John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I did not want to reply to the debate that is going on here, the discussion going on. I ask unanimous consent that the Democratic time on the Mack-D'Amato amendment be reserved and that I be permitted to offer an amendment of my own.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill naming the Federal Building and Courthouse at 85 Marconi Boulevard in Columbus, Ohio after one of my home state's most highly esteemed members of the federal bench, Judge Joseph P. Kinneary. Judge Kinneary has served on the United States District Court of Ohio for over 32 years. But Judge Kinneary's commitment to public service goes much further beyond these past three decades. He has given a lifetime to public service. In fact, that service continues even today where, at age 92, Judge Kinneary continues to serve as a senior judge carrying a docket of cases. I'd like to take a few minutes of my colleagues' time to talk about this amazing gentleman and what he's done for my home state of Ohio and our entire nation. Judge Kinneary graduated from the University of Cincinnati's College of Law in 1935. After practicing law in both Columbus and Cincinnati for two years, Judge Kinneary served as Assistant Attorney General of Ohio until 1939. But, as happened to many Americans in those days, World War II changed Joseph Kinneary's career plans. He served in the Army from 1942 to 1946, and worked as the Chief of the Legal Branch for the Field Headquarters of the Quartermaster Corps. After his war service, Judge Kinneary returned to private practice. In 1949, however, Judge Kinneary returned to public service and became the First Assistant Attorney General of Ohio. And, in 1961, President Kennedy appointed Judge Kinneary to United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio where he served until 1966. In 1966, President Johnson appointed Judge Kinneary to the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Well-respected among his colleagues, he served as Chief Judge from January 1973 to September 1975. And, today, 32 years after his appointment to the bench, Judge Kinneary still presides and draws a docket that is approximately 80 percent of an active judge. I find Judge Kinneary's dedication to the people of Ohio and America inspiring, as I'm sure many of my colleagues do on hearing of his career. I can think of no better way for the U.S. Senate, for the entire country, to honor Judge Kinneary than to name one of Columbus, Ohio's, most important federal buildings and courthouses in his honor. So, it is with great thanks and a deep sense of honor that I introduce today a bill to name the Columbus Courthouse after Judge Kinneary. I urge my colleagues to give this legislation quick consideration and approval. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill naming the Federal Building and Courthouse at 85 Marconi Boulevard in Columbus, Ohio after one of my home state's most highly esteemed members of the federal bench, Judge Joseph P. Kinneary. Judge Kinneary has served on the United States District Court of Ohio for over 32 years. But Judge Kinneary's commitment to public service goes much further beyond these past three decades. He has given a lifetime to public service. In fact, that service continues even today where, at age 92, Judge Kinneary continues to serve as a senior judge carrying a docket of cases. I'd like to take a few minutes of my colleagues' time to talk about this amazing gentleman and what he's done for my home state of Ohio and our entire nation. Judge Kinneary graduated from the University of Cincinnati's College of Law in 1935. After practicing law in both Columbus and Cincinnati for two years, Judge Kinneary served as Assistant Attorney General of Ohio until 1939. But, as happened to many Americans in those days, World War II changed Joseph Kinneary's career plans. He served in the Army from 1942 to 1946, and worked as the Chief of the Legal Branch for the Field Headquarters of the Quartermaster Corps. After his war service, Judge Kinneary returned to private practice. In 1949, however, Judge Kinneary returned to public service and became the First Assistant Attorney General of Ohio. And, in 1961, President Kennedy appointed Judge Kinneary to United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio where he served until 1966. In 1966, President Johnson appointed Judge Kinneary to the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Well-respected among his colleagues, he served as Chief Judge from January 1973 to September 1975. And, today, 32 years after his appointment to the bench, Judge Kinneary still presides and draws a docket that is approximately 80 percent of an active judge. I find Judge Kinneary's dedication to the people of Ohio and America inspiring, as I'm sure many of my colleagues do on hearing of his career. I can think of no better way for the U.S. Senate, for the entire country, to honor Judge Kinneary than to name one of Columbus, Ohio's, most important federal buildings and courthouses in his honor. So, it is with great thanks and a deep sense of honor that I introduce today a bill to name the Columbus Courthouse after Judge Kinneary. I urge my colleagues to give this legislation quick consideration and approval. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I am very proud to commend former Ambassador Milton A. Wolf of Cleveland, Ohio, on his recognition by the Ohio Senate. Ambassador Wolf is truly one of the leading citizens of my state and has spent a lifetime learning, building and helping his hometown of Cleveland, our state and nation and people all over the world. Milt Wolfe grew up in Cleveland and attended Glenville High School, but like many of us his education was interrupted by World War II. After serving in the Army Air Forces in the Pacific, Milt started out to be a doctor but went on to attend the Ohio State University and earned a degree in chemistry and biology and later at Case Institute of Technology a degree in civil engineering. In the construction business Milt built homes in Shaker Heights and Parma and Euclid. He went on to build high-rises and shopping centers. He continued his education and received a masters degree in economics from Case Western Reserve University in 1973. In 1977, President Carter appointed Milt as our Ambassador to Austria and a delegate to the U.N. Conference on Science and Technology for Development in 1979. He served as a host in Vienna for the summit conference between Soviet President Brezhnev and President Carter on the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty in 1979. When Milt returned to Cleveland from Austria, he continued to serve by teaching economics at Case Western Reserve University. He has worked long and hard in support of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee. This committee provides millions of dollars to a variety of humanitarian assistance programs of relief, rescue, and reconstruction in over fifty nations. As president of the committee from 1992 until 1995 and currently as Chairman of the Board, Ambassador Wolf has been able to directly help people all over the world. As a member of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University from 1986 until 1996 and Chairman of the Board in 1996 he made significant contributions as an educational leader of one the nation's largest universities. He clearly expressed his philosophy in education when he said that the wealth of the country is in it people. He said, ``We have to have a highly educated population if we are going to compete in the next century.'' Milt continues to support improvements in our educational system, but has never neglected his own continuing education. In 1993, Milt earned a Ph.D. in economics from Case Western. He continues to serve the community as a member of the Board of Trustees of Case Western Reserve University, and on the boards of the Cleveland Clinic, Mount Sinai Health Care System and the Cleveland Orchestra. Last November Ambassador Wolf received the Austrian Cross of Honor for Science and Art--First Class bestowed by the Ambassador of the Republic of Austria in New York. Last December the Ohio State University granted Ambassador Wolf an honorary Doctor of Diplomacy degree. In its resolution of recognition of Ambassador Wolf's receipt of the Austrian Cross of Honor, the Ohio Senate stated At a time when the international landscape is dominated by images of conflict and antagonism, and in an era when hostility both within and between countries could spell disaster for the whole planet, every attempt to forge closer ties among citizens of diverse backgrounds and beliefs is of urgent significance. In this context, you have shown how very much a diligent, conscientious person can accomplish, and you can be proud that your commitment to promote global harmony through language, learning, and letters has inspired many who know you to dedicate themselves similarly. Milt Wolfe has set an example for us all in his efforts for all people. He is a builder, an educator and a humanitarian. Milt is a successful businessman who made time for helping others. I am proud of his friendship. My wife Annie joins me in congratulating him on this much deserved recognition.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Fred Hitz, who will soon be retiring from his position as CIA Inspector General. I have known Fred since he worked in the Department of Energy's congressional affairs' office in the 1970's, and I have gotten to know Fred particularly well since he became the first statutory CIA Inspector General in November of 1990. As Fred heads off to teach at Princeton University--his alma mater, I would simply note that the CIA's loss will be Princeton's gain. As the first statutory CIA IG, all of Fred's moves have been relentlessly scrutinized as his mission was often met with a great deal of apprehension. Fred was faced with the significant challenge of establishing an internal, yet independent, oversight mechanism within the CIA that served the DCI, and had certain responsibilities to the Congressional oversight committees. Over seven years later, because of Fred Hitz's tenacity, integrity, and respect for the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA Office of Inspector General has matured, and today provides the effective, professional oversight that Congress intended when the CIA IG Act was passed in 1989. This has been no small achievement. In over 7 years of service as the CIA IG, Fred Hitz and his office have generated hundreds of quality products, and have advanced the national security of the United States by demonstrably improving the efficiency and effectiveness of this important agency. Fred has overseen the conduct of increasingly sophisticated and highly visible audits, inspections and investigations that have enhanced the accountability of the CIA and preserved the trust of CIA management, Congress and the public. Fred has developed and promoted standards of accountability that have brought consistency and fairness to the Agency's handling of employee performance issues. He has greatly strengthened the Office of Inspector General by expanding the size of its professional cadre and the scope of its efforts, as well as by insisting that its audits, inspections and investigations be conducted with thoroughness, strict objectivity and an unwavering devotion to quality. In so doing, Fred has garnered the Office of Inspector General the respect, admiration and trust of CIA managers, counterparts throughout the Intelligence Community and the U.S. Government--and the Congressional intelligence oversight committees. As a result of Fred's leadership, the CIA's Office of Inspector General has become a bulwark of independence and professionalism, assuring the American people that their nation's premier intelligence organization is conducting its activities efficiently, effectively and under the rule of law. Mr. President, the CIA and the nation owe Fred Hitz a great deal of gratitude for his fine work at the Central Intelligence Agency. I wish Fred all the best in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, one of the fundamentals of our great Republic has been public education and the benefits it bestows to our society. As the early American pioneers moved westward across the Appalachian Mountains, they chartered--in 1804--the first university in the Western Territory near the Hocking River in the town of Athens: Ohio University. Since then, the impact of this pioneering institution has reached far beyond the Appalachian foothills, across the nation and around the globe. Today, I rise to offer a tribute to a modern-day educator who represents the best characteristics of our public education system, Dr. Ralph Izard. For a dozen years, Dr. Izard has served as director of the E. W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University. Effective June 30, 1998, after more than three decades of service to Ohio University and the academic community, he will retire. Mr. President, I recognize that journalism training occurs throughout our nation, however, those who rate post-secondary journalism education consistently rank Ohio University among the nation's best. Whether it's education, or politics or sports, it's tough to repeat as champions. Yet, that is the legacy of Dr. Izard at Ohio University. Year after year, the E. W. Scripps School of Journalism, under his direction, has produced premier writers, editors and public relations practitioners. Like all success stories, there are multiple reasons why the E. W. Scripps School of Journalism excels. Among them: a strong faculty and widespread private support from alumni and industry. E. W. Scripps is a legend in the publishing world. The Scripps' partnership with higher education through Ohio University is a national model for private support for public education. This success story includes another key ingredient; the leadership and professionalism of Dr. Ralph Izard. Involved in academia for 32 years, Dr. Izard never lost his focus on individual students, and he never lost his love of teaching. That's because he never stopped learning. As technology changed, Dr. Izard kept pace. He insisted journalism education adapt to change. Thus, college training remained relevant to students and the job market. So today, nearly two centuries after those early pioneers founded a university in Athens, Dr. Izard personifies their ideals of higher education by preparing thousands of their sons and daughters for the challenges of a new century. For his achievements, leadership and dedication to education, we salute Dr. Ralph Izard and wish him well in future endeavors.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, earlier today Senator Daschle, our minority leader, made some remarks in tribute to the longest-serving Senator from Kentucky to serve in the U.S. Senate, and that is Wendell Ford, our minority whip. I wanted to add my words of congratulations, in recognition of this person that I believe to be one of our most outstanding U.S. Senators. He is a very dedicated public servant. He is also a good personal friend. He is the senior Senator from Kentucky, Wendell Ford. I don't think it is any accident that the people of Kentucky have returned Wendell time after time, one election after another, to where he now has served here almost a quarter of a century. Wendell, of course, is a very personable person. He likes people. I think that was evidenced early in his career when I believe he was national president of the Jaycees. Later on, the people of Kentucky, after having elected him Governor for a term, then elected him to the U.S. Senate. He has served them well here over the last nearly quarter of a century. I had the honor and privilege to serve alongside him for all that time since he came to the Senate. He and I were sworn in at about the same time, and for the first few years we were here, by the luck of the draw, we sat side by side in the Senate Chamber. That was back in the time period when we had many all-night sessions, and you got to know a person pretty well when you sat and shared views with them during some of those extended debates and lengthy all-night sessions. Wendell is certainly known for his wit and humor. I remember once we were sitting here about 3:30 or 4 o'clock in the morning and a debate was going on. Wendell nudged me and said, ``You know, John, the people back home think we are the ones that won.'' I got a kick out of that. We were going through some very troubled times in the U.S. Senate at that time. The Senate class of 1974 was one that I think was remarkable not only because I happened to be one of those people but because it came in on the tail-end of Watergate. Watergate played an issue in that year's election. But the people we elected that year included a number of outstanding public officials who would continue illustrious public careers, including John Culver, Robert Morgan, Paul Laxalt, James Jake Garn, Gary Hart, and four Senators still serving--myself and Senators Ford, Bumpers, and Leahy. With the announced retirements that we have already, Senator Leahy will be the only representative out of that class of 1974 still remaining at the end of this year. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Senator Ford, has served on the Senate Rules Committee for many years, been chairman and ranking member. He became an expert on disputed elections quite early on in his service, because one of the first issues that that class of 1974 faced in the Senate was the disputed election in New Hampshire between John Durkin and Louis Wyman. In that case, the Senate determined that a new election was necessary. So Wendell got tossed into that maelstrom of disputed elections very early on. I say that hasn't ended through all these years either, because even during this last year he worked toward a successful solution in the Louisiana election dispute. I can say without any contradiction that Senator Ford is truly a Senator's Senator. He is rarely on the floor making long speeches and posturing before the camera. That is rare. In fact, he never does that. But his voice is heard. His influence is heard on almost all issues, because the Senate, his fellow Senators on the Democratic side, sought at this time to elect him as our whip, our No. 2 person in the hierarchy of leadership in the Senate. I think Senator Ford would appreciate the fact, coming from Kentucky--and I have heard him make comments about the horses, and all of his attention to the horses in Kentucky, and the big business that is in Kentucky, and his attention to things like the Kentucky Derby and so on. But he would appreciate it that we know him as a ``workhorse,'' not just as a show horse, here in the U.S. Senate. He is always working behind the scenes for whatever the interests are of the party or his interests for Kentucky. And he has provided strong leadership in his ability as a negotiator and his talents for finding compromise that have served both parties and the Nation extraordinarily well. He has been in the forefront of many issues during his career in the Senate, including such more recent things in just the last few years as motor-voter legislation, trying to make sure that every person in this country has a maximum opportunity to exercise the right to vote. Lobbying reform and campaign finance reform have been of particular interest in recent years. Of course, Kentucky is first. I just wish I could say that I have been as tireless an advocate for Ohio as he has been for Kentucky, because even when we have disagreed on things, we find a way to work them out. Wendell represents Kentucky and the interests of the people of Kentucky first. That comes out all the time. He and I have worked together on matters of mutual interest, including the regional airport in Cincinnati and Department of Energy facilities that are both in Kentucky and in Ohio. As I mentioned earlier today, Senator Ford's service in the Senate will surpass the length of surface of Alben Barkley, who had previously been the longest-serving Senator from Kentucky. Senator Ford will have served longer than any other Kentuckian in the Senate, including such statesmen as Henry Clay, John Breckenridge, Happy Chandler, and John Sherman Cooper. I think Wendell Ford adds an illustrious career that matches any of those other people the great State of Kentucky has sent to the Senate through the years. With Wendell, you always know where you stand, but he also knows how to disagree without being disagreeable at the same time. He is known for his wit, humor, and intense discussions. He knows how to break the tension with a little humor, a joke, or something that applies. I would be remiss if I didn't mention one other thing, and that is his dedication to his family--Jean, his wife, and his children and grandchildren. I remember last August, when other Senators were talking about what trips they were planning, and I asked Wendell if he was planning to travel, he said, ``Yep; I'm going to travel to Kentucky to go fishing with the grandchildren.'' That is exactly what he did, and I'm sure the grandchildren were the better off for it. So I'm pleased to join my colleagues in recognition of the long service of Senator Wendell Ford. He has been a very valued colleague and a personal friend to me in the Senate. His company will truly be one of the things I will miss next year, and I think, most of all, the people of Kentucky are going to miss the kind of leadership he has provided. We are here today not to talk about that, but to recognize that today marks the day when he becomes the longest-serving Senator to ever serve from the State of Kentucky. I want to recognize him for that. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the legislation to reauthorize the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. In 1991, the Congress passed the first ISTEA bill. Upon its enactment, ISTEA revolutionized transportation funding in the United States. Prior to ISTEA, states like Ohio gave substantially more in support of the national highway system than we received in return. While we understood that the completion of the national highway system was a goal worthy of support, in 1991 that system was 95% complete. It was time to shift our priorities and our resources accordingly. As one of the largest of these so-called ``donor states,'' I worked with my colleagues to enact a law that provided a better return on our transportation dollars, allowed flexibility for states and localities in determining transportation spending priorities, and that provided a record amount of funding for alternatives to highway transportation like transit, light rail, and pedestrian walkways. The second step in this new transportation journey, ISTEA II reduces further the inequitable relationship between donor and donee states, streamlines programs to improve their efficiency, and increases the flexibility of states and localities in spending highway funds for alternate modes of transportation. Mr. President, the bill provides a record return for donor states, ensuring that Ohio and all donor states realize returns of 91 cents on every transportation dollar contributed to the Highway Trust Fund. For Ohio, that translates to $5.2 billion over six years, an average of $868.9 million a year. Nationally, ISTEA II authorizes the spending of $151.4 billion over six years, averaging $25.2 billion a year. In addition to these formula funds, Ohio will receive $65 million per year over five years for the High Density Transportation Program, the Appalachian Development Highway System Program, and other programs important to our state. The bill provides $41.3 billion for transit over five years, including $500 million for rural transit, $100 million for welfare to work funding and other programs essential to the efficient operation of urban and rural transit systems. In total, ISTEA II provides an increase in transit funding of $9.8 billion. During ISTEA II's consideration, I cosponsored amendments that reduce the legal level of intoxication to .08 blood alcohol content (BAC) and that prohibit open containers of alcoholic beverages in automobiles. Their successful passage and implementation will assist law enforcement officials in reducing the all too real threat that drunk drivers pose to our families and friends. Mr. President, if one tragedy like those that have affected so many of us can be avoided, I believe these laws will have served their purpose. In addition, I maintained my strong support for the enhancements provisions of this law. These enhancements provide states with much needed funds for historic preservation, bicycle trails, and pedestrian walkways. I cosponsored an amendment to provide $25 million a year for six years in annual appropriations for the preservation of historic covered bridges. Ohio has the second highest number of covered bridges in the United States. Of the 144 covered bridges in Ohio, 126 of these will be eligible for this funding. ISTEA II continues other important programs like the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program, which provides opportunities for women and minority owned businesses to participate in the highway construction industry. In 1996, businesses owned by non-minority women in Ohio received $79.5 million and minority-owned Ohio firms received $74.4 million, representing 22.7% of the total contracting dollars awarded in Ohio. The DBE program enhances opportunities for all Ohioans and I am proud to lend my strong support. Mr. President, an ancient Chinese proverb states that a journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step. In the case of ISTEA II, the second step is just as important. ISTEA II is the logical next step in furthering our nation's transportation interests and priorities.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I concur that this is an important issue that our Committee takes very seriously. We held a hearing on the Commission's report last year, and I know that the Chairman has wanted to return to this matter this year. The question of establishing a statutory framework for classification and declassification has long been a matter of debate. Our own committee held extensive hearings on this subject in 1973 and 1974. The current system is governed by Presidential executive order, and, as the Majority Leader noted, this has led over time to inconsistencies in policies and procedures. Some have questioned, however, whether legislation is needed. I believe that it is proper for Congress to legislate on this subject, while of course still respecting the authority of the President in this area. This principle of shared authority was recognized in the passage of the Atomic Energy Act, the Espionage Act, and the National Security Act. If Congress acts now to establish a statutory classification and declassification system, we should take a similarly balanced approach. Balance is also needed in our approach to considering the legislation in the Senate. While S. 712 has been properly referred to our committee, the Committee on Governmental Affairs, the bill raises important issues of interest to the Select Committee on Intelligence, the Armed Services Committee, and the Committee on Foreign Relations. I am fully committed to working with each of these committees as the bill moves forward.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about some of the events on the floor here over the last couple of days. I think perhaps sometimes we need a different yardstick by which to judge some of these votes. We have now in effect, I guess, unless this campaign finance legislation is hooked onto some other legislation as we go ahead with our legislative activities of this year, that it is probably dead for this year. I hate to say that. I want to give a speech on some of the outcome of our campaign finance reform hearings that have been taking place in the Governmental Affairs Committee most of last year. I was unable to get over and give this at the appropriate time before the votes that we have had but still want to talk about this a little bit. I think sometimes on controversial votes, which these are, that there is a different basis that we should be looking at instead of just the party line, just party loyalty and voting down the line with those party leaders who have a particular view. Those views, too often, affect just the political interests of the amendment. How much money are we going to be able to get for this next election? That is the basis on which votes seem to occur. That is a very short-term view of things. Now, on some of these controversial votes I think there is another way to decide. It is what I call the ``grandchild test''--the ``grandchild test.'' What you should do on some of these votes, I think, is think of what you would like the ideal political system to be when your grandchildren have grown up and long after most of us will have left the Senate of the United States. What kind of law do you want to see in place that deals with them fairly? What kind of law do you want to see in place that makes them feel that their voice is heard in Government as much as those who can contribute millions or at least hundreds of thousands of dollars worth, to get their voices heard? This may be after Democrats have reclaimed the Senate and the House and there is a Republican President. Who knows what the future situation may be. But a ``grandchild test'' puts it on a little different basis, it seems to me. Do we want a system that is dominated by interests that may not favor your heirs, your children, your grandchildren? Do we want them to have to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to have their voice heard, to be treated fairly? So the votes we have had over the past few days involve a matter of fairness, plain old fairness. In other words, fairness for all in our political system into the future. That is what the vote on McCain- Feingold was all about. Unfortunately, we cannot muster enough votes to overcome cloture. Although we had a majority of the U.S. Senate, the majority did not prevail because of the cloture that we would have been required to get to break a filibuster. Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the legislation today, the legislation we passed, because over the past year I have had the privilege of serving as the ranking member of the committee on Governmental Affairs' investigation into campaign finance. In the course of the investigation I have come to understand that the existing campaign finance system is in shreds. Campaign finance reform is no longer something that I feel should be delayed, as we have delayed it by the votes of the last couple of days. I think it is absolutely crucial that at the earliest time we pass legislation addressing the worst abuses, if we can hope to maintain the integrity of our electoral process and the confidence of the American public. Over the course of my Senate career, I watched as public cynicism about Government has increased and trust in Government has declined. In 1996 for the first time, less than half the people in this country eligible to vote cast a ballot. To those who argue that the public doesn't care about campaign finance, it is clear from national polls that the public does care. Polls show that while over 70 percent of Americans want campaign finance reform, only 30 percent have believed it will happen. Three out of four people interviewed do not trust us in Washington to do what is right. That is three-quarters of the American people do not trust us to do what is right. What an indictment of our activities here in the Congress. I can't think of a better way to halt that kind of cynicism than by doing the unexpected and passing campaign finance reform and by fixing the system that breeds the cynicism and undermines public confidence. Poll after poll has shown the biggest single factor in lack of public trust in Government is the campaign finance system. I want to express my appreciate to Senators McCain and Feingold for their leadership on this issue. Their bipartisan cooperation has pointed us in the right direction. I hope we can follow their example and pass this legislation, hopefully even later this year. I hope they will take the opportunity on later legislation to attach this legislation on to it as an amendment and we will have some more votes on this, perhaps with a different outcome. We have a unique opportunity if we pass campaign finance legislation to restore faith in our American system and renew our commitment to the concept of Government for all of the people, all of the time--not a system where access to elected leaders is meted out according to campaign dollars received. That is exactly what we have now. The legislation that we have had before us over the past few days takes key steps to correct the two worst problems, the proliferation of huge amounts of soft money and the explosion of calculated issue advertising which exists outside the reach of existing laws simply because it avoids a key term such as ``vote for'' or ``defeat.'' But the proliferation of issue advocacy candidates are becoming footnotes in their own campaigns struggling to conduct substantive debates on issues of local importance against the din of millions of dollars of issue advertising by national interest groups. One has only to look to the campaign to replace recently deceased House Member Walter Capps taking place in Santa Barbara, CA, to understand the significance of this problem. Just last weekend, the Washington Post carried an article about this campaign which noted that while the candidates tried to focus on education and fiscal issues, hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent by national groups airing ads on term limits and abortion, issues which both candidates agree are high among voter concerns in the district but which have drowned out the candidates' own attempts to focus on issues of concern in their district. Almost every abuse examined in the course of the Governmental Affairs Committee investigation has its roots in the proliferation of soft money and of calculated political issue ads. For that reason, I want to say something about the recent Governmental Affairs Committee investigation from the minority's perspective and how it reflects on the committee's debate. The founders of this country envisioned that American political discourse would be based on the power of ideas, not money, and that our elected representatives would be chosen by the principles for which they stand, not the amount of money they raise. Unfortunately, elected officials in the United States have become so dependent on political contributions from wealthy donors that the democratic principles underlying our Government are at risk. We face the danger of becoming a Government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. We face the danger because candidates for Congress and the Presidency spent over $1 billion on their 1996 election activities, according to an estimate by the Annenberg Public Policy Center. In order to raise that enormous quantity of money, some candidates and party officials push the campaign finance to the breaking point and some pushed it beyond. The abuses that occurred during the 1996 election exposed the dark side of our political system and underscored the critical need for campaign finance reform, as well as the need to enhance the ability of the Federal Election Commission to enforce campaign finance laws, which I will speak about later. On March 11, 1997, the Senate voted unanimously to authorize the Governmental Affairs Committee to conduct an investigation of illegal and improper activities in connection with the 1996 Federal election campaigns. The Senate asked the committee to conduct a bipartisan investigation, one that would explore allegations of improper campaign finance activities ``by all, Republicans, Democrats, or other political partisans.'' Now this was a noble goal and there were widespread hopes that the committee would conduct a serious, bipartisan investigation, one that would investigate allegations of abuses by candidates and others aligned with both major political parties. In the end, however, the committee's investigation provided insight into the failings of the campaign finance system, but it certainly did not live up to its potential. Now the minority regrets the failure of the committee to expose the ways in which both political parties have pushed and exceeded the limits of our campaign finance system. Both parties have openly offered access in exchange for contributions. Both parties have been lax in accepting illegal or improper contributions. Both parties have become slaves to the raising and spending of soft money. Now, the committee examined a host of 1996 election-related activities alleged to have been improper or illegal. We heard from fundraisers, from donors, from party officials, from lobbyists, from candidates, and from government officials. We heard from a man, Roger Tamraz, a contributor to both parties. He admitted making 1996 campaign contributions for one reason--he wanted to obtain access to events held in the White House, period. He was willing to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to worm his way in there. In another instance, Buddhist Temple officials admitted reimbursing monastics for making campaign contributions at the temple's direction. Also, a wealthy Hong Kong businessman hosted the chairman of the Republican National Committee on a yacht in Hong Kong Harbor and provided $2 million in collateral for a loan used to help elect Republican candidates to office. Most of these cases when there was questionable foreign money, most of it was given back by Democrats and Republicans both. And there was a lot on the Democratic side; I certainly don't deny that. As soon as the taint was there, the money was given back. But not in this case. The debt of $800,000 still has not been paid back. This example remains the best single, completely documented example of foreign money really being solicited and used in the 1996 campaign of anything that the committee looked at the whole year, Democrat or Republican. The Committee's investigation exposed these and other incidents that ranged from the exemplary, to the troubling, to the possibly illegal. But investigations undertaken by the U.S. Senate are not law enforcement efforts designed to arrive at judgments about whether particular persons should be charged with civil or criminal wrongdoing, but, by Constitutional design, are inquiries whose primary purpose must be ``in aid of the legislative function.'' Accordingly, the most important outcome of the Committee's investigation is the compilation of evidence demonstrating that the most serious problems uncovered in connection with the 1996 election involve conduct which should be, but is not now, prohibited by law. Or as Senator Levin has put it, the evidence shows that the bulk of the campaign finance problem is not what is illegal, but what is legal. The systemic legal problems and the need for dramatic campaign finance reform are highlighted in our Report and in the following summary. In our democracy, power is ultimately to be derived from the people-- the voters. In theory, every voter is equal; the reality is that some voters, to borrow George Orwell's phrase, are ``more equal than others.'' No one can deny that individuals who contribute substantial sums of money to candidates are likely to have more access to elected officials. And most of us think greater access brings greater influence. It was this concern over linkages between money, access and influence--amid allegations that Richard Nixon's 1968 and 1972 presidential campaigns accepted individual contributions of hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars--that spurred Congress to enact the original campaign finance laws. While those laws have evolved over the 20 years since that time, the goals have remained the same: to prevent wealthy private interests from exercising disproportionate influence over the government, to deter corruption, and to inform voters. Violations of the law's contribution limits and disclosure requirements have occurred since they were first enacted over twenty years ago. For example, corporations and foreign nationals prohibited from making direct campaign contributions have laundered money through persons eligible to contribute. Donors who have reached their legal contribution limit have channeled additional campaign contributions through relatives, friends, or employees. Indeed, the investigation of the 1996 elections was triggered by suspected foreign contributions to the Democratic Party allegedly solicited by Democratic National Committee (``DNC'') fundraiser John Huang. Indictments and convictions have emerged involving contributors to both parties, including Charlie Trie, Maria Hsia and the Lum family on the Democratic side, and Simon Fireman, vice chair of finance of Senator Dole's presidential campaign, and corporate contributors to the campaigns of Representative Jay Kim of California on the Republican side. The most elaborate scheme investigated by the Committee involved a $2 million loan that was backed by a Hong Kong businessman, routed through a U.S. subsidiary, and resulted in a large transfer of foreign funds to the Republican Party. I am not trying to hit the Republican Party harder than the Democrats. There was plenty of wrongdoing on both sides. That is the point. The point is that we need changes in the law. While the Committee's investigation uncovered disturbing information about the role of foreign money in the 1996 elections, the evidence also shows that illegal foreign contributions played a much less important role in the 1996 election than once suspected and was discussed quite widely in the media. Whether judged by the number of contributions or the total dollar amount, only a small fraction of the funds raised by either Democrats or Republicans came from foreign sources. That doesn't excuse it. It was wrong. It should not have happened. But it didn't determine the outcome of the election. That is the most important point to make. The committee obtained no evidence that funds from a foreign government influenced the outcome of any election. It was alleged that they might have affected the outcome of the 1996 Presidential election. There is nothing, either in the documentation from intelligence sources or in the briefings we received, that could document that. So the committee obtained no evidence that funds from a foreign government influenced the outcome of any 1996 election, altered U.S. domestic or foreign policy, or damaged our national security. That doesn't mean it was right. The Committee's examination of foreign money brought to light an array of fundraising practices used by both parties that, while not technical violations of the campaign finance laws, expose fundamental flaws in the existing legal and regulatory system. The two principal problems involve soft money and issue advocacy. It is beyond question that raising soft money and broadcasting issue ads are not, in themselves, unlawful. The evidence suggests that much of what the parties and candidates did during the 1996 elections was within the letter of the law. But no one can seriously argue that it is consistent with the spirit of the campaign finance laws for parties to accept contributions of hundreds of thousands--even millions--of dollars, or for corporations, unions and others to air candidate attack ads without being required to meet any of the federal election law requirements for contribution limits and public disclosure. The evidence indicates that the soft-money loophole is fueling many of the campaign abuses investigated by the Committee. It is precisely because parties are allowed to collect large, individual soft-money donations that fundraisers are tempted to cultivate big donors by, for example, providing them and their guests with unusual access to public officials. In 1996, the soft-money loophole provided the funds both parties used to pay for televised ads. Soft money also supplied the funds parties used to make contributions to tax-exempt groups, which in turn used the funds to pay for election-related activities. The Minority Report details, in several instances, how the Republican National Committee deliberately channeled funds from party coffers and Republican donors to ostensibly ``independent'' groups which then used the money to conduct ``issue advocacy'' efforts on behalf of Republican candidates. Much was made the other day on the floor about the same thing happening on the Democratic side. That doesn't mean either one was excusable or right. But it happened, and it should not. Together, the soft-money and issue-advocacy loopholes have eviscerated the contribution limits and disclosure requirements in federal election laws and caused a loss of public confidence in the integrity of our campaign finance system. By inviting corruption of the electoral process, they threaten our democracy. If these and other systemic problems are not solved, the abuses witnessed by the American people in 1996 will be repeated in future election cycles. This will be only the beginning. All that will change will be the names, the dates, and the details, and the amounts will go up. We know that. As I said starting out, do you want your children or grandchildren to grow up in a system where their voices may not be heard in all of the venues of government because someone else bought their way in and has a bigger claim on the legislators' future than does your child or grandchild? The federal campaign finance laws provide that candidates should finance their campaigns with so-called ``hard dollars''--contributions received in relatively small dollar amounts from individual donors and political action committees. Soft money--which can be donated by individuals, corporations and unions and in unlimited amounts--is not supposed to be spent on behalf of individual candidates. And yet it is: Tens of millions of soft dollars are raised by the parties and spent, through such devices as ``issue advocacy'' ads, for the benefit of candidates. The soft money loophole undermines the campaign finance laws by enabling wealthy private interests to channel enormous amounts of money into political campaigns. Most of the dubious or illegal contributions that were examined by the Committee involved soft money. The Committee's investigation also showed that the legal distinction between ``issue ads'' and ``candidate ads'' has proved to be largely meaningless. The result has been that millions of dollars, which otherwise would have been kept out of the election process, were infused into campaigns obliquely, surreptitiously, and possibly at times illegally. The issue of soft money abuses is inevitably tied to the question of how access to political figures is obtained through large contributions of soft money. It is also tied to the question of how tax-exempt organizations have been used to hide the identities of soft money donors. A system that permits large contributions to be made for partisan purposes, without public disclosure, invites subversion of the intent of our election law limitations. Despite a highly partisan investigation, the Committee has built a record of campaign fundraising abuses by both Democrats and Republicans. This record will hopefully be useful to the Federal Election Commission, the Internal Revenue Service and to the Department of Justice as they investigate the 1996 campaign. Most importantly, the Committee's investigation should spur much-needed reform of the campaign finance laws and strengthening of the Federal Election Commission. Congress should provide the Federal Election Commission with the necessary resources to significantly enhance its investigative and enforcement staff. Ultimately, the most important lesson the Committee learned is that the abuses uncovered are part of a systemic problem, and that the system that encourages and permits these abuses must be reformed not now, as a result of the legislative votes that we have had the last couple of days, sometime, and hopefully in the very near future. The McCain-Feingold legislation that we are considering here today goes a long way to address these abuses. The bill rids the system of soft money, and brings ``issue advertising'' funded by corporate and union interests within the campaign finance system. The legislation also takes great strides towards creating a more vigorous enforcement mechanism in the Federal Election Commission. Anyone who observed even an hour of the Governmental Affairs Committee's hearings in the campaign finance investigation over the past year, can have no doubt that the explosion of soft money, huge amounts received from corporations, unions, and individuals, has undermined the campaign finance system to the point where it does not work. It is not fair for all of our people--which should be the objective, making our Government and its laws fair to all of our people--because the trend has become to give special influence to more and more of the special interests across Government, in the executive branch and in the legislative branch right here on Capitol Hill. This is where Congress makes the laws of this land. We didn't even look into congressional activities during this series of hearings. The investigation revealed situations where contributors like Roger Tamraz openly used soft money contributions to buy the access to executive branch officials that he thought placed him in an equal position with his business competitors. It revealed situations where huge contributions, possibly from abroad were laundered through legal residents of this country. Without soft money these abuses would not have occurred. In the initial debate on campaign finance legislation, and in subsequent debates, we have heated discussions about whether it is appropriate to allow contributions of $1,000 vs $5,000. Yet today we are talking about a single contribution totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mr. President I am hopeful that this body can join together in recognizing that individuals and organizations are using these contributions to gain access for their own limited and narrow purpose, and this unrestrained seeking of access is unhealthy for our democracy. The investigation also showed instances where parties in their thirst for soft money solicited foreign funds, then used the proceeds to fund get out the vote activities in 20 states. Without soft money, these funds would never have been solicited and would not have made their way into U.S. elections. The ready availability soft money combined with the national party's ability to air so called ``issue ads'' also resulted in an explosion of advertising which clearly benefitted both party's Presidential candidates. This apparently legal activity will be halted if we simply act to get rid of the soft money that is raised to pay for these ads. As an example, the other day on the floor here, the comments were made about how the President participated in issue ads and so on, and was active in determining what was going out and so on. Much was made of that. But I would like to give the other side of that, which was not brought out on the floor the other day, too. This is not to justify both of them, this is just to say both of them, I think, should be corrected. But, as an example, in the 1996 election, both the DNC and the RNC spent millions of dollars airing advertising that promoted their Presidential candidates. This advertising was paid for with mostly soft money. A review of some of the evidence gathered in the course of the report highlights the problem that parties use soft money to pay for advertising intended to help their candidates. Now, I don't deny some of the charges made against the Democratic National Committee. But, like the similar DNC advertising campaign: The RNC raised additional soft money, with Senator Dole's assistance in order to pay for the ads. The money for the ads was transferred to state parties in order to use more soft money for the ads. The ads were created, written, and produced by Dole for President's media consultants and pollsters, and the Dole for President consultants met frequently--usually on Wednesday evenings --with RNC officials and Dole for President campaign officials. The RNC ran the ads only in states where Clinton and Dole were close in the polls. I offer this example not to suggest that these activities were illegal. In fact this activity--and virtually identical activity was carried out by the DNC and the Clinton campaign--were most likely legal. However, this sort of advertising would not happen without the soft money to air it. If the soft money spigot is shut off, candidates and parties would once again be limited to using contributions raised in small increments, which was the intent of the law. If we fail to act in coming years we will probably see millions of dollars in so-called issue ads not only to help the Presidential candidates but also to help House and Senate candidates, all financed with soft money--a complete by-passing of the intent of election laws that are supposed to protect every single person in this country. A few examples of abuses of the issue advocacy exemption uncovered in the Governmental Affairs Committee investigation, but which were precluded from being presented in hearing include the following: An organization called the Economic Education trust, which seems to exist only as a bank account, hired its own political consultants, planned its own advertising campaign, then ``shopped'' for suitable nonprofit organizations to funnel the money for the ad campaign through. The trust spent millions of dollars on ads and mailings attacking candidates nationwide, including candidates in state races, without voters being aware of their existence. Another one, Americans for Tax Reform mailed millions of mailers funded with RNC money to voters in key Congressional districts. If the RNC had mailed the same pieces, they would have had to use hard dollars. Another one, at least two groups that each aired over one million dollars of issue ads, the Triad affiliated Citizens for Reform and Citizens for the Republic, aired advertisements that did not contain words of express advocacy but advocated no specific issue, contained inaccurate statements of candidates records, and attacked candidates on issues of past behavior and character. The proposals for addressing such activity are carefully drafted to protect the First Amendment right of voters to engage in political speech. The proposed legislation does not prevent any individual or organization from paying for communications but simply requires disclosure and compliance with contribution limits that govern other organizations. It is a shame we could not get that legislation through in the last couple of days. Let me talk about the FEC. I think that we can all agree that it doesn't matter how good a law you have, it has to be actively and vigorously enforced. Last fall the Governmental Affairs Committee devoted two weeks of hearing time to experts on campaign finance. Among the witnesses who testified before the Committee were former Federal Election Commission Commissioner Trevor Potter and current General Counsel Larry Noble. Along with other witnesses, their testimony revealed a agency unable to begin to deal with the mammoth task before it. The agency does not have the resources it needs to enforce existing laws. The FEC also does not have the ability to act quickly and effectively in response to complaints. The lack of resources the agency receives from Congress almost guarantees that the agency will fail in its efforts to uncover violations of the law in a timely manner. In testimony before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, Norm Ornstein testified that he thought, it was his opinion--and I don't think it was a studied opinion, but it was his estimate when asked a question--that it would take at least $50 million, almost twice what the FEC currently receives, and that might begin to give the agency the resources it needs. To cover all of our election laws, there are approximately 30 lawyers on the FEC legal staff who investigate violations of the election laws. Those 30 lawyers don't really go out and do field investigations. Mainly, they may take some depositions and a few things like that; but they are not really trained investigators as such. Less than 10 additional lawyers comprise the entire litigation staff, which argues in court. And amazingly, until 1994 the commission had no investigators. No investigators, and then they had one investigator. And it was pointed out during our hearings, they just recently, last year during our hearings, doubled the size of their investigative staff. A 100 percent increase--that got them up to 2 investigators. There were two investigators to go out and investigate complaints all across this country, as to what was going on. Let me contrast that. By way of contrast our combined staff on the Governmental Affairs Committee had 44 lawyers, just for this investigation. The Majority staff of 25 lawyers alone was almost equal to the entire FEC investigative staff. The Committee also had 8 FBI agents detailed to help in its investigation, as well as two investigators from the General Accounting Office and 4 investigators on the staffs. Yet when the FEC specifically asked Congress for the resources to hire more staff to deal with cases stemming from the 1996 elections, Congress specifically precluded the agency from hiring more staff. They wrote into law they could not hire more staff. Can we imagine anything more shortsighted than that? The FEC must fight for every penny it receives. For example, in fiscal 1995, the FEC had over 10% of budget rescinded half way through the fiscal year, the largest percentage agency recision government wide. In fiscal 1996, they sought $32 million but received only $26 million with some funds ``fenced'' for particular purposes. In fiscal 1997, they had travel budget limited and fenced such that it was difficult to conduct depositions and court appearances including those undertaken in connection with the Christian Coalition litigation--just to name one. That is just deliberately hamstringing the organization that is supposed to be enforcing our election laws, and Congress does that deliberately. Why? Well, you'll have to answer that in your own mind. But there are undoubtedly those who do not want to see our campaign finance laws rigorously enforced. The agency is also burdened by cumbersome procedures, which I believe the legislation before us today makes a good start at addressing. For example the FEC does not have the ability to seek an injunction that would halt illegal activity before the election was held. The FEC also cannot require electronic filing of disclosure reports that would soon permit every Internet user to see how much their local candidates had raised and spent and from whom. The FEC also lacks the ability to randomly audit campaigns to ensure compliance with the law. These reforms contained in the McCain-Feingold proposal will help the FEC to become a more vigorous deterrent to abusing the campaign finance system. Let me make some recommendations. Many of the proposals set forth in McCain-Feingold are also contained in the recommendations of the Governmental Affairs Committee's forthcoming report. The Minority, in its forthcoming report makes the following recommendations that can be enacted with passage of this legislation. We recommend that we eliminate soft money: Eliminating unrestricted contributions to political parties from individuals, corporations and unions is the most important step towards reducing the influence of money in the campaign finance system. Another one, address issue advocacy: A soft money ban, however fundamental to reform, must be coupled with reforms addressing candidate advertisements masquerading as issue ads. A provision that requires any communication that mentions a federal candidate within 60 days of a general election to comply with disclosure requirements and restrictions on the use of union and corporate funds would not prevent or ban any advertisement but would bring all political ads within the campaign finance system. Strengthen and clarify the statutory prohibitions against foreign contributions and contributions in the name of another which will be accomplished by the soft money ban contained in McCain-Feingold. We need to give the Federal Election Commission the resources it needs to do its job. Any reform, from the most modest improvements in disclosure to the most comprehensive revision of campaign financing, will not be complete if the agency charged with enforcing the law lacks the resources to do so. We should give the Federal Election Commission the authority needed to enforce the law. Not just the authority, but the resources to enforce the law. Improve public disclosure and mandate electronic filing for all candidates and political committees to speed the disclosure process and allow more disclosure to voters. Those would have been covered within the McCain-Feingold legislation. In addition to what was provided in that bill, however, we should enact, with passage of this legislation, some other things. The Minority report also recommends that whenever possible we do several things In addition to giving the FEC additional authority in general, as mentioned above, the minority also recommends several specific changes. No. 1: Increase the size of the Commission to an odd number of commissioners to avoid deadlock. Then we should grant the Commission the power to seek injunctions in Federal court. We should streamline the process for initiating investigations by eliminating requirements for a formal Commission vote, and formal finding that a violation occurred. And we should also permit the Commission to assess automatic fines for late disclosure reports. Those are things that would not have been covered in McCain-Feingold but which should be enacted anyway. Some other things the Minority report also recommends in, addition to what would be covered in McCain-Feingold. For all contributions over $1,000, require certification, under penalty of perjury, that a contribution meets the requirements of federal law, including that the contributor is a citizen or legal permanent resident and that the contribution was made from the funds of the contributor. We should reduce the costs of campaigns. During the 1996 campaign, federal candidates spent $400 million on television advertising. Congress should consider mandating some free time from broadcasters as one way to decrease the amount candidates buy and parties are required to spend to get out their message. We should also clarify and strengthen applicable tax law. Tax exempt organizations have become increasingly influential in federal elections, while operating under legal requirements that provide insufficient guidance on permissible campaign activity and disclosure obligations. We should also clarify campaign restrictions applicable to organizations operating under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code. We should also ensure public disclosure of all organizations whose primary purpose is to influence elections by requiring that all organizations claiming an exemption from taxes under section 527 also file with the FEC or the applicable State body. This next one is a very important one also. We should consider requiring the IRS to approve or disapprove all applications for tax- exempt status within 1 year and require that an application for exempt status be approved before an organization may hold itself out as tax exempt. What is done now is exactly what was done with the National Policy Forum, an arm of the Republican National Committee, and was involved with the transfer of Hong Kong money through a loan guarantee that got money that I mentioned earlier. What happened there was that the National Policy Forum filed for 501(c) status and then advertised itself as being a tax-exempt organization even though the approval had not been granted yet by the IRS. That is not unusual. Let me say on behalf of NPF and those who were involved with it at that time, it is not unusual when you file, you say you have filed and so you presume you are going to be a 501(c) organization and have tax-exempt status for anyone who makes a contribution pursuant to that status. What happened was, the IRS came back later on and said the NPF was not valid as an organization, did not rate the tax-exempt status that the 501(c) would have carried with it. So they disapproved that, but that disapproval came at least 3 or 3\1/2\ years after the application was made. I do not believe any organization, whether it is for regular tax-exempt charities or political or any other organization, should be able to advertise itself as a tax-exempt organization until it has the ruling from the IRS. These recommendations are directed at improving the system for everyone. The legislation we have had before us the last few days is also about improving our system. I didn't think that this was partisan legislation, but it certainly came out that way. The net effect of enacting these reforms would be to reduce the amount of money spent on campaigns and to have all players in the political system abide by the same rules. In closing, I want to make one final point. Since 1976 I have supported public financing of campaigns, and it seems to me that it is a worthy use of Public Treasury funds to ensure that we have clean money and clean elections. The erosion of public confidence that I have witnessed can only be offset by taking the steps necessary to clean up our campaign finance system and renew the public trust in elected officials. Let me say this. Sometimes I think the States get out ahead of the Federal Government in taking action that is necessary to clean up certain things within our system of Government. Maine has taken the lead now, of course, in doing exactly that with regard to campaign finance. It is my understanding some 12 other States are looking into financing candidates' races in the general election in State races, or at least a major portion of that funding that is required. I believe that would improve our system of Government. I also believe that if we could have faith restored in our system by having taxpayer money that represents all interests of this country equally, and get back to having the Government represent all the people all the time, and not part of the time for all the people, and some of the time for the special interests who have bought their way in, that it would be the biggest value we have had in a long time. So I wholeheartedly supported the bipartisan McCain-Feingold bill that was before us. I believe it is just a first step. Eventually, Mr. President, I believe the answer to our concern is to eliminate the role of private money in campaigns. I think we should allow campaigns to be fairly and equally underwritten by all Americans through some form of publicly supported finance. That is the purpose of Government, to represent every American, not a favored few. Only when we have public financing do I believe we will be able to assure that loopholes will not develop and that special interests will not find new ways to bend the system to their own ends. As I sat in on months of hearings on our campaign system, I became more thoroughly convinced that only when we turn to a public system of financing campaigns will we fully solve the problems of campaign finance. That is why I joined with my colleagues, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator Wellstone of Minnesota, in cosponsoring a bill called the Clean Money Clean Campaign Act. It is based on the Maine plan and those 12 other States who are looking at it, to limit campaign spending, to prohibit special interest contributions, to eliminate fundraising efforts, to provide equal funding and a level playing field for all candidates and end the loopholes that have wrecked our current system. Through a publicly funded system, we can end the current abuse and establish a system that takes us back to our major responsibility, which is representing the interests of all the people all the time. I think that would go farther to clean up the system, restore faith and credibility in Government, and I think would be the biggest bargain the American public has had in a long time. If you look at it another way, money comes out of our economy some way into politics. Now it is dollars for access. Too large a percentage of the money comes in from special interests looking for special treatment. With better financing, we would then fairly represent everyone. It would be nice to have people believe all of us are working all the time for the greatest benefit for all of our people. I think that would go a long way to reducing the cynicism, the apathy, the lack of interest, the lack of trust, the lack of danger that it represents, because when people feel too threatened, they will also feel that they want to split off into smaller self-protective groups to have their voice heard in some council of Government, which was something that was to be necessary if a democracy was to survive, as Thomas Jefferson said. We don't want to see that. We think the two parties have represented our country well throughout our history, and we want to see these parties continue and not be siphoned off or not have their members siphoned off into smaller and smaller self-protective groups. I recognize fully the time probably has not yet come to move to Federal financing, but I believe the more the American people focus on the current system and its exploding abuses, the more likely it will be that the support will grow for such a change. So I would have liked to have seen us, over the past few days, pass the McCain-Feingold legislation that was before us, because I feel the situation is critical. We face elections in this country in less than 8 months in which the loopholes ripped open in 1996 will result in an even greater flood of legal but improper activity into the system as each party tries to elect their chosen candidates and the candidates battle to be heard against the flood of issue advertising. Mr. President, I want to close by repeating some of the thoughts I opened my remarks with. These votes are controversial votes. They too often split just along party lines and party loyalty on the basis of what will enable one group or another to raise the most money for this particular election. But I think there is another way to decide on this. It is another test that I label the ``grandchildren test,'' the ``grandchild test.'' What do we want our political system to be in the future in this country? Do we want our system to be a system that increasingly represents the few, the big interests able to put millions of dollars into a campaign, represents only the wealthy that can buy their way in by responding to ads that say that you will get to meet with the committee chairman of your choice if you make a certain large contribution, and down at the bottom it says, ``Benefits upon receipt''? Is that the kind of system we really want for our children and our grandchildren in the future? I think I would much rather have an ideal political system in which our children and our grandchildren have a great faith in Government, that their interests are being represented most by their elected officials. I don't think we want a system dominated by interests that may not favor your own children or grandchildren. I don't want my grandchildren to think that they have to contribute thousands, not just thousands, but hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of dollars, if they ever have that much money, to have their voice heard in Government in a democracy such as ours. So we have had votes over the past few days that, to me, were votes very simply on fairness--fairness that we have a commitment in this Senate to making certain that all of our people are treated fairly all of the time. That was what these votes were all about. I encourage Senator McCain and Senator Feingold to bring that legislation back to the floor again later this year. Maybe we can try again. Sometimes legislation that is important for the future of the country needs a number of votes before we finally get it through. I think this is an issue whose time has come, and it is an issue that is going to be critical if we are going to erase some of the cynicism and apathy toward Government that abounds too much in this country, particularly among our young people. That, to me, is the hazard of going on with this. I don't think this Nation of ours is ever going to be taken over by the likes of Russia, China, North Korea or any combination of nations around this world. I do worry about the future of our democracy when we have people, particularly our young people, who are so apathetic toward politics and Government that they don't want any part of it, wouldn't think of running for public office, don't want to get into a dirty thing like political races, wouldn't think of going out and trying to raise money to help our political parties get messages across. We have to erase that if we are to have the democracy that is our future, because our country can go downhill from that just as fast as it can from other adversaries that might have more military power but would not be able to take this country over. Mr. President, I hope that we bring this subject up again this year, and I hope that we have a more favorable consideration of it when it comes up again. I also want to recognize Beth Stein, who is with me here today, who has worked so long and hard on this, who has had a long experience at the FEC and contributed so much to our hearings this year and last year in trying to make sure we have a way to the future that is good for all of our people. I thank her for her efforts, and also all the committee members who worked so hard on this through the year.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1998--legislation designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal financial assistance and grant-in-aid programs. According to the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, there are over 600 different Federal grant programs to state and local governments and other service providers. Not only is that a large number of programs in the aggregate, we also have an abundance of separate grant programs even in areas where only one general purpose is being served. For example, in the budget subfunction of social services alone, there are over 80 different Federal grant programs. In elementary and secondary education, there are a similar number of Federal programs. Almost all of these different grant programs serve worthy goals and purposes. However, they inevitably carry with them separate redtape, regulations, and procedures that frustrate those at the state, local and nonprofit level who must coordinate the services and carry out the responsibilities in all these separate programs. Furthermore, in many of these grant programs, ``getting out the money'' is the primary emphasis. Administrative performance and efficiency are a secondary emphasis, or in some cases not emphasized at all, so we have little understanding at any level of government how well the programs are actually working. Part of this problem stems from the fact that the money passes through 3 sometimes 4 different sets of hands before it reaches its intended beneficiaries. So it's hard to know where responsibility lies when it comes to making sure that the money is spent efficiently, properly and in a way to maximize the goals and objectives of the underlying program. We've been working for several years in the Governmental Affairs Committee on ways to cut Federal redtape while improving performance. We tried to reduce Federal burdens with enactment of the Paperwork Reduction Act and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, while strengthening the effectiveness of Federal programs with the Government Performance Results Act. This bill builds on those initiatives. It requires that Federal agencies develop plans that, among other things: establish uniform applications for related grant programs; develop common rules for Federal requirements that cut across multiple grant programs; and, emphasize use of electronic reporting via the Internet. Agencies would have 18 months to develop their plans, with OMB overseeing their development. They would work closely with state and local governments and the nonprofit community in the setting of performance measures to achieve the bill's goals. The bill sunsets in 5 years following a review by the National Academy of Public Administration. Americans want government services to work better. But they also want government to live within its means, to balance its books. In other words, they want more cost-effective government, and that's at all levels. I believe this bill helps lead us in that direction. I'm pleased that Chairman Thompson, along with Senators Levin, Lieberman, and Akaka, have joined me cosponsoring the bill and I look forward to considering it in the Governmental Affairs Committee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1998--legislation designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal financial assistance and grant-in-aid programs. According to the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, there are over 600 different Federal grant programs to state and local governments and other service providers. Not only is that a large number of programs in the aggregate, we also have an abundance of separate grant programs even in areas where only one general purpose is being served. For example, in the budget subfunction of social services alone, there are over 80 different Federal grant programs. In elementary and secondary education, there are a similar number of Federal programs. Almost all of these different grant programs serve worthy goals and purposes. However, they inevitably carry with them separate redtape, regulations, and procedures that frustrate those at the state, local and nonprofit level who must coordinate the services and carry out the responsibilities in all these separate programs. Furthermore, in many of these grant programs, ``getting out the money'' is the primary emphasis. Administrative performance and efficiency are a secondary emphasis, or in some cases not emphasized at all, so we have little understanding at any level of government how well the programs are actually working. Part of this problem stems from the fact that the money passes through 3 sometimes 4 different sets of hands before it reaches its intended beneficiaries. So it's hard to know where responsibility lies when it comes to making sure that the money is spent efficiently, properly and in a way to maximize the goals and objectives of the underlying program. We've been working for several years in the Governmental Affairs Committee on ways to cut Federal redtape while improving performance. We tried to reduce Federal burdens with enactment of the Paperwork Reduction Act and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, while strengthening the effectiveness of Federal programs with the Government Performance Results Act. This bill builds on those initiatives. It requires that Federal agencies develop plans that, among other things: establish uniform applications for related grant programs; develop common rules for Federal requirements that cut across multiple grant programs; and, emphasize use of electronic reporting via the Internet. Agencies would have 18 months to develop their plans, with OMB overseeing their development. They would work closely with state and local governments and the nonprofit community in the setting of performance measures to achieve the bill's goals. The bill sunsets in 5 years following a review by the National Academy of Public Administration. Americans want government services to work better. But they also want government to live within its means, to balance its books. In other words, they want more cost-effective government, and that's at all levels. I believe this bill helps lead us in that direction. I'm pleased that Chairman Thompson, along with Senators Levin, Lieberman, and Akaka, have joined me cosponsoring the bill and I look forward to considering it in the Governmental Affairs Committee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay homage to one of our Nation's most dedicated and loyal public servants, Assistant Comptroller General of the United States, J. Dexter Peach. On January 2nd of this year, J. Dexter Peach retired following a distinguished 38-year career with the United States General Accounting Office, capped by 15 years as an Assistant Comptroller General. Mr. Peach began his career with the General Accounting Office in 1960, rising through the evaluator ranks to lead two of its major divisions--Energy and Minerals and the Resources, Community and Economic Development Divisions--serving as Assistant Comptroller General for the latter. He is an acknowledged subject matter expert on a wide variety of national programs and policy issues dealing with energy, environment, natural resources, and economic development matters and has an in-depth understanding of federal legislative and regulatory processes. As Assistant Comptroller General for Planning and Reporting, Dexter Peach had broad responsibility for maintaining the Office's planning system and assuring the overall quality of the agency's planning system and assuring the overall quality of the agency's products. Mr. President, I had the privilege of working with Dexter Peach in my capacity as both Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. His critical work relating to energy issues after the OPEC embargo in 1973, earned him the Comptroller General's Award for contributions to energy issues of national importance. He has also received three Federal Senior Executive Service Rank Awards--a Distinguished Rank and two Meritorious Ranks. The American University also distinguished him with their prestigious Roger W. Jones Award, bestowed annually to a career federal civil servant for outstanding public service. Mr. President, the General Accounting Office was created in 1921 with the mandate to audit, evaluate, or investigate virtually all federal government operations--wherever they might take place. In other words, the GAO serves as a ``watchdog'' over the taxpayers' money--guarding against fraud, abuse, and inefficient allocation of public funds. GAO evaluations under Dexter Peach's guidance and leadership have saved taxpayers billions of dollars. During his career as Assistant Comptroller General, Congress has implemented numerous recommendations resulting from his work--including budget reductions, cost avoidances, appropriations deferrals, and revenue enhancements. He has also been instrumental in assisting the Congress by directing reports on the costs of cleaning up nuclear weapons complexes, environmental crises such as the Exxon/Valdez oil spill, efforts to preserve and protect the nation's drinking water, and issues dealing with the deregulation and safety of the airlines industry. In short, Mr. President, Dexter Peach's tenure at GAO has been characterized by success on every level; throughout his career, he has served as an example of a truly exceptional public servant. I am sure I speak for all of us here in the Senate in giving recognition to a man who has served this Nation with integrity, dedication, honor, and diligence--Assistant Comptroller General J. Dexter Peach.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, this year marks the 25th anniversary of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which has united Canada and the United States in their dedication to protecting the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of the Great Lakes. The commitment of both countries to manage water quality on an ecosystem basis has been so successful that other regions often praise our accomplishments and strive to achieve the same high quality of management. I applaud the efforts of both countries in the last 25 years to achieve the goals set forth in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and urge that they continue to work cooperatively to maintain and improve Great Lakes water quality during the next 25 years. On April 15, 1972, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was signed by President Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau as a binational pledge to reduce and prevent pollution in the Great Lakes. The impetus for this agreement was the deteriorated quality of the Great Lakes into which we discharged our untreated wastes. In fact, Lake Erie was declared dead because of its poor quality and the Cuyahoga River had even caught fire. Lake Erie and Lake Ontario suffered from high phosphorus loadings which caused excessive amounts of algae to grow and deplete the water of oxygen. Low oxygen levels in the lakes caused fish to die. Other contaminants discharged into the water entered the food chain and caused deformities in the fish and wildlife of the region. The initial agreement concentrated on reducing phosphorus and pollutants entering our lakes through municipal and industrial discharges. As a result of the 1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, phosphorus levels significantly decreased in the Great Lakes. In Lake Erie and Ontario, phosphorus loadings have been reduced by almost 80 percent. The United States and Canada achieved this binational goal through improvements in sewage treatment, lowering the levels of phosphorus in detergents, and reducing agricultural runoff. While significant improvements were being made in controlling phosphorus and other wastewater discharges, researchers showed that toxic substances were a major concern. Persistent toxic substances, such as DDT, DDE, mercury, and PCB's, bioaccumulate in organisms and increase in concentration up the food chain. Some substances have been shown to cause birth defects in wildlife and adverse health effects in humans. As a result, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was revised in 1978 to meet the challenge of controlling toxics and included an ecosystem approach to managing the water quality of the Great Lakes basin. The two countries committed themselves to achieving zero discharge of toxic substances in toxic amounts and the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances. Due to the United States and Canadian commitment to reduce toxic substance releases, some major strides have been accomplished. The cormorant population in the Great Lakes region has significantly increased from 1950's to 1970's levels when the number of nesting pairs of cormorants dropped by 86 percent. Between 1971 and 1989, concentrations of DDE and PCB's decreased in cormorant eggs by more than 80 percent. An additional refinement of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement occurred with the 1987 protocol which reinforced the 1978 commitments of the two countries and highlighted the importance of human and aquatic ecosystem health. Provisions were added to clean up 42 local areas of concern in the Great Lakes and included the development and implementation of remedial action plans [RAP's] and lakewide management plans. A challenge to controlling pollutants entering the Great Lakes exists since toxics and other pollutants enter the system in numerous ways. Therefore, the 1987 protocol also focused on nonpoint source pollution, contaminated sediments, airborne toxic substances, and contaminated groundwater. Since the 1987 protocol, accomplishments have been made in the areas of concern. In 1994, Collingwood Harbour, ON, attained its restoration goals. The community worked together to insure that the contaminated sediments and deteriorated fish and wildlife habitats were dealt with in an innovative and cost-effective manner. On our side of the border, a fish consumption advisory was lifted for the first time in two decades at Waukegan Harbor, IL, in February of this year. The harbor is an area of concern which has been undergoing remediation efforts to clean up the largest known-concentration of PCB's and PCB contaminated sediments. Though toxic substances continue to pollute the Great Lakes and threaten the health of humans and wildlife, there also have been accomplishments in controlling some toxics. For instance, concentrations of poly-chlorinated compounds, such as dioxins and furans which are used in the bleaching process of pulp and paper mills, have decreased in the Great Lakes by 90 percent since the late 1980's. While improvements in Great Lakes water quality are evident, they have not come quickly enough nor have they addressed all facets of the problem. Moreover, the most difficult challenge laid out by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is still before us--the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances. Much more work needs to be done in this arena. Fortunately, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is precisely the vehicle which will enable us to rise to the challenge of virtually eliminating persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes. Though crafted 25 years ago, the agreement and its amendments remain, in its current form, a vital road map for the restoration and protection of the Great Lakes. I hope that my colleagues will join me in respecting this agreement so that future generations will be able to enjoy a thriving Great Lakes ecosystem.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I deeply regret that we have been unable to vote on the nomination of Dr. David Satcher as the Surgeon General and the Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Public Health Service. As a graduate of Ohio's medical school system, Dr. Satcher is truly a commendable choice for our next Surgeon General. The expediency of his nomination process gives an overwhelming indication of the impressive and extensive reach of his medical career. It is a career in which Dr. Satcher has placed considerable emphasis on the medically impoverished. He has demonstrated an unrelenting compassion for those less fortunate, and to quote Dr. Frist, ``allowed science to drive his decision making'' throughout his brilliant career. Born in rural Alabama his interest in medicine grew after a near- fatal bout with whooping cough at the age of 2. Even though his parents had only the benefit of elementary educations, they instilled in him the passion and drive to pursue his dreams. He received his B.S. from Morehouse College and became the first African-American to earn both an MD and a Ph.D. from Case Western Reserve University, while being elected to the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society After excelling in medical school, Dr. Satcher began his career at the Martin Luther King Jr. Medical Center in Los Angeles. There he developed and chaired King-Drew's Department of Family Medicine and served as the interim dean of the Charles R. Drew Postgraduate Medical School. As interim dean, he directed the King-Drew Sickle Cell Center for 6 years and negotiated the agreement with the UCLA School of Medicine and the Board of Regents. Before being appointed to his current position of Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], Dr. Satcher returned to Atlanta to chair the Community Medicine Department at Morehouse School of Medicine, where he received the Watts Grassroots Award for Community Service in 1979. He then served as the president of Meharry Medical College in Nashville for the following decade. While at Meharry, he was the recipient of the National Conference of Christians and Jews Human Relations Award was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, and was appointed to the Council on Graduate Medical Education. In November 1993, Dr. Satcher was appointed as the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. With policies he initiated, he has been credited with increasing child immunization rates from 52 percent to a record 78 percent in 1996, and improving the Nation's capacity to respond to emerging infectious diseases. During his tenure, the CDC has placed considerable emphasis on prevention programs as its breast and cervical cancer programs have now been expanded to all 50 States. In his current position, Dr. Satcher has garnered even more awards, including Ebony magazine's American Black Achievement Award in Business and the Professions, the Breslow Award for Excellence in Public Health, and recently the Dr. Nathan B. Davis Award for outstanding public service to advance the public health and the John Stearns Award for Lifetime Achievement in Medicine from the New York Academy of Medicine. I believe HHS Secretary Dr. Donna Shalala described Dr. Satcher in the best manner, when she said that he brings ``world-class stature, management skill, integrity, and preventive health care experience'' to any office or title he may hold. President Clinton has stated that Dr. Satcher should concentrate heavily on reducing smoking, particularly among children. As an advocate for preventive health in family medicine, Dr. Satcher has worked to heighten awareness about all American's health and will continue to do so. Mr. President, I believe that Dr. Satcher will bring the same professionalism, dedication, skill, and most of all character to this new position that he has shown throughout his professional career. I strongly urge my colleagues to support his nomination to the post of Surgeon General of the United States.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, earlier this week, we celebrated a national holiday, Veterans Day. We were not in session on that day, November 11, so I want to make a few comments about that day and what it means to our country. Veterans Day comes from the Armistice Day that ended World War I in 1918. The armistice was signed that day at 11 o'clock in the morning with the hope that that would be the war to end all wars. As we look back on what has happened since that time, we know that that is not what happened, however, that is the way World War I was billed at that time. Later, Armistice Day was changed to Veterans Day to better represent all the conflicts that this country has ever participated in. I think it is good that we have a day where we can reflect on, and commemorate those who took part in those wars. However, sometimes on that day, we are reminded that appreciation for the military, and for their sacrifices, does not get its proper attention. I am reminded of the old Kipling poem where he talks about how the lack of appreciation for our military occurs, or seems to occur, in those time periods when they are most needed. Kipling was British, and in Britain, GI's were called tommies. In his famous poem Kipling wrote: It's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' ``Chuck him out, the brute!'' But it's ``Savior of 'is country'' when the guns begin to shoot. We tend to forget about the sacrifices our military personnel when peace breaks out. History shows us that over the last 100 years or so, we have had approximately 17-year cycles of war and peace. It is amazing, almost uncanny, how our military buildups and downgrades fit into that 17-year cycle. In fact, the only conflict that occurred outside of that pattern was World War II, which was only about 4 years off the 17-year cycle. I can only hope that our current period of peace will break that 17-year cycle. On Veterans Day, we recognize those who have gone through these cycles before us. It is a time to point out some of the sacrifices they made, the devotion to duty that they were required to perform, and the courage that they exhibited. It is a time to say, ``The professionalism of our military saved lives.'' Veterans themselves, do not need a special day, because they remember their own experiences in the military. They do not need a special day because those times are forever etched in their memories. They remember the people that they were associated with, their friends, people of all walks of life. They remember the rich, the poor, the advantaged, the disadvantaged; all tossed together, rubbing elbows, in what is the finest military in the world. They remember the places where they were stationed, their training, and they certainly remember their days in combat, which is forever etched on their memory, like nothing else out of their past. Some survived and some did not. Veterans Day is a time to go back and remember those people. It is time, not just for veterans, but for all Americans, to remember that this country was built on the sacrifices of the brave men and women who served in the military, and protected our country. It is a day to remember and appreciate what made this country, the greatest nation in the world. Mr. President, another important day occurred early this week and I would like to make a few remarks about it also.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, a man who worked with me very closely on the Armed Services Committee, Fred Pang, a man who rose to become the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy, will retire from almost 40 years of service to our Government, on November 16. During these 40 years he has always kept one principle paramount in his service--that principle has been the welfare of the troops. Over his entire period of service, and especially during the past 3 years, he has constantly worked to improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform and their families. Mr. Pang's long and productive association with the military of the United States dates back to his earliest days. Growing up in Hawaii, his father was a shipyard worker at Pearl Harbor and a survivor of the Japanese attack on December 7, 1941. Perhaps growing up in Hawaii during World War II helped shape Mr. Pang's propensity for public service, his fervent patriotism, and his penchant to participate in the defense of our Nation. In high school, Mr. Pang was a member of the Army Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps program at McKinley High School. Next, he joined the Naval Reserves, and following boot camp in San Diego, he served aboard two destroyers. While pursuing his bachelor's degree at the University of Hawaii, he enrolled in the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps program, and upon graduation, he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force. Thus, began his long and illustrious active affiliation with the Department of Defense. His 27-year Air Force career included a variety of manpower and personnel assignments, including a tour in Vietnam in 1968-69. Before retiring as a colonel in 1986, he was the Director Of Officer and Enlisted Personnel Management and the Director of Compensation in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management and Personnel--two of the most important and demanding personnel jobs in the entire Department of Defense for an active duty officer. During his stint in these jobs, he worked on many critically important projects with long-term implications for the professional personnel management of uniformed personnel. Most noteworthy was the research and analysis he did in support of the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act [DOPMA] of 1981. While this act was obviously the result of much hard work by many people and was, in the final analysis, a work of the Congress, the work done by Mr. Pang in the Department of Defense contributed immeasurably to its success. The fact that DOPMA has remained in tact for over 16 years as the governing law for all Department of Defense officer personnel stands in tribute to the work done by then-Colonel Pang and all others who contributed to its development. Upon his retirement from the Air Force, and after a very short, 6 months, time in the private sector, Mr. Pang again answered the call of his country and went to work as a professional staff member on the Senate Armed Services Committee [SASC]. As the majority staffer on the Personnel Subcommittee of the SASC, Mr. Pang was recognized as one of the leading experts and most influential people in the entire Government when it came to matters relating to the management of U.S. military personnel. Although his accomplishments on the SASC are far too numerous to list here, there is one facet of his service with the committee, which deserves mention. Following the end of the cold war, the Department of Defense was faced with the unprecedented task of drawing down an All-Volunteer military. Having lived through the post- Vietnam war drawdown, which was something less than successful, Mr. Pang was determined that we would not return to hollow military of the mid- to late-1970's. Working tirelessly, he developed a package of downsizing incentives including the voluntary separation incentive [VSI], special separation benefit [SSB], and temporary early retirement authority [TERA]. These programs have proven themselves to be extraordinarily effective in helping reshape our military as it was reduced by some 33 percent. The results speak for themselves. Today, we have a military that is of higher quality in terms of education and aptitude scores than ever before in history. The force was drawndown in a well-balanced manner so that today our service men and women are more experienced and capable than ever before. Additionally, when the drawdown began, many feared that minorities and women would be disproportionately affected. So good were the tools provided by Congress, developed mostly by Mr. Pang and so skillful was the execution of the drawdown that the military force of today is more richly diverse than ever before. Working with his committee chairman, Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, Mr. Pang recognized that the true peace dividend coming out of the cold war was the incredible number of high quality men and women coming out of the military and returning to civilian life. He conceived and developed an innovative and effective package of transition benefit programs that have proved to be successful beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Literally millions of service men and women have separated from the military since the drawdown began. Transition counseling packages written into law along with brilliant and innovative programs such as Troops to Teachers and Troops to Cops have ensured that not only have our recent veterans found meaningful and rewarding employment, but that their skills, developed in the military, are now being utilized to the fullest in the civilian sector. A great deal of anecdotal evidence exists that these transition programs have worked exceedingly well. However, as overall evidence of the effectiveness of the transition programs developed by Mr. Pang, notwithstanding the huge number of people separating from the military during the downsizing, the amount of money, as a percent of the budget, that the Department of Defense has paid out in unemployment compensation has not increased at all. People are finding jobs in the private sector, and they are finding good jobs. Through job fairs and transition bulletin boards, private sector employers have acquired new employees who have a great work ethic, who understand the concept of mission, and who are drug free. And society has acquired former service members who are outstanding role models for the youth of America. Much of the credit for this truly American success story has got to go to Mr. Fred Pang. During his tenure as Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs and as Assistant Secretary of Defense, Force Management Policy, Mr. Pang has continued and focused his leadership in the area of military and civilian personnel management and equal opportunity. Hard to put into words, but clearly evident from the accomplishments of the organizations that he has so skillfully led over the past 4 years, is the ``can do'', positive attitude that he inspires as a leader. During his tenure as Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, he dealt with some of the thorniest issues facing the Navy in many years such as the Tailhook scandal and the U.S. Naval Academy cheating scandal. Mr. Pang's integrity and commonsense approach to problemsolving did much to put the Navy on the correct course in dealing with these very difficult issues. As the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Force Management Policy, he completely revised and made right the Department of Defense Directive on officer promotion and nomination procedures. In the aftermath of Tailhook and other highly publicized officer promotion and nomination problems, the new directive, written under Mr. Pang's leadership, has not only put the processing of these critical actions back on an efficient and timely track, but has restored the faith and confidence of the Senate Armed Services Committee and of the American public in the officer promotion and nomination process. One of the major efforts of former Secretary of Defense William Perry was improving the quality of life of service and family members. He placed Mr. Pang in charge of this effort and appointed him as the chairman of the Department of Defense Executive Committee on Quality of Life. Under Dr. Perry's guidance and Mr. Pang's leadership, the Quality of Life Executive Committee has made major accomplishments in improving the quality of life of our service and family members, and, for the first time, we have established a series of measurements and standards for all quality of life services. Because of these efforts, the lives of service and family members worldwide have been improved and enriched. Mr. Pang has led the Force Management Policy organization to new heights of efficiency and accomplishment across the spectrum of civilian and military personnel management; personnel support, families and education; equal opportunity; morale welfare and recreation and resale activities; and women in the military. He is leaving a legacy of service to the Department of Defense and our Nation, and most importantly, to our men and women serving in uniform, of dedicated service and lasting contributions. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, Monday, November 10, was the 222d birthday of the U.S. Marine Corps. That day is celebrated by marines, and former marines, wherever they are, wherever they may go. Last year, on the Marine Corps birthday, I was on a plane with our minority leader and several other Senators, on a trip to the Far East. We were on our way to visit Ho Chi Minh City, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. We had just left Japan, and I was sitting there with my wife, Annie, when I remembered that it was the Marine Corps birthday. Because it is a ritual for marines to celebrate their birthday, no matter where they are, I told Annie that I was going back to the galley to get something to be our Marine Corps birthday cake. I know this may sound silly to some people, but to marines, it does not sound silly at all. So, right as I was getting ready to head back to the galley, other people on the flight started gathering around where we were sitting. It turned out that they also had remembered how important this day was to me, and my fellow marines. Not only did they know what the 10th of November was, they had brought a cake along with them. It was a beautiful cake and was decorated with the Marine Corps emblem. So probably like a lot of other isolated marines in the world, we had our own party. It was a very memorable celebration. This year I had the chance to participate in the Marine Corps birthday ball here in Washington, at the Marine Barracks. Once again, we had a wonderful celebration. The corps remains proud of the role it has played in the history of our country--as the 911 force, the emergency force that is always available when requirements dictate that the most best is needed now. The Marine Corps remains unique to the other services, in the respect that it has all elements of supporting arms in one unit. It has supplies for 60 days of combat. It has infantry, air, armor, and artillery. It has all the elements wrapped up in one unit, necessary to go in and be a very tough, hard-hitting organization for a short period of time. This was vividly illustrated in the Persian Gulf during Desert Storm. The Marine Corps came in with two divisions, completely equipped, and set up a blocking position, to give our other forces time to build up-- a build up that over a several-month period came to number over 520,000 Americans. This was typical of the role that the U.S. Marine Corps has played as the ready force. And there isn't a Marine unit in existence that does not have some of its expeditionary gear, some of its combat equipment boxed and ready to go now and move within hours. If the Marine Corps ever loses that kind of readiness, I believe it will have lost its reason for being. So in their 222d year of existence, the marines continue to celebrate the traditions of the Marine Corps. They honor and remember the sacrifices of marines who fought in places like Belleau Wood, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Bougainville, Iwo Jima, Pork Chop Hill and the Chosen Reservoir, and Khe Sanh. One thing that has remained the same though out the Marines history, and something that I am proud of, is in the way in that the Marine Corps recruits people. The Marine Corps recruits people to serve. They do not recruit on a promise of ``Here's what is good for you, or here's what you'll get out of it yourself'', they recruit by asking the question, ``Are you good enough to serve your country?'' And it is here, and later where they are trained, that the attitudes required to prepare them for battle, are instilled. It calls for each person to devote themselves to a purpose bigger than themselves, a purpose to each other, a purpose to the unit, a purpose to the corps, and a purpose to this country of ours. This was well spelled out in a Parade magazine article last Sunday, November 9. This article said so much about the training that is going on in the Marine Corps today, training that continues to be updated from one war to the next. This article was not written by some Marine Corps public relations person, it was written by Thomas E. Ricks, a writer for the Wall Street Journal. Mr Ricks starts out in the first part of this article by saying, ``What is it about the Marine Corps that makes it so successful in transforming teenage boys and girls into responsible, confident men and women? He goes on to show how ordinary ``Beavises and Butt-heads'' can be molded into effective leaders. And he says of himself, ``I majored in English literature at Yale, and, like everybody with whom I grew up and went to school with, I have no military experience. Yet I learned things at Parris Island that fascinated me.'' He talks about ``Lessons From Parris Island'' that are instilled into these young people coming into the Marine Corps which are--first, ``Tell the truth;'' second, ``Do your best, no matter how trivial the task;'' third, ``Choose the difficult right over the easy wrong;'' fourth, ``Look out for the group before you look out for yourself;'' fifth, ``Don't whine or make excuses;'' and, sixth, ``Judge others by their actions and not their race.'' By my way of thinking, those are some pretty good objectives for anybody in our society to follow. And they are the building blocks that are instilled in all U.S. Marines as they go through boot camp. Mr. President, I will not read this whole article this morning. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2977, the Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments of 1997. H.R. 2977 properly excludes the National Academy of Science [NAS] and the National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] from the Federal Advisory Committee Act [FACA], while at the same time ensuring that certain public sunshine and accountability measures apply to NAS and NAPA committees. Since the legislation did not have the benefit of a committee report in either the House of Senate, as ranking member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, the committee of jurisdiction over FACA, I would like to make the following clarifications regarding the bill's provisions. Section 15 of the bill establishes procedures with which NAS and NAPA must comply as part of agreements with Federal agencies on work to be performed. I want to be clear that both NAS and NAPA should apply these procedures to standing committees in their future work for Federal agencies in addition to future committees that may be created, either temporarily or on a standing basis, to complete a specific project or projects under an agreement with an agency. In particular, it should be noted that any replacement or new member added to a standing committee should be done so in accordance with the provisions of section 15(b)(1). Even though the requirements of section 15(b) of the bill are effective on the date of enactment, NAS has indicated in a letter that they would make reasonable and practicable efforts, to the fullest extent, to apply those requirements to committees that began work as part of an agency agreement prior to the date of enactment. I ask unanimous consent that the NAS letter be made part of the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Section 15(b) provides that public notice be given for a number of committee activities. Traditionally, under FACA, public notice constitutes notice in the Federal Register. However, FACA was written over 20 years ago prior to advent of the information technology revolution. Therefore, I believe that public notice under this bill could include the use of the Internet, including notice and information timely posted on their home pages, by the NAS and NAPA as a means to satisfy the bill's public notice procedures. Regarding the NAS, I understand that they will establish a reading room, free and open to the general public, to make available information required to be made public under section 15(b). I concur with this approach. Furthermore, the legislation provides that a reasonable charge may be imposed by the NAS for distribution of written materials. I believe that this charge should be as minimal as possible and should not exceed the costs of copying, paper, printing, and mailing--if needed. My preference would be that future agreements between the Federal agencies and NAS include sufficient funds for copying and distribution of relevant materials so that there would be no charge to the public, particularly if the request for written materials is a narrow or limited one. I would also encourage both academies to use the Internet here as well. I also want to clarify that the provisions of this bill do not apply to NAS or NAPA committees that are self-funded or funded through a non- Federal source. However, if Federal funds are added to such a committee pursuant to an agreement with an agency and the respective academy, then the committee must comply with the provisions of this bill. Finally, Federal agencies should take note that we have vested discretion to the NAS and NAPA regarding implementation of the requirements of section 15(b). Agencies should not seek to manage or control the specific procedures each academy will adopt in order to comply with the requirements of the bill. A certification from the academies at the time the final report is to be submitted shall suffice. Agencies should not interpret section 15(b)(1) as implying that the conflict of interest provisions under the Ethics in Government Act are the de facto standard to be employed. That act requires extensive financial disclosure and other requirements that are not appropriate in this instance. I ask unanimous consent that the text of a letter from the National Academy of Sciences be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, could we have order in the Senate? Everybody is talking all over the place. I can't hear the Senator, and he is only a few feet away.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Thank you, Madam President. I thank my distinguished colleague. I rise as a cosponsor of this legislation to establish a national Commission on the Centennial of Flight. We have been very proud through the years to have worked with the people of Dayton, OH, in an effort to recognize the very exceptional contribution of the two brothers who ran the bicycle shop and dreamed of flight. They watched the birds and dreamed of flight, not knowing whether it would ever be possible. In 1992, it was my privilege to sponsor the legislation that established the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park which commemorates the extraordinary lives of Wilbur Wright, Orville Wright, and Paul Lawrence Dunbar, a black man, a poet, one of the finest poets, who was a close friend of the Wright brothers. That park and the memorial in North Carolina recall that on December 17, 1903, Orville Wright flew 120 feet in 12 seconds. Can we imagine that, 120 feet in 12 seconds? But it was under power. It was the airplane that is over in the Smithsonian now. It was under powered flight with an engine and propeller. It was the first sustained flight in a power-driven, heavier-than-air machine. There were three other flights that day. We don't often hear about those. There were three other flights that day, and Wilbur Wright set a new world record flying on one of those flights 352 feet in 59 seconds. It was more than the length of a football field. Very little attention was paid at that time. People were very doubtful. Octave Chanute reported the achievement in Popular Science Monthly in March 1904. But the first--I think this is very interesting--the first eyewitness report about those flights appeared in a publication called Gleanings in Bee Culture, and that was in January 1905. That was the first real eyewitness report of Orville and Wilbur Wright's flights. The work had begun in 1899 with a serious study of everything the Wrights could find on aeronautics. In 1900, to test their glider, they selected Kitty Hawk on the word of the weather bureau because of the steadiness of the winds and direction of the winds at that time. The test glider in 1900 and 1901 failed to achieve the lifting power that they thought they needed and anticipated. They went back to Dayton and built a 6-foot wind tunnel to conduct experiments with over 200 different wing models. They developed the first reliable tables on the effects of air pressure on curved surfaces, the principles that we use today and that you see on every airplane, whether it is a general aviation small light airplane or a giant 747 or whether it is the Concorde flying at supersonic speed across the Atlantic Ocean. They developed these 200 different wing models and experimented with them. They developed the first reliable tables on the effects of air pressure on curved surfaces. In 1902, they conducted over almost 1,000 tests with a more promising glider. In 1903, the Wright brothers had completed the construction of a larger plane powered by their own lightweight gas-powered engine. Arriving in Kitty Hawk in September, storms and mechanical difficulties delayed trials until December. On the 17th, four men and a boy witnessed the very first flight, and a memorable photograph, fortunately, was captured. Four men and a boy witnessed that first flight. Back home in Dayton in 1904 and 1905, the Wright brothers continued testing their invention at Huffman Prairie, which is the area adjacent to what is today Wright Patterson Air Force Base where they first achieved maneuverable flight. In 1908, Wilbur and Orville signed a contract with the War Department for the first military airplane. In September, Orville circled the parade ground at an altitude of 120 feet just across the Potomac River from us today, over at Fort Meyer in Virginia. When most people these days think of the Wright brothers, we tend to think of them as having lived a long, long time ago. We tend to think of the Wright brothers as being part of ancient history. We also think of their airplane, the Wright Flyer III, as being an incredibly primitive machine, at least by today's standards. And it was a primitive machine. There were no fancy guidance systems or high-tech controls. By swiveling their hips from one side to the other, Orville and Wilbur could steer the airplane. To this day, when young people come in, when school groups come to Washington and visit my office and they say they are going over to the Air and Space Museum, I always tell them to get up on the gallery level and look down on the Wright brothers' airplane and see how they controlled flight, because the person flying lay on the lower wing and had a wooden yoke around his hips. That wooden yoke slid back and forth and there was a wire that went to the trailing edge of the upper wing, and they would slide in the direction they wanted to go, slide their hips over, pull that wire and literally warp the trailing edge of the wing down and made more lift on the wing on that side and the airplane would turn in the direction their hips were slid toward. I am glad they developed later on in aviation a better means of control. We can imagine a 747 pilot today making an approach swiveling his hips back and forth. But that was the way the Wright brothers controlled those very early flights. The first flight at Kitty Hawk and Huffman Prairie seemed so far removed from what we did later on, from my own experience in orbital flight in 1962, or from the first lunar landing, or from living aboard the orbiting space station for weeks on end, as Shannon Lucid did. She was up there for 188 days. She will be honored at the Smithsonian this evening, as a matter of fact. Yet, all this occurred within a lifetime. I know we kid Senator Thurmond around here quite a lot about his age, but Senator Thurmond was born December 5, 1902. The Wright brothers did not fly until a year later, on December 7, 1903. So we have in this body right now a man whose lifetime spans all of manned flight, powered flight, from that first day at Kitty Hawk into space. Strom Thurmond has witnessed the complete history of flight. And we marvel at just how far we have come in an incredibly short period of time. We have literally gone from the Wright brothers to the Moon and beyond in a single lifetime. That is amazing. In that sense, I think it is fair to say that Orville and Wilbur Wright were our first astronauts, really, because they were the first who really did rise off the Earth's surface in a sustained way and make flight that then advanced to higher and higher altitudes until we are above the Earth's atmosphere now with different kinds of machines; though I think in some ways we could say that they were the first two who, as the poem goes, ``slipped the surly bonds of Earth''--slipped the surly bonds of Earth and ventured into the air under the power of a motor. Everything since then has just been going higher and going faster. I also think it is fair to say the Wright brothers personified something that is behind every single leap or advancement in science or human knowledge since the beginning of time. The one characteristic they had--we could lump it all together and say that is something that is in the heart of all human progress--is curiosity and an innate curiosity about how we can do things differently or whether we can explore and find new shores or whether we can do experiments and do research in new areas. Whether you look at the voyage of Christopher Columbus, who brought Europeans to the shore of North America, whether you look at the experiments of Alexander Fleming--you know what Alexander Fleming was curious about? It was plain old green mold on bread. He did not know why the patterns formed around the mold the way they did. The green mold, it was a particular pattern. He was curious about that. You know what that led to? His curiosity led to the discovery of penicillin and the development of modern antibiotics. That curiosity about green mold on bread has led to increased life expectancy of people all around this Earth. We have gone up in life expectancy more in the last 100 years than in the previous 2,000 years, I read in a magazine just a short time ago. So the discovery of penicillin and Alexander Fleming's curiosity about green bread mold that led to that, has really revolutionized this Earth. Or we go ahead with the unexpected circumstance in a small electronic switching device that led to the development of the first transistor and ultimately to today's incredibly sophisticated computer systems. It is clear to me that curiosity isn't what killed the cat. It is also the goose that laid the golden egg for all of humankind. That is going to be true in the future as well as the past. In field after field, in discipline after discipline, in industry after industry, it is curiosity, that insatiable, relentlessly questioning spirit that keeps asking ``why'' that has moved our species ahead. The irony, of course, is any time someone or a group such as the Wright brothers, or a group of people undertake an exploration or undertake to demonstrate a new idea, whether in a laboratory, a spaceship, a bicycle shop or on a production line, there are many who question the wisdom of it all. Those naysayers who wanted to know when their bike would be fixed with the Wright brothers believed that if we were to fly God would have given us feathers, they said. So there was a joke about the Wright brothers at that time. ``If God wanted us to fly, why don't we have feathers?" Well, they fortunately laughed along with everybody else, but at the same time went ahead with their work. They were not deterred. But if there is one thing we know for sure about research or any kind of exploration of the unknown, it is that it is impossible to know what we will see at the end or what it may lead to. I believe that today, as perhaps never before, we cannot afford to lose that kind of curiosity and questing spirit that the Wright brothers had. With it, we can continue to learn new things, first, for this Nation, putting them to practical application, staying ahead of global competition. That has been the story of this country's advancement. Without it, we will quickly become yesterday's leader, yesterday's leader, not tomorrow's leader but yesterday's leader, hopelessly trying to hold back the hands of the clock and to hold on to a past glory that can never be just retained or recaptured. So the spirit of the Wright brothers is needed as much today as before their very first flight. That is why today I am pleased to join with my colleagues--my colleague from Ohio, my colleagues from North Carolina--in introducing this legislation to establish a national commission to assist in the commemoration of the centennial of powered flight that will occur in 2003 and the achievements of the Wright brothers. Those who worked to build our national parks and memorials to the Wright brothers in Ohio and North Carolina where flight was born and first achieved will now work together to recall and remember the spirit of flight to be commemorated as we approach the centennial of flight in 2003. The spirit represented by the Wright brothers was captured in their own day by their good friend, Paul Lawrence Dunbar, who captured in the prophetic verse which he penned the triumphs that are remembered at the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park. One of his notations was: What dreams we have and how they fly like rosy clouds across the sky; of wealth, of fame of sure success . . . That is certainly what curiosity has brought us and what the Wright brothers brought us. Think of all that has occurred since that first flight at Kitty Hawk in 1903. Think of aviation today and all it entails and the giant industry. It has revised all the world's transportation, has revised our military, our security. All of that stemmed from that first flight in 1903. So we are happy to put in this legislation today. We hope that it is supported by all here, not just those from Ohio and North Carolina, because what started there in 1903 is something that affects everyone. It affects every State and every nation around the globe, even these days. And we look forward to this commission doing a great job in assisting in the commemoration of the centennial of powered flight and the achievements of the Wright brothers.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Thank you, Madam President. I thank my distinguished colleague. I rise as a cosponsor of this legislation to establish a national Commission on the Centennial of Flight. We have been very proud through the years to have worked with the people of Dayton, OH, in an effort to recognize the very exceptional contribution of the two brothers who ran the bicycle shop and dreamed of flight. They watched the birds and dreamed of flight, not knowing whether it would ever be possible. In 1992, it was my privilege to sponsor the legislation that established the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park which commemorates the extraordinary lives of Wilbur Wright, Orville Wright, and Paul Lawrence Dunbar, a black man, a poet, one of the finest poets, who was a close friend of the Wright brothers. That park and the memorial in North Carolina recall that on December 17, 1903, Orville Wright flew 120 feet in 12 seconds. Can we imagine that, 120 feet in 12 seconds? But it was under power. It was the airplane that is over in the Smithsonian now. It was under powered flight with an engine and propeller. It was the first sustained flight in a power-driven, heavier-than-air machine. There were three other flights that day. We don't often hear about those. There were three other flights that day, and Wilbur Wright set a new world record flying on one of those flights 352 feet in 59 seconds. It was more than the length of a football field. Very little attention was paid at that time. People were very doubtful. Octave Chanute reported the achievement in Popular Science Monthly in March 1904. But the first--I think this is very interesting--the first eyewitness report about those flights appeared in a publication called Gleanings in Bee Culture, and that was in January 1905. That was the first real eyewitness report of Orville and Wilbur Wright's flights. The work had begun in 1899 with a serious study of everything the Wrights could find on aeronautics. In 1900, to test their glider, they selected Kitty Hawk on the word of the weather bureau because of the steadiness of the winds and direction of the winds at that time. The test glider in 1900 and 1901 failed to achieve the lifting power that they thought they needed and anticipated. They went back to Dayton and built a 6-foot wind tunnel to conduct experiments with over 200 different wing models. They developed the first reliable tables on the effects of air pressure on curved surfaces, the principles that we use today and that you see on every airplane, whether it is a general aviation small light airplane or a giant 747 or whether it is the Concorde flying at supersonic speed across the Atlantic Ocean. They developed these 200 different wing models and experimented with them. They developed the first reliable tables on the effects of air pressure on curved surfaces. In 1902, they conducted over almost 1,000 tests with a more promising glider. In 1903, the Wright brothers had completed the construction of a larger plane powered by their own lightweight gas-powered engine. Arriving in Kitty Hawk in September, storms and mechanical difficulties delayed trials until December. On the 17th, four men and a boy witnessed the very first flight, and a memorable photograph, fortunately, was captured. Four men and a boy witnessed that first flight. Back home in Dayton in 1904 and 1905, the Wright brothers continued testing their invention at Huffman Prairie, which is the area adjacent to what is today Wright Patterson Air Force Base where they first achieved maneuverable flight. In 1908, Wilbur and Orville signed a contract with the War Department for the first military airplane. In September, Orville circled the parade ground at an altitude of 120 feet just across the Potomac River from us today, over at Fort Meyer in Virginia. When most people these days think of the Wright brothers, we tend to think of them as having lived a long, long time ago. We tend to think of the Wright brothers as being part of ancient history. We also think of their airplane, the Wright Flyer III, as being an incredibly primitive machine, at least by today's standards. And it was a primitive machine. There were no fancy guidance systems or high-tech controls. By swiveling their hips from one side to the other, Orville and Wilbur could steer the airplane. To this day, when young people come in, when school groups come to Washington and visit my office and they say they are going over to the Air and Space Museum, I always tell them to get up on the gallery level and look down on the Wright brothers' airplane and see how they controlled flight, because the person flying lay on the lower wing and had a wooden yoke around his hips. That wooden yoke slid back and forth and there was a wire that went to the trailing edge of the upper wing, and they would slide in the direction they wanted to go, slide their hips over, pull that wire and literally warp the trailing edge of the wing down and made more lift on the wing on that side and the airplane would turn in the direction their hips were slid toward. I am glad they developed later on in aviation a better means of control. We can imagine a 747 pilot today making an approach swiveling his hips back and forth. But that was the way the Wright brothers controlled those very early flights. The first flight at Kitty Hawk and Huffman Prairie seemed so far removed from what we did later on, from my own experience in orbital flight in 1962, or from the first lunar landing, or from living aboard the orbiting space station for weeks on end, as Shannon Lucid did. She was up there for 188 days. She will be honored at the Smithsonian this evening, as a matter of fact. Yet, all this occurred within a lifetime. I know we kid Senator Thurmond around here quite a lot about his age, but Senator Thurmond was born December 5, 1902. The Wright brothers did not fly until a year later, on December 7, 1903. So we have in this body right now a man whose lifetime spans all of manned flight, powered flight, from that first day at Kitty Hawk into space. Strom Thurmond has witnessed the complete history of flight. And we marvel at just how far we have come in an incredibly short period of time. We have literally gone from the Wright brothers to the Moon and beyond in a single lifetime. That is amazing. In that sense, I think it is fair to say that Orville and Wilbur Wright were our first astronauts, really, because they were the first who really did rise off the Earth's surface in a sustained way and make flight that then advanced to higher and higher altitudes until we are above the Earth's atmosphere now with different kinds of machines; though I think in some ways we could say that they were the first two who, as the poem goes, ``slipped the surly bonds of Earth''--slipped the surly bonds of Earth and ventured into the air under the power of a motor. Everything since then has just been going higher and going faster. I also think it is fair to say the Wright brothers personified something that is behind every single leap or advancement in science or human knowledge since the beginning of time. The one characteristic they had--we could lump it all together and say that is something that is in the heart of all human progress--is curiosity and an innate curiosity about how we can do things differently or whether we can explore and find new shores or whether we can do experiments and do research in new areas. Whether you look at the voyage of Christopher Columbus, who brought Europeans to the shore of North America, whether you look at the experiments of Alexander Fleming--you know what Alexander Fleming was curious about? It was plain old green mold on bread. He did not know why the patterns formed around the mold the way they did. The green mold, it was a particular pattern. He was curious about that. You know what that led to? His curiosity led to the discovery of penicillin and the development of modern antibiotics. That curiosity about green mold on bread has led to increased life expectancy of people all around this Earth. We have gone up in life expectancy more in the last 100 years than in the previous 2,000 years, I read in a magazine just a short time ago. So the discovery of penicillin and Alexander Fleming's curiosity about green bread mold that led to that, has really revolutionized this Earth. Or we go ahead with the unexpected circumstance in a small electronic switching device that led to the development of the first transistor and ultimately to today's incredibly sophisticated computer systems. It is clear to me that curiosity isn't what killed the cat. It is also the goose that laid the golden egg for all of humankind. That is going to be true in the future as well as the past. In field after field, in discipline after discipline, in industry after industry, it is curiosity, that insatiable, relentlessly questioning spirit that keeps asking ``why'' that has moved our species ahead. The irony, of course, is any time someone or a group such as the Wright brothers, or a group of people undertake an exploration or undertake to demonstrate a new idea, whether in a laboratory, a spaceship, a bicycle shop or on a production line, there are many who question the wisdom of it all. Those naysayers who wanted to know when their bike would be fixed with the Wright brothers believed that if we were to fly God would have given us feathers, they said. So there was a joke about the Wright brothers at that time. ``If God wanted us to fly, why don't we have feathers?" Well, they fortunately laughed along with everybody else, but at the same time went ahead with their work. They were not deterred. But if there is one thing we know for sure about research or any kind of exploration of the unknown, it is that it is impossible to know what we will see at the end or what it may lead to. I believe that today, as perhaps never before, we cannot afford to lose that kind of curiosity and questing spirit that the Wright brothers had. With it, we can continue to learn new things, first, for this Nation, putting them to practical application, staying ahead of global competition. That has been the story of this country's advancement. Without it, we will quickly become yesterday's leader, yesterday's leader, not tomorrow's leader but yesterday's leader, hopelessly trying to hold back the hands of the clock and to hold on to a past glory that can never be just retained or recaptured. So the spirit of the Wright brothers is needed as much today as before their very first flight. That is why today I am pleased to join with my colleagues--my colleague from Ohio, my colleagues from North Carolina--in introducing this legislation to establish a national commission to assist in the commemoration of the centennial of powered flight that will occur in 2003 and the achievements of the Wright brothers. Those who worked to build our national parks and memorials to the Wright brothers in Ohio and North Carolina where flight was born and first achieved will now work together to recall and remember the spirit of flight to be commemorated as we approach the centennial of flight in 2003. The spirit represented by the Wright brothers was captured in their own day by their good friend, Paul Lawrence Dunbar, who captured in the prophetic verse which he penned the triumphs that are remembered at the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park. One of his notations was: What dreams we have and how they fly like rosy clouds across the sky; of wealth, of fame of sure success . . . That is certainly what curiosity has brought us and what the Wright brothers brought us. Think of all that has occurred since that first flight at Kitty Hawk in 1903. Think of aviation today and all it entails and the giant industry. It has revised all the world's transportation, has revised our military, our security. All of that stemmed from that first flight in 1903. So we are happy to put in this legislation today. We hope that it is supported by all here, not just those from Ohio and North Carolina, because what started there in 1903 is something that affects everyone. It affects every State and every nation around the globe, even these days. And we look forward to this commission doing a great job in assisting in the commemoration of the centennial of powered flight and the achievements of the Wright brothers.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to assist in improving air transportation for the people and businesses of northeast Ohio and the Nation. The city of Cleveland has a major capacity improvement program underway at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. For some time, Cleveland and the city of Brook Park had been involved in a dispute regarding property crucial to the development project. To their credit, both communities were able to resolve their differences through a comprehensive settlement agreement that will allow the airport's improvement program to move forward. This important settlement agreement includes changing municipal boundaries and the noncontroversial, jurisdictional transfer of property. Mr. President, Congress has addressed similar restrictions many times by enacting specific provisions allowing the Secretary of Transportation to act in similar cases. As part of the comprehensive settlement agreement this is clearly in the public interest and will allow Cleveland to meet northeast Ohio's increasing requirements for better air transportation. Mr. President, since the closing of the settlement agreement is to occur before December 31, 1997, this legislation is needed prior to adjournment. I appreciate the support of the leadership of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to assist in improving air transportation for the people and businesses of northeast Ohio and the Nation. The city of Cleveland has a major capacity improvement program underway at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. For some time, Cleveland and the city of Brook Park had been involved in a dispute regarding property crucial to the development project. To their credit, both communities were able to resolve their differences through a comprehensive settlement agreement that will allow the airport's improvement program to move forward. This important settlement agreement includes changing municipal boundaries and the noncontroversial, jurisdictional transfer of property. Mr. President, Congress has addressed similar restrictions many times by enacting specific provisions allowing the Secretary of Transportation to act in similar cases. As part of the comprehensive settlement agreement this is clearly in the public interest and will allow Cleveland to meet northeast Ohio's increasing requirements for better air transportation. Mr. President, since the closing of the settlement agreement is to occur before December 31, 1997, this legislation is needed prior to adjournment. I appreciate the support of the leadership of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.