a fuzzy multilateralism that has come to mark U.N. policy toward the United Nations. We have shown a penchant for dumping difficult problems in the lap of the United Nations and then complaining when no solution is forthcoming. The tragedy in former Yugoslavia may be the most dramatic current example of this phenomena. The truth is, we cannot so easily wash our hands of difficult decisions. The United Nations is not a substitute for American leadership in international affairs. Rather, it is one avenue available to exercise that leadership. I believe we must own up to the truth about our role in the United Nations. The United Nations has many failures, but we fool ourselves if we merely point fingers at New York and blame the United Nations for its shortcomings. The United States is first among equals in the U.N. system. The failures of the United Nations are, in reality, our own. We would do well to reflect honestly on that unavoidable truth. On this golden anniversary, we must decide whether we will continue to muddle along, or whether the United States once again will assume its unique mantle of leadership at the United Nations. I, for one, believe we must lead.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

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

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield the additional time.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I will yield myself 1 more minute. And those were important and substantive questions. For myself, I do not believe he is the person to be a successful Surgeon General of the United States at this time and that is why I have opposed his confirmation. Nevertheless, I feel strongly that the nomination has been debated and handled fairly within the scope of legitimate procedures of the Senate. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would like to yield myself 3 minutes. As we close the debate today on the nomination of Dr. Foster, I would like to make just a few further comments about the process. I think it has been a good debate the last 2 days. Prior to that time, the Labor and Human Resources Committee spent a considerable amount of time focusing on the substantive issues and raising substantive questions regarding this nomination. Some, including a majority of the committee, were satisfied with the answers that Dr. Foster gave, and the vote was 9 to 7 to report him favorably from committee. Others, including myself, were not. With respect to the process in the Chamber, the majority leader had a number of options, including the option of not bringing up the nomination of Dr. Foster at all. I have always believed we should have an up-or-down vote on nominations. Nevertheless, the course that was chosen by the majority leader is one that is a perfectly legitimate option, well within the rules of the Senate. These are rules that have been used frequently in the past by Members on both sides of the aisle--as has been pointed out in the course of this debate. The majority leader has made this debate and these votes possible in less than 1 month after the nomination was reported from the committee. There is nothing that would have made this process pleasant for any of us, most of all Dr. Foster. We may regret how we handle confirmation processes and nominations for members of a President's Cabinet and agency heads. It is not an easy process, and it has become, I think, increasingly a grueling one. In this case, I believe it has been handled in a way which is well within the parameters of appropriate conduct. There are those who have questioned that, but I think there has been an opportunity to air strong feelings on both sides in ways that have fit the rules and the procedures of the Senate. I am not sure, Mr. President, that we can ask for more than that. It has been my own belief that Dr. Foster has answered successfully and well the questions that were put before him in the committee.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Ohio. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I believe the Senator from New Hampshire has been waiting. Am I correct on that?

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I would like to yield to the Senator from New Hampshire 15 minutes.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. And how much on the other side?

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, first I would like to ask unanimous consent that Dr. Jim Wade, a Robert Woods Johnson Fellow of the staff of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, be allowed the privileges of the floor during the consideration of the nomination.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, if I may respond to the ranking member, the Senator from Massachusetts, there are many Members on our side, of course, members of the committee, as well as others, who do wish to respond. Many could not be here until between now and 10 o'clock. So it, unfortunately, appears that your side is using more time than ours. I will do the best that I can to encourage Members to come to the floor because time is going by. Many have wanted to give, and will give, some very strong statements. I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering the nomination of Dr. Henry W. Foster, Jr., to be Surgeon General of the United States. At noon today, the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture, which would limit debate on this nomination. Mr. President, I oppose this nomination, for reasons that I will briefly explain, but I will vote for cloture so that [[Page S 8722]] the Senate can make a clear-cut decision on Dr. Foster's nomination. While I respect the right of any Senator to engage in extended debate on any issue, I have long believed that nominations should be dealt with in a direct fashion. My practice has been to oppose filibusters on nominations and I will oppose one on this nominee, even though I do not support Dr. Foster's confirmation. This nomination has been embroiled in controversy from the outset due to the fact that, as an obstetrician-gynecologist, Dr. Foster has performed abortions. That fact has become a battle cry for those on both sides of the abortion issue. When the Committee on Labor and Human Resources considered this nomination, I said that Dr. Foster deserved to be judged on his whole record, not on a single issue. I have weighed the full record and concluded that I cannot support Dr. Foster's nomination. Given the troubled term of Dr. Joycelyn Elders, it was clear to me, and it should have been clear to the administration, that the next Surgeon General needed to be someone who immediately could reestablish the credibility and nonpolitical authority of this office. But political it has become, and many Americans, including me, wonder why we need a Surgeon General if he or she is going to be caught up in pointless rhetorical controversies that do nothing to address the critical health issues facing our Nation. The Surgeon General's main role is to speak to the entire Nation on health issues in ways that both enlighten and challenge us. I believe that Dr. Foster cannot effectively perform that role, largely because his own credibility and authority was undermined at the very start of the nomination process. Despite his many strengths, I believe Dr. Foster is the wrong person to step into this badly damaged office at this time. On top of this overarching concern, I have serious reservations about this nomination when it is weighted solely on Dr. Foster's own merits, particularly his willingness to provide strong leadership on difficult issues. My concern about Dr. Foster's leadership goes to the heart of this nomination--his supervision and direction of the I Have a Future Program, which the administration and Dr. Foster himself have made the centerpiece of his nomination. In his opening statement to the committee, Dr. Foster talked about the success of this program and his desire to lead a national crusade to deal with the critical problem of teenage pregnancy in this country. The I Have a Future Program is not without merit and undoubtedly has changed the lives of some young people for the better. Dr. Foster should be commended for his efforts in working to create a worthwhile program. There is no question in my mind that Dr. Foster has a sincere, genuine concern for young people and is deeply committed to helping them. However, the record also is clear that the I Have a Future Program has never shown significant success in reducing teenage pregnancy. In fact, evaluations produced in 1992 and in 1994 raise serious questions about whether this program has had unintended consequences by increasing sexual activity among its participants. If anything, the I Have a Future Program demonstrates the extreme difficulty, the extraordinary resources, and the potential risks involved in efforts to deal with teen pregnancy. Far from being a model for a national crusade, it is instead a warning sign to us all to proceed with caution on this matter. In both his testimony to the committee and in response to written followup questions, Dr. Foster has been unwilling to come to grips with the difficult, fundamental questions raised in evaluations of this program. I am troubled by this unwillingness. A Surgeon General must have not only a good heart, which Dr. Foster certainly has, but the ability to ask hard questions and demand solid answers rooted in fact and in science. Mr. President, are we asking too much of the Surgeon General of the United States? If, indeed, this is a position of importance to us in this country, I think not. We need the strongest possible leadership for our Nation's public health concerns. And I do not believe Dr. Foster is that nominee. Therefore, I will vote against his confirmation. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Coats today in introducing the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1995. This important legislation reauthorizes the Child Abuse and Prevention Treatment Act (CAPTA) and makes several important changes to the legislation. CAPTA is the only Federal program specifically aimed at the prevention and treatment of child abuse. Federal involvement in child welfare began with the passage of CAPTA in 1974. This act has provided critical leadership to help States identify child abuse and neglect, improve State child protective systems, and prevent and treat child abuse and neglect. CAPTA has assisted States in establishing mandatory reporting systems of child abuse and neglect. In addition, the act provided immunity from prosecution for mandated reporters who act in good faith to report suspected cases of child abuse and neglect. This has dramatically improved States' ability to intervene in situations where abuse has occurred. The legislation Senator Coats and I are introducing today will make significant improvements to state reporting systems by placing a stronger emphasis on training of mandated reporters and case workers and by building in an assessment component in the reporting and investigation process. CAPTA has also provided funding for research in the field of child abuse and neglect. Research is critical to understanding this issue and to providing professionals with the necessary tools to assist children and families who may be at risk of child abuse and neglect. In addition, CAPTA has established a national clearinghouse to collect data on child abuse and neglect. [[Page S8265]] Amendments to CAPTA have been made to strengthen research efforts and to expand the clearinghouse's data collection function to include information on substantiated, unsubstantiated, and false reports of child abuse and neglect. This legislation also seeks to encourage State and local innovation through demonstration grants in the areas of training and education, reporting and investigation of abuse and neglect, and encouraging parent mutual support and self-help programs. The reauthorization of CAPTA also includes a prevention component that involves networks of local community-based organizations whose primary purpose is to assist families at risk of child abuse and neglect. Title II of this legislation consolidates several programs, the Temporary Child Care for Children with Disabilities and Crisis Nurseries Act and the Family Support Centers under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, into the Community-Based Family Resource Grants program. The programs being consolidated provide a range of services to families, from respite care and support services to families with disabled children to assisting families in finding affordable housing. The grants are awarded to States that demonstrate a commitment to establishing a network of resources designed to assist families and prevent child abuse and neglect and to providing leadership in coordinating various programs and activities at the State and local levels. The Child Abuse and Prevention Treatment Act Amendments of 1995 has been reauthorized at $100 million for fiscal year 1996 and such sums as necessary through fiscal year 2000. The legislation also includes several minor technical amendments to the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act to reconcile differences between this and the Victims of Crime Act. In addition, Title IV and Title V reauthorize the Adoption Opportunities Act and the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act. Several technical changes have been made to the Adoption Opportunities Act to improve this program. Also, a provision has been included to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to study and report on the efficacy of requiring States to contract with public, private nonprofit, and sectarian institutions for recruitment of prospective foster care and adoptive parents and for assistance with the placement of children with special needs. The Adoption Opportunities Act has been reauthorized at $20 million for fiscal year 1996 and such sums as may be necessary through fiscal year 2000. The Abandoned Infants Assistance Act has been reauthorized at $35 million for fiscal year 1996 and such sums as may be necessary through fiscal year 2000. Finally, in conjunction with Senator Hatch, several programs under the Senate Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdiction that were included in Title II of the House welfare reform proposal, have been reauthorized under Title VI of CAPTA. They are the Missing Children's Assistance Act and the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990. Both programs have been reauthorized through 1997. I believe this legislation will make significant improvements to the reporting, prevention, and treatment of child abuse and neglect. I would like to thank Senator Coats for his strong commitment to children and his leadership on this very important issue. I hope that this legislation will receive bipartisan support from my colleagues in the Senate and that many of you will join with Senator Coats and me in ensuring its passage on the Senate floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I was not present on the floor earlier today when the Senate adopted the resolution introduced by Senator Dole to commend the heroic efforts of Capt. Scott O'Grady and the United States Armed Forces who were involved in his rescue in Bosnia. I strongly support this very appropriate resolution, and I understand that the resolution has been left open for cosponsors until 5 p.m. today. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the Dole resolution commending Captain O'Grady and his rescuers.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, speaking this morning and introducing all of us and being able to pay a brief tribute to a remarkable woman and a great Senator. I did not have the privilege of serving with Margaret Chase Smith in the U.S. Senate, but I did have the privilege of knowing her. I want to comment for a few moments. My colleague, Senator Snowe has recounted many of the milestones in Senator Smith's career. I would like to speak about the spirit of her service and what it has meant to me and to so many others. I thought Senator Mikulski spoke extraordinarily well about what each of the women who serves here today bring out, which is a culmination of many of the things that Senator Smith stood for in her long career of public service. She was a woman who refused to ever be bound by stereotypes or labels. She was not a woman Senator, she was simply a Senator. Her interests were wide-ranging because they were her own and not a narrow agenda imposed by gender, region, or parochial concerns. She was a true expert on defense matters, military preparedness, space exploration, and NATO. She had deep and strongly held concerns about civil rights law, education policy, and the rules of the Senate. She had a high regard for the institutions of Government and a great respect for the institutions of Government. She denounced the red baiting of the 1950's and the left-wing orthodoxy of the [[Page S7716]] 1960's. She spoke both gently and forthrightly, but always went from personal conviction and principles. She is rightly remembered as a Senator with great spunk, intelligence, and commitment. She sought not only to represent the people of Maine, but also to fulfill her responsibilities to the Nation as a whole. In her 24 years in the U.S. Senate, she spoke always with honesty and clarity, seeking facts and judging each issue on its merits. Those are high standards, Mr. President, a worthy legacy to pass on to those who will follow her in this Chamber. I am honored to be able to pay tribute today to a great lady, a fine U.S. Senator and an inspiring legacy. I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Care and Development Block Grant Amendments Act of 1995 on behalf of myself, Senator Coats, Senator Kennedy, Senator Dodd, Senator Inouye, and Senator Jeffords. This legislation reauthorizes the child care and development block grant of 1990 and makes several important changes to the law. The funding and leadership that the Federal Government has provided for child care has played a critical role in assisting low-income working families to maintain stable employment and helping welfare recipients gain independence. As States try to move welfare recipients into employment, the availability of affordable, quality child care will be of even greater importance. If Congress and the States are committed to having welfare reform succeed, then there needs to be a partnership between Federal and State governments to allocate funding for quality child care. The child care and development block grant was enacted in 1990 with bipartisan support. Congress recognized that there was a lack of adequate child care for many low-income families. This continues to be a nationwide problem. According to a 1991 report by the Bureau of the Census, 31 million children under the age of 15 had mothers employed outside the home-- almost 2 million of these children were infants under 1 year of age. This trend is continuing, with more and more mothers entering the work force each year. It has become increasingly difficult for low-income working parents to find affordable child care. Despite the significant contributions the child care and development block grant and other Federal child care programs have made in assisting families with their child care needs, there are waiting lists for child care subsidies in almost every State. If Congress does not continue to commit Federal funding for child care, these waiting lists will continue to grow, and efforts to reform the welfare system will fail. The legislation which my colleagues and I are introducing provides States funding to provide quality child care for low-income families through a unified child care system. The Child Care and Development Block Grant Amendments Act of 1995 consolidates Federal discretionary programs that provide child care services. The primary goal of this bill is to ensure that there is a seamless system of child care where it counts the most--at the point where the parent, child, and provider meet. This legislation maintains most of the critical provisions of the child care and development block grant--a program that has been working successfully in the States since its enactment. The bill emphasizes access to quality child care, parental choice, and consumer education. The bill continues to minimal health and safety standards established in 1990. The 1995 amendments to the act provide States with the flexibility to improve the quality and supply of child care, to design eligibility requirements through a sliding fee scale, and to provide broader access to referral and resource services for parents and providers. Provisions in the legislation ensure that Federal funds that States use for child care will be funneled through the existing State system designed to implement the child care and development block grant. The legislation also includes several important provisions designed to improve the availability of quality child care for native American families. The Child Care and Development Block Grant Amendments Act of 1995 consolidates two discretionary programs, the State Department Care Planning and Development Grants and the Child Development Associate Credential Scholarship Program. The program is authorized for $1 billion in 1996, and such sums as necessary through the year 2000. This authorization level is based on current funding levels for all three programs, with a slight increase for inflation. I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with Senator Coats, Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, Senator Dodd, Senator Inouye, and me in cosponsoring the Child Care and Development Block Grant Amendments Act of 1995. I hope there is as much bipartisan support for this reauthorization as there was for the original legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would ask for a couple of minutes. I certainly appreciate the time constraints. I think every Senator in the Chamber is a supporter of the National Institutes of Health and recognizes the importance of the work done there. I myself am a strong supporter of the importance of continuing basic research. I think Senator Hatfield, who has initiated this amendment, has spoken eloquently of the importance of those needs. Senator Specter has spoken as well. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Hatfield and Specter and eight other cosponsors in offering an amendment to the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution which is designed to protect funding for the National Institutes of Health. Our amendment, which adds $1 billion annually to budget function 550, is intended to restore the 10- percent reduction in NIH funding assumed by the Budget Committee. In order to assure the health of our citizens--through continued support of our nation's biomedical research--I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this amendment. To offset the additional NIH funding, our amendment would reduce spending in various discretionary accounts by 0.58 percent. The budget functions which would be excluded from these reductions are: defense; international affairs; education, training, and employment; income security; Medicare; Social Security; and net interest. NIH-supported biomedical research has a proud history of scientific breakthroughs. Many of my colleagues will remember the iron lungs which once ventilated individuals after their bodies had been ravaged by the polio virus. Because of biomedical research, we no longer face the threat of this disease. In fact, experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now predict that the polio virus could soon be eradicated from this planet. The vitality of these efforts is maintained today. For example, through the human genome project, scientists have information, health care providers may one day decrease the burden of this disease, which now attacks one in nine women. I am concerned about the detrimental impact of the NIH reductions assumed by the Budget Committee. I believe, that biomedical research advancement--and breakthroughs--could slow dramatically. The committee, in its report on this resolution, lays out a thoughtful argument in support of this budget reduction. As noted in the report, it is true that the NIH has seen a real budget growth over the last decade. In real terms, after adjusting for biomedical research inflation, the budget for 1993 was 47 percent greater than it was a decade earlier. It is also true that private sector contributions to biomedical research have increased. At the same time, I do not believe it is wise to propose reductions based on this recent growth in NIH funding. These reductions will leave many biomedical researchers and their advancements stranded. In many areas, scientists are on the verge of amazing discoveries. Because the average length of an NIH award is nearly 4 years, cuts of this magnitude will require an adjustment period. We need to consider ways to ensure that promising research receives new funding, while we honor existing research commitments. Mr. President, the $1 billion which this amendment would add back to the NIH allows for a smooth transition. Even with this add-back, real funding for NIH will decrease over the next 7 years. In fact, if we assume a 5 percent annual biomedical research inflation, maintaining NIH funding at its 1995 level would still result in a real funding reduction of nearly 5 percent in the first year and 35 percent 7 years from now. As chairman of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, I am committed to working with the National Institutes of Health and our Nation's biomedical researchers to find ways to adjust to our current budget limitations. However, accomplishing this goal will require thoughtful consideration and careful deliberation. As the Labor Committee begins to consider the reauthorization of the National Institutes of Health, I welcome the suggestions of my colleagues. I intend to examine organizational and structural changes at the NIH which could lead to some budget savings. This effort may include reexamining the need for the current 23 institutes, centers, and divisions. Another approach will be to review the amount of research funding which the NIH currently devotes to indirect research costs. Finally, I also believe that we will need to reexamine how the NIH makes its grants to ensure that the most promising areas for research advancement receive funding, while funding for basic biomedical research is maintained. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider this amendment carefully. Its effect would be to improve the health of our Nation's citizens by supporting funding for biomedical research through the NIH. The effort of NIH has and will continue to create a national environment in which biomedical research and health flourish.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Maine yielding. I am very pleased to offer my support to the amendment that has been offered by Senator Snowe and Senator Abraham. As Senator Snowe has pointed out, this amendment would soften the impact of the budget resolution on Federal student loan programs by reducing the reconciliation instruction to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources by $6.3 billion over 7 years. At the same time, it maintains the objective of the resolution to achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002 by making offsetting reductions in other budget functions. During the course of the debate on this budget resolution, I have listened to my colleagues speak about the significance of restoring sound fiscal policy. Many have spoken to the fact that the true beneficiaries of this effort will be future generations--our children. I strongly agree. I was privileged, and it was certainly a lesson in learning about the works of the budget and the Senate and the operations of Government, to serve on the Budget Committee for a number of years. I would like to at this time, Mr. President, particularly commend Senator Domenici, as chairman of the Budget Committee, who has for years, labored in the vineyards of budgetary policy and has put forward for the Senate, at this time, I think, an extraordinary budget. All who served on the Budget Committee should be commended because it is not an easy task. This amendment that is being put forward by Senator Snowe and Senator Abraham does not compromise the resolve to put our fiscal house in order. Nor does it impair the budget resolution. What it does is revise and realign our priorities just slightly in the context of the entire budget, but significantly in our ability to fulfill what I think most agree is an appropriate and valuable role for the Federal Government. I recognize that as chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee I might be accused of having adopted a ``not in my backyard'' attitude toward the budget resolution. Let me assure my colleagues that this is not the case. The committee will do its fair share toward reducing the size and scope and expense of Government. In fact, we started early making a 25- percent reduction in the committee's own budget, which was the largest cut in any of the Senate committee budgets. This is an amendment that should pass. It has offsets that keep the budget on course toward balance. It makes no overly optimistic assumptions. It does not touch taxes. It is a serious attempt to stay within the parameters which a majority of the Senate Committee on the Budget endorsed in reporting this resolution. I think it is also important to remember what the budget resolution is. It is a resolution that makes no reference to any specific program; rather, it divides spending into broad overall categories. I understand this amendment assumes some specific outsets. There are many other assumptions that could have been used to specifically define those offsets. However, at this stage they are just that--assumptions--and nothing more. They are not mandates on authorizers and appropriators. In the ends, authorizers and appropriators will make the decisions on individual programs. Some of my colleagues may have objections to any specific offsets that may have been delineated and discussed in relation to this amendment. While I am concerned about some of the assumptions, one which may be regarding the NASA aviation research program, aviation research is vital not only to industry but also to public safety and the environment. However, Mr. President, it is important to remember that the amendment itself does not refer to the advanced subsonic technology program or high-speed research, or NASA, for that matter. It refers only to a slight reduction in the overall transportation function. Less than one-half of 1 percent, in fact. I would like to ask Senator Snowe, is that not correct?

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine. I am confident, Mr. President, that the authorizers and appropriators will evaluate programs under their jurisdiction and set their own priorities. That has always been the case. It will continue to be the case. This amendment leaves them more than enough room to preserve a vital NASA function, for instance, aviation function, and meet the country's pressing transportation infrastructure needs. Likewise, the budget resolution makes no specific assumptions about how the Senate Committee and Labor and Human Resources will meet its instruction on mandatory spending. Yet, the range of options available to the committee on mandatory programs is much more limited. Even the adoption of this amendment will not leave the committee with an easy task--as we still must produce over $7 billion in savings among a rather limited number of options. I would like to go further, but I do not believe it would be realistic to do so. I share the goal of assuring that our Nation's young people do not face a future in which the burden of public debt smothers their capacity to benefit from the fruits of their own labor. I thought Senator Snowe, in her comments, very eloquently laid out exactly why it was very important to be able to add this money back to assist with the student loan program in ways that I think we all recognize would be very beneficial. I believe the Snowe-Abraham amendment strikes a reasonable balance between these two important objectives. I urge its adoption by the Senate when this amendment comes to a vote. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, last night my colleague from Kansas, Senator Dole, received the prestigious Eisenhower Leadership Prize in recognition of his distinguished service to the United States. I have long admired Senator Dole for his leadership and dedicated service and am pleased that the Eisenhower World Affairs Institute and Gettysburg College recognized him with such a high honor. This prize is made all the more notable because Dwight D. Eisenhower, the award's namesake, is a fellow Kansan and Senator Dole's hero. I add my voice to the many who congratulate him on this honor and ask unanimous consent that the remarks Senator Dole gave last night be printed in the Record.