Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I first want to commend the distinguished majority leader for his work in helping us clear the Executive Calendar. There is a lot of work done with this unanimous consent request. And we have attempted to work together to do as much as is possible. I regret, frankly, that there are still a number of nominees, as the majority leader has mentioned, that are not covered by this unanimous- consent request. And I am hopeful that over the next few hours we may still allow for the confirmation of a number of those who are still pending. As the leader indicated, some of those were just reported out of committee today. I guess most particularly, Mr. President, I am concerned that there are a number of judicial nominees that have been on the calendar for many, many months. And I hope that we can reach some accommodation with regard to those nominees as well. It has been requested of me, and I am happy to do so, that we would ask unanimous consent that the majority leader's request be amended to include the four other judicial nominees on the Executive Calendar and the five that were reported from the Judiciary Committee today. That would complete our work with regard to the judicial committee nominations. Many of those, as I said, have been pending now for a long period of time. And it would mean a good deal to a lot of Members, and certainly to the families of these judicial nominees, if they could be included. And so I ask unanimous consent at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I could just respond very briefly, I just say to the majority leader, I understand his explanation. And I will not object to the unanimous-consent request because obviously this is a great deal of work on the Executive Calendar. And I appreciate his cooperation on those for which he can be helpful. I say that there are a large number of nominees that are still pending in committee. And it will be our desire to clear the committees of the pending nominations as well when we return following the August recess. And I intend to work with the leader and with our chairmen to ensure that they all are provided the opportunity to be considered and then ultimately confirmed on the Senate floor. I hope we can do that. And I have had the assurances by the majority leader that it is his intention as well when we return. I look forward to working with him to make that happen. So I will not object. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide the Corps of Engineers with the authority to buy-out and relocate people living in the southeast Pierre and Ft. Pierre areas that are being flooded by the federal Pick-Sloan project. This is a chronic problem that is getting worse every year as sediment builds up at the delta of the Bad and Missouri Rivers. In the Pierre and Ft. Pierre area, high water levels, exacerbated by sediment buildup and ice, regularly leads to the flooding of homes in the wintertime. The situation has become intolerable, and it is not fair for the residents of this area to continue to suffer as the result of the operation of this federal project. Moreover, the flooding problem hinders the ability of the Western Area Power Administration to generate hydroelectric power from the Oahe dam, resulting in the loss of millions of dollars in revenues to the federal government each year. To address this problem, I added a provision to the 1996 Water Resources Development Act to require the Corps of Engineers to develop a plan to remove the sediment blocking the channel and to reduce the erosion that is leading to this persistent buildup of sediment at the delta. Hopefully, this effort will lead to the development of a means of moving some of the sediment and of a plan to better prevent erosion in the Bad River watershed. One local resident, Mike Harrison, has developed a plan to help clear the channel of sediment which holds promise and which the Corps will evaluate with funds appropriated for fiscal year 1998. Even if that effort is successful, however, and we are able to relieve some of the pressure on the channel, sediment from the Bad River will continue to build up at that location. In short, while we may be able to increase the capacity of the channel to transport water and thus allow for greater hydroelectric power generation in the wintertime, it is difficult to envision a time when we will be able to permanently alleviate the risk of flooding to the homeowners in the area. Therefore, I am introducing this legislation to authorize the Corps to relocate the affected homeowners and ensure that they never again have to face the prospects of enduring flooded homes during our cold South Dakota winters. It is my strong hope Congress will recognize the severity of this problem and move swiftly to enact and implement this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide the Corps of Engineers with the authority to buy-out and relocate people living in the southeast Pierre and Ft. Pierre areas that are being flooded by the federal Pick-Sloan project. This is a chronic problem that is getting worse every year as sediment builds up at the delta of the Bad and Missouri Rivers. In the Pierre and Ft. Pierre area, high water levels, exacerbated by sediment buildup and ice, regularly leads to the flooding of homes in the wintertime. The situation has become intolerable, and it is not fair for the residents of this area to continue to suffer as the result of the operation of this federal project. Moreover, the flooding problem hinders the ability of the Western Area Power Administration to generate hydroelectric power from the Oahe dam, resulting in the loss of millions of dollars in revenues to the federal government each year. To address this problem, I added a provision to the 1996 Water Resources Development Act to require the Corps of Engineers to develop a plan to remove the sediment blocking the channel and to reduce the erosion that is leading to this persistent buildup of sediment at the delta. Hopefully, this effort will lead to the development of a means of moving some of the sediment and of a plan to better prevent erosion in the Bad River watershed. One local resident, Mike Harrison, has developed a plan to help clear the channel of sediment which holds promise and which the Corps will evaluate with funds appropriated for fiscal year 1998. Even if that effort is successful, however, and we are able to relieve some of the pressure on the channel, sediment from the Bad River will continue to build up at that location. In short, while we may be able to increase the capacity of the channel to transport water and thus allow for greater hydroelectric power generation in the wintertime, it is difficult to envision a time when we will be able to permanently alleviate the risk of flooding to the homeowners in the area. Therefore, I am introducing this legislation to authorize the Corps to relocate the affected homeowners and ensure that they never again have to face the prospects of enduring flooded homes during our cold South Dakota winters. It is my strong hope Congress will recognize the severity of this problem and move swiftly to enact and implement this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to talk about the budget agreement, and this reconciliation bill in particular. Let me begin by complimenting the distinguished majority chairman, Senator Domenici, and the ranking member, Senator Lautenberg, for their outstanding work in this whole effort. As has been said now by many Members, this would not have been possible were it not for their effort and the leadership they have demonstrated. Let me commend the administration's negotiators--Secretary Rubin, Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, John Hilley, and others--for the extraordinary effort they have made in working with us on the President's behalf. The majority leader deserves a great deal of credit. This would not have been possible without his direct participation. He ought to take great pride in this agreement's accomplishments. Many others on both sides of the aisle have worked diligently over the last several weeks to bring us to this point, and they too deserve credit. I am very appreciative of their efforts. This agreement is one of the most extraordinary accomplishments achieved, at least since I have been leader and perhaps since I have been in the Senate. I think the message in the last election on the part of the American people all over the country was very simple: We want Republicans and Democrats to cooperate, to work on major problems together, to address the major problems in a way that gives them and gives us hope that there is a better future, a stronger future. They recognize, as we do, that the deficit is a major problem and has been a major problem. I think this agreement--as spelled out in both the spending and tax reduction bills--is clear evidence that we understood that message and have responded as consequentially and as sincerely as we possibly can. This agreement is the final downpayment on a budget process that has now been underway for several years. In fact, it goes back to the vote of 1993, as some of my colleagues have already articulated. This chart, Mr. President, very clearly illustrates from where we have come and what we have left to do. The projected deficits prior to the enactment of the 1993 economic package are represented in the top line. In 1993, we made the tough choices, the very critical decisions in 1993. As a result, we have been able to reduce the actual and projected deficits by $2.4 trillion over the period from 1993 to 2002. Were we to stop at this point and do nothing, annual deficits for the next 5 years are currently projected to remain in the range of $100 billion. If, as I expect, we pass this bill by week's end, we will have completely eliminated the deficit no later than the year 2002. In other words, the net savings over the next 5 years that will be generated by enacting this budget agreement will total over $200 billion. So we will achieve our goal of a balanced Federal budget by the year 2002, if not sooner, as a result, first, of adoption of the 1993 budget agreement, and, second, enactment of the 1997 budget agreement. Passage of these two pieces of legislation will bring us to a balanced Federal budget for the first time since 1969. There were many fears expressed about what would happen to our economy and the deficit if we were to enact the spending and tax policies contained in the budget agreement of 1993. I will not belabor the point or go over those fears at this time. Instead, I will simply concentrate on what has been said about the economy since the passage of the 1993 package by people outside of the Senate, in particular the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan. Here's what he says about the state of our economy since the adoption of our 1993 budget plan: we are ``now in the 7th consecutive year of expansion, making it the third longest post-World War II cyclical upswing to date.'' In addition, he said: This strong expansion has produced a remarkable increase in work opportunities for Americans. . . . Our whole economy will benefit from their greater productivity. Finally, he said: Consumers are also enjoying low inflation . . . financial markets have been buoyant . . . in a relatively stable, low- inflation environment. That is about as optimistic a series of statements as I have ever heard the Chairman of the Federal Reserve make. He has a reason for making them--the economy is strong, we have been able to reduce the deficit, and we have an optimistic outlook about our future. And it is universally held. Whether we turn to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, or Members of Congress, or the business community, or members of labor, the response is the same: Our country is stronger today. There can be no doubt that we are strong. Unemployment and inflation right now are at a combined rate of 8.7 percent. That is the best since Lyndon Johnson was President of the United States. Inflation is at a 2.8 annual percentage rate. That is the best since John Kennedy was President. The employment picture, with 12 million new jobs, is the best employment situation our country has faced in its history. Construction jobs are stronger now than at any time since I was born, since Harry Truman was President. Consumer confidence has increased 14 percent in the last 4 years, which is the best we have seen since President Eisenhower. Deficit reduction has been reduced to under 1 percent of gross domestic product in 1997. That is the best we have seen in all the years that I have lived. One would have to go back to Harry Truman's Presidency to find a time when it was this good. Home ownership has increased from 63 percent to 65 percent, the best ever. Never in our Nation's history have two-thirds of all Americans lived in their own homes. The stock market has gone from 3,500 to more than 8,000, a growth record that has been matched only once, and that was during World War II. Median family income is up $1,600 since 1993, the best since Lyndon Johnson was President of the United States. So, Mr. President, we feel very good about the circumstances and about the economic progress and performance of the last 4 years. At the same time, we have said repeatedly over the last several months that there are four categories by which we would judge any agreement that would attempt to make further progress on the deficit: fairness, fiscal responsibility, education, and how we target the investments that we will make as a result of this legislation. Those are the four criteria. How fair is it? How responsible is it fiscally? How good an educational program can we achieve? And how well are we going to be able to target our investments? Let us take the first category. How do Americans do under this agreement on the issue of fairness? Many of us talked for some time about how important it was that we benefit all income categories, not just the top income category, but those working families in the $20,000 to $30,000 income categories, people who pay a portion of their income to income taxes but an even greater portion to payroll taxes. Are we going to be able to provide tax relief to families such as those? We will provide a child tax credit to 27 million working families. Families who pay thousands of dollars in payroll taxes, families who pay income taxes, families who try to make ends meet, each and every week, each and every month, those families are going to benefit very directly as a result of what we were able to do with the child tax credit. And $24 billion has been committed in the first 5 years for a children's health program, which is the largest single investment in health care since the passage of Medicaid in 1965. That is just the beginning, because we have also committed another $24 billion in the second 5 years. For the first time in history, thousands of South Dakotans and millions of Americans are going to benefit from a Federal health program that for the first time will provide meaningful health care to children who are not getting it today. And $1.5 billion is going to be committed to low-income seniors to help pay for Medicare premiums. So, Mr. President, from a fairness point of view, there can be no doubt, when it comes to health, when it comes to the array of opportunities that we present working families, this bill deserves our support. Mr. President, we also, as I indicated, made a very important point of arguing the need for targeted investment. Indeed, this legislation provides opportunities for targeted investment in environmental cleanup, in enterprise communities, and targeted job tax credits, ensuring that family farms and family businesses are going to be protected as one generation transfers its property to the next. Employer tax deductions are going to be made available for employee education and training. In a number of ways, we say we are going to take the resources available to us and target them to where they can be used to the greatest advantage--on environment, on communities, on jobs, on farms and small businesses. We provide an array of opportunities in that regard to do what Democrats said was very critical: provide the kind of targeted investment that is so essential to ensuring that all aspects and all elements of our American society benefit from what we are doing today. The third criteri we spelled out was fiscal responsibility. How well do we do in that regard? We said at the very beginning, we do not want to see an explosion of deficit in the outyears. We wanted to be absolutely certain that, regardless of what else we do, we did not want to pass a tax cut we cannot afford and place ourselves back in the same box we created for this country in the 1980's. We did not want to relive the bad old days of those extraordinarily high deficits. Instead, we now recognize that achieving a balanced budget in 2002 is only the first step in maintaining a balanced budget in the years beyond 2002. So we do not index capital gains. We put income limits on individual retirement accounts. We do not index the estate tax exemptions, simply because we were afraid of the extraordinary explosion in outyear deficits that these changes would trigger. I recognize the fact that we did not go as far as some of us would have liked to ensure fiscal responsibility, to ensure with a high degree of confidence that we will be able to maintain a balanced budget. However, I also believe we took a number of steps that allow for some confidence that once we have balance the Federal budget, it will stay balanced in the years 2003, 2004, 2005, and beyond. Mr. President, the last category is one that is probably of greatest importance to many working families because they are trying to make ends meet and still send their children to college. In this information age, it is important that we do all we can to make available to working families the tools and the resources necessary to allow every child who graduates from high school the opportunity to get more education. So this bill provides the single largest investment in higher education since Harry Truman passed the GI bill almost 50 years ago. We provide a $1,500 HOPE credit in the first 2 years of college and a 20 percent tuition credit for college juniors and seniors and lifelong learning opportunities. There are families of all ages with many different sets of circumstances involving children who want to go to college, involving a spouse who may want to get additional education. An array of different challenges confront all working families as they attempt to cope with the circumstances we are facing in this information age. We provide that mechanism and those tools to working families in ways that we have not done in more than four decades. So, Mr. President, as a result of this President's advocacy, we are committing resources to education that we have not done in the period I have served in the Congress. There are no Pell grant reductions. There are opportunities for people to use other tools as well and not be penalized for using the credits that we now make available. In the end, Mr. President, it all comes down to real names and real families, people that are truly going to be affected. While there are many families who have come before us over the course of the last several weeks to describe their situation, and talk about their circumstances, I think the Richards family in Sioux Falls, SD, who talked to us via television camera just a couple of days ago, is a clear example of what this legislation means for a typical American family. Charlie Richards is a teacher. He is not only a teacher; he has two extra part-time jobs. There are many people in South Dakota who work not just one job, but two and three jobs in order to make ends meet. Charlie Richards is that kind of an individual, hard working. He believes that his family must have the very best that he can provide them, and he is willing to commit the extra time and effort and hours to see that provides his family with a quality of life that he now only dreams of. His wife Karen is pregnant with their second child. Their income is about $24,000 a year. As a result of what we are doing this afternoon and what we will do this week, Charlie and Karen will get a $975 child tax credit. This figure was zero under the legislation originally drafted and passed by the House. Both children, once the second child is born, will get health care coverage, perhaps for the first time. Both children will be eligible for HOPE credits when they are ready for college. Both children will be eligible for KidSave and other individual retirement accounts when savings increase. For the first time, Charlie and Karen will be able to perhaps set a little money aside for savings, maybe to buy a home, maybe to improve the home they are living in now, maybe to give their family just a little bit more hope that they are going to be able to make ends meet and do the kinds of things that every family dreams of doing, not just with the one child they have now, but with two. So to Charlie and Karen, and to families just like them across the country, let us say today that we give them hope of a better future, a brighter and more realistic opportunity of achieving their goals. We heard our constituents last year when they told us we have got to work together to solve problems, when they told us it is important that they have the kind of economic strength and security that they want so badly, when they told us we have got to continue to work and put our best effort forward to reduce the debt. We heard them on all these fronts. As a result of the extraordinary leadership and work done on both sides of the aisle, we are responding today in a way that makes me very proud. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much your recognizing me prior to the time we go to third reading. I will be very brief. I am not sure we have any time left. If we don't, I will just use leader time. I just want to say how much I appreciate the effort made by the Senators who are on the floor to bring us to this point. This has been a 2-year-long debate. Obviously, there have been good intentions on both sides, and negotiations have resulted in a compromise that brings us to a point that will allow us to address this issue in a meaningful way. I congratulate the administration and those who worked with us to accomplish this within the administration. But I particularly want to thank Senators Boxer and Biden who pioneered the establishment of the dolphin safe label all the way back to 1990, who recognized the importance of this issue and dedicated themselves to solving it as they did back then. I thank Senator Hollings, the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Senator Snowe, the chair of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, for her work, Senator McCain, Senator Stevens, and Senator Breaux, who developed and introduced the legislation to implement the Panama Declaration, and perhaps a special thanks goes to Senator John Kerry, the ranking member of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee whose patience and guidance and leadership was critical to bringing all sides together in reaching this agreement. So this is a very good moment for us. It is another opportunity to demonstrate the commitment that we have in working together to face these serious questions in a meaningful way. So, to all of those involved, especially Senators Boxer, Biden, and Kerry, my thanks. I hope we can address this matter now by an overwhelming vote here in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary, Mr. Gregg, and the ranking member, Mr. Hollings, for their excellent work on the fiscal year 1998 Commerce, Justice, State, and judiciary appropriations bill. They and their staffs have put together an excellent bill and should be commended for their leadership. Let me take a brief moment to explain my intentions regarding amendment 1004. Its purpose is twofold. First, it makes $100,000 available for a grant to Roberts County, SD. It is clear from my discussions with law enforcement personnel in rural areas of South Dakota that few greater priorities exist than to ensure that South Dakotans have immediate access to emergency services when necessary. Unfortunately, many rural counties in South Dakota do not have the resources to purchase equipment for a 911 system to provide this capability. It is my intention that these funds be used for the purchase of that equipment and any other functions that must necessarily take place for the establishment of a 911 system in Roberts County. It is my further hope that in coming years Congress and the Department of Justice will continue to address the urgent need for assistance in the purchase of equipment to provide 911 services. The second purpose of the section is to provide $900,000 to the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation [DCI]. The DCI requires an immediate upgrade of computer and telecommunications equipment in its field offices, new equipment for its forensics lab, and new radio equipment to address problems in law enforcement radio transmissions. These funds will be of significant assistance in the provision of this equipment for the DCI, and I am pleased that I have been able to work with the committee to meet this need. Once again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their assistance with these important matters.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from North Dakota for highlighting the case against including the Universal Service Fund in our budget reconciliation process. This is bad public policy. It is unfair to the residents of rural America. I hope that today the Senate will take a strong stand against it. The Universal Service Fund is comprised of private fees assessed to our Nation's telecommunications carriers. Over the last 60 years, this fund has made it possible for every resident in the United States to have access to telecommunications services. It represents a national guarantee that wherever you decide to live and work and raise a family--even if it is in one of the most remote areas of our country-- telecommunications services will be affordable. Although universal service is a Federal guideline, there are no Federal tax dollars involved in the Universal Service Fund. Moreover, the fund is administered by a nongovernmental agency that operates on the simple notion that carriers in low cost urban areas contribute more so that carriers who serve residents of high cost rural areas can provide affordable service. The administration of this fund has worked so well that most Americans do not even know it exists and take for granted the low rates for basic telephone service we all currently enjoy. The principle of universal service represents one of our Government's most sacred and successful agreements with the American people. It guarantees those who live in rural areas the same access to telecommunications services as those who live in urban areas and is a major contributor to the rapid development and growth our rural areas are currently experiencing. Many parts of my home State of South Dakota, quite frankly, may not have been settled were it not for this guarantee, and I am very concerned that the budget deal may inadvertently undermine the Universal Service Fund. Under the budget agreement concluded last night, the Universal Service Fund will be used to mask a $2 billion hole in the Federal deficit in fiscal year 2002. This sets a dangerous precedent. This private fund should not be incorporated into the Federal budget process, and the affordable rates it guarantees should not be left vulnerable to budget whimsy. Throughout the past year, I have worked closely with Senator Dorgan and many other colleagues to impress upon the administration the value of ensuring equitable and affordable access to telecommunications services in rural areas. While administration officials have been largely receptive to this argument, the decision to put the USF on budget raises questions about some policymakers' understanding of rural concerns. I am greatly troubled that placing the Universal Service Fund on budget will create a dangerous precedent that could raise rates in rural America and endanger our Government's 60 year promise of affordable telecommunications service to all areas of this country. The principle of universal service represents a sacred agreement between the Government and its citizens. It must not be undermined by budget games. The Dorgan amendment puts the Senate on record that the use of these funds in the budget process is wrong, and I strongly urge its approval.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that we mark the passing of William Brennan, who served so ably on the U.S. Supreme Court. Appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, the New Jersey judge soon rose to a position of intellectual leadership on the Court. Even his critics acknowledge that he has exercised a fundamental influence on the direction of American jurisprudence. He wrote almost 1,400 opinions and helped shape countless others, providing guidance on issues from civil liberties, race relations and privacy to criminal justice, economic fairness, and governmental power. Justice Brennan believed deeply that law must protect human dignity and that the Founding Fathers recognized that principle when they drafted our Constitution. He saw the Constitution as a guarantee that our fundamental rights cannot be diminished or denied simply because that is the will of the majority. During his 34 years on the Court, Justice Brennan did not waiver in his convictions, speaking out in his opinions and in public on the most important moral issues of the day. His deeply held beliefs and carefully crafted judicial opinions have had a profound influence upon us all. Along with his distinction as a jurist, Justice Brennan was well known for his warmth and good humor, and he had friends from all parts of the political spectrum. I know that I speak for all of us in saying that he will be missed.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is a distinct pleasure for me to convey to the entire Senate what I communicated to the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier today--I am an enthusiastic supporter of John Hamre for Deputy Secretary of Defense. I am pleased to note that the committee reported out his nomination unanimously. Evidently they, like many of their colleagues, are already well aware of John's exceptional background and skills, and his impressive record. Therefore, I will not belabor these points--except to say that I think they make John an excellent choice for this critically important post. Less known to some of my colleagues perhaps is the fact that John is from South Dakota, my home State. In fact, John was born in the tiny town of Willow Lake, South Dakota and grew up in Clark, SD. His rise to the No. 2 civilian position in the world's number one military force is a tribute not only to John and his family, but to the entire state of South Dakota and its people. Like many of the families in our state, John's family's story reads like a Charles Kuralt profile of small-town America. His maternal grandfather was a Lutheran preacher who lived to be 100 years old (which should eliminate any chance of John having to take an early retirement). His paternal grandfather was a farmer and county sheriff. One of John's uncles, Julian, was killed in action as an aviator in the Pacific during World War II. John's father, Mel, was a banker and his mother, Ruth, was a teacher. They have lived in Clark all their adult lives. If you happen to visit Clark on a Sunday morning, chances are you would hear them performing with their church choir. John graduated with a degree in political science from Augustana College in Sioux Falls, SD. After that, he did what every political scientist does: headed off to Harvard to earn a masters degree in Divinity. It was the first time he had ever really been away from South Dakota. From Harvard, John went on to earn a masters degree and doctorate degree in 1978 from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. I would just note parenthetically: If John is confirmed, he may be the first Deputy Secretary of Defense who can say the Lord's Prayer--in Russian. After graduate school, John joined the staff of the Congressional Budget Office [CBO]. In 1984, he joined the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he developed a reputation for being able to work closely with both sides of the aisle. John was appointed Undersecretary of Defense--comptroller by former Defense Secretary Les Aspin. In his new position, John will be the second highest-ranking civilian in the Pentagon's chain of command. The Deputy Secretary of Defense is one of the most critical national security positions in the U.S. Government. He or she is given full power and authority to act for the secretary of Defense in the secretary's absence. As a indication of the trust and confidence Secretary Cohen has in John's talents, he recently asked John to head up the Defense Management Reform Task Force--perhaps the most critical study the Pentagon will undertake in the next decade or so. If our available defense resources are to match our proclaimed defense policies for the 21st century, it is crucial that the Pentagon adopt more efficient business methods. The task force John will head is charged with the responsibility of overhauling the Defense Department's accounting methods and streamlining its business practices. Such reforms are long overdue and much needed if we are to get a dollar of defense for each dollar we provide the Pentagon. On behalf of the Congress, I wish John well in this endeavor and will be closely following his progress. Anyone who has spent any time with John Hamre knows his passion for defense policy. From his days at CBO in the late 1970's to his present position at the Department of Defense, he has demonstrated time and again his mastery of defense policy issues. Throughout his career, Dr. Hamre has consistently demonstrated an even-handedness and objectivity. That has allowed him, in turn, to establish and maintain good relations with members of the Congress. The regard in which he is held by both parties will enable him to serve the President well. Even more importantly, it will enable him to serve his country well. In conclusion, it is an honor and a privilege to commend a true South Dakotan, a man who has dedicated his life to integrity, love of his country and outstanding achievement, and who will serve his country well as Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, is it my understanding that the compact amendment deals with the dairy matter? It is my understanding that, if it does deal with the dairy matter, there are Senators on our side that would object to any time agreement. So we will have to work out additional time agreements in regard to the Grams amendment before we can agree on this particular--

Mr. DASCHLE. Unfortunately, the Grams amendment reopens the question of the dairy compact, as described to me. That is an extraordinarily controversial issue involving the Northeast as well as the Midwest. I am told that Northeastern Senators would not agree to any time agreement so long as this amendment is pending.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, an individual with over 27 years of dedicated service to the U.S. Senate has retired. This conscientious and hard working individual is John ``Mark'' Lacovara, the assistant Journal clerk of the Senate. Mark, a native-born Washingtonian, has served in numerous capacities in the Senate over the past 27 years. During those years of service, Mark completed his college education and earned a degree from the University of Maryland. In March, 1969, Mark began his Senate service as a reference assistant in the Senate Library. Shortly thereafter, he moved to a doorkeeper position at the pass desk under the auspices of the Senate Sergeant at Arms. From the doorkeeper's position, Mark had the opportunity to return to work for the Secretary of the Senate as a clerk in the Senate stationery room. In 1974, Mark was appointed clerk of enrolled bills on the legislative staff of the Secretary. In 1979, Mark was named second assistant Journal clerk, and by 1984 was working as editor of morning business for the Congressional Record. In his capacity as morning business editor, Mark had the responsibility of producing, compiling, and formatting copy for the Morning Business section of the Congressional Record. This section includes Presidential messages, House messages, Executive communications, petitions and memorials, committee reports, the introduction of legislation, as well as additional statements. Anyone who takes a look at the Record will get a notion of the responsibility of the morning business editor. As I mentioned earlier, Mark once served as second assistant Journal clerk. In 1993, Mark returned to that office in the capacity of assistant Journal clerk, where he remained until his retirement. Often referred to as the ``bible'' of the Senate, the Journal reflects the official legal record of Senate proceedings. An individual with the responsibility of making the entries plays a critical role in the history of the Senate. Mark served in exemplary fashion as assistant Journal clerk, and took great pride in his work. Mark loved the Senate. He served here with distinction. He believed in the Senate as a great institution and throughout his long service demonstrated his loyalty and dedication. Mr. President, I say to Mark, thank you for your long and distinguished service. You will be missed.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the advent of testing for genes that may indicate a predisposition to disease has presented us with a new series of opportunities and challenges. While prior awareness of susceptibility to disease offers millions the chance to take preventive measures that will help them live healthier and longer lives, there also exists the possibility that genetic information will be misused. It is for that reason that I am introducing S. 1045, The Genetic Justice Act. This legislation will ensure that employees will not suffer adverse employment consequences as a result of improper use of genetic information and that employee privacy is protected. Scientific advances now make it possible to identify genes that may indicate a predisposition to disease. For example, tests for genes associated with hereditary breast cancer will soon be commercially available. Genetic information may prove highly beneficial in areas related to prevention, treatment, diet, or lifestyle. While this is profoundly good news for patients, it also raises fears regarding how genetic information will be used in the workplace. Advances in genetic testing and screening, accelerated by the National Institutes of Health Human Genome Initiative, increase physicians' ability to detect and monitor chromosomal differences. These technologies and their resulting genomic data will enhance medical science, but may also lead to discrimination. Regrettably, many employers may not hire individuals whom they believe will require time off or medical treatment at some point in the future due to a genetically transmitted disease. This discrimination could result despite the fact that genetic testing only indicates that an individual may be predisposed to a disease--not whether that disease will develop. Anecdotal evidence suggests that fear of discrimination already has inhibited people who may be susceptible to disease from getting genetic testing. In some cases, this means that gene carriers will miss out on early diagnosis, treatment or even prevention. If consumers avoid taking advantage of available diagnostic tests out of fear of discrimination, they may suffer much more serious--and more expensive-- health problems in the long run. We will pay the price in more than increased health care costs if we allow genetic information to be used in a discriminatory manner. Discrimination based on genetic factors can be as unjust as that based on race, national origin, religion, sex, or disability. In each case, people are treated inequitably, not because of their inherent abilities, but solely because of irrelevant characteristics. Genetic discrimination that excludes qualified individuals from employment robs the marketplace of skills, energy, and imagination. Finally, genetic discrimination undercuts the Human Genome Initiative's fundamental purpose of promoting public health. Investing resources in the Genome Initiative is justified by the benefits of identifying, preventing, and developing effective treatments for disease. But if fear of discrimination deters people from genetic diagnosis or from confiding in physicians and genetic counselors, and makes them more concerned with job loss than with care and treatment, our understanding of the humane genome will be for naught. Because genetic information could be used unfairly, Congress must expand the scope of employment discrimination law to include a ban on genetic discrimination. Our bill forbids employers from discriminating in hiring or in the terms and conditions of employment, and limits their ability to acquire genetic information. In order to acquire such information, an employer must show that the information is job-related and that the employee has consented to the disclosure. Now, before the use of genetic information becomes widespread, we must make sure that dramatic scientific advances do not have negative consequences for the public. We have an historic opportunity to preempt this problem. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill text be printed in the Record and hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the advent of testing for genes that may indicate a predisposition to disease has presented us with a new series of opportunities and challenges. While prior awareness of susceptibility to disease offers millions the chance to take preventive measures that will help them live healthier and longer lives, there also exists the possibility that genetic information will be misused. It is for that reason that I am introducing S. 1045, The Genetic Justice Act. This legislation will ensure that employees will not suffer adverse employment consequences as a result of improper use of genetic information and that employee privacy is protected. Scientific advances now make it possible to identify genes that may indicate a predisposition to disease. For example, tests for genes associated with hereditary breast cancer will soon be commercially available. Genetic information may prove highly beneficial in areas related to prevention, treatment, diet, or lifestyle. While this is profoundly good news for patients, it also raises fears regarding how genetic information will be used in the workplace. Advances in genetic testing and screening, accelerated by the National Institutes of Health Human Genome Initiative, increase physicians' ability to detect and monitor chromosomal differences. These technologies and their resulting genomic data will enhance medical science, but may also lead to discrimination. Regrettably, many employers may not hire individuals whom they believe will require time off or medical treatment at some point in the future due to a genetically transmitted disease. This discrimination could result despite the fact that genetic testing only indicates that an individual may be predisposed to a disease--not whether that disease will develop. Anecdotal evidence suggests that fear of discrimination already has inhibited people who may be susceptible to disease from getting genetic testing. In some cases, this means that gene carriers will miss out on early diagnosis, treatment or even prevention. If consumers avoid taking advantage of available diagnostic tests out of fear of discrimination, they may suffer much more serious--and more expensive-- health problems in the long run. We will pay the price in more than increased health care costs if we allow genetic information to be used in a discriminatory manner. Discrimination based on genetic factors can be as unjust as that based on race, national origin, religion, sex, or disability. In each case, people are treated inequitably, not because of their inherent abilities, but solely because of irrelevant characteristics. Genetic discrimination that excludes qualified individuals from employment robs the marketplace of skills, energy, and imagination. Finally, genetic discrimination undercuts the Human Genome Initiative's fundamental purpose of promoting public health. Investing resources in the Genome Initiative is justified by the benefits of identifying, preventing, and developing effective treatments for disease. But if fear of discrimination deters people from genetic diagnosis or from confiding in physicians and genetic counselors, and makes them more concerned with job loss than with care and treatment, our understanding of the humane genome will be for naught. Because genetic information could be used unfairly, Congress must expand the scope of employment discrimination law to include a ban on genetic discrimination. Our bill forbids employers from discriminating in hiring or in the terms and conditions of employment, and limits their ability to acquire genetic information. In order to acquire such information, an employer must show that the information is job-related and that the employee has consented to the disclosure. Now, before the use of genetic information becomes widespread, we must make sure that dramatic scientific advances do not have negative consequences for the public. We have an historic opportunity to preempt this problem. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill text be printed in the Record and hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Treasury, General Government, and Civil Service, Mr. Campbell, and the ranking member, Mr. Kohl, for their assistance with this important clarifying amendment to the fiscal year 1998 Treasury and general government appropriations bill. They and their staffs have done excellent work in putting this bill together, and they are to be commended for their leadership. The purpose of this amendment should be clarified for the Record. Section 107 of the bill, as approved by the Committee on Appropriations, states, ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no field support reorganization of the Internal Revenue Service shall be undertaken in Aberdeen, South Dakota, until the Internal Revenue Service toll-free help phone line assistance program reaches at least an 80 percent service level. The Commissioner shall submit to Congress a report and the GAO shall certify to Congress that the 80 percent service level has been met.'' Identical language was included in appropriations legislation approved last year for fiscal year 1997. It has always been my intention that this language be considered permanent unless specifically changed by an act of Congress. The obvious intention of Congress in approving this provision is that reductions in force should not take place in Aberdeen until South Dakotans can be assured of being able to access assistance from IRS through the national telephone lines. It has not been the intention of Congress that this provision should expire at the end of the fiscal year for which the funds of this act are being appropriated. To make this crystal clear and explicit in the statute itself, my amendment replaces the phrase ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' with the word ``hereafter.'' As the General Accounting Office states in its publication, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Second Edition, Volume I, ``A provision contained in an annual appropriation act is not to be construed to be permanent legislation unless the language used therein or the nature of the provision makes it clear that Congress intended it to be permanent. The presumption can be overcome if the provision uses language indicating futurity, such as `hereafter.' '' Mr. President, this legislation ensures that no reorganization of the Aberdeen, South Dakota, IRS office shall take place until the IRS is capable of providing service on a national level that equates to the high quality service currently provided in Aberdeen. Again, I wish to thank my colleagues for their help and consideration on this issue.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am proud to honor the Pierre Area Senior Citizens on the organization's 20th birthday. This occasion is being celebrated in Pierre, SD, this week, July 13-19, 1997. For the past 20 years, the Pierre Area Senior Citizens has served as a means for seniors to get together and enjoy the companionship of their peers. It is also an active group in the civic life of South Dakota's capital city. Many members of the organization are volunteers, donating their time and expertise for the benefit of their community. I want to thank the Pierre Area Senior Citizens for their civic pride and good works, and I wish them many more great years of service.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. If the leader will yield, in the interest of accommodating a lot of our Senators who have made plans, could we at least give them assurance that between now and 9:30 there will be no votes tonight?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. As a long-time supporter of domestically produced renewable fuels, I am very interested in encouraging the Department of Energy to do whatever it can to promote the development of new and more efficient processes for converting plant material into practical transportation fuels. It is my understanding that DOE consistently funds the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research--known as CPBR-- although at levels below which it can use. The work of this consortium of university researchers has lead to significant progress in more efficiently utilizing plants and plant waste for the production of renewable fuels and of bringing these research innovations to the market. It is my hope that DOE will be willing to fund CPBR at between $2 and $3 million in fiscal year 1998. Do you agree that DOE should give special consideration to funding CPBR at that level?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer an amendment on behalf of Senators Bingaman, Hollings, Hagel, and Kerrey, and myself that would help clarify the implications of a recent trade agreement for an industry of vital importance to our defense industrial base. The amendment would direct the Pentagon to perform a study assessing whether dependence on foreign sources for certain resistors and capacitors is likely to increase to the point of raising national security concerns as a result of the tariff reductions scheduled to take effect pursuant to the Information Technology Agreement (ITA). The ITA was signed last December in Singapore and will phase in zero- tariff treatment for semiconductors, telecommunications equipment, computers, software, and other electronics products in North America, the European Union, Australia, Japan, and many other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Domestic producers of resistors and capacitors have expressed concern to many Senators that the elimination of the 6 percent duty on resistors and 9.4 percent duty on capacitors would seriously undermine the vitality, and perhaps viability, of their operations. The Pentagon is a major purchaser of these products. For this reason, the industry's concerns warrant a more thorough investigation of the implications of the tariff reductions for national security than has occurred to date. One of the manufacturing facilities affected by the Information Technology Agreement is Dale Electronics, which is located in Yankton, SD. The Dale plant employs about 400 people and manufactures resistors, inductors, and magnetics. Like my colleagues who have cosponsored this amendment, who also represent major facilities constituting an important part of our defense industrial base, I would like to know more about how the tariff changes underway will affect defense preparedness. No doubt, the estimated 20,000 people working in the passive electronics industry would also appreciate having the benefit of this information. I would like to express my appreciation to the distinguished manager of the bill, Senator Thurmond, for working with me and my colleagues on this issue. I know that he shares our interest in bringing to light facts necessary for the Federal Government to make informed decisions about important aspects of our defense industrial base.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to express my support for a very important amendment offered by Senator Bingaman, a key member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The bill before us is a critical one. It authorizes $269 billion for the military activities of this country--everything from the pay for the men and women who so capably serve this country to the aircraft, tanks and ships they operate to the housing in which they reside. This single bill provides for all of this. The members of the committee are to be commended for their excellent work. Despite the numerous critical issues this bill does address, there is one crucial area that the Senator from New Mexico and I think requires further attention--the status of our efforts with the Russians to implement the START II agreement and, as importantly, design meaningful and verifiable measures to take us beyond the constraints of START II. Mr. President, many in this body on both sides of the aisle believe that reducing the number of existing nuclear weapons and controlling their spread to other countries represents the gravest challenge to our national security. START II called for a limit of 3,500 deployed warheads by 2003. At the Helsinki summit earlier this year, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin agreed to reduce this ceiling to 2,000 to 2,500 by the end of 2007. In addition, they concurred on the need for exchanges of information about total United States and Russian stockpiles of strategic warheads and about the elimination of excess warheads. Finally, they agreed to negotiate confidence-building ``transparency'' arrangements such as on-site inspections. These are all worthwhile measures and, in this Senator's opinion, very timely. The Pentagon has already indicated it can protect this nation's interests and deter would-be aggressors with significantly fewer weapons than would be permitted under START II. I agree with this assessment. Therefore, like Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin, Senator Bingaman and I think it's appropriate to explore doing much more than called for in START II. That is the purpose of our amendment. We ask the President to submit a report to Congress describing how the United States plans to implement the Helsinki accords. The decisions reached at Helsinki will have far-reaching implications for both the United States and Russia. We hope that with this report, the administration will analyze the consequences of their announced path as well as describe any other additional approaches that merit further inquiry. Despite the fact that the cold war ended nearly a decade ago, the United States and the Russians still maintain thousands of nuclear weapons poised to be launched within seconds of receiving notice to do so. None of these weapons are on bombers. The United States decided years ago that it no longer needed to keep bombers on such a high alert status. However, we and the Russians each maintain roughly 3,000 weapons on ballistic missiles ready to go at the push of a button. With this amendment, we hope the administration will consider whether keeping such large numbers of weapons in such a high alert status remains in our national interest. As stated in a recent editorial by Senator Nunn and Bruce Blair, ``It is time to rethink the unthinkable. The United States and Russia should cast off the mental shackles of deterrence and make our nuclear relationship more compatible with our political relationship.'' The authors go on to state we can accomplish this by first reducing the number of weapons we have poised to launch at a moment's notice. This report would address this important question as well as the other central elements contained in the Helsinki agreement. Mr. President, with this amendment, we are asking the administration to examine the case made by Senator Nunn, Gen. Lee Butler, and many others. Although we are requesting just a study of this issue, it is a study that could eventually lead us to a safer, more secure world. I believe this is the time, and this is the bill, for the Senate to express its desire to explore this course. amendment no. 823 (Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate relating to the utilization of savings derived from the base closure process) On page 410, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Thurmond, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, the ranking member of the committee, and our other colleagues who serve on the panel for their hard work and the bipartisan approach they took to the fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense (DOD) Authorization bill. Although I am generally pleased with the committee's work, there are several provisions in the defense bill of great concern to me. I am particularly disturbed by the committee's initial decision to cut the Cooperative Threat Reduction [CTR] Program as well as the Department of Energy's [DOE] Materials Protection Control and Accounting [MPC&A] Program and the International Nuclear Safety Program by a total of $135 million from the Administration's budget request. Together, these three programs are essential to U.S. non-proliferation efforts and are critical to protecting the United States from weapons of mass destruction. These vital programs help Russia and other former Soviet Republics destroy nuclear, chemical and other weapons of mass destruction. In addition, they assist Russia in developing and deploying security measures to safeguard their remaining nuclear materials. Moreover, they help make much-needed improvements to Soviet- designed nuclear powerplants in Russia and the New Independent States. Senators Lugar and Bingaman offered an amendment that will rectify what I think was a very shortsighted decision. Specifically, the amendment will restore $60 million to the CTR Program, $25 million to the MPC&A Program, and $50 million to the International Nuclear Safety Program. These programs have long received bipartisan support, and I am pleased the Senate adopted the Lugar-Bingaman amendment last night. Although many Members have already discussed the CTR Program, the MPC&A Program, and the International Nuclear Safety Program in detail, I would like to explain why I strongly believe each should be fully funded. The CTR Program, which is also known as the Nunn-Lugar program for its chief sponsors in the Senate, was established in 1991 in an effort to reduce the threat to the United States from weapons of mass destruction. I believe the authors of this important legislation rightly concluded that the spread of these weapons represents the greatest threat to U.S. national security in the post-cold war era. Through this program, the United States has provided much-needed assistance to Russia and other former Soviet republics to destroy nuclear, chemical, and other weapons. In addition, the CTR Program has helped establish verifiable safeguards against proliferation of these weapons and fissile materials and to facilitate demilitarization of defense industries and defense conversion activities in the former Soviet Union. Since its inception, the CTR Program has significantly helped reduce the threat to the United States from weapons of mass destruction. With this program's assistance, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakstan became nonnuclear states, and approximately 3,400 strategic warheads have been withdrawn from those three New Independent States to Russia. In addition, more than 1,500 nuclear warheads have been deactivated, and approximately 930 deployed launchers and bombers in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakstan have been destroyed. Despite the CTR Program's many accomplishments, more weapons of mass destruction have yet to be destroyed, and more needs to be done to further reduce the threat to the United States from these weapons. The President has requested $382 million for the CTR Program in fiscal year 1998. This funding will be used for a number of programs, all designed to eliminate the threat Russian nuclear weapons pose to the United States. For example, $78 million will support the Russian elimination of ICBM's, silo launchers, Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile [SLBM] launchers and bombers and $77 million will be used to assist the Ukraine eliminate SS-19 ICBM's, silos and launch control facilities. Seven million dollars will provide safe and secure storage containers for fissile materials from dismantled nuclear weapons. Thirty-six million dollars will be used to provide comprehensive security enhancements for nuclear weapons storage sites in Russia. And $55 million will help design and build a chemical weapons destruction facility in Russia. Full funding is critical to U.S. plans to continue implementing these initiatives. Before the Lugar-Bingaman amendment was accepted, however, the fiscal year 1998 DOD Authorization bill had called for the CTR Program to be cut by $60 million in fiscal year 1998. The Department of Energy's [DOE] Materials Protection Control and Accounting Program is a similarly worthy program. It assists Russia, the New Independent States, and the Baltic States in their efforts to strengthen materials protection, control, and accountability of materials used in nuclear weapons. To date, DOE has helped establish 18 sites in Russia, the New Independent States, and the Baltic states to safeguard plutonium and uranium weapons material. Moreover, agreements are in place to enhance the safety and security at over 30 additional sites. This program is critical to U.S. efforts to prevent the theft of weapons-usable fissile materials, plutonium and highly enriched uranium. Although DOE has already helped secure hundreds of tons of nuclear weapons materials, the overwhelming majority of material is still poorly secured. Consequently, the administration is requesting that the MPC&A Program be increased by $25 million in fiscal year 1998. This funding request is necessary for U.S. plans to continue implementing this program. Before the Lugar-Bingaman amendment was accepted, however, the fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization bill had called for the MPC&A Program to continue to be funded only at fiscal year 1997 levels. The administration's budget request also includes $50 million for the International Nuclear Safety Program. This program, which is also operated by DOE, helps to make improvements to Soviet-designed nuclear powerplants in Russia and the New Independent States. By helping these countries implement desperately needed safety measures, this program helps reduce the risk of another Chernobyl nuclear power reactor disaster. Again, full funding is critical to U.S. plans to continue implementing these initiatives. Again, before the Lugar-Bingaman amendment was accepted, the fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization bill would have prevented the Pentagon from providing any funds to the International Nuclear Safety Program in fiscal year 1998. The fiscal year 1998 DOD Authorization bill before the Senate provides $268.2 billion in budget authority for the DOD and the national security programs at DOE. This is $2.6 billion beyond the level the President initially requested. In addition, the bill includes $3.6 billion for ballistic missile defense purposes and more than $5 billion for weapons systems not originally requested by the Pentagon. Considering those facts, it is inconceivable to me that the Senate would cut the CTR Program, the MPC&A Program and the International Safety Program by $135 million. Mr. President, these three programs are critical to our efforts to protect the United States from weapons of mass destruction. Unlike ballistic missile defense, the CTR Program, the MPC&A Program and the International Safety Program have already produced results and caused the destruction of Russian nuclear weapons. Simply put, they make our world safer. I am pleased that the Senate adopted the Lugar-Bingaman amendment last night, and I commend my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee for rectifying what would have been a tragic mistake.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I could just encourage our colleagues on this side of the aisle. We have a number of amendments that may not require rollcalls, but there are two or three that will. I would like very much to be able to work out time agreements tonight on those, so we can announce them tomorrow. There is a desire on the part of both sides, I think, to try to finish at the target time of about noon tomorrow. So we have to work very carefully on these remaining amendments and get time agreements that will accommodate that schedule. So if you have a rollcall, let's try to work out the time agreement tonight before we leave.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his extraordinary work on this particular amendment and appreciate very much his advocacy and the effort he has made throughout the day to make the case. He and others have spoken eloquently and very persuasively. There is little else I can add. Nevertheless, I do want to touch on a number of issues largely for the purpose of emphasis. I think it is very critical that we have an opportunity to talk through this matter as carefully as we can. Let me also give great credit to our distinguished ranking member. I have had the good fortune to work with him on so many issues, and it is extraordinarily rare that I find myself in disagreement with him on anything. So for me to be in this position, in fact standing at his desk, is a very uncomfortable situation, to say the least.