Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as the Senator from New Hampshire knows, I recently urged the Federal Trade Commission to reconsider their decision to close the Boston Regional Office and move all area activity for consumer protection and antitrust matters to New York City. The Boston office has served the people of Maine--and the rest of New England--well for over 40 years and I am concerned that thee may be adverse consequences as the Boston office is uniquely situated in New England to focus on fraud and deception issues that target senior citizens, or for unsubstantiated advertising claims that affect consumers' pocketbooks. The Boston office has been a leader in coordinating efforts to combat consumer fraud in the New England area, partnering with regional FBI and IRS officials in its efforts to detect fraud on the Internet. The office has also worked with Canadian officials on cross-border fraud. In addition, the office has been active in addressing false and unsubstantiated advertising claims that affect consumers' health and safety, for instance stopping a company from claiming that their calcium product prevented osteoporosis, or preventing misleading food safety claims for a food thawing tray, or stopping a company from selling water treatment devices that did not meet the claims made. The Boston office has also worked with senior citizens to detect and avoid telemarketing fraud specifically targeted at them, and also spends a great deal of its time performing other consumer and business outreach and educational services, including educational outreach to the next generation of consumers--the schoolchildren throughout New England. I hope that the FTC can be urged to first consider the findings of a GAO independent evaluation due out in September before they continue with their planned closure of the Boston Office in December.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator from new Hampshire for all his assistance and fine work as Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee, and for his effectiveness in bringing about the passage of this legislation today. Pfiesteria

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the subcommittee chairman, Senator Gregg, for his clarifications and assistance. fishing capacity reduction program

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gregg for his statement and his agreement to address this matter. I would also like to ask Senator Gregg if my understanding is correct that the bill before us provides the Administration's full request for funding of the State of Maine's Atlantic salmon recovery plan.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, S. 2260 provides funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to support a joint marine aquaculture education project in Maine. The committee report lists the project sponsor in Maine as the Island Institute, but the actual sponsor is the Teel Cove Sea Farm. While Teel Cove is associated with the Island Institute, the two organizations are separate entities. In this case, Teel Cove is the chief sponsor of the project in Maine and should be listed as the recipient in the bill or report. I believe that this was the committee's intention. I would like to ask Senator Gregg if his understanding of this matter is consistent with mine, and also whether he would be willing to take appropriate action to ensure that a correction will be made and Teel Cove will be designated as the project sponsor in Maine.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great Maine company that this week celebrates a remarkable milestone--its 150th Anniversary. It was thirteen years before the Civil War began that the UNUM Corporation of Maine was founded as the Union Mutual Life Insurance Corporation. Since that time, UNUM has grown to employ more than 7,400 employees worldwide, and almost 3,800 in their World Headquarters in Portland alone--and has become an industry leader in the area of long term care disability insurance. We in Maine are proud of UNUM's growth and longevity--outstanding achievements that don't happen by accident. But what is even more impressive is UNUM's commitment to providing an outstanding environment for its employees. Indeed, UNUM has been recognized by Fortune magazine as one of the nation's top 100 employers, and named as a leading ``family-friendly'' company by both Business Week and Working Mother magazines--evidence that UNUM's vision and innovation is garnering accolades throughout the professional world. In fact, UNUM has been on Working Mother's list a remarkable nine years in a row. From the standpoint of one who has consistently fought in Congress for opening up possibilities and opportunities for women in business, as well as family-friendly legislation such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, I appreciate UNUM's commitment to fostering a work environment that recognizes that the values of hard work and family are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, UNUM's philosophy shows that responding to employees' concerns is not only the right thing to do, it's also sound business practice. In particular, I applaud UNUM's commitment to providing safe, affordable child care options to employees. UNUM was one of the first companies in America to establish an on-site child care center, and UNUM subsidizes child care costs for qualified employees. Hopefully, this will blaze a trail that others in corporate America will be eager to follow. UNUM also exemplifies the principles of corporate citizenship, and the corporation as a partner in the community. UNUM has consistently been a responsible and integral member of the Portland community--where most of their employees live--and UNUM will be celebrating their anniversary in part with a day-long community service effort involving thousands of employees and hundreds of projects. I commend UNUM's dedication to the community and to the use of corporate resources for the betterment of others, and believe that their model is one which should be replicated throughout the country. This tone of corporate responsibility is set at the top, and UNUM President and Chief Executive Officer Jim Orr deserves much of the credit. A recent article in Portland's Maine Sunday Telegram elaborated on Jim's many talents, saying that, ``he preaches a gospel of shared goals, clear vision and intense focus''. A member of UNUM's board of directors stated, simply, ``The guy knows how to lead''. Obviously, he has used that skill to build a company that not only knows how to satisfy the bottom line, but to set an example for others to follow. Mr. President, in Maine we like to speak of ``the way life should be'', and we cherish a quality of life that is second to none. UNUM exemplifies ``the way business should be'' and for 150 years--that's two-thirds of this nation's existence--it has been contributing to the effort to build an even better Maine in which to live, work, and raise a family. Again, I congratulate the leadership of UNNM, and the outstanding employees who have guaranteed the company's success over the past 150 years.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this amendment will help ensure that America's veterans get the health care and services they deserve as close to home as possible. My amendment does two things: It expresses the sense of the Senate that it should be the goal of the VA to serve all veterans at health care facilities within 250 miles of their homes, and minimize travel distances if specialized services are not available at a health care facility operated by the VA within 250 miles of a veteran's home. Second, it mandates that the VA submit a report to Congress on the estimated cost to and impact on the health care system administered by the VA of making specialty care available to all veterans within 250 miles of their homes. Mr. President, I represent a rural state, Maine, which is served by one Department of Veterans Affairs facility, the Togus VA Medical Center outside the state's capital, Augusta. Many of Maine's veterans already must travel hundreds of miles just to reach Togus--and often, if specialized services are required, they must travel even further to facilities in Boston. This means long drives, frequently in terrible weather, and separation from the vital support that family and friends can provide. This is not a problem limited to Maine--far from it. It is a problem that exists anywhere where there are vast distances between cities--out west, in the heartland, and down south. The level of our commitment to this nation's veterans should not be contingent upon the whims of geography. I understand the financial constraints under which the VA must operate, however, the debt we owe our veterans will never be repaid until we do all we can to ensure that all our nation's veterans have appropriate access to services. Mr. President, this amendment does not all any additional funding to the VA/HUD bill. All it does is to recognize that there is a serious disparity in terms of veterans' access to the services which they earned and to which they are entitled, encourage the VA to make a priority of serving all veterans equally, and require the VA to explore the situation further. I think we can all agree that we owe our veterans that much. I know that the VA is facing challenging times, but my hope is that the VA will also recognize that our veterans are facing serious challenges in accessing the services they were promised. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the distinguished Chairman of the FY99 Subcommittee for Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA and Related Agencies appropriations for honoring the requests of Senator Collins and myself for additional funding of $300,000 to fund a scientist and technical support for the New England Plant Soil, Water and Research laboratory at the University of Maine in Orono. I also greatly appreciate the fact that the appropriators have also agreed that the lab, which has been threatened with closure in the President's FY99 budget, should remain open. This lab, under the capable leadership of Dr. C. Wayne Honeycutt, conducts research to develop and transfer solutions to problems of high national priority in the potato industry and is critical to the State of Maine, its potato growers, and its economy. Ninety five percent of New England's potato acreage is in Maine, and this lab has the benefit of being in close proximity to growers' fields. The additional funding provided by the appropriations will preserve and expand this vital research program and maintain New England's only agricultural research laboratory, and I thank Senator Cochran for his attention to our requests. Amendment No. 3127

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, we have before us the important task of reauthorizing the Higher Education Act for the next five years. I rise today in support of reauthorization, and I want to congratulate my friend, the Chairman, Senator Jeffords, for his efforts to bring the Senate a bill that makes a higher education more affordable to all Americans. The Higher Education Act of 1998 continues a vital component of our nation's commitment to providing the very best education possible to our citizens. In particular, it is the programs reauthorized in this bill that to a great degree determine the shape of our federal presence in postsecondary education. In fact, nearly all of the available federal student aid, and about 70 percent of all financial aid awarded to postsecondary students, comes as a result of this act. And overall, Higher Education Act programs are responsible for an estimated $35 billion in grant, loan, or work-study assistance. As we all know, the principal objective of the HEA is to expand postsecondary education opportunities, particularly for low income individuals, as well as increasing the affordability of postsecondary education for moderate income families. Since 1966, the Guaranteed Student Loans Program within the Higher Education Act--now called the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL)--has provided over $143 billion to students. In 1993, the program reached an all time high of $16.5 billion in new loans. Today, at a time when 71 percent of Americans--71 percent--think a college education is not affordable for most families, building on these successes is all the more pressing. That is why, throughout the reauthorization process, I have expressed the belief that it is critical we ensure the student loan program is strengthened in ways that will increase access. I have always said that there is more to balancing the budget than making our debits equal our credits. Rather, it's about leadership, fiscal responsibility and being visionary in our investments. In order to survive the many multi-faceted challenges of the 21st century, we will have to invest heavily --more than ever before--in giving the essential tools to our country's greatest natural resource: today's students who are tomorrow's workforce. That's why, as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I have continuously fought to make education a priority during the balanced budget debate, and--specifically--have fought to preserve funding for the Student Loan program. In a world of increasing global competition, now is NOT the time to be reducing the Federal commitment to higher education! The fact is, education is the great equalizer in our society that can give every citizen of our nation--regardless of race, income, or geographic background--the same opportunity to succeed in the global economy of the 21st century. This point is especially important when one considers that of the new jobs that are being created--and will be created--more than half of the new jobs that are being created will require education beyond high school. Education is also the biggest single factor in the so-called ``income gap''. Consider these statistics from the Census Bureau: In 1990, for example, the average income for high school graduates was almost $18,000. But those who had 1 to 3 years of a college education, earned on the average $24,000. And those who graduated from college and received a college diploma received an average salary of $31,000. We simply must ensure that our young people have access to our system of higher education if they are to succeed in the changing global environment and maximize their earnings potential. That's why the bill we're considering is so important. It maintains and improves the various grant, loan, and work study assistance programs already available under the Higher Education Act. It reduces the interest rate on student loans. It increases the maximum Pell Grant award by $200 per year, up to $5,800 by 2004. It removes various barriers for independent students seeking financial assistance. And it cancels loans for students who agree to teach for at least three years in high-need areas. This is a significant step forward in our commitment to building a brighter future for the generations that will succeed us. I want to thank the members of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources for their work on this bill, and in particular the Committee Chairman, Senator Jeffords, for accommodating some of my concerns in his manager's amendment. Because the federal role in higher education extends beyond loans, I believe that the changes which were incorporated have made for a stronger bill, and I appreciate his willingness to work with me on their inclusion. The first provision increases the personal liability and responsibility of owners of proprietary schools to ensure their students receive the education that they were promised and purchased. This is important when you consider what happened to students at the Maine Academy of Hair Design, where the school was closed and the students left without recourse--or the education they paid for. I am pleased that the House bill already contains this provision, and its inclusion in the Senate version will ensure that it will be adopted in the upcoming House-Senate conference. The second provision requires the General Accounting Office in consultation with the Inspector General at the Department of Education to issue a report to Congress outlining changes in federal law, and changes in administrative procedures at the Department, that would ensure property transfers, such as the recent one involving Nasson College and its former owner in my home state of Maine--could be prevented in the future. In the case of Nasson, the Department of Education conducted an auction in which purchaser and seller represented the same individual--the person ultimately responsible for paying on the mortgage, who for ten years had failed to make payments toward the $600,000 he owned to the Department, or to pay $28,500 in back property taxes to the community. It is an outrage--but, according to the Department of Education, perfectly legal. The language in the bill will help us in rewriting the law to prevent this from happening again. And finally, I am pleased that the Committee, during markup, included a provision I authored along with Senator Dodd to address the needs of low-income students who are parents. The ``Child Care Access Means Parents in Schools'' provision, or ``CAMPUS'', authorizes three-year grants to institutions of higher education to support or help establish a campus-based child care program serving the needs to low-income student parents. The Secretary will award grants based on applications submitted by the institution, and the grant amount will be linked to the institution's funding level for Pell Grants, in order to assure that the program reaches low-income students. Senator Dodd and I have worked together before on child care issues and I want to thank him for his leadership on the CAMPUS Act. The bottom line is, students are more likely to remain in school, and to graduate sooner and at a higher rate, if they have CAMPUS-based child care. These services are particularly critical for older students who go back to school to get their degree or to improve their skills through advanced education. This is especially important in today's economy, where people need to continuously train and retrain in order to meet the demands of high-tech jobs. Mr. President, this has been a carefully crafted bill that fulfills one of America's most important needs as we close out this century and look to the next. I wholeheartedly support this reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report to H.R. 2676, the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. Mr. President, the people of this nation have watched as Congress has finally taken serious strides toward the reform of our federal tax collection arm--the Internal Revenue Service. They have watched and they have waited because they know that meaningful changes in the way in which we collect income taxes in this country is sorely needed and long overdue. Well, today we have an opportunity to send to the President a reform package that is not only meaningful, but one that will strike at the heart of some of the most serious abuses exemplified by some of the real-life horror stories we've all heard over the past few months. Indeed, the Senate Finance Committee in their hearings during the past year uncovered an agency that, in many instances, simply ran roughshod over taxpayers rights and the IRS' very own rules. Agents misused files, violated privacy, made arbitrary decisions concerning the payment of delinquent taxes, demoted those who sought to report improper tactics. They were evaluated on statistics based on seizures of personal property and finances; they lied and misled the public. In short, the high level of trust that must exist when people's privacy, dignity, and very livelihood are at stake had disintegrated into a quagmire of duplicity and dishonesty. Now, that's not to say that everyone at the IRS engages in such dubious practices. I have no doubt that the majority of Americans who work for the IRS are attempting to do an often unpleasant and thankless job with integrity and the best interests of the taxpayers at heart. Unfortunately, as is always the case, it is the transgressions of the few that foster the decay of the whole. In fact, I'm sure that the majority of the honest, hardworking people of the IRS would welcome a cleanup of the system just as much as any American taxpayer. This conference report provides such relief from the practices of the past and is a giant step forward in rebuilding the trust that has slowly but steadily been eroded over the years. It provides $12.9 billion over the next 10 years for reforms, which will include an oversight board to keep careful watch over the management and administration of the IRS. It shifts the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the IRS, where it belongs. It provides relief for divorced or separated spouses who unwittingly become embroiled in the tax liabilities of their estranged husbands or wives. It requires the IRS to report annually to Congress regarding employee misconduct. In short, it helps put government back in the hands of those it is supposed to serve. We still have a long way to go in terms of simplifying our tax system--something we must do if we are to follow through on our promise to not only reduce the burdens of our archaic tax structure but to reduce instances of abuse. So, even with the passage of this legislation, our work will be far from done. But this bill will create a more level playing field between the IRS and taxpayers, and it will make the IRS more accountable to the American taxpayer. As I said when I spoke on this issue in May, the issue comes down to trust. The people of this nation must be able to trust that their government will be fair, will be discreet, will be responsive. Taxpayers should not fear the very institutions that are supposed to be serving them. The House put their overwhelming stamp of approval on their version of the legislation with a 426 to 4 vote, and passed the conference report 402-8. In the Senate, there was not one vote against the measure when we last considered it. It's now time that we send this bill to the President with the message that it has strong, bipartisan backing in Congress and the overwhelming support of the American people. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this Reform Act and putting ``service'' back into the IRS. technical corrections to tea-21

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the nomination of John O'Leary to be the next United States Ambassador to Chile, and my appreciation to the Foreign Relations Committee for their prompt and favorable review. I urge the Senate to do likewise. I know that Mr. O'Leary will be a credit to his fellow Mainers and the citizens of the United States. On June 13th, I was proud to join with my colleagues in the Maine delegation--Senator Collins, Representative Allen, and Representative Baldacci--to introduce this outstanding candidate to the Foreign Relations Committee. Mainers have had a long and proud tradition of service to this nation and John O'Leary is the latest individual to carry on this tradition. We in Maine are proud of him and know he will make the nation proud as well. Mr. O'Leary brings a wealth of talents to the table, and a review of his background reveals a man well-qualified for the demands and responsibilities of the post for which he has been nominated. Since his graduation from Yale Law School in 1974, John O'Leary has built an impressive career in law distinguished by a strong intellect and a commitment to the highest ethical standards. He is a leader in the American legal field, having recently served as the Chair of the American Bar Association's eleven-person Standing Committee on Environmental Law. He has also been entrusted with one of eight seats on the First Circuit Advisory Committee on Rules. Mr. O'Leary's outstanding leadership and organizational skills are also evidenced by his management of complex litigation. In fact, his efforts led one major national retailer to choose Mr. O'Leary's firm, Pierce Atwood, for its annual award for quality and value--the first time a law firm had ever been chosen from among the retailer's global vendors for such an honor. His analytical mind coupled with a studious attention to detail would be of tremendous benefit to the United States' interests in Chile. Mr. O'Leary is also no stranger to public and community service. His commitment to civic affairs in Maine are evidenced by his election to the City Council of Maine's largest city, Portland, and his service as Mayor. He has also contributed of his time and talents as a trustee and president of the Portland Public Library. Finally, John O'Leary's extensive background and interest in Latin American affairs would be invaluable to U.S.-Chile relations. His impressive resume includes participation on an arbitration panel for the Inter-American Commercial Arbitration Commission, working on a matter involving Venezuela; and service on a three member United States team that assisted Bolivia in sustainable development matters. From 1991 to 1997, Mr. O'Leary also served as President of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Committee of the Inter-American Bar Association (IABA), which was charged with overall responsibility for the IABA committee's activities in Chile and throughout the Americas. And finally, in March of 1997, he both chaired and organized a major conference in Argentina on ``Development, the Environment and Dispute Resolution in the Americas''--which incidentally was the first such American Bar Association program ever run in South America. Mr. President, we in the Senate have the solemn responsibility of ensuring that those Americans we send abroad to represent our nation and her interests are individuals of the highest character and most outstanding qualifications. Today, we have before us a nominee who fulfills those criteria most ably. I met with Mr. O'Leary prior to his confirmation hearing and that meeting only confirmed what I have already stated--that I believe him to be an outstanding choice for Ambassador. He is a man of intellect and integrity, who knows how to work with people and knows how to get things done. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is about to act to confirm John O'Leary as our next Ambassador to Chile. It is a decision I believe all of my colleagues will be proud that we made.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my Commerce Committee colleagues Senators Kerry, Stevens, and Hollings in introducing legislation today to reauthorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Corps. The NOAA Corps is a uniformed officer service that fulfills a variety of important missions for the agency and the public. NOAA Corps officers manage the operations of NOAA's research and survey vessels, as well as its aircraft. They serve as pilots and navigators, and as key scientific and engineering personnel involved with the missions for which the vessels and aircraft are being used. These missions include fisheries research, hydrographic surveys, oceanographic research, and airborne research on hurricanes, among others. In addition to field missions, NOAA Corps officers perform a variety of shoreside tasks, from managing the ground support for the vessel and aircraft operations, to serving in management and technical support positions in offices throughout NOAA's line agencies. At the outbreak of World War I, personnel and equipment from the Coast and Geodetic Survey--one of NOAA's predecessor organizations-- were transferred to the War Department for military missions during the war, and the personnel were given military commissions. In World War II, about half of the Survey's commissioned officers and vessels were transferred to the war effort. Although all Survey personnel resumed civilian duties after the war, the commissioned Corps has continued to exist since that time. But in recent years, some questioned whether it still makes sense to retain a uniformed Corps to perform these missions for NOAA. As part of its National Performance Review in 1994, the Clinton Administration determined that a uniformed Corps was no longer necessary, and it recommended that the organization be disestablished and replaced with a civilian staff. The Administration argued that the disestablishment of the Corps would result in some budget savings to the federal government and increase operational flexibility. Unfortunately, the Congress did not receive a legislative proposal for disestablishment from the Administration until May of last year, and in the interim, the Corps was subject to administrative hiring freezes and annual appropriations riders that whittled the Corps' ranks by more than 25%. Since last year, the Corps has continued to shrink through attrition. Understandably, the morale of the Corps members has been negatively affected by these actions and the uncertainty about their future. As a result of these developments combined, important NOAA operations have been negatively affected. Last fall, the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, which I chair, held a hearing on the Administration's disestablishment proposal. The Administration claimed that the replacement of the Corps with civilian personnel would save $2 million or more annually for the Federal government, primarily because of lower retirement costs for a civilian workforce. But upon examination by the Subcommittee, these estimated savings appeared to be suspect. The non-retirement costs of a civilian workforce could be much higher than the Administration estimated, and the likelihood of finding qualified civilians to replace the Corps officers in a short period of time is likewise very uncertain. In my view, the budget savings achieved by disestablishing the Corps would be marginal at best, but the American people would be losing a highly dedicated and professional cadre of men and women to perform many of NOAA's essential missions. Very recently, the Administration reconsidered its disestablishment proposal and has decided to abandon it. The Administration now proposes to maintain a streamlined NOAA Corps of 240 officers. While I appreciate the Administration's willingness to honestly reassess a proposal that it had advocated since 1994, I fear that the 240 number is too low to effectively operate NOAA's vessels, aircraft, and associated support units. The bill that we are introducing today reauthorizes the Corps and establishes a force range of between 264 and 299 officers. This represents a substantial down-sizing of the Corps from a level of over 400 in 1994, but it ensures that a sufficient number of officers will be available to maintain NOAA's missions at a high level of effectiveness while providing a substantial degree of management flexibility to the agency. The bill also requires the Administration to immediately rescind the current moratorium on the commissioning of new officers and it requires the director of the Corps to be a Corps officer. This legislation is the product of careful examination and deliberation by the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries and it represents a responsible solution to a problem that has been lingering for four years. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my Commerce Committee colleagues Senators Kerry, Stevens, and Hollings in introducing legislation today to reauthorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Corps. The NOAA Corps is a uniformed officer service that fulfills a variety of important missions for the agency and the public. NOAA Corps officers manage the operations of NOAA's research and survey vessels, as well as its aircraft. They serve as pilots and navigators, and as key scientific and engineering personnel involved with the missions for which the vessels and aircraft are being used. These missions include fisheries research, hydrographic surveys, oceanographic research, and airborne research on hurricanes, among others. In addition to field missions, NOAA Corps officers perform a variety of shoreside tasks, from managing the ground support for the vessel and aircraft operations, to serving in management and technical support positions in offices throughout NOAA's line agencies. At the outbreak of World War I, personnel and equipment from the Coast and Geodetic Survey--one of NOAA's predecessor organizations-- were transferred to the War Department for military missions during the war, and the personnel were given military commissions. In World War II, about half of the Survey's commissioned officers and vessels were transferred to the war effort. Although all Survey personnel resumed civilian duties after the war, the commissioned Corps has continued to exist since that time. But in recent years, some questioned whether it still makes sense to retain a uniformed Corps to perform these missions for NOAA. As part of its National Performance Review in 1994, the Clinton Administration determined that a uniformed Corps was no longer necessary, and it recommended that the organization be disestablished and replaced with a civilian staff. The Administration argued that the disestablishment of the Corps would result in some budget savings to the federal government and increase operational flexibility. Unfortunately, the Congress did not receive a legislative proposal for disestablishment from the Administration until May of last year, and in the interim, the Corps was subject to administrative hiring freezes and annual appropriations riders that whittled the Corps' ranks by more than 25%. Since last year, the Corps has continued to shrink through attrition. Understandably, the morale of the Corps members has been negatively affected by these actions and the uncertainty about their future. As a result of these developments combined, important NOAA operations have been negatively affected. Last fall, the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, which I chair, held a hearing on the Administration's disestablishment proposal. The Administration claimed that the replacement of the Corps with civilian personnel would save $2 million or more annually for the Federal government, primarily because of lower retirement costs for a civilian workforce. But upon examination by the Subcommittee, these estimated savings appeared to be suspect. The non-retirement costs of a civilian workforce could be much higher than the Administration estimated, and the likelihood of finding qualified civilians to replace the Corps officers in a short period of time is likewise very uncertain. In my view, the budget savings achieved by disestablishing the Corps would be marginal at best, but the American people would be losing a highly dedicated and professional cadre of men and women to perform many of NOAA's essential missions. Very recently, the Administration reconsidered its disestablishment proposal and has decided to abandon it. The Administration now proposes to maintain a streamlined NOAA Corps of 240 officers. While I appreciate the Administration's willingness to honestly reassess a proposal that it had advocated since 1994, I fear that the 240 number is too low to effectively operate NOAA's vessels, aircraft, and associated support units. The bill that we are introducing today reauthorizes the Corps and establishes a force range of between 264 and 299 officers. This represents a substantial down-sizing of the Corps from a level of over 400 in 1994, but it ensures that a sufficient number of officers will be available to maintain NOAA's missions at a high level of effectiveness while providing a substantial degree of management flexibility to the agency. The bill also requires the Administration to immediately rescind the current moratorium on the commissioning of new officers and it requires the director of the Corps to be a Corps officer. This legislation is the product of careful examination and deliberation by the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries and it represents a responsible solution to a problem that has been lingering for four years. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from West Virginia. As I said earlier, I was very much surprised that he would offer such an amendment because, first of all, last night, the Senate affirmed the position of supporting the initiative that was taken by this Senate last year in creating a commission to examine all of these far-reaching issues with respect to gender-integrated training. That vote was 56-37. It was a very strong vote in reinforcing the position of this body and, yes, this Congress, that we needed to have an independent analysis of many of the issues surrounding gender-integrated training. In fact, I was very much surprised because the author of this amendment, the Senator from West Virginia, was a primary cosponsor of the initiative that was introduced in the Senate last year to create this commission. I was a cosponsor of the amendment, and the prime sponsor was Senator Kempthorne as Chair of the Subcommittee on Personnel. We discussed that initiative in the committee. At first, I didn't think it was necessary. After all, we had the Kassebaum-Baker commission, and I didn't think we needed to duplicate those efforts. But as I thought about it, I realized how important it was to create a consensus on this issue because there were many Members within Congress and outside that were still concerned about various aspects of gender- integrated training at the basic training level. I visited many installations. I understand the importance of creating cohesiveness within a unit from day one. But I was also prepared to accept the compromise, and the compromise was the creation of this commission that was sponsored by Senator Kempthorne, cosponsored by the Senator from West Virginia and myself in the committee. I would like to read to you some words by the Senator from West Virginia in the committee last year, with reference to this commission. He said: May I thank and congratulate Senator Kempthorne in offering this amendment and conducting the hearings in relation to the subject matter of the amendment. I congratulate, also, the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Cleland, who was present at the hearings while Senator Snowe and all who participated took an active part. Let me say that I am a cosponsor of the Kempthorne amendment, and I thank Senator Kempthorne for including me as a cosponsor. It will give us an integrated set of conclusions and recommendations on the various parts of the military gender issue, including training, fraternization and adultery practices and regulations. It will allow us an independent review by a body selected by the Senate of the assessment and recommendations to be made by all 3 bodies, established by Secretary Cohen to look at the various elements of the issue. I congratulate Secretary Cohen as well, in absentia, for proceeding to take action as he has. The American people need to know we are thoroughly investigating and settling the great uncertainties that have arisen about the management of our Armed Forces. A national debate is underway on this issue, and if we do not resolve the issue satisfactorily, recruitment and retention may be seriously affected. The deadline of April 15, 1998-- Which we ultimately postponed and deferred. gives us ample time in the next session to act on whatever recommendations we may choose to act upon. The final legislation created a deadline of March of 1999, in which this commission will come back to this Congress and make recommendations with respect to all the issues that now have been included in the Byrd second-degree amendment. The second-degree amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia includes all kinds of issues on basic training, separate platoons, separate housing--all of the issues that ultimately will be evaluated by this commission that is represented with a breadth of experience and qualifications by 10 different individuals--individuals that are appointed by the Chairman of the Armed Forces Committee here in the Senate, ranking members and the leadership here in the Senate, as well as the Chairman and the ranking member of the House National Security Committee and their leadership. But the commission will appoint individuals of knowledge and expertise in one or more of the following areas: Training of military personnel, social and cultural matters affecting military service, military training, military readiness, knowledge and expertise to be found through research, policymaking, practical experience as demonstrated by retired military personnel and members of the Reserve components of the Armed Forces, representatives from educational organizations, civilian, as well as other government agencies. They will look at functions related to gender-integrated training and segregated basic training--looking at all of the dimensions of these issues and the various components. So that is why I hope the Members of the Senate will reject the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia. I hope the Senate will elect to uphold the authority of this commission in place of legislative segregation of males and females living together during basic training and training together. We have separate housing for men and women in basic training. And gender-integrated training has been endorsed by every military leader who has come before the Senate Armed Forces Committee. It has been endorsed by the Secretary of Defense; the military chiefs of the Army, Air Force, and Navy; military training commanders; senior noncommissioned officers of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; and the U.S. Army. Every uniformed person who has testified before the committee has endorsed gender-integrated training. We should not be legislating our assumptions, as this amendment would do which has been offered by the Senator from West Virginia. Rather, we should, as we agreed to last year, allow a qualified panel of experts and former military leaders to consider the myriad questions that impact the effectiveness of gender-integrated training. We have instructed the panel to assess the historic and current rationale behind the implementation of gender-integrated training at all skill levels. It requires an opinion of the policy within basic training programs and teaching troops as they would operate. And, towards this end, there are five standards to which the commission must filter the training as operating concepts. It has to review adequate physical conditioning, technical skills, proficiency, knowledge, military socialization, to include the delegation of social values and attitudes, as well as basic combat proficiencies. Does anyone think in this Chamber that we can legislate answers and insights on these complex questions with the incentive of adjourning in time for a recess? Do we really think that we will be able to come up with the rationale necessary to govern basic training for our Armed Forces? Mr. President, and Members of this body, I hope we will reject the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from West Virginia. It certainly will contravene the intent of this Congress last year in creating a commission to examine all of these issues. But it also will contravene the judgment of all of our top military officials who have endorsed gender-integrated training. Then we have had the support of gender-integrated training by diverse groups such as the Rand Corporation, the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, the Army Research Institute, and the Defense Advisory Commission on Women in the Services, or DACOWITZ. I would like to have you listen to a few of their recommendations. A December 1997 DACOWITZ report states: ``Trainers and trainees in all services perceived that gender-integrated training during the initial entry training phase of a service member's career was necessary to effectively prepare trainees for duty in the field and the fleet.'' A February 1997 study by the U.S. Army Research Institute found that, ``Females trained in a gender-integrated environment improved their performance on all measures of physical fitness, and males in gender- integrated training improved in two of three events.'' This, by the way, occurred with no change in the fitness standards. Finally, we have been told over and over again that integration training increases unit cohesion. That is why every military leader who has come before the committee has endorsed it. Every single military member who has testified before this Congress supports gender- integrated training. Generals and privates, recruits and trainers, male and female, uniformed and civilian--all agree that a military which trains as it fights is the best prepared to meet the challenges of tomorrow. Let's review other comments of leaders. The former Secretary of the Army, Togo West, and the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Reimer, wrote that, ``Any proposal that calls for gender segregation of both trainees and cadre violates the very foundation of the Army: An integrated, effective and lethal force that is ready to perform the mission anywhere and at any time.'' The senior noncommissioned officers from the services state clearly that, ``Many successes in our gender-integrated all-volunteer force are a direct result of the training Services currently provide.'' Admiral Pilling, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, supports gender- integrated training as critical to helping recruits ``develop interpersonal relationships that contribute to a healthy, effective, gender-integrated force.'' So those are the many comments offered by our leaders, our military leaders. They have had every opportunity to decide differently on the issue of gender-integrated training. The Kassebaum-Baker commission report came forward in December and in fact endorsed gender-integrated training beyond basic training. The Secretary of Defense gave an opportunity to all of the service chiefs to come back and report to the Secretary within 90 days as to how they would implement those recommendations--the ones which they agreed with and those which they disagreed with. All of the services came back and endorsed gender-integrated training as the best way to create a cohesive, unified force to train to fight and to fight as they would train. Mr. President, I hope that on the basis of those who have endorsed gender-integrated training and on the basis of those who have doubts-- that is the reason why the commission was created by this Congress, to evaluate those areas in which people had doubts and concerns about gender-integrated training. Even I endorsed the commission, as I said earlier, because I think it is important to put to rest once and for all of those concerns. That is why I endorsed this commission, as a way in which we could allay the fears and concerns of many, to have experts from a variety of professions and fields within the military, and even outside the military, to evaluate for more than a year the dimensions of this question. So I hope, Mr. President, that the Members of this body will reject the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from West Virginia so that we can allow the commission to do the job that we asked them to do. I hope that Members would support the amendment that was adopted last night by 56 to 37 and protect the integrity of the congressional panel on gender-integrated military training instead of trying to legislate specific results without the benefit of deliberation. I hope that we will confirm that judgment of last year and, indeed, last night by rejecting the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from West Virginia. I remind this body that that commission was one that was endorsed and, indeed, created as a result of the cosponsorship of the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair. The Byrd amendment goes even further than the amendment that was offered by the Senator from Kansas last night which we rejected by a vote of 56 to 37. The Byrd amendment would essentially eliminate all gender-integrated training at basic levels. The decision we made last night was to uphold the congressional commission that was created on military training and gender-related issues to complete its assessment and to report back to this Congress in March of 1999. This commission was created by Congress last year with the active cosponsorship of the Senator from West Virginia--in fact, in deference to the position he held on the issue of gender-integrated training. This commission is made up of 10 distinguished individuals who are selected by both the Armed Services Committee of the Senate and the House National Security Committee that will examine a myriad of gender- related issues and the relationship that gender-integrated adds to our performance levels, to readiness and cohesion and to the morale of our All Volunteer Force. Will we permit this panel of experts to deliberate on the views and the experiences of the commanders in the field, or are we going to decide this evening to legislate with an instant result through the Byrd amendment that defies the views of the Secretary of Defense, to the service chiefs of the Air Force, the Navy and the Army, the training commanders of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, the senior noncommissioned officers of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, or the Association of the U.S. Army, or every active duty service member who has testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee over the last 2 years. Yesterday, we chose the path of deliberation by a commission of our own design, rather than imposing on the military another set of regulations without the benefit of testimony from the field. The position of many of the military, including all of our top level military officers, support gender-integrated training, because they believe it is an anchor of that readiness. Far from an invention of social policy activists, they recognize that it is an absolute necessity in a military that cannot maintain an effective and efficient volunteer force without the contributions of our women in uniform. And it is a force multiplier, teaching service members the blend of operational skills, the codes of personal behavior necessary to our gender-neutral position, which is to win wars. Last night, we upheld the integrity of the commission that was created by this Congress.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator.

Ms. SNOWE. Last night, we upheld the decision to uphold the integrity of the commission that we created that includes two retired Marine Corps generals, a retired master sergeant, two military sociologists, the former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management and the former Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Personnel. I urge Members of this Senate to reject the Byrd amendment and to support the views of those of us, including the Senator from West Virginia, that we should have a commission to provide an independent evaluation and analysis of gender-integrated training, and the importance of it to the readiness and the cohesiveness of our armed services. I urge the Senate to reject the Byrd amendment, that we confirm the action that was taken last year by this Congress, which was to create this commission, and to reaffirm the vote that was taken last night to support the commission in its work and to report back to this Congress. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Authorization Act. This legislation focuses on the military of tomorrow by establishing priorities that will allow American forces to prepare for the conflicts of the 21st Century. We consider this measure under the leadership of a remarkable Senator whose personal sacrifice and professional insight have contributed to the molding of the military in our time. The public life of Strom Thurmond has reflected the evolution of conflict and war fighting capabilities in the last half-century. Emerging as a Colonel from World War II, he persevered through the traumas of Korea and Vietnam; the turbulent ``hollow force'' years of the 1970s; the recovery of our might under President Reagan; the collapse of imperial communism; and the computer-age attacks during the Persian Gulf War. Today, he manages a bill that capitalizes on the lessons of the military history to which he contributed. The FY99 Defense Authorization Act increases the speed, precision, and analytical capacity of soldiers who will face post-Soviet adversaries as determined or dictatorial, but more numerous, than those whom we have confronted in the past. While he steps down at the end of the year as Committee Chairman, his leadership will resonate in our deliberations and hearings for years to come. He brings an authorization before the Senate this week having groomed three generations of successors in the byzantine ways of defense legislation. Mr. President, this bill includes several programs that enhance the readiness and modernization of the military. Our Committee has worked diligently during the 1990s to control the bleeding of funds from next- generation procurement systems and the stress on our forces from escalating peacekeeping commitments. President Clinton's out-year budget projections bring defense outlays as a percentage of GDP to 2.7 percent, the lowest level in almost 50 years. The President targets the military as the only federal function that sustains deep outlay decreases between 1993 and 2003. While mandatory domestic expenditures will increase over time by 23.6 percent, those for national defense fall by exactly the same level. In modernization accounts--those for weapons procurement--funding has fallen by 67% since 1985. This trend, in constant dollars, means that at the height of the Reagan build-up thirteen years ago, the Pentagon obligated $138.7 billion for procurement. This spending fell to its lowest point--$44.2 billion--in FY97. The FY99 budget finally increases the account to $48.7 billion, and I commend Secretary Cohen for submitting the first budget by this administration that brings procurement back to the annual average threshold of $60.1 billion, as recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, starting in 2001. Exploding expenditures for peacekeeping operations since the end of the Persian Gulf War directly threaten spending for procurement and modernization. To confirm this point, we only need to read the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Among all Pentagon programs, the QDR singled out ``incremental costs of unplanned deployments and smaller- scale contingencies'' as the ``least predictable operating expenses'' which ``displace funding previously planned for procurement.'' America's 29 contingency operations since the end of the Persian Gulf War have cost us a total of $18 billion. Our Bosnia commitment alone has consumed $7.2 billion. Even excluding Bosnia, the American taxpayers gave another three billion dollars just to support U.N. peacekeeping programs throughout the 1990's. The administration, however, has never offered us a comprehensive readiness and mission assessment of U.S. Contingency Operations (CONOPS) policy to justify or rationalize the expenditure of this $21 billion, or eight percent of the whole defense budget. The Committee, therefore, supported an amendment that I offered along with Senator Cleland during the mark-up session making the Pentagon statutorily responsible for providing all congressional defense committees with a Contingency Operations budgetary, mission, and readiness assessment by January 31, 1999. We did not establish the deadline by coincidence. I strongly believe that the Committee should consider any CONOPS authorization or supplemental appropriations requests next year only with the benefit of the president's strategic analysis of how and why the Armed Services will obligate their peacekeeping budgets. This amendment subsequently directs the department to address five issues: the effects of ongoing CONOPS on Service retention and reenlistment rates; whether they cause sustained or significant shortages of military personnel and equipment in other regions of the world; the specific programmatic accounts on which the department has relied to underwrite CONOPS deployments; what clear objectives guide each of these undertakings; and the conditions, based on such objectives, that would define the end of each operation. Presidential Decision Direction 25 of May 1994, Mr. President, outlined the scope and purpose of the administration's CONOPS policy. It promised the application of strict standards to determine whether the U.S. should participate in any overseas peace operation. The reporting categories specified by my amendment intentionally overlap with this directive. PDD-25 specifically declared that potential CONOPS commitments would depend on whether our participation advanced U.S. interests, the ``unique and general risks'' to American personnel, if ``clear objectives'' could determine the role of our forces, and the identification of an ``endpoint.'' We would not impose an unfair burden on the Defense Department by mandating a pre-posture hearing or pre-budget request report on the steps that the administration has taken to implement its own plan. This year, the Committee received Posture Statements from the Navy and the Air Force that contained warnings of potential negative readiness impacts as a result of long CONOPS deployments. Secretary Dalton cited the ``requirements of the Unified Commands''--those that participate heavily in peacekeeping missions--as effecting the readiness of non-deployed fleet units. The number of Air Force personnel dedicated to contingency operations grew fourfold since 1989 from 3,400 to 14,600 by FY97. ``Caution indicators,'' as the report characterized it, have emerged in the areas of retention, reenlistment, and depleted inventories of spare parts. In addition, by October 1999, the Army, the Service most involved in peacekeeping, could lack the heavy armored divisions designed for rapid deployment to crisis areas. Two of the divisions that train full time for this mission may have one-third of their troops on duty in Bosnia or Kuwait. Four years ago, the Army had 541,000 active duty soldiers and no commitments in Bosnia. The Armed Services Committee, according to former Chairman Nunn, considered this level the minimum necessary for responding to two regional crises. Yet today, the Army faces the challenge of preparing for two Major Theater Wars at a reduced force strength of 491,000, coupled with a deployment in Bosnia. Consider the exorbitant contingency operations costs that the Army absorbed in just one fiscal year. The amount, $1.5 billion, represented more than one-fifth of the entire research and development budget for the Service. It exceeded the total Army aircraft procurement line by almost two hundred million dollars. If we take these examples of the strains imposed by peacekeeping commitments on Army research and hardware programs, how can the administration state that it has adequately weighed the ``unique and general risks'' of these missions, as required under PDD-25, to our people in uniform? Despite the alarming budgetary trends, the QDR predicts that contingency efforts will dominate the Pentagon's planning agenda over the next two decades. The law, Mr. President, must also move in this direction by requiring a CONOPS policy rationale with a CONOPS budget request. My amendment supports this transition by mandating the first pre-budget report to Congress on the national security and OPTEMPO implications of our increased contingency commitments. Whether for contingency operations or more traditional missions, naval modernization programs will remain vital to the overseas projection of American forces. As a result, I salute the Chair of the Seapower Subcommittee--Senator Warner--for this support of the $2.680 billion continuation of the DDG-51 multi-year destroyer procurement, the $2.003 billion going to produce the second ship of the New Attack Submarine class, and the $639 million going for the next LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Ship. In addition, I am pleased that the Subcommittee fully authorized the Navy's $85 million DD-21 land-attack destroyer Research and Development request to keep this new effort on schedule and within budget. These four programs meet the Navy's requirements for the type of warfare that will dominate our military strategy of the future: littoral operations near coastal plains. Littoral engagements require the Navy to maneuver ``close enough to influence events on shore if necessary.'' This post-Soviet mission continues to match our force structure with our security interests since 80 percent of the world's population lives near the coastal areas and waterways that open into the littorals. Littoral concepts of war stem directly from the changing worldwide political environment in which the United States operates. Soviet power no longer threatens the open plains of Central Europe. Soviet ships and submarines no longer prepare for platform-to-platform battles on the open seas. For the first time since the end of World War II, a Pentagon planning document, the QDR, steered the military in the direction of deterring conflict and instability wherever it might occur rather than containing a single enemy force. The surface ship and submarine programs authorized in this bill will provide the Navy more firepower and endurance at a lower cost. Smooth and modular construction materials will deceive the enemy radars that can detect the hard angles of older vessels. Electronic integrators will give ships and submarines split-second systems for communications and munitions targeting. A new series of rapid transporters will bring unprecedented levels of forces and weapons to the shorelines of instability or humanitarian rescue. From safe distances at sea, smaller crews will program missiles for strategic inland targets. A littoral Navy, Mr. President, also corresponds with lower life- cycle costs. Carriers and surface combatants will carry more firepower and fewer people. This development, in addition to a greater reliance on commercial ``off-the-shelf'' technologies, holds the promise of decreasing maintenance expenditures by between 50 and 70 percent. We also cannot forget that political limitations as well as political changes shape the new Navy. The visible and invisible forward presence provided by the Fleet assumes greater importance in an age when we no longer enjoy permanent bases throughout Europe or Southern Asia. As a result, the administration will increasingly rely on the Navy as a key agent of force behind our diplomacy. For this reason, I was honored to participate in a Subcommittee markup that also expanded naval air programs. To stabilize the transition from the Nimitz-class of nuclear aircraft carriers to the new-generation CVX system, the Subcommittee allocated $124.5 million for acceleration of advance procurement and component construction of the CVN-77 system. We furthermore instructed the Navy to invest carrier research and development budgets in a way that will directly enhance the planned capabilities of the CVX. Our mark-up also placed the P-3 Orion Anti-Surface Warfare Improvement Program on an efficient 12-month modification track. The changing mix of threats to our national security represented by these maritime and other high-technology defense programs finally influenced the Committee vote against authorizing another base closure (BRAC) round. This amendment tried to address two of the many problems with the BRAC process: the fact that no law guarantees the proper investment of any quantifiable returns from base closures, and the president's temptation to manipulate commission rulings in his own political interest. But the Committee rejected the BRAC amendment because it did not, nor could it, solve the fatal flaws in the process. No base closure round, Mr. President, has yielded the taxpayers any clear or proven savings. We do not need to rely on the claims of congressional BRAC opponents to demonstrate this point. We only need to consider the conclusion of the leading advocate of BRAC: The Department of Defense. DoD's April 1998 base closure report to Congress states explicitly that ``no audit trail, single document, or budget account exists for tracking the end use of each dollar saved through BRAC.'' We can also turn to the findings of independent evaluators. Last summer, the GAO flatly told us that ``DoD accounting systems are not designed to track savings.'' The Congressional Budget Office concluded in December 1996 that the Pentagon ``is unable to report actual spending and savings for BRAC actions.'' Accounting uncertainties, Mr. President, have made apparent base closure savings a frustrating mystery rather than a confirmed fact. The Defense Department cannot continue to decide which installations to downsize or close by making arbitrary comparisons to personnel reductions. The standard should not focus, as DoD contends, on closing 36% of our bases if 36% of all people in uniform have left the military since the peak of the Cold War. The standard must remain the adaptation of infrastructure to new or developing security threats. But as it did last year, the administration rests the argument for more base closures on the premise that facility cuts have lagged behind those in personnel by 15 percent. A simple percentage, Mr. President, cannot answer the questions that should determine the future of domestic military bases. What depots, for example, do we require to provide competition with the private sector and to insure the precision and endurance of fighter aircraft? What shipyards can provide the Navy with a diversified industrial base to sustain the next-generation modular vessels that will maneuver in littoral waters? What air bases must stay active to support our long-range power projection capabilities now that we have a diminished forward presence in Europe and Southern Asia? These questions do not exhaust the list. But I raise them as examples of the factors absent in most of the base closure assessments that have come to Congress from the Pentagon. Page one of the April base report estimates that the military could save 21 billion dollars between 2008 and 2015 if we approve two more BRAC rounds. Even if the Committee had accepted this projection, the QDR acknowledges that it could re-capture $18 billion of this amount in three ways: by following through with DoD management reforms and technology upgrades, providing consistent guidance to the Services on budget priorities, and controlling the costs of contingency operations. The QDR indicated that this $18 billion dollar loss as from three specific causes, came exclusively from procurement accounts. It therefore has three specific plans, all of which relate to policy changes and internal reforms, and none of which relate to base closures, for restoring funds to modernization. The April base closure report even admits that if the Pentagon could quantify BRAC savings, there would be no guarantee that procurement programs might gain from the extra dollars because the four separate Services make their own investment decisions. To assert that the department cannot save $18 billion dollars through rigorous budget management, Mr. President, is to assert that it cannot follow the mandates of the QDR, which called for ``reducing unneeded standards and specifications,'' and the ``leveraging of commercial technology.'' And how unreasonable or impractical is it to control the level of unplanned expenditures on Bosnia through clear policy objectives? According to the administration, while it predicts extensive U.S. involvement in contingency operations beyond 2015, our engagement ``must be selective, depending largely on the interests at stake and the risk of major aggression elsewhere.'' The Clinton Administration advertises a commitment to multi-billion dollar defense management reforms while asking for base closures to generate savings that it can neither find nor re-invest. At the same time, it has submitted very real Bosnia bills that now exceed seven billion dollars and freeze our forces in a political vacuum. By rejecting the BRAC amendment, the Committee invited the administration to provide us with a more compelling plan that links facility to mission needs. In the meantime, DoD can also realize billions of dollars of savings through firm policy decisions about our overseas strategic interests, internal reforms, and Service programmatic goals. The Defense Department must continue to work directly with Congress on the issues that will improve the military of the next decade instead of shifting them to yet another panel for which we can claim no responsibility. Mr. President, the FY99 Authorization Bill accelerates the modernization of the Armed Services while recognizing the strong evidence of the degrading impact of open-ended contingency Operations on Personnel Tempos and unit readiness. It ultimately holds the Pentagon accountable for documented savings through policy and management reforms rather than accepting the unproven promises of BRAC savings that would come 15 years away. I therefore urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this responsible legislation. u.s. non-proliferation policy and condemnation of testing in south asia

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. President, I just make several observations in response to some of the comments that have been made here this afternoon. First and foremost, this doesn't cost a single cent to the Federal Government. When we hear about the fact, well, it is going to cost some money because of the use of the hospital, the use of medical personnel, I think we all recognize the rates that are charged by hospitals today. They set a rate, they set a cost, a charge for recovery of all of the costs. The fact is, under Medicare and Medicaid, we reimburse hospitals and providers for a specific cost. So are we saying that we are not able to create a charge for that particular procedure and in this case the option to have an abortion? I doubt it. Obviously, the charge that is set is the recovery of all of the costs, all of the overhead. Hospitals all across America and throughout the world set that rate. So this doesn't cost a dime of taxpayers' money--not a dime. I think it is an important point to emphasize, that no public funds are used; it is only personal funds. Second, it has been mentioned: What is the law of the land? Row v. Wade is the law of the land, and it includes the constitutional right for a woman to have an abortion, to make that decision, to make that very difficult personal choice. And, in fact, between 1973 and 1988, it was permissible for a woman to have this procedure done at military hospitals, and between 1993 and 1995 the same was true. Unfortunately, in the years in which it wasn't allowed, we were denying a woman's right. Unfortunately, it got embroiled as to whether or not you were pro-life or pro-choice. That is not the issue here. It should not be the issue. The issue should be whether or not a woman who serves in the military, who has an overseas assignment, has access to the same health care as everyone else who serves in the military--in this case, with an abortion procedure, using her own personal funds. That is the issue here. That is why this right was allowed between 1973 and 1988 and between 1993 and 1995. It was permissible because it is the law of the land for a woman to have the right to choose. The fact is, because she goes across the border of the United States, she all of a sudden loses her right to make this decision and is denied access to quality care. So, that is the issue here today. It is not a question of using public funds, because that is not what this amendment is all about; it never has been. It is a question of whether or not a woman in the military who is assigned overseas is going to be treated differently, treated as a second-class citizen, being the victim of a double standard because individuals have differences over whether or not women in America have a right to choose. Because she is in the military, because she is assigned overseas, she should not be treated any differently and she should not be required to leave those rights behind. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the distinguished Senator from Georgia, I offered an amendment incorporated into this bill requiring the President to explain to Congress the goals and potential endpoint of any military contingency operation involving more than 500 troops. Our provision furthermore mandates this report whenever the administration submits a budget request for the operation. During its June 9th Executive Session, the Armed Services Committee unanimously approved this amendment, and I am grateful for the eloquent expressions of support made by Senators Thurmond and Levin. The Snowe-Cleland amendment, Mr. President, received the Committee's broad endorsement regardless of our differences over the scope and purpose of U.S. contingency operations because Senators from both parties agree that the administration must express its mission objectives in tandem with a funding request. The President, however, has ignored this obligation in seeking funds to sustain our units in Bosnia. By the end of Fiscal Year 1999, the administration will have budgeted an estimated $9.4 billion for our participation in the Bosnia Stabilization Force since the completion of the Dayton peace accords. But it has never offered us a comprehensive readiness and mission assessment of U.S. Contingency Operations (CONOPS) policy to justify the expenditure of these funds. Our amendment, therefore, mandates a dual report on the ``clear and distinct objectives'' that ``guide the activities of United States forces'' as well as the proposal of an approximate date, or set of conditions, ``that defines the endpoint'' of a contingency operation. Congress, Mr. President, needs more constructive guidance in advance from the administration as the era of peacekeeping claims billions of dollars in funding that might otherwise go to core readiness and modernization programs. Approximately 47,880 American soldiers have undertaken 14 international contingency operations between 1991 and 1998. As a result, we need to match the administration's policy arguments with its budget demands to determine if the Pentagon has a clear peacekeeping strategy that reflects the major security interests of the United States and its allies. We did not have the benefit of this policy blueprint the first time that Congress approved Bosnia mission funding to monitor the Dayton peace accords with the FY96 budget. One year later, when the incremental cost of the Bosnia operation totaled $2.28 billion, we still had no mission guidance. For FY98, the House and Senate appropriated two packages of $1.5 billion and $490 million a few months after a Presidential press conference that made our commitment in the Balkans open-ended. And in FY99, Mr. President, the White House would not even label its Bosnia funding request. It chose instead to place $1.86 billion in an ambiguous ``emergency operations'' category and forced the Senate Armed Services Committee to move this sum into the defense budget. When the Committee took this action last month, we did not know, after almost a three-year deployment, the conditions that would set the stage for an orderly force withdrawal. We did not know whether adequate stability had been achieved so that diplomats and community leaders could build self-sustaining civic institutions. We did not know why the administration extended the time frame of our deployment three times since November 1995. And we did not know, Mr. President, for how long and to what end the White House planned to keep rotating thousands of Service people in and out of the Bosnian vortex. Were our troops creating a Bosnian security environment for political reconciliation, or digging deeper into a country with a peace agreement that everyone signed but no one accepted? The administration cannot expect either Congress or the taxpayers to plow billions of dollars every year into protracted peacekeeping exercises. Our Bosnian experience teaches us that we will achieve clarity of goals and accountability in financing if the President develops a strategy before he submits a funding request, not as he asks for more to do what remains unclear. Ironically, this amendment stipulates what the administration once declared as its own strategy. Presidential Decision Directive 25 of May 1994 outlined the scope and purpose of the administration's contingency operations policy. It promised the application of strict standards to determine whether the U.S. should participate in any overseas peace operation. The reporting categories specified by my amendment intentionally overlap with the President's directive. PDD-25 specifically declared that potential CONOPS commitments would depend on ``clear objectives'' and an identifiable ``endpoint.'' As the new century unfolds, the need for a rational peacekeeping policy, as promised by PDD-25, will only grow. The May 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review concluded that ``the demand for smaller-scale contingency operations is expected to remain high over the next 15 to 20 years'' while also acknowledging that peacekeeping commitments could cause a ``chronic erosion'' of procurement funding. At the same time, the National Defense Panel, created by Congress to review the guidelines of the QDR, analyzed the Pentagon's peacekeeping policy as one that forces troops ``too often and too quickly'' into disputes of a purely political or diplomatic character. This year, the Armed Services Committee received Navy and Air Force Posture Statements that contained warnings of negative readiness impacts from long contingency deployments. Navy Secretary Dalton specifically cited the ``requirements of the Unified Commands''--those that participate heavily in peacekeeping missions--as effecting the readiness of non-deployed fleet units. The number of Air Force personnel dedicated to contingency operations grew fourfold since 1989 to 14,600 by FR97. ``Caution indicators,'' as the report summarized it, have emerged in the areas of retention, reenlistment, and depleted inventories of spare parts. In addition, by October 1999, the Army, the most peacekeeping intensive of the Services, could lack the heavy armored divisions designed for rapid deployment to crisis areas. Two of the divisions that train full time for this mission may have one-third of their troops on duty in Bosnia or Kuwait. In FY94, the Army had 541,000 active duty soldiers and no commitments in Bosnia, and the Armed Services Committee considered this level the minimum necessary for effective crisis response. Yet today, the Army faces the challenge of preparing for two Major Theater Wars, at a reduced force strength of 491,000, and with a deployment in Bosnia. We must act upon these warning signals from military leaders, Mr. President, by aligning the law with the new requirements placed on our war fighters. It only makes common sense to mandate a contingency operations policy rationale with a contingency operations budget request. I therefore commend the Senate for adopting the Snowe-Cleland amendment.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, for taking the leadership on this issue once again. I am sure she shares my disappointment that we are even in the position we are in today that we have to offer this amendment. That this amendment is even necessary is regrettable. We will continue to offer it because we think it is important to make sure that women in the military have access to health care treatment, as well as their spouses and dependents of military personnel who are stationed overseas. Therefore, we will continue to offer this amendment to ensure that there is equal access to the high level of health care that the women who serve in our military have earned and deserve. We are here today, once again, because U.S. law denies the right to choose to the dependents of more than 227,000 service men and women stationed overseas, and it denies the more than 27,000 servicewomen who have volunteered to serve their country access to safe medical care simply because they were assigned to duty outside this country. I do not understand, Mr. President, why we insist on denying these women and the families of our Armed Forces their rights as Americans. We ask a great deal of our military personnel and their families--low pay, long separations, hazardous duty. When they signed up to serve their country, I do not they believe they were told they would have to leave freedom of choice at ocean's edge. It is ironic that we are denying the very people we ask to uphold democracy and freedom the simple right to safe medical care. The New York Times summed it up several years ago when they noted: They can fight for their country. They can die for their country. But they cannot get access to a full range of medical services when their country stations them overseas. The Murray-Snowe amendment would overturn the ban and ensure that women and military dependents stationed overseas would have access to safe health care. And I want to clarify that overturning this ban will not result in Federal funds being used to perform abortions at military hospitals. Federal law has banned the use of Federal funds for this purpose since 1979. From 1979 to 1988, women could use their own personal funds to pay for medical care they needed at overseas military hospitals. As we know, a new policy was instituted in 1988 that prohibited the performance of any abortions at military hospitals, even if paid for with personal funds. I should reiterate this point because I think it clearly is an important one. It is not the use of Federal funds or any public moneys; in fact, it is the use of one's own personal funds for this procedure. As Senator Murray illustrated, what are the choices for women who are stationed overseas and have to make a very difficult decision as to whether or not to have an abortion? She must either find the time and money to fly back to the United States to receive the health care she seeks or else possibly endanger her own health by seeking one in a foreign hospital whose quality of care cannot compare with ours. Or she may have to fly to a third country--again, where the medical services do not equate to those available at the base--if she cannot afford to return home. When people sign up for the service, we assure them that we will do our best to provide for them and their families as part of the arrangement that we make in return for their willingness to serve our country. Yet we prohibit women from using their own money to obtain the care they need at the local base hospital. They are all alone in a foreign country, facing a very difficult, wrenching, personal, difficult decision, and all we can say is, ``Sorry, you are on your own.'' The amendment that Senator Murray and I are offering here today is only asking for fair and equitable treatment. It says to our service men and women and their families: If you find yourself in this difficult situation, in order to ensure you receive safe and proper medical care, we will provide the service if you pay for it with your own money. I happen to believe we owe it to our men and women in uniform, and their families, the option to receive the care they need in a safe environment. They do not deserve anything less. I think it is really unfortunate that we are faced with this situation year in and year out in seeking what is equitable treatment for women who are serving in our military. Fourteen percent of the military is now represented by women. They vote, they pay taxes, are protected and punished under American law. They are serving in our military to protect the ideals and rights that this country represents. Whether we agree with abortion or not, we all understand that safe and legal access to abortion is the law of the land. It is a choice and it is a right that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. This ban takes away a fundamental right of personal choice for them. I don't believe we should create a dual standard because one happens to serve in the military and happens to be stationed abroad. You have that choice in America. You have your choice of facilities within your own State. You can go where you want to make that decision to have access to that legal medical procedure. But when you are stationed abroad, it is another matter in terms of receiving the quality care that women deserve. They may well be required to travel to another country, not facing the same medical standards that one is accustomed to here in this country. This ban puts women at risk. It puts their health at risk and it puts their life at risk, because they may well be forced to seek unsafe medical care in other countries where the blood supply may not be safe, procedures are antiquated, equipment may not be sterile. I don't believe that, in addition to the sacrifices that people in the military already make, they are now required to add unsafe medical care to the list. I happen to believe that the Department of Defense in this country is required to give the same kinds of options and access to quality medical care. In fact, it is a constitutional right for women to have this choice, whether they are serving in the military or not serving in the military. Back in 1992, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It said that Government regulation of abortion may not constitute an ``undue burden'' on the right to choose abortion. An undue burden is defined as having the ``purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.'' Well, certainly a combination of military regulations and practical hurdles means that a pregnant servicewoman who needs an abortion, who makes that very difficult decision, may face lengthy travel, serious delays, high expenses to fly her home, substandard medical options, and restricted information. Therefore, in my opinion, the ban appears to unconstitutionally burden the right to choose of American servicewomen. So for all of these reasons, Mr. President, I hope that this body will do the right thing here today and overturn the ban that currently is in the statute so that it allows women to have the option to make a safe choice for herself and her well-being. Again, I should remind this body that it isn't a requirement that we now have to use Federal funds to pay for abortions. In fact, to the contrary, it allows women to use their own personal funds for that option--a decision they may have to make if they are stationed overseas in the military. At one time in our history, they had that option. But now, in the last few years, they have been denied that choice. I don't think it is right or fair to women who serve in our military. I urge this body to adopt the Murray-Snowe amendment. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be divided equally between both sides.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.