Nancy Kassebaum

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, Congress today has given its final approval to legislation I have worked to enact for much of my Senate career. It will, for the first time in the history of our Nation, establish a unit of the national park system that is devoted to teaching about and preserving the tallgrass prairie ecosystem. This legislation is not sweeping, In fact, it allows the Federal Government to acquire by donation only 180 acres of prairie. Certainly, this is nowhere near as vast and expansive as other units in out national park system. It is, however, an important milestone. For about 50 years, Kansans have argued about the need for and size of a tallgrass prairie park. Debate over past legislative proposals, some attempting to establish a park through the use of eminent domain, tore apart Kansas communities. I remember when this was a topic one avoided in conversation for fear of angering a friend or neighbor. I am pleased that those days are behind us. By bringing an array of interests to the table and initiating face-to-face discussions, the Kansas congressional delegation has over the past 5 years hammered out a proposal to establish a national preserve that pleases nearly everyone. The legislation is unique for the National Park Service in that it provides the Federal Government with a core area that it will own and use to educate the American people about the tallgrass ecosystem and grazing that began with buffalo and is now used to raise some of the finest beef cattle in the world. The bill keeps more than 10,000 acres within the preserve's boundaries in private hands, owned by the conservation organization the National Park Trust. It provides for cooperative agreements to be reached between the private property owner and the Federal Government to give the American public an opportunity to bike across and enjoy vast undeveloped stretches of virgin tallgrass prairie. When I leave the Senate in a few weeks, I plan to return to my farm about 20 miles from this preserve. The topography of my ranch is much like that of this preserve, and I often find it difficult to explain to my colleagues what this part of the country is like and why I love it. William Least Heat-Moon in his best-selling book about this area titled ``PrairyErth'' claims the beauty of this land is contained in its subtlety and vast expanses--sometimes easily overlooked by outsiders who quickly pass. When the wind blows, as it almost always does in this part of the country, one can look out from the top of the region's gentle rolling hills and watch a sea of grass bending and waving across one's entire line of sight. Ungrazed, this grass can stretch ten feet high. For grazing, one can find no nutritionally richer land in the country. It will add more than 2 pounds a day to steers left to graze on its rich mixture of grasses. It is not difficult to let the mind wander when standing alone and looking out across the prairie, absorbing its shades of greens in the spring and summer and its browns through the fall and winter. It is not difficult to get a sense of what the Native Americans must have felt hundreds of years ago when they crossed this land hunting for the great buffalo herds. One can also appreciate how the pioneers must have felt when they crossed this same land a century ago, carrying their dreams and possessions in covered wagons. Walt Whitman aptly called this prairie ``our characteristic landscape, the center of our national identity.'' It is appropriate that we Americans set aside at least a portion of it for perpetual use and protection by the American people. This legislation will finally do that. The passage of the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve Act would not have been possible without the countless individuals who have worked over the years to see this idea become a reality. Former Kansas Congressman and current Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman has attempted for more than a decade to create this Federal preserve. It was his persistence and willingness to bring opposing conservation and agriculture interests together to work out their differences that built the foundation from which this current legislation evolved. Similar and steadfast support also came from Senator Bob Dole, Representative Jan Meyers, and former Representative Jim Slattery. Controversy over a tallgrass prairie park stymied many previous Congresses, and it was through the commitment and unique talents of each of these members that we were able to make meaningful and lasting progress on this legislation. I would also like to thank Governor Bill Graves and former Governor Mike Hayden, both of whom publicly lent their support to this effort and helped shape public opinion in Kansas and beyond in favor of creating this preserve. Representative Pat Roberts, in whose district this preserve will be located, deserves special accolades. For the past 4 years, Pat has worked tirelessly to reassure skeptics that this unique approach to create the preserve would work. No one should underestimate how much his word meant to many in the agriculture community. His sponsorship of this bill in the House further added to the credibility necessary to get this bill passed by the House of Representatives. There are too many Kansans who have worked diligently to see this bill enacted to name each, but a few should be noted. Ron Klataske of the National Audubon Society was the first champion of creating the preserve on land known as the Z-Bar or Spring Hill Ranch. He and members of the Flint Hills National Monument Committee, led by Lee Fowler, Charles Rayl, Ken Harder, and Larry Bayer, were early and consistent supporters of this effort. Five years ago, another group of thoughtful Kansans came together in an effort to find common ground between agriculture and conservation interests and look for ways to privately acquire and preserve the ranch. Led first by Ross Beach and then by Jan Lyons, this commission helped bring thoughtful, reasoned deliberations to this issue, and for that I am indebted. When the idea of creating a tallgrass preserve faded from the front pages of Kansas newspapers, I could always depend on the editorial writers from almost every Kansas newspaper to lend their support to this legislation. Leading the charge was always the editorial staff of the Wichita Eagle, who time and time again, both in their editorial columns and in their sometimes biting cartoons, remind Kansans why creating a tallgrass prairie preserves is so important to the state. Efforts to embrace a public/private partnership to create this national tallgrass prairie preserve may have remained nothing but an idea if it had not been for the involvement of the National Park Trust, who in 1994 purchased the property that will become the preserve. They immediately approached the Kansas congressional delegation and said they were ready to work with us to make preservation efforts a success. Paul Pritchard, president of the National Parks and Conservation Association, and NPCA board members Gordon Beaham, Eugene Brown, Dolph Simons Jr., and Bill Watson, all played an important role in this effort. The same is true for Paul Duffendack, a board member for the National Park Trust. I extend a special thanks to Laura Loomis of the National Parks and Conservation Association and Peggy O'Brien Marsh of the National Park Trust for the time they spent assisting me and my staff on this legislation. Officials at the Department of the Interior spent hours helping my office fine tune this proposal Ed Cohen, deputy solicitor at the Department of the Interior, Denis Galvin, associate director, professional services at the National Park Service, Mike Tiernan, attorney at the National Park Service, and Linda Potter, legislative affairs specialist at the National Park Service, all lent their help, patience, and expertise to this effort. Equally helpful have been the support of Don Castleberry, former regional director of the National Park Service's Midwest Region, David Given, deputy field director of the Midwest Field Area, and Steve Miller, superintendent of the Fort Scott National Historic Site. In 1990, the Kansas congressional delegation directed the National Park Service to conduct a study on the feasibility of making this area a unit of the national park system. Randall Baynes, superintendent of the Homestead National Monument in Beatrice, NE, was assigned to undertake this task. Randy did this job professionally, but he unfortunately felt the angry wrath of some who opposed creating a preserve. He handled the furor with dignity and grace. Randy died unexpectedly in 1993, and I want his wife, Judy, and his children, Melissa and Keith, to know how much I appreciate the contribution he made to this effort. Creation of this preserve is an appropriate legacy to Randy's love of the prairie and his belief that this preserve should be created. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the hard work of several congressional staffers including: Mike Horak of my staff, Brian Sweatland, Heidi Cashman, and Tom Hemmer with Representative Pat Roberts; Keith Yehle with Representative Jan Meyers; Mike Torrey and Keira Franz with Senators Bob Dole and Sheila Frahm; and Sherry Ruffing with former Representative Dan Glickman. I would also like to express my gratitude to Jim O'Toole, John Piltzecker, and Julia Gustafson of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for their help in getting this bill through the Senate. Mr. President, passage of this legislation will be the last piece of legislation to become law during my 18-year career in the Senate. It is an accomplishment that I am quite proud of. Let me assure my colleagues that as private citizen Kassebaum, I will work to ensure that this preserve meets your high expectation. I have joked for some time that I plan to spend my retirement volunteering as a docent at this preserve, so I encourage my colleagues to stop by if they ever find themselves driving through the beautiful rolling prairie of east-central Kansas. Come and see one of the Nation's newest units of the national park system. I assure you that it will be well worth your time, and I will be happy to show you around. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that language agreed to by the Kansas delegation for inclusion in a committee report on this bill be printed in the Congressional Record. This language, agreed to by the delegation, the owner of the Spring Hill Ranch, its leasee, and reviewed by the National Park Service, is our attempt to give the National Park Service direction on future grazing policy. This legislation will become law without a committee report, and I want the Congressional Record to reflect the delegation's views.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, for the past 18 years, I have been privileged to watch the march of world history from the vantage point of the U.S. Senate. The world has changed dramatically in my time here. We live in an era of great transition from a terrible cold war order we understood to a new order we do not yet know. We are, to borrow from Dean Acheson's trenchant phrase, ``present at the re-creation.'' As I prepare to leave the Senate, I want to offer some parting thoughts on unfinished business in American foreign policy and five challenges we must meet in coming years. i. infrastructure for peace The principal challenge of our time is to re-engineer the structures that can sustain the peace we have won. From the institutions and alliances of the cold war, we have inherited an unprecedented infrastructure for peace. That infrastructure rests on three pillars. Each must be strengthened. The first pillar is the only worldwide institution focused on international peace and security--the United Nations. We need to rebuild the consensus, both domestically and internationally, on what we want the U.N. to be and what we want it to do in the international system of the 21st century. I believe we must build this consensus among the major donor countries and powers. For too long, the United Nations has tried to do too much for too many and, as a result, has outgrown the bounds of its legitimacy. I believe the basis for consensus is a return to the core functions that we need the United Nations to do--refugees, nuclear inspections, health, and security, for example. And it may well be time for the United Nations to get out of the development business entirely and leave that work to other institutions better suited to the task such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. When we have consensus on what the United Nations should do, we then will need a dramatic restructuring of the U.N.'s institutions and bureaucracy to meet its new, narrow focus. This will be a dramatic shake-up of the United Nations that can only be driven by its most powerful member states. It will require the leadership of current heads of state and government, as well as other international figures of stature. I imagine this to be analogous to the process that led to the San Francisco Conference in 1945 where the Charter was signed. The second pillar consists of the institutions for international economic development, reform and growth. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the new World Trade Organization have important capacities that our bilateral development programs simply do not. They can encourage and even compel the kind of fundamental changes in outdated and inefficient economic systems abroad that ultimately promote self-sufficiency. And they can set and police uniform standards for economics and trade that promote America's long-term interests in certainty and stability. Yet, we have fallen behind sustaining our key contributions to these organizations. For example, we continue to lag behind in our contribution to the World Bank's soft-loan window, the International Development Association. As we consider trade-offs among our foreign policy budget expenditures, I believe that sustaining our contributions to these organizations should move to the top of our priority list for international affairs spending. The third pillar is America's alliances. I continue to believe that we must find new consensus on the purpose of our principal alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The halting and ad hoc approach that ultimately led to NATO intervention in Bosnia, is decidedly not the type of shared purpose that can sustain a close alliance over the long term. I, for one, remain skeptical that we should proceed with admitting new members to NATO before the alliance finds its new role. At the same time, the United States must give serious thought to the structure of its alliances in the Pacific. Beyond our close alliances with Japan and South Korea, we must consider what type of expanded alliance structures can best protect peace and stability throughout the region well into the next century. ii. arms control and non-proliferation In addition to repairing the institutions for peace, I believe we must do more to control the weapons of war. That is our second challenge. I believe it is an indispensable element in America's long-term security strategy. We face two types of challenges in dealing with the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. First, we must reduce the numbers of these terrible arms that exist on the face of the Earth. This means fully implementing START I and START II, both here and in Russia. It means establishing and implementing a regime to control and destroy chemical weapons stockpiles. It means continuing to press for universal adherence to a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing. It also means that America must be willing to foot much of the bill whenever necessary--the cost of destroying weapons abroad by agreement is far less than the cost of having to destroy them by war. Second, we must contain and secure stockpiles and prevent the spread of these weapons. Our recent efforts to retrieve unsecured nuclear material from abroad and bring them to the United States should be expanded. We should remain committed to efforts of the Nunn-Lugar program to secure stockpiles throughout the former Soviet Union. And we must always remain fully committed to strict enforcement of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The threat to our security from weapons of mass destruction is growing, not declining. Critics of arms control in general, or of specific arms control agreements, must always be held to answer a single difficult question: If you oppose our approach, then what would you do to diminish the urgent threat to our country? In my view, that is where critics of the Chemical Weapons Convention have fallen short, and I hope the Senate will ratify that important agreement early next year. III. tools of diplomacy The third challenge we must meet is to maintain a diplomatic capacity strong enough to secure our many national interests abroad. We live in an age of exceptional nuance, diversity, and subtlety in foreign policy, and we must learn patience and the limits of our influence. This is particularly apparent in Africa--a continent of special interest to me--where America has many interests that can only be defended by diplomatic means. But our diplomatic interests are truly worldwide. In just the past 6 years, 25 new states have entered the international community. The end of the Soviet empire has left us with many more power centers to deal with and far more nuance to understand. Yet, while the military had its Bottom-Up Review, and the intelligence community has undergone comprehensive review of its missions and needs since the cold war's end, we have not undertaken such an authoritative review of our diplomatic interests and needs. So we stumble along with no objective to guide our way, our debates on diplomacy--to the extent we have any--driven largely by budget factors and the vagaries of domestic politics rather than by any sober assessment of what diplomatic tools and structures we need to secure our national interests. I believe our diplomatic spending should be driven by our interests, and I would urge a Bottom-Up Review of our diplomatic needs. At the same time, I have come to fear that in recent years, the quality of the U.S. foreign service has slowly deteriorated. We have too often failed to attract and keep top-quality officers, rewarded mediocrity, and allowed ambassadors to be excluded from the policymaking process. We have some tremendously capable foreign service officers, but unfortunately we also have ample room for improvement. I believe comprehensive foreign service reform is long overdue. iv. national energy policy Our fourth foreign policy challenge must be addressed here at home. The time has come for America to devise and implement an energy policy that will reduce our reliance on foreign oil. We now rely on foreign sources for more than half our oil-- significantly more than during the energy crisis of the 1970's. From Nigeria to Central Asia, this dependence skews our foreign policy priorities--and, with many of the world's new oil fields in China and Russia, we can ill afford that pattern to be repeated. The Middle East is the prime example. Our dependence has led, for example, to American commitments in that region that far exceed what we would undertake but for the 15 million barrels of oil that leave the Persian Gulf each day. During my time in the Senate, we have sent Marines to Beirut, escorted Kuwaiti tankers through the Straits of Hormuz, fought a major land war in the region, and subsequently redeployed troops at least twice. We also have established an ever-expending web of formal and informal security commitments that may ultimately exceed our capacity to uphold. And our commitments in that oil-rich region continue to grow. Before the 1991 gulf war, we had only a few thousand troops in the region and no institutional presence. Today, we have nearly 20,000 troops in the area more or less permanently, including about 6,000 ground troops and a carrier task force. We are expanding military facilities in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the Emirates, and we have expanded our presence in Turkey. We are spending some $40 billion each year to support our military operations in the region. The Middle East is an important region in its own right. But no honest observers could believe that our tremendous commitments there would exist without the region's oil riches. The risks we have undertaken because of oil are large indeed. The answer to this difficult problem is not just drilling for more oil here at home--for, at best, that can only delay the inevitable. The answer is a significant and sustained effort to integrate alternative energy sources into the mainstream of our national economy. The time has come for America to promote development of conservation and alternative energy sources as a matter of national security. v. trans-national issues The final foreign policy challenge is to come to grips with trans- national threats, many of which have no human form. New diseases and large-scale environmental degradation may have origins far from our shores, but their effects touch the lives of Americans. Similarly, international criminal organizations, including drug traffickers, can assault our citizens and our security from locations outside the United States. Combating these threats will require that we work on many levels. We must work together with friends and allies abroad. We must encourage and help countries that host these threats to combat them, which means we must come to better understand the important relationship between overseas development and our own national interests. And we must better integrate the work of different agencies of our own Government so that America speaks with a single voice and acts decisively to protect our interests. conclusion Mr. President, these are five daunting challenges. They come at a time when the role of world affairs in American public and political discourse has diminished substantially. All of us are tempted to focus less on foreign policy or to try to view it through a domestic lens. But I believe that would be a mistake. The public may not be demanding a renewed focus on foreign policy, but our national interest is. These challenges to America's future demand serious attention from serious minds. I am optimistic we will meet them.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, as the 104th Congress draws to a close, I want to spend a few moments discussing what I believe are some important initiatives which are not going to make it into the statute books this year. Although I am deeply disappointed that the many months--and years--which have gone into these efforts have not borne fruit, I am confident that they have taken enough root that they will rise once again in the 105th Congress. Unfortunately, the list of proposals falling into this category is much longer than I might wish. I will not go through the entire litany, but I do want to set out what I was attempting to accomplish with respect to the Food and Drug Administration [FDA], the National Institutes of Health [NIH], and our Nation's job training programs. Legislation to reform the Food and Drug Administration, S. 1477, was reported by the Committee on Labor and Human Resources with strong bipartisan support. Members on both sides of the aisle spent long hours in negotiations, and I want particularly to commend the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] for her unflagging efforts on behalf of reform. Unfortunately, these negotiations failed to produce an agreement which would not be filibustered, and it was therefore not possible to bring S. 1477 before the full Senate. This legislation was designed to enhance the professionalism, stature, and effectiveness of the FDA. In developing the measure, I was motivated by a desire to assure that our Nation does not lose its leadership in new product development and by a desire to respond to the plight of countless individuals who have suffered needless delays in obtaining new therapies. Through hearings, meetings, and other reviews of the issue, I concluded that the performance of the FDA could be substantially improved without sacrificing consumer confidence in the safety and efficacy of the products they purchase. I would like to outline briefly the major principles underlying this legislation, because I believe they are important and should serve as the foundation for any FDA reform measure considered in the future: First, as I stated, the major purpose of S. 1477 was to enhance the professionalism of the agency, and it attempted to do so by providing a clear statement of the agency's mission and by emphasizing performance standards and accountability. Second, it attempted to improve the speed and efficiency of the product testing, review, and approval process by encouraging cooperation between the agency and the manufacturer from the very beginning. Too often, all the focus is placed on the back end of the process--FDA approval--without giving sufficient attention to steps which could be taken to improve the process during the many years leading up to that point. Mr. President, as you know, it can take sometimes as many as 12 years or more before final approval is achieved. We felt strongly in the committee that process could be enhanced without hurting in any way safety, efficiency, and efficacy in order to bring that time span down. There have been instances where the agency has implemented this type of cooperative approach--for example, with respect to the testing and review of AIDS drugs--and this measure attempted to encompass those practices which have been successful. Finally, the measure put forward some new options, such as the contracting of review of certain medical devices. The point was not to take FDA out of the picture. The bill maintained the role of the FDA as the final arbiter of safety and efficacy. At the same time, it took steps to assure that, at the appropriate point, the agency does come to a decision. Scientific methods and technology have changed dramatically over the past two decades, while our regulatory structures have barely budged. An incentive is growing for U.S. companies to move research, development, and production abroad, threatening our Nation's continued world leadership in new product development--costing American jobs and further delaying the public's access to important new products. We can address these issues through sound reform legislation, and we should. Another important health care matter which deserves priority in the 105th Congress is the reauthorization of the National Institutes of Health. Last week, the Senate approved a reauthorization bill (S. 1897), and I had hoped the House of Representatives would take it up as well. Unfortunately, that will not happen. As a consequence, we have lost--for the moment--an opportunity to reaffirm the importance of the biomedical research mission of the NIH and to enhance the effectiveness of the agency in performing that mission. All Americans can take great pride in the exceptional contributions that the NIH has made. It has compiled an astonishing record of biomedical research advances which have transformed all of our lives. Vaccines against conditions which once crippled and killed are now routine, and drugs hailed as miracles at their inception are as well known as aspirin. These past successes against seemingly insurmountable odds have inspired confidence and offered hope to those who have nowhere else to turn. In addition to reauthorizing the important work of the two largest institutes--the National Cancer Institute and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute--the reauthorization bill approved by the Senate attempted to strengthen the ability of the NIH to respond to emerging issues in the biomedical research arena and in the larger health care environment in which it operates. Among other things, this legislation authorized the creation of the National Human Genome Research Institute, in recognition that one of the biggest future frontiers is that of the human genetic code. The elevation of the National Center for Genome Research to institute status would serve to better focus NIH resources for this important work. It recognized the need to invest in the education and training of the next generation of clinical researchers by providing for greater support for expert training of young biomedical scientists who have elected the difficult, and frequently less well-compensated, careers in scientific inquiry. The bill streamlined the excess and often duplicative infrastructure that has grown up over time in the NIH. Every dollar saved from unnecessary administrative burdens is another dollar freed up for support of biomedical research. It established a framework under which additional sources of funding could be tapped by creating a biomedical research trust fund within the Treasury. This legislation included a significant initiative in the area of Parkinson's disease research. Based on separate legislation with broad bipartisan support in both the Senate and House, this initiative would establish up to 10 Morris K. Udall Centers for Research on Parkinson's Disease and provide for awards to neuroscientists and clinicians to support innovative research. Turning to other issues before the labor committee this year, I think perhaps my greatest disappointment is the demise of the Work Force and Career Development Act. I say it is the greatest disappointment not only because its failure is a lost opportunity to bring about significant reform in an area where reform is sorely needed, but also because we came so close to achieving it. This is not a bill which died in committee. It was not killed on the Senate floor; in fact, just about a year ago it was adopted by a vote of 95 to 2. It did not die in the House, where its companion measure was adopted with overwhelming bipartisan support. This initiative, which has its roots in legislation I introduced with the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], in the 103d Congress, moved step by step through the legislative process. Yet, the conference report, which was filed on July 25, has been sitting gathering dust due to the threats of dilatory action should it be called up. I have addressed the Senate on many occasions regarding the need for fundamental reform of our Nation's job training programs. I think reform is absolutely essential if we are to provide the skilled job training which can best address the needs of the people in each of our States, because what might be necessary in Kansas might be very different in Alabama or in South Carolina. As I have mentioned before, the roughly $5 billion which the Federal Government invests in job training and related programs is small potatoes in our annual trillion- dollar-plus budget. Most probably feel, I think, that this is a boring subject and ask why should we focus our attention on this. It doesn't grab headlines. But if we wish to make welfare reform work, if we wish to provide a work force for the next century that is going to meet the challenging demands of developing new technology, we have to be more flexible in letting States design good job-training programs. I just worry, Mr. President, that by maintaining the status quo, we are saying that we are willing to live with inadequate programs and that we are not willing to step forward with the innovative ideas that I think are important, and that I believe the American people think are important. These are ideas that will help assure that Government spends money more effectively and wisely. I contend that it is a travesty to continue to allow these billions of dollars to be thrown away on programs where good intentions are not sufficient to produce good results. We don't even have the data to know what works and what doesn't work. That is what the Work Force and Career Development Act is all about. It would consolidate narrowly focused Federal categorical programs into a comprehensive statewide system--offering States the flexibility they need to focus resources where the need is greatest. It would encourage the development of true partnerships among educators, trainers, and the business community. And it would focus on getting results. Many forces in our society are raising the stakes for the effective performance of job training programs. Technology has transformed the marketplace and the skills which employers seek from their employees. The recently enacted welfare reform legislation places a premium on job placement and retention. My biggest regret at the failure to bring about job training reform is the fact that those Americans most in need of quality programs which have to continue to muddle their way through the current morass, will have to continue to be shuttled from one program to the next, our not knowing for sure what will work and where they will be able to find the answers they seek. I think it is a disappointment and a shame, our not being able to address the conference report before this Congress closes. There are other reform efforts as well which I believe could have made Government programs work better. The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] and I developed legislation to reform the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] in an effort to place greater emphasis on improving safety education and less on imposing fines for trivial violations. I worked with Representative J.C. Watts on the Youth Development Community Block Grant Act, an effort to consolidate scattered youth development programs into a locally controlled system of positive prevention activities. A recent edition of Roll Call mentioned the interest of the majority leader in spending more time overseeing existing programs, rather than creating new ones. I wholeheartedly agree. We do a disservice to the American taxpayer to add to Federal obligations while ignoring the performance of those we have already made. The process of oversight and reform is a long one. It does not happen overnight or even over the 2-year course of a Congress. I would like to think that the work which has gone into the initiatives I have mentioned today will make a contribution to efforts to be undertaken next year and the year after that. Although I will not be here to shepherd these initiatives through their next phases, I have confidence that they will flourish under the care of those who follow. Mr. President, this is the last speech I will give on the Senate floor. I would just like to say it has been a great honor to represent the State of Kansas. I want to say a special thanks to my colleague from the State of Alabama, Mr. Heflin, who will be retiring in this Congress. It has been an honor to serve with him. I thank my colleagues and my staff and the support personnel. It has been a pleasure to serve with them for 18 years. I yield the floor. Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I object.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I want to make a few comments about recent events in Liberia. The 6-year civil war has killed over 150,000 Liberians and displaced 1.2 million people. The country's infrastructure has been laid waste, and its economy is in ruins. Time and again, Liberians have reached tentative peace agreements, only to watch them fall apart. Last fall, many of us held high hopes for the peace accord reached in Abuja, Nigeria. For once, the faction leaders appeared to set aside their personal agendas for a process of disarmament and elections. Our hopes were shattered again this past spring as the Liberian civil war erupted yet again. After months of renewed fighting, another peace agreement was reached last month among the warring Liberian factions. It is my fervent hope that the current cease-fire and plan for national elections next spring will succeed and lead at long last to sustained peace for Liberia. Like its predecessors, this peace is fragile. Restoring and protecting a secure environment for Liberians is the first requirement for lasting peace. I commend the efforts of the West African peacekeeping force, ECOMOG, for its vital role in bringing peace to this war-torn land. It is in America's interest that ECOMOG succeed and that we broaden the number of African states participating in the regional effort. In April, President Clinton committed $30 million in aid to the ECOMOG forces, and I am pleased that the full amount has been authorized to be transmitted. I urge that the funds be disbursed as quickly as possible to provide assistance in the vital areas of need identified by ECOMOG, such as communications and transportation. Long-term security will require more than a regional peace force--it will require a reestablishment of order in Liberian society itself. Short-term relief requires local order as well. Although the UNDP is currently rehabilitating the airport in Monrovia, and the World Food Program is meeting urgent humanitarian needs in areas severely affected by the fighting, most NGO's and private volunteer organizations are still reluctant to return until the security and political situation in Liberia is stabilized. The reestablishment of law and order in Liberia is a critical requirement for these organizations to function and meet pressing economic and humanitarian needs. Sooner or later, we will need to support efforts to reconstitute Liberian security and judicial institutions. The second requirement for a lasting peace is the existence of basic economic opportunity. If peace is to endure, America's role cannot end with a cease-fire and an election. Faction fighters will not permanently lay down their arms unless they have something else to do and other means of sustenance. In this area, Liberia's tragedy may provide its own opportunity. For example, Liberia desperately needs the reconstitution of its roads, bridges, airport, and water and electrical power systems. These are vital areas in which former belligerents can be employed, exchanging swords for plowshares, and contributing to the rebuilding of their country. Schools also must be reconstituted so the youngest fighters of ages 9 and 10 can replace their guns with books and return from the battlefields to the classrooms. Mr. President, there are compelling reasons for America to remain engaged in Liberia. We share a special history. We also have an interest in eliminating the type of instability that can be a haven for threats that cut across national boundaries--environmental degradation, infectious diseases, and international crime, terrorism, and drug trafficking. Elections alone cannot save Liberia. I trust the administration's diplomacy, with the oversight of Congress, will continue to take that fact into account as we try to make peace work in Liberia.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise to finish a series of speeches about Africa and why Africa matters to the United States. I am sure many of us, over the recent years, have looked at the Continent of Africa with some despair, seeing one crisis after another occur; and seemingly, as one is resolved, there is only another nation that has a terrible tragedy occur, a coup and civil war ensues. I have spoken in a series of speeches about, one, our vulnerability in the United States to infectious diseases coming out of Africa, and addressed the many ways in which environmental crises in Africa can touch Americans right here at home. I have also addressed how international crime, terrorism, and narcotics trafficking in Africa affect our own sense of security here at home. I believe that Africa does matter. But I believe there is also a great deal of hope for the countries of Africa. I believe there are many positive things that we should consider, and should not forget. Today, I want to conclude with a topic that I believe many people have overlooked in relation to Africa: trade and investment. At the start of this Congress, I began the work of the Subcommittee on African Affairs in the Foreign Relations Committee by chairing a hearing on trade and investment in Africa. I think it is appropriate to conclude the work of this Congress on Africa issues by returning to this underemphasized area. The focus of our hearing 2 years ago was not only to examine the potential role of private sector development in Africa, but also to bring to life the benefits to the United States of increased trans- Atlantic commercial ties. Over the past few years, investment and trade flows between the United States and Africa have increased substantially. Many companies, particularly communications, infrastructure and engineering firms, see Africa as a major growth market. In a time of reduced foreign aid, a focus on trade and investment must be a fundamental component of our overall foreign policy toward the continent. How many people know that there is more trade between the United States and the countries of Africa than between the United States and the states of the former Soviet Union? One of the best-kept secrets, I think, about U.S. relations with Africa is the tremendous amount of trade and potential trade also that occurs between our country and the African Continent. In 1993, U.S. exports of goods and services to sub-Sahara Africa totaled nearly $4.8 billion. This is 20 percent greater than exports to the Commonwealth of Independent States of the former Soviet Union. By some estimates, every extra $1 billion in American exports to Africa adds some 19,000 new jobs in the United States. Exports to southern Africa alone are responsible for an estimated 60,000 jobs in this country. Over the past 50 years, the African Continent has undergone tremendous change, as African nations have wrestled with decolonization, independence and, for some, democratization. Africa has many success stories to tell, and the continent's tales of overcome hardships are admirable, indeed. But these stories of progress rarely make headlines. More often, the news tells of the political problems that remain, of political and economic instability, waste, corruption, unsound economic policies. These problems are serious and, in many African countries, they have stifled investment and choked off growth and trade. But the truth is that a remarkable transformation is underway in Africa. Nearly two-thirds of African countries are now at some stage of democratic transition, compared with only four in 1989. More than 30 elections have taken place in Africa over the past 6 years. Many African nations have taken difficult and courageous steps to keep budget deficits down, maintain realistic exchange rates and increase competition through domestic deregulation, trade reform and privatization of public enterprises, not easy tasks in very weak and struggling economies and countries that are trying to open a stable and free political society as well. The aim of these reforms has been to create an environment in which the private sector can act as the engine for development. We are beginning to see these efforts pay off. In a time of declining foreign aid, it is more than practical to emphasize the potential role of the private sector in the economic development of Africa. It just makes sense. Africans themselves want trade, not aid. They recognize that it is foreign trade and investment, not foreign aid, that provides the basis for sustained development, economic growth and new jobs, and trade with Africa does not benefit only Africans. As I pointed out, it helps us as well. New markets for American exports mean new jobs here at home. In the coming years, we should try to direct more of our foreign assistance toward building the foundations for long-term economic development in Africa. We should work in partnership with international financial institutions, of other donors and, of course, the African leaders to help meet the continent's critical infrastructure needs. I have always believed if the continent of Africa had a transportation system across the continent, whether railroads or roads, it would help immensely the trade between African nations themselves. Without an adequate network of roads, airports and telecommunications to knit the countries of Africa together, economic growth in Africa will face inherent structural limits. There are, of course, purposes for foreign assistance other than promoting economic growth. American assistance plays an important part in addressing pressing social and humanitarian needs in many African countries. But the reality is that present levels of aid in Africa cannot and will not continue indefinitely. Increased U.S. trade and investment in Africa making the countries of Africa full partners in the world's unprecedented economic prosperity provides the only real basis for future African economic self- sufficiency. The many changes underway in Africa, though encouraging, are not enough. Countries that have begun economic reforms must do more, and countries that have not, must do so. Sub-Sahara Africa currently attracts less than 3 percent of the total foreign direct investment flowing to developing countries and economies in transition. Our policies toward Africa should encourage the necessary political and economic changes to provide a stable environment for sustained domestic economic development and foreign direct investment. Our voice carries far in Africa, and we can make a difference in ending conflicts, promoting open and accountable governments and fostering economic reform. For example, we should encourage the liberalization of land tenure laws that prohibit women from owning land. Women are the primary agricultural laborers in Africa, but they cannot attain the degree of financial control within the sector necessary to spur growth. The World Bank estimates that the value of women's agricultural output would increase by 22 percent if they had the same access as men to major factors of production. Another example of where we can make a difference is in lowering trade barriers. We should support the removal of barriers to trade among African countries and support efforts aimed at regional economic integration. At the same time, the United States must also lower its own trade barriers that unfairly discriminate against African goods. This means allowing imports, such as textiles, coffee, and sugar, into the United States in a fair and equitable manner. The laws of economics apply in Africa as they do elsewhere, and we should do all that we can to ensure that the established rules of free trade do as well. Mr. President, to conclude, I am optimistic about the economic potential of Africa. During my almost two decades of work on African issues in the Senate, I have observed firsthand the tremendous and commendable efforts made by the peoples of the many nations of the African Continent. At the same time, I also am sober about Africa's future and realize that without continued American engagement, Africa will not be joining the rest of us as we enter the next millennium. Leaving Africa behind would raise important threats to our people and our national interests. Emerging and proliferating infectious diseases do not respect international borders, nor do environmental crises on a large scale. Let me say, even more important to leaving Africa behind would be to lose a tremendous opportunity for all of us to benefit from the continent's rich heritage and potential. As we approach the beginning of the new millennium, America's future will be brighter if Africa's is as well.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. This bill will create a new partnership among pharmaceutical researchers and manufacturers, pediatric researchers, and the government to improve the information about pediatric uses of pharmaceuticals. The provisions of this bill were originally included in S. 1477, the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] Performance and Accountability Act, which was approved in March, with bipartisan support, by the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires a showing of safety and effectiveness before drugs can be marketed to the American public. Until recently, it was thought that such a showing would be the same for adults and children. It is now clear, however, that children are not small adults. They do not necessarily react to drugs the same way. New data are necessary to ensure that America's children have the same benefit of safe and effective drugs as our adults do. As it stands now, however, 80 percent of the drugs taken by children are not labelled for pediatric use. The Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act addresses this need for pediatric use data by providing an incentive to manufacturers to conduct pediatric studies for new and approved drugs. Manufacturers who provide pediatric data for the drugs most urgently needed by our children would receive an extra six months market exclusivity for their product. By taking this type of partnership approach, we can get critically needed information on pediatric uses. Providing the FDA with the extra authority to offer this type of encouragement will help to ensure that companies conduct such studies. Under the bill, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is required to develop, in consultation with pediatric experts, a list of approved drugs for which additional pediatric information may produce health benefits in the pediatric population. For pediatric studies of new and approved drugs to trigger the six-month exclusivity incentive, they must be formally requested by the Secretary, and filed with the Secretary in an acceptable manner. Manufacturers would be precluded from obtaining more than one six-month period of exclusivity. I am proud to join with Senators Kennedy, Dodd, DeWine, Mikulski, and Simon in introducing this bill. Mr. President, it creates a win-win situation in which manufacturers get a benefit for proactively testing drugs for pediatric use, while our children get timely access to the safe and effective drugs they so desperately need.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, one good result of the strenuous budget debate of the past 2 years has been a bipartisan embrace of the need for reform in the long-sacrosanct realm of entitlement spending. The exchange of offers and counteroffers that characterized the budget process produced a new consensus that entitlement spending must be controlled. Most of us now realize that without controls, entitlement programs will continue to grow at a pace that threatens our fiscal security, jeopardizing any effort to balance the budget and squeezing funding away from important discretionary programs. As we come to the end of this Congress, the fruits of that consensus are in peril. Republicans and Democrats, Congress and the White House-- almost all of us have agreed that, at the very minimum, we can save $232 billion over 6 years from entitlement programs. We have not been able to agree on the policies to produce those savings, but we should not release ourselves from our obligation to do so. The legislation I am introducing today, the Save Our Savings Act of 1996, would ensure that we fulfill that obligation. Sometimes when we talk about entitlements, we use terms that support the view that they are beyond our control. We often define entitlements as programs not controlled by the annual appropriations process, programs that must distribute payments to all eligible, regardless of the cost. On its face, that definition is correct. But at a more basic level, it betrays a sense of helplessness, an aversion to action, and a passive acceptance of their growing might. When I was sworn in as a Senator 18 years ago, discretionary spending represented nearly 50 percent of the Federal budget. Now we spend little more than a third on these programs. We have seen in the past 2 years how hard it is to squeeze savings from discretionary programs. If we do nothing about entitlements, spending constraints will become tighter still. Part of the explanation is that we now must set aside about one-sixth of the budget just to pay interest on the debt. At the same time, spending on entitlement programs has escalated rapidly in recent years, and the forecast is for even more rapid expansion in the future. In fact, if entitlements are allowed to grow unimpeded, they, combined with interest on the debt, will consume all revenues by 2012. This bill takes affirmative steps to lock in significant entitlement savings that, without action, will vanish. The legislation would cap entitlements from fiscal years 1997 to 2002 at the CBO-defined levels of the President's budget or, where applicable, the levels in the recently passed welfare reform legislation. You can consider those levels of savings the lowest that most of us have agreed to. Multiple caps would be enforced, including individual caps on the 11 largest entitlement programs, an all other cap, and an aggregate cap. Sequestration would be triggered only on programs that exceeded their caps, and the caps themselves would be adjusted for economic and demographic factors. The caps could be adjusted by recorded vote. Some might argue that the very fact that both parties now advocate significant savings from entitlement programs has demonstrated our capacity to control Government spending--that we do not need our feet held to the fire--but experience is eloquent. If we let the evolution of the last 2 years' budget proposals fade into memory, the courage and resolve that should be invested in making difficult policy decisions will be spent instead on producing yet another set of budget blueprints. Congress does not need to start all over again; we need to finish what we have started. I realize that nothing more can be done on this matter in this Congress. I also realize that I will not be here in the next Congress to carry on this effort. However, I believe it is important to voice both my concern and a specific proposal to give weight to that concern for those who must take up this battle in the years ahead.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. This bill will create a new partnership among pharmaceutical researchers and manufacturers, pediatric researchers, and the government to improve the information about pediatric uses of pharmaceuticals. The provisions of this bill were originally included in S. 1477, the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] Performance and Accountability Act, which was approved in March, with bipartisan support, by the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires a showing of safety and effectiveness before drugs can be marketed to the American public. Until recently, it was thought that such a showing would be the same for adults and children. It is now clear, however, that children are not small adults. They do not necessarily react to drugs the same way. New data are necessary to ensure that America's children have the same benefit of safe and effective drugs as our adults do. As it stands now, however, 80 percent of the drugs taken by children are not labelled for pediatric use. The Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act addresses this need for pediatric use data by providing an incentive to manufacturers to conduct pediatric studies for new and approved drugs. Manufacturers who provide pediatric data for the drugs most urgently needed by our children would receive an extra six months market exclusivity for their product. By taking this type of partnership approach, we can get critically needed information on pediatric uses. Providing the FDA with the extra authority to offer this type of encouragement will help to ensure that companies conduct such studies. Under the bill, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is required to develop, in consultation with pediatric experts, a list of approved drugs for which additional pediatric information may produce health benefits in the pediatric population. For pediatric studies of new and approved drugs to trigger the six-month exclusivity incentive, they must be formally requested by the Secretary, and filed with the Secretary in an acceptable manner. Manufacturers would be precluded from obtaining more than one six-month period of exclusivity. I am proud to join with Senators Kennedy, Dodd, DeWine, Mikulski, and Simon in introducing this bill. Mr. President, it creates a win-win situation in which manufacturers get a benefit for proactively testing drugs for pediatric use, while our children get timely access to the safe and effective drugs they so desperately need.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, one good result of the strenuous budget debate of the past 2 years has been a bipartisan embrace of the need for reform in the long-sacrosanct realm of entitlement spending. The exchange of offers and counteroffers that characterized the budget process produced a new consensus that entitlement spending must be controlled. Most of us now realize that without controls, entitlement programs will continue to grow at a pace that threatens our fiscal security, jeopardizing any effort to balance the budget and squeezing funding away from important discretionary programs. As we come to the end of this Congress, the fruits of that consensus are in peril. Republicans and Democrats, Congress and the White House-- almost all of us have agreed that, at the very minimum, we can save $232 billion over 6 years from entitlement programs. We have not been able to agree on the policies to produce those savings, but we should not release ourselves from our obligation to do so. The legislation I am introducing today, the Save Our Savings Act of 1996, would ensure that we fulfill that obligation. Sometimes when we talk about entitlements, we use terms that support the view that they are beyond our control. We often define entitlements as programs not controlled by the annual appropriations process, programs that must distribute payments to all eligible, regardless of the cost. On its face, that definition is correct. But at a more basic level, it betrays a sense of helplessness, an aversion to action, and a passive acceptance of their growing might. When I was sworn in as a Senator 18 years ago, discretionary spending represented nearly 50 percent of the Federal budget. Now we spend little more than a third on these programs. We have seen in the past 2 years how hard it is to squeeze savings from discretionary programs. If we do nothing about entitlements, spending constraints will become tighter still. Part of the explanation is that we now must set aside about one-sixth of the budget just to pay interest on the debt. At the same time, spending on entitlement programs has escalated rapidly in recent years, and the forecast is for even more rapid expansion in the future. In fact, if entitlements are allowed to grow unimpeded, they, combined with interest on the debt, will consume all revenues by 2012. This bill takes affirmative steps to lock in significant entitlement savings that, without action, will vanish. The legislation would cap entitlements from fiscal years 1997 to 2002 at the CBO-defined levels of the President's budget or, where applicable, the levels in the recently passed welfare reform legislation. You can consider those levels of savings the lowest that most of us have agreed to. Multiple caps would be enforced, including individual caps on the 11 largest entitlement programs, an all other cap, and an aggregate cap. Sequestration would be triggered only on programs that exceeded their caps, and the caps themselves would be adjusted for economic and demographic factors. The caps could be adjusted by recorded vote. Some might argue that the very fact that both parties now advocate significant savings from entitlement programs has demonstrated our capacity to control Government spending--that we do not need our feet held to the fire--but experience is eloquent. If we let the evolution of the last 2 years' budget proposals fade into memory, the courage and resolve that should be invested in making difficult policy decisions will be spent instead on producing yet another set of budget blueprints. Congress does not need to start all over again; we need to finish what we have started. I realize that nothing more can be done on this matter in this Congress. I also realize that I will not be here in the next Congress to carry on this effort. However, I believe it is important to voice both my concern and a specific proposal to give weight to that concern for those who must take up this battle in the years ahead.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I wish also to speak as chairman of an authorizing committee, the Labor and Human Resources Committee, about my frustration that we cannot act on a piece of legislation I think is very important. It deals with job training reform. It is called the Work Force and Career Development Act. Numerous hearings have been held on this bill over the past 2 years of the 104th Congress. It passed the Senate with only two dissenting votes. It passed the House. And now we have on the calendar a conference report. It is enormously disappointing to me that in the final days of the 104th Congress we are subject to dilatory tactics, and if legislation is not going to be called up today, or at the latest Monday, there is no hope of it succeeding. So I would like to speak for a moment, before this legislation will be put in the dust bin of the 104th Congress, on the need for major job training reform. I would like to speak on why I believe it was so important for us to have been able to consider this legislation and my disappointment that it cannot be brought forward. The legislation would have reformed our job training and training- related programs. There is no doubt that the current maze of training programs is woefully inadequate to address the very real and immediate needs of workers for training and education. I think nothing makes us more aware of this than reports we have continually heard about how important skilled workers are to our work force today and the importance of vocational education. Despite over $5 billion which the Federal Government spends annually on our various job training programs, the results are less than impressive. Study after study has pointed out the waste and overlap among job training programs that now exists. Just to name a few, in January of 1994, the General Accounting Office issued a report, entitled ``Conflicting Requirements Hampered Delivery of Services.'' Another GAO report was issued in March of 1994: ``Most Federal Agencies Do Not Know if Their Programs Are Working Effectively.'' Other titles include: ``Overlap Among Training Programs Raises Questions About Efficiency,'' and ``Major Overhaul Needed To Reduce Costs, Streamline the Bureaucracy, and Improve Results.'' According to a 1996 GAO report, entitled ``Long-Term Earnings and Employment Outcomes,'' few training programs have been rigorously evaluated to assess their true impact on the long-term earnings of participants. While there may be some positive effects for participants shortly after training, the GAO found that over a 5-year period JTPA, the Job Training Partnership Act, participants rarely earn much more than comparable individuals who do not participate in that program, and their employment rates are only slightly higher. Despite months of training and placement assistance, the GAO could not attribute the higher earnings to JTPA training rather than to chance alone. All too often, Mr. President, training programs spell disappointment for those who have sought assistance in building a better life for themselves and their families. That is why I think this is such a missed opportunity. We have talked and talked about reinventing government. That was an initiative that President Clinton, when he took office, announced he was going to undertake. This is a perfect example of where we had the opportunity to do so, and now we find we are thwarted from voting on the conference report on this important piece of legislation. We heard testimony before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources from Ernestine Dunn who said that her experience with Federal job training programs was ``a journey [she] thought would never end.'' She spent over 10 years and went through eight different job-training programs before getting the job skills and training she needed to get off welfare and into a permanent, well-paying job. Her experience is not unique. With all the different programs and organizations that deliver services, people have difficulty knowing where to begin to look for assistance. As a result, they may go to the wrong agency or, worse, give up altogether. When training is provided, it often results in only part-time or temporary work. We must do better if we are going to create a world-class work force that can compete in the 21st century. I believe it is our responsibility to see that we assist and work with local and State governments and the business community to do just that. The Congress and the President both agree that reform is long overdue. Less than 1 year ago, as I said, we passed this with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. Last October, the ranking member of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kennedy, remarked that ``this is an area of public policy which is of great significance and importance to working families in this country and of great significance and importance to the United States as a nation and its ability to compete.'' That was true then and is even more true now. With ever rapid advances in technology, workers will have to constantly change and upgrade their skills in order to compete. The importance of training and education were also central to the debate and passage of the welfare reform legislation this summer. In order for welfare recipients to successfully make the transition to work, they must have the training, education, and job skills that will help them get in jobs and stay in jobs. That is what this legislation is all about. It is not about programming a child from kindergarten clear through high school in a career path. It is about giving our States and our local communities the resources to help design flexible programs that will meet the needs of Kansans, or meet the needs of those who live in New Hampshire or Maine or California. There are differing needs in differing States and at different times in a person's progress through school and work. Again, that is what this legislation is all about. It would allow the States the flexibility to design integrated systems where services are delivered on a one-stop basis. No longer would an individual have to go to several different offices for help. With a one-stop system they could get job counseling, skills training, and other services all in one place. That is what the administration said they wanted as well. Meeting these challenges will not be an easy task. One possible response might be to increase funding for education and training. We are on the way to doing just that. I am troubled, however, that we would pursue this course while leaving in place the same old programs which we all recognize do not work. More funding, I would argue, will not advance the type of major structural overhaul and consolidation of training and education programs that is needed to create a workforce system that can serve the local needs of job seekers and employers alike. It is a Band-Aid approach that deals only with the symptoms and not the underlying causes of the problem. This bill would consolidate over 90 programs of various job training efforts scattered among 15 different agencies. It really does take us in a new direction that I think offers positive assistance. So, it is with enormous disappointment that I see these efforts may now be wasted--but I hope not--as we complete the 104th Congress. For those who will remain, because I will be retiring, it is my hope that what we have laid out here in months and months of work can provide a background for further efforts in the 105th Congress. This legislation has been strongly supported by the National Governors' Association, both Democratic and Republican Governors. They believed this was one of the most important pieces of legislation that could be passed in this Congress. The workforce development conference report that is now on the calendar is a result of 2 years of bipartisan work to develop a vision of a workforce development system for the 21st century. The elements of this common vision include: Flexibility for the States to design systems that meet their own needs, while preserving the core activities traditionally supported by the Federal Government; Greater coordination among educators, trainers, and the business people who create the jobs for which individuals are being trained; Innovative strategies like vouchers to improve training; and Improved effectiveness of programs by focusing on results, not bureaucratic redtape. This conference report, I think, deserves the full support of all those, both Republican and Democrat, who were committed to achieving broad job training reform less than 1 year ago. One of the staunchest supporters of this effort is on the other side of the aisle, Mr. President, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska. Some have complained the conference report does not go far enough in preserving a Federal role in job training. Others claim it creates too broad a Federal role. I do not believe that any of the specific criticisms that were leveled against this bill are significant enough to bring down such a solid piece of legislation which has been years in the making. I had hoped that what began as a bipartisan effort with passage of the reform efforts in both the Senate and House would come to completion in a bipartisan vote of support for the conference report. We are faced with a challenge of creating a new and coherent system in which all segments of the workforce can obtain the skills necessary to earn wages sufficient to maintain a a high quality of living. In addition, American businesses need a skilled workforce that can compete in the world marketplace. I believe this legislation gives the States the necessary tools to meet those challenges. We should not have allowed the distractions of an election year to detract us from moving forward in a bipartisan fashion on this legislation, which I believe is so important. Mr. President, I conclude by saying it is my hope that in the 105th Congress it will be one of the top priorities as we recognize how extremely important it is for us to address our skilled work force for the 21st century.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I certainly understand and sympathize with the distinguished Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], who, as chairman of an authorizing committee, has before us an important bill on which time has been spent and many hearings have been held. It is enormously frustrating not to be able to have that put before us and acted upon. I am very supportive of the efforts he spoke of regarding the Presidio bill.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased that the Senate is considering the National Institutes of Health [NIH]. All Americans can take great pride in the exceptional contributions that the NIH has made. It has compiled an astonishing record of biomedical research advances which have transformed all of our lives. Vaccines against conditions which once crippled and killed are now routine, and drugs hailed as miracles at their inception are as well known as aspirin. The NIH has spawned and nurtured a level of scientific creativity which truly seems to have no bounds. Past successes against seemingly insurmountable odds have inspired confidence and offered hope to those who have nowhere else to turn. The legislation we are considering today will help support and improve these critical efforts. In addition to reauthorizing the important work of the two largest institutes--the National Cancer Institute and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute--this bill attempts to strengthen the ability of the NIH to respond to emerging issues in the biomedical research arena and in the larger health care environment in which it operates. Certainly, one of the biggest future frontiers is that of the human genetic code. Among the recent discoveries is the BRCA-1 gene, a genetic marker for a form of breast cancer. In recognition of the significance of this area of inquiry, the bill authorizes the creation of the National Human Genome Research Institute. The elevation of the National Center for Genome Research to institute status will serve to better focus NIH resources for this important work. The bill also recognizes a need to invest in the education and training of the next generation of clinical researchers--those biomedical scientists who perform research that directly involves patients. It provides for greater support for expert training of young biomedical scientists who have elected the difficult, and frequently less well-compensated, careers in scientific inquiry. In addition, the bill makes substantial efforts to reduce excess and often duplicative infrastructure that has grown up over time in the NIH. It streamlines operations through steps such as eliminating redundant committees and reports. Every dollar saved from unnecessary administrative burdens is another dollar freed up for support of biomedical research. By the very nature of ever-expanding new knowledge, it seems there is no end to the pressure on the limited resources for biomedical research support. Accordingly, the bill establishes a framework under which additional sources of funding could be tapped by creating a biomedical research trust fund within the Treasury. This trust fund is a small, but important, first step. Academic health centers in the 21st century will be posed with an unprecedented challenge: how to maintain their research mission in the face of a fundamentally changed health care system. These changes are the consequence of dramatic market shifts that are taking place in health care in this country. Cost-competition has made it particularly difficult for the continuation of many of these important institutions that frequently care for the sickest as well as the poorest citizens of our communities. Although additional action may be required as ongoing studies offer a better understanding of the ramifications of these changes, this bill offers support for the 75 general clinical research centers that exist in academic medical centers throughout the country. Finally, this measure includes a significant initiative in the area of Parkinson's disease research. Based on separate legislation with broad bipartisan support in both the Senate and House, this initiative is designed to expand and improve Parkinson's research efforts. It establishes up to 20 Morris K. Udall Centers for Research on Parkinson's disease and provides for awards to neuroscientists and clinicians to support innovative research. This legislation offers hope to individuals with Parkinson's and their families, who have worked long and hard to assure that greater attention and emphasis is placed on pursuing promising research leads. In fact, Mr. President, reauthorization of the important work of the National Institutes of Health offers hope to us all. Moreover, it reaffirms our commitment to approach the future frontiers of science with the same enthusiasm and dedication which has characterized our past. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1996.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Haskell Indian Nations University Administrative Systems Act of 1996. I am pleased to have the vice-chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Inouye, as a cosponsor. The purpose of this bill is to give Haskell Indian Nations University the authority and flexibility it needs to make a successful transition from a junior college to a 4-year university. Founded in 1884 as the U.S. Indian Industrial Training School, Haskell provided agricultural education in grades one through five. Ten years later, the school had changed its name to Haskell Institute and expanded its academic training beyond the eighth grade. By 1927 the secondary curriculum had been accredited, and in 1970 the school became Haskell Indian Junior College. In October 1993, after receiving accreditation to offer a bachelor of science degree in elementary teacher education, the school changed its name to Haskell Indian Nations University. Haskell is a Kansas treasure and an institution cherished by native Americans and Alaska Natives. At any one time, as many as 175 tribes are represented in the student body. Integrating the perspectives of various native American cultures have assured Haskell's growth and success. As the first baccalaureate class graduates in May 1997, Haskell Indian Nations University is developing 4-year programs in other fields and continues to accept the challenge of enriching the lives of young native Americans and Alaska Natives. As the school has changed, so should the system by which it is administered. Haskell's ability to make a successful transition from a junior college to a 4-year university is being compromised by the present system under which the Bureau of Indian Affairs must approve its appointments and the Office of Personnel Management establishes rankings for its professors. This legislation allows the school to remain within the Bureau of Indian Affairs and its employees to continue to participate in Federal retirement and health benefit programs. However, the Haskell president and Board of Regents will have authority over organizational structure, the classification of positions, recruitment, procurement, and determination of all human resource policies and procedures. This legislation will give Haskell the autonomy enjoyed by the tribally controlled community colleges and BIA elementary and secondary schools. This bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Jan Meyers. Mr. President, I am aware that we are near adjournment and it is unlikely that we can get this bill passed in the time remaining. However, I wanted to introduce it now because I am convinced that such legislation is essential to the success of Haskell Indian Nations University and that it should be a priority in the next Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Haskell Indian Nations University Administrative Systems Act of 1996. I am pleased to have the vice-chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Inouye, as a cosponsor. The purpose of this bill is to give Haskell Indian Nations University the authority and flexibility it needs to make a successful transition from a junior college to a 4-year university. Founded in 1884 as the U.S. Indian Industrial Training School, Haskell provided agricultural education in grades one through five. Ten years later, the school had changed its name to Haskell Institute and expanded its academic training beyond the eighth grade. By 1927 the secondary curriculum had been accredited, and in 1970 the school became Haskell Indian Junior College. In October 1993, after receiving accreditation to offer a bachelor of science degree in elementary teacher education, the school changed its name to Haskell Indian Nations University. Haskell is a Kansas treasure and an institution cherished by native Americans and Alaska Natives. At any one time, as many as 175 tribes are represented in the student body. Integrating the perspectives of various native American cultures have assured Haskell's growth and success. As the first baccalaureate class graduates in May 1997, Haskell Indian Nations University is developing 4-year programs in other fields and continues to accept the challenge of enriching the lives of young native Americans and Alaska Natives. As the school has changed, so should the system by which it is administered. Haskell's ability to make a successful transition from a junior college to a 4-year university is being compromised by the present system under which the Bureau of Indian Affairs must approve its appointments and the Office of Personnel Management establishes rankings for its professors. This legislation allows the school to remain within the Bureau of Indian Affairs and its employees to continue to participate in Federal retirement and health benefit programs. However, the Haskell president and Board of Regents will have authority over organizational structure, the classification of positions, recruitment, procurement, and determination of all human resource policies and procedures. This legislation will give Haskell the autonomy enjoyed by the tribally controlled community colleges and BIA elementary and secondary schools. This bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Jan Meyers. Mr. President, I am aware that we are near adjournment and it is unlikely that we can get this bill passed in the time remaining. However, I wanted to introduce it now because I am convinced that such legislation is essential to the success of Haskell Indian Nations University and that it should be a priority in the next Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues for agreeing to the passage of S. 773, the Animal Drug Availability Act. This legislation is designed to address the severe shortage of new drugs for the treatment of animals. The bill will modernize clinical testing requirements and make them more predictable and will improve the efficiency and timeliness of the Food and Drug Administration's [FDA] review of new animal drug applications, while at the same time ensuring that new animal drugs are safe for animals and humans and are effective. The Senate's passage of this legislation is a testament to what can be accomplished when the FDA, the regulated industry, and Congress recognize a problem--in this case, the lack of new drugs for treating animals--and work together in good faith to craft and enact creative, reasonable solutions to that problem. Dr. Steve Sundlof, the director of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine, and his staff deserve great credit for their dedication to meaningful animal drug law and regulation reform in this Congress. I wish especially to thank each of the Members who has cosponsored and worked with me for the passage of this legislation. Without their effort and dedication to seeing this bill through the legislative process, we would not have succeeded in passing this bill today. Our former majority leader, Senator Dole, and Senators Lugar, Pryor, Pressler, Gregg, Gorton, Coats, Jeffords, Frist, Harkin, Craig, Inhofe, Grassley, McConnell, Kyl, Santorum, Heflin, Bond, Kerrey, Bennett, Helms, Hutchison, Lott, Bumpers, Mack, Ashcroft, Cochran, Roth, Warner, Ford, Kempthorne, Robb, Nickles, Stevens, Abraham, Daschle, Grams, Conrad, Burns, Moseley-Braun, Dorgan, Baucus, and Hatch each deserve great credit for their active support for this legislation. I ask unanimous consent a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. That is correct. I understand how important the loan guarantee provisions of S. 1044 are to the health centers. The States are rapidly moving to managed care systems for Medicaid recipients. In order to continue serving these individuals and other low-income, uninsured individuals, centers must have the ability to form viable, competitive networks and plans. The loan guarantee program will benefit centers across the country, including rural centers who are now trying to position themselves for the movement of managed care into rural areas.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I agree, that requirement goes to the fundamental nature and purpose of these important safety net providers. All of the health centers must serve all residents of the area served by the center, regardless of an individual's ability to pay for the services they receive. publication of guidelines

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I would also note that S. 1044 continues an authority in current law that permits the Secretary to designate a population as ``medically underserved'' if the chief executive officer of a State and local officials recommend that designation based on unusual local conditions which are a barrier to access to care. I would hope that this authority will also be used to address the unique needs of sparsely populated rural areas. I also wanted to assure the Senator from Wyoming that this bill incorporates your suggestion for improving the coordination of services in rural communities through collaborative relationships between community health centers and other rural providers in the center's service area. As a condition of eligibility for a health center planning or operating grant, the center must demonstrate its efforts to develop and maintain such relationships. Sections 329, 330, 340, 340A

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. The Senator is correct. Following up on your suggestion, S. 1044 provides the Secretary with this waiver authority. The bill has been modified to ensure that this waiver will be in effect for the length of the community health center grant. Rural providers will not be required to repeatedly make their case to the Secretary over the period of the grant. It is also the committee's intention that the process for obtaining this waiver be simple, straightforward, and short. Our rural providers, who are already stretched so thinly, should not be forced to go through a time-consuming, resource-consuming paperwork exercise to obtain a waiver.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise to continue a series of speeches about why Africa matters to the United States. I have already spoken about our vulnerability to infectious diseases coming out of Africa, and have addressed the many ways in which environmental crisis in Africa can touch Americans right here at home. Today, I want to speak about a topic that many people believe will be the primary security threat in the years ahead--international crime and terrorism. American corporations are spending increasing amounts of money to protect themselves from international criminal networks. Our children are still threatened by a thriving drug trade that links this country to narcotics centers around the globe. And after the World Trade Center bombings and the tragic loss of the passengers and crew of TWA flight 800, the threat of international terrorism has created a sense of insecurity in the American public such as we have never felt before. weak state institutions As the rise of criminal networks in the former Soviet Union has shown, weak state institutions and judiciaries create a climate for crime to flourish--and Africa is no exception. West Africa is noted as a hub for passport forgery; counterfeit money is produced in various African urban centers, and criminal networks smuggle diamonds and ivory across the continent's porous borders and overseas. In some parts of the continent, soldiers and political officials use their formal occupations as an entry point to high-stakes criminal activity, taking control of resources to finance crime and appropriating entire localities to serve as a base of operations. Diamonds, drugs, and arms are flowing to and from these individual fiefdoms, because no strong, capable financial or legal institutions exist to differentiate the legitimate from the illegitimate. Let me give a few examples: Warlords in Liberia use diamonds stolen from Sierra Leone to finance their contribution to Liberia's bloody conflict. Not long ago, Angolan rebels were selling poached elephant ivory and smuggled diamonds on international markets to raise funds for their cause. The rise of mercenary movements on the continent is a testament to this trend--mercenaries are often paid by allowing them access to resource-rich territories, further turning Africa into a free-for-all for criminals seeking profit, while legitimate governments and businesses are increasingly marginalized. Criminal networks in Nigeria defraud American citizens of millions of dollars each year. Yet, the Nigerian military government--itself infected with corruption--does little to stop these acts. And even in Africa's most developed economy--South Africa--the lack of effective and legitimate law enforcement has led to the growth of crime and narcotics trafficking. Nearly 500 criminal networks are thought to operate in Johannesburg, dealing in cocaine, heroin, Mandrax, diamonds, and ivory. narcotics flows Not only does such activity threaten to destabilize one of the most inspiring success stories of this century, but it also threatens Americans right here at home. Only one-tenth of the contraband in South Africa is for local consumption--the rest finds its way to Europe and the United States. In fact, approximately 30 to 40 percent of all hard narcotics that enter the United States come via African drug cartels. The drug world is becoming increasingly cosmopolitan: South American drug lords are buying African banks to launder their illegal profits. For years, the United States has thrown money at supply-side solutions in South America that simply do not work. In Africa, we should apply the lessons learned from that experience and address the institutional weaknesses that permit the drug trade to flourish. Stronger and more transparent political and judicial systems must be developed to stop the flow of narcotics from Africa. terrorism also a threat Mr. President, international terrorists are no strangers to Africa. Sudanese nationals were at the heart of the New York City bomb plots. The Libyan Government still refuses to extradite the men believed to be responsible for the bombing of PanAm flight 103. In 1995, a fraud scheme uncovered in South Africa revealed an international crime network with close links to the Irish Republican Army. In this era of instantaneous communications and world travel, all nations must join in the battle against international terrorism. Even one rogue state presents a threat to American interests both here and abroad. conclusion Mr. President, these images are bleak, but writing off Africa in frustration is an unacceptable solution. International crime rings, drug lords, and terrorist groups have not forgotten about Africa, and neither can we. In the interest of global stability and our national security, the United States must keep Africa on the foreign policy agenda, and work with the African people to strengthen the institutions that bring shadowy international crimes to light.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, if I can comment for a moment. We can probably go on all afternoon talking about education, but I am sure there are those who would like to get back to the pipeline bill. We can have dueling charts. I don't think that helps us at this juncture. The Senator from Massachusetts raised many of the same priorities in education that I did. We worry about crumbling infrastructure, we worry about the quality of education, we worry about being able to attract the best and the brightest teachers into teaching. All of these things are a part of the educational debate. I think where we differ, and differ significantly, is whether the Federal Government is the answer to all of those questions, and I suggest not. I believe most Americans realize that is so. Federal dollars in education are less than 10 percent of the education dollars spent in this country. Local and State governments spend, I think, about $508 billion in education. I happen to believe that it still should be a question of local and State authority on education. The Federal Government can provide support, but if we start to rely more and more on Federal dollars coming from here in Washington and believe that solves the problem, then I suggest, Mr. President, that we are in trouble. That is where we differ: Who bears the main responsibility for the funding of our educational system? I suggest it has worked well, and it will continue and should work best, at the local level. I think that is where there is a fundamental difference. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I am here to answer some of the statements made by the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kennedy. Unfortunately, I did not hear all of the comments but some that I heard made by Senator Kennedy regarding education need to be answered. It just is not the case that education has been slashed by Republicans over the last 6 to 8 years, and I really find it very disappointing that somehow this keeps coming up. It is easy to make a statement saying education has been slashed and decimated by Republicans without any real understanding of the programs under discussion, what has been debated and what resolutions have been made because, actually, education budgets have continued to climb. I think nearly all of us at least would acknowledge that money alone is not the answer to quality education. It certainly has been important for us to have a support system when we are asked to help with special education moneys, moneys for disadvantaged students, moneys for disabled students, for the student loan program. But money alone is not the answer. We are now spending more than $25 billion in our budget for education, and there has to be some understanding of what it is all about. For one thing, we have dramatically increased money for Head Start programs, which are preschool programs for those young children who need most to have that assistance. At the time we worked on the legislation to increase Head Start funding, we also incorporated changes in the program which were designed to enhance the quality of delivery of Head Start programs. Some States have outstanding Head Start programs. Other States have not pulled together the network that I think is necessary for quality preschool education. But that money has been increased. As for student loans, I think it is exceptionally misleading to claim that the student loan program has been decimated. For one thing, all eligible students applying for a student loan receive a student loan. In 1993, the volume of student loans was $16.1 billion; 3 years later, it is $26.6 billion. Students are not being denied student loans. The Pell grant program and the other grant and work-study programs have not been appropriated to the level that has been authorized, and that has always been a concern. But it is also a fact that funding for those programs has not been reduced. Whether it has grown to the level it should grow perhaps should be the question. I think it is very important for us to debate these issues in the context of understanding what is, and is not, occurring in education. We have figures which show, as I pointed out earlier, that we are increasing, and have continued to increase every year, the budget for our education programs. Whether it should be increased more or less has been a subject of debate. I particularly would like to address the student loan program because the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, attacked the efforts to cut the student loan program. When we debated whether to have direct lending for student loans, the intent was to help if students wanted to get their student loan money immediately when they registered for postsecondary education. It did not in any way mean a student was going to pay less on their student loan, and in fact, it was through Republican initiatives in trying to reduce some of the bureaucracy and some of the requirements on the student loan that did produce what savings could be achieved for students. Direct lending, as such, in no way changed the amount of funding that is available to students. This has been, I think, poorly understood. Somehow it has been portrayed as a choice between supposedly greedy banks or the Federal Government that would handle student loans. We missed completely, I think, the part of the debate regarding who should be responsible for cutting the checks for the student loan program, who can do it the best, and who should bear the responsibility for those loans and for payments that have not been collected. I, myself, thought it was something we should go somewhat slowly on, so that we could understand the effects of the Federal Government totally handling the student loan program, or whether we should continue to let it also be an initiative in which the banks and the student lending guaranty agencies could be involved, believing they were going to be better able to collect on the loans than the Federal Government. I believe it is something we can and should continue to debate. But that program has not been decimated by efforts of Republicans to somehow cut student loans. I think it is interesting that, in the first half of President Clinton's administration, when the Democrats controlled the Congress, actual spending for education programs fell on the average of $1 billion below the President's request. I do not intend to get into a tit for tat on educational spending, however. Being a member of a local school board at one time before I came to the Senate, and as chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee responsible for education funding, there is nothing that I care more about than being certain that we do have quality education in this country. That is something everyone is dedicated to. How much of that can be guaranteed by moneys we spend here in Washington is another matter. In some cases it is clearly something we need to do, particularly when we mandate certain requirements on schools. Then, we must be willing to be a participant in helping to pay for those mandates. That, I think, has been particularly true with initiatives such as the education for disabled students. We mandated the inclusion of those students in public schools, and I think we should be willing to help continue to fund the needs of that mandate. But I suggest that, as we debate education today, most citizens in this country realize the success of excellence in education really depends on our local communities, our local school boards, and students and parents who will recognize the importance of quality education and are willing to invest the time and the resources to see that we have it. I think there is no sadder indictment of education in general than the fact that some students are taking student loans when they graduate from high school but then have to take remedial reading when they get to college. We are doing a great disservice to the students in our Nation when they pile up an indebtedness of student loans but are not prepared to take advantage of the higher education they are receiving, whether it be in liberal arts or vocational- technical education. We have to give those students--and it is not just we here in the Federal Government, but each and every one of us--the ability and the opportunity to achieve excellence in education. It should be the students themselves who will have the self-discipline to recognize the importance of that to them. But right here in the Nation's Capitol we have not been able, with all the money that has gone into the District of Columbia, to hold up our heads with the primary and secondary schools that we have here in the District of Columbia. It is a shame that we have students who have to walk through metal detectors for fear of what might occur, a shooting in a high school. It is a shame that we have leaking roofs and crumbling infrastructure in our elementary schools. Every child in this country should be able to attend the elementary school in their neighborhood that has the highest quality of education to be offered. But I would just suggest, and I am sure the Senator from Massachusetts believes the same as I do, that this is something that our Nation does care about. We have always been a country that cares about education. We have always been a country that hands off, as a legacy to the next generation, our belief in the importance of education. But it is totally wrong to say that we have decimated this opportunity for excellence in education because Republicans have slashed the education budget. That is not the case, Madam President, and that is not the answer to excellence and quality in education. We need to work together to the extent that we can to find those programs that can be of help. We have done that before and we should continue to do so. It has been a big disappointment to me that the Democratic side of the aisle has not been supportive of efforts which we have undertaken, and which we passed unanimously, except for two votes, to initiate job training reform efforts and strong support for vocational education initiatives, which are an important component of our desires to achieve a working partnership between the Federal, State and local governments. That, I think, is one of the answers that we need to look to when we look at what the Federal responsibilities may be in assisting in education. I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

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

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, due to time constraints, the report for the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1996, S. 1897, was filed prior to the receipt of the cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. The following is a letter from the Congressional Budget Office scoring the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1996, S. 1897. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record. The letter follows: U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, September 19, 1996. Hon. Nancy Landon Kassebaum, Chairman, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1897, the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1996, as reported by the Committee on Labor and Human Resources on September 9, 1996. Enactment of S. 1897 could affect direct spending. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the bill. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. Sincerely, James L. Blum (For June E. O'Neill, Director). Enclosure. congressional budget office cost estimate 1. Bill number: S. 1897. 2. Bill title: National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1996. 3. Bill status: As reported by the Committee on Labor and Human Resources on September 9, 1996. 4. Bill purpose: S. 1897 would extend expiring provisions, eliminate duplicated or unnecessary advisory boards and reports, codify certain existing programs, and create new programs within the National Institutes of Health (NIH). 5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Assuming appropriation of the necessary funds, CBO estimates that the federal government would spend $31.6 billion over the fiscal years 1997-2002 period to implement the provisions of S. 1897. Table 1 summaries the estimated authorizations and outlays that would result from S. 1897. The table provides the total authorizations and outlays under two different sets of assumptions. The first set of assumptions adjusts the estimated amounts for projected inflation after 1996, while the second set makes no allowance for projected inflation. The bill could not affect direct spending by establishing the National Fund for Health Research. But S. 1897 does not specify a revenue source for this new trust fund, and no direct spending could occur until it receives funding.