John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Might I have 1 more minute?

Mr. GLENN. ``* * * meet the challenge of maintaining the reliability and safety of our nuclear inventory absent nuclear testing.'' They are convinced of that. These are our highest level people who deal with this. But the President has also assured us if there was any doubt of this, and it was brought to his attention, what he would do is say we have to come out of the treaty if there was any doubt about the safety of our stockpile or the reliability of it. With that kind of assurance, it seems to me the least we should do to show faith with our negotiators at Geneva is to make very, very certain we defeat this amendment tonight. Continuing the letter: There is a concern on the part of the cosponsors of the amendment that, if such a problem arose after September 30 but before the CTBT entered into force, current law would prohibit remedial testing. Mr. President, I do not accept such reasoning. We have quite a legacy of testing that gives us high confidence in our nuclear arsenal, a legacy backed up today and tomorrow by the Stockpile Stewardship program. And if we support our negotiators, rather than undercut them with initiatives that cast doubt on America's resolve to proceed with its commitment to a complete and total ban on all nuclear tests, our country's security will be all the better served. If that were to occur, it is important to recognize that one or more years would be required to prepare for any resumption of nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site. During this time, we would be able to obtain the necessary funding and legislative relief to carry out the necessary test. In short, the Administration believes that the Kyl-Reid Amendment is not only not necessary, but it also entails a genuine risk of delaying or derailing the CTBT negotiations just as we may well be poised to achieve a global ban on nuclear testing. Sincerely, William C. Danvers, Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to endorse the amendment offered by my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, and I ask unanimous consent that I be added as an original cosponsor. This amendment conveys to the Columbus Municipal Airport Authority approximately 240 acres of land owned by the Air Force. This parcel is part of an Air Force industrial facility which has operated at the site for a number of years. In 1988 during consideration of the fiscal year 1989 Defense authorization bill, Congress directed that the entire parcel of more than 400 acres be sold, and the proceeds from the sale be used to pay for the environmental remediation of the property. As a result of the 1988 legislation, the Air Force and the General Services Administration entered into an agreement to sell the property in 1992, with GSA acting as the Government's property manager. However, the Air Force and its contractors continued to use the facility until 1994. During this time, GSA made a determination after consulting with State and local authorities, that it would be in the best interest of all parties to divide the parcel into two pieces--a so-called industrial parcel and an airport parcel. GSA is currently marketing the industrial parcel and expects to complete the sale later this year. Since 1994 necessary actions, such as consultations with other Federal and DOD agencies, the State of Ohio Historical Preservation Office and some needed environmental remediation, have occurred. When this amendment was originally brought to my attention, I had some concerns. In particular, I was concerned that the amendment would disrupt the planned sale of the industrial parcel. I was also concerned that the airport parcel be screened for other Federal interest. It is my understanding that in the absence of the 1988 legislation, the airport parcel would be eligible for conveyance to the Columbus Municipal Airport Authority as a public benefit conveyance. The amendment now accomplishes the goal of a public benefit conveyance, under conditions of a satisfactory Federal screen, without affecting the sale of the industrial property. It is also my understanding that this amendment will not alter the fact that the Air Force is liable for the environmental remediation of the site. I am pleased to work with Senator DeWine on this amendment, and I congratulate him for offering it.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, members of this chamber have heard the Chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee and me speak on several occasions in opposition to funding unrequested military construction projects. Once again, I rise to speak in opposition to this on-going practice. The amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky would add additional funds for phase II of an Education Center at Fort Campbell and phase III of the Western Kentucky Training Range for the Army National Guard. I would like to voice my opposition to this amendment and express my support for the Chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee's second degree amendment which would require the Secretary of Defense to certify that these projects are in the military services' Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) before obligating the construction funds. During the Committee's markup of the defense authorization bill, the two projects addressed in the amendment were screened by the services to determine if the projects met the Committee's criteria. The services indicated, at that time, that the projects were not in the FYDP. However,, I understand that different information regarding these projects has been made available to the Committee. Given the conflicting data on these projects, I believe it is appropriate, as the Senator from Arizona's amendment would require, for the Secretary of Defense to certify information on these projects before the funds are released. As I have stated before, I will continue to work with the Chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee to reverse the practice of adding millions of dollars to the budget for unrequested projects.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I want to back the statement of the Senator from Nevada. There has been no committee hearing on this. This bill is pending before the Governmental Affairs Committee. We have not had the hearing, we have not had the Secret Service people up, and we have not had testimony on what the danger is. Much of it, as I understand it, is classified. So we can have closed hearings, and everybody would know then what we are doing. If we want to be this cavalier about how we are treating people at the White House, let us take all the flower pots out that protect the Capitol here, which prevent vehicular traffic here; let us take them out. I was amazed to find out that L'Enfant and George Washington did not somehow think it was nice to have a Capitol like this. But George Washington and L'Enfant did not have to deal with things like the Oklahoma bombing, the Unabomber, and everything else. We have not had the first hearing on this, and here we are voting to take this off from in front of the White House after danger has been assessed, and it is done by a bipartisan group--Coleman and Webster were both on that. We are so cavalier about the White House, why do we not include this and have a second-degree amendment and take off all the protection all over the Nation's Capital, including at the Capitol right here--if we are so brave about this. Let people pull their vans up beside the Russell Building, which is blocked off, and behind the Hart Building, where my office happens to be. We have very good reasons for thinking some of these protections are necessary and so does the White House. I think this vote was ridiculous. If we are going to take it off at the White House, take it off here and let us face the same danger together. Otherwise, let us agree with the people that have made this assessment, who were on this review committee, and say, yes, we need to assess this very carefully. We are about to do, with legislation, here what we should not be doing unless we have a very thorough hearing and understanding of the White House personnel. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Not long.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I have some short remarks--not a rebuttal but a discussion regarding some of the comments that have been made. Much has been made of this five-point criteria. Let me comment on that. Back some years ago, before we established the five-point criteria, the pork barreling that went on in the defense authorization bill was far worse than it is even now. The five-point criteria was never intended--and I think Senator McCain would back this up--to be the final goal, and that anything that fit those five criteria could somehow automatically be approved and be OK, whether the Pentagon or the President's budget asked for them or not. It was not supposed to be an end-all and be-all itself. It was supposed to be a way station to get toward having a budget put together by the Pentagon and sent here, which really meant what it said and it did not need us to add on everything else under the Sun. Nobody questions for a moment the fact that some of these housing projects are needed. But are they as important as some other things that are needed if the Pentagon had the choice to make that decision. So these five criteria, whether in the 5-year plan or future year plan, or whether mission-essential, or whether inconsistent with BRAC, when the contracts can be started or whether they are offset in some other defense account, all of these are things that were meant to tighten this up toward a way station toward getting control and budgeting the way we ought to. Whether the criteria apply or not does not mean to me they are automatically OK and that we should automatically approve them if they come in with a 5-year plan, which means we are stepping out of what the Pentagon might want to use the money for and projecting the money out to a 5-year future. So making so much out of this criteria was not meant to be the end-all or the final goal of this at all. Now, another thing was mentioned in debate--that the Guard and Reserve are only getting $7 million. We go through an annual ritual every spring on the Guard and Reserve. It does not make any difference what administration is in the White House. We have an annual ritual where they underfund, through the Pentagon, the Guard and Reserve. I think it is done intentionally. It is done by Republican administrations and Democratic administrations. Why? Because they know good and well that we will put it in over here so the Members can take this coup back to benefit their local areas in the local armory, money to run the local armory, money to milk on it, money to rebuild the local armory, and these are things people were bringing back home, waving the flag that we did this for you in Washington. Every administration knows that the Guard and Reserve have a big enough constituency out there that that will happen. It happens every single year. I think it is time we put a stop to it. That is the reason I think we should have honesty in budgeting. This should not be an annual budget that lets people just bring home the bacon to the local armories as a way of funding this year in and year out. It should be done on a basis of what the Guard's and Reserve's needs are. That should be established by the Guard Bureau, working closely with the Pentagon in determining what the budget will be. So if we want to appropriate $600 million, if we went back to the Pentagon and said, we know you need some things in MilCon, in housing; you need a lot of things, but we will put this in and let the Pentagon decide, let you prioritize where the greatest needs in the services are, then this might make even a little bit more sense. But it does not to me. Let me comment on what the Senator from Georgia said a little while ago about the add-on of $11.5 billion. I agree 100 percent with him on that. That is the reason I voted against this bill when it came out, and I will still do that if that $11.5 billion add-on stays in. I have not voted against authorization and appropriations bills for the Defense Department--except for beginning last year--in all the 21-plus years that I have been here now. I agree with him on that. I do not think that add-on was needed. I disagreed with the purpose for which it was added on. Some of those have been addressed in amendments here today. We have had a chance to vote on them. I think that what we are trying to do is get honesty in budgeting. That is the purpose of this. The five-point criteria was never meant to be the final goal of all of this. If anything came up and qualified under that criteria, we would say, that is all right, it is approved. That was meant to be a means of trying to get some control over budgeting, which we did have some years ago, in the amount of add-ons we would make, it seemed. This was a way station toward getting to more meaningful budgeting. I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, there is not a single Senator here who does not go back home and talk all the time about how we want a balanced budget. We want a balanced budget very badly. We have the President's plan we put forward in 1993, we have the Democratic plan, Republican plan, and we all take great pride in how we want to balance the budget. Yet, when it comes down to actually doing something practical, if it impinges just a little bit in our area, or if we are not able to bring home some of the pork we would like to bring home, pump up the way people look at us back home, then our talk about budget balancing gets pretty thin around here. That is what we are talking about and that is what Senator McCain has been addressing. This amendment would cut nearly $600 million which was included in the bill for unrequested military construction. These are things the Pentagon did not say they needed. These were things the administration did not say we needed. We did not have to have this money in there. These are add-ons, strictly add-ons. Granted, many of these are going to family housing projects and things like that. But these were not the priorities that the administration established or the Defense Department established or the Army, Navy and Marine Corps established as what they would rather have if the $600 million was available to be spent for whatever. These are things that Members of Congress just decided in their own wisdom to put in. As the Senator from Arizona has indicated, too many times it appears that these efforts to put good things in just happen to be in the home district or just happen to be in the home State. They just happen to be add-ons that all total up to $600 million. So when we talk about balancing the budget down here, are we going to walk the walk as well as talk the talk? That is basically what we are talking about. Some years ago here, I think it was 3 or maybe 4 years ago, this idea of the pork creeping into every defense authorization bill had become so rampant, had become so out of control, that the Senator from Arizona and I started a policy. We got this through as sort of sense-of-the- Senate language that any add-ons would have to meet some criteria. We would use these as a benchmark. That does not mean they should go in if they met these five criteria; it just means we had to make a compromise and stop some of the runaway pork that was put into this legislation every year. So what did we do? We put in several criteria. It had to be mission- essential for the long term, the future; No. 2, it could not be inconsistent with BRAC, the base closure procedure; it had to be in the 5-year defense plan; it had to be executed in the next fiscal year or at least start the contract then; and, No. 5, it had to be offset by a reduction in some other defense account if you are going to make an add-on. That does not mean if it met these five criteria automatically you should try to put it in and goody-grab in the budget or authorization bill if it meets those five criteria. We set these criteria because that stopped some of the even more rampant requests, things that were put in the budget back then that were even worse than the things we see right now. What happened when we take this sense-of-the-Senate criteria and apply it this year? Madam President, 25 added projects do not meet some of the criteria. It does not mean they do not meet some of them; they do. Are any of them offset by our defense accounts? No, they are not. They do not meet that criteria at all. But the basic objection is just in principle, adding funds for unrequested military construction projects. Our objection to it remains the same. During the Senate Armed Services Committee markup, as an example, our subcommittee, which Chairman McCain chairs and which I am the ranking minority on, we recommended some additions in the subcommittee to be passed by the full committee. They were substantial increases in areas we had discussed with the Pentagon. They thought they could use some more money in these areas so we recommended in the subcommittee some additions of about $100 million, additions for high priority housing projects--we agreed on that. But the subcommittee allowed the Department of Defense to determine the allocation of those projects. We did not look around the room and say, ``What Senator is here we can please? What Senator can we help get reelected? What Senator can we do a favor for?'' No, we put that money in because the Defense Department indicated they could use it, and they could make the choice, they could make the choice on where the greatest need was. That was our basic criteria in markup this year, and I think it was a very sound one. Let DOD decide where their greatest need is, not try to come back and do a favor for one or more of our Members. Senator McCain and I both voted against additions of the $600 million in unrequested MilCon when it was offered in our markup. But we lost that vote, obviously. What is the cumulative effect of all this? Since 1990, it has added up to real money, as some would say here. This is not just peanuts anymore. Since 1990, we have added more than $6 billion--$6 billion--to MilCon accounts. Now we are going to add another $600 million in unrequested projects with what we are doing here. Our overall defense budget has gone down meanwhile, so, when we make add-ons like this, they assume a more important role than they would have even normally, because they become a greater percentage of what our total military expenditures are. The defense budget has gone down about 40 percent, yet we are going ahead with these things that benefit primarily our Members. The priority of these added projects? Do we need them now? It is my understanding that, of the 115 added projects, 72 were planned for the year 2000 or later. That does not make them very necessary right now. In the unrequested projects, almost $350 million out of the $600 million was added for these projects that are planned for after the turn of the century. No wonder the Defense Department did not request things like this. No wonder there were higher priorities in the defense budget. So, why do we put these in? Although we objected, they are put in mainly because particular Members want to do something in their States. They want to bring home the bacon. We must be realistic. This bill is $1.7 billion above the defense budget target set in the fiscal 1997 budget resolution now. That means we have to cut out some of the programs added, and when we get to conference with the House, how are we going to do that? What is going to be cut? Will these be out of the procurement accounts? Is that what we are going to do? Will MilCon be cut when Members just succeeded in getting something in for their States or their home districts? MilCon is probably going to be the last thing that gets cut. So we will wind up, instead of spending some of this $600 million for much- needed modernization equipment that we will really need if we get into any future conflict, we are going to spend it for these other things that were add-ons that people wanted for their particular area. As I understand it, the House has already passed their bill. They added, in their bill, some $900 million to the MilCon request, almost $1 billion. You know what is going to come out of the conference. What usually comes out of the conference--not cutting back on those MilCon projects, because that would offend some members of the committee who were just successful in getting these projects in for their home State. So we are looking forward to a conference committee which usually will not cut these accounts. So if we are going to cut them, it is going to have to be here, and it will have to be done with the proposal of the Senator from Arizona, his proposal that I support very, very strongly. It is not easy to be out on point, trying to do something like this. I will say that. He and I have both received a lot of flak over the past 3 or 4 years as we have tried to cut back some of these things. We have had Members come back to us and criticize us, criticize us for being unfair and all sorts of things. I do not have any problem at all standing for some of these cuts. We have been proud to make this effort. I will say this: I think we have been somewhat successful with this in reducing the total amount, the total amount through the years that people have requested. I will not say we have scared people off, but let us say we have made some of them think twice, anyway, about some of these things. So the requests have been going down, and we can probably point to where, compared with last year, we probably have gone from about $4 billion you can point to as questionable down to only about $2 billion this year. Is that good? No, it is not very good. But it is better than we thought we might do last year, I will say that. So maybe we are having an impact. Maybe we are heading, really, in the right direction. But what it comes down to is, are we going to talk about budgets and talk and talk about budgets and act as though we are doing something around here all the time and worry about little tiny amounts, comparatively speaking, in the budget? Or are we going to really do something about it? Here is what we do when it comes to trying to get something for our own States, or Members of the House of Representatives trying to get something for their districts so they can point with great pride, make a headline when they are up for reelection: I brought back the park on this. I got that road intersection, or I got something in there that is part of this $600 million. Are we doing this for campaign purposes or are we doing it because the Pentagon really needs this as a priority item to really fulfill our defense needs? Most of these things, by that criteria, do not even deserve to be talked about as far as being necessary. Most of them are add-ons that are favors to particular Members, and we know it, and anybody who works on this legislation knows it also. So I say, let us just keep after this. I know Senator McCain is committed to keeping after it. I am, too. I believe he wants to call for a rollcall vote on this, and I certainly support that. For all the reasons I have stated above, I support this. I urge our colleagues to put the budget ahead of their own parochial interests, perhaps. He and I have not added things in for our own State on this. I have not added a thing. There are things in here for Ohio, but not that I asked for. I think he is in the same status, as far as Arizona goes. So we are walking the walk on this ourselves. We are not just talking about this and talking against someone else and goody grabbing ourselves. This is something we feel strongly about. We feel this $600 million was not requested, and we think when you look at it that we can do without these things and, hopefully, get the Pentagon to prioritize what they want and support their budget, not what we can add on over here. I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support S. 1579, the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996. This legislation amends the Single Audit Act of 1984. It is a bipartisan good government bill that will both improve financial management of Federal funds and reduce paperwork burdens on State and local governments, universities and other nonprofit organizations that receive Federal assistance. I am happy that the chairman of the Government Affairs Committee, Senator Stevens, joined with me in co-sponsoring the bill, as did Senators Levin, Cochran, Pryor, Cohen, Lieberman, Brown and Grassley. The legislation was reported unanimously by the Government Affairs Committee. And we have an identical bill moving through the House of Representatives--H.R. 3184, introduced by Representative Steve Horn. Over the last several years we have made great strides in reforming the sloppy and wasteful state of Federal financial management. The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, which I strongly support, was a major accomplishment in this regard. Much more remains to be done, however, to achieve greater accountability for the hundreds of billions of dollars of Federal assistance that go to or through State and local governments and nonprofit organizations. Much more also remains to be done to reduce the auditing and reporting burdens of the Federal assistance management process. The Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 goes a long way toward achieving these goals. The Single Audit Act was enacted in 1984 to overcome serious gaps and duplications that existed in audit coverage over Federal funds provided to State and local governments, which now amount to about $250 billion a year. Some governments rarely saw an auditor interested in examining Federal funds, others were swamped by auditors, each looking at a separate grant award. The Single Audit Act remedied that problem by changing the audit focus from compliance with individual Federal grant requirements to a periodic single overall audit of the entity receiving Federal assistance. The act also set specific dollar thresholds to exempt recipients that receive relatively small amounts of Federal assistance from regular audit requirements. In passing the original legislation, Congress considered the benefits and costs and developed criteria that exposed the vast majority of Federal assistance to State and local governments to audit coverage. This structured approach of entity-wide audits simplified overlapping audit requirements and improved grantee-organization administrative controls. The Single Audit Act also served an important purpose of prompting State and local governments to improve their general financial management practices. The act encouraged the governments to review and revise their financial management practices, including instituting annual financial statement audits, installing new accounting systems, and implementing monitoring systems. The improvements represented long- needed and long-lasting financial management reforms. Studies by the General Accounting Office [GAO] confirmed these accomplishments. The success of the act also prompted the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] in 1990 to apply single audit principles to educational institutions and other nonprofit organizations that receive or passthrough Federal funds--OMB Circular No. A-133, ``Audits of Institutions of Higher Education and Other Nonprofit Organizations,'' issued in March 1990, revised in April 1996. During my tenure as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I requested that GAO study the implementation of the Single Audit Act and suggest any needed changes. The resulting report, ``Single Audit: Refinements Can Improve Usefulness'' (GAO/AIMD-94-133, June 1994), reviewed the successes of the act, but also pointed out specific modifications that could improve the act's usefulness. The legislation we bring to the Senate today is based on GAO's findings as well as studies by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency and National State Auditors Association. The bill was developed in cooperation with GAO and OMB. Moreover, OMB recently revised its Circular A-133 consistent with the purposes of this legislation. However, the circular continues to apply only to nonprofit organizations--State and local governments are not covered. With the passage of this legislation, OMB will be able to take the next step and consolidate its grant audit requirements in one circular. Finally, the bill also reflects comments received from State, local, and private sector accounting and audit professionals, as well as program managers. Altogether, the legislation will strengthen the act, while simultaneously reducing its burdens. First, the legislation extends the act to cover nonprofit organizations that receive Federal assistance. Again, these organizations are currently subject to the single audit process under OMB Circular A-133. Broadening the act's coverage in this way ensures that all non-Federal grantee organizations will be covered uniformly by one single audit process. Second, the bill reduces audit and related paperwork burdens by raising the single audit threshold from $100,000 to $300,000. This will exempt thousands of smaller State and local governments and nonprofit organizations that receive relatively small amounts of Federal assistance from Federal single audit requirements. It will still ensure, however, that the vast majority of Federal funds will be subject to audit testing. Needless to say, it will also reinforce the ability of Federal agencies to audit or investigate grantees when needed to safeguard Federal funds. Third, the bill will improve audit effectiveness by establishing a risk-based approach for selecting programs to be tested during single audits for adequacy of internal controls and compliance with Federal program requirements, such as eligibility of participants and allowability of costs. The Single Audit Act has required audit testing solely on the basis of dollar criteria. Using a risk-based approach will ensure coverage of programs that present the highest risk to the Federal Government. Fourth, the legislation improves the contents and timeliness of single audit reporting to make the reports more useful. Currently, auditors often include many different documents in a single audit report. These documents are designed to comply with auditing standards but leave users confused. A summary document, written in plain language, would greatly increase the usefulness of single audit reports. Report users would be able to quickly discern which entities are having problems administering Federal programs and consequently need additional oversight. Shortening the reporting time frame will also make the single audit reports more useful. The current practice of filing reports 13 months after the end of the year that was audited significantly reduces their utility. An ideal period would be the Government Finance Officers Association's standard of 6 months for timely reporting by State and local governments. However, given the numerous audits that some State auditors have to perform, the legislation establishes a 9-month standard. Moreover, the legislation establishes a 2-year transition period for entities to comply with the faster reporting and gives flexibility for extensions as needed. The overall goal, still, is to shorten the reporting time frame to make the single audit reports more useful to assess the stewardship of organizations entrusted with Federal funds and to prompt any needed corrective actions. Fifth, the legislation increases administrative flexibility. OMB is authorized to issue rules to implement the act and may revise certain audit requirements, as needed, without seeking amendments to the act. For example, OMB will be authorized to raise even higher the $300,000 threshold. Auditors also will have greater flexibility to target programs at risk. In these and other ways, the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 will streamline the underlying Single Audit Act, update its requirements, reduce burdens, and provide for more flexibility. This legislation builds on the significant accomplishments of the 1984 act and I am confident that my colleagues will agree that this legislation should be broadly supported by the Senate. In December 1995, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs held a hearing on the status of Federal financial management, including the Single Audit Act. Charles Bowsher, the Comptroller General, and Kurt Sjoberg, the California State Auditor who represented the National State Auditors Association, strongly supported the legislation and recommended that it be enacted. Edward DeSeve, Office of Management and Budget Controller, also applauded the legislative effort. The support of the Comptroller General and the State auditors is especially important. The Comptroller General was instrumental in advising the Congress when the original Single Audit Act was enacted. He followed the subsequent implementation of the act and has made the recommendations for improving the act that was the basis for the current legislation. I give great weight to his recommendations for amending the Single Audit Act. State auditors, for their part, are key players in the single audit process. They conduct or arrange for thousands of single audits each year. So, their views are also critically important. Following the December hearing, the National State Auditors Association met to discuss the legislation and decided unanimously to support its enactment. The President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency Audit Committee also submitted a letter in support of the legislation. I ask that their letters of support be included in the Record. On April 18, 1996, the Committee on Government Affairs marked up S. 1579 and voted unanimously to send the bill to the floor for a vote. Again, this bi-partisanship also extends to the House of Representatives, where an identical bill (H.R. 3184) was introduced on March 28, 1996 by Representative Horn and four cosponsors. The House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform and Oversight voted the bill out of committee on April 25, 1996. With this bipartisan support, I am sure that this good Government legislation can soon become law. In closing, let me just say that good Government legislation such as the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 is often overlooked and discounted. It is unimportant to many, boring to most. But it is just this sort of nuts and bolts legislation that is needed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our Government. The end result of enactment of S.. 1579 will be a Government more accountable to its people. To reach this point, we have had the help of colleagues on each side of the aisle, as I have said. We have also had the assistance of, and need to thank, the Comptroller General, Charles Bowsher, and his staff--most especially, Jerry Skelly--we would not be here today without Jerry's tireless work. I'd also like to thank Kurt Sjoberg, the California State Auditor, Woody Jackson, OMB's Deputy Controller, John Mercer with Senator Stevens, Anna Miller on Representative Horn's staff, and David Plocher on my staff--all have contributed greatly to this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, again, I ask unanimous consent that letters of endorsement of S. 1579 from the National State Auditors Association and the Audit Committee of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, as well as a summary of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to present some brief remarks about the latest Republican missile defense proposal, the Defend America Act. Though I have spoken at some length on missile defense issues and the Anti-Ballistic Missile [ABM] Treaty--see Congressional Record, September 6, 1995, p. S-12659-12667, and August 3, 1995, p. 11253-11255--I want to take this opportunity to explain how it is not only possible for a patriotic U.S. Senator to vote against a bill bearing such a proud title, but to do so without hesitation. In good conscience, I just do not believe that the national security interests of the United States would be advanced by this legislation and would like now to outline my reasons why I have come to this conclusion. the abm treaty First, I believe the ABM Treaty is worth preserving. This bill sets a course that will lead inevitably to a U.S. departure from that treaty. this is reason enough to oppose this bill. The ABM Treaty has advanced U.S. security interests and it has done so without unilaterally restricting America's ability to defend itself, as some of the treaty's critics have suggested. Critics forget that the treaty is bilateral and has substantially restricted Russia's freedom both to deploy its own defenses against or strategic missiles and to proliferate strategic missile defense systems to other countries. The demise of the ABM Treaty would release Russia from those restrictions. The treaty has worked to help preserve and stabilize nuclear deterrence, which remains a vital element in maintaining our national security even in a post-cold-war world. I do not believe that the treaty has unduly restricted U.S. missile defense options. We have already spent a fortune on missile defense and have little to show for it. A recent study by the Brookings Institution has concluded that America has already spent some $99 billion dollars on missile defense since 1962. and contrary to the blanket claim by some of the proponents of the pending legislation, our Government is aggressively working to improve U.S. defenses against theater missile attacks. Indeed, it is the present administration that is spearheading our national effort to place theater missile defense at the forefront of our missile defense priorities. Because the ABM Treaty does not prohibit the United States from investing in theater missile defenses, the treaty is an inappropriate target of the repeated Republican attacks we have been seeing in recent years. The ABM Treaty is not unchangeable. It has specific provisions for consultations leading to amendments of the treaty. These provisions do not include, however, the freedom for one side to pass legislation unilaterally reinterpreting key provisions of the treaty. The current bill, however, accelerates the deployment of antiballistic missile systems that have capabilities against strategic ballistic missiles. It also specifically includes air-based, space-based, and all ground-based interceptors as elements of the national missile defense architecture, despite the requirement in the ABM Treaty that such systems shall not be developed, tested, or deployed. I believe that America's interests are best preserved by sticking to the consultative procedures provided in the ABM Treaty and for adapting the treaty to changing conditions only via this process of mutual agreement. cost Enough has been said and written about the sky-rocketing costs of missile defense. I will not add much to this discussion other than to echo the concerns that people across the Nation have been expressing about the staggering $99 billion that the Brookings Institution has estimated that the United States has already spent since 1962 on missile defense systems. This, coupled with the Congressional Budget Office's recent estimate that the Defend America Act will cost the U.S. taxpayer as much as another $60 billion--and this does not include operation costs--leads to a form of ``sticker shock'' that comes close to rivaling GAO's estimated $250 billion that will be needed to clean up our nuclear weapons complex. It is worth noting here that the current U.S. funding levels and priorities for missile defense have been solidly and consistently supported by both the military and intelligence communities. the threat Thanks to the leadership of this administration, we are focusing our missile defense expenditures on real threats, that is to say, theater missile threats, rather than nonexistent ICBM threats from so-called rogue nations that our entire national security establishment continues to define as long-term in nature. This threat definition has the support of the Secretary of Defense, the Director of Central Intelligence, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other top U.S. national security officials throughout the Government. Incidentally, it also has the overwhelming support of editorial opinion from newspapers from across the country. The Defend America Act, however, operates from a fundamentally different set of assumptions. It assumes the present existence of a grave missile threat to America's homeland and it presumes that the best way to address missile threats is via expensive taxpayer-funded missile defense projects. Nobody disputes that missile proliferation is a danger that America must take seriously in the years ahead, and indeed, it is a deep awareness of this threat that has driven a wide range of U.S. efforts aimed at the nonproliferation of ballistic missiles. Our approach is not driven narrowly by the dream of a technical fix--which will always remain out of reach--but a combination of technological, political, and diplomatic efforts not just to defend ourselves against imminent attacks, but more importantly, to prevent the acquisition of destabilization missile systems in the first place, to retard or reverse the growth of existing missile systems, and to eliminate outright missile systems via multilateral negotiations. With respect to dealing with the missile proliferation threat, let me put it this way: the best Defend America Act is one that would strengthen export controls, strengthen sanctions, strengthen multilateral regimes, strengthen transparency of missile projects around the world, eliminate destabilizing missile systems, and improve U.S. capabilities to collect and to analyze data about missile proliferation. Yet there is absolutely nothing in this bill that addresses this integrated, global approach to the problem. Instead, the present bill proposes to force the President to throw vast sums of money to deploy technical fixes that are neither fixes nor based on proven technology. Small wonder that proponents of the proposed legislation are finding themselves defending the Defend America Act rather than elaborating a new road map for addressing the missile threat in a more comprehensive manner. A legislatively mandated deployment of a national missile defense system by the year 2003 would actually increase the threat to the United States--it would jeopardize the capabilities of our nuclear deterrent force, it would be accompanied by an expansion of the offensive nuclear arsenals of both Russia and the United States, it would probably mean the end of the START process of strategic arms reductions, it would eliminate all hopes of getting nuclear arsenals, and it could well jeopardize the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, as more and more countries come to realize that the nuclear weapon states are not serious about implementing their arms control disarmament responsibilities under the treaty. To this extent, the Defend America Act resembles more accurately an Attack America Act. America has many options available to address the missile threat aside from the nostrums offered by star wars. Diplomatically, we are working to reduce and to reverse the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction. Militarily, we are investing in the finest conventional military capabilities that exist anywhere on Earth, and they are backed up by the finest global intelligence capabilities on Earth. Why must we continually denigrate or short change these capabilities in congressional debates on missile defense? Advocates of the pending legislation appear sometimes to believe that America just has no option to address missile threats other than buying missile defense hardware. I believe we should be voting here today to expand our effort on the diplomatic front to address these threats, while maintaining our conventional military and intelligence capabilities, but there is nothing in this bill that would justify such a vote. technology It is an extremely difficult and often underestimated challenge to use a missile to shoot down another missile. As I have mentioned earlier, the $99 billion our country has already spent on missile defense has not yet produced any comprehensive or reliable defense against incoming strategic missiles. It is far easier to prevent missile attacks by eliminating missiles, preventing their proliferation, and developing multilateral sanctions and export controls, than it is to develop and deploy a magic missile shield that would span our vast country. Even the theater missile systems--including THAAD, Navy Lower Tier, Navy Theater-Wide, and MEADS--that are called for in this legislation require substantial additional research and testing before any responsible deployment would be possible. PAC-III is the only one of the many systems identified for deployment in this bill that will be ready for deployment anytime soon. The administration has its priorities straight and I believe these priorities are in line with what most Americans would regard as prudent--we must address current threats first and keep our powder dry in the event future threats arise. We must redouble our diplomatic efforts to ensure that those threats do not arise. The current bill would not only aggravate the foreign missile threat, for the reasons I have discussed earlier, but would compel the President to deploy expensive and unproven missile defense systems. conclusion For all the reasons above, I cannot support this legislation. Yet the debate today and various foreign and defense policy debates in recent months has revealed not only some severe shortcomings in this legislation. The debate also reveals the apparent inability of the Republican Party to come up with a comprehensive, integrated plan of action to guide America's military and diplomatic priorities over the course of the last Presidential term of this millennium. Where does the Republican Party stand on nonproliferation? What does it have to offer to strengthen export controls? What is it doing to toughen U.S. sanctions and ensure their implementation? Where are the Republican votes when we need them when it comes to strengthening sanctions and export controls? What is it proposing to address proliferation threats arising from outside the narrow domain of Russia and the rogue regimes, a field of vision which features a blind eye as its prominent characteristic? What is it offering to strengthen international organizations and regimes to prevent proliferation or to increase its costs? While the administration proceeds with diplomatic efforts to curb North Korea's nuclear and missile programs, what besides SDI do the Republicans have to offer that stands a better chance of addressing these threats? What does it propose to do about the ongoing arms race in South Asia involving nuclear weapons and missiles, and how will its SDI schemes protect our allies, including Israel, against threats from weapons of mass destruction that are not delivered by missiles? What does it offer to address the grave threats posed from expanding international commercial uses of plutonium, one of the deadliest elements on Earth? The answer, unfortunately, is absolutely nothing. I stand ready to work closely with my fellow colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join in forging effective responses to these threats. I know such cooperation is possible; indeed, none of the nonproliferation legislation that I have authored over the years would have been possible without it. But I hardly believe that there is anything in the Defend America Act [DAA] that offers any basis whatsoever for forging a bipartisan consensus. Because of this, Mr. President, I believe that history will relabel the DAA as DOA.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, at the request of the administration, I rise to introduce The Federal Employment Reduction Assistance Act of 1996. This legislative proposal is modeled after the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994, which provided Federal civilian agencies with authority to offer voluntary separation incentives for a 1-year period that ended March 31, 1995. I was the chief sponsor of the 1994 legislation. Approximately 115,100 Federal employees voluntarily resigned or retired during the first buyout program. In addition, 40,000 more agreed to leave under a delayed departure program and will leave this year or next. The Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1996 contains the following proposals: The authority for separation incentives begins with enactment of the act and continues until September 30, 2000. The amount of the buyout incentive would be the lesser of the amount that the employee's severance pay would be or whichever of the following amounts is applicable based on separation in accordance with the agency plan: $25,000 in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. $20,000 in fiscal year 1998. $15,000 in fiscal year 1999. $10,000 in fiscal year 2000. Any employee who receives an incentive and then accepts any paid employment with the Government within 5 years after separating would have to repay the entire amount of the incentive payment to the agency that paid the incentive. This provision could be waived only under stringent circumstances of agency need. Agencies are required to pay an amount into the civil service retirement trust fund equal to 15 percent of the final basic pay of each employee who is accepting a buyout. Agencies are required to reduce their full-time equivalent [FTE] employment by one for each buyout. OMB approval would be required for all agency buyout plans. The legislation would only apply to civilian agencies. DOD would continue to operate its own buyout program. In addition, the proposed legislation includes some softening provisions for agencies that must institute reductions-in-force [RIF's]: The bill would authorize agencies to allow employees to volunteer for a separation during a RIF if this would prevent the involuntary separation of another employee in a similar situation. Employees who volunteered would receive severance pay. The DOD authorization bill also contains this proposal. Employees involuntarily separated under RIF's could continue their health insurance coverage for up to 18 months while continuing to pay only the premium that would apply to current employees. Mr. President, previous buyout legislation was preeminently successful in helping to reduce the number of Federal employees but accomplished the downsizing in a fair and equitable manner. Overall, including the buyout program, there are now some 208,000 fewer civil service employees than there were when this administration came into office. That's a real success story. In fact, Federal employment is now at its lowest point since John F. Kennedy. This buyout legislation will help to continue that trend. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Senate Concurrent Resolution 57, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997. While I support the committee's efforts to balance the budget, I cannot agree with the means by which that balance is achieved. It is ironic that the committee's proposed budget resolution appears to soften the hard edge of many of the funding cuts proposed in last year's vetoed reconciliation legislation. The committee recognized the need to make the cuts look less draconian, yet, cuts similar to those from last year's failed attempt remain. The committee's budget resolution merely pays lipservice to the fact that it could not garner the support it needed to succeed last year, because it tries to include similar cuts by disguising them in a 6-year rather than a 7-year program, by rescoring the cuts to make them look smaller, and, in the instance of Medicaid, by reformulating the way the cut is made so that the true cut can be made at the State level rather than at the Federal level. I guess we are to chalk it up to election year politics, but the budget resolution before us asks us to ignore our experience last year when we witnessed the so-called train wreck that caused the Government to shut down twice. And, we are to ignore the progress, albeit, limited in some areas, made in negotiations between the congressional leadership and the White House. This budget resolution, in many instances, marks a disavowal of the last offer made in January by the majority in the ongoing budget negotiations. Instead, particularly in the case of welfare and other nondefense discretionary spending, we are asked to support a return to the kinds of funding decisions that closed the Government twice last year. When you make an apples-to-apples comparison with last year's failed welfare measure, the combined cuts to welfare programs, like aid to families with dependent children, supplemental security income and food stamps, are essentially the same. The cuts in nondefense discretionary funding are deeper than the January offer made to the President but not quite as deep as the vetoed reconciliation bill. However, since the House adopted the deepest cuts yet proposed in nondefense discretionary funding, it seems an almost certainty that we are headed back to the levels contemplated in last year's failed reconciliation bill when we get to conference. The Republican budget continues its attack on education and training. The budget resolution caps the direct student loan program at 20 percent and, to use the majority's convenient euphemism, it freezes funding for Pell grants work study programs. Further, the budget resolution terminates funding for the AmericaCorps National Service Program. Mr. President, these changes to higher education would continue the majority's efforts to make it harder for working families and their children to finance a college education. If these proposed cuts and changes are to become law, many students will see the doors closed to the opportunities and choices a college education can open up for them. Other students and their families will see their options for financing an education narrowed. OMB estimates that the student loan cap would eliminate 1,100 schools and 1.6 million students from participation, just in the upcoming academic year. When extended over the life of the budget program, this cap would deny direct lending opportunities to 7 million borrowers. Mr. President, that's not what this country stands for. We must ensure that working middle-income families will be able to afford to provide higher educational opportunities to their children. The Republican budget again proposes to cut all funding for the first major new education reform bill passed by Congress in the past two decades. Goals 2000 is a comprehensive national attempt to help our schools achieve their goals of producing informed citizens and a skilled, competitive work force for the future. I believe it is extremely shortsighted for the Republicans to continue to propose eliminating this important program. The budget resolution freezes funding--again, there's that euphemism for what amounts to a cut--for Head Start and chapter 1, the most successful programs designed to get our children ready for school and for teaching basic skills, hampering our efforts to reform public education in this country. I cannot support these proposals which will scale back our commitment to public education in this country. In another critical area in nondefense discretionary funding, Mr. President, the budget resolution uses funding cuts to weaken environmental protection and to decrease the Government's ability to improve public health and safety. While targeting environmental programs for particularly harsh cuts, this budget resolution also effectively makes policy changes that should be enacted through regular legislative means. This measure assumes revenues from opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration and development. The Coastal Plain of this wildlife refuge is one of our few remaining ecological treasures, containing 18 major rivers, and providing a habitat for 36 species of land mammals and over 30 fish species. The wilderness and environmental values of this area are irreplaceable. The environmental values of this area are far greater than any short-term economic gain from oil and gas development. Unfortunately, Mr. President, these are the kinds of tradeoffs, taking away educational opportunities at all levels, from preschool through postsecondary education, gutting environmental programs, and ruining ecological treasures, all in order to make a politically expedient tax cut and, as we'll see when we move to the defense authorization bill, to waste billions of dollars in the defense accounts on programs we don't need. I can't agree to this, Mr. President. But, sadly, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Let's take a look at the proposed cut to the earned income tax credit, a tax credit designed to assist low-income working families stay off the welfare rolls. It's true that the proposed cut is less than last year's failed reconciliation package, but it is significantly deeper than that proposed by the majority in January during the budget negotiations. Moreover, it is almost twice as large as the cut proposed by the National Governor's Association. And, curiously, it seems to be at odds with a proposal made during the minimum wage debate in the House that the earned income tax credit should be expanded as an alternative to raising the minimum wage. The majority party says it is offering a tax cut. With the proposed cuts in the earned income tax credit, never mind the advertised tax cut, the best some working families can hope for is that their taxes won't go up. A similar sleight of hand occurs with respect to Medicaid. The amount of Federal funding proposed to be cut is less than the latest budget offer made in January. The hitch is, the budget resolution changes the contribution that States are required to make. This change allows 80 percent of the cuts proposed last year to be made. Moreover, not only does the budget resolution cut Federal Medicaid payments to the States by $72 billion, it does not specify how the cuts would be made. I assume that the Republicans still support block granting Medicaid funds. I am opposed to this proposal because of the adverse impact it would have on children in low-income families, the disabled, and the elderly who require nursing home care. When you get to Medicare, again, you have to pay attention to the fine print. The size of the cut, $168 billion, is the same as that proposed in the last offer but the difference here is the cut is taken in a shorter period of time, over a 6-year program rather than a 7-year program. So, the majority again greatly reduces Medicare funding for the elderly in order to provide a tax cut for wealthy Americans. The budget resolution's reduction of $168 billion in Medicare means that the growth in spending per beneficiary will be less than the projected growth in spending in the private sector which insures a younger, healthier population. I am concerned that these cuts and the proposed changes in the structure of the Medicare Program will adversely impact the quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries and will make it more expensive to individuals. Mr. President, we have debated this budget resolution over the course of several days and have had vigorous debate over a series of amendments which would have restored necessary funding in areas such as health care, education, job training, and environmental protection. Regrettably, these efforts did not succeed. But, the votes really have been just a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is clear that the majority isn't looking to compromise or learn from our painful experience last year. This legislation was never designed to engender my support and I certainly will not lend my support to it. In addition to the funding issues I have described, Mr. President, I feel compelled to discuss the unusual instruction contained in the budget resolution concerning the reporting out of three separate reconciliation bills. This instruction is objectionable because it unnecessarily expands the role of reconciliation in the budgeting process. Perhaps, more importantly, it is objectionable because it goes so far as to instruct the reporting out of a reconciliation bill that not only will not lower the deficit but undoubtedly will raise the deficit. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 4022

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I disagree strongly with this. I think it unfairly limits people in the future. It is an arbitrary attempt to attack the earned pension benefits of the more highly compensated Federal employees, both military and civilian. The higher paid employees receive higher pension benefits, and I think it is unfair to penalize some Federal employees because they were good at their job, because they were promoted and because they make a better salary in their retirement. Now, the amendment was defeated in the Budget Committee. It is brought up again here. It is, in effect, a future income cut for these people. Once again, we are trying to make our senior military and our civilians the whipping boys because of our failure on other budget matters. I think it is drastically unfair. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GLENN. Yes, because I disagree strongly with the amendment for reasons I just gave.

Mr. GLENN. I certainly want to know what the ruling would be in that case. I am not going to do it because I know what the decision would probably be.

Mr. GLENN. I yield.

Mr. GLENN. OK, I agree with that, if we have the agreement that if we lose on the voice vote, we will then have a record rollcall vote. That is fine. I trust all the people on our side will be in good voice.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, to say that a shockwave went across Capitol Hill yesterday when we heard about Mike Boorda's death would be an understatement. For those of us who knew him and worked with him very closely, it was not only a shock, it was an extreme shock. We thought of him as one of the most pleasant, smiling, outgoing, friendly persons that you ever dealt with across the river in the Pentagon, or anybody you ever dealt with on Capitol Hill as far as that matter goes. So we were all saddened to learn of his tragic death. He was a fine naval officer, who was doing a great job. We talk a lot about the American dream in this country, what it can mean, and how you can advance in this country. Mike Boorda actually lived it. He literally lived it. He was a high school dropout, who went in the Navy as a seaman second class. That is as low as you get when you enter at the bottom rung of the ladder. Over the years, he had such outstanding service that he became an officer. He was the very first person to go from the lowest rank in the Navy to the highest rank in the Navy, to his everlasting credit. I do not think there is anybody across the river that was more respected by the Members of Congress than Admiral Boorda. I worked with Mike for a number of years. I first got to know him, when I was chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee on Armed Services and he was the head of naval personnel. We dealt back and forth on personnel matters almost on a daily basis. If I ever knew anybody who I would term as a ``people person,'' it was Mike Boorda. He was so concerned with people that he would personally follow-up calls, not only individual cases, but about all the policies that were established that dealt with people. Those were his biggest concerns in those days, and they continued to be some of his biggest concerns after he became CNO, Chief of Naval Operations. We worked together, and he was concerned about such things as the promotion process, health matters, early-out legislation for people leaving the service, and pay and allowances for those staying in. The words he always would use repeatedly are, ``Well, are we treating these people fairly? Is this fair?'' That was a hallmark with him--to see that everybody in the Navy was treated fairly. I guess his enlisted background is what added to that concern about a sense of fairness, extending clear from the top to the bottom in the United States Navy. Less than a year ago, I flew with Mike down to Norfolk to commission the U.S.S. Toledo, one of our latest submarines. I remember walking with him, as he returned salutes to officers and enlisted personnel, and him suddenly saying, ``Come with me''. He broke ranks with the group and went over to where some sailors were standing to shake their hands. They were shocked that the CNO, with me in tow, would go out of his way to shake their hands. I cannot forget their smiles and I know they appreciated it very much. I think he did that because he had been there. He knew what it meant to them. He knew what it was like to grow up in the Navy. The Navy was more than a career to Mike Boorda, it was his home. Not many weeks ago, he asked me to come over and have breakfast--as he did with Senators and Members of Congress from time to time--to talk about matters pertaining to the Navy. It was the two of us, each with a staff person. We talked a little about Navy hardware and what they planned to procure for the future. But we spent most of our time talking about people. He was extremely concerned about the lasting effects of the Tailhook scandal, the problems at the Naval Academy, the challenges of placing women in combat roles aboard ships, and living conditions of his sailors and their families. Mike Boorda was always concerned about life in the military, and life in the Navy, in particular, especially for those who are required to be aboard ship and go out for extended deployments. He was concerned not only about the sailor, but also about the family at home--the wife, the children, who are left behind during those long deployments. I still do not think most people in this country realize the rigors of military service and give proper respect and consideration and appreciation for those in the military. That is particularly true in the Navy, because when we see a carrier abroad in the Adriatic, or a Navy ship deployed where there is a problem somewhere in the world, we should remember that the people manning that ship are people out away from their families, away from home. Those are the things that concerned Mike Boorda more than anything else--being fair and treating his people fairly. I rarely have seen anyone so dedicated to the welfare of the enlisted personnel of whatever service. It was the enlisted people of the Navy that looked to him for their representation, and he gave it heartily because he believed in it. He was an inspiration to everyone who served because he was one of them. I think he still looked at himself as an enlisted sailor in the ranks. I think he had a problem seeing himself elevated above everyone else as the Chief of Naval Operations. His concerns should not be forgotten. Those of us here will do everything to make sure they are not. We will try to represent his best wishes as he had expressed them through the years and make certain that all of his concerns for the people of the Navy are taken care of. I think there might be a little lesson here for all of us to learn from this tragedy. Things that seem important at the moment may, in the long term, prove to be of far less importance than the big things that we do in life. Whatever the cause of his death may have been, his memory in the Navy will be one of a person who was concerned about the people of the Navy, his loyalty to those people, and his desire to make sure that they were properly represented. That was his mission. Mike was a people person. Most of all, he was a good friend. Annie and I wish to express our deepest sympathy to Betty and his family. Our hearts go out to them and our thoughts and prayers are with them. We will all miss him. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally charged against both sides.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to temporarily suspend the duty on imports of certain methyl esters. These methyl esters are used by Procter & Gamble in the production of shampoo and other personal care products. Formerly, these products were eligible for the Generalized System of Preferences [GSP] program. However, as of January 1, 1997 Malaysia will no longer be eligible for GSP. My legislation is drafted very narrowly to cover only those very specific methyl ester mixtures which P & G imports from Malaysia. P & G's methyl ester imports are produced by a relatively recent joint venture. The first full year of the joint venture's production was 1994. The fact that there was duty free treatment under GSP was an important part of the decision to undertake the joint venture. The joint venture located production at the source of the raw material (palm kernel oil) and results in a cost efficient production process. While there are several companies in the U.S. that manufacture relatively small amounts of similar methyl esters, this production is almost entirely consumed in the manufacture of their own personal care products. Hence no opposition to the proposed duty suspension is anticipated.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to temporarily suspend the duty on imports of certain methyl esters. These methyl esters are used by Procter & Gamble in the production of shampoo and other personal care products. Formerly, these products were eligible for the Generalized System of Preferences [GSP] program. However, as of January 1, 1997 Malaysia will no longer be eligible for GSP. My legislation is drafted very narrowly to cover only those very specific methyl ester mixtures which P & G imports from Malaysia. P & G's methyl ester imports are produced by a relatively recent joint venture. The first full year of the joint venture's production was 1994. The fact that there was duty free treatment under GSP was an important part of the decision to undertake the joint venture. The joint venture located production at the source of the raw material (palm kernel oil) and results in a cost efficient production process. While there are several companies in the U.S. that manufacture relatively small amounts of similar methyl esters, this production is almost entirely consumed in the manufacture of their own personal care products. Hence no opposition to the proposed duty suspension is anticipated.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today in tribute to a great American, a great Ohioan, and a man who might truly be called ``Mr. Columbus''--Maury Portman. On May 20, Maury will retire as a Columbus City Councilman--and thus close a career that has spanned not only 42 years in Columbus city government, but also 3l years on Council and l2 of those as council President. I think it's fair to say that no single individual has done more to help Columbus grow from a mid-sized town in the l950's to the Nation's l6th largest city in the l990's than M.D. Portman. Indeed, virtually every major piece of progress Columbus has made over the past few decades has Maury's fingerprints on it. He wrote and sponsored the legislation creating the Columbus Department of Development, sponsored the legislation allocating city funds for the arts, sponsored the legislation creating the Municipal Airport Authority that runs Port Columbus, established various committees to curb racial tensions in the city, helped plan the outerbelt expressway around Columbus, worked to bring the Columbus City Center development to fruition and tirelessly lobbied me and my colleagues here in Washington to obtain Federal funds for a variety of neighborhood renewal projects. In short, it can accurately be said of Maury Portman that Columbus could not have held the last half of the 20th century without him. I think the editors at his hometown newspaper, the Columbus Dispatch put it well when they said: ``Portman has been able to function so effectively because he never had a personal agenda. His energies were directed not to what would help him get ahead, but what was in the best interest of the community.'' Mr. President, Maury Portman is a one-of-a-kind original. He personifies all that is best about public service. And the city of Columbus will miss his leadership greatly. I feel fortunate to have known and worked with Maury--and I am proud to call him my friend. And now that his retirement is imminent, I know I speak for thousands upon thousands of people in central Ohio when I say: ``Thank you, Maury.'' Thank you for caring; thank you for always giving your best; thank you for always being there. We all wish you and your beautiful wife, Alice, good luck and Godspeed in whatever you decide to do next. And please know that just as you always remembered Columbus, Columbus will never forget you.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, once again I rise to join my colleagues, and Armenian Americans in Ohio and across the Nation, to remember the Armenian genocide of 1915-1923. Over this period the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire was systematically destroyed. Some were killed, others left to die of deprivation, still others uprooted and expelled from their homeland. In the end, some 1.5 million Armenians perished and another 0.5 million were displaced. Evidence of the Armenian genocide is available from a number of sources, among the most compelling is the reporting of our own United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau. In a cable to the Secretary of State, Ambassador Morgenthau wrote: ``Deportation of and excesses against peaceful Armenians is increasing and from harrowing reports of eye witnesses it appears that a campaign of race extermination is in process under a pretext of reprisal against rebellion.'' Some may ask why it is important to take time each year to commemorate an event which occurred over half a century ago. In reply I would recall the reported observation of Adolph Hitler as he contemplated the ``final solution''--``Who remembers the Armenians?'' Today we remember the 1\1/2\-million victims of the Armenian genocide. Undeniably it is not comfortable to repeatedly revisit this tragedy, or to visit the Holocaust Memorial Museum, or to have contemporary atrocities played out nightly on our television screens, as in Bosnia or Rwanda. But we remember today, we did last year and the year before, so that we will not become complacent about or indifferent to any example of man's inhumanity to man, wherever and whenever it may occur. For in the words of Edmund Burke, ``the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.''

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of S. 1028, the Health Insurance Reform Act, I am pleased that the Senate is considering this important legislation, and I urge its passage. I commend Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy for their leadership in crafting this bipartisan measure which will help many working Americans keep important health insurance protection for themselves and their families. The purpose of the Health Insurance Reform Act is to ensure that people who have employer-provided health insurance will not lose their insurance if they change jobs, lose their jobs or become sick. This legislation makes changes in the private insurance market to protect employees, and to make insurance more affordable for small businesses and individuals. The Health Insurance Reform Act requires insurers and health maintenance organizations to provide and renew group coverage to employers with two or more employees who want to purchase it, and this coverage must be available to all employees regardless of their health status. In addition, this legislation makes insurance portable by limiting pre-existing condition exclusions and by requiring group to individual coverage. S. 1028 limits to 12 months exclusions for pre-existing conditions which occurred within the 6-month period prior to receiving insurance coverage. This 12-month limit will be imposed only one time for individuals who maintain continuous coverage even if they change jobs or insurance plans. Individuals who lose employer-provided health insurance will be guaranteed the opportunity to purchase an individual policy if they had continuous coverage for 18 months in a group plan, if they have exhausted their COBRA continuation coverage, and if they are not eligible for coverage under another group health plan. These provisions will go a long way toward ending the current problem of job lock, and ensuring that people who have been participating in health insurance plans do not lose protection when they change jobs or become sick. S. 1028 is not comprehensive health care reform. It does not provide universal coverage for all Americans, and insurance costs will be unaffordable for others. However, it is a very important step forward in addressing problems in our current health insurance system, and it will provide peace of mind to many working Americans who have health insurance but fear losing it.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. The Whitewater investigation is the longest running congressional inquiry in the recent past. At 20 months, it exceeds Abscam--9 months--the POW/MIA hearings 17--months and Watergate 16-- months. It has cost the American taxpayers over $30 million which could have vaccinated 107,000 children, paid the Medicare costs of 9,200 seniors, and provided health care for nearly 7,000 families. Mr. President, I was disappointed to learn that an agreement had been reached to continue the Whitewater investigation. Because I thought it was a poor use of the taxpayer's money, I voted against the original resolution and had the current resolution been brought to a rollcall vote, I would have voted to discontinue proceedings dealing with Whitewater. The Whitewater investigation duplicates the ongoing independent counsel's investigation and wastes the limited time we have left in this session to pass important legislation. The independent counsel has full authority and budget to continue the investigation as long as he thinks is practicable. Calling an end to the Senate Whitewater investigation only stops the duplication of investigations, neither of which have so far resulted in anything of substance. The current resolution extends the committee's deadline until June 14 and will cost the taxpayer's an additional $480,000. I believe this investigation could have been completed by the original promised deadline of February 29.