Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, for her outstanding statement on behalf of Margaret Chase Smith. I know that Margaret Chase Smith would certainly have been delighted and thrilled to hear the remarks that were made here this morning and the work she has performed on the Armed Services Committee. It also reminds me, as I have heard the statements here today, that it certainly is true that she blazed a trail for women, because we are all firsts here in our own right. If she had not blazed the trail, I am not sure we would be here today. We have all established our trademarks in the way she would be proud, and she would be proud and thrilled by the statements made on her behalf. It now gives me a great deal of pleasure to recognize Senator Boxer from California. For the first time in the history of California, there are two women Senators. Senator Boxer has the honor of being only one of four in the U.S. Senate to have served in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Mr. President, I am glad to yield to the Senator from California 5 minutes.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend morning business for an additional 5 minutes.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank Senator Kassebaum for the wonderful statement she made about Margaret Chase Smith. I know I have those long memories and recollections of our visit with her. It was truly inspiring because of what she had accomplished in both the House and the Senate, but I think more significant is the fact of when she accomplished it. Her accomplishments are as remarkable today as they were then in terms of our standards and the ability of women to participate in the public arena. There are still many obstacles, but there is no doubt there were many more in the 1940's. The fact she was able to have an extremely challenging race in 1948 with an incumbent Governor and former Governor and still came on top. After attacking Senator Joe McCarthy in terms of what he had done to this country, he got somebody to run against her. She still came out with 82 percent of the vote as a resounding victory, not only for Senator Margaret Chase Smith but for this country, condemning the kind of tactics he employed. Now it is my pleasure to recognize the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison. Many women are firsts here. Senator Hutchison is the first woman to be elected from the State of Texas to the U.S. Senate, but she is also the second woman in the history of the U.S. Senate to serve on the Armed Services Committee, the other woman being, of course, Senator Margaret Chase Smith. It is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to Senator Hutchison.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for her wonderful tribute and testimony to Senator Margaret Chase Smith. I know she would enjoy the comments the Senator has made. They are fitting and most appropriate for a woman who served her country and her State and constituents well. I now will yield to Senator Kassebaum of Kansas, who was the first woman elected from Kansas. In fact, this was the second woman ever to be elected in her own right to the U.S. Senate, and the first woman to be elected to the Senate without first having been preceded in Congress by a spouse. Senator Kassebaum and I had the pleasure of joining Senator Smith at her home back in October 1992, and I know those were special moments we will always treasure and share. I am pleased that Senator Kassebaum could be here today to participate in this tribute. I yield the Senator 4 minutes.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, it gives me a great deal of honor and privilege to be here today to join some of my female Senators in paying tribute to Senator Margaret Chase Smith, who passed away on Memorial Day, after 97 years of courage, bravery, integrity, and pioneering spirit. I would like to join the people of Maine, the Nation, and my colleagues in saying goodbye to Margaret Chase Smith, forever the Senator from Maine. She lived through two world wars, 17 Presidents, and outlived over 70 years of communism. She was given 95 honorary degrees throughout her life, almost 1 degree for every year of her time on Earth. She was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George Bush at a White House ceremony in 1989. She was a teacher, a telephone operator, a newspaperwoman, an office manager, a secretary, a wife, a Congresswoman and, for 24 years, a U.S. Senator. She rose from the humblest of beginnings to the highest corridors of power. But she was also a leader, an inspiration, a nation's conscience, a visionary, and a woman of endless firsts. She was the first woman to be elected to the U.S. Senate. She was the first woman to be elected to both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. She was the first woman to face another woman in a U.S. Senate election campaign. She was the first woman to become a ranking member of a congressional committee. She was the first woman to serve on the Armed Services Committee. She was the first woman to serve on the Appropriations Committee. She was the first woman to be elected chair of the Republican Conference. She was the first woman to have her name placed in nomination for the Presidency by either major political party in 1964. She was the first civilian woman to sail on a U.S. destroyer in wartime. And, not surprisingly, if you knew her, she was the first woman to breaking the sound barrier in a U.S. Air Force F-100 Super Sabre fighter. She was a woman of many firsts, a daughter of Maine, a trailblazer for women, a patriot of America. Today we come to remember two things: We remember a legend, and we remember history, the history Margaret Chase Smith of Skowhegan made throughout her 32 years of outstanding public service to the people of Maine and the citizens of America. From the very first day I met Margaret Chase Smith, I often wondered if she ever knowingly set out to make history in 1940 as she began her service in the House of Representatives. Today, I realize Margaret Chase Smith never charted a course to make history or pursue it. The fact is, history merely followed Margaret Chase Smith. It was when her husband, Congressman Clyde Smith, died in 1940 that Margaret Chase Smith found herself thrust into political life. Shortly after his death, she won a special election to fill the unexpired term of her late husband, and then went on to win the June Republican primary and win, of course, the November general election. Mrs. Smith was going to Washington, and she would be there for 32 splendid years in both the House and the Senate. She ran for the Senate when Senate majority leader Wallace White, of Maine, announced that he would retire in 1948. So she decided to run for that vacant seat. After beating both Maine's incumbent Republican Governor and a former Governor in the June primary, Smith went on to claim victory in the general election, beginning the now famous litany of firsts that would act as proud landmarks and milestones in her life. It is safe to assume at this point in her life most of Maine knew about their newly-elected junior Senator, although she was not yet a household name anywhere else. But America was about to find out exactly who Margaret Chase Smith was. During one of the Nation's darkest hours of history, Margaret Chase Smith never shone more brightly as a beacon of reason, fairness, and courage. The spring of 1950 was a dark and tragic time in American history. They were days of poisonous rhetoric, rage, fear, suspicion, and hate. Senator Joseph McCarthy had made sensational and unsubstantiated charges that had turned him into a national celebrity and purveyor of blatant opportunism--charges about Communist spies and Soviet-sponsored traitors throughout our Nation's governing institutions. He held the American consciousness hostage to his hate-filled tactics, and no one dared to stand up to Senator Joe McCarthy. No one, that is, except Maine's own Senator Smith. On June 1, 1950, in her first major speech on the floor of the Senate and as a freshman, Margaret Chase Smith spoke out loud the words that much of America had thought quietly to themselves. A Republican with a strong allegiance to her party, Smith nevertheless retained her independent Yankee spirit and was known to be a maverick on some issues important to her as a matter of conscience, rather than as a matter of politics. So it was that Senator Smith began one of the most famous speeches in American history, the ``Declaration of Conscience,'' with the words, ``I would like to speak briefly and simply about a serious national condition.'' I would like to quote from that. She began by saying: I speak as briefly as possible because too much harm has already been done with irresponsible words of bitterness and selfish political opportunism. I speak as simply as possible because the issue is too great to be obscured by eloquence. I speak simply and briefly in the hope that my words will be taken to heart. I speak as a Republican. I speak as a woman. I speak as a United States Senator. I speak as an American. For the next 15 minutes, her words resonated across America and struck a chord with the hearts and minds of all Americans. Senator McCarthy sat directly behind her, a fitting position for him to be shadowed in light of her reason and integrity. She had done in 15 minutes what none of her 94 other colleagues had dared to do for months, and she never mentioned Senator McCarthy's name in the process. I should mention that she sat in seat No. 1, where the President sits currently, when she made this most important speech. In slaying a giant of demagoguery, Margaret Chase Smith stood and courageously defended what she termed ``some of the basic principles of Americanism,'' and I would like again to quote from her speech. Those principles, she said, were: The right to criticize; The right to hold unpopular beliefs; The right to protest; The right of independent thought. She went on to say that: The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or the livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs. Bernard Baruch once said had a man made that speech, he would have become the next President of the United States. Almost exactly 45 years to the date--June 1 of last week--after she spoke those brave words, her voice of reason still reaches across the years and follows her spirit skyward. In 1972, her public service career concluded. When she retired, she left another legacy of her dedication to public service: A near-perfect attendance record in Congress. She held, until 1981, the all-time consecutive rollcall voting record in the entire history of the U.S. Senate with 2,941 consecutive rollcall votes spanning 13 years. Only a much-needed hip operation in September 1968 kept her from casting her vote on the floor of the Senate. Not known for displaying idleness as a personal quality, Margaret Chase Smith spent the next 23 years of her life after politics lecturing at dozens of colleges and universities across this country, and worked tirelessly to establish what is now known as the Margaret Chase Smith Library Center at her beloved home in Skowhegan, a small town where she was born almost a century ago. I know that I and other women in public service have a very high standard to meet in her wake and some rather large shoes to fill as we walk in the footsteps of Margaret Chase Smith. Fortunately for us, those shoes had heels. Indeed, Margaret Chase Smith showed how a woman's place can truly be in ``the House * * * and the Senate.'' She was an inspiration to millions of young girls and women all across this country who never before thought they could aspire to any kind of public office. She showed us through her talents, abilities, and energies that opportunities for women did exist and that the door to elected office could be unlocked and opened to all women. But most importantly, what Margaret Chase Smith's life proved is it is not necessarily gender which makes a difference in public service, it is dedication, it is energy, perseverance, competence, and the will to get the job done. At last, she has reached a final resting place amongst the angels. George Bernard Shaw once said, ``In Heaven, an angel is no one in particular.'' I would have to say George Bernard Shaw never knew Margaret Chase Smith, because she was truly one of the ``better angels among us,'' to use the words of the President of the United States. But I am sure in Heaven, as on Earth, Margaret Chase Smith will come to be known as someone quite ``in particular.'' It is only fitting she requested her epitaph to read: ``She served people.'' Well, she certainly served them and she served them well. So it is with a mixture of pride and humility that when I am referred to as ``the Senator from Maine,'' I know well this is a phrase of honorable and distinguished past. Hearing those words will always evoke images of an individual who gave Maine some of its proudest moments. That phrase is a daily reminder of an individual who had the will and integrity to speak out vigorously when silence was a safer course. Margaret Chase Smith once said, If I were to do it all over again, I would change nothing. I am very proud of my public service. I have no regrets * * *. No regrets, no changes--I would do it all over again.'' I know I speak on behalf of Maine and my colleagues when I say I wish you could. from Maryland who is the dean of the Democratic women in the U.S. Senate, who is the first Democratic woman, like Margaret Chase Smith, to have served both in the House and in the U.S. Senate and also the first woman to be elected to the U.S. Senate from the State of Maryland. So I am pleased Senator Mikulski could join us today in this tribute to Margaret Chase Smith.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank my colleagues once again for their participation in this tribute to a remarkable woman who led a remarkable life, and all the causes she espoused in her political career would serve us well today. It certainly serves as an important reminder of the standards we should establish as public servants, and hopefully that will carry through the years to come. With that, Mr. President, I conclude this tribute to Senator Margaret Chase Smith.

Ms. SNOWE. I appreciate the comments of the Senator because I think it is true that in no small part it is due to Margaret Chase Smith's presence here that today we have eight women in the U.S. Senate and a record number in the House of Representatives. She certainly served as an inspiration as we began our political careers. I know the first time I visited with her when I decided to run for the House of Representatives, and then more recently when I did have the opportunity to see her last year after I announced my candidacy for the U.S. Senate, she told me to give it all I had, to work very hard, to leave no stone unturned, which is what she always did. I think we needed to have role models like Margaret Chase Smith who would blaze that trail for us to make that possible. After all, she was born 23 years before women had the right to vote in this country. The fact that she was willing to follow through on an extensive political career, 32 years, is remarkable in and of itself. So I thank Senator Kassebaum, Senator Hutchison, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Boxer.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield an additional minute to the Senator from California.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, this morning there will be a period of morning business until the hour of 9:45 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the antiterrorism bill, S. 735. By consent, Senator Boxer will be recognized at that time to offer an amendment. A cloture motion was filed on Monday with respect to the Hatch substitute to S. 735. Senators with first-degree amendments listed in the agreement on S. 735 are reminded that they have until 12:30 p.m. today to file amendments in order to comply with rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate. The Senate will stand in recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. in order to accommodate respective party luncheons. Senators should be aware that rollcall votes are expected throughout the day and a late- night session may be required in order to complete action on the antiterrorism bill by the close of business today.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I would like to congratulate Col. Raymond W. O'Keefe, a native son of Maine, who retired from the U.S. Army on June 1, 1995, after a distinguished career of faithful service to our Nation spanning 26 years. Throughout those 26 years of service, Ray O'Keefe exemplified the true spirit of the United States cavalryman: ``honor was his guide, resourcefulness his strength, and a passion for duty was his chief characteristic.'' Colonel O'Keefe was commissioned through the Reserve Officers' Training Corps as a second lieutenant in the Regular Army following his graduation from the University of Maine at Orono in June 1969. Over the course of his career, Colonel O'Keefe served in a variety of challenging troop and staff assignments in the United States, Germany, Korea, and Vietnam. Following completion of the Armor Officer's Basic Course at Fort Knox, then-Lieutenant O'Keefe reported for duty with the 1st Squadron, 17th Cavalry, assigned to the elite 82nd Airborne Division, at Fort Bragg, NC. Lieutenant O'Keefe practiced his craft and honed his skills while serving in a variety of positions at the troop level. He arrived in Pleiku, in the Central Highlands of Vietnam, in December of 1971, and assumed command of D Troop, 17th Cavalry. the Ia Drang Valley, sight of one of the first large battles of the war, was only thirty miles distant. One of the last major fights of the war, the Easter Offensive in March, there. His next assignment brought him to a post well-known in the annals of cavalry lore--Fort Riley, KS--the birthplace of the famous 7th Cavalry Regiment. Already an experienced combat veteran, Ray served with distinction as a troop commander and operations officer with the 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry, refining his skills, coaching, and teaching the cavalrymen and officers entrusted to his care. Obviously, Ray O'Keefe stood out from his peers, for as an armor officer he was selected to attend Infantry Officers Advanced Course at the U.S. Army Infantry School. Selection to an advanced course of another branch is an indication that an officer has mastered his basic branch skills and is being groomed for positions of much greater responsibility. His follow-on assignment as a staff plans officer with the Joint Personnel Staff at Headquarters, 8th U.S. Army, in Yong San, Korea, underscored the high regard in which he was held by his superiors. The assignment provided Ray valuable experience working with senior officers and those of the other Services and would serve him well in future assignments. Following promotion to major ahead of his peers, and with a Master of Science degree in Educational Administration in hand, Ray O'Keefe returned to New England. Assigned as the Assistant Professor of Military Science at the University of New Hampshire, he excelled as an instructor of young men and women. Those entrusted with attracting and developing our Army's future leaders have a particularly important responsibility. Ray O'Keefe truly understood this responsibility and more than met the challenge. As a field grade officer, Ray continued with his service in a series of increasingly challenging assignments, this time in Germany. The cold war was at its height, and deterrence was the keystone of our defense policy. Trained and ready, Army forces provided NATO's first line of defense in Europe against the Warsaw Pact. Serving 1 year as executive officer of the 4th Battalion, 64th Armor, in Aschaffenburg, followed by almost 3 years on the Operations and Plans staff of the 3rd Infantry Division in Wurzburg, then-Major O'Keefe was instrumental in successfully bringing the M1 Abrams main battle tank to the division. Personally selected by the commanding general as chief of training for the division, Ray soon became the recognized expert in Europe on fielding and training for the M1 tank. Battalion command is a challenge reserved for only the Army's most capable and most promising officers. In June of 1984, then-Lieutenant Colonel O'Keefe's demonstrated performance and potential resulted in his selection to command the 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry, a unit rich tradition. From its battalion colors fly streamers emblazoned with names we associate with gallantry, courage, sacrifice: Little Big Horn, Leyte, Korea. Equipped with tanks, helicopters, armored personnel carriers, and artillery, the division cavalry squadron is perhaps one of the most lethal fighting organizations within the Army and one of the most challenging to effectively command. Its mission was one of the cold war's most difficult and sensitive--patrolling the border between freedom and tyranny in Europe. Under Ray O'Keefe's expert hand, the troopers of the 3rd Squadron patrolled the intra-German border 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Tough, realistic training and competent, confident leadership were rewarded in 1985 when the 3rd Squadron captured the prestigious Flynn Cup, awarded to the best border squadron in the VII Corps. Through sustained superior performance, Ray O'Keefe proved he had what it took to command and care for 1,200 soldiers and their families. The Joint Staff provided Ray O'Keefe another opportunity to excel. Assigned as Chief of the Operations, Training, and Exercise Branch in the National Military Command Center, he played a key role in every world crisis for almost 2 years. Colonel O'Keefe developed and wrote the required operational concept for what was to become the automated Crisis Management System, now the heart of the Joint Chiefs of Staff crisis management response. The impact of this contribution to our Nation cannot be overstated. Colonel O'Keefe culminated his service as Chief, Congressional Activities Division, Office of the Chief of Staff, U.S. Army. In this capacity, Ray once again set the standard preparing senior Army leadership for their personal interactions with Congress, including confirmations, congressional testimony, and meetings with Members of Congress. Ray also supervised preparation and publication of the Army's annual Posture Statement and Focus periodical. Both General Sullivan and Secretary West have come to rely on Ray O'Keefe's sound judgment, keen insight, and sage advice. In this assignment, as in all the others throughout his career, Ray has been in the vanguard working to ensure that America's Army maintains, the warrior's edge. Col. Raymond W. O'Keefe is indeed the quintessential leader. His selfless service, commitment to excellence, and caring professionalism have continually provided inspiration to those with whom he has served. This exceptional officer truly personifies those traits of courage, competency, and integrity that our Nation has come to expect from our Army officers. When he was needed, he was there. He has served our Nation well, and our heartfelt appreciation and best wishes for continued success go with him.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Law Enforcement and Intelligence Sources Protection Act of 1995. This legislation would significantly increase the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share information with the State Department for the purpose of denying visas to known terrorists, drug traffickers, and individuals involved in international crime. This provision would permit denials of U.S. visas to be made without a detailed written explanation for individuals who are excludable for law enforcement reasons, which current law requires. These denials could be made citing U.S. law generically, without further clarification or amplification. Individuals denied visas due to the suspicion that they are intending to immigrate would still have to be informed that this is the basis, to allow such an individual to compile additional information that may change that determination. Under a provision of the INA, a precise written justification, citing the specific provision of law, is required for every alien denied a U.S. visa. This requirement was inserted into the INA out of the belief that every non-American denied a U.S. visa for any reason had the right to know the precise grounds under which the visa was denied, even if it was for terrorist activity, narcotics trafficking, or other illegal activity. This has impeded the willingness of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share with the State Department the names of excludable aliens. These agencies are logically concerned about impeding an investigation or revealing sources and methods if they submit a name of a person they know to be a terrorist or criminal--but who we do not want to know that we know about their activities--who then goes on the lookout list, is denied a visa, and then is informed in writing that he or she was denied a visa because of known drug trafficking activity. That drug trafficker then will know that the DEA knows about his or her illegal activity and may be developing a criminal case. This information is something the United States would want to protect, until the case against is completed and, hopefully, some law enforcement action is taken. At the same time, however, for the protection of the American people we should also make this information available to the Department of State to keep the individual out of our country. The key issue is that travel to the U.S. by noncitizens is a privilege, not a constitutional right. There is no fundamental right for extensive due process in visa decisions by our consular officers overseas. While I believe that our country should do what we can to be States, in cases where providing information to an alien would harm our own national security, complicate potential criminal cases, or potentially reveal sources and methods of intelligence gathering, we should err on the side of protecting Americans, not the convenience of foreign nationals.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the Russian Federation should be strongly condemned for continuing with a commercial agreement to provide Iran with nuclear technology which would assist that country in its development of nuclear weapons, and that such an agreement would make Russia ineligible for United States assistance under the terms of the Freedom Support Act. This past January, Russia signed a billion-dollar deal to sell nuclear power reactors to Iran. In the United States, this news was greeted with very strong concern that this Russian nuclear technology would be used to support Iran's nuclear weapons development program. At the recent summit in Moscow, Russian President Yeltsin was asked by President Clinton to cancel the reactor sale to Iran. Yeltsin would not. Instead, he offered us a fig leaf when he cancelled the Russian sale of a gas centrifuge to Iran and halted the training of 10 to 20 Iran scientists a year in Moscow. Iran is aggressively pursuing a nuclear-weapons acquisition program. The CIA said last September that Iran probably could, with some foreign help, acquire a nuclear weapons capability within 8 to 10 years. And Iran is receiving that foreign help, and it is not just from the Russians. China is helping Iran build a nuclear research reactor, and in April it concluded a deal to sell Iran two light-water reactors. Pakistan, a country with its own significant nuclear weapons program, has reportedly provided key technical assistance to Iran. Iran's nuclear weapons program is not the only cause for concern. The Defense Department is increasingly concerned about--and is closely watching--the Iranian military buildup in the Persian Gulf. Let me just review some of the disturbing facts about this Iranian buildup. Iran has acquired as many as 30 Mig-29's out of a reported deal with Russia for 50 of these modern combat jets, and Russia has also sold Iran sophisticated air-to-air missiles to arm these aircraft. Iran has received numerous surface-to-air missile systems from both Russia and China. Iran's submarine force consists of two modern Russian-made Kilo-class submarines, and a third is expected to be delivered. Russia also provided Iran with sophisticated torpedoes for these subs. In addition, despite U.S. pressure, Poland is going ahead with the planned sale to Iran of over 100 T-72 tanks, and Iran has also taken delivery of several hundred other T-72's from Russia. And over the last few years Iran has reportedly acquired several hundred improved Scud missiles from North Korea. Iran has asserted control over the Persian Gulf island of Abu Musa, which it had been previously sharing with the United Arab Emirates. And Iran has moved air defense missile systems, tanks, additional troops, artillery, and surface-to-surface missiles onto islands in the Persian Gulf, some of which are disputed between Iran and the United Arab Emirates. Mr. President, Iran's military buildup in the Persian Gulf and its aggressive nuclear program should be of serious concern to us all. Iran has opposed the Middle East peace process and continues to support the terrorist group Hezballah in Lebanon and radical Palestinian groups. And whether Russia realizes it or not, Iran also poses a long-term threat to them as well. A nuclear-armed Iran poses just as great a threat to Russia as it does to United States interests in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. President Clinton tried to reason with the Russians earlier this month, but they refused to listen. Russia's misguided commercial agreement to sell nuclear technology to Iran should be condemned.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Yes.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, here we go again. I hope that Members of the Senate will oppose this amendment. It is another generic amendment. You did not hear any specifics, other than the $6.3 billion and the $28 billion that would be necessary under this amendment through corporate welfare reductions and tax loopholes. While we all might agree with that goal, there is no specificity. It conveniently lacks specificity because they do not want to offend anybody. But that is not the responsible budgetary approach. That is why the Snowe-Abraham amendment is a credible approach in restoring $6.3 billion in education. If you want to make sure that those funds are restored, then you must support the Snowe-Abraham amendment. The amendment that is before us now, offered by the Senator from Connecticut, is illusory. It does not offer any instructions. It leaves potential instructions to the appropriate committees to determine how they reach the $28 billion. Unfortunately, that has been the process, not only here on the floor of the Senate but also in the Budget Committee. There were a number of Members who offered amendments to increase spending--the accumulation of spending of more than $500 billion and $77 billion in tax increases --but no corresponding amendments to reduce Federal spending, which is the goal of this budget resolution, and it is also a goal to reach a balanced budget. Yes, we remember offsets. But at least we are in a position to say to the committee that this is the way in which you can arrive at these numbers. Do you want to make a decision about eliminating aircraft in the executive branch or raising funds for education? I think the choice is an easy one, and that is what this amendment is all about. So I hope that Members of the Senate will oppose the Dodd amendment because it is not credible, because it does not offer responsible recommendations as to how to arrive at $28 billion worth of changes and at the same time do what we think is important by raising funds for education. The Snowe-Abraham amendment reaches that goal to provide the much-needed, very valuable school loan assistance programs to low- and middle-income families all across America. So I urge the support of the Snowe-Abraham amendment in opposition to the Dodd amendment.

Ms. SNOWE. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE. I found quite interesting the debate that has been offered here today on my amendment. First of all, just to recap my amendment, it is to restore $6.3 billion in the education account. And, yes, we do provide specific offsets. That should be no [[Page S7288]] surprise if you are attempting to provide a credible alternative. And that is why I am somewhat confused by the debate here this morning, because I heard from the Senator from Ohio that my offsets are binding but then we heard from the Senator from Massachusetts that they are not binding. Well, I think we all understand the true nature of the budget process in the Congress. No, the instructions in the budget resolution are not binding. But if you are attempting to provide real numbers to demonstrate that they are credible, then it is responsible to recommend some specific offsets. It is also true the committees do not have to follow those instructions. I understand that and the cosponsors of this amendment understand that. But we want to make sure that everybody understands that there is a way to reach those numbers. That is what is important. The second issue is whether or not you live in a fiscal fantasy land. The difference between the amendment that I am offering here today with the cosponsors of this amendment and those who oppose it is we support a balanced budget. If you support a balanced budget, you have to make some choices. If you do not support a balanced budget, you do not have to make any choices. You can spend in an unlimited fashion. The amendment that they will be offering will recommend reducing corporate welfare and tax loopholes. You cannot object to that. But exactly how are we going to reach that goal? They do not specify. No, they do not want to specify, because they do not want to receive any opposition to those specific offsets, just as they do not support a balanced budget because they do not want to make any real choices as to how we get there. So that is the difference. My amendment is a credible amendment. It restores specific funding for specific issues with respect to student loan assistance. Yes, I would like to do more. But there are those on my side saying, ``You are doing too much,'' and then I hear from the other side of the aisle who say, ``No, you are not doing enough.'' Well, I think my amendment is somewhere in the middle. Hopefully, we will do more in the final analysis. The amendments that have been offered to restore funding for education have used the illusory dividend. Well, that is just gimmickry at this point. That dividend may come down at the end of this process when reconciliation is in place. That does not give adequate instructions to the committee. It is not money that they can use right now and everybody knows it. So if we really want to restore funding to education, if we really want to address the home and farm equity issue so that it is not used to determine one's income eligibility for student loans, if we want to keep the origination fee at 3 percent, if we want to have an adequate grace period, then you support the Snowe amendment. And, I should add who the cosponsors are of my amendment: Senator Kassebaum, Senator Lott, Senator Cohen, Senator Abraham, Senator Brown, Senator Grassley, Senator Chafee, and Senator Kempthorne. In fact, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Kempthorne from Idaho as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator from Alaska.

Ms. SNOWE. Yes.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, since I have a few remaining moments on my amendment, I think it is important to restate the case of how essential it is to restore funding to education, and the difference in the amendments that are being offered this morning is a difference between being able to realistically restore funding to education or not, because you will hear from the other side in presenting an amendment that there will not really be any specific offsets. While it is true that my offsets are not binding on the committee, at least we are being responsible in the approach that we are taking. I think this amendment is critical because it does provide $6.3 billion. It will be protecting some very serious student loan assistance programs, and I want to make sure that the low- and middle- income families are not affected by any changes in the student loan programs. I also want to ensure that the Labor and Human Resources Committee has the ability to protect the student loan assistance programs in the way that we have recommended in this amendment, so that they will not feel compelled to include home and farm equity in determining one's income eligibility, they will not feel compelled to raise the origination fee from 3 to 5 percent, and they will not feel compelled to eliminate an adequate grace period. I know there are some who are opposed to the offsets, but the committees are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the way in which we provide the restoration of funds. They have the options to pursue other courses. The fact of the matter is, we have to take a responsible course by recommending ways in which we can reach our goals as identified in this amendment. I think that it is very, very important that we restore some of the funding in the education accounts. It is something that I argued within the Budget Committee during the time in which we were assembling this resolution. I wish it were more, but I also understand the delicate balance in crafting this budget resolution to reach the historic goal of balancing the budget by the year 2002. I wish that we could identify other areas and perhaps that will ultimately develop in the process. Maybe the dividend down the road, but that dividend is not here today, and I think everybody should understand that. The dividend is not available to be used because it is not there yet. We have to pass a balanced budget plan and reconciliation has to become law for the Congressional Budget Office to score a potential dividend. That will materialize over 7 years, so that is not money that can be used by the Appropriations Committee or considered by the authorization committees as they develop their programmatic changes. So it does not make sense and it is gimmickry to suggest that we are going to use an illusory estimate. So if you hear about amendments, as we will hear from others this morning, about restoring funding by using this dividend, it means nothing because it is not available and it is not there yet. So if you support restoring $6.3 billion in education and doing it in a responsible way, then I hope you will support the Snowe amendment that is cosponsored by 10 Members of the Senate.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I would now yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I think that there is no question that education is one of the highest priorities that we can give in this budget resolution, and certainly we should do everything that we can to ensure that it receives our greatest attention. So I am very pleased to be able to offer an amendment in conjunction with many of my colleagues--Senator Abraham, Senator Grassley, Senator Cohen, Senator Brown, Senator Kassebaum, Senator Lott, Senator Chafee, and Senator Simpson--to restore $6.3 [[Page S7209]] billion in the education account. While education will play a key part in the future of America's children, let us not also forget the goal of this entire process of this budget resolution and the debate we are engaged in to balance the budget by the year 2000 is the greatest gift we could possibly bequeath to future generations of Americans. I know there have been various efforts to restore funding towards education, but the amendments that have been offered have certainly contained fundamentally flawed funding mechanisms. There has been much talk and discussion here in the Senate about the dividend that the Congressional Budget Office may provide to score the budget if we put in place a balanced budget by the year 2002, and that we may achieve a savings of up to $170 billion. But that may or may not materialize at the end of 7 years and, obviously, as each year goes by, it will be determined whether or not the targets have been met under this balanced budget resolution that hopefully will be enacted into law, as well as reconciliation. But I do not think that on an issue as important as education that we can premise the restoration of funding through an illusory estimate that, as I said, may or may not be there at the end of this budgetary process. But furthermore, the purpose of the budget resolution is to provide instructions to the Appropriate Committees, both the authorizations as well as the Appropriations Committees, as to what funding levels they can rely upon in which to conduct their work. So they need to know what the bottom line is, and that is what the budget resolution is all about, to tell them how much they can spend and they, accordingly, make the determinations as to how they will proceed within the aggregate numbers that have been provided to them in the respective functions within the Federal budget. I think we are playing a dangerous numbers game if we think we are going to just restore funding based on this dividend that, again, may not materialize. I do not think that we can be fiscally presumptuous in basing these numbers on such a funding mechanism. I think that we have the obligation to provide reliable, straightforward, factual estimates and data to the appropriations committees and the other committees which will be engaged in the work in trying to determine how they reach these funding levels that will be contained in this budget resolution. But the amendment that I am offering today with my colleagues, as I said earlier, takes a fiscally responsible approach but, at the same time, helps to address the educational needs of the next generation. Mr. President, we restore $6.3 billion in additional funding, but at the same time we provide for specific offsets. Now, of course, the appropriate committees may not follow those recommendations. They have the option of pursuing other categories for specific reductions in spending. But we have provided the offsets by reductions in funding for the intelligent vehicle program, NASA R&D for commercial aircraft, new Federal building construction, reducing the executive branch air carrier fleet from 1,500 planes to 1,350 planes and capping employee bonuses, Federal employee bonuses at $100 million from the present $300 million. We think that there are certain priorities that we should target in any budget resolution and throughout the budgetary process of this year, one of which certainly should be to help provide very critical and important assistance to low- and middle-income families who depend upon Federal assistance to provide the educational assistance for their children. Our amendment ensures adequate funding to protect several very important policies regarding student financial aid. What we want to do and accomplish as a result of this amendment is to ensure that the Labor and Education Committee is enforced to make changes in the student loan programs that affect home and farm equity, in the determination of eligibility for student loans, increasing the student loan origination fee or eliminating the grace period for beginning payments upon graduation. Our aim and goal is to ensure that there are sufficient funds within this account to preclude the Labor and Education Committee from taking these steps, and our amendment is intended to provide enough money to protect those policies. The impact of including home and farm equity in the calculations of eligibility for Federal assistance would be enormous on so many families all across this country. All we need to do is to examine the situation which occurred prior to the enactment and the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1992, when home and farm equity was considered in determining income eligibility for student assistance. The inclusion of the value of family home or farm in the need calculation meant that many hard-working middle-income families were not able to qualify for student aid. These hard-working families, for whom their home or farm was their only real asset, were punished by being shut out of Federal student aid programs. So in 1992, Congress recognized what a serious problem this had become for many families in America. So, consequently, the 1992 higher education amendments exempted a family's farm or principal resident from the student aid program in the calculations of their need. This made it possible for low- to middle-income families to receive help from the Federal Government to send their children to college, rather than requiring them to try to mortgage their home or farms in order to pay for their education. We want to make sure that Congress does not change the present law, which has made college more affordable for thousands of low- and middle-income families, and that is why we worked so hard to provide reasonable offsets which will hopefully guarantee the continuation of present law which eliminates consideration of the home and the farm from the needs analysis for student aid programs. We think that these offsets are a fair trade. As I said earlier, the committees may determine that they can use other offsets, and that is certainly within our purview and the prerogatives of the committee. Our amendment is intended to ensure that those individuals and families living off limited incomes will continue to have access to Federal student aid to send their children to college. The fact is that farms and homes should not be included in the calculation of a student's eligibility for student grant or loan assistance because those assets are not liquid and cannot be easily converted to cash for students to use toward their college education. The second aspect of our amendment is student loan original fees which, I think, is also a critically important issue in terms of costs regarding education. OBRA 1993 reduced the original fee for both subsidized and unsubsidized loans from 5 percent to 3 percent. We believe that that is an important change and would like to see the Labor and Human Resources Committee maintain this policy. Increasing the loan origination fee increases the principal amount that borrowers must repay to the Federal Government and the amount of interest the student must pay. Our amendment would provide enough money to hopefully protect the present origination fee formula. Finally, our amendment would also ensure there is an adequate grace period for those students after they graduate from college. We know that certainly in these difficult economic times, students upon graduation do not easily find employment, and the current grace period is up to 6 months. We think it makes sense for us to continue to provide a grace period because students do not often find gainful employment immediately, and we do not want to force them into a situation where they end up defaulting on their student loan almost immediately upon graduation. So this grace period gives them a chance not only to find employment but also to begin planning so that they can eventually make the payments on their monthly loans. As we know from the cost of college education and postsecondary education, it has become a very, very expensive proposition for the students, as well as their families. We are offering this amendment because we recognize that productivity and the performance of our economy is [[Page S7210]] intertwined with the investments that we make as a Nation in education. The structural changes in the American economy, the revolution technology, have made it necessary for students to attain training beyond high school for the work force of the future. While nearly 40 percent of today's jobs are in low-skill occupations, only 27 percent will fall into that category by the year 2000. At the same time, jobs in high-skill occupations will rise from 24 percent to 41 percent of the work force. Looking at the new jobs that are being created, and will be created in this decade, more than half of the new jobs created presently between now as well as the year 2000, will require education beyond high school. In fact, the median year of education required by the new jobs is 13.5. This is a year and a half beyond high school. Therefore, every worker is going to have to recognize that they will require not only high school education but certainly a postsecondary education of some kind, whether it is a 4-year college degree or technical education. Whatever it will be, it will require not only postsecondary education but schooling beyond that, as well. Men and women who continue their education beyond high school, as we have seen in study after study, have consistently earned more money on average each year than those who do not. In 1990, for example, the average income for high school graduates was almost $18,000. For those who had 1 to 3 years of a college education, earned on the average $24,000. Those who graduated from college and received a college diploma received on average salary of $31,000. These statistics are from the Census Bureau. The entire country benefits, as well. For every $1 we invest in education we get enormous returns as a result. Back in 1990, another study was conducted that analyzed the school assistance that was provided to high school students back in 1972. For every $1 that the Federal Government invested in the student loan programs at that time, the Government received $4.3 in return in tax revenues. According to a study by the Brookings Institute, over the last 60 years, education and advancements in knowledge have accounted for 37 percent of our Nation's economic growth. At a time in which education is becoming paramount in this global arena, where it is going to make the difference for an individual and the kind of living that can be enjoying for themselves and their families, education puts them on the cutting edge. It puts our Nation on the threshold of competition for the future. If we deny individuals the opportunity to receive an education because they lack the financial assistance or the access to financial assistance, clearly, we as a Nation, are going to suffer. Costs of education have increased significantly, two to three times faster than the growth of median incomes. Without student aid, increasing costs make higher education out of reach for millions of Americans. At a time when college costs are increasing dramatically, in fact, since 1988 college costs have risen by 54 percent. We know salaries and income for families have not increased 54 percent. We have to make sure that we carefully retain policies that will make higher education accessible to millions of low- and middle-income families. I also would like to read part of a letter from the American Council of Education which supports this amendment, saying ``It will help millions of low- and moderate-income students fulfill their goal of a college education. Passage of your amendment is essential if the fundamental promise of the Federal student loan program is to remain available to future generations of college students. We are grateful to you for offering it, and we urge all Members to vote in favor of it.'' I know this amendment will make a significant contribution to students pursuing a higher education. I am pleased to be joined by several of my colleagues who have cosponsored this legislation. I would now like to yield to the Chair of the Labor and Human Resources Committee who is a cosponsor of this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE. I would like to answer the Senator from Kansas. The Senator is absolutely correct. We recommend offsets so that we determine the credibility of our numbers and ensuring the committee can reach those funding levels, but certainly it is within the prerogative of the respective committees [[Page S7211]] to determine how they reach those numbers. They may choose to arrive at them in a different way and make different reductions and offsets than the ones we recommended. The specific offsets are not included in the legislation. We want to make sure they understand that we have some credible numbers that have been scored by the CBO.

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