John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the amendment offered by my colleague from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, to strike the $300 million that was added to the bill by the majority of the Armed Services Committee for national missile defense [NMD]. The President had requested $371 million for NMD--and the committee is proposing virtually to double that amount. I do not believe that sensitive national security and diplomatic issues should be allowed to sink into the unruly pit of partisan politics. There have been appropriate lines drawn over the many years of this Republic by the various political parties, and I think most of us would have to agree that politics should stop at the water's edge when it comes the most sensitive issues of our national defense and security. The language on national missile defense in the bill and the committee report, however, vaults over this line in a manner that infringes upon the constitutional prerogatives of the Executive in foreign policy, drains our Treasury, makes our country less secure, and ultimately increases international strategic instability. After having to listen to the litany of complaints by the current majority party about tax-and-spend members of my own party, I find it ironic to see the majority party has now embraced this same tax-and- spend doctrine as the Rosetta Stone of that party's entire approach to strategic defense. This is all the more ironic given that the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Perry--whose words can surely be taken as nonpartisan on this issue-- has stated quite clearly that, ``* * * a valid strategic missile threat has not emerged.'' [Letter of Sen. Nunn, July 28, 1995] These words echo the sentiments of our intelligence community. Gen. James Clapper, the DIA Director, testified before the Armed Services Committee on January 17, 1995, that ``* * * we see no interest in or capability, of any new country reaching the continental United States with a long range missile for at least the next decade.'' The ABM Treaty authorizes its parties to have a limited national missile defense capability, but the terms of the treaty are quite clear about what is permissible and what is not permissible. The committee majority seems determined to plus-up those programs that will inevitably drive us out of that treaty--a result that they earnestly believe will serve the national security. Yet will it truly serve our security to spend a fortune to erect high-tech Maginot line defenses of dubious reliability against nonexistent threats, while we continue to underfund efforts to address clear and present dangers? I am speaking particularly of the challenges we should be facing to prevent proliferation from occurring, as opposed to just trying to cope with it after it is a fact of life as the majority evidently prefers to do. Proponents of the current bill seem more eager to prevent Qadhafi from launching a blizzard of nuclear- tipped ICBM's at Chicago than in keeping Qadhafi from obtaining the nuclear materials he will need to manufacture such warheads in the first place. Let me say, it would be a much more efficient use of our resources to focus our efforts on the latter type of problem. By the way, if Qadhafi finally gets enough of that material, he will not need to--and probably will prefer not to--attach the United States using ballistic missiles. There are plenty of other ways to get the job done. Will it serve our security to place in jeopardy the progress that has been made in recent years in the START process to cut the size of the United States and Russian nuclear arsenals? If we march forward blindly into the future and eventually abrogate the ABM Treaty, does anybody seriously believe that such an action will have no effect on Russia's readiness to proceed with such cuts in its nuclear stockpile? Will it serve our security to drain some $48 billion out of our Treasury to build a national missile defense system? That is what the Congressional Budget Office has estimated it will cost to build a complex that covered Grand Forks, ND, and five other States. To this we must add billions more for theater missile defense--which these days is getting to look more and more like strategic missile defense. And the costs just keep adding up. We must not forget the long-term costs of operating and maintaining such facilities. The legacy we will leave to future generations from this investment will not be a more secure country, but a less secure world, and a towering pile of budgetary IOU's. Will it serve our security, in deploying an extensive national strategic missile defense network, to drive China, Britain, and France out of international negotiations aimed at further nuclear reductions? Will it serve our security to jeopardize the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, which was just extended indefinitely on the basis of solemn commitments by the nuclear-weapon states both to conclude an early comprehensive ban on all nuclear tests and new progress on nuclear arms control and disarmament? These are just some of my reasons for supporting the Dorgan amendment today. We are standing on a slippery slope leading to the demise of the ABM Treaty. The Dorgan amendment merely seeks to remove one large banana peel from that slope. I urge all my colleagues in joining me in endorsing his responsible proposal. In summary, Mr. President, the President requested $371 million for national missile defense. That was to do the basic research. And somehow we come along now and want to say we are going to double that amount; we are going to put another $300 million in here. And for what? I do not understand the rationale of this whole thing except it seems to me we have reversed parties here almost. Tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend, that is what we have heard leveled at the Democratic Party all these years. Now, here we are with something that is not even needed and we are going to tax and spend, and now it is the Republican tax [[Page S 11237]] and spend. I think that is a valid charge back at the Republicans on this. Tax and spend for what? The Secretary of Defense says that a balanced strategic missile threat has not emerged. General Clapper, DIA director, testified before the Armed Services Committee, and I quote him: We see no interest in or capability of any new country reaching the continental United States with a long-range missile for at least the next decade. At the same time we are going to endanger the ABM Treaty, which authorizes its parties to have a limited national missile defense capability--limited. But the terms are quite clear about what is permissible and what is not permissible. I do not know why the majority is determined to plus up these programs with something that will take a chance of eventually driving us out of that treaty. I think it is ridiculous. Will it really serve our security to place in jeopardy the progress that has been made in recent years in the START process to cut the size of the United States and Russian nuclear arsenals? If we march forward blindly into the future and eventually abrogate the ABM Treaty, does anybody seriously believe such an action will have no effect on Russia's readiness to proceed with such cuts in its nuclear stockpile? I just do not see how it is going to serve our security to drain $48 billion--$48 billion--out of our Treasury to build a national missile defense system that is not needed. And that is not my figure. That is what the Congressional Budget Office estimated it will cost to build a complex that covers Grand Forks, ND, and five other States. That is $48 billion, and it does not even cover the whole country. That does not even cover the theater missile defense, which I support. I think it moves in the wrong direction. I do not see that it serves our security in deploying an expensive national missile defense network to drive China, Britain, and France out of the international negotiations aimed at further nuclear reductions. I am not sure either exactly what kind of system this is. Is this to be an SDI system? The President provided research, and yet we do not know what this system is. At best, it is going to be a $48 billion operation just to cover five States. It literally makes no sense whatsoever to take a chance of driving us out of the ABM Treaty when we have no international intercontinental missile defense necessity for this country at this time. Let us do the research the President wanted. Let us continue on down the road with that research, which I favor, voted for it, support fully, and if we see a threat developing, we will have time to go to what this provides prematurely. I know my time has expired. I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to strike the missile defense provisions in the bill, because, if passed as is, I think this language will greatly complicate the work of our military and of our diplomats in the years ahead. I have been interested to hear that one of the reasons we have this in the bill, apparently, is because we have sent a number of letters, or some Members have sent a number of letters to the President, and did not get a response. They either got no response or one they did not like, so they decided to put it in legislation. I can only say that I think taking that kind of action, when the leadership, in negotiating treaties and in seeing they are adhered to, is a function of the executive branch, does not ring very strongly with me, because I can remember--I could probably go back to the files and bring out a dozen or more letters I wrote during the Reagan administration, during those 8 years and during the 4 years of the Bush administration, and I may have gotten responses to some of those but certainly not to all of them. That did not mean to me that I took over what the constitutional powers of the President are and put into law things that would have tried to put my view into law, as opposed to what treaty requirements were or what treaties had been negotiated. I say further that I think we are, obviously, talking a lot here about the demarcation between theater missile defense and national missile defense. That is a legitimate thing to try and work out. But to take over and unilaterally on the part of the Congress define language that would change the ABM Treaty or have that potential, I think, is wrong. I think we have to tread very carefully when we do that. I think this could possibly harm our efforts to proceed with nuclear arms reduction, not just with Russia, when we try and negotiate these things with China, Britain, and France. It will raise new threats to the global nuclear nonproliferation regime, especially its cornerstone, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, NPT. It could establish an extremely undesirable new method for unilaterally reinterpreting treaties, thus setting up a precedent that will obviously be used against us in the years ahead. I think it could establish programs that would cost us a fortune. It could divert money from military needs that are, in my opinion, much more vital to the country and ultimately leave America substantially no safer as a result. It tramples on the President's constitutional responsibilities as Commander in Chief and as the individual in charge of American foreign policy. In short, I think this would be a very bad mistake for this country. I would like to begin with a few comments about the general level of partisanship that we have seen from the proponents of these provisions on the ABM Treaty. I hasten to add that I think missile defense should not be a partisan affair. All Americans understand that (a), the national interest may require the deployment of U.S. forces in unstable areas around the world. This bill contains some very undesirable features, I feel, that, if enacted, could greatly complicate the work of our military and our diplomats in the years ahead. Let me talk about ballistic missile defense. So (a), the national interest may require deployment of U.S. forces in unstable regions around the world; and (b), these forces may be the targets of missile attacks, including missiles delivering weapons of mass destruction; and (c), such forces must be protected. That is something I am sure we can all agree on. Now, though the committee has approved many of the administration's requested theater missile defense projects, the majority's refusal to yield on several controversial proposals dealing with key missile defense issues gives these proposals the quality of partisan ultimata rather than a sound foundation for policy. In other words, it is either or else. Similarly, the bill's heavy emphasis on investing in expensive hardware for missile defense detracts from an equally, if not more important, goal: Pursuing means to reduce the numbers and performance characteristics of offensive missiles that may be fired against us in theater conflicts. This goal typically requires significant improvements in export controls, intelligence capabilities, analytic capabilities for the conduct of arms control and nonproliferation verification activities, better coordination between our military and our diplomats and other such means. The committee, however, is placing inordinate reliance upon technical fixes to counter missile attacks, rather than strengthening efforts to slow our halt of the proliferation of such missiles in the first place. This position is unfortunate, since the latter will ultimately prove to be a better investment of scarce taxpayers' dollars. With respect to the missile defense provisions the bill does support, many of these would considerably erode the stable consensus that exists to support ballistic missile defense efforts, would jeopardize both antiballistic missile, ABM and START II treaties, usurp the President's constitutional powers with respect to the conduct of foreign relations and the performance of the role of Commander in Chief, or otherwise erode, rather than enhance, U.S. national security. These conclusions, to me, follow from an examination of the following provisions of the bill: First, the bill mandates, as a statutory policy objective, an action that would violate the ABM Treaty. It establishes a policy of deploying a multiple-site national missile defense network by the year 2003. That is in violation. Second, the majority places into U.S. law a formal definition of an ABM-permissible ballistic missile defense system. We can justifiably assume, as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. John Shalikashvili, has warned, any such statutory definition could jeopardize prospects for early ratification of the START II Treaty in the [[Page S 11254]] Russian Parliament and negatively impact our broader security relationship with Russia. It seems only prudent that before the Congress ventures off with a unilateral interpretation of a major bilateral arms control accord, we should consider very carefully several implications of such an action. They would include: Is this the type of precedent we wish to establish as a basis for treaty interpretation? Do we want to set an example that can lead the Duma to legislate its own preferred definitions of vital terms of Russia's arms control and disarmament treaties? In other words, what if the Russian Duma, what if we had word coming through or had pictures on TV this evening on the news that the Russian Duma is unilaterally deciding to put a new interpretation into the ABM Treaty. What would we do? I know what we would do. We would think the whole thing is null and void if they went ahead and legislated preferred definitions of vital terms of Russia's arms control and disarmament treaties. If Russia deployed enough ballistic missile defense sites containing missiles just falling below the dictated threshold, could they collectively acquire an ability to counter United States strategic nuclear forces? What will be the reactions of China and other powers if the United States moves away from its ballistic missile defense restraints? I point out that these agreements are hammered out word by word by word over agonizingly long negotiations. The ABM Treaty was no exception to that. To change some of that wording, or to change an interpretation of it unilaterally, means that our word in any other treaty that we might have with any other place around the world-- whether China, Russia, wherever--is not going to be looked at as being worth very much. While the committee majority has raised the specter of structural nuclear disarmament--a term that is supposed to describe our alleged inability to expand our nuclear arsenal in the event of future threats--it ironically ignores completely the effects on our deterrent force of releasing Russia from the treaty obligations that prevent it from acquiring a national missile defense capability. The Russians are not going to just stand by and see us reinterpret that treaty without feeling free to go their own way. They will no longer be bound by that agreement that was hammered out over a long period of time. So, if the opponents in the ongoing missile defense debate have their way, and that ``fearsome beast,'' the ABM Treaty, is finally slain, the credibility of America's strategic missile forces would almost immediately be called into question as Russia begins to deploy its own large-scale national missile defense force. What would prevent them from doing it? Certainly not the treaty that we would have violated at the time. It seems to me, if the majority is truly interested in avoiding this structural nuclear disarmament, as it is called, it should do all it can to ensure that U.S. nuclear deterrent retains its credibility. This is exactly what the ABM Treaty helps to achieve, by barring Russia from creating its own national strategic missile defense system. The treaty accomplishes this, moreover, without the need for a diplomatically and financially costly expansion of our offensive nuclear capabilities. So-called deficit hawks in Congress today should, therefore, love the ABM Treaty, not revile it. It works to preserve our deterrent and saves plenty of money at the same time. One of the estimates by CBO has indicated that even a partial national missile defense system would cost about $48 billion, at a time when we really do not need it, as testimony and as the letters from the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have indicated. I am afraid our colleagues in the majority, however, have turned a collective blind eye to these considerations. They appear to believe that unilateral United States actions to ensure against our own national missile vulnerability will instantly translate into a safer America and not lead Russia to reduce its vulnerability to our own strategic missile attacks. In its enthusiasm not to miss an opportunity to bash the ABM Treaty, the majority is urging a course of action that can weaken our nuclear deterrent capability, can stimulate an offensive nuclear arms race, and eventually funnel tens or hundreds of billions of dollars into elaborate strategic national missile defense schemes, none of which, of course, will ever free American citizens from risk of nuclear attack. The bill seems to enshrine into law what is known as the fallacy of the last move, which holds that any increment in our own security will take place without any detrimental side effects. I lose a lot more sleep over the side effects than I do over the slogan of ``structural nuclear disarmament.'' The Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings, coupled with the Tokyo gas attacks should serve as a sobering reminder that weapons of mass destruction can be delivered by a variety of means other than missiles. It does not mean we are not concerned about missiles. We are. Furthermore, our intelligence officials have repeatedly testified the United States will not face a new missile threat until sometime in the next century. The Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. James Clapper, testified before the Select Committee on Intelligence last January: ``We see no interest in or capability of any new country reaching the continental United States with a long-range missile for at least the next decade.'' We should not permit a fixation with delivery systems to distract our attention from the important goal of halting the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Third, the majority voted down on a straight party vote a proposal by Senator Levin to ensure that America's theater missile defense systems will not be given strategic antiballistic missile capabilities, a proposal that was essentially a restatement of existing law, existing law under the ABM Treaty. Fourth, the majority insisted on almost doubling the size of the administration's request for national missile defense projects, despite the majority's complete inability to identify any new foreign threat against which such a defense would be directed. I do not believe that a highly conjectural North Korean missile threat to the Aleutian Islands sometime in the 21st century is sufficient grounds for America to abandon the ABM Treaty. I doubt North Korea will even manage to survive as a country by that time. It may not, anyway. Furthermore, there is a fundamental contradiction in the majority's willingness to write a blank check on behalf of national missile defense and yet apply the sternest possible accounting standards for the more modest sums that we authorized elsewhere in this bill to such programs as humanitarian assistance and foreign disaster relief. I would add, the systems we are talking about have yet to be invented. We made some progress in setting up systems, or doing some research in years past, but to mandate at this point we will have any of these systems by the year 2003, which is what is in the systems we are proposing here, is wishful thinking. Some of the claims under star wars were made back some years ago. I talked to the people at the Pentagon who were working in these areas, who had some confidence in those systems, or said they did. I thought some of the claims were so preposterous I went out to some of the laboratories where work was going on on the so-called star wars system. The scientists who were working on the systems out there almost laughed about some of the claims being made on star wars at that time. It was not just a matter of having the money to deploy, to cut the hardware and deploy it. We had not yet invented the systems. Yet we are talking about now we can set up a national missile defense system, just a partial one, for $48 billion, with equipment that has yet to be invented and certainly should not be deployed on a timetable between now and the year 2003. Within 8 years, we are supposed to now have this and it has to be deployed. And that is ridiculous. Star wars before was talking about deformable laser mirrors, 12 feet across, that could take lasers of a power not yet invented, and focus it on a spot out there several hundred miles in space the size of a golf ball. At least [[Page S 11255]] the first step would be to focus it on a mirror in space that could be deformed, then focus it in turn on a spot the size of a golf ball several hundred miles away on a missile coming up at a changing rate of speed, and keep it focused on that area. We do not have the computer capacity nor the technology yet developed to enable us to do some of those things that were claimed years ago. Now we are saying we have some different systems. But those systems are anything but proven and are anything but systems that should be set up on a time schedule that would have to be in place by law by the year 2003. What do we think the Soviets would be doing all this same time? I know what the Duma would probably do, our counterpart over there in Russia. The Duma probably is going to say, OK, if all bets are off on the ABM Treaty, then the very first thing we are going to do is put all the coordinates back in on American targets we just took out of our missiles in agreement with the Americans, back just a few months ago. To me, that would be very silly if we did anything that might lead them into that kind of activity. Yet, if the Russians were doing the same thing we are debating here today, I can guarantee the first thing I would be doing on the floor would be demanding we put their coordinates back in our missiles if they were advocating abrogating the ABM Treaty and deploying a missile defense system that neither side thought we needed to deploy. Much has been written about the dangers of new isolationism as a foreign policy doctrine. Its companion in defense policy I guess would be called a fortress America. Nothing is more reflective of this doctrine than the current bill's fundamentally misguided policy approaches on nuclear testing and the ABM Treaty. So I am still hopeful a new bipartisanship will emerge in the years ahead, however, behind policies that reflect a greater awareness of the costs of a modern national defense, a greater sensitivity to international reactions to U.S. defense actions, greater appreciation of the unexploited potential that lies in creative international solutions to security problems, and a greater emphasis on preventing proliferation rather than trying to manage it. If we abrogate the ABM Treaty or put language in here, in this legislation, or permit language to stay in that allows the Duma, in its own right, to start reinterpreting the ABM Treaty, then I do not see any option but what we are into an arms race again. Just as we spent probably most of the past decade taking some of those dangers down, reducing our arms, taking the targeting out of our missiles and the Soviets took it out--the Russians took it out of their missiles, I think we are in danger of reversing this whole direction, this trend that has been set in place over the past 10 years, and to cope with a threat that is not out there, by the best testimony we have from the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and spend a lot of money in the whole process, $48 billion for a very limited defense system that will not be a full national missile defense. It would be, basically, a missile defense that covers five States. So I support the change proposed by the Senator from Michigan. I hope our colleagues will look at this very, very carefully. If we are to put into law something that encourages the ABM Treaty to be questioned and the Soviets to have less confidence in the American willingness to abide by that treaty, I think we will have made a drastic mistake in the Senate of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I do not quarrel with the fact that some of the funding in this goes to MilCon projects that are good and under the 5-year plan would be fine. But if we found $228 million to spend, it seems to me if we want to spend that on MilCon projects, we should have gone back to the Defense Department and said, where do you need it most, where are the worst barracks, where are the people living in the most intolerable conditions, and let them prioritize where the greatest needs are. I submit most of these items were placed back on this agenda and moved ahead on the 5-year plan because of a personal interest of a particular Senator, and this was not done on a priority basis where the greatest needs are in the military. That is my objection to it. I know that we followed some of the criteria on the 5-year defense plan that we used as one of our criteria. I think if we can find this kind of money, it should be put to use in places where the Pentagon says they need it most, not just in those areas where the Members were getting something back for their particular States. I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I am glad that we are using the criteria that we established in the Readiness Subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee over the last couple of years, the criteria for setting the ground rules for how we move forward on items like this. I must, however, join my friends, Senator McCain and Senator Bingaman, in their concerns about what we are doing. I recognize fully that we did vote for the appropriations bill last week that had these things in it, but it was done on the contingency, as I understand it, that we pass the authorization. Senator Bingaman disapproved of it then and wanted to move that money out of that appropriations bill and into contingency operations. And I supported that amendment of his. Now we have $228 million we seem to have found here. It seems to me that that money would be better spent for what Secretary of Defense Perry has called one of his highest priorities; that is, getting the money to pay for Bosnia and Iraq and the other operations that we have going all around the world. So it would lessen the amount they would have to come up in the supplemental one of these days. The criteria that were established says that if an item is on the FYDP, the 5-year defense plan, that we can move it forward. But one of the hurdles that would have to be jumped would be that one of having it on the 5-year defense plan. As I understand it, all of these items that are on the proposal for the $228 million expenditure do comply with those criteria being on that plan. However, to me, we have so many other things that we are contending with on the defense budget this year. We have depot maintenance that is required. We are shortchanging that. We are shortchanging military housing. We are shortchanging a lot of other things and, in effect, moving these items forward to a higher priority than some of those items. We are moving things forward on what was going to be taken care of somewhere out in the 5-year defense plan. We are moving it forward basically because some Members want these things in their districts, as I see it. And I can appreciate that. I have no quarrel with people wanting things in their particular districts or their particular States. But I just think that we are getting our priorities a little bit out of line when we move things forward on that 5-year defense plan and move them ahead of other requirements that I think are much more pressing than most of the things that this $228 million would be spent for. So I appreciate the fact that we are using the criteria that has been established. I do not think we are setting our priorities right, though, when we move this $228 million ahead of some of the other priorities where money is more desperately needed in the defense budget than for these items. I realize they have already been put through the appropriations process. But I think they are wrong. And I would follow my colleagues earlier and ask that, if this is to be passed on a voice vote--I am not asking for a rollcall vote on this; I do not believe that has been done--but I would follow the lead of Senator Bingaman and say, if there is to be a voice vote, I wish to be recorded against it. I know that will be probably a losing effort. But I think that we have to stand up on some of these things. We have established a pattern in the Armed Services Committee of opposing some of these things the last couple of years. And I would want to do the same thing here even though we did pass the appropriations bill a week or so ago. So I would ask that, if there is a voice vote on this, that I be recorded in opposition. Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, today, Senator DeWine and I are introducing legislation which is necessary for the continued operation of the Dayton Area Health Plan. The Dayton Area Health Plan is a mandatory managed care plan for 24,000 Medicaid recipients in Montgomery County, OH, which has been operating very successfully for over 6 years. It emphasizes preventive care and has developed two programs--Baby's Birth Right and Neighbors in Touch--to increase the use of prenatal and after-delivery care. In partnership with the Dayton School Board, it brings HealthChek physical exams to schoolchildren in Dayton. Last fall, the Dayton Area Health Plan became the first Medicaid HMO in Ohio to publish a quality score card which assesses the plan's performance in the important areas of access to care, preventive care, success of medical care, consumer satisfaction, operational efficiencies, and quality assurance survey scores. The Dayton Area Health Plan is operating under a waiver of the Federal 75/25 enrollment mix requirement for HMO's--a requirement that for every three Medicaid enrollees a plan must have one non-Medicaid enrollee. The current waiver expires at the end of the year, and the legislation we are introducing today extends it until December 31, 1999. This legislation is supported by the Ohio Department of Human Services, which received a waiver of the 75/25 enrollment mix requirement for HMO's participating in OhioCare, an 1115 Medicaid waiver program. However, the implementation of OhioCare has been delayed due to concerns about the level of Federal Medicaid funding for fiscal year 1996 and beyond. The Dayton Area Health Plan has widespread community support and has been increasingly successful in providing high-quality, cost-effective care to Medicaid recipients in Montgomery County, OH. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which extends the plan's waiver for 4 years.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to begin a series of statements in which I want to outline some of the research and other scientific benefits derived from NASA-funded programs. These are programs that have benefit, by and large, for every man, woman, and child in this country; indeed, for people all over the globe. I note with pleasure that just recently, the House passed their appropriations bill regarding NASA's space station by a vote of 299 in favor and 126 against. That is well over a 2-to-1 margin. I hope we can match that in the Senate. But every year in the Senate, when the time comes to consider the NASA budget, there are those doubters, there are those people who want to cut it. I do not want to see excess money going into NASA either, but I also think we need to step back once in a while and look at what we are talking about with regard to research. If there is one thing this Nation should have learned throughout its history, it is that money spent on research usually has a way of paying off in the future beyond anything we can see at the outset. That is just as true with research in space as it is with research that we have done in other areas. Research by its very nature is not as amenable to cost accounting procedures as are some other programs. But that is why it is research: It is looking into the unknown, it is having inquiry into things we do not yet know about and do not yet know the value of. Yet, that has been at the heart of every bit of advance in science and technology that we have ever made as a nation. Someone has to wonder, someone has to have a curiosity about what we do not know in a certain area, how can we do things better, what would happen if we knew the answer to a certain question. And they are willing to go out and do something about it. They are willing to exercise their wonderment, their curiosity. This Nation is just replete with examples of where that has been to our advantage. For example, we can think back in agriculture and we can see the old settlers planting corn. When I was a boy back in New Concord, OH, a good corn crop was probably 48 to 50 bushels per acre. That was considered pretty good around there in those days. Do you know what it was last year not far from where I grew up? There was one farm pointed out to me that won the competition in that little part of our State near Utica, OH, where our good friend, Gene Branstool, who was in the Department of Agriculture for awhile, comes from. That area had 239 bushels per acre last year on one of the farms--239 bushels per acre. Back when I was growing up, the people thought 48 to 50 bushels was pretty good. Why do we need research? Why would anybody spend money on it when we are getting 48 to 50 bushels off this land, where people before had only 30 or 35? But we put money into an agricultural research system, and out of that system came improvements in soil and fertilizers and hybrids, a tremendous step forward when you got to hybrids. So the increase in production is not something that indicates farmers are working six or seven times as hard as they worked back when I was a boy, but it means that we did basic research, even though nobody knew what the outcome of it was going to be at that time. Out of that research then came improvements in the hybrids, machinery, fertilizers, soil stabilization, and all these things that give us this wonderful production today that makes us the envy of the world. We are not the envy of the world just because--just because--we have great plains on which to conduct all of our agriculture. We have that agricultural production out there largely because we did basic research more than anyone else in the world, and we are the envy of the rest of the world with that system that we set up in agriculture. I can give other examples. In metals, we develop metals that now give more reliable engines, valves, and generators, and all the things that go to make up our industrialized society. We did metallurgical research that was the envy of the rest of the world. Now there are some places in the world, Russia being one of them, where we envy them in some of the metallurgical research they are doing. In some areas, we believe they are probably ahead of some of our metallurgical research. Aeronautical research--why would anybody want to get up and fly like the birds? The Wright brothers wondered why not and then did it. That first flight they made was 120 feet long and took 12 seconds. Before that day was over, they had done four flights, the longest one just a little under 900 feet, 59 seconds I believe it was. But they were curious about why we could not get up and do sustained flights. People have wondered for thousands of years, I suppose, why we could not fly like the birds. The Wright brothers were curious about it, and they were ridiculed by some of the people at the time, because why would anyone want to do this? Later on, when they were trying to sell one of the airplanes, or a series of them, to the Army to use and were in Washington demonstrating it, one of the people in Congress in one of the hearings was quoted as saying, ``Why not just buy one airplane and let them take turns using it?'' Well, it shows how myopic the view is of some people. The airplane was developed in part because we did basic research. Out of that start came an aeronautical industry that, in turn, had its own research done. The Government invested in wind tunnels and conducted lift experiments and drag experiments and metallurgical experiments along with some of that to see what would hold up in a wind tunnel. Out of that came the lifting bodies and the aerodynamic surfaces that were the basis of our whole aeronautical industry and helped develop such giants as Boeing, Lockheed, Grumman, Northrop, McDonnell-Douglas, and all the rest of the aviation companies that did not do all of that themselves. They could not. They did not have the resources. Yet, the Government went ahead with the research that let this whole new industry develop. In medicine, we have had people concerned since we have been a nation in doing more medical research than any nation. Out of that has come a medical system that is the envy of the world. At the same time, we have problems with it because we want to see more people benefiting from that system. But we have made our medical advances and breakthroughs largely because of basic, fundamental research. We have people willing to go into the laboratories and conduct that kind of research in oceanography, for example. Those who would think that just because we have moved into this new environment of space--there are some who think we should lay that down and it cannot possibly have any advantage to us. Yet, we have found in the past that exploring the unknown, whether it be in the lab or geographical expansion--can be just as valuable as any of the other kinds of research that we do. But we still have those who doubt. I am reminded of a quote that is sort of a favorite of mine because it shows how myopic some views can be. It involves Daniel Webster. He rose on the Senate floor when they were considering some territorial acquisitions from Mexico back in 1852. These were the lands beyond the Mississippi. These were the great plains beyond the Mississippi. These were the mountains and plains clear to the west coast. He did not like that idea very much. Daniel Webster rose on the Senate floor and spoke in opposition to the purchase. He is quoted as having said the following: What do we want with this vast worthless area, this region of savages and wild beasts, of deserts of shifting sands and whirlwinds of dust and cactus and prairie dogs? To what use could we ever hope to put these great deserts or the mountains that are covered to their very base with eternal snow? What can we ever hope to do with the western coast, a coast of 3,000 miles rock-bound, cheerless, uninviting, and not a harbor on it? What use have we for this country? Mr. President, I will never vote one cent from the Public Treasury to place the Pacific coast one inch nearer to Boston than it is now. We look back today and think how myopic that view was. I am sure everyone that comes from States west of the Mississippi would first be amused by Daniel Webster's statement. It shows how myopic the views of even well-educated, great public servants can become when they try and just assume that the status quo is what we are going to live with forever, and should live with forever. When we look up at space, in order to stay up there, you have to go fast enough to set up enough centrifugal force going around the Earth so that you balance gravity, so that, we now can assume a zero gravity or microgravity environment. You cannot do that here on Earth. You can throw something up in the air and for the time period it is going up and coming back down, it will be in a zero gravity condition or zero-G condition. However such experiments are very short-lived. In the spacecraft we have now, whether it be the space shuttle or the coming orbiting space station, up there on a permanent basis, we now have the capability of exercising this curiosity, exercising our wonder, exercising our look into the unknown to see how it can benefit us here on Earth. That is the reason why I rise today, to talk about the value of this and some of the things that, even at this early stage of investigation, this early stage of research in space, is of value to everyone right here on Earth. Let me take the last Space Shuttle flight that went up as an example. The last flight was called an ``Ohio flight'' because, as it turned out, four out of the five people on board were from Ohio. The flight was not set up that way, as an Ohio flight, to begin with. It was just the luck of the draw on that assignment of crew that it turned out that four of the five people were from Ohio. I went down before their launch and spent a couple of days with that crew down at Houston. It was intensely interesting. We went through some of the simulations the astronauts use for training there, as well as reviewed some of the experiments and things they were going to do on that particular flight. This was not an unusual flight in that regard. It was a flight that had a number of experiments on board--a dozen or so--and some of them that may have a particular benefit to people right here on Earth. The people on that flight were Commander Tom Hendricks from Woodville, OH; Nancy Jane Curry from Troy; Mary Ellen Weber of Bedford Heights, Don Thomas of Cleveland; Kevin Kriegle from Amityville, NY, who we made an honorary Ohioan for the duration of that particular mission. They did a great job. Many people watched the other day as they landed successfully at the cape after being delayed in coming back because of weather. But the important thing I want to stress this morning is that just on that one flight, some of the things they had aboard may be of extreme value to everybody right here. Actually, they had a total of 18 different experiments that were on board that flight. The primary mission was to put into space the TDRS satellite, the tracking and data relay satellite system. This is a final installation of a series of space-based communication and tracking networks that will be used for lower Earth orbit communications. The amount of communications of data relay that that particular satellite will be able to handle, to me, is sort of mind boggling. Once it is fully up and fully operational--it is up there now but not fully operational--it will be used as a spare in case one of the other TDRS satellites develops problems. But its capacity, when fully operational, will be to transmit information per second, equal to about a 20 volume encyclopedia, to be able to transfer that amount of data per second. The communications that something like that provides and the ability to communicate with different parts of the world almost instantaneously is rather mind boggling to even consider. I will not try and go through all 18 of these experiments, but another one I was particularly interested in--and that the scientists at NASA are very excited about--is the bioreactor system. We were briefed on that in Houston, and one of the scientists describing this says that if this comes through the way they think it may, this is Nobel Prize material. Well, it may well be. What it does is it makes a new way of studying cancer cells and other cells that are in the human body. It provides a new way of analyzing these cells and may lead to a new way of treating them. The reason it is different is this. In a laboratory here on Earth, if you want to grow some cancer cells you usually must grow them on the bottom of a Petri dish. These cells grow in essentially a two- dimensional way. Scientists can then analyze the cells, but because they are two dimensional, they do not exactly replicate how these cancer cells are found in the body. A two dimensional model is not the cells' natural environment. Cancer cells in the blood stream, cancer cells in a tissue, are surrounded by other body fluids, body parts. With the bioreactor, researchers can grow cells in a three- dimensional environment, more similar to what is found in the human body. When cancer cells are allowed to grow in three dimensions, researchers can use different experimental techniques, different drugs or lasers or whatever, to see how these cells or tumors may best be treated. On a lab here on Earth a bioreactor has been used to grow small three dimensional breast cancer cells, but eventually the forces of gravity take over and these models fall apart. In a constant microgravity environment, like that of the space shuttle or space station larger cell clusters can be grown--more similar to what is found in the human body. The first efforts at that are being done now, and were conducted with this bioreactor development system which flew on the most recent shuttle. Stated in other terms, the ability of a bioreactor to provide the environment and metabolic support required to grow and maintain mammalian cell cultures in microgravity. This is a short statement, meaning, basically, what I said a moment ago. The experiments that they were starting on this last flight on STS-70 were with cancer cells. They want to see what reaction they get, how they can maintain the cells there, what reaction they have to different conditions, and so on. Can I say right here that we have the answer to cancer near at hand, or the answer to AIDS near at hand? No. But out of an inquiry like this might well come some advances that combine with others, and other research may give us a handle. Surely, this environment that they are in, where they are surrounded by the normal body fluids in the reactor, is much more conducive to research. The effect of microgravity on bone development has been an ongoing area of research. Research into osteoporosis, which is a degenerative bone disease, is one prime example. One thing that happens in microgravity is the body starts to correct itself, as it no longer needs the same skeletal strength it has here on Earth to maintain itself up there. We used to worry about this because if one's body eliminated enough calcium and the bones became much less rigid, we used to joke about the possibility of ``jelly bones.'' Sometime in the future if a person went on a long space flight, maybe you would come back and your bones would be so weak, so much calcium was out of them, you might not be able to stand without taking a chance of breaking your leg. Osteoporosis goes through much of this same process. Prolonged bed rest in the hospital creates some of that same process--the body throwing off much of the calcium that it has in its bones. In space, you develop some of these characteristics much more rapidly. That is the reason why you see some of the pictures coming back, people are up there exercising, exercising, exercising, about an hour every day on a treadmill, tied down with bungee cords, because they find that hard exercise every day is the best way to prevent that from happening. Here on Earth, one of the ways people prevent osteoporosis is by daily exercise. Up there, we can then use additional chemicals or medicines or whatever to see if we cannot reverse this process or at least prevent it from happening, which will have a direct relationship right here on Earth. Another experiment, commercial protein crystal growth. Crystallized human alpha-interferon protein. The protein crystal growth experiments have been particularly interesting. These crystal growths occur with more purity and sometimes in much different size in the weightlessness of space than they do here on Earth. It opens up a whole new area of experimentation with regard to what may be of benefit right here on Earth. This particular crystal also may have some cancer benefits. All of these things are not just curiosities in space, to be applied in space. They are of benefit to people right here on Earth. It always surprises me when people do not seem to want to realize or they talk down projects that may result in a whole new approach to disease. It may result in what we call tailormade drugs; in other words, drugs that will be tailored to a specific benefit to cope with a particular disease or a particular medical difficulty. They are doing those experiments there now. Another experiment that has a title that is rather unwieldy may have some defense applications for us. We do not know yet. We think it may. It is called the HERCULES project. Now, HERCULES stands for hand-held, Earth-oriented, cooperative, real time, user-friendly, location targeting, and environmental system. That is some handle for the project HERCULES. What it is, is a space-based geolocating system to locate a wide variety of features on the ground with great accuracy. It has some defense applications that may come out of that, as well as other scientific applications. Another experiment is microencap- sulation in space to produce novel pharmaceuticals in a weightless condition which can be done with more purity than they can be done here on Earth. Another one is a midcourse space experiment, which supports the development of surveillance capabilities of ballistic missiles during the midcourse of their flight. There are a number of experiments they perform on just that one flight. Going back one flight before that, we all watched as astronaut Hoot Gibson flew the STS-71 mission, the shuttle-MIR mission. There were great pictures of that, that I am sure many of my colleagues saw. On that mission, in addition to just being able to rendezvous with two 100-ton vehicles coming together up there in space, they did metabolic experiments: Studying physiological responses in space, changes in blood volume, cardiovascular and pulmonary research, neurosensory research, how zero gravity affects brain communication. Does that tie in with brain communication? We need information with regard to Alzheimer's disease or whatever. Also, behavior and performance research, long-term effects of microgravity on muscle coordination, mental acuity, and once again, the protein crystal growth experiments. These are just a few of the things that are going on in the space program these days. I just mention these things now and, in subsequent remarks here on the floor, I want to give more information on some of these. I wanted to set the stage this morning by going back in just a few of the things that I have mentioned with regard to the value of basic research in this country, and that NASA is out there, right now, doing that kind of cutting edge, basic research, in this new laboratory of space. Every year, NASA publishes a book called ``Spinoffs.'' This one is ``Spinoff, 1994,'' a whole book full of some of the things that NASA has been doing that are of value right here on Earth. Health and medicine, environment and resources management, public safety, consumer, home, recreational spinoffs, transportation, computer technology, industrial productivity, and manufacturing technology. I will not try to read all the things here this morning for people, but I commend them to my colleagues and the staffs here on the floor for reading, to see what is going on in some of these areas. We will be talking more about some of these things as time goes on. I know the time is limited here this morning. I will make some more lengthy remarks in days ahead. I wanted to take this time this morning to set the stage for the upcoming debate on NASA's budget. People have looked up for hundreds of thousands of years and wondered what is up there in the air, and then the Wright brothers went ahead and learned how to fly and learned how to stay up there for a period of time, and people first thought, what use was it. But we know what use it became later on--our whole aircraft and airline industry that lets people travel to far places around the world. Every time we come up with a new capability for doing research, it seems that there are those who do not want to recognize that something good may come out of it, whether it be agriculture research, metals research, aeronautical research, oceanography, geographical research, or whatever. But, as I said starting out, if there is one thing this Nation has learned, it is that money and time spent on basic, fundamental research in whatever area usually comes back and shows more value than we could ever foresee at the outset. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, this Sunday marks the 30th anniversary of the Medicare Program's enactment into law. On July 30, 1965 President Lyndon Johnson traveled to Independence, MO, to sign the bill creating Medicare with President Harry Truman looking on. President Truman, of course, had proposed the creation of a national health insurance program in 1948. But it took 17 years of discussion and debate, several failed attempts in Congress, and the work of the Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations, before the stage was set for Democrats to build on Social Security's successes and further guarantee security for our Nation's elderly and disabled citizens. Thirty years ago, Medicare's detractors tried to rally opponents with cries of socialized medicine and forecasts of Medicare's impending failure. Since that time, we have witnessed the positive impact that Medicare has had on the lives of seniors and disabled beneficiaries, as well as their families. Few can deny Medicare's accomplishments. By ensuring access to necessary and appropriate medical services, Medicare continues to help millions of Americans lead dignified and independent lives--free from worry that even a minor illness or injury could devastate both their personal, and their family's, financial security. Medicare is not a perfect health insurance program. Congress continues to work to control Federal health spending, and the elderly must still confront the ever-increasing costs of treatment for catastrophic illness, long-term care, and prescription drugs. However, today's seniors enjoy their retirement years in better health and with a greater sense of security than most thought possible 30 years ago. Ten years ago, I made a brief statement to mark Medicare's 20 year anniversary. In that statement, I discussed the efforts that Congress had made to expand benefits, improve the quality of Medicare services, and address the explosion of health care spending. As we all know, the Congress has not solved all of the health care challenges I outlined that day, and today the Medicare program may be facing its greatest test. But Mr. President, Congress is confronting Medicare's current fiscal challenge with a radically different spirit and attitude than it had in the past. Until recently, the Medicare debate was centered around the commitment to keeping our compact with America's seniors by ensuring Medicare's long-term solvency, while also expanding beneficiaries' access to services and improving the quality of care. The recent budget resolution's $270 billion Medicare cut--which has been disguised as a Medicare rescue--is actually nothing more than an attempt to extract the maximum amount of budget savings from the Medicare Program. Somehow the Medicare reform debate has become a discussion about how the Congress can balance the Federal budget and give tax breaks to the rich, instead of how our country can provide health care and security for the elderly and disabled. Let us put aside the political posturing surrounding the budget debate and sit down to figure out what is best for the 37 million Americans who are served by Medicare, and the millions more expected to join the rolls in the future. Mr. President, these days Americans are very cynical about their government. We should not confirm the public's fear that Members of Congress are trying to gain political advantage from Medicare's fiscal crises, rather we must take action to restore the public confidence while restoring the stability of Medicare. A generation that has given so much should not be burdened with higher premiums and deductibles or decreased benefits. Older American's financial security should not be sacrificed for partisan gain. I recognize the limits of Medicare in this time of tight budgets and downsizing of government, but I also believe that by working together, we can fulfill a pledge made three decades ago and honor our commitment to today's seniors, and future generations of older Americans.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I wanted to rise today to make some short remarks here on the floor about a special person in Toledo, OH. It is Edwin F. Petsche, who was in my office just a couple of days ago. I remarked about him on the floor of the Senate yesterday. It had been my great honor to award him a Purple Heart that was long overdue. Ed Petsche took part in the withdrawal from the Chosin Reservoir in Korea, back about 45 years ago, and had never received that Purple Heart. I mentioned it in passing yesterday in connection with our remarks about the dedication of the Korean War Memorial. I will say more about Ed Petsche in just a moment. But let me just briefly set the stage. In the annals of Marine Corps history there are some things that stand out: Belleau Wood, Iwo Jima, raising of the flag on Mt. Suribachi, and a number of events, and notable times of combat in various wars. You cannot compare one with another, for they all required great sacrifice. But I wanted to pay attention to this particular moment and set the stage for what happened out there. The dedication this week of the Korean War Memorial is a time for all Americans to reflect upon the sacrifices of our many veterans of that conflict--Ed Petsche and many others. Many younger Americans are hearing this week for the first time the names of Korean cities and campaigns that were household words in America almost a half-century ago. The name of one geographical area in Korea will remain forever enshrined in the pantheon of Marine Corps history and that is the Chosin Reservoir. In late October 1950, the Joint Chiefs of Staff authorized operations north of the 38th parallel in Korea. Maj. Gen. O.P. Smith's spirited 1st Marine Division began to drive north toward the Yalu River in an effort to destroy completely the North Korean People's Army. On November 2, 1950, the 7th, 5th, and 1st Marines moved out, in that order, from Hamhung, following a treacherous mountain route toward the Chosin Reservoir, the site of a large hydroelectric facility in northern Korea. By midnight the marines were in heavy contact with the Chinese 124th Division, as the People's Liberation Army had just entered the war to assist the struggling North Koreans. The 7th and 5th Marines continued their advance through both light and heavy enemy opposition, and were concentrated at Yudam-Ni by 27 November, while the legendary ``Chesty'' Puller's 1st Marines took positions along the route. The full weight of the veteran 100,000 to 120,000 man Chinese 9th Army Group then fell upon the marines. The Chinese attacked during the night in temperatures approaching 20 degrees below zero, cutting the main supply routes, and isolating the marines into four close perimeters. Although the vastly outnumbered marines held their ground, the situation was very, very grave. On December 1, General Smith ordered a breakout from the reservoir, which he termed an ``attack in a different direction.'' They went into retreat. They were surrounded. In any direction they went they contacted the enemy. So it truly was an attack in a different direction. They were supported by the 1st Marine Aircraft Wing that flew and flew and flew nearly 4,000 sorties during the entire operation--4,000 sorties. The 1st Marine Division blasted its way through seven Chinese divisions and finally reached safety at Hungnam by December 12. At the Chosin Reservoir, there was somewhere around 15,000 Americans involved. And out of that I think there were 13,000 casualties listed-- in 10 days there were 13,000 casualties either dead or wounded during that advance back to Hungnam. The Chosin Reservoir campaign cost the marines over 4,400 battle casualties, including killed and wounded, and uncounted cases of frostbite and pneumonia. The Communist Chinese forces had suffered a catastrophe, however. The best count ever made was that there were some 25,000 Chinese communist dead--25,000 dead as they came out. Well, I read that to set the stage for Ed Petsche, and to show that this was tough close combat. He was bayoneted. That is hand-to-hand combat. This is not shooting at people remotely with rockets and with missiles, or things like that. He was bayoneted, and left for dead; tossed on a pile of soldiers and left there for dead. And it may have been lucky that the temperature was so cold because it was said that the temperature froze the wounds on parts of his body and maybe protected them a little bit from having become infected any more than they were. But he was still alive and was groaning. Someone heard his groans, rescued him and got him out. And they finally got him some attention and got him out of there. That is the preface to saying that when he was in the hospital in Japan, Ed, for some reason, never had the record set straight that would have gotten him his Purple Heart. I wanted to give that little background because some 45 years later, Ed Petsche and his children and grandchildren were in my office a couple of days ago. And I was honored on behalf of the Commandant to present to him his belated Purple Heart. And it was indeed an honor. We lost a lot of people in Korea. And I know that we have made a huge effort with regard to Vietnam to make sure that the POW/MIA count, the bodies and the missing people there--that their records are brought to light and that their remains are brought back, even now 20-some years after the end of the Vietnam war. In Korea there are some 8,000 that are still missing that we do not have records on, and do not have their remains. I know the President indicated a couple of days ago that he thought that we should be pushing to get a better accounting of what happened to those people in Korea. I would also note in passing that we still have some 78,000 missing MIA's out of World War II. Ed Petsche came so close to being one of those who died in Korea. But he survived, luckily, and has received his [[Page S 10866]] recognition, although too many years too late. I guess to those whose loved ones still remain in Korea, whose remains were never brought back, I am reminded of the lines by Rupert Brooke in a book of poems called ``The Soldier.'' He was an Englishman, and wrote about those who represented England in foreign fields and wars, and places all over the world. And sometimes their bodies were not brought back. He stated his belief this way, and I think it should apply to some of the ways we can look to some of our people too. He said: If I should die, think only this of me, that there is some corner of a foreign field that is forever England. And I guess I would look the same way for our own people, the 8,000 who never came back, who never even had records on them brought back from Korea. With all the 54,000 dead that we had in Korea, many did not come back. I guess I would say the same thing to our people, that they died, but think only this of them, that there is that corner of a foreign field in Korea that is forever America. Wherever they fell becomes a part of this country, whether it is legal on the international boundary chart or not. Ed Petsche represents the people who were out there. He was lucky. Although he came so close to death that he was tossed on a pile of soldiers and left for dead, he still survived and came back. Out of that campaign, where he and the others came out of the Chosin Reservoir and came down to Hungnam, there were 17 Congressional Medals of Honor and 70 Navy Crosses awarded in just that one 10-day advance. It is hard to believe the terrible things that they went through, not only the enemy and so many casualties all over the place. Almost the whole force became casualties; 13,000 casualties out of the 15,000 forces involved with 4,400 dead, as I indicated a little while ago. So it is these things that we remember during this week of commemoration regarding what happened in Korea so many years ago. I wanted to pay special tribute to Ed Petsche because he represents the best of the people we sent out there. He was 19 years old at the time, and almost died out there, but came back, and was never recognized for his action. And I can say very truly it was indeed a great, great honor to be able to present the Purple Heart to him, although it was some 45 years later. It was a pleasure to meet his family. We wish him the very best and we are glad that finally the ``Forgotten War,'' as it has been called all through the years is forgotten no more. It has a memorial that will commemorate forever, or will memorialize here in Washington forever, the sacrifices that were made by people like Ed Petsche. I am honored to be able to pay him tribute on the floor of the U.S. Senate today. I yield the floor. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, we just came back from the dedication of the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and I just want to say a few words about that. It has been a long time since 1986 when we started this effort. A lot of people were involved; a lot of people worked very hard to see this memorial come to fruition. Korea was sort of the forgotten war. I think there were several reasons for that. It came so closely on the heels of World War II, which was a war with many nations involved, global in scope. Then, all at once, here we were involved in Korea. The area of conflict was more geographically limited. But what transpired within the borders of Korea was every bit as violent as anything that happened anywhere in the world in World War II. Now, I think it is a shame after the war--I always have felt this way after a war when people come back. When you leave for the war bands are playing, you are off for freedom, this sort of thing. When you come back, sometimes the band is playing and the talk about freedom and protecting freedom is there, it is true. But when you are out there and you are in combat, the whole horizon of the world narrows down. And it is you and the people you are with in combat, its survival, and you take losses. Then you come back. Yes, it is ``thank you'' a little bit. But then it is sort of forgotten. I think that was particularly true in Korea. Korea became the forgotten war, largely because it came so closely on the heels of World War II. And because, a few years later, Vietnam became such a divisive war, attracting so much attention on the national scene that Korea was really that forgotten episode out there. I know it is not good to compare one war with another as far as losses go, not to those involved, whether families or friends, nor to the people who are out there getting shot at, wounded, and killed. I know you cannot compare one war with another and do it properly. But Korea, for the length of it, was one of the bloodiest wars that this Nation has ever fought. Vietnam was stretched out over a period of about 10 years. There were 58,000 Americans--58,000 Americans lost-- killed in Vietnam. In 3 years in Korea we lost 54,000 Americans--some of the bloodiest fighting that ever occurred. It was the Chosin Reservoir. In the annals of military history, particularly of the Marine Corps, Chosin Reservoir [[Page S 10784]] and some of the things that happened there were almost unbelievable. Surrounded by 120,000 Chinese and North Korean troops, this small group of marines made their way out from the reservoir, bringing their dead along with them, piling in the back of the trucks, in the weapons carrier, and so on. They did not leave anybody up there. Yesterday, in my office, I had the honor of pinning a Purple Heart on a gentleman who had been bayoneted at Chosin Reservoir and came out-- they kept him on the hood of the vehicle to keep him warm. He got over to Japan and was in the hospital there. He never put in for the Purple Heart. His son wrote to me. We turned it over to the Marine Corps. They checked the records. Sure enough, no Purple Heart. Bayoneted 43 years ago, and I had the honor of pinning that Purple Heart on him in my office yesterday. One of the things irritating to me is that, when people go out and fight a war, and they come back and want to have a memorial so somebody remembers down the road, they have to raise the money to put up the memorial themselves. Is that not ironic? A grateful nation, yes. But not quite grateful enough to put up a memorial to the 54,000 Americans killed out there. So some years ago, a number of people--I was one of them--got together and decided there should be a memorial; that this should not be a forgotten war. I played a very small role in it, I was not a leading part of it. We raised the money for it. As I say, I was a very tiny part, and I truly was. Gen. Ray Davis, a Marine Medal of Honor winner, wound up spearheading this effort, and he was the master of ceremonies at the dedication ceremonies just a little while ago. For those who were there, we do not need a memorial. I do not need a memorial for Korea. Because those who were there--Senator Warner is here on the floor, Senator Chafee was over there--those who were out there remember very, very well what happened. You remember an awful lot of things. You remember the squadron commander getting shot down, seeing him bail out, seeing the plane crash, and you were not able to get him out of there. You remember other people going down in flames. You remember people not coming out at a rendezvous point after a strike and having to write to their next of kin. That is the hardest part, I can tell you that. Anybody there can testify to it. You remember getting hit and the airplane keeps on flying. My memory of things like that is very, very vivid, as though they just happened this morning. So what I am saying is, for those who were there, we do not need a memorial. But I think it is important that the Korean Memorial is there. The design of it is very good. It shows people slogging along. The figures there represent all the different services and all the nations that were out there, the 20 nations beside our own that were involved. This is a memorial to all of those who sacrificed so much, whether on the ground, in the air, or wherever they were. It is a memorial to all of them. It will be a symbol for my children, my grandchildren, my great grandchildren, my great, great grandchildren that the freedoms that we have, and our position in the world, did not just happen. It is not something that just was automatic. It is something that happened because there were an awful lot of people who went out, whether it was World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, or elsewhere, and represented this country in conditions that were very, very tough. So we do not need a memorial, perhaps for our generation, the generation that took part in Korea. When you meet someone who was out there, a handshake, a look in the eye, just knowing that they understand, is your memorial. But I think it is important that we have an impressive memorial, like the Korean Memorial, for those who come after. Maybe they can get some little bit of inspiration from it about dedication to country, loyalty, and patriotism. These are the things that the memorial is all about. For those who were there, we do not need it. We have our own memories, a memory memorial that does more than the bricks, mortar, stainless steel, bronze, and marble down there on the Mall as a companion piece to the Vietnam Memorial. I say as a companion piece because many Americans can remember being in Washington and standing on the Lincoln Memorial steps, looking down the reflecting pool toward the Washington Monument. Over on the left is the Vietnam Memorial, very impressive. Now, over on the right, is a companion piece, the grove of trees where the Korean Memorial is. The bravery demonstrated in Korea, whether at Chosin Reservoir or elsewhere, was just as valorous as any other war in which Americans have fought. Truly, uncommon valor was a common virtue there, as much as it was in any other war. I hope that our kids can get a little taste of that bravery, of what happened out there. That I see as the memorial's basic function. So today perhaps the forgotten war is not quite as forgotten as people thought. I hope that, as people from all over this country come and see this impressive memorial, they, too, will have a small appreciation for what happened back in those days. The forgotten war is not forgotten. We have a beautiful memorial now. We are proud to have taken part in dedicating it today. I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 6 or 7 minutes.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I withdraw the request for a quorum call.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to offer my very strong support for S. 1060, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. This legislation is similar to that reported out by the Governmental Affairs Committee, which I was privileged to chair during the last Congress. Senators Levin and Cohen, in particular, deserve our words of high praise for their diligence and persistence in tackling such a thorny area and coming up with an effective and pragmatic bill. Mr. President, there is blessed little credit given to those who bring up things like this. There is a lot of opposition. But these are the things in the committee we used to jokingly call the ``grunt work'' of Government--the grunt work of Government--the good Government issues that too often are not brought to the floor, and when they are brought to the floor, usually cause very little attention to be paid. Senator Levin was President of the Detroit City Council before he came to Washington. I have heard him talk many times about how he came in here with a burning purpose of doing regulatory reform, for instance. We have been having that on the floor the last couple of weeks. Now on lobbying reform, ethics in Government matters. That may be a column note someplace, a short column note at the very best, usually, on items like this. But they are items which become vitally important for long-term Government in this country and how our people look at Government, because we live in an age when, for whatever reason, people have lost confidence in their Government. There is a pervasive cynicism, if not outright skepticism, about the integrity of Government institutions to carry out and serve the public's interest. Part of this distrust is the perception that Congress in particular is beholden to special interests and that ordinary people cannot rise above the din of lobbyists having special access to and currying favor from Members of Congress or top officials in the executive branch. I personally do not subscribe to this view. I feel it is more myth than reality. However, as long as the perception is there, doubt and suspicion will linger. In my view, the issue is about access and accountability. We want to return power to the people. At long last, everyone will be able to know who is paying what to lobby whom on which subject and on which issue. Whether it is a special tax loophole or a pork barrel project, people want to know what is going on. The sunshine is always the best disinfectant. I am sure that most of us would much rather be talking and meeting with those who elected us--our constituents--than some smooth-talking lobbyist. I, for one, was elected to represent the people of Ohio. And they are who I want to hear from and will always give top priority to. This bill provides for the effective disclosure of paid lobbyists who are trying to influence Federal legislative or executive branch officials in the conduct of Government actions. It also affords us the fullest opportunity for citizens to exercise their constitutional right to petition the Government. Nothing in this bill whatsoever would either restrict or prohibit our constituents from writing, from calling, or from meeting with us. Senators Levin and Cohen have clarified that. They have also removed the so-called grassroots lobbying provision which was used to thwart our efforts to get this bill enacted into law prior to adjournment last year. This legislation makes commonsense reforms in the registration and disclosure process. It replaces the myriad of lobbying disclosure laws--some with giant loopholes--with a single, uniform statute covering all professional lobbyists. It also streamlines the disclosure requirements to ensure that the public is provided with meaningful information, not some undecipherable code. The legislation also establishes a workable system to administer and enforce compliance with this act. I think we are at a crucial crossroads, in my view, over the role of Government and people's respect for it. I believe this bill will enhance the public's awareness of and confidence in the functioning of their Government. It makes sure that public officials are accountable for their actions. I think it will discourage lobbyists and their clients from engaging in less than proper activities. Let me say this about lobbyists. I do not turn lobbyists away. I welcome their information a lot of times because a lot of times they can give you details of or insight into this particular area of expertise that is welcome and should be considered. But to try and tie that lobbyist up with whether they made a contribution or not is absolutely wrong. In short, effective lobbying disclosure would ensure that the public Federal officials and other interested parties are aware of the pressures that are brought to bear on public policy. Now more than ever, so to speak. At a time when major health and safety laws or regulations are being debated on the Senate floor, the public is entitled to know what lobbyists we are meeting with in the back rooms, who they are representing, and why they are here. Are they just passing through to say ``hello?'' Are they here to persuade us to offer or support an amendment to benefit a particular business or industry? Effective public disclosure will build confidence in this body and erase the doubts and suspicions that the public is shut out from the people's business. So I think the changes proposed by Senators Levin and Cohen are sensible and they strengthen the workings of the bill. They deserve our credit for leading this effort, though I regret we were prevented from acting upon this last year. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, throughout the continuing debate on regulatory reform a number of things have become very clear: First, the vast majority of Members of the Senate want regulatory reform--the speeches, the floor debates, the combined totals of the votes for reform of one kind or another show that Democrats and Republicans alike want regulatory reform. Second, despite bipartisan refusal to accept the majority leader's bill, there is bipartisan support for tough regulatory reform legislation as shown by the 48-to 52-vote to substitute the Glenn- Chafee bill--a bill based on the bipartisan work of the Governmental Affairs Committee--for the Dole-Johnston bill. Third, despite the majority leader's disappointment in his failure to gain acceptance for his proposal, there continues to be wide support for continuing to negotiate cooperatively to come up with a workable reform bill. We have made good faith efforts throughout this debate: we have come to the table on three different occasions with the proponents of the Dole-Johnston substitute; we have written lists of issues and have provided legislative language to address our concerns. The latest round of these efforts to provide our responses to some of their proposals was yesterday--just an hour before the third cloture vote. These lists were not new inventions of new problems, but a consistent, continuing set of concerns. Our list of concerns has narrowed as negotiations have progressed. We have not, as some Members have alleged, invented new problems merely to delay or confuse the debate. Fourth and finally, in the heat of this debate, in what seems to be a part of the desperation of a few to make the best of a bad situation, some unfortunate and misleading statements have been made about our bill. I am very disappointed, and in fact surprised, by the statements of Senator Roth. We worked together in the Governmental Affairs Committee to make his regulatory reform bill, S. 291, into a strong bipartisan bill that could be and indeed was supported by every member of the Committee--8 Republicans and 7 Democrats. Just when the Wall Street Journal was unfairly and inaccurately characterizing the Roth bill as ``a do-nothing bill'' as it did on April 27, 1995, Senator Roth and I were working together and agreeing that we had a tough but fair bill that could gain the support of the Committee and should be the bill that could and should pass the full Senate. Last week he made charges against the Glenn-Chafee bill with regard to risk assessment provisions, saying that we took the National Academy of Sciences ``minority views'' by preferring ``default assumptions to relevant data.'' As I pointed out on the floor, that was not correct. Our bill says to use default assumptions when relevant data are lacking. And our bill requires agencies to put out guidelines in refining default assumptions and replacing those assumptions with real data. Clearly, our bill does not give a preference to assumptions over data. Yesterday, and this is the reason I return to the floor today to set the record straight, he said the Glenn-Chafee bill is ``toothless''-- yes, just the word the Wall Street Journal used to attack him a few months ago, that it is completely different from the Roth-Glenn bill that came out of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and that it has a completely different thrust. It is also ironic that my colleague from Delaware now so clearly defends the S. 291 review process, stating on July 17 on the floor, ``Although the original Glenn bill was similar to the Roth bill, the current Glenn substitute seriously differs from the Roth bill * * * Senator Glenn has seriously weakened the review of rules * * * The revised Glenn substitute lacks any firm requirement about the number of rules to be reviewed.'' However, in his ``Dear Colleague'' letter on July 11 he states, ``S. 291--and S. 1001--has substantial administrative difficulties. They require every major rule to be reviewed in a 10-year period, with a possible 5-year extension, or be subject to termination. * * * It would be very burdensome to review all existing major rules--unduly burdensome when nobody is complaining about many of them.'' He calls us weak for not sticking to the Roth bill, and then calls the Roth bill ``unduly burdensome.'' I can understand loyalty, but I am surprised at the degree to which my colleague has turned away from his earlier, commendable reform efforts. He has now put himself in the strange position of attacking many of the same provisions he so enthusiastically supported just a few short months ago. Yesterday, I insisted that the Glenn-Chafee bill is based on the Roth-Glenn bill, S. 291, and that the Glenn-Chafee bill is largely identical with S. 291. In fact, the Glenn-Chafee bill differs from S. 291 in only three major ways to match S. 1001 and a few lesser ways in order to match amendments to the Dole-Johnston bill. Senator Roth, on the other hand, said ``what we voted for in Committee was entirely different from what we voted for on the floor in the Glenn substitute.'' For the record, I would like to provide a comparison of the two bills, and as the Record will show, most of the sections are identical. To reiterate, we made three changes, and we made additional changes to match amendments to the Dole-Johnston bill. First, the Glenn-Chafee substitute, which was voted for by 48 Senators, is a slight modification of S. 1001, which I introduced with Senator Chafee. S. 1001 differs from S. 291 on only three major points: It does not sunset rules that fail to be reviewed. Rather it establishes an action-enforcing mechanism that uses the rulemaking process. It does not include any narrative definitions for ``major'' rule-- such as ``adverse effects on wages''. It incorporates technical changes to risk assessment to track more closely the approach of the National Academy of Sciences and to cover specific programs and agencies, not just agencies. Second, in the weeks since introduction of S. 1001, negotiations and debate have resulted in common agreement on improvements, both to the Dole-Johnston and the Glenn-Chafee proposals. Accordingly, the final version of Glenn-Chafee, which again was supported by a bipartisan vote of 48 Senators, contains some additional changes. Most of these are also found in the Dole-Johnston bill, which Senator Roth now supports. So I find it difficult to understand how the Senator from Delaware can criticize these changes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a comparison of the two bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, ``What's Good from Government.'' Now there is a topic you do not see often these days. Yet on May 15, 1994, this was the title of an article that appeared in Library Journal discussing the sixty-three finest government publications in 1993. Out of the 20 selected federal government publications that were honored, three of these reports were issued by the congressional Office of Technology Assessment, including one called, ``Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing the Risks.'' Here is what Keay Davidson, a reviewer in the San Francisco Chronicle had to say about the report on April 7, 1995: For years, OTA has generated some of the most readable and useful reports imaginable about US research and its impact on social, political, military and economic policy. I always look forward to its reports, which are extraordinarily clear, thoughtful and well-illustrated--extraordinary considering that they come from a government agency. When's the last time you actually enjoyed reading a government document? Not long ago I was on a plane flight, completely absorbed by an OTA report on US efforts to control nuclear weapons and other ``technologies of mass destruction.'' The distinguished journal, Foreign Affairs reviewed another report in a recent series of OTA studies on nonproliferation and came to the following conclusion: ``The Office of Technology Assessment does some of the best writing on security-related technical issues in the United States, as evidenced by this excellent volume.'' Of course, this is not the first time that OTA has been recognized for excellence. The June 1989 issue of Washington Monthly featured a story on OTA, holding it up as a model for the rest of the government-- over a picture of the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, and the Capitol, the cover of this journal declared, ``At Last! A Government Agency That Works.'' Indeed, in the last 4 years, 24 OTA reports have been selected in national competitions as among the best government publications nationwide, even worldwide. None of this acclaim surprises me. OTA has had a long and distinguished track record of publishing informative studies on nonproliferation issues. In 1977, OTA issued a 270-page book on Nuclear Proliferation and Safeguards that is still valuable reading. In a hearing on April 4, 1977, of the Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation, and Federal Services of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, I called this study a ``landmark document'' that ``will make a substantial contribution to everyone's understanding of this highly complex and emotionally charged issue.'' Highly complex indeed--I can say without doubt that halting the global spread of weapons of mass destruction is one of the most vexing problems that either the Executive or Congress has had to confront in modern times. The political and diplomatic problems of addressing this threat are bad enough. But the technological aspects of this problem are so complex that many public officials and citizens around the country have just given up--they need help to sort out the issues, weigh the stakes, and outline courses of action. The OTA has responded to this need in a manner which brings credit not just to the agency, but to our system of government: I am proud that the U.S. Congress recognized the need for such an agency 23 years ago. My purpose today, however, is to praise OTA for the specific work over the last few years on the subject of weapons proliferation. I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate and the House, even those who have called OTA ``a luxury we cannot afford,'' to sample some of the following reports on weapons proliferation issues. First, ``Nuclear Safeguards and the International Atomic Energy Agency'' OTA-ISS-615, June 1995, 147 pages (released this month; also available in a 22-page summary). This report reviews the origins of the IAEA, describes its safeguards system in terms that non-specialists can easily understand, discusses numerous options for strengthening the IAEA safeguards system, and outlines other possible initiatives to strengthen the global nuclear nonproliferation regime. Second, ``Proliferation and the Former Soviet Union''; OTA-ISS-605, September 1994, 92 pages. This report is essential reading for all who are concerned about twin problems of ``loose nukes'' and the ``brain drain'' following the breakup of the Soviet Union. The report documents specific problems with respect to weaknesses in national systems of nuclear accounting, controls over exports, and the ability to police borders. Third, ``Export Controls and Nonproliferation Policy''; OTA-ISS-596, May 1994, 82 pages. Here the OTA addresses the contributions and limitations of export controls as a tool of nonproliferation policy. The study offers insights and technical details about the export licensing process, in particular measures to make this process more efficient and effective in achieving nonproliferation objectives. Fourth, ``Technologies Underlying Weapons of Mass Destruction''; OTA- BP-ISC-115, December 1993, 263 pages. This report is a basic primer about the fabrication and effects of weapons of mass destruction. It is essential reading for anybody both for those who have official responsibilities to tackle this problem, and those who are simply curious about what all the fuss is about concerning these deadly weapons. Fifth, ``Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing the Risks''; OTA-ISC-559, August 1993, 123 pages. I have already discussed this award-winning above. If a reader has no background on proliferation issues and wants to read just one report for the clearest possible introduction to the subject, this is the report to read. Sixth, ``The Chemical Weapons Convention: Effects on the U.S. Chemical Industry''; OTA-BP-ISC-106, August 1993, 69 pages. The Senate will take up ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention later this year. An important topic in this process will be the costs to US industry from complying with this Convention. Given that the treaty will cover controls over chemicals that are either produced or used throughout the nation, this study should be of great interest indeed. If the publication of six major studies in less than two years is not enough to illustrate the productivity of this agency, critics might consider that OTA is well underway on yet another report in this series, this time on assessing US responses to proliferation after it has occurred. Congress established OTA in 1972 after determining that, although the applications of technology are ``increasingly extensive, pervasive, and critical in their impact,'' no Executive or Legislative branch agencies were capable of providing Congress with ``adequate and timely information, independently developed, relating to [their] potential impact.'' In its 23 years, OTA has filled that need--and in an age when cost/benefit analyses will figure so prominently in evaluating Federal actions, I can think of no more greater need in Congress than for the types of skills and services that OTA offers today. This is why the presidents of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine have warned that closing OTA will diminish the quality of advice to Congress. Representing the interests of over 240,000 electrical engineers nationwide, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers calls OTA a ``highly regarded and respected institution'' that serves as an ``irreplaceable asset'' to Congress. The world's largest scientific organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, says that abolishing OTA would be a ``strategic error for Congress'' that would seriously harm the national interest. OTA does not only prepare formal high-quality reports--Congress has repeatedly drawn upon the agency's in-house expertise to provide short- notice testimony, briefings, and replies to congressional questions on many high technology subjects on the policy agenda. Following the nerve gas attacks in Tokyo and the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, for example, OTA staff were able to respond both promptly and comprehensively to repeated congressional questions. To whom will Congress turn if the next explosion in an American city involves a weapon of mass destruction? Though the Executive can occasionally be helpful in providing information, there is no substitute for Congress having an independent, bipartisan source of expertise on exactly such technically-complex issues. I can assure my colleagues, I know where I would like to turn in the years ahead, to the Office of Technology Assessment. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting OTA for having performed its mission with dignity and professional excellence. This is not an agency Congress can do without.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I was surprised in my office to hear practically the death knell being rung over our efforts to get regulatory reform. The Senator is aware that he sent us a fax last night, and we are working out the answer to that. Meanwhile, each one of the cloture votes that we have had have allowed us to make some progress. We have made a lot of progress on this regulatory reform bill. They have offered to substitute ``least cost'' for ``greater net benefits''--this is an improvement and if we can write it up properly, we may be able to agree to their proposal. ``Net benefits'', as I understand it, is in the Executive order language. They want to use that language in the decisional criteria, and we are willing to consider their proposals. We are making progress. We have also made progress on litigation opportunities and judicial review, as I understand it. I believe we agree that the final rule will be what is challengeable. We do still have a problem with the many new petition process. We are working on that. I think the Senator from Louisiana agreed a couple days ago at least on reasonable alternatives. Where it says ``reasonable alternatives,'' I believe his suggestion is to limit those alternatives that the agency has to consider to three or four. This is a major issue. We have not all agreed on that yet, but I think we can make major steps forward. Now, on automatic repeal of a schedule for some rules, I think we are pretty close on that. We still do not agree on a third area, though--on special interests, such as including the toxics release inventory in this bill. That is a major concern. We have made substantial progress in a number of areas here, and we have three or four more to go. But the Senator from Louisiana states that we have not gotten back with an answer yet to a proposal last evening. I am sure the Senator from Louisiana will agree this is very complex legislation. We have been working on it all morning and are going to meet on it this afternoon. So I hope we still continue in good-faith negotiations. I think we have made a lot of progress, and this is probably as complex a bill and as far-reaching for every man, woman and child in this country as anything we will consider in this Congress. I think we are making progress here. We are about to go to a meeting where we are going to talk about some of these very complex issues. We are supposed to meet at 2:15. And we are negotiating in good faith. I certainly do not read into our processes here anything except good faith on both sides. So I was a little bit surprised to hear the doom and gloom that I heard in my office a little while ago, and that is the reason I came over to the floor. I think we are making good progress on this. There are a number of areas that I think we can agree on, and I hope we can have more before the afternoon is over. Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, what I just heard here just does not happen to be the truth. It does not square with the facts. What we brought to the floor was basically the Roth-Glenn bill. It is the same bill with three major changes--A strict definition of a major rule, $100 million a year, no automatic sunset review, and simplified risk assessment, which was what the National Academy of Science recommended. Outside of those three things, I think--and I can be corrected--I believe it is largely word for word the same thing we brought out of committee unanimously. Only those three major items were added to the bill that came out of committee. If anyone can show me different, get up on this floor and say that. To say that I misstated and that I misrepresented the Glenn- Chafee bill is just flat not right. It is basically word for word the same as the Roth-Glenn bill that came out of committee, with those three changes I just mentioned. I want to correct that so we make sure all Members know that.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, we will make an analysis and enter in the Record tomorrow what the exact changes were. I do not believe that is a fair representation of the bill. We will make the entry in the Record tomorrow after we have had a chance to analyze both bills, side by side.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I yield such time to the Senator from Michigan as he may need. The Senator from Michigan came here, and his No. 1 item was to see if we could not get into regulatory reform. He was president of the city council in Detroit and had so many programs, and he has been working on it since he has been here. I yield to him for a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, we all want sensible regulatory reform. I want regulatory reform as badly as anybody here. We have worked on it for years in our committee, the Governmental Affairs Committee, but I want balanced regulatory reform, not regulatory reform slanted so much that anybody that objects to a particular regulation coming out could tie it up in courts in judicial review for almost an unlimited period of time. We have negotiated in good faith on this, back and forth, and I am sorry we have to go to another cloture vote on this because contrary to what has been said here, we have made a lot of progress. We did not have time enough to go through all of it. Mr. President, S. 343, the Dole-Johnston bill, does not fix the problem. It was quoted a moment ago that President Clinton said the American people deserve a system that works for them. We do not have such a system today. I submit that S. 343 does not give that balanced system either. The President has taken initiatives on this and already cut out 1,200 pages of regulation out of 13,000 pages reviewed. So they are working hard at making corrections. We do not need a bill that does nothing but provide regulatory favoritism. That is all we can call this, when they insist on keeping in such things as provisions gutting the toxics release inventory that protects people around plants, and so on. That is just not right that we pass something like that. We, in good faith, submitted another proposal this afternoon. We gradually, one by one, as proposals have been sent back and forth between the two sides, have worked out a lot of our differences, and this is one of the most complicated bills, one of the most complicated pieces of legislation that we can have, because it refers to so many aspects of law. It affects every man, woman, and child in this country. In that respect, I ask unanimous consent that the article out of this week's issue of Newsweek called ``Of Helmets and Hamburger'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, it details some of the problems involved, and I wish we had time to read it in the Record. It puts it very well, that what we are doing here is not only providing regulatory reform if we pass the Dole-Johnston bill, we are providing the possibility of rolling back health and safety laws developed over the last 25 years that have proven invaluable, have provided for better health, have provided for better safety for our own citizens. We do not want to take a chance of rolling that back. The bill that I proposed, known as the Glenn-Chafee bill, was one that hit a real balance. We provided redress for these regulatory excesses, and we all agree that there are regulatory excesses. They are all over the place. We hear about these every time we go back home. We correct them, but we correct them in the right way, providing a process that cannot be used to override the system, cannot be used to overflow the system, cannot be used to swamp the system. That is what S. 343 has the potential of doing. We want regulatory reform. We want regulatory reform as badly as anybody. I am sorry we cannot continue this negotiation today. I hope our colleagues will not let cloture be invoked and will vote against it so we can continue with these negotiations.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.