John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, his background and training clearly indicates that Dr. Deutch brings a broad background to the DCI position. His scientific background makes him particularly prepared to deal with the many, formidable technical issues confronting the Intelligence Community from satellites to signals intelligence [SIGINT]. Dr. Deutch also brings significant administrative and national security expertise to the DCI job from his past and current senior management experiences at the Defense Department. His toughness in making difficult decisions and his knowledge of, and experience in, national security matters will make him a very capable manager of the U.S. Intelligence Community. I have been especially pleased with the principal purposes Dr. Deutch has articulated for the Intelligence Community: Striving to assure that the President and other national leaders decisions; providing adequate support to military operations; the need for intelligence to address the growing problems of international terrorism, crime, and drugs; and that our counterintelligence capabilities are able to assure that America's enemies do not penetrate our national security apparatus. The new CIA Director comes along at an important time for the U.S. intelligence community. For almost half a century, the intelligence community--indeed our Nation's entire national security infrastructure--has been focused primarily on the Soviet threat. And during the cold war period, our Government viewed most national security issues--justifiable or not--through the prism of the United States-Soviet competition. Obviously, this is no longer the case as America is coming to terms with a rapidly changing world. And having a robust and effective intelligence community is an indispensable means to that end. Timely and accurate intelligence forms the foundation of our foreign policy and defines the threat to U.S. national security that is--or should be--the basis of our defense spending. Yet with the end of the cold war, some have argued that the CIA is a relic which has outlived its usefulness, and we should do away with it. I strongly disagree with such views. In this unprecedented time of enormous change and uncertainty in the world--as the on-going problem of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and recent acts of terrorism at home and around the world clearly demonstrate, our need for the intelligence community and a robust intelligence budget is greater than ever before. The requirement for an intelligence capability is by no means a cold war aberration. This year, we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. And history has ultimately revealed to the public the important role of intelligence in that war. Mr. President, like all veterans of that conflict, the 50th anniversary commemorations of specific events of World War II have special meaning to me. One of the most moving ceremonies I have ever attended was last June's ceremony in France commemorating the D-Day invasion of Normandy. And unsurprisingly, intelligence made an extraordinary contribution to the success of D-Day's planning and implementation. Intelligence agents acquired an accurate map of the German Atlantic Wall fortifications, and an intelligence deception operation code-named Body Guard used German spies captured in England as double agents who sent false messages to the Nazis regarding the precise location of the planned invasion of Europe. This latter operation also successfully passed along false information regarding the location of Allied invasion forces in England. Intelligence played a decisive role in Allied victory in World War II in many ways. Signals intelligence [SIGINT], for example, played an instrumental role in winning World War II as Allied intelligence successfully broke German and Japanese codes. And as we enter one of the most unpredictable and dangerous periods in world history, we must ensure that our SIGINT as well as human intelligence [HUMINT] and other intelligence capabilities will be able to meet the intelligence challenges of tomorrow. Mr. President, in addition to the other recommendations being made to Dr. Deutch, as DCI, I would like to add one more. Next March, the Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the United States Intelligence Community--which was initiated by this committee last year--will issue its report, including recommendations to reorganize the intelligence community in the postcold war era. While I look forward to reviewing the Commission's report, I must admit that I have been somewhat skeptical over the years about the utility of Government by ``Blue Ribbon Panel''--and have sought to educe the number of such commissions through oversight action of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, where I am now the ranking member. As Dr. Deutch assumes his duties as DCI and he perceives significant problems--organizational and otherwise--that are impending the intelligence community's ability to meet its requirements, I sincerely hope that he will act expeditiously to remedy these problems and not wait for the Commission's report next March. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of Dr. Deutch as DCI. Exhibit 1 John M. Deutch The Honorable John M. Deutch was sworn in as Deputy Secretary of Defense on 11 March 1994, following a unanimous vote in the Senate. He previously served as the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology) from 15 April 1993 until his confirmation as Deputy Secretary. Prior to his nomination to these positions, Mr. Deutch served in a number of educational government posts. Mr. Deutch became a member of the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1970 and since then has been an associate professor and professor of chemistry, chairman of the Department of Chemistry, dean of science, provost, and Institute Professor. His government assignments include service in the Department of Energy as Director of Energy Research, Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology, and Under Secretary of the Department. In recognition of his contributions, he was honored with the Secretary's Distinguished Service Medal and the Department's Distinguished Service Medal. He has been a member of the White House Science Council, the Defense Science Board, the Army Scientific Advisory Panel, the Chief of Naval Operations Executive Panel, the President's Commission on Strategic Forces, the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and the President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee. He also served as a consultant to the Bureau of the Budget. He has been a trustee of the Urban Institute, a member and Chair of the National Science Foundation Advisory Panel for Chemistry, an overseer of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, a trustee of Wellesley College, a director of Resources for the Future, a member of the Trilateral Commission, and a member of the Governor of Massachusetts Technology and Economic Development Council. A graduate of Amherst College with a B.A. in history and economics, he earned both a B.S. in chemical engineering and a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from M.I.T. He holds honorary doctoral degrees from Amherst College and the University of Lowell. Mr. Deutch has been a Sloan Research Fellow and a Guggenheim Fellow and is a member of Sigma Xi and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Mr. Deutch was born in Brussels, Belgium, and became a U.S. citizen in 1946. He has three sons, and his permanent residence is in Belmont, Massachusetts.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of John Deutch to become Director of Central Intelligence [DCI]. As a long-time member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have enjoyed working with him in his various roles at the Department of Defense--and I look forward to working with him as DCI. Dr. Deutch has an extremely impressive resume, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of his biography be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Indian Child Welfare Improvement Act of 1995. Representative Deborah Pryce has introduced companion legislation in the House. The purpose of this bill is to clarify the definition of ``Indian child'' in the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Indian Child Welfare Improvement Act of 1995. Representative Deborah Pryce has introduced companion legislation in the House. The purpose of this bill is to clarify the definition of ``Indian child'' in the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. Mr. President, this legislation is a direct response to a situation involving a family in Ohio. The Rost family of Columbus, OH received custody of twin baby girls in the State of California in November 1993, following the voluntary relinquishment of parental rights by both birth parents. The biological father did not disclose his native American heritage in response to a specific question on the relinquishment document. In February 1994, the birth father informed his mother of the pending adoption. Two months later in April 1994, the birth father's mother enrolled herself, the birth father and the twin girls with the Pomo Indian Tribe in California. The adoption agency was then notified that the twins may be eligible for tribal membership, and that the adoption could not be finalized without a determination of the applicability of the Indian Child Welfare Act. The bill I am introducing today clarifies existing law. The definition of Indian child in my bill would limit the applicability of the Indian Child Welfare Act to those living on a reservation and their children, and those who are members of an Indian tribe. In addition, the bill would stipulate that for the purpose of a child custody proceeding involving an Indian child, membership in an Indian tribe is effective from the actual date of admission in the Indian tribe and cannot be applied retroactively. To do otherwise, Mr. President, is not acting in the best interests of the adopted children, and that is my principal concern--the interests of the children. Mr. President, I believe that this bill does not in any way weaken or compromise current law or protections extended to Native American children and families. The Indian Child Welfare Act was enacted to provide safeguards or standards with respect to State court proceedings involving Indian child custody matters, in an effort to curb involuntary separation of Indian children from their Indian families, heritage, and culture. These objectives and protections are not threatened by the bill I am introducing. Mr. President, the Rost family is now facing a very difficult situation. This bill and the one introduced by Representative Pryce will clarify the Indian Child Welfare Act, and I urge its passage by the Senate.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, once again I join my colleagues in pausing to reflect upon, and remember the victims of, this century's first example of the horrendous crime of genocide, the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire. April 24, 1995, marked the 80th anniversary of the beginning of this tragedy. On that day in 1915, some 200 Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders were arrested in Constantinople and exiled or taken to the interior and executed. For the next several years, Armenians were systematically expelled and deported. Some were killed and others left to die of deprivation. When the horror ended in 1923, 1.5 million Armenians had perished and another 500,000 had fled their homeland. Evidence of the Armenian genocide is available from a number of sources, among the most compelling of which is the reporting of our own United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau. In a cable to the Secretary of State, Ambassador Morgenthau wrote: Deportation of and excesses against peaceful Armenians is increasing and from harrowing reports of eye witnesses it appears that a campaign of race extermination is in process under a pretext of reprisal against rebellion. Some may ask why it is important to take time each year to commemorate an event which occurred over half a century ago. In reply I would recall the reported observation of Adolph Hitler as he contemplated the ``final solution''--``Who remembers the Armenians?'' Sadly, as we all well know, the Armenian peoples' tragedy was not the last genocide of this century; there followed the horrors of the Holocaust and the extermination of the Cambodians during the brutal Khmer Rouge regime. Surveying the world today we unfortunately see many too many examples of brutal ethnic, religious, or tribal-based conflict, from ethnic cleansing in Bosnia to massacres in Rwanda. Today we remember the 1\1/2\ million victims of the Armenian genocide. It is not comfortable to remind ourselves of this tragedy, or to visit the Holocaust Memorial Museum, or to see ongoing atrocities in real time on our television screens. Let us hope and pray today that we never allow ourselves to become complacent about man's inhumanity to man. For in the words of Edmund Burke, ``the only thing necessary of the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.''

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleagues from the Great Lakes region, on their efforts to restore needed funding for Sea Grant's critical research on aquatic nuisance species. As the cochair of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, I have worked hard to protect and restore the economic and environmental health of the Great Lakes. This aquatic ecosystem is home to nearly 30 million Americans who depend on these waters as avenues of commerce, as sources of drinking millions of visitors. Under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (P.L. 101-646) I sponsored in 1990, Sea Grant is authorized to conduct critical exotic species research which allows the Great Lakes to provide such a wide range of benefits. Exotic species cause severe economic and ecological damage along our Nation's marine coasts and freshwater systems. In a surprisingly short time, the zebra mussel has spread to 20 States taking a heavy toll on biodiversity of hosting systems and forcing private and municipal waterworks and powerplants to withstand increased and costly maintenance efforts. However, Sea Grant aquatic nuisance species research is not exclusively dedicated to the zebra mussel. The restoration of $2.0 million for Sea Grant's nonindigeous species funding continues research on the serious Eurasian ruffe problem in Lake Superior which threatens the region's $4 billion fishing industry. The increasing number of harmful nonindigenous species and their cumulative impacts continue to create growing economic and environmental burdens for the United States. Sea Grants research and outreach efforts complement other Federal programs and enable us to adopt a national approach toward stewardship of our natural resources. Reducing funding for the critical aquatic nuisance species research conducted by Sea Grant will curtail ongoing research which benefits the Great Lakes and the entire Nation. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to rise before my colleagues today and urge their acceptance of the conference report on our bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Paperwork Reduction Act. This day has been a long time in coming. At long last, we can take our final step toward presenting the President with a bill that I am sure he will sign and that I am equally confident will reduce paperwork and improve the management of Federal information resources. Passage of this legislation is an accomplishment that I am very proud of. Reauthorization of the act was one of my major priorities during my 6 years as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee. After several years of discordant debate about the act's implementation, we fashioned a bipartisan bill that resolved outstanding issues and moved the act forward to more clearly address new Information Senate on October 6, 1994. Unfortunately, the House was unable to act before the end of the 103d Congress. The legislation that we have before us today is this same bill, with only a few minor changes. This year's House bill itself was also modeled very, very closely on our bill. I am thus very proud of the leadership our committee provided in the last Congress, the bipartisan cooperation that continued into this Congress, and the accomplishment that we now have before us. The Paperwork Reduction Act is a vitally important law. Originally enacted in 1980, and reauthorized in 1986, the act serves two closely related and very essential public purposes. First, the act is key to the ongoing effort to reduce Government paperwork burdens on the American public. Too often, our citizens--individuals, businesses, State and local governments, academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, and more--are burdened by having to fill out questionnaires and forms that simply are not needed to implement the laws of the land. Too much time and money is wasted in an effort to satisfy bureaucratic excess. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 took up the battle by transforming a leaky review process--created in 1942--into a strong centralized OMB clearance process to control the information appetite of agencies all across the Federal Government. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 strengthens this process, primarily by increasing the paperwork reduction responsibilities of the individual agencies, so that we can make new progress in fighting Government redtape. The act's second core purpose is to improve Federal information resources management. This is not a separate or secondary goal. Reducing the costs and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of Government information activities is an essential element of paperwork reduction. As the 1977 Federal paperwork Commission commented, how can Federal agencies reduce paperwork if they don't know what information they possess or how best to use it? We simply cannot reduce paperwork burdens on the American people unless we can get more efficient and effective information activities out of Federal agencies. Our entry into the Information Age signals an even more fundamental truth. We cannot provide efficient and effective Government operations without efficient and effective information activities. Program operations, service delivery, agency policy formulation and decisions-- all now depend increasingly on information technology. The scale of this transformation of the Government from a paper- driven to a computer-driven operation is staggering. The Federal Government is now spending over $25 billion each year on information technology. We have truly entered the Information Age. Automated data processing for program applications, electronic benefits transfer for food stamps distribution, electronic data interchange to speed up Federal contracting, direct deposit for more efficient delivery of pay and retirement benefits, computer matching to catch tax cheats, high capacity telecommunication networks and video-conferencing for more efficient work across the Nation and even the globe. These innovations are already a part of Government. They also suggest some of the opportunities still to come for improving Government operations. Unfortunately, as oversight by our committee and others has shown, the Government is not realizing the full potential of this technological revolution. The Federal Government is simply wasting millions and millions of dollars on poorly designed and often incompatible systems. This must stop. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 took a first step on the road to reform when it created information resources management [IRM] policies to be overseen by OMB. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 strengthens that mandate and establishes new requirements for agency IRM improvements. These requirements focus on agency responsibility for IRM improvement, including results-oriented performance standards. These strengthened requirements add needed detail to the larger IRM framework, with its essential oversight role for OMB, to ensure that we have both management results and accountability. The legislation balances process controls with program and management responsibility to provide IRM improvements without stifling micromanagement. In serving these twin, closely related statutory purposes of paperwork reduction and information resources management, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 includes several notable accomplishments. We reauthorize the act for 6 years. While the House proposed a permanent authorization, the conference agreement contains a definite reauthorization period. While the difficulties in reauthorizing the act between 1983 and 1986, and again from 1989 to the present, may suggest to some that the act ought to be permanently reauthorized, I draw a very different conclusion. It is precisely because the act is so important, because it concentrates significant power in OMB--which is the President's enforcer, if there ever was one--and because there has been so much controversy about OMB's actions under the act--and its related regulatory review powers--that every effort must be made to provide and sustain serious congressional oversight. Without a periodic reauthorization schedule, I am afraid that our oversight would suffer. With the requirement for reauthorization, we are required to scrutinize the act and its implementation, and persevere in resolving differences and arriving at any needed statutory reforms. The reforms found in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 are the product of this reauthorization process and proof of its importance. We strengthen the paperwork clearance process in several ways. The most important reform is the establishment of new detailed requirements for agencies to evaluate paperwork proposals and solicit public comment on them before the proposals go to OMB for review. These new requirements will, first of all, ensure the more thoughtful development of only truly ``necessary'' agency information collection proposals. Just as importantly, these requirements will also help agencies more clearly and thoroughly make their case for such proposals, and thus prepare for a fair hearing before OMB on what is or is not ``necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions,'' as the law puts it. Together, I believe, these expanded agency requirements provide the greatest opportunity for progress in the war against red tape. We also strengthen the paperwork process by overturning the Dole versus United Steelworkers Supreme Court decision regarding OSHA's hazard communication standard, so that information disclosure requirements are covered by the OMB paperwork clearance process. This ends a controversy of several years and clarifies that the act covers all paperwork requirements, not just information that is collected for an agency's own use. In other respects, the act's OMB paperwork clearance standards remain unchanged. In fact, the decision to overturn the Supreme Court ``Haz Comm'' decision is only appropriate given the continuing integrity of the procedure for OMB review of information collections required by regulation. As provided under the original 1980 act, after commenting on regulatory paperwork requirements in a proposed rule, OMB may disapprove a final rule paperwork requirement only if it finds that the agency's response to its comments are ``unreasonable.'' As Senator Kennedy said at the time, ``[Without this provision,] this legislation would permit OMB to overturn * * * [an agency rulemaking] decision without even requiring OMB to justify its decision publicly. This violates basic notices of fairness upon which the Administrative Procedure Act is based, as well as concepts of due process embodied in the U.S. Constitution.'' (S30178, November 19, 1980). With this legislative history so clear, I am very pleased that the House receded to the Senate on this point in the current legislation--our committee and the Senate having already clearly decided to maintain unchanged the paperwork clearance standards of the act. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 also provides needed detail to the act's general provisions on information dissemination. OMB policy guidance responsibilities are delineated, as are the operational responsibilities of individual Federal agencies. The primary of Federal agencies to conduct their dissemination activities in such a way as to ensure that the public has timely and equitable access to public information. A major element of this obligation is the mandate to make information available on a nondiscriminatory and nonexclusive basis so as to avoid disadvantaging any class of information users. Public information is public. It should not become a source of revenue for agencies or a means by which to exercise proprietary-like controls on information. Finally, the legislation requires the development of a Government Information Locator Service [GILS] to ensure improved public access to government information, especially that maintained in electronic format, and makes other improvements in the areas of government statistics, records management, computer security, and the management of information technology. These are important reforms. Of course, reaching broad bipartisan agreement on this legislation has involved considerable compromise. There has been give and take on both sides. The result, like most compromises, has displeased some. I believe, however, that the legislation represents a practical compromise that addresses many real issues and moves the Government forward toward the reduction of paperwork burdens on the public and improvements in the management of Federal information resources. It should be supported for its very significant provisions. Even with this accomplishment, it should be clearly understood that the legislative compromise does not resolve conflicting views on the OMB paperwork and regulatory review controversies that have dogged congressional oversight of the Paperwork Reduction Act. As I said in my additional views in our committee report: Support for the original act and for the current legislation should not . . . lead anyone to overlook the problems that have frustrated full implementation of the law. Fifteen years of Committee oversight have produced a record replete with criticisms, largely directed at OMB, for unbalanced implementation of the Act. Slighting statistics, records management, information technology management, privacy and security, and other aspects of information resources management, OMB devoted itself to a paperwork clearance and regulatory review process that occasioned repeated charges of interference with substantive agency decision-making. I believe that this record should not be obscured . . .'' (S. Report No. 104-8, p. 59): This record should remind us of our continuing obligation to oversee the act, at the same time that we move forward with the current legislation to better fulfill its very important purposes. In conclusion, the legislation before us strengthens the Paperwork Reduction Act. It also remains true to the intent of the original 1980 act. Both the administration and the General Accounting Office concur in this judgment and support the legislation. I am very proud of our accomplishment in bringing this legislation to final passage of the conference report. This has been a cooperative bipartisan effort. We could not be here without the hard work of Senator Nunn and Senator Roth, who is now chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee. I would also single out Senator Bingaman, my good friend from New Mexico, who, when he was on our committee, initiated the reauthorization effort in 1989. And, of course, as always, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan has played an important role, working to ensure that our committee's consideration of the legislation helped the fight both against paperwork and for Government efficiency. This really has been a long-haul effort. And through those years, a small group of staff have labored long and hard, again and again working over drafts and coming up with legislative language to help us reach the point we are at today. I want to thank Frank Polk of Senator Roth's staff, Bill Montalto with Senator Nunn, and Len Weiss and David Plocher of my staff. We could not be here today without their work. Finally, I want to thank Jeff Hill and Bruce McConnell of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and Dan Latta and Chris Hoenig of GAO's Accounting and Information Management Division. Their technical assistance throughout the legislative process was essential, and they deserve our thanks for their help. We are now one short step from final enactment of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. I strongly urge my colleagues to join in supporting this very important legislation.

Mr. GLENN

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

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Months later, on December 28, 1994, these groups received a brief reply from the Department of Energy simply asserting that the transfers to Japan were ``permissible exercises of its statutory authorities.'' Madam President, I further ask to have printed in the Record a letter from the Director of the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy communicating DOD's view that it is permissible for the Department ``to consider the quality of technology already indigenous to the country that would receive the export in making the determination that sensitive nuclear technology was in fact proposed to be exported in a given transaction.''

Mr. GLENN. Another example, Madam President, in 1985, following repeated and flagrant violations of its peaceful nuclear assurances to the United States, Pakistan was required by the Pressler amendment to satisfy a certification requirement before receiving new aid. Specifically, the President had to certify that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device and that new aid would, as numerous officials from the Reagan administration had asserted, reduce significantly the risk that Pakistan would acquire such a device. America funneled hundreds of millions of United States taxpayer dollars into Pakistan after 1985, until President Bush finally stopped making the required certifications in 1990. Throughout that period, both Presidents Reagan and Bush solemnly certified--using an interpretation of the word ``possess'' that would make even the most cynical of our Government's legal advisors blush-- that Pakistan did not possess the bomb. The interpretations of the words ``reduce'' and ``significantly'' were similarly handled, as though they had been inscribed on something like silly putty. They did not mean anything. Since the aid cutoff in 1990, by the way, we have finally started to see the first signs of some potential nuclear restraint in Pakistan in the form of a freeze on the production of highly enriched uranium. Oh yes, I almost forgot to mention the $1 billion or so in taxpayer dollars not doled out to Pakistan since 1990 in the name of restraining Pakistan's bomb program. Those funds remain here at home, thanks to the Pressler amendment. As a footnote to the sad saga of Washington's failure to implement the Pressler sanctions until 1990, however, our Government has since interpreted the ban on assistance as not covering commercial sales of military equipment, including spare parts for Pakistan's nuclear weapon delivery vehicle, the F-16. Even joint military exercises are not regarded as assistance. Once again, a key nonproliferation term has been molded and distorted beyond recognition. Yet, my remarks today will focus on another term that has found its way into the ``Twilight Zone'' of nonproliferation. I am referring to the term ``sensitive nuclear technology,'' SNT, as it is known, which the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act very clearly defines as any information, other than restricted data, ``* * * which is not available to the public and which is important to the design, construction, fabrication, operation or maintenance of a uranium enrichment or nuclear fuel reprocessing facility or a facility for the production of heavy water * * *''. If we look carefully into the United States-Japan agreement for nuclear cooperation, signed in 1987, we will find a clause in there that says the following: ``* * * sensitive nuclear technology shall not be transferred under this Agreement.'' That is article 2-1-b. Underscoring this provision, the principal negotiator of this agreement, Ambassador Richard Kennedy, testified on December 16, 1987, before the House Foreign Affairs Committee: ``The transfer of restricted data and sensitive nuclear technology under the agreement is specifically excluded.'' Last September, the international environmental group, Greenpeace, prepared a lengthy analysis of the transfers of United States nuclear reprocessing technology to Japan. This study, titled ``The Unlawful Plutonium Alliance: Japan's Supergrade Plutonium and the Role of the United States,'' makes for interesting reading. It presents considerable evidence of United States cooperation with Japan in the areas of plutonium breeder reactors and nuclear fuel reprocessing. On September 8, 1994, the United States Department of Energy promised a comprehensive review of the report and further stated that it was ``phasing out collaborative research efforts with Japan on plutonium reprocessing and development of breeder reactor technology.'' The same day, the New York Times quoted a Department of Energy spokesman as saying that this cooperation was ``* * * a remnant of the last administration.'' Later, on September 23, Greenpeace was joined by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Nuclear Control Institute in demanding several steps to restore United States-Japan nuclear cooperation to the constraints of United States law. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter by these organizations to Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary.

Mr. GLENN. Madam President and colleagues, I rise to speak briefly today about a rather curious development in the history of U.S. efforts to halt the global spread of nuclear weapons. The hallmark of a good law is its ability to balance elements of permanence and change. A good law offers both fixed compass points and sufficient latitude for tactical navigation. Our nonproliferation legislation offers no exception to this rule. When our laws and policies apply too much sail or too much anchor, the consequences can be devastating for vital national security interests of the United States. For example, the notion of timely warning--that is, a legal precondition for certain forms of nuclear cooperation that was placed into the Atomic Energy Act to ensure stringent controls over exported U.S. nuclear materials and technology--has been rendered virtually meaningless by the way various administrations have used this term over the last decade to expedite commercial uses of U.S.-controlled plutonium in other countries. United States nuclear cooperation with Japan and with members of EURATOM, the European Atomic Energy Community, a region plagued by daily headlines of new black market nuclear deals, are two specific cases where large-scale nuclear cooperation is proceeding without timely warning having been satisfied within the original meaning of the term. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at the end of my remarks an authoritative interpretation of this concept by Dr. Leonard Weiss, who is now the minority staff director of the Governmental Affairs Committee

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, when introducing this legislation, Senator Dole, when he was listing the cuts, said ``IRS, 100 million-- that ought to be a favorite of everybody.'' Well, I disagree with that. I disagree that cutting the IRS is going to prove to be popular with very many people. On the following page of the Congressional Record, Senator Kyl is quoted as saying, ``For example, as the majority leader says, it cuts $100 million from the IRS bureaucracy, and makes other changes,'' as though there was a bureaucracy over there that is not working properly to get in the amount of revenue that is owed to the Government. Let me tell you why I think Senator Dole is wrong in that regard. When I go back home, what makes people more unhappy than anything else--while they are unhappy at paying taxes, of course; no one likes to pay taxes--but what really burns people up is to feel that they are paying their taxes, they fill out that form, they are honest about everything they do, they do the most honest job they can in submitting their data in for the IRS to consider, but then, when they hear about other people getting away with falsifying accounts and with not submitting all the data and with getting away with something and not paying their fair share, that is what really concerns people very much. It makes them very, very angry. And it makes me angry, too, and, I am sure, every Member of this body. Yet when we know there are compliance difficulties like this, and we know the earned income tax credit has some difficulties, and where we have programs that are set up now to address those difficulties and get every person to pay their fair share, and now we are saying that instead of expanding that program and making sure that that program is big enough to really make sure everybody does pay their fair share, we are going to cut it. We are going to cut those funds by one-quarter? That just does not make any sense at all, just from a plain business, flat business standpoint, when we know that each IRS agent gets approximately five times his or her keep in return of revenues that they have found that should have been submitted or should have been paid for and was not. Now that just does not make any sense. I appreciate the necessity to try to cut the budget here and so on, but this is absolutely the wrong, wrong place to do it. Madam President, I would like to go to a different subject for a moment. Another one of the cuts that has been proposed by the Republican Conference this year, which I think is very shortsighted and I hope it does not go through, is an attempt to cut the funding for the General Accounting Office by one-fourth in this 1 year. Let me give just a little bit of background. We, in the Governmental Affairs Committee, have been the committee of jurisdiction and of supervision over the General Accounting Office ever since I have been on that committee and long before that. We work very closely with them. They started over 2 years ago, before the last election, to downsize. They wanted to be more efficient. They started their own program of modernization and downsizing at GAO and it has been on schedule. What has happened? They are already down some 12 or 13 percent now and they plan by the end of 1997 to be down one-fourth smaller than they were when they started this program. They are doing that at their own initiative. Now what happened? The Republican Conference came out with a policy that they want to see GAO cut one-fourth this year, an additional one- fourth of what the GAO is already doing, an additional one-fourth cut in this year alone. This would decimate the GAO. We depend on the GAO as our investigative arm of Congress. When they were before us a short time ago over in committee, I could detail just what my own personal efforts where, as committee chairman on the Governmental Affairs Committee, I had asked them to do certain reports. They would come back and then, as a result of that, with action here on the floor or working with other committees, we would point to several billion dollars just that I had saved, just with my own initiative working with GAO. They have pointed out all sorts of problems. And yet we are trying to cut them back. Where did this start? Where did people get down on the GAO to the point where they are proposing to be cut back by one-fourth when they do good work and where they their own downsizing already going. And, as Comptroller General Bowsher has said, if you just let them alone and let them proceed until the end of 1997, they will have reduced by one- fourth over that period of time and accomplished on their own an orderly reduction that still enables them to do their job without getting slashed as the proposal would do out of the Republican Conference this year. There is an editorial in the Hill newspaper, Wednesday, April 5, today. That editorial is entitled ``Don't gut the GAO.'' By and large they state the situation pretty well, I think. I just read this a few moments ago, before I came on the floor. I quote from this editorial: Ever since the General Accounting Office uncovered the House bank scandal, which cost many lawmakers their jobs and sent some to jail, Congress has been gunning for the watch- dog agency. Republicans were particularly incensed by GAO reports critical of President Bush's tax policies. It now appears that the GAO, the research arm of Congress, may have to pay a heavy price for its independence. Senate Republicans want to slash the agency's budget by 25 percent. The ostensible reason for this cut is a deeply flawed report by a panel of the prestigious National Academy of Public Administration, which concluded that the GAO had strayed from its role as a numbers cruncher and wandered into the more esoteric realm of evaluating government programs and policies. But how does an agency evaluate whether taxpayer funds are being well spent except by evaluating the programs and policies for which they are used? Since its inception in 1921, the agency has saved taxpayers billions of dollars--more than $200 billion by some accounts. In fact, I correct the editorial here. The $200 billion I think was since 1985, not going clear back to 1921. I continue with the editorial: It was the GAO that found the money trail in the Iran- Contra scandal. After uncovering the HUD scandal, the agency went to work on the Department of Defense, and found $36 billion in supplies not needed to satisfy current operations of war reserves. GAO also turned the spotlight on wasteful Medicare reimbursement practices, including hospitals whose physical therapists billed as much as $600 an hour even though their salaries were as low as $20 an hour. Last year, the agency examined the Department of Energy's Rock Flats plant in Colorado, and found numerous safety problems, including ``plutonium liquids leaking from pipes and tanks, fire hazards and risks of exposing workers to plutonium.'' The GAO is currently studying Supplemental Security Income, which now costs $60 billion a year, a 140-percent increase in the last 10 years. The agency is seeking ways to bring the mushrooming costs under control. Scotty Campbell, former head of the Office of Personnel Management who directed the critical study, nevertheless warns that a 25-percent budget cut ``could do serious damage to that organization in terms of getting on with its work and readjusting its mission.'' The agency, whose $443 million budget is the largest of any legislative branch agency, has already cut its staff from 5,325 to 4,700 since 1992, and is prepared to reduce it to 3,975 during the next two years. They would have to dismiss 1,600 employees in the next nine months to comply with a 25- percent cut in one year. The GAO does have its internal problems. The agency is stymied by an antiquated management system that never ceases reviewing its work. It seems constitutionally incapable of producing reports to Congress on time--only 21 percent met GAO's own deadline. Paradoxically, although Congress wants to slash the agency's budget, it bears most responsibility for GAO's workload. About 77 percent of the agency's work was at the request of Congress. Only last week, the Senate approved giving GAO responsibility for promulgated by a Federal agency, a task currently performed by the Office of Management and Budget. Clearly, the agency that uncovered the House bank scandal doesn't always give Congress what it wants. That makes the GAO all the more needed, especially when budget cutters are honing their axes. This is definitely not the time to shackle Congress' most effective fiscal watchdog. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I rise today to take issue with my distinguished colleague, the majority leader, whose amendment would severely impact the wide variety of Federal programs on which all Americans rely. The amendment being offered by the majority leader seeks a recession in the funding of the Internal Revenue Service of $100 million. The funding in question is part of the IRS' new compliance initiative, a broad-based effort to collect all the outstanding tax revenue rightfully due the Federal Government. This excellent program, which was passed with bipartisan support by the Congress last year, will bring in more than $9.2 billion in additional revenue over the next 5 years at a cost of just $2.2 billion during the same period. This is a great deal by anybody's calculations. In fact, as we stand here and debate, this initiative is already working. For the first quarter of 1995, the IRS has generated an additional $101 million of enforcement revenue, 31 percent of the fiscal year 1995 commitment. These are outstanding results for which we should commend the IRS, given that the program has only just begun and that some lag is always necessary to hire new compliance staff. Do we really want to stop a program that brings in revenue to the Government? Madam President, I am as aware as any of my colleagues of the need to save scarce tax dollars and effectively spend resources provided by the public. I have long believed that there is a lot of fat, fraud, waste and abuse in Government programs. It has been the focus of our activity on the Governmental Affairs Committee for the last several years. would come in a program expected to bring in $9.2 billion. If the Senate approved this amendment to the recession bill, then the IRS would be seriously affected by the resulting funding cut. IRS estimates that at this point in the fiscal year, the agency would have to furlough all 70,000 compliance personnel for up to 10 days. At the same time, a cut of this magnitude would cost the Government approximately $500 million in lost collections in addition to the loss of revenue from this initiative. I am aware that some of my colleagues think that because this appropriation last year was made outside of the domestic discretionary caps, that it undermines our budget strictures and unfairly provides one agency with additional resources. While I sympathize with this reasoning in general--and would not be eager to make exceptions for other agencies--I think that in the case of the IRS, the only responsible choice is to make an exception. To cut compliance funds from the IRS, when each new revenue officer brings in five times their keep, is truly penny wise and pound stupid. Cutting compliance funds for the IRS is not good logic and it is not good business. I cannot support this amendment that the majority leader has offered. I hope it goes down to defeat. Madam President, the IRS has had problems. We followed those problems through a number of GAO reports. They have had some financial management problems. After we passed the CFO Act, the IRS management was one of the areas that was targeted to have a first look made of it under the CFO Act to see how they are doing. They are making a number of improvements now as a result of those studies. Another area that I have followed for several years in which we are beginning, I think, to maybe get our hands on is in the area of IRS receivables. I do not think most Members of this body, or most Americans, people out across America, realize the IRS has owed to it somewhere around $156 billion. Why do we not go out and collect that? Part of that is not collectible in that it is debt that is not validly collectible; where people have gone into bankruptcy, either individually or as corporations. So a big chunk of it fits in that category. How much can we go out and collect? Peeling that $156 billion down, they have active accounts, they estimate, of $79.5 billion. But they expect, when they look into those, that some are going to be abated or suspended because it will cost more to get them than the money they would get back anyway. But when you come down to the hard core figures that we were given just day before yesterday in a hearing by the Commissioner of the IRS, Margaret Richardson, they feel over there right now that actually collectible money, if we had the people to go out and collect it, is $27.5 billion out there. That is collectible money on IRS accounts if we had the people to go out and get it. We provided them with additional people last year. We have several thousand people, 4,000 I believe it was, a little over 4,000, that we got as new, full-time employees to go out and collect those accounts because each employee actually brings back in about five times his or her keep as an agent in the IRS. Now, I think that is a good investment. I think when we talk about cutting back in some of these areas and cutting back on their enforcement money, I cannot understand that, when they bring back far more than what it costs us for those particular people. The impact of the $100 million rescission would have some far- reaching effects also. We had a hearing just this morning on earned income tax credit. Now, that is a program that has had a lot of fraud and problems because people file either some false income data or they file the wrong number of dependents or whatever and a fairly high percentage of those returns are fraudulent returns. Now, what do we do? Just as the IRS at the beginning of this year said they were going to do, hold up and look at those returns before they automatically send the money out. They are doing that right now. And we are about to cut the people who do that. We are going to lose far more than the $100 million rescission that has been proposed. What the amendment would do, it would actually cut the IRS tax law enforcement appropriation by $100 million, 25 percent of the amounts approved in fiscal 1995 for a compliance initiative which is intended to collect an additional $9.2 billion over the fiscal 1995 to fiscal 1999 time period. The amendment would further require that any revenue officers hired since the beginning of fiscal 1995, which are those addressing the accounts I just mentioned, would have to be redeployed as collection call site assisters. And third, the amendment would limit the cuts that could be made to the examination and inspection activities of IRS to accommodate the rescission. Reductions cannot take these activities below fiscal 1994 approved levels. The IRS compliance initiative is designed--and is carrying on right now--to try to already reduce the deficit. Last year, Congress approved a $405 million annual investment to collect an additional $9.2 billion to reduce the deficit over a 5-year period. And the initiative is working. That is the good news. Early results show that IRS will meet or exceed the goal of generating the additional $9.2 billion. In fact, through the first quarter alone, the initiative has generated an additional $101 million of enforcement revenue--in the first quarter of this year. That is 31 percent of the fiscal 1995 commitment. It is ahead of schedule. In other words, they have collected more this year already than it would cost to keep the program in place. These initiative results are being tracked. They have a new system for tracking enforcement initiatives, and revenue has been developed and approved by GAO. The first-quarter report was delivered to Congress on schedule on March 31. Further, cutting the initiative increases the deficit. For every appropriated dollar saved, tax revenues are reduced by nearly $5. The cost of this cut in lost revenue is $500 million, if it is limited just to 1 year--a 5 to 1 ratio. If the cut is permanent, the revenue loss is in the range of $2.5 billion. The rescission will negatively impact examination coverage, collection of delinquent accounts, information returns matching, and efforts to curb fraud and abuse with refundable credits. Just think of that. If we make this cut of $100 million, we are going to reduce impact; we are going to reduce examination coverage; we are going to reduce collection of delinquent accounts, and we are going to not reduce one of the big problems, matching information returns in order to curb fraud and abuse on those refundable credits that we send out. These are only direct revenues. The Service's enforcement activities also encourage voluntary compliance. When other people see what is going on and they are not able to get away with fraud and abuse, they think twice before they do it and they check that return an extra time before they send it in to make sure there are not mistakes in that account. An estimate has been made of this. Every 1-percent increase in voluntary compliance increases tax revenues by about $10 billion annually. I think that is a very, very impressive figure. There are some other aspects of what this $100 million rescission cut would do to IRS. Stop-and-go financing disrupts IRS operations. IRS put in place a long-range hiring and training plan. They did it with our support, with our encouragement. Over 4,000 people have been hired or redeployed to compliance jobs so far as part of this initiative. It is a good initiative. In balanced tax administration, ACS addresses predominantly the high volume of low- to middle-dollar cases while revenue officers address the more complex higher dollar individual and business cases. Uneven enforcement could lead to a perception of unfair tax administration. So we want a balanced tax administration. There are limits to telephone intervention. Certain issues, such as trust fund recovery penalty, cannot be resolved with the telephone. Additionally, certain enforcement tools require face-to-face contact, including seizure and sale, lien priority investigations, and offers in compromise. The IRS fiscal 1995 savings options are few. With only 6 months remaining in the fiscal year, IRS would need to board hiring freeze in the tax law enforcement appropriation and the staff furloughed. Now, the worst case I mentioned a moment ago is a furlough of all 70,000 tax law-enforcement appropriation personnel for a 10-day period. A 10-day furlough could result in $500 million in lost revenue collections. So that sounds like a poor bargain to have to do that. Another factor, too, is using revenue officers as call-site assisters is not practical. In allocating resources for the fiscal 1995 initiative, IRS listened to GAO and congressional concerns regarding staffing for automated collection call sites. The fiscal 1995 initiative contained 2,200, FTE's, full-time employees, for collection; 1,450 of these FTE's were allocated to positions other than revenue officers such as ACS, service center examiners, bankruptcy, account notice work in toll-free operations, and early intervention. Counting the early intervention initiative, 900 additional full-time employees were allocated to ACS. I wish to also mention the capacity issues. IRS has 3,276 full-time employees assigned to ACS. There are space, equipment, and system limitations that would need to be addressed to accommodate the redeployed revenue officers if this legislation went through. The usual procurement cycle for space and equipment is 18 months. Since the start of fiscal 1995, only 216 revenue officers have been hired, 89 from outside the IRS and another 127 from other occupations within the IRS. And redeployment is costly. Even if there were available ACS positions to be filled, redeploying recently hired revenue officers would be costly and it would be inefficient. Revenue officers were not hired in the same location as ACS sites. Revenue officers from around the country would have to either travel to distant cities, incurring travel and hotel costs, or be permanently moved. It has its own costs associated with it. This would mean as much as $7 million in unnecessary travel costs. Further, IRS would be using higher skilled revenue officers to do call-site work that could be done at lower salary costs. Madam President, this is simply not good business, to cut $800 million out in the interest of balancing the budget, much as we may want to do that, and at the same time cut back on the modernization systems that the IRS has undertaken. These are good programs that they have and cutting $100 million from law enforcement is exactly the wrong way to move. I will quote from another document that came to my attention in the office. The headline is: Cutting $100 Million From Law Enforcement Bad Move, Richardson Says. Congress should reconsider before it rescinds $100 million of a $405 million compliance initiative enacted last year, IRS Commissioner Margaret Richardson testified April 3. Richardson told the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government that the rescission proposal ``is simply not good business.'' The proposal is part of S. 617, which would cancel $13 billion in fiscal 1995 spending. It was offered as an amendment by Sens. Robert Dole, R-Kan., and Thomas A. Daschle, D-S.D. Richardson, defending the agency's $8.2 billion request for fiscal 1996, said any reduction in law enforcement funds or personnel could reduce revenue $2.5 billion. ``Unlike many agencies, the IRS is not a program agency. Over 70 percent of the IRS's budget is personnel cost,'' she said. And she went on to detail some more of this. I ask unanimous consent that that article, and another article out of the Washington Times, be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, we started working on this effort of nonproliferation back many years ago in my very early days in the Senate. We have been on it ever since. Sometimes you feel like the little story of the Dutch Boy with his finger in the dike. You feel like you are not getting very far, and then you find some nations which are willing to sign up under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT] and place their confidence in some of the restrictions we have had going on around the world. They express admiration that we and Russia finally are at long last getting our nuclear stockpiles downhill somewhat. So maybe over the long term we are making considerable progress in that area. irs compliance initiative

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, it just does not make any sense that we are going to cut GAO at a time when we need their investigations more than ever. It came as a big surprise to me back several years ago, as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, to learn that the departments and agencies of Government are not required to do a bottom-line audit every year, as any business would have to do. The biggest spending organization in the world, the U.S. Government, and we are not required to do any audits at the end of the year. We worked over several years putting together legislation. It was put together with the assistance of Dick Darman in the White House, during the years when he was head of OMB, and with Charles Bowsher, who is the Comptroller General, and we put together what we called the Chief Financial Officer Act, which has been in effect since 1990. What does that do? It requires a bottom-line audit every year of every Department, every agency. We started GAO out auditing just three pilot projects trying to see whether we could get audits or not and what kind of shape they would be in. Nobody is passing, at this point, what in business would be called a certified audit. It will be a number of years before we get to that point. But who is required to analyze those new activities that we have put on every Department, every agency of Government to make sure that they are truly doing an audit--in other words, checking the audits, making sure the bottom-line audit is valid? The GAO, the General Accounting Office. That is one of their assigned jobs. We are assigning them new roles all the time, and yet, at the same time, we are saying in addition to what they are already cutting down, 12 to 15 percent, we whack them out one-fourth this year when we need more accounting capability, not less. I wish we could go not just to three agencies of the Government or Departments of Government and say, ``Yes, the GAO is coming over to audit you and you better get your books in order.'' I wish we could go the whole length and breadth of Government. We are going to do that next year, and they are phasing it in slowly and doing a good job of phasing it in slowly, because they do not have the resources to go further into this and do it more rapidly. It is unbelievable some of the things we found in our hearings going on over at the Pentagon, as far as accounting. GAO found across the whole length and breadth we have 200 different accounting systems, most of which cannot talk to each other on computers. The Pentagon alone has 160 different accounting systems; the Army has 43 different accounting systems. GAO is working closely with the Pentagon, with John Hamre, the comptroller over there, trying to make some sense out of this and trying to get reports and combine some of these systems so that we can know what happens to the money that we appropriate for the Pentagon. I use that as just one example. I think it was $32 billion in unmatched disbursements, for instance, where they are just sort of written off. We hope they were all valid payments, but we could not really document what those payments were, whether they were as valid as they should be or not. We did not have the paperwork trail there to do it. They are helping the Pentagon upgrade their system so we can get that kind of an audit trail every single year, not just once in a great while. Yet, at the same time, we are talking about cutting their funding back by a fourth when they are on the downswing now. It was rare we used to hear any comment about problems with the GAO, and I know, as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, where I heard the first major complaints. I think maybe this is where some of the problems started with the reputation of GAO in the Senate at least. I know that the editorial I read a moment ago puts some of the problem over in the House on what they did in uncovering the House bank scandal. But in the Senate, everybody went along thinking GAO was doing a good job, which they were, up until President Bush was elected. And during that transition period is when the GAO took it upon themselves to issue the transition reports, giving advice, which was not solicited by the new administration at that time. These were transition reports that called on GAO's background and their experience in these different areas as to where they saw some of the major problems in Government. This was unsolicited by the new administration. We had very few Senators here, but some--I still have one of the letters in my file that was just caustically critical of the General Accounting Office for going outside what this particular Senator saw as their proper role of doing only reports that we had requested specifically from here, committee chairmen or individuals, of course. But they voluntarily made these transition reports. it certainly did not affront me and it would not have affronted me had it been a Democratic administration coming in. I do not think there is any agency of Government--no one certainly at the congressional level--to give us advice whose views go clear across the length and breadth of Government, all the way across, and is more qualified to give advice than the General Accounting Office. I know if it had been a Democratic administration coming in, I would have welcomed those transition reports to give a new administration some guidance. Instead of that, their initiative, which they took on their own, seemed to have affronted some people here. And we heard continual criticism of the General Accounting Office ever since that time. Even up to and including one of the reported suggestions after the Republican conference made their suggestions on cutbacks at 25 percent, one of the Senators was quoted as saying he thought they should be cut back 50 percent. That would virtually do away with the fine job the General Accounting Office does for the Congress. So I hope that we can think about this very carefully as to what we are doing when we cut funds back for the General Accounting Office. I hope they can be permitted not to take a one-quarter cut in this year, all in this year. That would decimate them. It would interrupt all their programs. They are on a reduction of about one-fourth of their work force right now. It started back 2 years ago and will be completed by the end of 1997. That is their target for this, and they are on schedule for it right now. They can go that kind of reduction in an orderly fashion and accomplish the same thing if just given the time to do it. I realize the efforts that we try to put forth around here to cut the budget, but if we are cutting the budget with regard to the General Accounting Office to that level, I think we are making a very, very, major mistake and one that we will regret. If we do not have them, who are we to use for investigations that they have done in the past? I have used them. As chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I used them for quite a number of different projects. One I will mention. We are all concerned about the nuclear waste across the country, nuclear waste out of the nuclear weapons production program across the country that went for so many years without anybody even looking at it. Back in 1985, I was at Fernald in Ohio. People wanted me to come out there, and it was one of the first steps in the nuclear weapons process, a processing plant at Fernald, and they felt there were problems there with waste. I went out not knowing quite what I would find. The situation was worse than I thought it was. I went to work on that. Then we asked the General Accounting Office to do a study of the site, which they did. I thought it could not possibly be this bad all over the whole country at the 17 major sites in 11 different States that were part of that nuclear weapons process. It turned out we asked GAO to do studies in some of the other areas, which they did, and what did they find? They found what I had run into at Fernald was only the starting point. What was out there across the whole nuclear weapons complex was a hideous ignoring of what had been going on all during the cold war as we fought to get fissile material and nuclear weapons produced as fast as we possibly could. We had been just ignoring the waste. Everybody was so concerned, including me, including Members of this body, including most Americans, we were concerned, ``The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming.'' We have to get those nuclear weapons out there fast. What are we going to do with the waste? Put it out behind the plant and we will deal with that later. That is what we did. This ``out behind the plant and deal with it later'' was all the nuclear waste that we are now going to have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to clean up. The organization that has given the best definition of that whole problem all across the country is the General Accounting Office. I add this. Back then, when we first ran into this and had the first GAO reports, we asked for estimates from the Department of Energy as to how much they thought it was going to cost to clean up this whole thing out across the country. This was in about early 1986. They estimated it was going to cost $8 to $12 billion to clean these places up. Better defining as GAO went through this showed in about 2 years it would cost closer to $100 billion. That was our estimate for several years. Then the cost went up, through better refining of the data, to about $200 billion and 20 to 30 years to do the cleanup. Now this past week the Department of Energy has finally estimated that depending on how clean we want to make the sites, the cost will be $200 to $375 billion. Some can be done in 20 to 30 years, and some of it may take as long as 75 years as we try to learn how to do it. GAO is the one who has defined most of this problem and pointed it out. They deserve a lot of credit for having done that. We could go on. I could talk all night here, all afternoon and all evening about what has happened in GAO on the different projects and what we have been able to save. They have gotten back so many times their cost, the cost of having GAO so many times. I indicated just my own personal case of requests for information that has resulted in several billion being saved on different accounts that we can document. This $200 billion I said they saved since about 1985, I believe it was, they can document. They have follow-up activities that show. These are not some wild pie-in-the-sky estimates to make them look good. They document this with follow-up review procedures to see how much has actually been saved, and $200 billion over the last 10 years is an enormous savings. Yet at the same time we are talking about whacking them by one-quarter in addition to the reduction they are already making. That would be the most false economy I can think of if we went through with that. Madam President, I have spoken longer than I usually speak on the floor today, but I think these are very important matters. We talk about pulling back money for the IRS at a time when they are getting their TSM, their tax system modernization in place. That is a mistake. They are getting back far more than what it costs. If we cut them down on their compliance activities, their follow-up on tax returns, their follow-up to make sure that everybody is paying their fair share, their follow-up to make sure the IETC--the earned income tax credit--is not given incorrectly to the wrong people, when we start cutting back on activities like that, that is a mistake. I personally would like to see funding increased for GAO and increased for IRS because their track record is that they are getting back more than those additional dollars would cost. I hope we are not going to, in the interests of balancing the budget here, make some false economies here that will cost more in the long run than it would to fully fund these agencies as requested right now. I appreciate the consideration of my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN. In short, because Japan already had demonstrated a capability to separate plutonium, DOE is arguing that our reprocessing technology did not qualify as SNT--even though the technology was not in the public domain, even though the technology was important to a Japanese facility engaged in reprocessing activities, and even though the technology was not classified Restricted Data. In short, the Department is asserting that even though the technology satisfied each and every one of the requisite components of the definition of SNT, the technology transferred to Japan was not SNT. The Department did, however, indicate that it will soon invite the public's views on this interpretation in a rule making process. By all indications, that should be a lively process indeed. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record: First, three articles from the trade newsletter, Nuclear Fuel: ``Four- Month Look at SNT Guidelines Yields Three-Paragraph Response,'' January 2, 1995; ``DOE Pressured to Explain Position on Secret SNT Export Guidelines'', October 24, 1994; and ``PNC Argues Against Public Release of RETF-Related Design Information'', October 24, 1994; and second, a January 6, 1995, letter from the three environmental organizations-- Greenpeace, NRDC, and NCI--to the Secretaries of Energy and State urging the exclusion of reprocessing technology transfers from any new agreement for cooperation with the European Atomic Community.

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, my own views on this whole issue are well known. On May 15, 1986, Congressman Energy Conservation and Power to assess the effectiveness of DOE controls over nuclear technology exports. The hearing focused in particular on findings of a report by the General Accounting Office documenting several problems in DOE's controls. I testified that ``GAO's documentation of examples where obvious exports of sensitive nuclear technology were covered up by DOE through twisted reasoning allowing determinations that no sensitive nuclear technology was involved, suggests a dangerous attitude of contempt for law on the part of some DOE officials.'' That was clear back in 1986. The GAO report that was the focus of that hearing was entitled, ``DOE Has Insufficient Control over Nuclear Technology Exports'' (RCED-86- 144) and was dated May 1, 1986--about 9 years ago. That same report reached the following specific conclusions-- DoE has not established objective standards for specifically authorizing exports [of nuclear technology] (page 2). The 1978 act [the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act (NNPA)] . . . limits the determination of sensitive nuclear technology to its importance to sensitive facilities, not to recipient countries. (page 4) In defining SNT, neither the act nor its legislative history distinguished among countries, their nuclear weapons capabilities, or their nonproliferation credentials. The act requires DoE to determine if information to be provided to a foreign country is important to the design, construction, fabrication, operation, or maintenance of an enrichment, reprocessing, or heavy water production facility. (page 57) In our opinion, therefore, the better view is that the NNPA requires DoE to make SNT determinations strictly on the basis of the technical importance of proposed assistance to sensitive nuclear facilities. (page 58) On August 17, 1987, GAO issued another report, entitled, ``Department of Energy Needs Tighter Controls Over Reprocessing Information' (RCED- 87-150). This report found that ``DOE has little control over the dissemination of information related to the design, operation, and maintenance of commercial or defense reprocessing technology that it produces * * * [adding that] most of DOE's reprocessing-related information is readily available to anyone who wants it.'' That was on page 17. Here are some additional findings from that report-- DoE has not enforced the SNT export conditions on activities in conducts with foreign countries under technical exchange agreements. (page 33) DoE's interpretation [of SNT] * * * does not appear consistent with the NNPA definition of SNT. (page 33) DoE has not fully met NNPA conditions for transferring SNT on any of the cooperative reprocessing activities with other countries. (page 39) * * * prior approval rights required by the act were not obtained on any of the cooperative reprocessing activities [specifically the UK and Japan].'' (page 39) [DoE officials] believe that although the information [transferred to the UK and Japan] is `valuable,' it is not `important' in the sense intended by the NNPA and is, therefore, not SNT. (page 40) Neither the definition [of SNT in the NNPA] nor the export requirements [under existing regulations] indicate that SNT decisions were to be based on the nuclear proficiency of the recipient country. (page 41) Neither the act [NNPA] nor its legislative history distinguishes among countries, their nuclear capabilities, or their nonproliferation status to determine what information constitutes SNT * * * this definition should be consistently applied to all countries on the basis of objective criteria. (page 42) The assistance DoE provides directly to the reprocessing programs of other countries * * * qualifies in our opinion as SNT as defined in the NNPA. (page 43) In March 1988, DOE's own Office of International Security Affairs issued a lengthy report on Technology Security (DOE/DP-8008612) which found that ``Success in acquiring unclassified sensitive technology, as identified in the Militarily Critical Technologies List, has enabled potential proliferant countries to construct, outside of the international safeguards regime, sensitive fuel cycle facilities at lower costs and in shorter period of time'' (page 9-2). Then on September 19, 1989, the GAO issued another report entitled ``Better Controls Needed Over Weapons-Related Information and Technology'' (RCED-89-116), which found that ``DOE makes readily available a great deal of unclassified information and computer codes that could assist sensitive countries in developing or advancing their nuclear weapons programs'' (page 16). GAO also found that ``In addition to obtaining DOE information, sensitive countries routinely obtain hardware from the United States that has both nuclear weapons and commercial applications * * * about 290 of the approved requests [for export licenses in 1987] were destined for facilities suspected of conducting nuclear weapons development activities'' (page 5). With respect to exports of these so-called dual-use goods, GAO's 1987 data amount to peanuts compared with what GAO found in 1994. In a report bearing a now-familiar title, ``Export Licensing Procedures for Dual-Use Items Need to be Strengthened,'' (NSIAD-94-119), GAO found that the United States approved over 330,000 licenses for exports of nuclear dual-use goods worldwide between fiscal years 1985 and 1992. Even more alarming, some $350 million of such goods went specifically to facilities believed to be involved in nuclear weapons-related activities in eight controlled countries. For further discussion of this GAO report, readers should consult my floor statement on January 4, 1995, where I inserted into the Record detailed summaries of this report and another report prepared by four inspectors general describing serious problems in the implementation of U.S. export controls relating both to munitions and to goods relating to weapons of mass destruction. Fortunatly, DOE is now under new leadership and appears to be trying to grapple with bringing DOE practices back into line with the spirit and letter of our fundamental nonproliferation legislation. I compliment Hazel O'Leary for the job she is doing there as the Secretary of Energy. In light of President Clinton's September 27, 1993, policy statement that the United States ``does not encourage the civil use of plutonium,'' I hope that the Department's three-paragraph letter does not represent the administration's final position on this matter. I would urge DOE in the strongest of terms to undertake a truly comprehensive reexamination of its policies and practices for handling such data and to bring these policies and practices back into line with U.S. law. The United States is not in the business of promoting commercial uses of plutonium or highly enriched uranium around the world, either as a matter of policy or of law. The bizarre notion that just because a country has demonstrated a national capability to separate plutonium or perform some other sensitive nuclear activity does not, should not, and must not exempt it from provisions of our law addressing sensitive nuclear technology. Indeed, if this notion continues to poison our nonproliferation laws, what would keep our weapons labs or their subcontractors from transferring SNT to virtually any proliferant nation, given the capabilities that many of them have already demonstrated in the fields of reprocessing, enrichment, and heavy water production? If today such technology can go to Japan in direct violation of a bilateral agreement, where will such technology go tomorrow? I will closely monitor developments in this area in the months ahead and am optimistic that the Department will eventually bring its practices into line with statutory controls over SNT. This will be a splendid opportunity for the Department to distance itself from the time-dishonored practice of previous administrations of redefining key nonproliferation terms to pursue short-term political or diplomatic goals. I will close this statement by attaching a chronology of some relevant documents pertaining to this whole SNT controversy, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record, and I urge all my colleagues to look into this matter and to support retaining some consistency, predictability, and clarity in the implementation of one of our most important nonproliferation controls.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, this bill is entitled the Taxpayer Browsing Protection Act. We have a problem. Criminal penalties and sanctions do currently apply when IRS employees look at taxpayer returns that they are not authorized to do for work purposes and willfully disclose that information to third parties. However, there is a nebulous loophole for when IRS employees engage in such browsing for their own curious interests but do not disclose that information to others. The bill that we are submitting here today is based on recommendations by the IRS and the Department of Justice, which began looking at this issue following hearings last year which publicly disclosed this activity. This bill would provide in the Internal Revenue Code that unauthorized inspection of returns or return information is an offense punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000, or imprisonment of not more than 1-year, or both, together with costs of prosecution. If the offense is committed by an officer or employee of the United States, they are immediately fired upon conviction. Third, it will clarify that the unauthorized inspection, as well as the unauthorized disclosure, of returns or return information is a violation of the code's confidentiality provisions for returns and return information. Mr. President, this bill addresses something that came out in our hearings last year where we found that some employees were just browsing through accounts on which they were not doing work. They were just curious about what was in the accounts. We had some that actually got into accounts and changed some of the figures in there and received kickbacks for what they were doing. Some of those people are already in jail now. So that area is covered. We want to tighten this up, and the IRS very much favors this. Commissioner Margaret Richardson said this morning at our hearing that she does favor this, and we worked with her on this. She feels it covers a loophole in the legislation that needs to be covered. I am glad to submit it and help close that loophole so that we will make it absolutely unequivocally illegal for IRS employees to be browsing through other people's accounts, whether for voyeuristic reasons, or just plain curiosity, or whatever the motives are. But people should expect that when they file their tax returns and that information is in the internal revenue system, those returns are confidential and will be worked on only by people that are dealing with business matters on their accounts and nothing more. That is what this legislation does. I hope we can have support on it after it has been through the committee process.

Mr. GLENN. I will be glad to do so. If the Senator will yield for a moment, Mr. President. To put this in a broader context, the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, is the one who on our Governmental Affairs Committee took the lead in putting together the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. It has served us well and the taxpayers of this country should be glad for what he did. I am sure they are, whether they realize they are in his debt or not. What I have done here is expand a little on his efforts. To put it in an even larger context, we are coming into a time with the information age, the information flow, time period in history that replaces the agriculture revolution, the industrial revolution. Now we are into the information revolution. Along with that is going the computerization of all of the taxpayer records that formerly were all in on a piece of paper in the file. They were not as accessible as they are now to computers and hackers and other people. One of our biggest problems in keeping confidentiality is making sure that as we move into the taxpayer system modernization program, the TSM Program, a very expensive modernization program--and it will be another 3 or 4 years before completion--that will completely modernize the IRS. We need protections like this and like the protections the Senator from Arkansas put the initiative on in putting it together. So he is to be complimented for his efforts in times past on this. As he said, he has T-2, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II, which is being prepared. This bill I put in today is one that covers one loophole that we had discerned was there and which the IRS agreed we should close, and we are glad the Senator from Arkansas is a cosponsor because he did a lot of the original work and deserves a lot of the credit for it.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, the Federal Acquisition Improvement Act, by request of the administration. I am glad to do it, because this bill represents the next step of reforming the way Government buys its goods and services. Last year, the Congress passed the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, better known as FASA. That was the first major piece of procurement reform legislation in over 10 years. The passage of the act constituted a critical victory in the war against Government inefficiency and one of the most significant accomplishments of the Governmental Affairs Committee during the 103d Congress. FASA is a comprehensive Governmentwide procurement reform effort aimed at streamlining the acquisition process by reducing paperwork burdens through revision and consolidation of acquisition statutes to eliminate redundancy, provide consistency and facilitate implementation. The law is the culmination of years of legislative and oversight effort led by the Governmental Affairs Committee, in conjunction with the Armed Services and Small Business Committees of both the Senate and the House, to make sense out of the complex process of supplying the Federal Government with the goods and services it needs just to operate. Figuring significantly also were recommendations of the Vice President's National Performance Review regarding increased reliance on acquisitions of commercial items and increased simplified acquisition threshold of $100,000, and other recommendations mirroring those in the report of the advisory panel on streamlining and codifying acquisition laws pursuant to section 800 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1991. That was the so-called 800 panel. Mr. President, this really was a culmination of a number of different activities that came together to pass the legislation last year. We had been working in the Governmental Affairs Committee on this problem of streamlining acquisition, making it more efficient for all of Government, not just the armed services. At the same time, the Armed Services Committee, of which I am also a member, asked the Pentagon to do a study of their own procurement practices, and that was done with what became known as the 800 panel. Then, when the new administration was elected, the Vice President headed up the National Performance Review. And it, once again, got into areas of procurement reform. So we all combined our efforts, and that culminated then in passage last year of FASA. That was quite an accomplishment. As if that were not enough, I am pleased today to be a sponsor of a bill which I hope will mark the beginning of serious Senate efforts in the 104th Congress to make even further reforms to our procurement system. People in the agencies and industry have already begun to refer to this new set of proposed reforms as FASA 2, but its actual title is the Federal Acquisition Improvement Act. I think that is symbolic of what the administration is trying to do. Yes, this is a further streamlining effort, but the administration is also trying to improve on and refine the endeavor which began last year with the passage of FASA. I believe this bill is a good starting point for this second round of reforms, and we are definitely headed in the right direction for this venture. It appears that the administration is trying to finish what it started last year with FASA, as well as pursuing some bold new objectives with this bill, and I want to commend them personally for that. For instance, one theme in the bill appears to be furthering the work begun in FASA of attempting to bring the Government more in line with the commercial world exemplified by provisions clarifying the definition of commercial services and shortening the time it takes to complete a procurement. That is a major item. Consistent with this theme is the desire expressed in this bill to further streamline the award process, something also begun in FASA. Significant provisions we will be watching in this realm involve the lowering of agency approval levels and delegation of authorities for using noncompetitive procedures; limiting competitive range determinations to as few as the three highest-ranked offerors; and the authorization of two-phase selection procedures for certain information technology in design-build contracts. The administration has also begun to tackle the controversial, highly charged issue of reform of the protest system by attempting to streamline it and reduce the number of protests filed. Included are provisions on making statutory and consistent the standards of review used for development and evaluation of the protest record; preaward debriefings for unsuccessful offerors; and consolidation of the judicial protest forum. I will be watching suggestions in this area with particular interest, especially since I know that the proposals in this area do not begin and end with those made in this bill. There are also some very beneficial concepts in this bill related to ethics; recoupment of fees paid to the U.S. Government on foreign sales of military products and technologies developed under Government contracts; FACNET, the newly established electronic commerce system created under FASA for procurements under the simplified acquisition threshold; and more pilot programs to test out new and different concepts. This list barely scratches the surface, and it is easy to see that the administration is attacking some tough and very diverse issues with this bill. We will be scrutinizing each and every one of these provisions for their wisdom and for their prudence. As I said, at this juncture I may not support every single provision of this bill. Most of the proposals I am sure I will support. Others I support the concept behind but feel the language may need some work and will be glad to do that. There are also ideas in the bill with which I may disagree altogether, as we go along. In general, though, I think we are headed in the right direction with this new bill, and I am very glad to be submitting it on behalf of the administration. The bill is being introduced today and the legislative process can begin to work and we can begin to consider opinions from all interested parties on each provision so that we can put forth the best possible measure for the President's signature. I know that the General Accounting Office, GAO, and others, have testified before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee offering many valuable suggestions along this line. I look forward to engaging in that process again, as I did last year. Mr. President, I want to reiterate that I believe the administration's bill is a very good place to start working on the next round of reforms to streamline our procurement system. We have a challenge ahead of us to flesh out this bill, but I am excited that the administration continues to focus attention in this area.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I just want to submit a bill and give a speech. I can stop in the middle.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. GLENN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Glenn pertaining to the introduction of S. 669 and S. 670 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to sadly note the death of Father Mike Lavelle, president of John Carroll University in Cleveland, OH. Father Lavelle was an important leader of our community. Rev. Michael Joseph Lavelle, S.J. Ph.D., a native of Cleveland, joined the faculty of John Carroll in 1969 and served as president of the university since 1988. After collapsing from an attack of cardiac arrhythmia on February 27, Father Lavelle never regained consciousness and died last Saturday. I had the great privilege to work closely with Father Lavelle in a number of areas affecting higher education. He was a tireless advocate for programs and services helping students, faculty and John Carroll University. Most recently we worked together to establish a Veterans' Teacher Preparation Program at John Carroll University. Father Lavelle was instrumental in the development of this program to assist retiring military personnel to obtain the necessary certification to teach high school science or mathematics. This program which turns ``Troops to Teachers'' is just one example of the vision and commitment of Father Lavelle to help improve Cleveland. The death of Father Lavelle is a great loss and we will miss him. Annie and I extend our sympathy to his sister, Helen, and the rest of his family at John Carroll University and throughout Cleveland. Mr. President, I ask that an article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, March 26, 1995, be printed in the Record. The article follows: JCU's Lavelle Dead at 60--Leader in Academia and Jesuit Order (By Richard M. Peery) University Heights.--The Rev. Michael J. Lavelle, a Jesuit priest whose long and distinguished career led him to the presidency of John Carroll University, died yesterday at the A.M. McGregor home in East Cleveland. He never regained consciousness after collapsing Feb. 27 from severe cardiac arrhythmia, while working out at the university's physical fitness center. He was 60. ``Father Lavelle was a strong visionary, capable president, and he was also a friend,'' said Frederick F. Travis, acting JCU president. ``He was very well liked on campus and was a popular choice for president in 1988 among both faculty and staff.'' During Lavelle's tenure as the 21st president of John Carroll, the freshman class enrollment grew from 500 to more than 700. He was instrumental in having two dormitories built to house the influx of students. He also helped initiate the movement of John Carroll's athletic teams from the President's Athletic Conference to the Ohio Athletic Conference. The change led to competition with Baldwin-Wallace, Mount Union, Wooster and Muskingum colleges. In 1983, Lavelle was elected to the 33rd General Congregation of the Society of Jesus, which established the direction of the worldwide Jesuit order for the last 12 years. He also served as one of a dozen advisers to the American Catholic Bishops Committee on their pastoral letter on the economy in the 1980s. An economist and an expert on Eastern Europe, he traveled to Soviet bloc countries more than 20 times, expanding his expertise in Soviet and international economics and working with this fellow Jesuits in those nations, many of whom had been driven underground. The Cleveland native grew up in the Lakeview Terrace public-housing complex on the West Side. His father worked for the old Cleveland Transit System for 42 years, 28 of them on the Detroit Ave. and Clifton Blvd. streetcar lines. Lavelle, a 1953 graduate of St. Ignatius High School, distinguished himself as a member of the school's football team, which won the 1952 West Senate League championship. He was voted the West Senate Most Valuable Player and was named to the All-Catholic High School football team. An all- scholastic offensive guard who also played defense, he received All-Ohio honorable mention. Lavelle was a member of the school's track team for four years, played basketball for one year and played sandlot baseball in the summer. He was inducted into the St. Ignatius Athletic Hall of Fame in 1988. Several years ago, Lavelle had a quadruple heart bypass operation, but he could still be found in the gymasium during many lunch hours playing pickup basketball with faculty members. But it was another school activity that made the deepest impression on Lavelle as a teenager. One holiday, while delivering food baskets to the needy, he went to the home of a woman on Scovill Ave. who lived with just a mattress on the floor, a table and one chair. She cried when she received the food. Lavelle said the experience made him decide to go into a profession where he would help people. The summer after he graduated from Ignatius, he decided to become a priest. ``Sure, my parents were surprised, and some girlfriends too,'' he recalled years later. Lavelle attended Xavier University Cincinnati from 1953 to 1957. He earned degrees from Loyola University of Chicago and a doctorate at Boston College. He also studied at Harvard University's Russian Research Center in Boston and at the Sankt Georgen theology school in Frankfurt, Germany, where he was ordained in 1968. He planned to say his first Mass on his father's birthday in 1969. But Lavelle returned to Cleveland early that year and delivered his first Mass at his father's funeral in Ascension Catholic Church. Lavelle joined the John Carroll faculty in 1969 as an assistant professor of economics. He became chairman of the business department in 1973 and served as the dean of the School of Business from 1975 to 1977. He left John Carroll to serve for six years as provincial superior of the Detroit Province of the Society of Jesus. He was the religious leader of 350 Jesuit priests and brothers in Michigan and Ohio. He returned to John Carroll as academic vice president in 1984. Two years later, he took on additional duties as executive vice president for day-to-day operations. He was named president in 1988, succeeding the Rev. Thomas P. O'Malley, who resigned to take a teaching assignment in Africa. Lavelle's inaguration was marked by his pledge to increase the university's commitment to community service and multicultural development. It was celebrated with a variety of ethnic foods and entertainment. The multilingual priest, who was fluent in German and could read French, Italian, Czech and Russian, was known for his love of ethnic art, tradition and food. At the start of each school year, he distributed to new faculty members a list of local restaurants known for their ethnic cuisine. An amateur cook, he was known for preparing dishes such as linguini with red clam sauce. For many years, he volunteered as a cook for the Friends of Templum House benefit. Lavelle was a trustee of Boston College, Xavier University and Magnificat High School. He was a former trustee of Canisius College, the University of Detroit, Loyola College in Maryland, St. Joseph's University Theology in Berkeley, Calif. He is survived by his sister, Helen of Chicago. Services will be at 10 a.m. Wednesday at Gesu Catholic Church, 2470 Miramar Blvd., University Heights. Schulte & Mahon-Murphy Funeral Home in Lyndhurst is in charge of arrangements.