John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN. I ask the majority leader's opinion as to whether we should go back to S. 993.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I will propose maybe a different line here. Last year, we brought out S. 993, and for reasons we are all familiar with and I will not go back over again, we were not able to get it through last year. It was a good bill. We worked on it very hard. Senator Kempthorne had taken the lead on that and did a terrific job in putting that together. I worked with him. We brought it out of committee. We had 67 cosponsors, I will tell the majority leader. On S. 993, we had 67 cosponsors, and I think almost all those people would still be available if we proposed S. 993. That was supported by the big seven groups of State, local, and county officials, and so on. Under cloture, I guess there might be a germaneness rule against that only because our provisions in that bill for CBO had some additional requirements that S. 1 does not now have. S. 1 was to be an improvement over S. 993, but what it does basically is it changes some of the ways the points of order are administered. But S. 993 is still a basic bill, a little simpler than this. It still would draw major support on our side. I would think we could get an early vote on that. Maybe that would be one option here. Let me just add while we have the majority leader on the floor that I said in committee that I hope we could consider all these different things that would improve S. 1 in committee because when we got to the floor, it was going to draw amendments like flies. I did not know how true that was going to be. But maybe going back to S. 993 would be a very rapid way to get out of this because we had 67 cosponsors last year. I doubt we would lose many of them now. I think we would gain back some of the people who are objecting to some of the procedures on S. 1. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I support this legislation. I know the necessity for it, and I want to see this legislation go through. I wanted to see its predecessor last fall go through, S. 993, also. That got caught up in all the things we recall all too well of last fall when there was delay after delay after delay on the floor. And I would say, had there not been that kind of delay, perhaps we would have had time to bring up not only the congressional coverage bill that we finally got through this year, but also S. 993, and we would not have to be dealing with those matters in this particular Congress. But more to the point right now, with all due respect, the statement was made that if cloture is invoked, we would still be able to offer amendments on the bill because we would have 30 hours of debate. But you go under a different set of rules, Mr. President. Different rules apply once cloture is invoked. After cloture is imposed only germaneness amendments can be offered. The meaning of germaneness is not the same as you may look up in your office or look up in your home in the Webster's definition of ``germaneness.'' The ordinary meaning of germaneness would mean ``basically relevant.'' It has a technical meaning here in the Senate under Senate custom and Senate judgment of what that means. That is far more narrow than the word ``relevant.'' For example, if I were to offer an amendment to S. 1 that would expand CBO's responsibilities under the bill, which is basically what would happen if I tried to introduce S. 993, even though we all approved of that, 67 cosponsors last fall to S. 993, certainly that would not be relevant because, compared with the current legislation we are considering, S. 1, it would expand a little bit the CBO's responsibility. So the definition under Senate rules is that it would not be germane because it expands that responsibility of the bill being considered. That would be the case if we went under cloture. There are many Democratic amendments to this bill, ones that we wanted to offer in committee that would improve the bill and would have made it better coming out on the floor. Those were defeated in the committee by a straight party-line vote. Let me say this. In committee I made a prediction. I said that if we did not take that up, take the relevant amendments up and try to make this as good a bill as we could to come out of committee, when it hit the floor it would attract other amendments like ``flies to honey.'' I think that was the term I used. That has proven true in this case beyond anything that even I foresaw when I said that over in the committee room the other day. What we have had now, this being the first couple of bills out, the congressional coverage and now this bill, S. 1, this is the first opportunity that people have to offer amendments on the floor. Under Senate rules they can offer those amendments. Cutting off debate, invoking cloture on this, would mean that a lot of those amendments would no longer be germane, would no longer be germane and could not be offered. Ordinarily, you may say that is OK. But the problem is we were not permitted to offer amendments in committee that would have improved the bill and some of them under cloture would be ruled nongermane now. So that is the reason that I voted to not invoke cloture just a few minutes ago. I think this has been pointed out. The message of last November, I think, can be construed in a lot of ways. I think if you ask any two people out on the streets, you are liable to get three, four, or half a dozen answers from even two people. But I think there was no message that said we wanted to return a bill that is as important as this legislation. I have said repeatedly that I believe that this is landmark legislation. We are literally changing, starting with this bill to make the first major changes in processes that have been in place in our Government for over the last 60 years, since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In those days the communities and States had lost control of being able to control their own destiny. Communities no longer were able to really do what had to be done to take care of the people in their communities. They lost control. So for the first time the Federal Government came in and said, if States and local communities cannot do that, the Federal Government will play a role. So a lot of the programs that have developed over the last 60 years, many of which went to excess, many of which should not have gone to the excess that they went to--and I am the first to agree with that--but they filled a role that the States and local communities were not able to fill back in those days of the Great Depression. You remember the ``Okies'' heading west with the mattress on top of the car or whatever. Those States and local communities could not do the job. Did the Federal role then go too far? It may have; probably did. This legislation is landmark in that for the first time now we say that we want to start putting some of those responsibilities back to the States and local communities. They are now able to do many of these things, and we do not need to do it from the Federal level. That is an enormous change, going in an enormous difference of direction. While I am for this bill as a way of setting up a framework to say that we in the Congress, as a first step, are forced by our procedures here by a point of order to consider the costs up front and vote on it, if the demand is made, we will be forced to take cognizance of the costs up front. And then it does not say in this legislation that we have to furnish the money or the mandate will never be there. It says we have to consider it and have an outline of the money there to vote on it. And then we can even still say by vote of the Senate, yes, States, you do it; we are not providing one nickle. But it would be a conscious up-front acknowledgment of the cost and then the vote, and we would say, yes, it is going to be good for the future of this country, for everybody, and that is it. States still have to do it. But we would be forced to take this into account up front. That has been carefully crafted in this bill. It means that we could no longer act as in the past where we just pass something and say, States, take care of it. We are sure you guys can handle it. There are a lot of things now the States cannot necessarily handle. There are a lot of examples of that. I gave some the other day. I live in Grandview, OH, a suburb of Columbus, a part of greater Columbus. The mayor, who was chairman of the National Council of Mayors for a while, has done a real study in Columbus. They have estimated that just 14 major environmental mandates, between 1991 and the year 2000 will cost the city of Columbus $1.6 billion, not the biggest city in the country; $1.6 billion. Obviously, if you multiply that by all the different cities in the country, there is no wonder the mayors and Governors are concerned about this whole problem. So the point I am making is it is a mammoth problem. We for the first time are reversing the trend of the last 60 years. And the point is we had better do this very carefully in making sure that as many of these problems as can be worked out with regard to this legislation had better be worked out in advance and right here on the floor and not under the pressure of a cloture vote that would cut off debate after 30 hours. I do not think that is fair. I do not know what the majority leader's plan would be if cloture is invoked. But one of his options is to run 30 hours right on the bill, right around the clock, and that is it. What gets in gets in and what is not gotten in at that point is out. That might be the way he would do this. I would not want to see that kind of pressure brought on what I view as landmark legislation. We were denied in committee the right to make those changes. I think technically, from the Republican side, frankly, that was a mistake because it removed the debate to the floor and did attract amendments like flies to honey, as I said in the committee room the other day. That is what happened on this particular piece of legislation. Unfortunately, when you go under cloture, you foreclose not just the extraneous amendments, but a lot of good amendments that might not be worked in during that time period of 30 hours, which is all that is permitted after the vote. I do not want to delay this. I want to see this legislation get through. But [[Page S1150]] after having lived 60 years with the buildup of things being provided from the Federal Government, I do not think it is too much to ask that we have the opportunity, for just a few days, to make sure we work our way through this. If we do not have cloture, is it still in order for other amendments to be brought up-- which I wish would not be brought up, too--but is it legal under Senate rules? Yes, unfortunately, it is. Unless cloture has been invoked, the germaneness rule is not applicable in the Senate as it is in the House. It is the right of any Senators on the floor here to bring up whatever amendments they want to. I would rather work through it that way, even though we may have to deal with a lot of things that people consider are not germane to the bill. I would rather do that and make sure everybody is dealt with fairly and where everybody that has a legitimate concern about this bill has an opportunity to get their corrections and their amendments in. I would rather see that happen and take the extra time to do it, to make sure this landmark legislation, which literally is changing the direction or starting to change the provisions of what the Federal Government role has been over the last 60 years, is fully considered. We better do that very, very carefully, or we will find States and local communities out there still that are not able to cope with this. We will find that our first moves are not satisfactory at this. I want to do this carefully. The rush, it seems to me, has been pushed by the fact that somebody set up an artificial 100 days to do great and wondrous things. It may be fine to try and match that to the days of the New Deal where they, too, had there 100-day priority that Roosevelt had back then. We are supposedly having another 100 days to reverse some of that. I think we better be very careful with this, and that is the reason I did not support the move to filibuster. I know the Senator from Arkansas has basically been waiting. I appreciate his yielding to me. I wanted to put that into context before we had any offers of other amendments. I yield the floor. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield? Mr. BUMPERS. Yes. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GLENN. When we have something as important as this bill, which I think is truly landmark legislation--this starts defining the new relationship that is going to exist from here on, as opposed to what has existed since the days of Franklin Roosevelt and the Federal programs that came in when local communities and States could not take care of their own problems. That set of rules and that set of legislation that has gone through all these years now is going to be reversed. Will the States pick this up? Will they pick up the responsibilities they either did not or could not assume at this time? I think we have to see on that. But this is the first piece of legislation that really starts defining that new relationship, and as such it is going to be effective for a long, long time. I think to hustle it through because somebody set an artificial 100-day limit or whatever it is, I think just is not realistic. I hope we will not vote cloture so we can consider this bill and make it as good as we possibly can. It is going to be around for a long time, affecting Federal-State relationships for a long period of time. I thank my friend from West Virginia for yielding time.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I think it was only about 100 days ago, as I recall, that we were on the floor and the shoe was on the other foot. We were trying desperately to get something through and there was a scorched-earth policy on the other side and everything that came up attracted amendments like flies to honey and so bogged things down with supernumbers of amendments and filibusters and we could not get anything through. I submit this. The congressional coverage bill and the S. 939, which is this bill expanded a little bit, were ready for floor action. We could not get them out and get them taken up because there were authorization and appropriations bills that still had to be dealt with. So we put them over to this year. What happened this year? Well, what happened in committee the other day was: We submit the bill in committee 1 day, we want markup the next day, and passage on the floor the next day. We tried in the committee to make amendments to the bill--good amendments, substantial amendments, genuine things we had concern about--and we were told no, we cannot have that. We will have a party-line vote--and we did. They came out as party-line votes on a number of amendments and we were told that, no, we will take those up on the floor. We will be able to take up any amendments on the floor. What happens when we get to the floor? There is no report along with this. We tried to vote that in committee and get a report. We could not get it. Senator Byrd, to his credit, brought this up on the floor and insisted that we have it. That delayed this. It delayed things for quite some time. We have not been the only ones delaying things. I submit the amendment of Senator Gorton yesterday afternoon took up about, what, 3, 3\1/2\ hours, I believe. So that was on the other side of the aisle, as far as the delay goes. When we came out on the floor, then I--I am a sponsor of this bill. I am part coauthor of this bill. Parts of it, S. 993, we worked on last year. So I am a proponent of this. I want to see this get through. But when we say we are going to put things on such a fast track that all the rules are going to be set aside and we are somehow going to just bring this out on the floor and we will all agree to it, we cannot accept that over here. I think due process on something that is changing----

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I have been asked during the business tomorrow, it says morning business, and speakers can speak on whatever they wish including their possible amendments for next week or whatever; but there will not be any business conducted on S. 1 directly tomorrow, is that correct? So there can be no misunderstanding.

Mr. GLENN. Would the distinguished majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to join with my colleagues from the Government Affairs Committee, Senator Nunn and Senator Roth, to cosponsor our bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Paperwork Reduction Act. The legislation we introduce today reflects the compromise we achieved in the last Congress, which the Senate passed by a unanimous vote on October 6, 1994. I am confident that this bill will once again be passed by the Senate and then move quickly in the House. This legislation has two very important and closely related purposes. First, the Paperwork Reduction Act is vital to reducing Government paperwork burdens on the American public. Too often, individuals and businesses are burdened by having to fill out questionnaires and forms that simply are not needed to implement the laws of the land. Too much time and money is wasted in an effort to satisfy bureaucratic excess. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 created a clearance process to control this Government appetite for information. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 strengthens this process and will reduce the burdens of Government redtape on the public. Second, the act is key to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of government information activities. The Federal Government is now spending over $25 billion a year on information technology. The new age of computers and telecommunications provides many opportunities for improvements in Government operations. Unfortunately, as oversight by our committee and others has shown, the Government is wasting millions of dollars on poorly designed and often incompatible systems. This must stop. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 took a first step on the road to reform when it created information resources management [IRM] policies to be overseen by OMB. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 strengthens that mandate and establishes new requirements for agency IRM improvements. In these and other ways, this legislation strengthens the Paperwork Reduction Act and reflects the concerns of a broad array of Senators. As my colleagues know, I have been working for several years to reauthorize this important law. I am very pleased with the result. With this legislation, we: Reauthorize the act for 5 years; Overturn the Dole versus United Steelworkers Supreme Court decision, so that information disclosure requirements are covered by the OMB paperwork clearance process; Require agencies to evaluate paperwork proposals and solicit public comment on them before the proposals go to OMB for review; Create additional opportunities for the public to participate in paperwork clearance and other information management decisions; Strengthen agency and OMB information resources management [IRM] requirements; Establish information dissemination standards and require the development of a government information locator service [GILS] to ensure improved public access to government information, especially that maintained in electronic format; and Make other improvements in the areas of government statistics, records management, computer security, and the management of information technology. These are important reforms. They are the result of over a year long process of consultation among members of the Governmental Affairs Committee, the administration, and the General Accounting Office. Of course, reaching agreement on this legislation has involved compromises that displease some. It may also not completely resolve conflicting views on many of the OMB paperwork and regulatory review controversies that have dogged congressional oversight of the Paperwork Reduction Act. But again, this legislation is a compromise that addresses many important issues and will help the Government reduce paperwork burdens on the public and improve the management of Federal information resources. I believe this is a very good compromise that can and should pass both the Senate and the House. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to join with my colleagues from the Government Affairs Committee, Senator Nunn and Senator Roth, to cosponsor our bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Paperwork Reduction Act. The legislation we introduce today reflects the compromise we achieved in the last Congress, which the Senate passed by a unanimous vote on October 6, 1994. I am confident that this bill will once again be passed by the Senate and then move quickly in the House. This legislation has two very important and closely related purposes. First, the Paperwork Reduction Act is vital to reducing Government paperwork burdens on the American public. Too often, individuals and businesses are burdened by having to fill out questionnaires and forms that simply are not needed to implement the laws of the land. Too much time and money is wasted in an effort to satisfy bureaucratic excess. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 created a clearance process to control this Government appetite for information. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 strengthens this process and will reduce the burdens of Government redtape on the public. Second, the act is key to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of government information activities. The Federal Government is now spending over $25 billion a year on information technology. The new age of computers and telecommunications provides many opportunities for improvements in Government operations. Unfortunately, as oversight by our committee and others has shown, the Government is wasting millions of dollars on poorly designed and often incompatible systems. This must stop. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 took a first step on the road to reform when it created information resources management [IRM] policies to be overseen by OMB. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 strengthens that mandate and establishes new requirements for agency IRM improvements. In these and other ways, this legislation strengthens the Paperwork Reduction Act and reflects the concerns of a broad array of Senators. As my colleagues know, I have been working for several years to reauthorize this important law. I am very pleased with the result. With this legislation, we: Reauthorize the act for 5 years; Overturn the Dole versus United Steelworkers Supreme Court decision, so that information disclosure requirements are covered by the OMB paperwork clearance process; Require agencies to evaluate paperwork proposals and solicit public comment on them before the proposals go to OMB for review; Create additional opportunities for the public to participate in paperwork clearance and other information management decisions; Strengthen agency and OMB information resources management [IRM] requirements; Establish information dissemination standards and require the development of a government information locator service [GILS] to ensure improved public access to government information, especially that maintained in electronic format; and Make other improvements in the areas of government statistics, records management, computer security, and the management of information technology. These are important reforms. They are the result of over a year long process of consultation among members of the Governmental Affairs Committee, the administration, and the General Accounting Office. Of course, reaching agreement on this legislation has involved compromises that displease some. It may also not completely resolve conflicting views on many of the OMB paperwork and regulatory review controversies that have dogged congressional oversight of the Paperwork Reduction Act. But again, this legislation is a compromise that addresses many important issues and will help the Government reduce paperwork burdens on the public and improve the management of Federal information resources. I believe this is a very good compromise that can and should pass both the Senate and the House. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN. If the Senator would yield for a moment. When we sent the Levin amendment to the desk, it did not have the changed language that I suggested. He was changing his own amendment. The copy that was sent to the desk was not the proper copy. We would like to modify that amendment, and since the yeas and nays have been ordered that would normally not be in order. I would ask unanimous consent that Senator Levin be permitted to modify his amendment.

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

Mr. GLENN. I thank the Chair. Let me congratulate my friend from Michigan. He has not been pointed out much on this whole bill, but there is no one who has looked into this in any more detail and with real detail on specific wording and taking an active part and making sure that this legislation, if passed, is going to be workable--workable. And that is the important thing of having someone like the Senator from Michigan, who does look into details. We, too, often pass things out of here that do not have that kind of scrutiny and we wind up regretting later that we really did not take time to go into details. In committee, in considering this legislation the other day when we were brushed aside pretty much in the committee by party-line votes, he was trying to lead the charge there on making sure that the language was workable, that we corrected errors in the bill, and that we made it as workable as possible. Now, that was not possible in committee, but he is continuing that effort here on the floor. He certainly deserves every credit for what he has been doing on this, and I am the first to acknowledge that. He has really been a tiger in seeing that this thing was done properly, and I want to commend him for that. I think, once again, he has come up with the suggestion here where age was left out. In almost all the legislation we pass now, we make sure that these areas of minority discrimination, of age and disabilities and so on are left in the bill. I had originally planned to put in an amendment on this myself. My amendment would have been a little more broad than the one that the Senator from Michigan has proposed. My amendment would have said, ``that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability.'' So in one line it was taking a little broader sweep than just correcting age. I believe, in the original planning of the bill, that color was also left out. And that is normally considered as part of our standard litany in new legislation with regard to those people we wish to protect within our society. Mr. President, with the parliamentary situation being what it is, I cannot offer a second-degree amendment to the amendment that the distinguished Senator from Michigan has proposed. I submit to him, I wonder if he might prefer to swing the little broader loop that I was going to propose with my amendment and perhaps, if he wished to modify his amendment with some of this language, that would take care of not only the age but the color that was also left out and in one line then include the things we normally include in it. And it would read, then, ``that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability.'' I yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Perhaps we could go ahead and I could discuss this without it being out of order while we get an input from a couple other Senators that have an interest in it. If we could discuss it until we get that information, we might just save a little time.

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

Mr. GLENN

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

Mr. GLENN. I urge acceptance of the amendment. Vote On Committee Amendment On Page 25, Line 10, As Modified

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I have submitted this. I believe it is acceptable on both sides of the aisle. It takes care of a problem we debated at long length yesterday on the floor. Does my colleague have any comment?

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arkansas very much. We had this amendment worked out over a period of time here. It addresses a problem we had yesterday on the floor about committee jurisdiction. It has been agreed to on both sides of the aisle. We are happy to do it with a voice vote. I send an amendment to the desk to modify the committee amendment on page 25, line 10, that the previous amendments offered to the language proposed to be stricken by the committee amendment be added to the modification.

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

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do not believe I will object, but I want to clarify this. Ordinarily, a person who puts in the amendment would modify his own amendment. Is this something the Senator has worked out with the majority leader?