John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Would the Senator consider, rather than having a vote now, waiting until it is modified and wait until later?

Mr. GLENN. I particularly dislike having to oppose my good friend from Georgia, Senator Nunn. We worked together in the Governmental Affairs Committee on our bipartisan regulatory reform bill. We both supported the bill. I certainly have the very highest regard for him. He has always been a tireless champion of the interests of small business men and women in our country, and I certainly applaud him for that effort. But I believe that while this amendment is very well-intentioned, I think there are two serious problems. I do not believe the amendment should be accepted. First, it revises the Regulatory Flexibility Act in a number of ways that I think do not fit with workable regulatory reform. First, the amendment would require cost-benefit analysis of all reg flex rules. That is, rules that have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This would be small businesses, local governments, and the like. Including these rules in the cost- benefit analysis process would increase the number of rules that have to go through that analysis by over 500 rules. That is not a figure grabbed out of thin air; that is the administration's estimate. It is based on actual Federal Register entries over the last year. Now, OMB has estimated that if this passed this way, there could possibly be as many as 600 to 800 rules and regulations that would fall under this provision. That would raise the number of investigations and rulemaking procedures to something like three times our present number. Now, agencies are going to be hard pressed with the budget cuts they are facing now just to do the analysis required if we just pass the Glenn-Chafee bill with its $100 million threshold. S. 343, which is before us now, would lower the threshold to an unreasonable $50 million. This amendment that we are considering now by the Senators from Georgia would have the potential of adding somewhere between 500 to the current rate, or up to as many as 800 more rules to that list. That just overloads the circuits. To make the point even further, one estimate before our committee by one of the people testifying earlier this year was that each full-blown rule investigation costs somewhere around $700,000. If you take the 500 to 800 potential on this, that means we would be spending on investigations somewhere between $350 million for the 500 investigations, up to a potential of $560 million for the 800 investigations. Let us say that is a pessimistic view of how much it costs, that $700,000. Even if you cut it in half, it means it is somewhere around $175 million up to, say, $270 or $280 million to do this increased number of investigations. So I say that agencies are going to be very hard pressed with these budget cuts to make it. The second major problem with the amendment is the way it expands reg flex judicial review. The Glenn-Chafee bill is basically the bill brought out of committee earlier and is designated as S. 1001. As opposed to S. 1001, this amendment would allow judicial review of final rule reg flex analysis. As opposed to that, this amendment permits judicial review of proposed rule reg flex decisions. Now, this expands enormously the number of judicial challenges that can be made, and it further overturns a principle that has been long held that court review should wait until an agency makes its final rulemaking decision and then challenge the whole process, whatever it is, and not permit judicial review challenges all along the way, which means that the persistent challenger can keep something bogged down in court for years and years. It can literally bog down the whole process, this number of new rulemaking procedures that would have to be reviewed. So allowing judicial review of preliminary decisions about whether a rule is even subject to reg flex, which this would do, will bog down agencies and use more tax dollars unnecessarily and be a full employment bill for lawyers, basically. I do not think that should be the objective of this legislation. Mr. President, further, I must admit that I do not understand exactly how this whole thing would work. It would increase the complexity, as I see it, and it would create more judicial review, to be added to our expense in a substantial way. Let me say that the Regulatory Flexibility Act was passed by Congress as a way to ensure that agencies would evaluate the impact of proposed regulations on small businesses and other small entities such as local governments. The act was also intended to ensure that agencies consider less burdensome and more flexible alternatives for these small entities. I have supported the reg flex act from its inception when passed here a number of years ago. But the legislation before us and the amendment we are considering now would fundamentally change the Regulatory Flexibility Act by making its considerations the controlling factor, the controlling decisional criteria, for the very promulgation of a rule. I do not think that is the way we ought to be going. We should ensure that the Federal Government is more sensitive to the needs of small business. I certainly agree with that. That is why the Glenn- Chafee bill, S. 1001, provides for judicial review of final reg flex decisions, and the whole process can be challenged at that one time. It does not permit judicial challenge at each step along the way, which means multiple judicial review, and additional ways of stalling what may be very good legislation. Now, both bills also do provide--whether it is S. 343 or S. 1001, they both provide for congressional veto. In other words, a rule or regulation being put out by an agency can be challenged and brought back to the Congress and lay here under one bill for 60 days or 45 days for challenge here on the floor. That applies to small business provisions or any other provision. So it seems to me that we have provided adequate protection, quite apart from the amendment as proposed by the Senators from Georgia. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, the pending legislation before us is an amendment by the Senator from Georgia, is that correct?

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I withhold. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, yesterday, I, along with a bipartisan group of Senators, introduced S. 1001, the Regulatory Procedures Reform Act of 1995. Upon its introduction, it was my intention to have the bill printed in the Record so that all Members with an interest in this important issue--the issue of regulatory reform--would have the opportunity to review the provisions of the measure. Unfortunately, the measure was not printed. Therefore, I now ask unanimous consent that the text of S. 1001 and a comparative be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kerry be permitted to make some remarks without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, Senator Dole has made his proposals here. I know he wants to make some remarks in a moment. Without losing my right to the floor, I ask unanimous consent to yield the floor to Senator Dole, and then Senator Kassebaum has remarks on a different subject.

Mr. GLENN. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his comments. I have noted his efforts for this legislation. He has worked tirelessly for the last couple of weeks almost in trying to work something out on this, and we are glad to have him with us on this. In fact, we hope to have the whole Senate working with us.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will not object; may I ask, is it going to be a couple of minutes? That will be fine. I know Senator John Kerry has some remarks he would like to make. We will put the bill in and yield to him for some remarks, if that is OK. And then we will go on with remarks on the bill.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I was glad to yield to the distinguished Senator from Kansas. I know from my days way back on the Foreign Relations Committee when something came up like this where there was a tragedy internationally and some people were suffering, no one was on their feet first ahead of her to bring this to the attention of the Senate, to bring it to the attention of the American people, and to try to do something about it. That is what needs to be, a response from the Senate in these areas. And once again, she is fulfilling that role here. She sees a pending tragedy, which we all do, and is speaking out and hoping we can avert some of that tragedy. I compliment the Senator on her statement. (The remarks of Mr. Glenn pertaining to the introduction of S. 1001 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I hope that when the press writes about what happened on the floor today, they get away from the idea that this is the ultimate in confrontation, which seems to be what the questions lead to when we go out of the Chamber--talking about regulatory reform--because, today, I would hope the message would go out that we are united in the Senate of the United States, Democrat and Republican, on one thing: we need regulatory reform. Sometimes we get strident here and give people the wrong impression. But we have a need for regulatory reform, and that is felt by those who have been negotiating on the particulars of this legislation over the past several days. So the importance of regulatory reform is well understood, and we all share in a devotion to what we are trying to do here. I think a lot of people wonder why we have regulations and rules. We need to remember that we pass laws here on the Senate floor, in the Congress, that are signed by the President requiring agencies to issue rules. After we pass laws, rules and regulations written by the agencies become applicable in every community across this country. I say to those listening that your children today, your family today, can have milk that is safe because of rules and regulations. You can eat food that is safe. You do not have to worry about it, because of rules and regulations to ensure safety to public health. Transportation, whether by air, bus, or plane, comes under certain rules and regulations that let your family travel safely. The problem is that we have gone too far in some of these matters with some rules, and some regulation writers have been overzealous. So we have come full circle in needing to put a rein on some of the rules and regulations. We need to set up new processes for making sure that we do not get into the quagmires of where we do not use common sense. Some of them are ridiculous. We can all cite anecdotal evidence. On the Governmental Affairs Committee, we started working on what was landmark regulatory reform, doing a study back in 1977. This issue is not something that is brand new. Through the years, we dealt with OMB and OIRA, and it has been an open process. While I was chair of the committee, we had a number of hearings, and this year, Senator Roth, our chairman this year, has had four hearings on our bill, S. 291. We took a bipartisan and deliberative approach to it and voted that bill out of committee, unanimously, 15-0. Republicans and Democrats united together. Any bill must have a balance. On the Governmental Affairs Committee, I believe we achieved that balance. I would like to run through very briefly some of the central issues for regulatory reform in the limited time I have here today. My approach, and the approach taken by our committee, on regulatory reform is the following: First, agencies should be required to perform risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis for all major rules; second, cost-benefit analysis should inform agency decisionmaking, but it should not override other statutory rulemaking criteria; third, risk assessment requirements should apply only to major risk assessments, and these requirements must not be overly prescriptive; fourth, agencies should review existing rules, but the reviews should not be dictated by special interests; fifth, Government accountability requires sunshine in the regulatory review process; sixth, judicial review should be available to ensure the final agency rules are based on adequate analysis; it should not be a lawyer's dream with unending ways for special interest to bog down agencies with litigation; seventh, regulatory reform should not be the fix for every special interest. Now, Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana mentioned a number of the areas that are still in contention with this legislation. While we will have to work these issues out, we are all united in the need for regulatory reform. The decision criteria: Will it be least cost, or will it be the cost effectiveness? Judicial reform has yet to be ironed out completely. Can we get a threshold of $100 million? How about the petition process, the sunset, special interest additions? These are issues we still need to work together on. We have yet to iron out exactly how we do these things. Mr. President, any bill on the subject of regulatory reform to be deserving of support must pass a test. This test is twofold. I close with this: No. 1, does the bill provide for reasonable, logical, appropriate changes to regulatory procedures that eliminate unnecessary burdens on businesses and individuals? No. 2, at the same time, does the bill maintain the ability to protect the health, the safety, and the environment of the American people? Now, that is a dual test that is very simple, and one we need to keep in mind as we debate this legislation. If the answer is ``yes,'' to both questions, the bill should be supported. Any bill that relieves regulatory burdens but threatens the protections for the American people in health or safety or environment should be opposed. I will come back to this test many times when we debate regulatory reform the rest of this week and after the Fourth of July break. I thank my colleague from Louisiana for yielding time. I yield the balance of my time to Senator Levin.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Dr. Henry Foster for the post of Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Service. Since his nomination several months ago, Dr. Foster's public and private history has been subjected to an exceptional level of public scrutiny, and has become a pawn in an unfair political game. I believe it is a compliment to Dr. Foster's character and achievements, that when given the opportunity to answer his critics, a majority of the Labor and Human Resources Committee voted to forward his nomination to the full Senate. [[Page S 8870]] Mr. President, after reviewing the testimony presented at Dr. Foster's hearing and examining his credentials and accomplishments, I strongly believe that Henry Foster possesses the skills and experience necessary to address the many public health challenges that face our Nation. During his 38 years as a practicing obstetrician-gynecologist, Dr. Foster has received national recognition as a scholar, academic administrator, and advocate for maternal and child health. He has devoted much of his career to educating medical practitioners at Meharry Medical College--serving as a professor, department chairman, dean of medicine, and president. As a practicing physician and educator, Dr. Foster chose to work with low-income families and children who might not otherwise have access to health care. Dr. Foster was a pioneer in the movement to introduce the concept of responsibility to at-risk youth. This concept has received a lot of attention in Congress lately. In 1988, Dr. Foster founded the highly successful I Have a Future Program devoted to preventing teen pregnancy and drug abuse. Unlike teen pregnancy prevention efforts which focus on contraception, the I Have a Future Program concentrates on improving self-esteem, cultivating a sense of optimism in the lives of disadvantaged young people, and providing incentives to delay sexual activity and childbearing. ``I Have a Future'' has won wide recognition from many sources, including the American Medical Association, and was designated as one of America's Thousand Points of Light by President Bush in 1991. Mr. President, I regret that the vote on Dr. Foster's nomination has really come down to a vote on abortion. An individual's beliefs about reproductive choice, or the number of abortions performed during the course of a medical career, should not be a litmus-test for a nominee to the Surgeon General post. Through his delivery and care of over 10,000 children, commitment to research and education, promotion of healthy lifestyles, and efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies, Dr. Foster has proven his dedication to improving the health of all Americans. Dr. Foster has an outstanding private, public, and professional record. He is uniquely qualified to lead our Nation as an advocate for healthy and responsible lifestyles. Mr. President, this country has been without a Surgeon General for over 6 months and we now have the opportunity to confirm a man who will bring both experience and enthusiasm to our efforts to combat public health crises such as infant mortality, substance abuse, sexually-transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, HIV infection, and others. Unfortunately, it appears that the will of a small minority will block a fair and democratic up-or- down vote on Dr. Foster's nomination. Mr. President, I believe that Dr. Foster deserves more than a politically motivated procedural vote. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and support Dr. Foster's nomination to the post of Surgeon General of the United States.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Just one more comment and I will yield the floor. We do have this other bill ready to go, in case we cannot negotiate these things out. I think it is a pretty good bill. We have given a lot of thought to it and have changed some of the things for which I know there was some objection. [[Page S 8795]] With that I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I want to add a couple of comments here. I think we have been at this on two tracks. There was a lot of regulatory reform legislation put in this year and considered in the Governmental Affairs Committee. We came out with a bill. Another bill went through the Judiciary Committee process which is the one that the distinguished majority leader is referring to, that he and Senator Johnston have been working on. Now there has been a dual track going on. In addition to the Judiciary Committee bill, some have also been working on the bill that came out of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and it was voted unanimously out of Governmental Affairs with both Republican and Democratic support, a unanimous vote. Now, we have taken that bill and done some work on it, and we think we have made some pretty good improvements. It is ready. I will not submit it today, in view of what the majority leader has proposed here. But there have been two tracks. All of the work with regard to regulatory reform has not been centered on just the one bill that will be submitted today. I wanted to point that out to my colleagues. I am happy to work with the Senator from Louisiana, as well as the majority leader, in trying to work this thing out and get the best of all of this legislation together if we possibly can do it. Whether that can be done in time enough to bring a completed form to the floor by next Tuesday, I do not know. But we can sure take a crack at it and see. I just want to point out we do have this other effort. And the bill that we have been working on----

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Senator from Arizona. He and I have talked about some of these things before. We have done studies. We have had GAO studies done. And every time we come to something like this, we do this and we say we do not want to offend somebody over in the House or here that has one of these special projects that is not really needed. The President has addressed this. He did not want these types of things in the budget this year. The Senator from Arizona cited from several studies that have been done on this as one of the most wasteful things in the budget. I hope we can support this. I am glad he called for the yeas and nays. I plan to support it. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I thank you.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the dedication, public service, and patriotism of Capt. Carolyn V. Prevatte, U.S. Navy. She has retired from active duty after more than 23 years of faithful service to our Nation. Captain Prevatte's contribution in formulating and implementing personnel policy helped to sustain the highest quality naval force we have had in the history of our armed services. Her strong commitment to excellence will have a lasting effect on the vitality of our modern warfighters. Her outstanding service commands the admiration and respect of her military colleagues and the Members of Congress. Captain Prevatte is a native of the great State of Tennessee, but it can truly be said that she has spent her entire life in the service of our country since she is the daughter of a retired Army master sergeant. Commissioned in August 1971 at the Women Officers School, Newport, RI, Captain Prevatte served her first tour in Training Squadron 28, Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, TX. Her department head tour followed at Naval Station, Annapolis, MD. While in Annapolis, she served as an assistant company officer on plebe detail for the U.S. Naval Academy class of 1980, the first to include women. In 1977, she commenced duty as Senior Instructor, Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps Unit, at the Texas A&M University. From there, she served as Operations Officer, Office of Legislative Affairs and as a Joint Manpower Planner, organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington, DC. While on the joint staff, she was the White House. Captain Prevatte was Executive Officer of Navy Recruiting District, Houston, TX, from April 1984 to December 1985. In January 1986, Captain Prevatte returned to Washington, DC for assignment as Head, Fleet Command Support Branch, Naval Military Personnel Command [NMPC]. In April 1987, she became the Deputy Director, Restricted Line/Staff Corps Officer Distribution and Special Placement Division, NMPC, and in February 1989, she became Administrative Assistant/Aide to the Commander, NMPC. Captain Prevatte served as Commanding Officer, Personnel Support Activity, Pensacola, FL, from December 1989 through August 1991. She reported to the Bureau of Naval Personnel in September 1991, where she served as Director, Allocation Division (Pers-45) prior to her assignment to the staff of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) as Executive Director, Standing Committee on Military and Civilian Women in the Department of the Navy in April 1993. Additionally, in June 1993, she assumed duties as Staff Director (Manpower) in the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower). In March 1994, Captain Prevatte was selected to serve as Executive Assistant and Naval Aide to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs). She transferred to the Office of the Secretary of Defense in October 1994, where she served as Military Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy) until her retirement. A proven Navy subspecialist in Manpower, Personnel and Training Analysis, Captain Prevatte holds a bachelor of science degree from Middle Tennessee State University and a master of science degree from Texas A&M University. She was named an Outstanding Young Woman of the Year in 1982. Her military awards include the Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Navy Meritorious Service Medal with three gold stars, Navy Commendation Medal, and Navy Achievement Medal with one gold star. Our Nation, the U.S. Navy, and her parents, Master Sergeant (Retired) and Mrs. James L. Prevatte, can truly be proud of the captain's many accomplishments. A woman of such extraordinary talent and integrity is rare indeed. While her honorable service will be genuinely missed in the Department of Defense, it gives me great pleasure to recognize Captain Prevatte before my colleagues and wish her all of our best wishes in her well deserved retirement.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Kerrey's monopoly telephone rates amendment. This amendment offers critical protection for ratepayers from potential multibillion rate increases for telecommunications services during the transition to effective local competition. In mandating price flexibility and prohibiting rate-of-return regulation, section 301 of the bill also prohibits State and Federal regulators from considering earnings when determining whether prices for noncompetitive services are just, reasonable, and affordable. While the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] and many State commissions have instituted various price flexibility plans, most of those plans involve some consideration of earning. If regulators are prohibited from considering the earnings factor when determining the appropriateness of prices for noncompetitive services, the captive ratepayers of these services will be subject to unwarranted rate increases. Mr. President, this amendment does not change the bill's prohibition on rate-of-return regulation. The amendment would simply allow State and Federal commissions to consider earnings when authorizing the prices of those noncompetitive services. In this way, the amendment provides a safeguard against excess rate impacts in the future. Mr. President, the monopoly telephone rates amendment recognizes that it is appropriate and in the consumers' interest for State regulators to continue to have a roll in determining the price of noncompetitive services in their States, and in having the discretion to consider the earnings of the local telephone company. Approximately 75 cents of every dollar consumers spend on their overall telephone bills is for calls made within their State. The goal of local telephone competition advanced in this legislation will not be achieved overnight. In the interim, State regulators should have the authority to consider a company's earnings before setting the price level of noncompetitive services. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment. preemption of state-ordered intralata dialing parity

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, this bipartisan antifraud program was placed outside the discretionary spending caps for a very simple reason: the Budget Enforcement Act precludes scoring revenue gains from these kinds of compliance activities. Unfortunately, language placed in this year's budget resolution shifts the initiative back within the caps. That will have the effect of penalizing the initiative--and its substantial revenue gains--in the appropriations process, since it forces appropriators to consider the initiative's costs without allowing them to account for its much greater revenue gains. This would likely lead to deep cuts, or even the abandonment, of an initiative that brings almost five times what we spend on it. Those cuts would show up as short-term savings of $2 billion to the Treasury. But it would ultimately lead to a net loss of at lest $9.2 billion over 5 years. This is shortsighted, and it's bad business. Mr. President, that is why members of both parties chose to remove the compliance initiative from the caps last year. It is why the House budget resolution continues that structure. This is not a partisan issue. When it came up before the Senate Budget Committee, my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, voted to keep the initiative outside the caps. It is a sound business investment. But Mr. President, the compliance initiative is not only about bringing in revenue properly owed the Government, it is also about fairness. I know that some view the IRS as an easy target because of public animosity toward the agency. Of course, no one enjoys paying taxes. But what really burns people up is to feel that they are paying their taxes while others are getting off scot-free. I have talked with countless Ohioans who tell me that they diligently fill out their tax forms, go through all of the hassles with our all- to-complicated Tax Code, send in their payments, only to then hear about those who are getting away with falsifying their returns or submitting none at all. Or corporations that have developed tax schemes to walk away from their liability while everyone else picks up the tab. It is infuriating. Alot of people may not like the IRS, but I will guarantee you they like tax cheats a lot less. Well, if our amendment fails tax cheats everywhere can rest easy. Quite simply, by putting the compliance initiative under the spending caps, the budget resolution could force the IRS to abandon this important initiative which not only generates revenue, but also assures honest Americans that others are also going to be paying their fair share. This notion of fairness is the underlying principle behind the Tax Code. Eliminating the compliance initiative not only cuts revenue to the Treasury by more than $9 billion, even worse, it undermines confidence in our Tax Code by signalling to Americans that the Senate believes in double standards, that there are rules for hard-working Americans who pay their taxes, and no rules for people who don't. More effective compliance sends the right message: that there are no double standards when it comes to tax fairness. Everyone must pay their fair share, and we will enforce the laws against those who don't. Mr. President, I would urge my colleagues to recall that this entire issue was settled last year. The Senate and the House both approved and funded the IRS compliance initiative, and the IRS has since done its part. The IRS is already ahead of schedule in collecting the taxes targeted for this year, and that's before most of the new compliance employees are even fully trained. Now, I have heard that some Senators share my view that the compliance initiative makes a lot of sense, but think that, to avoid smoke and mirrors, it belongs on budget. In other words, they say that if the IRS and the administration think this is so important, they should fund the Initiative within the caps. That is a reasonable notion that in years past might have worked, and I probably would have agreed with them. However, as we all know, our efforts to eliminate the deficit have necessitated that funds available in previous years simply don't exist any longer. But this initiative was developed to assist in that effort--to help reduce the deficit. That is why the current structure was established. We all want to collect delinquent taxes, and a $5 return for every dollar spent is a wise investment by any standard. I would argue, in fact, that those Senators who support the compliance initiative but insist on placing it under the caps are perhaps the ones engaging in smoke and mirrors. These Senators get to say that they support compliance, while knowing full well that under the caps there is no money to pay for it. Unfortunately, the only ones who stand to gain are dishonest people and corporations who are not willing to pay their fair share. They mock the honest American taxpayer. And who are the losers, the American taxpayer who has to pick up the tab, the Federal treasury which will lose more than $9 billion, and the big loser--deficit reduction. Senator Simon and I want no part of an effort that so flies in the face of rationality. The amendment that we have introduced strikes that part of the budget resolution which requires that the compliance initiative be funded on budget. The affect of the amendment would simply be to return the compliance initiative to its off-budget status, where the Congress put it last year, and where it has been working to bring in delinquent taxes ever since. Mr. President, I would urge by colleagues to support this amendment, so that we can get on with the task of deficit reduction. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the IRS compliance initiative be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I thank the floor manager of the bill. Mr. President, do I have a bargain for the U.S. Senate. This is the best deal you are going to get all day, I think. For every dollar spent, you are going to get $5 back and no new taxes. How do we do that? Sounds like blue smoke and mirrors, but it is not. Mr. President, this amendment makes sure that we do not jeopardize more than $9 billion in deficit reduction. I am pleased to be joined in this amendment by my good friend from Illinois, Senator Simon. Let me stress that there are a number of things about this budget resolution I support, not the least of which is its strong approach to reducing the deficit and controlling the costs of Government. And while I disagree with many of the priorities chosen by the chairman of the Budget Committee, I commend his commitment and perseverance in seeking to balance the budget so that we can leave our children and grandchildren a legacy of hope, rather than debt. Mr. President, I believe the amendment I am offering today furthers that goal by preserving the antifraud compliance initiative of the Internal Revenue Service which will bring in almost $5 for every $1 we spend. Currently $164.3 billion in unpaid taxes are owed to the Government. Much of that is not collectible because of defunct corporations, bankruptcy, death or loss of employment. But $30.1 billion of that total is collectible right now. I think that bears repeating: $30.1 billion is rightfully owed to the Government and is collectible right now. That is where the compliance initiative comes in. Last year, with bipartisan support, the Congress approved and funded the compliance initiative to collect this debt and it is projected that $9.2 billion will be collected over the next 5 years. I think that is a conservative estimate, I am happy to report that collections are ahead of schedule. In the first quarter of the initiative alone, $101 million has been collected--money that will reduce the deficit which is what the budget resolution before us is all about. Mr. President, the first quarter results are laid out for all to see in this report which I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I regret we have such a short time here this morning to deal with this. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment proposed by Senators Snowe, Abraham, Grassley, Brown, Kassebaum, Cohen, Lott, and Chafee. I support the goal of the amendment--to provide increased funds for higher education. My record is clear and unequivocal on education funding. These funds must be increased, but not in the way proposed by the proponents of this amendment. I do not know that there has been an education bill which I voted against since I have been in the Senate for over 20 years. My record is very clear in that regard. I want to speak about the offsets that are required here that would provide the money for this particular amendment. I would like to speak about two of the offsets that the amendment identifies and discuss the impact which these cuts would have on our economy and our Federal workers. First, the amendment would zero out two important NASA programs. This Nation has gotten to be what it is because we put more into research, and the inquiry into the unknown, into pushing back the frontiers of science, and then we develop the industry and the business once that has occurred. That has been the hallmark of America. We have been the envy of the world in doing that; the envy of the world. So these programs in our R&D are seed-corn type programs that whole industries benefit from. We have seen in the past money spent at NASA in aeronautical research which in particular had led to the development of an aircraft industry in this country that has been leading in exports second only to farming, to agricultural products, in years past. Dan Goldin, the Administrator of NASA, was given aid by the administration, and was tasked to downsize some, and he went ahead and did it. He did it, and he has a program in NASA, a 5-year budget, which was about $122 billion in fiscal 1993. The 1996 request is now $82 billion for the next 5 years. So they have been cut by one-third in just 2 years. NASA has stepped up to the plate to reduce bureaucracy and improve the way it does business. These programs are the R&D or seed-corn type programs which many of my colleagues have heard me speak about in the past. This amendment would zero out NASA's High-Speed Research Program, and NASA's Advanced Subsonic Technology Program. Before I talk about these specific programs, I would like to observe that NASA has already absorbed more than its share of budget cuts. A couple of figures will illustrate what I am talking about. In fiscal year 1993, NASA's 5-year budget request was about $122 billion. The fiscal year 1996 request is now $82 billion for the next 5 years. NASA has been cut by one-third in just over 2 years. Dan Goldin's leadership of the agency is currently going through a painful process of reducing its budget by $5 billion over the next 5 years. Mr. Goldin [[Page S7284]] believes that this can be achieved without eliminating programs. He has a tough row to hoe to achieve this and he just cannot do it if we impose another cut like this on his budget over there. These programs are valuable. They are not something that we just pick up and lay down as a whim. Further cuts in NASA's budget will simply result in the elimination of current programs. And Mr. President, I suggest that, if this amendment is approved, the future of NASA's three aeronautic research centers--Lewis Research Center, Ames Research Center, and Langley Research Center will be in jeopardy. Now, let me talk about the High-Speed Research Program first. The goal of this program is to help develop the technologies industry needs to design and build an environmentally compatible and economically competitive high-speed civil jet transport for the 21st century. The technology developments are to reach an appropriate stage of maturity to enable an industry decision on aircraft production by 2001. Mr. President, the technologies currently needed to develop such a transport are beyond the state of the art. NASA estimates that industry will need to invest more than $20 billion to bring such a transport to market. A $20 billion industry just with this one development alone; $20 billion we are talking about, and we are talking about cutting back the research that will make that possible. Studies have identified a substantial market for a future supersonic airliner to meet rapidly growing demand for long-haul travel, particularly across the Pacific. Those that have been to the Southeast Asian area recently know how that area is really expanding economically. Over the period from 2005 to 2015, this market could support 500 to 1,000 aircraft, creating a multibillion sales opportunity for its producers. Such an aircraft will be essential for capturing the valuable long-haul Pacific rim market. As currently envisioned an HSCT aircraft should be designed to carry 300 passengers at Mach 2.4 on transoceanic routes over distances up to 6,000 nautical miles at fares comparable to subsonic transports. Now let me talk about the Advanced Subsonic Technology Program. The goal of NASA's Advanced Subsonic Technology program is to develop, in cooperation with the FAA and the U.S. aeronautics industry, high-payoff technologies to enable a safe, highly productive global air transportation system that includes a new generation of environmentally compatible, economical U.S. subsonic aircraft. Some of the technologies and issues being studied and developed in this program include: First, fly-by-light/power-by-wire: a fully digital aircraft control system which would be substantially lighter, more reliable and efficient than current control systems. Here is one that ought to get the attention of every single person who is hearing my voice, and every single person in this Chamber: Aging aircraft. My colleague from Ohio mentioned that a moment ago. Second, aging aircraft: To develop new ways of inspecting aircraft to determine their airworthiness. When you see a black storm cloud on the horizon the next time you are taking off out of Washington National or Dulles in a 727 aircraft over 20 years old, I think you would be interested in this kind of research NASA wants to do. New approaches are being developed to determine the residual strength in airframes using advanced nondestructive technologies. It might be worth thinking about this program the next time you are sitting in a 727 that's 20 years old waiting to take off on a cross-country flight. Third, noise reduction: This program is developing technologies to reduce aircraft noise by 10 decibels or more by the year 2000. Fourth, terminal area productivity: Technologies, chiefly involving air traffic control, that can improve the efficiency of operations on the ground at busy airports. Fifth, integrated wing design: New concepts, design methodologies, model fabrication and test techniques are being developed to provide industry an integrated capability to achieve increased aircraft performance at lower cost. Sixth, propulsion: Technologies to improve fuel efficiency of future commercial engines by at least 8 percent and reduce nitrogen oxides by 70 percent over current technology. These are only some of the technologies being developed under the program which the amendment's propents would completely gut. It is a truly shortsighted amendment that would eliminate these important applied technology programs. Mr. President, it is no secret that aerospace business is a government-private sector partnership. Historically our government has funded aeronautics R&D, and industry has taken this basic technology and developed aircraft that have dominated the world market. Over the last decade or so, other governments have gotten into the act. Currently, the U.S. market share is about 65 percent, down from about 91 percent in the 1960's. We had 91 percent of the world's commercial aircraft market in the 1960's. We are now being competed with more vigorously than we have ever been in the past. Cutting these two important programs will not help us regain this market share--quite the opposite. We will be sending a signal that the U.S. aircraft industry will be less competitive. I do not want to see that happen. In summary, the advanced subsonic technology: meets future technology needs for next generation aircraft; enables NASA to develo high-risk, high-payoff, precompetitive technology to prove feasibility so that industry may complete development and apply technology to specific products; will result in accomplishments in noise prediction codes for quieter engines, non-destructive evaluation techniques for detecting corrosion, cracks and disbonds; analytical tools to understand aircraft wake vortices for safe landings; and assists in preserving 1 million U.S. high quality jobs and $25 to $30 billion in annual positive balance of trade for U.S. aviation. How can we possibly take a chance on knocking something like that down? The High-Speed Research Program will: enable NASA to develop early, high-risk technology for future environmentally compatible, economically competitive high-speed civil transport aircraft (technologies needed are beyond state of the art); industry will take NASA technology and invest $20 billion to actually develop aircraft; and if the United States is first to market, the U.S. market share could grow to 80 percent, achieve $200 billion in sales, and create 140,000 new U.S. jobs. Thank you Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Snowe-Abraham amendment. I think, while I support the goal of getting more money for education, I certainly do not support taking it out of these forward- looking research programs that have served us so well in the past, and will in the future. impact on nasa lewis NASA's zero-based review announced last week will have a significant impact on Lewis Research Center outside of Cleveland, OH. Lewis will be given primary responsibility for aeronautics research, especially aeropropulsion research. Other programs would be shifted away from Lewis, including work on expendable launch vehicles. Mr. President, if the proposal by the Senator from Maine is accepted, I think it could be the death knell for Lewis Research Center. I use these words carefully. But when an agency like NASA is downsizing, and the chief mission of a given facility is eliminated--and this amendment would eliminate high-speed research and advanced subsonic technology research, which will be Lewis' bread and butter--then I think my words are accurate. If Lewis closes, the impact on my State will be significant. According to NASA, Ohio has the second largest number of aeronautics jobs in the country, behind California. This is due primarily to NASA Lewis, Wright Patterson, the Ohio Aerospace Institute, and Ohio's university system. Anchoring these jobs is Lewis. It attracts world class scientists and engineers to world class facilities. Did the Senator from Maine and her cosponsors consider this impact when they put together their amendment? I do not think so. Mr. President, Lewis employs directly about 4,500 people. About one- third of these are in some way connected to aeronautics research. But the multiplier effect is significant. The people employed at Lewis attract other businesses, or help form new ventures and stimulating the economy. Gutting these two programs would have a serious impact on this dynamic system. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several relevant documents be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN

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

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

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President; I rise today to express my strong support for the amendment of my friend from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, which urges continued funding for Federal investments in research, technology, export promotion and trade law enforcement. I take strong exception to the position espoused by the Republican budget resolution--that technology research and trade promotion are not proper and appropriate functions of the Federal Government. They are, in fact, not only appropriate but vital to continued U.S. economic growth and competitiveness in today's global economy. I have long maintained that our Nation needs to be more, not less, cognizant of the crucial role technology plays in affecting our position in the world economy. Without it we would not enjoy the industrial and military strength we have today. Our Government has traditionally played a critical role in this area and I am convinced we must continue to invest prudently in research and technology development if we are to maintain our position in an increasingly competitive global economy. And with all due respect to my Republican friends, the private sector cannot and will not commit sufficient resources to make up for the cuts proposed by the Republican budget. Eroding and/or eliminating the Federal Government's role in scientific research and technology development is like eating our seed corn, short sighted and ill advised in the extreme. I would assign the same labels--short-sighted and wrong-headed--to the proposed elimination of Federal programs which promote U.S exports. Undeniably trade has become a major factor in the U.S. economy. According to the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee, ``long-term forecasts of the U.S. economy put exports as the fastest growing component of GDP--increasing perhaps two and a half times faster than the overall economy.'' As the 3rd largest exporter of manufactured goods among the 50 States, Ohio has benefited greatly from, and has a vital economic stake in, robust international trade. We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that all our major trade competitors spend considerably more than we do to push their products in overseas markets. Nevertheless, our relatively modest investments at the Federal level, prudently targeted and efficiently managed, effectively complement private sector marketing efforts and maintain our position is an increasingly competitive international economic environment. Because governments are major purchasers in most of the primary categories of U.S. exports, for example aerospace, power generation, transportation, and telecommunications, the government-to-government contacts are particularly useful and appropriate. The least we can and should do in the interest of future economic growth, jobs and prosperity is to maintain the current modest level of Federal investment in research, technology and trade promotion.