John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, that all sounds very good. In transferring this back to the States there will be a block grant except for one thing. For people in Washington, DC, we have loaded down the department with all sorts of requirements for monitoring and evaluation and advice to prevent some of the abuse of the States, among other things. With just a casual look at what current responsibilities are, the responsibilities of the Federal Government still remain. Under the Dole bill, it indicates that the Dole bill expands the jobs in Washington, not contracts. Less than 1 percent of the total staff administering welfare is employed at the Federal level--State, Federal, and local. Administrative costs account for less than 1,000 of the total 4(a) and 4(f) expenditures. We have assumed new responsibilities under the Dole bill to provide technical assistance to hundreds of tribes to design and implement new cash assistance programs; also, to gather, compile, evaluate, and disseminate data on a larger scale and with greater case specific variables. We are assuming new program analysis, and dissemination of information responsibilities. This is particularly true in the child support enforcement area. We have put all sorts of monitoring requirements on here that, if anything, a case could be made for needing more people to do it. Let me break this down more. Technical assistance to States: We have a whole series of new requirements under the Dole bill which most of us do not disagree with at all. Under tribal issues, supporting tribal efforts in designing assistance programs; reviewing and approving temporary assistance plans; we are collecting and evaluating some data collected [[Page S 13643]] from the States, including all sorts of things that we were not required to do before. Under data collection and evaluation where there are five requirements now in existing law, under the Dole bill we now have 16 different--in other words 11 brandnew--data collection and evaluation requirements on this. In other words, on HHS we are giving them all these things to do and saying but it is an unfunded mandate. We are not going to give you the money to do this. We are going to cut the position to do the things we are telling you to do which does not make any sense at all to do this. I could go on with this if we had an hour or so. I would like to go into each one of these in detail. Policy and planning accounts, the same thing; accountability, all of these things. We do not want to cut back on accountability now. We have to review State and tribal audits, review and rank State performance, establish penalties, and administer appeals process. We are going to have to develop and program outcome measures at the same time we are cutting the people that are required to do all these things. And for each of these I have a paragraph reference in the bill itself. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.

Mr. GLENN. I yield at this point 30 seconds to the Senator from New York.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I thank my colleague. I am glad to be a cosponsor of this amendment. What the Senator has said is that early this year we passed the unfunded mandates bill. We said no longer were we going to just throw things back on the States and say you take care of it; we are putting the requirement out there with no money. And yet that is exactly what we are doing right now in this bill. I know the unfunded mandates bill does not kick in with all of its requirements until January 1 next year. With this bill, we are requiring States to place 50 percent of welfare recipients on the work rolls by 2002. We are requiring job training, placement, education. Work requirement will be another $1.9 billion on State governments per year, 3.3 to cover child care costs, and so on, required for the Dole bill. I do not know how the balance comes out, where increased flexibility lets them save some money and how this balances out, but this could wind up as a giant, giant unfunded mandate on the States, and so I am very glad to support my colleague's proposal. If we are in keeping with the philosophy and principles of S. 1, the first bill that we passed this year, we should not be saddling State and local governments with these new welfare requirements without knowing exactly what we are doing. I thank the Senator.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer this amendment because I am extremely concerned that the current provisions in this bill will neglect and ignore a very important segment of our population--displaced homemakers. Nationwide, there are over 17 million displaced homemakers with close to 700,000 in Ohio. The current Perkins Vocational programs for displaced homemakers and single parents has been extremely effective. Approximately 80 percent of women served in these programs are placed in employment and/or post-secondary education. I repeat, 80 percent. Now, if this is not considered a success story, I do not know what is. This is a good example in which something that we created many years ago, works and works well. Recent statistics show that 85 percent of former program participants across the Nation rated the displaced homemakers programs excellent or very good. Over 75 percent said that these programs were better than other government-funded programs they had participated in. You know why the success rate is so high? It's because people like Amber McDonald of Akron, OH take their training very seriously and are dead set on getting off welfare. In a recent letter to me, Amber wrote: I'd like to state that I am on public assistance at this time in my life and have one child. I don't take pride in the fact I receive welfare. I am grateful to the State of Ohio for their help. It has allowed me to survive and keep my child. It's a long hard road to getting off assistance. One I believe I'm on now. I am attending displaced homemaker classes and these classes have helped me make decisions--good solid decisions. Not the ``please-the-system-decisions I've made in the past. The Displaced Homemaker classes educated me about where I could go, what I would need to succeed and how to go about it. We need this program and others like it. A lot of us want off welfare. We are as tired of being on the system as the system is of having us. Before 1984, when States were not required to fund displaced homemakers' training activities, States unfortunately spent less than 1 percent of their funding on specialized services for displaced homemakers. This is unfortunate because programs for single parents and displaced homemakers have been effective in both preventing families from entering the welfare system and helping families move from the welfare system. And displaced homemakers remain an at-risk population. According to the 1980 census, more than half of the displaced homemakers live in or near poverty. My amendment will not, I repeat, will not result in a set aside. This amendment will only make it permissible for States to fund for specialized vocational training programs. States will have the flexibility in determining the funding amount and the types of programs to institute. I just want to make sure that States are encouraged to continue these programs that are working. I have been hearing from many people from Ohio who have benefited from these services. These women are now gainfully employed; they are off welfare. And they are providing for their families. Are these not the outcomes we want? For example, Rebecca Richards from Fairfield, OH, wrote how her and her child's life changed since she participated in a displaced homemaker program. She said ``As a result of the programs available, I was able to become a productive person in society.'' and she concluded by saying ``With the program, I found a friend who counseled me, listened to complaints and successes, gave me useful information and training, and helped me meet with other single parents to form a network of friends.'' Let us face it, the traditional vocational training programs will not provide this type of training. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which is central to the welfare reform debate. Another Ohioan--Diane Cook-- wrote me saying that ``Everyone makes mistakes but they all should be allowed a second chance. Give us that second chance.'' The bottom line is to get people off welfare and to keep them off welfare. What better way to accomplish this objective than encouraging the States to tailor training programs which will affect over 17 million women. Mr. President, let us give them that second chance. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be set aside pending consideration of the next amendment.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote On Amendment No. 2477

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I voted against final passage of S. 1087, the Department of Defense appropriations bill and S. 1026, the Defense authorization bill. I did not cast these votes lightly. In fact, this is the first time in my Senate career that I have voted against a defense spending measure. I supported the authorization bill in committee in the interest of bringing the bill before the full Senate with the hope that the bill's more problematic provisions could be eliminated by amendment. A number of factors contributed to my decision to vote against final passage. I have always supported a strong defense for our Nation. I have supported increases in defense spending beyond what has been requested by Presidents when I believed those programs were the interest of our national security. But, these spending measures add as much as $7 billion in funding for programs that I do not support and do not believe represent a responsible means of spending limited taxpayer funds. I could have supported additional funding for some of these individual programs, but not the total funding package, particularly at a time when we are trying to balance the Federal budget and are considering substantial cuts in domestic funding to accomplish that. The bulk of the additional funds are spent for procurement programs for which the Pentagon made no request: close to $600 million was added for F/A-18's, $361 million for F-15's, $175 million for F-16's, $1.4 billion for DDG-51, $1.3 billion for LHD-7, and close to $800 million for Guard and Reserve equipment. In addition, the two bills add $600 million above the President's budget request for ballistic missile defense, $300 million of which is for national missile defense, bringing total funding for ballistic missile defense to $3 billion. This level of funding exceeds our national requirements and undermines our commitment to the ABM Treaty, an agreement critical to our national security needs. With respect to the Department of Energy's nuclear weapon production complex, several significant improvements were made in the bill since it was reported out of committee. However, the bill still contains over $120 million in unrequested, unneccessary funds for plutonium pit manufacturing and refabrication capability. The bill also includes $50 million for low yield, hydronuclear testing purposes, which I oppose. At the same time that these two bills add billions for programs the Pentagon claims it does not need, they leave unfunded the estimated $1.2 billion in costs for our current operations in Bosnia and Iraq, funds which the Pentagon undisputedly needs. So, while these bills purport to add funds in the name of long term readiness, they create an immediate threat to our readiness by forcing the Pentagon to siphon off more than a billion dollars in operations and maintenance funding to finance current operations. In addition to the funding issues, I am very disturbed by the provision in the authorization bill related to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. I will address my specific concerns in this area in a separate statement. huge pentagon spending increases reflect distorted priorities

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, what I said was I do not require a rollcall vote. If there is a voice vote on this, I wish to be recorded against the amendment.

Mr. GLENN. I am opposing the amendment. I guess I am ranking on the bill, so I will yield myself time.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, to reduce by $100 million the $1.2 billion cap on the costs of renovating the Pentagon. Mr. President, I do not plan to seek a rollcall vote on the amendment, but I do ask that when the vote on this amendment occurs, I be recorded as being opposed to this amendment. My principal objection to the amendment is its timing. Mr. President, I support every attempt to make prudent cuts to the cost of this enormous 15-year renovation project, but I believe that lowering the [[Page S 12551]] cap right now is premature. I do not believe it is the intent of the Senator from New Mexico to put in question the need for renovation of the Pentagon. As anyone who has visited the Pentagon recently can attest, the building is in desperate need of renovation. The Pentagon is over 50 years old. It was built in 1943, and fundamental structural work is necessary. In fact, that portion of the Pentagon closest to the Potomac River has sunk close to 11 inches because the original pilings on which it was constructed were inadequate. In addition to being old, the Pentagon has received minimal maintenance over the years and its heating, ventilation, electrical, and plumbing systems are breaking down. I am told that the Pentagon averages 30 power outages a day due to the poor condition of the electrical systems. Moreover, the Pentagon simply was not constructed with the kind of electrical system needed to accommodate the sophisticated electronic and communication systems required today. Rather, when the Pentagon was built in 1943, at a cost of $83 million, the Pentagon's office of automation systems today consisted of plain old manual typewriters and telephones. Today, however, the Pentagon relies on 11 major computer centers that form the network of communications, command centers, and administrative support systems on which the Pentagon must rely for day-to-day operations. As I have indicated, I do not believe there is much doubt that we need to renovate the Pentagon. The question at hand turns on just how much the renovation will cost and what is the best approach to keep those costs down. We are in the 5th year of renovation. Secretary Perry certified to the Defense Appropriations Committee last year that the remaining 10 years of renovation will not exceed a congressionally imposed cap of $1.2 billion. That is the effective cap right now. Moreover, the senior leadership at the Pentagon recognizes that this huge and complex 15-year project needs to be examined to validate the basic requirements of a post-cold-war Pentagon which now houses a much smaller work force. Secretary Perry established a Pentagon renovation steering committee in March of this year to do exactly that. The steering committee is chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology. Its other members include the comptroller, the Assistant Secretaries of Defense for Force Management Policy, Economic Security, and C ``cubed'' I, the Under Secretaries of the military services and representatives from the Joint Staff. An essential part of the steering committee's charter is to consider cost reduction options for the renovation project. Let there be no mistake about it. I support every effort to keep the costs of Pentagon renovation as low as possible. I understand that the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico is designed in part to force a serious and thorough examination of the costs involved in renovation. I simply disagree with the approach and believe it is premature to impose what is, with all due respect, an arbitrary cut of $100 million before we have the benefit of the steering committee's recommendations. I discussed this issue with the Deputy Secretary of Defense this morning. He indicated that DOD is opposed to the Bingaman amendment because the steering committee's work is still underway and there is no basis to support a $100 million cut at this time. So to the extent that the steering committee's recommendations do not result in at least $100 million in savings, the effect of the amendment of my colleague will be that necessary renovations will go uncompleted. Without sounding melodramatic, it is important to remember that the Pentagon is not your average office building. It is our central military command center. Forcing an arbitrary cut of close to 10 percent of current cost estimates could have an unintended disruptive impact on the Pentagon's ability to carry out critical military functions. We need to ask ourselves some questions: Was the original estimate wrong? We do not know that it was. Was the original cap of $1.2 billion too high? No, we do not know that it was too high. If so, in what areas was it too high? What programs were overfunded? How much should be cut out? These are things the steering committee should determine. In other words, if this amendment is adopted, what is proposed to be cut in order to achieve $100 million savings? We have no basis right now on which to say that the $100 million savings is excess. In fact, I doubt whether this whole project can be completed for the remaining amount that the Secretary of Defense has pledged he will adhere to. So, Mr. President, I will not seek a rollcall vote on this amendment, but I do wish to be recorded in opposition to the amendment for the reasons I have just outlined. Mr. President, in December 1994, the Secretary certified to the Defense Appropriations Committee that the 10-year renovation will not exceed $1.218 billion. I know of no reason now to cut the $100 million to comply with that requirement of law if this amendment is passed. Therefore, I wish to be recorded in opposition to the Bingaman amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered this morning by the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I agreed to accept the amendment of the Senator from Colorado which states congressional support for the timely reuse of military installations approved for closure or realignment. The Senator from Colorado is particularly interested in expediting the reuse of Fitzsimons Army Medical Center in Colorado. While I understand the Senator's support for the reuse of Fitzsimons, I believe expedited reuse should hold true for all military installations impacted by base realignment and closure. Over the last few years, Congress has enacted legislation to improve base disposal procedures by expediting the overall process and giving greater power to Local Redevelopment Authorities [LRAs] in making disposal and reuse decisions. Current law prescribes time-lines for screening and disposal of former military installations. From the time an installation is approved for closure or realignment, the following must occur: 0-6 months--Military department identifies DOD and Federal property needs, makes excess and surplus determinations, and commences environmental impact analysis process. 6-18 months--LRA solicits and considers notices of interests, conducts outreach, considers homeless assistance needs, and consults with military departments regarding surplus property uses. 18-33 months--LRA prepares redevelopment plan and homeless submission and submits to DOD and HUD; military department reports property to Federal sponsoring agencies for public benefit conveyances, completes environmental impact analysis, and makes disposal decisions. 33+ months--Military department conveys property and LRA implements redevelopment plan. It should be noted that turning property over to LRAs could occur much [[Page S 12597]] sooner than 33 months--in fact, transfer could occur as soon as 20 months if reuse plans are developed and approved early in disposal process. LRAs that act expeditiously in developing and adopting reuse plans should be commended as this is not an easy task. Accordingly, the military services should do all in their power within the letter of the law to convey appropriate property to LRAs that have fulfilled all necessary requirements and are ready and able to accept these properties for reuse. Mr. President, my point is that expedited reuse is the goal for all installations impacted by base closure and realignment decisions.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, the proliferation of nuclear weapons continues to be one of the most serious threats to national security, which underscores the need for the United States to maintain an effective capability to detect and identify clandestine nuclear tests. The challenge for seismic monitoring is the detection and identification of events of small magnitude. To meet this challenge it is necessary to acquire regional data not less than 1,000 kilometers from a test. For many years, a consortium of universities has operated a multiple- use, global seismographic network that has been supported with funds from the Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation. These facilities represent a small but significant investment by the U.S. Government, offer effective and needed nuclear test monitoring capabilities worldwide, and enhance regional coverage in areas not adequately covered by National Technical Means [NTM]. Data provided by this global seismographic network can be used to locate seismic events, discriminate natural versus explosive sources, and estimate magnitude and/or yield--all of which are critical in detection and identification of clandestine nuclear tests. Enhancing accuracy of event location is particularly important in greatly reducing the area which must be investigated through costly on-site inspections or the use of NTM. The data obtained from this network thus complement, rather than compete with, data obtained from NTM. This type of information will be invaluable in helping our Government to verify a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. We are already well into the evolution of the post-cold-war world, and one unpleasant fact of life about such a world is that professional test ban monitors no longer have the [[Page S 12536]] luxury of simply gathering data about activities at certain fixed, well-characterized sites. Now the problem has gotten more complex: we are increasingly concerned about small, low-yield test explosions, and we are facing a verification challenge that is truly global in scope. Given the global distribution of significant nongovernmental seismic monitoring capabilities, it is only prudent for us to exploit whatever resources are available and appropriate to get the job done. The network is administered by a consortium which today consists of over 80 research institutions and affiliates around the globe. The National Science and Technology Council [NSTC] is developing a long- term funding plan for the GSN and JSP. Because of delays in the NSTC process funding recommendations were not included in the administration's fiscal year 1996 budget request, but are being incorporated in the fiscal year 1997 budget request. In the meantime, this action is needed to ensure continuation of these important programs. My amendment specifies that $9,500,000 of prior year funds from the Defense Support Program which are available as a result of the omnibus reprogramming shall be available for continuation of the Global Seismographic Network [GSN] and Joint Seismic Program [JSP]. This is maintained by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research [AFOSR] in PE 601102F, project 2309.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico described this very well. I do not know of any other place where we have said in the past that we would make progress payments that would not be below a certain amount. They are putting this up. We usually go at 75 percent. We are putting this up and saying you cannot pay them below that no matter what the status is at that point. That does not make sense. The second part of this is requiring that we pay within 24 days. That is how we got in some trouble a couple years ago under the Prompt Payment Act, where we forced people in rapid payment and they made mistakes, and we wound up having to get back $1.4 billion from contractors that had been erroneously overpaid because of the short payment time. So I support the Senator from New Mexico, and I hope everybody supports his amendment. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to address a question raised by the committee during its consideration. A provision included in the House passed bill provides that none of the funds appropriated by the act may be obligated or expended to plan, finalize, or implement any rulemaking to add to section 575.104 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations any requirement pertaining to a grading standard that is different from the three grading standards--treadwear, traction, and temperature, already in effect. The Senate subsequently struck this provision. While I appreciate the committee's position on this provision and understand the difficulty faced by the committee as it deals with the regulatory process, I wanted to make clear my concerns about the proposed regulations regarding tire grading standards. As part of a response to the President's Climate Change Action Plan, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the uniform tire quality grading standards [UTQS] to replace the temperature resistance grade with a rolling resistance/fuel economy standard. This proposal is currently under consideration by NHTSA and if implemented, tire manufacturers are required to add a new rolling resistance grading standard whose value I believe is questionable. The proposed regulation assumes that lower rolling resistance will reduce fuel consumption. While there is some validity to the premise, in practice it is uncertain and other factors beyond rolling resistance contribute. If low rolling resistance does not effectively reduce fuel consumption then any demonstrated environmental impact is diminished. Tire design is a matter of tradeoffs. For every positive feature some allowance may be made for a reduction in other characteristics. Lower rolling resistance can compromise traction or treadwear and therefore safety. I believe that these tradeoffs have not been adequately reviewed. I am concerned that the cost to both industry and the consumer will outweigh any benefit. I understand that the additional cost of each tire is estimated to be $22 and that even after potential fuel savings are included, the consumer will not pay for the investment. Tire manufacturing is already a globally competitive industry. Additional costs could impact that competitiveness. This rule would also raise a question regarding nontariff trade barriers. I raise these concerns so that the committee will be fully aware of these issues as it proceeds to conference and that these questions can be considered as it continues its work on this bill.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to support and cosponsor the amendment offered by Senator Roth about which he just spoke. Senator Roth is the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, of course. This amendment will strike section 350 and 351 of the appropriations bill for the Department of Transportation. Now, if passed, these sections would waive civil service laws and procurement laws and regulations at the Federal Aviation Administration. Before I even address the merits of these sections--though I feel they are premature, for as I understand it there are currently several proposals on the table to privatize the FAA--and some of those proposals include either or both civil service and procurement reforms. So there is just no logic to legislating in this area before the decision to restructure the FAA has even been made. With that said, I do have some substantive objections to both of these provisions. First, with respect to the waivers of civil service laws, section 350 of the bill would direct the Secretary of Transportation to create and implement a new personnel system for the Federal Aviation Administration by January 1, 1996, next January, without regard to title 5 or any other Federal personnel law. Such a system shall, according to the bill's provisions, provide greater flexibility in hiring, training, compensating, and locating personnel. The appropriations bill language contains no accountability to the public or to the Congress of conflict of interest laws and merit system hiring principles for this new personnel system. It does not require public comments. It does not require public notice for this new system. It does not provide any role for the Office of Personnel Management to be involved in the creation of this new system. Instead, I think the language of the bill is reckless. It simply demands that a new system be in place in less than 6 months. It just says, new system be in place in less than 6 months. Well, do we want the employees under the new FAA to be subjected to conflict of interest laws? Do we want these employees to be subject to the ethics laws? I think we do. Do we want merit systems principles to be followed in hiring practices? I think we do. I believe we can work cooperatively on legislation that builds these sorts of safeguards into a new personnel system for the FAA. But as the bill now stands there are no safeguards. The appropriations bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to offer flexibility in compensation without regard to title 5. Employee compensation includes wages, includes health benefits, includes pension benefits. If the Secretary of Transportation were, let us say, to offer employees under FAA's new personnel system greater pension benefits than those enjoyed by other Federal employees, it could present a new tax burden to the American taxpayer. In short, Mr. President, this sort of authorizing legislation has no place on an appropriations bill. I do not believe it has been thoughtfully examined or reviewed. With respect to the procurement side of things--and this gets even more sticky--this section is not only imprudent, I think it is haphazard, and I think it is without justification. Section 351 waives several procurement laws and the Federal acquisition regulations. This provision provides for the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with nongovernmental experts in acquisition management, to go right ahead and develop and implement an acquisition management system for the FAA. So, in essence, the companies who benefit from the FAA's largess would now be helping to develop the system under which they would continue to do business with the FAA. This is just flat wrong, especially when taxpayer dollars are involved, and there are going to be a lot of them involved. Let me go through some of the following laws which would be waived. Let me go through them in full. First, the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. If exempted from this law, the FAA would no longer have to follow Government procurement procedures, including the Truth in Negotiations Act providing for cost data and pricing data for very high-priced procurements. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act: The FAA could establish its own policy for acquiring the products and services it needs and would be exempt from the strict, yet very effective procurement integrity laws which bind both Government and industry. They would be exempt from the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. This act was passed just last year. Among many other reforms, it specifically gave FAA the very broad pilot authority to free them from the procurement laws and give them the flexibility to move quickly, to implement new technology and ideas and bring in new contractors when needed. Congress has already bent over backward for them. The time is not ripe to abandon any organized acquisition system at the FAA. I add, Mr. President, we spent over 3 years putting together that Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, FASA, as it is called. We worked on the Governmental Affairs Committee about 2 years to put together the ideas of streamlining Federal procurement. We worked through the Armed Services Committee with the Pentagon to establish what is called an 800 panel that gave their recommendations on streamlining procurement. We worked with the National Performance Review of this administration when they came in. Working altogether in a collegial fashion, we put together what is an excellent, new Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. That will get knocked out, even though we provided the flexibility FAA says that they want. Another act that will be involved is the Small Business Act. The elimination of this section means the elimination of small business set-aside programs and assurances that small businesses are treated fairly in the award-decision process. Mr. President, let me finish my statement and then I will yield the floor. I will be just about 2 or 3 more minutes. Another one is the Competition in Contracting Act. With the waiver from CICA, the FAA would not have to conduct its acquisitions using the present standard of full and open competition which lets all offerors in at the outset of a procurement. I think it is interesting to note that, as drafted, this section leaves the FAA subject to CICA's predecessor, 41 U.S. Code 5, the most basic procurement statute, under which the competition standard was ``maximum practicable.'' This statute requires that purchases and contracts be advertised, subject to exceptions, such as for urgency or being the only known source. The requirements for the exceptions to competition are less stringent than under CICA. Is this really what the appropriators intend? I do not think so. Another one is GAO protest authority and the Brooks ADP Act. Under these sections, the FAA would be exempt from the GAO and GSBCA bid protest processes. That would leave the FAA subject to protests in court, a much more time-consuming and expensive process than either the GAO or the GSBCA. It would also take away GSA's delegation of procurement authority or for the FAA's acquisition of computer and other technology. The Federal Acquisition Regulations: By waiving the FAR, the FAA would be exempt from all regulations pertaining to procurement. By waiving all of these laws and regulations, there will be no hard and fast rules governing business between the Government and the contractor. How are we going to do business? How are contractors going to litigate disputes they have with the Government on ongoing contracts? In short, Mr. President, this section of the proposed bill eliminates the current system of checks and balances which has developed in response to problems over the years. I know that probably the proponents of this part of the legislation will say that we have a statement of administration policy that backs this up, but I quote from that statement of administration policy where it said that their support for this includes fast-track authority for a departmental reorganization plan and Federal Aviation Administration personnel and procurement reform which the administration has proposed as part of comprehensive FAA reform. I do not quarrel with that. They do want some reform in this, but this is for a departmental reorganization, not for details of procurement we are talking about here. I will add that we have asked them for a clarifying letter, and before there is a vote on this tomorrow morning, we will have that clarifying letter sent over to us from the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and, hopefully, from the Office of Management and Budget Office itself. So we will have that before there is a vote on that tomorrow morning. So for all these reasons, Mr. President, I hope that we will have general support for the amendment by the distinguished chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Roth, to strike this section. I urge my colleagues to vote for Senator Roth's amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, on Saturday, August 5, 1995, I offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to section 1003 of S. 1026, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996. My amendment, cosponsored by Senator Roth and Senator Grassley, was accepted by unanimous consent of the Senate. At this time I would like to make some comments about my amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the amendment be printed in the Record following my remarks, along with some relevant correspondence on this issue between Senator Levin and Office of Management and Budget Director Rivlin.

Mr. GLENN. I would like to say at the outset that I share Senator Nunn's concerns that the military departments--indeed, I would say, all agencies of Government--should have incentives to find savings within the programs under their jurisdiction. I would further agree with the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee that one of the flaws of our current budget and appropriations process is that, rather than encouraging cost-savings efficiencies, it induces [[Page S 11733]] agencies to spend whatever money is left before their authority expires at the end of a fiscal year. So, in this sense, I support the underlying purpose of the committee in developing innovative methods for providing such incentives, including the defense modernization account DMA. As a long-time member of both the Armed Services Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee--which I chaired for 8 years--I know full well, however, the significant problems and difficulties with DOD's financial management and controls systems. DOD has over 260 disparate accounting systems which are not yet integrated. Despite the efforts of John Hamre, the DOD comptroller, we have not yet reached the day when DOD can produce accurate, reliable, and auditable financial statements. In fact, I can tell you it will not even be in this century. These problems have led to over $20 billion worth of unmatched disbursements, where money has been paid out without proper and sufficient documentation. We do not know what it was used for. Moreover, DOD has been overpaying its contractors by the hundreds of millions of dollars each year, much of that discovered and returned by the contractors themselves, not through DOD followup. I will not bother to put everyone to sleep here by discussing negative unliquidated obligations--NULO's, as they are called. These financial management problems should make anyone familiar with DOD pause before we give new and additional authorities in this area-- however important the goal. Perhaps the most relevant example to this proposal of DOD financial management problems is the infamous M accounts, or merged surplus accounts. A few years back, in 1991, I was one of the first in Congress to uncover this problem and help close these funds down. In layman's terms, M accounts had all the features of a slush fund, created by pooling together all excess appropriations dollars not spent in a fiscal year and using them for almost whatever purpose they wanted. Whether authorized by law, or not. There was no auditable trail, no accounting controls. By the time we began our investigations into the M accounts, they had grown to over $50 billion. The legislation which shut these accounts down required that an audit be conducted to determine, if we could, for what purposes this money was spent. After more than 3 years, we still have not figured out where some $5.2 billion has gone. There are no matching records for the disbursements. There were elements of the defense modernization account that reminded me of M accounts--and reminded others as well. In fact, my distinguished friend from Michigan, Senator Levin, was kind enough to share with me an exchange of correspondence he had with the Office of Management and Budget about the problems with this account. And as previously stated, I have asked that this correspondence be made a part of the Record. I am bound and determined that we not repeat the past. Since the committee reported the legislation, I have been working with Senator Nunn and others to improve section 1003. I now believe that we have built in sufficient financial controls and reporting requirements, while maintaining the flexibility, incentives, and intent of the original legislation. I would like to briefly discuss some of the problems as I perceived them in the committee's language and describe what my amendment does to address those problems. As proposed, the DMA had significant control and accountability shortcomings. For example, the DMA did not say who is responsible for identifying savings. If savings are achieved it is important to know how so that this knowledge could potentially be applied to other programs. There was no restriction on cross-fiscal year transfers--with the corresponding prospect that the DMA could be funded by transferring expired funds; and there was no limit on the ultimate size or life of the account. Under the original legislation, funds transferred into the DMA would lose their fiscal year and purpose identities, greatly complicating auditing. Programs would have been able to mask accounting and management deficiencies by transferring unobligated balances to the DMA at the end of the fiscal year, and transferring money back when unrecorded and forgotten bills show up. There was also a substantial risk, with no limit on its size or life, that the account could grow to embarrassing proportions. We addressed these problems and I believe have reached agreement on acceptable changes to strengthen the financial controls. With the agreed changes, the DMA would require a secretarial determination of excess funds and identification of their source for funds transferred into the DMA; it would limit transfers into the DMA to unexpired funds available in the current year. It would preserve the integrity of the Account Closing Act limitation on the period of availability for expenditure for funds transferred into the account; with this limitation, funds would not lose their fiscal year identity. It would require notice to the relevant congressional committees of the amount and purpose of transfers from the DMA. It would prohibit transfers from DMA to cover unliquidated or unrecorded obligations from prior fiscal years or to make unmatched disbursements. It would limit the use of DMA funds to programs and purposes for which Congress has authorized funds. It would require a quarterly report on transfers to/from DMA with amount, source and/or purpose. It would cap the fund at $1 billion; limit the availability of funds in the DMA to the end of the third full fiscal year after transfer. It would sunset the authority to transfer funds into the account after 8 years; GAO is to audit the account after 5 years and again 6 months prior to sunset. This will give DOD time before consideration of sunset to fix whatever deficiencies are found in first audit. We also provide for the account to be closed consistent with the account closing provisions of title 31. (31 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1552(a), 1553(a)). Mr. President I believe that these controls will help ensure that the defense modernization account does not become another M account. I appreciate Senator Nunn's willingness to work with me on this amendment. I also appreciate the work and input of Senator Grassley, Senator Roth, and their staff. Amendment No. 2279 Beginning on page 321, strike out line 15 and all that follows through page 325, line 18, and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``(b) Credits to Account.--(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, and upon a determination by the Secretary concerned of the availability and source of excess funds as described in subparagraph (A) or (B), the Secretary may transfer to the Defense Modernization Account during any fiscal year-- ``(A) any amount of unexpired funds available to the Secretary for procurements that, as a result of economies, efficiencies, and other savings achieved in the procurements, are excess to the funding requirements of the procurements; and ``(B) any amount of unexpired funds available to the Secretary for support of installations and facilities that, as a result of economies, efficiencies, and other savings, are excess to the funding requirements for support of installations and facilities. ``(2) Funds referred to in paragraph (1) may not be transferred to the Defense Modernization Account by a Secretary concerned if-- ``(A) the funds are necessary for programs, projects, and activities that, as determined by the Secretary, have a higher priority than the purposes for which the funds would be available if transferred to that account; or ``(B) the balance of funds in the account, after transfer of funds to the account would exceed $1,000,000,000. ``(3) Amounts credited to the Defense Modernization Account shall remain available for transfer until the end of the third fiscal year that follows the fiscal year in which the amounts are credited to the account. ``(4) The period of availability of funds for expenditure provided for in sections 1551 and 1552 of title 31 shall not be extended by transfer into the Defense Modernization Account. ``(c) Attribution of Funds.--The funds transferred to the Defense Modernization Account by a military department, Defense Agency, or other element of the Department of Defense shall be available in accordance with subsections (f) and (g) only for that military department, Defense Agency, or element. ``(d) Use of Funds.--Funds available from the Defense Modernization Account pursuant to subsection (f) or (g) may be used only for the following purposes: ``(1) For increasing, subject to subsection (e), the quantity of items and services procured under a procurement program in order to achieve a more efficient production or delivery rate. [[Page S 11734]] ``(2) For research, development, test and evaluation and procurement necessary for modernization of an existing system or of a system being procured under an ongoing procurement program. ``(e) Limitations.--(1) Funds from the Defense Modernization Account may not be used to increase the quantity of an item or services procured under a particular procurement program to the extent that doing so would-- ``(A) result in procurement of a total quantity of items or services in excess of-- ``(i) a specific limitation provided in law on the quantity of the items or services that may be procured; or ``(ii) the requirement for the items or services as approved by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council and reported to Congress by the Secretary of Defense; or ``(B) result in an obligation or expenditure of funds in excess of a specific limitation provided in law on the amount that may be obligated or expended, respectively, for the procurement program. ``(2) Funds from the Defense Modernization Account may not be used for a purpose or program for which Congress has not authorized appropriations. ``(3) Funds may not be transferred from the Defense Modernization Account in any year for the purpose of-- ``(A) making any expenditure for which there is no corresponding obligation; or ``(B) making any expenditure that would satisfy an unliquidated or unrecorded obligation arising in a prior fiscal year. ``(f) Transfer of Funds.--(1) Funds in the Defense Modernization Account may be transferred in any fiscal year to appropriations available for use for purposes set forth in subsection (d). ``(2) Before funds in the Defense Modernization Account are transferred under paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned shall transmit to the congressional defense committees a notification of the amount and purpose of the proposed transfer. ``(3) The total amount of the transfers from the Defense Modernization Account may not exceed $500,000,000 in any fiscal year. ``(g) Availability of Funds for Appropriation.--Funds in the Defense Modernization Account may be appropriated for purposes set forth in subsection (d) to the extent provided in Acts authorizing appropriations for the Department of Defense. ``(h) Secretary To Act Through Comptroller.--In exercising authority under this section, the Secretary of Defense shall act through the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), who shall be authorized to implement this section through the issuance of any necessary regulations, policies, and procedures after consultation with the General Counsel and Inspector General of the Department of Defense. ``(i) Quarterly Report.--Not later than 15 days after the end of each calendar quarter, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth the amount and source of each credit to the Defense Modernization Account during the quarter and the amount and purpose of each transfer from the account during the quarter. ``(j) Definitions.--In this section: ``(1) The term `Secretary concerned' includes the Secretary of Defense. ``(2) The term `unexpired funds' means funds appropriated for a definite period that remain available for obligation. ``(3) The term `congressional defense committees' means-- ``(A) the Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the Senate; and ``(B) the Committees on National Security and Appropriations of the House of Representatives. ``(4) The term `appropriate committees of Congress' means-- ``(A) the congressional defense committees; ``(B) the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and ``(C) the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives. ``(k) Inapplicability to Coast Guard.--This section does not apply to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy.''. (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 131 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: ``2221. Defense Modernization Account.''. (b) Effective Date.--Section 2221 of title 10, United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), shall take effect on October 1, 1995, and shall apply only to funds appropriated for fiscal years beginning on or after that date. (c) Expiration of Authority and Account.--(1) The authority under section 2221(b) of title 10, United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), to transfer funds into the Defense Modernization Account shall terminate on October 1, 2003. (2) Three years after the termination of transfer authority under paragraph (1), the Defense Modernization Account shall be closed and the remaining balance in the account shall be canceled and thereafter shall not be available for any purpose. (3)(A) The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct two reviews of the administration of the Defense Modernization Account. In each review, the Comptroller General shall assess the operations and benefits of the account. (B) Not later than March 1, 2000, the Comptroller General shall-- (i) complete the first review; and (ii) submit to the appropriate committees of Congress an initial report on the administration and benefits of the Defense Modernization Account. (C) Not later than March 1, 2003, the Comptroller General shall-- (i) complete the second review; and (ii) submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a final report on the administration and benefits of the Defense Modernization Account. (D) Each report shall include any recommended legislation regarding the account that the Comptroller General considers appropriate. (E) In this paragraph, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' has the meaning given such term in section 2221(j)(4) of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a).

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, we have agreed to accept the amendment by Senators McCain and Feinstein which aims to revise and improve the base closure and realignment process. This is certainly not the first time that we have tried to improve this process. In 1993, under President Clinton's leadership, we passed significant revisions to the BRAC process which were aimed to give local, impacted communities a greater say in their own future. Those provisions were aimed to help speed up the process by which communities can initiate economic development efforts to move forward. Again last year another effort was made to revise the BRAC property disposal process. This effort resulted in legislation which quickened the property disposal process, with particular regard to addressing the needs of the homeless. While I believe that the amendment before us addresses some legitimate problems in the current BRAC process, for example it gives DOD the authority to utilize recent regulations promulgated by GSA, I am concerned about some particular areas. Overall, my greatest concern is that we have not given the existing process a chance to work. Only last month did DOD issue its regulations, developed after extensive interagency and public comment, which implement the 1993 and 1994 BRAC legislation I just mentioned. Communities are having a difficult enough time coping with the closure of their particular base without trying to determine which set of regulations, or which property disposal process, they need to operate under. Should this legislation result in another rewrite of the implementing regulation, it will translate directly into further delays for the communities. I am also concerned about the lease-back provisions of this legislation. I am concerned that the Federal Government's interest be fully protected in the cases where it retains a presence at a closing base. I recognize the need for communities to have assurances that future Federal use of these facilities is compatible with their own reuse plan. However, we must protect all taxpayers' interest as well. With regard to this provision as we proceed to conference with the House, I intend to seek the comments of the General Services Administration to ensure that appropriate controls are in place for future leasing. Another concern is whether the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has the necessary authority to provide their comments to the local redevelopment plan--and ensure that these comments are addressed. This provision is particularly important with regards to the concerns of the homeless. Mr. President, as we proceed to conference, I look forward to obtaining additional comments of the relevant officials in the Department of Defense, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as well as the General Services Administration regarding these provisions.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, the amendment offered by Senator McCain and myself concerns a land issue which the Readiness Subcommittee considered during its markup proceedings. The amendment authorizes the Secretary of the Air Force to convey 58 acres of property located at the Radar Bomb Scoring Site, Forsyth, MT, to the city of Forsyth, MT. The Air Force plans to vacate the few housing facilities and to declare the property excess to its needs. In receiving the property, the city of Forsyth must continue to use the facilities for housing purposes. The city of Forsyth has a justified need for these facilities to house the elderly in the community. The subcommittee recognized the local community's needs and the Air Force's desire to vacate and dispose of the property. However, the members of the Readiness Subcommittee chairman agreed to defer action on the proposal until the General Services Administration [GSA] completed an expedited screening of the property to determine if any Federal agencies had an interest in the property. Requiring GSA to screen the property is in keeping with my concern that we should not give away property without protecting the interests of the Federal Government. On July 11, GSA reported back to the subcommittee that no Federal interests in the property were expressed. In addition at Senator McCain's and my request GSA made a preliminary valuation of the property. GSA estimates that the property is worth $700,000. In keeping with the subcommittee's agreement, Senator McCain and I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Kempthorne- Dorgan amendment. If we do not pass this, I think we could be looked at as once again doing something half-baked and ill-considered in the Congress that just leaves people sick when they look at it. What we are doing is giving a job and at the same time we are cutting off the money to do the job, if we do not pass this amendment. It just makes us look silly. I compliment my friend from Idaho for picking this up and doing something about it. As he said, earlier this year we enacted the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This is historic legislation. We desired to bring balance to our system of Federalism. It was a bipartisan effort. As we all know, we worked many long hours here on the floor of the Senate for almost 2 weeks full time, morning to night, and we ultimately passed the Senate by a vote of 91 to 9. Huge support, both sides of the aisle. It deals primarily with future mandates on both the public and private sectors. It sets up a process of consideration and analysis whereby we would have a better understanding of the cost and impact of Federal mandates in both the legislative and regulatory process. S. 1 requires cost estimates to be made. Cost estimates of legislation by the Congressional Budget Office, and cost benefit analysis of regulations by the agencies. Now, title 3 of S. 1 sets up a series of studies on the impact of existing--big difference--existing regulatory and legislative mandates on State and local governments, and to make recommendations on how to reduce the burdening and improve the flexibility of these mandates. Title 3 tasks this responsibility, as the Senator from Idaho said, to the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. We authorized $500,000 each year for fiscal year 1995 and 1996 for them to carry out their responsibilities under the act. We expect to get back far more than that $500,000 for each year in the increased efficiencies that we will have result from the studies they will do. Unfortunately, the question is zeroed out of the ACIR, provided no appropriation to complete the studies required under S. 1. We gave them a job and cut their budget to do it, which is just a bit idiotic. Once again, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. It just makes us look foolish because it is foolish. What the Senator from Idaho is doing is correcting that situation. I understand about half of ACIR's budget comes from Federal appropriations. The rest comes from State and local governments and from the sale of publications and services. I also realize by fiscal year 1997, ACIR is hoping to become fully self-sustained, no longer reliant on Federal funds. That is good. I am glad they are moving in that direction. ACIR tells us they do need $334,000 in order to complete the studies that we in Congress required of them to carry out S. 1. If we do not provide these funds, what we are doing is saying we have set up here another unfunded mandate with the group that was supposed to be looking into unfunded mandates. We will not even have the people out there to do that. Ultimately, they will not be able to do the studies and make the needed recommendations. I believe we should live up to the commitments we made when we enacted S. 1. I do not think there is objection to this. I hope we have full support for it and can do it unanimously. I urge my colleagues strongly to support the Kempthorne-Dorgan amendment. I thank my colleague from Idaho.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment to restore funding for the Administrative Conference of the United States. The Administrative Conference is a small agency that provides independent, nonpartisan advice and assistance to Congress and Federal agencies on how to make Government procedures more efficient, flexible, and open. ACUS, as the Conference is sometimes called, is a unique public- private partnership. It consists of members from Government, the academic community, and the private sector, who develop consensus-based recommendations for improved agency procedures. It also has a small career staff that works with agencies on implementing recommended reforms, and that assists congressional offices and agencies on issues of administrative law and practice. In this era of budget reduction and smaller government, the Administrative Conference is especially valuable. There are several compelling reasons for this. First, ACUS studies problems and makes recommendations that save the Government lots of money. For example, the Conference has testified that the Social Security Administration adopted an ACUS recommendation to simplify the Social Security appeals process. From following just this one ACUS recommendation, the Social Security Administration reports that it will save $85 million annually. A second example is the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques, or ADR, which means mediation and other methods of settling cases and avoiding costly litigation. The Administrative Conference is the Government's central resource on the use of alternative dispute resolution. Data from five agencies show that their use of these ADR methods, which ACUS has been promoting for a decade, saved $13.8 million in 1994. James C. Miller, who was budget director under President Reagan and is a staunch budget-cutter, has testified that it would be a mistake for Congress to zero out the Administrative Conference, because ``ACUS generates far more value to the American people'' than its yearly budget. On this point, Jim Miller and I agree completely. The Conference's budget is only $1.8 million dollars--an amount that is repaid many times over in reduced litigation costs and improved Government efficiency. A second reason why the Conference is especially valuable now, is that we are in the midst of revamping the Government's administrative and regulatory procedures for the first time in 50 years. Such a time is when we most need the expert, impartial advice and assistance of the Conference. For example, there are now two leading regulatory reform bills in the Senate--S. 343, which is sponsored by the distinguished majority leader, and S. 1001, which I introduced. Both of these bills incorporate key recommendations of the Administrative Conference. I know that, on both sides of the aisle, Senate staff working on these bills have turned for advice repeatedly to the Conference staff. Both of these bills also include explicit requirements for the Administrative Conference to review how the legislative reforms work out in practice, and to recommend any needed corrections. Third, over the past year the Conference has focused and marshaled its energies to support the current transition to a smaller, more efficient, more responsible Government. ACUS continues its very valuable support for Government use of negotiation, mediation, and other alternatives to costly litigation. These ADR techniques foster flexible and open decisionmaking, encourage results that are acceptable to the parties, reduce the amount of litigation clogging our courts--as well as saving the Government and the private sector money. The Conference is also concentrating its research-and-development efforts on such regulatory techniques as audited self-regulation and enhanced waiver authority. These innovative techniques are designed to be more flexible and responsive than the traditional regulatory approach of one-size-fits-all. Finally, I want to dispel any misperception that the Administrative Conference is redundant--that other organizations in the Government or in the private sector could do the same job. No other entity is designed to do what the Administrative Conference does. Certainly, we in Congress get plenty of advice on how to reform agency processes and procedures--maybe too much advice. But most of this advice comes from industries, or regulatory agencies, or advocacy groups, or ``thinks tanks,'' or party caucuses--which have vested interests or political agendas. Unlike all of these groups, the Administrative Conference's only agenda is to foster greater efficiency and fairness in Government. Its recommendations must be practical and unbiased, in order to pass muster with a membership drawn from both practitioners and academics from both political parties and from all points on the political spectrum. Furthermore, only ACUS has a mandate to follow through and help agencies to implement recommendations that are adopted. This is one agency that actually saves the Government more money than it costs. Based on the Administrative Conference's track record of success, this unique institution should be preserved. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to reinstate funding for the Administrative Conference.