John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I want to address the campaign finance matter that we have been involved with this year. I would like to start off by saying that I think sometimes we give the impression, with all of our horror stories about some of the things that have happened in campaign finance over the past few years, both on Capitol Hill and in the Presidential elections in both parties--that we sometimes emphasize to the point where we might add to the cynicism of the people of this country instead of helping placate or correct some of the reasons for that kind of cynicism. I want to add that I think the majority of elected officials here in Washington, the majority of the people that run for office, whether high political office here in Washington, in the Congress, or even running for the Presidency or Vice Presidency, or the people back home running for State offices, are by and large some of the finest, most dedicated people we have, and they are dedicated to doing just as fine a job as they possibly can. So I think that sometimes we tend to overdo the criticism to the point where it adds to the problem we are trying to cure. Having said that, there are problems, and there is no doubt about that. We have to look at the big picture sometimes. I think we get so bogged down into nits and gnats of what a particular advantage is this way to one party or that way to another party, that we sometimes need to stand back and look at the big picture of why some of us feel campaign finance reform is very, very important. Let's drop back to the point where we see how our political system developed, why it developed the way it did. You know, we have the finest constitutional system of government in the world. We are the envy of much of the rest of the world for our political system. It represents all the people more perfectly than any system of government that has been devised. Winston Churchill put it well once when he said we have ``the worst system of government, except for every other system of government ever tried.'' We do more towards representing the individual and more towards making sure that every single person has a fair shake in our society than any other government that ever has been, even with the problems that we have. And we have to admit we do have a lot of problems. I see these problems as being mainly ones of danger signs up there to cure these little specks of rot that have crept into our system that could do major harm to our body politic in the future if we do not correct them now. If we have such a great system of constitutional government, how about the people running that Government? The Constitution does not provide for how we are going to staff the Government. And mere words written on paper--be they the Constitution of the United States, and sacred though that it is--that does not guarantee that we will have a good running Government under that constitutional system unless we have good people in there to make that system work. That is the key, and that is fundamental, because that is what our political systems in this country are. Our political systems are basically the personnel departments to run that constitutional Government. Those political parties that we have right now that wind up after an election staffing and giving direction to that constitutional system of government--those political parties are not provided for in the Constitution. We don't find anything in the Constitution that says there will be so many people in the Democratic Party, so many people in the Republican Party, and so on. No. In fact, our political parties have just sort of developed over a period of time under our constitutional system. That is as it should be, I guess. They have evolved. They have changed through the years to better reflect the interests of the people of this country. But there is one thing you have to have to make that constitutional system of Government work. And that is in any democracy to long endure we have to have in Government the confidence of the people--the confidence of the people. Unless you have that, a democracy may not long endure because people will want to experiment with trying the other systems of government, or they will want to go up and join splinter groups that reflect more their own little, narrow interests of what their parochial views are in their local community and where they think the country should go in the future to benefit them personally. We will see more and more of that, if the confidence of our people in Government goes down. Look across the seas. We see Italy. I don't know how many it is now-- 50-some different Governments since World War II. I think they have averaged about one per year, or something like that. They only have a government by a coalition of different groups--disparate groups of people getting together and not making a permanent government for a lengthy period of time, and making temporary alliances for short-term advantage. That is not the hallmark of America. And to see us setting up any possibility of that kind of a situation would play a game of roulette for the future of this country. Our country was founded on the basis not that we take this group, set it aside, and give it certain advantages. Not that there is a ruling class up here someplace, and they have certain advantages, and we set one class off against another. Our Government was set up on the basis of the importance of each individual--not groups, not special groups, but each single individual; and each individual was a king in this country, each individual was royalty in this country, if you will. Our Government was set up not to have a royalty that dictated their ideas, and everyone else had to live under that kind of rule. We have our constitutional system here where authority wells up from the people through their elected officials. It was that confidence in those elected officials that let us move ahead and become the kind of Nation we have become. We are a representative form of government. We are not a perfect town meeting government as we have seen in New England--the most pure form of democratic expression I guess that we have in our country. We cannot take a referendum on every single vote, in a national referendum--on every single issue--as they can at a town meeting. No. We say we will send people to work full time representing us, and we will trust those people. We will trust those people--that is the important word--to make those decisions on our behalf. If we start having trust in those people eroded, and we see that trust going downhill, then I see a big danger for our country. Our Nation was founded on this representative form of government that represents all the people all the time. And any time we depart from that kind of a feeling in this country of our Government representing all the people all the time, we engender less faith in our system, and we set up a potential of a slide downhill in our ability to cope with the future. I don't think the United States of America is ever going to get taken over by the likes of Russia, China, and North Korea and Iraq, or anybody, or put together by any combination. Our country is going to be militarily secure, I believe, into the indefinite future as far as we can see because we are cognizant of the fact that we live in an uncertain world. We will have to protect ourselves. And we are so far ahead of anybody else in military technology and power that I don't see that as a hazard for the future of this country at all. But I do see a danger for our country if we have this increasing cynicism, this cynicism of our people that seems to be growing, and particularly among our young people. If that cynicism grows to the point where our young people in particular feel that politics is just too dirty, ``I do not want to touch it, wash my hands if I shook hands with a politician, I just do not want to have anything to do with politics''--if they have that kind of view, then what happens? We will have less support for our political system; that is, the department of personnel for this constitutional system of Government; less support for those parties. We will have less trust of elected Government officials and our representative form of Government. We will have people tending more to split off into special interest groups instead of supporting mainstream parties that have served us well for all of the history of this country--when we get away from representing all the people all the time, we start down a slope that I think is a danger to the future of this country. One person, one vote, one person, one influence--let's say. We are divided up into so many million little bits of influence in this country in our system of government, one person, one vote, one influence--that is what people think about. We tell our kids. ``When they are growing up, when you get to be old enough, you register to vote because your vote is every bit as important as the vote of the President of the United States.'' And we mean it. And it is. That vote counts every bit as much when the tallies come out on election night-- no matter what the rank of the person, be it some gutter bum who got registered and decided to vote, or be it the wealthiest person in this country, or be it the President of the United States. All the votes are equal in that tally. And it is a vote. It is representing those people who are elected to represent all the people and represent them all the time. And that is the basis on which they are elected. That one influence from each person is supposed to be that person's influence, and influence is the future of this country. That, throughout our history, has given us the confidence to work together. So, when I see a cynical attitude developing toward Government and politics and those in Government instead of confidence in elected officials, we see question marks all the time about whatever is going on in Government--automatic suspicions, automatic paranoia: ``You better watch those people in Washington. They are out to get us,'' in a certain way or whatever. That to me is the beginning of a danger signal. It is the beginning of the potential of a slide downhill and confidence in Government that to me can lead to many other problems and leave us less able to take care of ourselves as a nation in the future than we have been in the past. This is erosion of trust to the point where people want no part of politics. They just didn't want any part of it at all because of what they see. It is something that we don't want to see happen. It is rather peculiar because we see some of this cynicism developing and expressing itself in polls. When people are polled, they let their cynicism all hang out. It is right there in the polling--repeated polling that shows that cynicism has been growing with regard to how people view their Government. And the confidence they have. That is really amazing because we have had rare times in our history when economic times and the general social pattern across the country has been any better. There the lowest unemployment rate, the lowest inflation rate, and Federal employment is coming down. We have a chance of balancing our budget. The times are good, and unemployment is low. We have no big foreign threat out there to us physically. You think people would be very, very happy about this whole thing. But instead of that there has been this gnawing, growing, rotten little specks of cynicism growing on our body politic that I see as a real danger for the long term. I think we can come back to what I mentioned a little while ago. People no longer feel confident that their primary interests are our primary concern here in Washington. They feel, ``Why vote? Why get out there and vote? Why participate in a political party?'' Why try an exercise that one little bit of influence they have to put together with millions of other little bits of influence which will direct the future of this country? Why should they try to exercise that little bit of influence when they see that the real influence in Washington, the real influence in our political parties, the real influence in Presidential elections, in congressional elections, in Senate elections, is too often money? It buys access. Why do we think of Roger Tamraz on the Democratic side who is willing to put $300,000 into a Presidential race because he wanted to get in and try to influence somebody. If he could get to the President, or to the Vice President, or get to somebody, and if he could get them to say, ``I will approve your oil pipeline'' in Southwest Asia, he was going to make billions out of it. He made no bones about it. He put in $300,000, and he said the next time he would put $600,000 in. Fortunately, it didn't work, to the credit of the people that were in charge--the President, and the other people around there. But I will tell you. It raises a warning signal to us about what can happen. I used that example on the Democratic side. How about on the Republican side? How about when you put out invitations to a group called ``The Season Ticket Holders'' for $250,000 each. One hundred people can join this thing, and for that you are going to get a guaranteed dinner with the chairman of your choice in the Congress. It says it right in there. No problem. You are invited to all the policy matters. You are invited. If you are a businessman and you want to contribute $250,000, or have your corporation give that kind of soft money--and soft money can be given in any amount--then you are guaranteed that you will be able to come in and represent your business interests with the committee chairman of your choice. It is not in the executive branch. It is here where the laws are formed--right here in Congress. At the bottom of the invitation, it says ``Benefits Upon Receipt.'' We wonder why the people are a little bit suspicious out there about what is going on. That was out of the hearings we had in the Governmental Affairs Committee. I could go on and on with a number of other examples. I just used those two to make sure that we all understand that this isn't something that is just one or two or very few people. It is something that has become endemic in Government. It is something that is pervasive. It is something that is a rot on the body politic. It hasn't ruined it yet. Most of that apple, most of that body politic, most of whatever it is still is in good shape and the people are just as dedicated as they have ever been and the public servants are just as dedicated as they have ever been. But if we let this practice on either side of the aisle grow into the long-term future, we are creating a problem for the future of this country. And that we do not need and we do not want and we cannot afford. Trust is down. Suspicions are up. People cynically question those of us in office, and we cannot blame them. Now, some other things have caused some problems in this area, too. One is that campaign spending has gone up and up and up and up and up. A report from the Federal Election Commission --let's go back about 10 years. Let's go back to 1985 and 1986. That is just over 10 years. At that time, the total, all congressional campaigns--just congressional not including the Presidential campaigns--in the 1985-86 cycle, the total spending for everything to do with Congress, Senate and the House of Representatives, was $472 million. Ten years later it is $790 million--$790 million just for congressional races, House and Senate. This is interesting. The number of candidates has gone up in that period. I guess more people are running in primaries and so on that are subject to Federal elections. Back in 1985-86, there were 1,873 people who ran for national office, congressional campaigns. That has gone up to 2,605. I guess that should be encouraging to us in that maybe more people are running for office. I wish I knew the quality of those people who are running for public office and whether we are getting the best and brightest out there in the system instead of more people deciding to take a whack at running for Congress. Why not? I do not know how you could judge that. Someone could do a poli-sci, political science doctoral thesis trying to analyze that, as to what is happening to the quality of people running for office. When you go from $472 million in 10 years to $790 million, the money chase is on. The money chase is on, and 70 percent of it goes to TV. If you are not coming into people's homes via TV, you are not, in effect, knocking at the door, as we used to do and greet the people and have a handshake. TV has replaced all that. If you do not come into that person's living room and say hello to them via TV, you are not in the campaign anymore. That requires about 70 percent. So the importance of TV has gone up, and that has raised the cost of campaigning tremendously. I point these out as a danger to the future as I see it. We had one cataclysmic event back a few years ago, and that is what we all know of by the general term ``Watergate.'' The revelations of Watergate resulted in our saying enough is enough. Congress got to work. It passed some legislation, put some limits on, deciding we were going to regulate some of these things in the future, not let them run rampant like they were because the whole public psyche in this country had been jerked up short at that time. I tell you, everybody was disturbed about this, and we couldn't wait every day to hear what the new revelations were. Watergate, for the first time, resulted in the resignation of a President of the United States, something that, growing up, we thought would have been absolutely impossible. But out of those national concerns came reforms, and the reforms served us well, I believe. They worked. We had testimony yesterday from our former colleagues here, Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker, and a former colleague here also and later Vice President, Walter Mondale, before our Governmental Affairs Committee. They talked about how the reforms put in place following Watergate, they felt, really worked very well. There were some regulations put on. People had some questions about first amendment rights and all these different things that are brought up and discussed in the Chamber now also, but the reforms after Watergate seemed to have worked pretty well. But then came a series of court and FEC decisions that undermined it and created some loopholes for those Watergate reforms. We started seeing the rise of soft money, and it rose and it rose, and then it really went out through the ceiling in the last election. And that was by far the biggest change that had occurred. So we are now on a money chase, be it Presidential or be it here in the Congress. I have heard criticism on the floor, as well as in some of the press conferences of some of the Members here, being caustically critical of--and some of the press being caustically critical of--the President going out and fundraising when he says at the same time we need campaign finance reform. Isn't this being hypocritical? I say, no, I do not think so at all because we have not really changed the rules. As the President said, he is not interested in unilateral disarmament at this point. As I said at our hearing yesterday, if both sides agree that this money chase should not go on the way it is and we agree to limit both sides, then certainly the President should not be out fundraising. If we agree to that, the other side could agree to it also. It would be a little bit like if I was over in England and I got used to driving on the left side of the road and I liked that, and I came back to this country and I put in legislation to say, let's have driving on the left-hand side of the highway become the norm in this country and we are going to pass a law that permits that to happen, but I say I believe in this so fervently I am going to go drive on the left-hand side of the road even before the law is changed, you know what the result would be. I guess we can say the same thing here. I think the President is right in going ahead with fundraising as long as the law is the way it is and the Republicans are doing exactly the same thing. So I think some of our campaign practices need to be revised, and that is what we are talking about with campaign finance reform. You know what all the current practices are. We see them every day right here on Capitol Hill. Some people can't go through more than, let's say, a two-pay period here without receiving an invitation here in Washington or someplace to a barbecue, to a coffee, to a reception, to a dinner. Are these all situations where you go and you say, I have to pay $500 or I have to pay $100 or I have to give $1,000 or I can't go to this thing? No. A number of these things, quite a lot of them, as a matter of fact, mean just getting acquainted with people and doing the first stroking, if you will, and setting up a situation where you can go back later and ask for some money, and, hopefully, they will see fit, once you become acquainted with them, to contribute to your campaign. That is the nature of politics. That is the way it is. But then later on there are some people who creep into this whole process--even though I think the major part of the process is still legitimate and aboveboard--who do want special access. They are not looking to just support someone whose beliefs they believe in, whose statements of purpose, whose ideas of public office are something that they personally believe in--which would be the best of democracy, if we could guarantee that was the type of support being given to individuals. No; they are people who come in and then want to do what I talked about a little while ago. They want either to buy a ticket to become a season ticket holder and have that guaranteed dinner with the committee chairman of their choice or they are a Tamraz who makes no bones about it; he wants to get his pipeline approved, and he is willing to give $300,000 to get a shot at a few words with the President in hopes he can influence that person to come around to his way of thinking--which did not occur, I repeat. Is that influence imaginary? Buying access; is that imaginary? No, it is not. When we had insurance legislation here a couple years ago, it came out in the paper that some of the big contributors and big lobbyists were called in--I believe it was on an insurance bill--and actually wrote part of that bill on the Hill here. They called in the lobbyists who made the huge contributions and let them write their own portion of the bill. That was even defended by one of the Members by saying, well, they knew more about it than anybody else. They certainly did, but that did not mean they were going to write it in a way that was for the benefit of all the people all the time. They had bought their way in with influence, and they were writing it for the benefit of some of the people and the benefit of their special interest, you can bet on that, or they would not have been in here doing that. We saw recently the results of $50 billion being inserted into a bill to benefit the tobacco companies, the biggest contributors. Their chief representative, who reportedly in a magazine makes about $50,000 a month, former Republican National Committee chairman, was the one who apparently worked his way and got that in. That is what people are unhappy about. I have given both Democratic and Republican examples here because I want to point out that this is not something which is just all on one side of the aisle. Sometimes the States get out ahead of the Federal Government in these United States of ours. They get out ahead of us in that they can operate, they can act more swiftly to take on a problem as they see it developing. Some of the States have seen their political systems be corrupted, or the danger of being corrupted, by political influence at the local level, and they have taken some action. The State of Maine has recently passed legislation, the basic theme of which is they are going to try State funding for State races. They are saying, we are going to cure this thing; and rather than try to write more complex laws on top of already complex laws, we are going to say, no, we are not going to do that anymore. We are just going to say, in the best interests of the people in getting the government, getting our elected officials, to make sure they address the concerns of all the people all the time, once they get through the primary, then let's get them some financing here so they do not have to go out on this money chase and promise everything under the sun to get enough money to have a chance of winning an election. There are 12 other States, as I understand it, that are looking at a similar program right now. Maybe that is the answer for the future. We have seen court rulings and FEC regulations and rulings create loopholes that let people have access to getting around our election laws. Perhaps Federal financing is a way to correct that. I personally think that is something we will come to eventually, whether we like it or not. We will be forced into it because it looks as if, unless something drastic changes in the Chamber here--we may get a bill through, but it appears that it is going to be watered down enough that it may not be the overall comprehensive campaign finance reform that some of us believe, sincerely believe, is necessary if we are going to correct this problem into the future. I do not rule out the possibility that at some time in the future we are going to have Federal financing of Federal campaigns because I think the people of this country may demand that. I am one of the original cosponsors of a bill here in the Senate, the Kerry-Wellstone bill, to take a look at this, to see if we could not work out something that is satisfactory in that particular area. So I think we need to watch this experience of the States as they try to take back their State governments and make their State governments representative of all the people all the time, not all the people part of the time and special interests the rest of the time. We need to watch this very, very closely. Let me address one other area. We haven't had much discussion recently in the Governmental Affairs Committee hearings that we have been having, we have not had much emphasis on enforcement. There have been those who said we have all these laws on the books now. They are not working, so why add more laws on top of them and make more laws that won't work either? That is a pretty good argument, as a matter of fact. But I don't believe that is the way we ought to go. What we should do, we should make a FEC that can enforce the legislation, enforce the laws of the land, enforce the regulations they have put out, and make sure that anyone who violates those regulations is brought up short and is penalized and do it immediately, not years and years later. Instead of that, what have we seen? We have seen, through the years, the budget for the Federal Election Commission either remain about the same or actually be cut, from year to year. Instead of giving better enforcement, they are only able to give less enforcement. Maybe the people who have perpetrated those cuts on our system here had that in mind. Maybe they did not want to see the FEC be anything more than, what has been termed in the past, a toothless tiger. I think if we have laws they should be enforced. I think whatever is required to help the FEC do that, we should provide the money to do exactly that. This year we have reached even a ridiculous example. They asked for an additional $4.6 million over there in addition to their, I think it is, $28-point-something million. They asked for an additional $4.6 million to give them special investigative authority, investigative capability to go out and see what happened in the 1996 election. And the committees up here have not only not approved the additional money for them, they have sent word over there specifying they are not to hire more people. They are not to hire more people. That is the word that FEC is operating under from the committees on the Hill right now this very day. They are not to hire more people to look into these alleged violations of law that happened in the last election. In other words, we are creating a Nation of political scofflaws out there, if you will. Because they know you are not likely to get caught if you do something wrong, because that is just the way the system is. It does not have the capability of picking up all the wrongs in the system. So you have a chance of getting away with all sorts of misdeeds if you want to try it. So, we need a strong FEC. We had one estimate given to us the other day by one person who studies these things a lot of the time, that they thought the FEC budget should probably be doubled. It should be somewhere around the $50 million mark, instead of hovering around the $30 million or under mark. I would vote for that. I think we also need to make some changes in the Federal Election Commission, in that I don't believe they are organized on the proper basis. When we say you have six commissioners over there, three will be Republican and three will be Democrat, that sets it up for political bickering right off the bat. It is organized for political disunity going in. It is not organized to get to election fraud and violations without fear or favor, no matter what the politics of it are, Republican, Democrat, or independent. It is set up with three and three, which just breeds political gridlock. And that is exactly what they have had through the years, in many cases. Much of the time. One of the suggestions that had been made in the past is that we, instead of having the commissioners appointed on a political basis the way they are now, we should have the commissioners appointed from former Federal judges: People who would be stable; they have been used to giving fair consideration of the law and cases, that has been their training, that has been their background; and to be appointed for their nonpolitics, for their apolitical views, if you will, because they would best be able to judge, then, when a Democratic or Republican transgression occurs, they would best be able to give it the proper attention and proper consideration. Rather than just saying I am a Democrat so I better protect my Democratic interests over here no matter what, or I am a Republican so I'll see that we forgive that violation or whatever it is on the Republican side--no. That is not in the best interests of the people of the United States. The best interests of the people of the United States is in having a Federal Election Commission that enforces the law without fear or favor, wherever the violation occurs. And that means, I think, that we have to reorganize at the top level over there. Going into our committee investigations this year, we were faced with a tough choice. Before I leave that, for just a moment let me give a few figures here on the FEC, what their budget problems have been. For fiscal 1995 they had over 10 percent of their budget rescinded halfway through the fiscal year, the largest percentage agency rescission of any Government agency. In fiscal 1996 they sought $32 million but they received only $26 million, with some of those funds fenced for other particular purposes. For fiscal 1997 they had their 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. In fiscal 1998, being considered right now, they asked both the House and Senate for $29 million, plus an additional $4.9 million--I correct my figure I gave a moment ago at $4.8 and $28 million, I guess I said--but they asked both the House and Senate for $29 million plus an additional $4.9 million just to deal with cases arising from the 1996 Federal election. The actual budget is still in conference, but they have been told specifically not to hire more staff to look into those problems of the 1996 election. Let me tell you one other thing, and this I think is rather amazing. I didn't know this until a few days ago myself. Their total enforcement cadre over there is 30 lawyers to oversee all these hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of cases filed with the FEC. There are 30 lawyers. How many investigators would you think the FEC would have to go out in the field and investigate wrongdoing out there, get the information, go to boards of elections, bring that information back, really create these cases--how many investigators do we figure the FEC has? Do you know what the answer is right now, as of this day, the 1st of October, 1997? They have two, two investigators. And that is up from only one just a short time ago. I guess that is heartening. That is a 100 percent increase, isn't it? We have gone from one up to two. Two investigators for the FEC. Their lawyers in the enforcement division go out but they don't do investigations. They will go out and do depositions. They will go out and do a court case someplace that has been developed here, but their work is basically paperwork handled at the Washington level. So the investigative capacity at the FEC is not much, two people for the whole agency. I propose we somehow get some little cadre of FBI people who really know something about investigation and assign them, at least for a period here of a few years, to help out over there, doing real investigative work trying to clean up the problems of campaign finance where the laws have been broken. And there have been laws broken in a number of areas. Where do they need to look? Starting out our hearings this year I suggested we, instead of just going with Republican investigations or Democratic investigations, I proposed that we pick some areas where we know there are difficulties with campaign finance and then we bring those up, one after the other, and have a series of hearings on each one of these subjects. Let the chips fall where they may, Democrat or Republican, and find out what is wrong with the system, get it out there, get it out in the open. If we need additional law, let's have additional law. If we just need to enforce existing law better, then let's do that, too. But let's find out what the problems are first and then enforce them and make a system that really is run on a tight basis. What are some of these areas I want to look at? One is foreign money. There are all sorts of allegations about money coming in from wherever, whether it was the Chinese or Chinese Government, where it was being channeled, where it was coming through and who it was going to, and did it affect elections or did it not affect elections--we had all sorts of problems with foreign money potentially coming into the American system. We had one on one side looking at whether it is the Democrats are where the money is coming and John Huang and Charlie Trie, and did that money come from the Government of China? On the other hand, we had the spectacle of Haley Barbour and the Republican National Committee getting loans of money, $2.1 million out of Hong Kong, funding it through the National Policy Forum in this country and into the Republican coffers. So we had bipartisan foreign money problems, there isn't any doubt about it. So we should be looking at that? That is one area. There are other areas, though, that we have only touched on briefly in the last few hearings that we have had, that I think we also have to look at if we are going to really do the right job, looking into campaign finance reform or campaign finance violations, No. 1; and things the FEC should be monitoring on a steady basis. How about the second one, third-party transfer? If I have maxed out my contributions that I can give, I say, ``I am maxed out.'' But I turn to somebody else and I say, ``OK, look, I'll give you $1,000 and you go over there and you give that in your name and that clears it and I'll just give you the money.'' That is illegal. We have lots of information about that being done. That whole thing is an area we have really not even explored much yet, yet it was violated time after time after time. So, foreign money, do we have to look into that? Of course we do. The third party transfer of funds? Of course we do. Another area was the area of misuse of tax exempt organizations, so- called 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations, where they have organizations given certain tax-exempt status and, for having that status, they are prohibited from political activity. But in this last election that whole thing ran amok. Organizations were being put together with that kind of charter and they were deliberately channeling money through. We have example after example of that, and we have not really had a chance to bring those things out yet, either. So that is another area we ought to be looking at. Another area the FEC ought to be following, if we gave them adequate resources to do so, is tax-exempt organizations. Then we had the biggest increase of all and that is in the area of soft money, where you can give any amount you want to give, any amount you want to give. If you are a billionaire you can walk in and put $1 billion down if you wanted to. Do you think that might buy some influence? I think it might buy some, yes. You can put down any amount you want. As I talked about a little while ago, we had the restricted membership of 100, if they would contribute $250,000 to that season ticket holder group that I mentioned just a moment ago when I was lining up one on the Democratic side and one on the Republican side to give some balance to this. The soft money can come in in any amounts now, but it is supposed to be just for party building. It is supposed to be used for things like get-out-the-vote drives and general advertising on general views of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. Was that misused? There is no doubt whatsoever about the misuse of soft money and the pernicious influence that it had with this last election. The area of influence of soft money has just skyrocketed from election to election since the new FEC ruling just a few years ago. Another area is the straight old quid pro quo. We could add that as a fifth. If I give you so much money as a public official, then I want you to pass a certain law for me; and you do it. There are examples of quid pro quo also. So, these are all areas that we cannot ignore from the past. There are many of those things, just in those areas that I mentioned, that are flat illegal. Soft money is not illegal. It is perfectly legal now, but we have to make it illegal with McCain- Feingold, which I support fully and I am a cosponsor of. This is probably the most runaway part of campaign financing that we have had in recent elections--certainly in this last election. Now, along with soft money, that I make such a fuss about, there is one other part. If we are going to correct this, there is one other thing we have to do, too. We cannot just see the money that was formerly going to soft money, to the parties and being misused then, being put into State races or into congressional races. We can't just see that money then not go into soft money but go over into issue advocacy ads and independent expenditures for the so-called issue advocacy ads that can be put on in a particular campaign in the last few days and influence a campaign, quite apart from the person running in that campaign who doesn't even have control of who is coming in and putting on TV ads either for or against him or her. So we can't just do away with soft money and hope that will solve the problem, because soft money is probably going to gravitate over to the area of issue advocacy or independent expenditures. If we are going to correct one, we have to correct the other; we have to deal with them together. So the question is, how do we prevent soft money not only from going into issue advocacy ads or independent expenditures, but also we want to make sure that we don't create a loophole here where the soft money now will go by the many, many millions of dollars over to the States, which it would be legal to do right now, go to the States, and the State parties then would use it in particular campaigns within the State by putting on independent ads or issue advocacy ads in support of congressional candidates, even those that are not State races, but there is an interest in them. So you see how complex this whole thing becomes. Mr. President, those are a few views on some of the things that I see with regard to campaign finance this year. There are a couple of statements I would like to quote on the floor today. Will Rogers is looked at as one of our great political commentators, in a humorous way, from years past. He did it in a way that got the attention of the people. He was pretty caustic in his comments sometimes. He made a statement once that might be applicable today, though. He said: Wouldn't it be great if other countries started electing by the ballot instead of by bullet, and us electing by the ballot instead of by bullion? I think he was right. Another is a statement by Kin Hubbard, Frank McKinney Hubbard: When a fellow says, ``It ain't the money but the principle of the thing,'' it's the money. And you can bet on that. Jesse Unruh of California some years ago said: Money is the mother's milk of politics. And that's sure true. It is as true today as it has ever been before. Let me finish up where I started off today with this. I am afraid by our talk here about what is the potential for the future that we talk about this in such terms to make our point on the floor that sometimes we emphasize them to the point that we are about to increase what we are trying to prevent, and that is cynicism in this country. By talking about the difficulties of campaign finance and the transgressions against campaign finance law--which should never have occurred in the last election on both sides of the aisle, and they have to be corrected. I am not trying to say they are not important, but they are. My whole statement today has been along the theme that this is a beginning of a rot we have to correct. So I am not trying to minimize these things. I hope most of the people of the country realize that most of the people who run for high office do so with very good purpose in mind. Most of the people here, I would say, are very talented people. Most of them could probably be making more in business or in some corporate position or outside of public office than they do here. Not all of them, but certainly many people could. We have people running for office who are very fine people. But this is a danger when we see things like what happened in this last election--the potential with foreign money, although all the sums talked about or rumored, whatever came from foreign money is a tiny little pittance, just a tiny little nothing almost compared to what was spent. That $790 million I indicated was spent in the last election just in congressional elections. Not even the Presidential election is included in that. So a few million dollars that may have come from some foreign source is a fairly small amount, but it is a danger sign. We have to regulate that. We have to cut it off. We have to make our restrictions enforceable if we are not to see that grow into the future, and that is the danger; that is the danger. We have to make sure that with third- party transfer of money, we don't just find rampant disregard of our laws, and then people just saying, ``I know my limit is'' so and so ``under the law, I will give you'' this, this, ``and somebody else, and I will contribute a lot more than my Federal limit was ever supposed to be and I won't get caught anyway.'' We have to make sure that doesn't occur. We have to make sure the misuse of tax exempts, which ran rampant this last time, as conduits from people who had special interest money to put in --and they put it in by the millions. We have evidence of where that went and how it went. I hope we are able to put that on in the hearings before our campaign finance investigation ends on the Governmental Affairs Committee. All these areas--whether it is foreign money or third-party money or tax-exempt money or soft money or quid pro quo--all these areas must be enforced with existing law. Then we can go ahead with bringing soft money under better regulation than we have ever done in the past. In fact, there isn't any regulation on it to speak of now. Then we are making real progress. I believe the McCain-Feingold bill, which I fully support, is a start. I don't view it as anything more than a start. I don't think Senator McCain or Senator Feingold feels it is anything but a start right now, but it is a start. It is a start in showing people that, yes, we can act here in Washington; yes, when we do see a danger for the future, when we see some rot beginning on this body politic, we can cut that out, we can correct it, we have the capability to do it and we can restore confidence. Where we see cynicism and we see disregard for law, we see cynicism about what may be going on with our Government, we can replace that, once again, with real confidence, real faith in letting the people of this country know that we are concerned and are willing to do something about it. That is the reason why I support the McCain-Feingold proposal so wholeheartedly. They are important, and I am hoping that we can really have a vote up or down eventually. I know the so-called legislative tree has been filled that will try to thwart the passage of this legislation, but I am hoping we will really see a vote possible on this legislation before we finish with it. I guess the schedule is we will finish with it sometime next week. Mr. President, this was a rather lengthy statement. I will undoubtedly have more to say about this next week. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my prepared remarks be printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN

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

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Capt. Frederic G. Leeder, USN, upon his retirement from the United States Navy, after 28 years of distinguished and dedicated service to our nation. Captain Leeder is a native son of Ohio and graduated from Ohio State University with a degree in journalism. Following his graduation from college, Captain Leeder was commissioned as an Ensign. After his graduation from the officers' program at the Defense Department's Information School, he then assumed a variety of public-affairs assignments overseas and stateside. His tours of duty included a North Atlantic Treaty Organization staff assignment and four joint-service assignments. Most recently, Captain Leeder served as Staff Director for Public Affairs at Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) in Alexandria, Virginia. During his three years at DLA as principal spokesperson, Captain Leeder demonstrated unbounded stamina, keen insight, and exemplary professionalism. Possessing exceptional skill, foresight and composure, Captain Leeder dealt with representatives of the print and electronic media, engaging them on his terms. In just one example, last fall he competently worked with investigative reporters from a prominent news magazine and a major television network to ensure accuracy and fairness of nationwide reporting on a sensitive issue having significant national security implications. With his intelligent foresight and strong voice of reason, Captain Leeder, advised three different DLA directors, each from a different service I might add, on how to navigate through the often perilous waters of media and community relations Captain Leeder succeeded in striking that delicate balance of ensuring the American public's right to know and protecting the public interest throughout his career. An accomplished communicator, he truly has earned the gratitude of thousands of military families that have found comfort and reassurance in his words when loved ones serving on distant seas and shores have been in harm's way. Captain Leeder has served his country for 28 years with valor, loyalty, and integrity, winning the personal and professional respect of all who come in contact with him. Captain Fred Leeder is a master of his craft. On the occasion of Captain Leeder's retirement from the U.S. Navy, I offer my congratulations and thanks to this esteemed son of the Buckeye state, and wish him well in his future pursuits.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit and speak on behalf of my proposed concurrent resolution to honor Dr. Hans Blix, who will soon be retiring after 16 years of service as the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]. Unfortunately, it is probably true that many Members of Congress do not fully understand what the IAEA is, what it does, and how it serves our national security interests. I think it is appropriate, therefore, to take just a few minutes to describe the agency that Dr. Blix has directed over these many years of distinguished service. I would like to begin by discussing what the IAEA is not. The agency is not an organization that specializes in public relations or advertising to herald its achievements. Its officials tend not to be flamboyant. It is not any appendage or puppet of the U.S. Government, though it surely does serve the national security and foreign policy interests of the American people. It is not a police force. It has no army. It has no clandestine intelligence service. It has no ability to finance its operations by raising tax revenues. Indeed, it has absolutely no guarantee that adequate funds will be available to pay for the agency's complex and ever-growing responsibilities. And like many other international organizations composed of diverse members--including some countries that do not even exchange diplomatic relations--it is not an agency that is immune to political conflict or controversy. So what then is the IAEA? The IAEA is a highly specialized agency in the United Nations system. It was created back in 1957, largely as a result of the Atoms for Peace initiative launched by President Dwight Eisenhower. Since its establishment, the IAEA has performed two basic tasks. First, it implements a system of safeguards over the peaceful uses of nuclear energy around the world. These safeguards consist of inspections, accounting measures, and material verification controls intended to ensure--in the words of the IAEA statute--``* * * that special fissionable and other materials, services, equipment, facilities, and information made available by the agency or at its request or under its supervision or control are not used in such a way as to further any military purpose''. After the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [NPT] entered into force a quarter of a century ago, the parties to that treaty established a system of nuclear safeguards whose objectives were ``* * * the timely detection of diversion of significant quantities of nuclear material from peaceful nuclear activities to the manufacture of nuclear weapons or of other nuclear explosive devices or for purposes unknown, and deterrence of such diversion by the risk of early detection'' (IAEA, INFCIRC 153, para. 28). After the war in 1991 to expel Iraq from Kuwait, the UN Security Council gave the IAEA the responsibility of ensuring that Iraq was complying with the Council's resolutions concerning the dismantling of Iraq's nuclear weapons capability, a mission that the agency continues to perform today. But the agency does not just implement safeguards. Its second key mission is to promote the peaceful uses of nuclear energy in such fields as agriculture, medicine, nuclear safety, and the generation of electricity. Today, more than 90 countries receive nuclear technical assistance from the IAEA. This assistance typically comes in the form of equipment, expert services, and training activities. Funding for these activities comes primarily from member states' voluntary contributions. The United States, which played such an essential role in the creation of this agency, contributes about a quarter of the IAEA's regular budget, which in 1996 came to $63 million of the agency's $219 million budget. Now having just described what the Agency is not, and having reviewed briefly what the agency is, it should be quite apparent that any individual who can lead such an organization for 16 years, win numerous reelections, inspire the confidence of members of the world community-- some of whom are not even talking to each other--enhance the technical competence of the agency, and accomplish all of the above on a limited budget, is no ordinary individual indeed. And that describes Dr. Blix about as best as I can describe him. He is a remarkable public servant. I would like to add on a personal note that I have had the privilege of meeting with Dr. Blix many times during his frequent trips to this country. I know the kinds of political, organizational, and funding problems he has had to handle over his long tenure of office. I appreciated both his candor and his extensive knowledge about the workings of the agency that has done more than any other to protect the world community against the nightmare of loose nukes. I will miss both his good humor and his wise counsel about the challenges facing the agency as it grapples with some of the world's most difficult international security problems. Though I wish Dr. Blix well in his retirement, I also look forward to working with his successor as Director General, Dr. Mohamed El Baradei. And as I prepare for my own retirement next year, I hope that all of my colleagues with responsibilities in the field of international nuclear affairs will miss no opportunity to educate themselves about this important international agency and the vital contributions it makes to the security of all Americans and, indeed, to the security of the world community as a whole. It is important for us all to understand not just where this agency has been but where it may be heading in the years ahead. We must recognize that safeguards do not implement themselves and will never suffice as a permanent guarantee against the illicit uses of nuclear materials. We must face the fact that some nuclear activities-- such as large-scale reprocessing of plutonium or commercial uses of highly-enriched uranium--are probably unsafeguardable in the strict sense of the term and should therefore be discouraged internationally or, if economic reason and security considerations are allowed to prevail, phased out all together. We must acknowledge that nuclear power offers no panacea for either the Greenhouse Effect or the world's ever-growing demand for electricity. We must beware of efforts in the world community to expand the missions of this agency without also giving it the resources it needs to perform those responsibilities. We must understand that IAEA member countries that comply with their safeguards agreements and international nonproliferation treaty obligations are entitled to receive technical assistance from the agency--and that the United States has ample foreign policy tools available to influence its adversaries rather than turning the IAEA into a diplomatic playing card, a punching bag, or an arena for gladiatorial combat. If we recognize the strengths and limitations of the agency, I believe it will continue to serve the positive roles it has played over many decades in the service of world peace, security, and prosperity. And if the legacy of Dr. Blix continues to inspire the leadership of that agency in the years ahead, as I have every reason to believe it will, then the future of the IAEA will be bright indeed. I ask all my colleagues to join me today in congratulating Dr. Blix for his long and dedicated service in the pursuit of a safer world. Let us salute him and his agency for a job well done.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. We have in room S. 211, for the information of Senators or their staffs, a panoramic view that has been put together by NASA of Mars as taken from the Pathfinder. A full-sized model is out there for people to look at. It is intriguing. It is so tiny you cannot believe it is sending all this information back to us on Earth. We invite staffs or Senators when they come over for a vote which starts at 5:15 to stop in and look at it. It is very worthwhile and gives a different concept than just seeing the pictures on TV. I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, if there is anything that sets this country apart from other nations around the world, it seems to me it would be our, almost our innate curiosity, our questing spirit that led people not only to explore geographically, but led them to explore in the laboratories of our Nation and express our curiosity in learning new things. That is at the heart of science, learning the new and putting it to use. We could run through a whole gamut of things in history. We could talk all night tonight about different things that have revolutionized our way of doing things on Earth. The Wright brothers were curious about whether we could fly or not, whether you could get the air to react enough off an airfoil so you could fly--and they were ridiculed for it. Some people said, ``If God wanted us to fly, why, he would have made feathers on us so we could fly.'' Their curiosity led to airplanes and the aviation industry and changed the nature of the whole world. You can say the same thing about curiosity about the internal combustion engine and automobiles and communications and how we transmit sounds from one place to another-- the telephone, the Bells--computers and plastics and TV and nuclear energy and agricultural research. We never think of agriculture in this country as being such an example of basic research, yet, just in my own lifetime, the corn production in Ohio has gone from about 48 bushels per acre to something like 137 on the average and, in some places, going close to 240 bushels an acre in certain selected spots. That is just enormous. That did not occur because people are working three or four times as hard. It occurred because of basic, fundamental research, people curious about soil and about fertilizer and seeds and hybrids and so on. We can go on with antibiotics and anatomy and physiology and all the things we know in medicine these days. We could talk for many hours about where this questing, curious nature that we have in this country has led us. Part of the bill before us here involves the NASA budget. An area where we, as a nation, are expressing our curious, questing nature, is in the area of space and space research. Every year we are asked why do we invest billions of taxpayer dollars for space exploration and research. There is one very short answer to it. In my view, we do it is to benefit people right here on Earth. This has been true for the whole program. It was true ever since I was involved in the space program many years ago, during Project Mercury and our first orbital flights. There are a number of examples of research connected just with the space program, and particularly with the space shuttle experiments, that I think everyone can relate to. We will have applied science and scientific research going on through the years with the international space station project. Every year we debate this on the floor. Fortunately, to my way of thinking, we have continued to fund the space station. It is one of the greatest scientific engineering cooperative efforts in the history of this world. We have a number of things that are being looked into now on the shuttle that could be done better and longer term on the international space station when it comes along. Parts of it will start being put up at the end of next year. But a lot of things that have come out of the shuttle program so far are of very, very practical use right here on Earth. One experiment that I find most intriguing is protein crystal growth. It is fascinating. It brings a whole new input to medicine, to the thousands of different proteins and combinations that make up our bodies and literally stands to transform the way medicine looks at itself and the way we treat disease and what we can do with regard to immunities. Let me give just one example. We have a chart here I would like to have put up that shows what is going on with treating flu. A flu remedy is being developed with space-grown crystals, where you can better find out how the flu bug itself reacts. The loss of productivity due to flu is staggering. Its costs range as much as $20 billion a year. There are high-mutation rates of the flu virus. New data from the protein crystals grown in space and on Earth have unlocked the secret of the flu bug and revealed its Achilles heel. The secret lies in a small molecule which is attached to the host cell's surface and each flu virus, no matter what strain, must remove this small molecule to escape the host cell to spread infection. But using data from space and Earth-grown crystals, researchers from the Center of Macromolecular Crystallography are designing drugs to bind with this protein's active site, in other words, the lock on this site. This lock-and-key reduces the spread of flu in the body by blocking its escape route. In collaboration with its corporate partner, the CMC, the Center of Macromolecular Crystallography, has refined drug structure in preparation for clinical trials, and those clinical trials are starting. When tested and approved, relief is expected from flu epidemics by the year 2004. I give some detail on that because I think it is an example of the kinds of things that are underway that we can directly relate to the space program. We have some 20 to 40 million people every year that get the flu, and it causes some 20,000 deaths a year in the United States alone. This new data of space-grown crystals has helped unlock a secret to let us treat flu in a different way. That is just one example. Another example that can benefit from these same kinds of space-grown crystals is trauma from open-heart surgery, which often may lead to complications due to massive inflammation of heart tissue. Factor D is a protein which plays a key role in the biological steps that activate this immune response. Being able to block factor D's effects could enable heart surgery patients to recover more rapidly, and data from space-grown crystals allowed researchers to develop inhibitors which specifically block factor D. This drug is being readied for clinical trials. We have a new antiparasite drug from space-grown crystals. It is estimated that over 1 billion people in this world are infected with a round worm known as ascarids. It is a tiny parasite that infects the intestinal tract of vertebrates and is often fatal. Ascarids are dependent on a substance called malic enzyme to function properly. A new drug, developed in part by Upjohn, with the benefit of crystals grown on the USML-1 Spacelab mission, should interfere with normal functioning of malic enzyme and, thus, prove deadly to ascarids. Another example: Space crystals and the fight on AIDS. A new combination of drugs, which include protease inhibitors, have proven immensely successful in treating AIDS. In an ongoing experiment with DuPont Merck, NASA has crystallized HIV protease enzyme with an inhibitor to support structure-based drug design research, and the resulting drugs could represent the second generation of this successful approach to treating this disease. This chart shows some of the details. I don't know whether the cameras will pick this up well enough to show the interaction. This is something that gives real hope in the treatment of AIDS in the future. Another example on a different chart here indicates how diabetes patients may benefit from NASA's bioreactor research. The bioreactor is a tissue culturing instrument which allows microgravity researchers to grow tissues which are larger and more complex than other tissue culturing techniques. The bioreactor has the potential for changing disease treatment through tissue transplants. Forthcoming experiments plan to grow human pancreatic islet cells in the bioreactor for possible transplantation into diabetic patients. Trial runs with this technique have proven successful. If the upcoming experiments are successful, diabetic patients will not need to rely as heavily on insulin injections and will have less complications from their disease. Another chart: Modeling colon cancer with bioreactor. Mr. President, 166,000 cases of colon cancer are diagnosed each year in the United States, and it is a leading cause of death. Colon cancer tissue grown in a bioreactor develops remarkably similar to tumors extracted from humans. Studying these tissues outside the human body may allow researchers to understand how cancer spreads, as well as identifying new therapies which may prevent it. This bioreactor is a fascinating thing. It lets tissues be cultured in the same way they occur in the human body. If you go into a laboratory and try to do experiments there, quite often the experiment becomes far more two-dimensional because it wants to settle to the bottom of the petri dish. A bioreactor in space, with all the right fluids that simulate the body, allows growth in a 3-D situation. They can be studied better so possible antidotes for them or possible treatments can be put into a culture there that is very similar to what is in the human body. It is not just something that is flattened out in the bottom of an experimental glass in the laboratory. Growing cartilage with the bioreactor is another potential application. An application of the bioreactor is culturing cartilage tissue for replacement and transplantation. Experiments with the bioreactor and space indicates it can successfully culture cartilage tissue that is quite similar to human cartilage. I use these few examples today just to illustrate that they are very, very practical and very, very useful for our future on Earth. The international space station will make it possible to continue some of the same experiments for longer periods of time. I know that every year when we have the budget battles on the floor, we have attempts made to cut out some of the money for the international space station, which would cut out some of the scientific inquiry that we otherwise would be able to perform. Let me talk about it very briefly. NASA has already had some 1,000 or more proposals per year for ground-based and flight investigations involving the international space station project. Selection of principal investigators and commercial developers is beginning this year for flights starting in 1999, and this population will increase from 650 to 850 principal investigators and from 100 to 200 industrial affiliates by the time the station assembly is complete. About 650 life and microgravity sciences principal investigators are now participating at over 100 institutions of higher learning around the country, and the number of investigators is expected to grow to over 850 before assembly is completed. These researchers, in turn, employ about 1,400 graduate students at present, with that number expected to grow. What are they looking into? Well, a number of different areas, and I won't be able to go into all of them today. Biotechnology with an x ray diffraction system, for instance. Microgravity allows researchers to produce superior protein crystals, which I mentioned a moment ago, for drug development and to grow three-dimensional tissues, including cancer tumors, for research and cartilage for possible transplant. The long-term benefits: to provide information to design a new class of drugs to target specific proteins and cure specific diseases; to culture tissue for use in cancer research and surgery in bone and cartilage injury. Another area that can be looked into on the international space station also is in the area of materials science. Researchers use low gravity to advance our understanding of the relationships among the structure, the processing and the properties of physical materials. The long-term benefits: We advance the understanding of processes for manufacturing semiconductors, metals, ceramics, polymers, and other materials. We also determine fundamental physical properties of molten metal, semiconductors, and other materials with precision impossible on Earth. There are a number of people involved in this, people from the State University of New York, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and MIT up in Boston. Researchers indicate great progress from this new research tool in having projects in space in microgravity. Another area being looked into, and this one is a fascinating one, is combustion science, fluids and combustion facility, glove-box experiments, as they are called. Scientists are using low gravity to simplify the study of complex combustion processes, burning processes. Since combustion is used to produce 85 percent of Earth's energy, even small improvements in efficiency will have large environmental and economic benefits. The long-term benefits: Improved control of combustion emissions and pollutants reduce risk from incineration of hazardous wastes and enhance efficiency of combustion processes. These are only highlights of some of the prestation research that have already occurred. Dr. Robert Cheng and Dr. Larry Kostiuk, combustion science researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory under contract to NASA, were awarded a patent for a ring flame stabilizer, which significantly reduces pollution from natural gas burners. Fitted into an off-the-shelf home heating surface, the device reduces nitrogen oxide emissions by a factor of 10 by increasing efficiency by 2 percent, and the device can be readily sized to industrial scales. That kind of experiment will continue on the space station. ``Almost every chapter in the combustion textbooks will be rewritten as a result of the microgravity work,'' said Prof. Howard Palmer, professor emeritus at Penn State University. And other statements by other scientists say the same thing. Furthermore, the international space station will continue research into fundamental physics. Scientists use low gravity to test fundamental theories of physics with degrees of accuracy that far exceed the capacity of earthbound science. Physics and low gravity expand our understanding of changes in the state of matter, including those changes responsible for high-temperature superconductivity. The long-term benefits will challenge and expand our theories of how matter organizes as it changes state, and that is especially important in understanding superconductivity and its advantages. We can also test the theory of relativity with precision beyond the capacity of earthbound science. Scientists will study gravity's influence on the development, the growth and the internal processes of plants and animals, and their results expand fundamental knowledge to benefit medical, agricultural, and other industries. The long-term benefits will improve the overall health of people of all ages. It can improve plants for agriculture and for forestry, and we will gain an advanced understanding of cell behavior. Biomedical research in space will provide unique insights into such things as how the heart and lungs function, the growth and maintenance of muscle and bone, perception cognition, and balance, the whole area of neuroscience, and the regulation of the body's many systems, called regulatory physiology. The long-term benefits will assist in developing methods to keep humans healthy in low-gravity environments for long, long periods of time; advance new fields of research in the treatment of diseases; enhance medical understanding of the role of force on bone in disease processes, including osteoporosis; advance fundamental understanding of the brain and nervous system and help develop new methods to prevent and treat various neurological disorders. These are the long-term benefits. I quote a friend and one of the most respected surgeons in this country--as a matter of fact, in the world--Dr. Michael DeBakey, chancellor and chairman of the department of surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, who said: The space station is not a luxury any more than a medical research center at Baylor College of Medicine is a luxury. Present technology on the shuttle allows for stays in space of only about 2 weeks. We do not limit medical researchers to only few hours in the laboratory and expect cures for cancer. We need much longer missions in space--in months to years--to obtain research results that may lead to the development of new knowledge and breakthroughs. We also can either look out into space or, from an observation point in space aboard a spacecraft, the international space station, look back toward Earth. That is planned with the Earth Observation and Space Science, the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, and SAGE to be deployed in 2001. The space station will be a unique platform with multiple exterior attach points from which to observe the Earth and the universe. Conceptualized by Nobel prizewinning scientist Dr. Sam Ting, of MIT, the alpha magnetic spectrometer experiment will search the universe for antimatter and ``dark'' matter in an attempt to prove cosmological theory with direct evidence. Also, the stratospheric aerosol and gas experiment, SAGE-III, will also be delivered. It will obtain global profiles of aerosols, ozone, water vapor, and oxides in order to determine their role in climatological processes. It will allow cross-correlation of observations from SAGE's I and II at different latitudes and different time periods. I cite these examples to briefly indicate what a wide variety of scientific effort will go on with the international space station. Now, let me address these next remarks to two sets of people who may be watching or listening here today. How many of you are over 60 years of age? If you are not over 60 years of age I know that each of you hopes to live to be 60 or older. What I am about to say I believe is very relevant to you. For several years now NASA and the National Institute on Aging, which is part of the National Institutes of Health, have been working on some projects looking at what happens to astronauts in space. I became intrigued with this, and I have long been interested in issues associated with our aging population. In fact, when I first came to the Senate--I was sworn in in January 1975--I asked to be assigned to the Special Committee on Aging because I thought there was so much work needed to be done. Today, we find an aging population sometimes referred to as the graying of nations. I conducted hearings years ago on the graying of nations, and then had additional Governmental Affairs Committee hearings in New York called the Graying of Nations II. Dr. Robert Butler assisted in putting together those hearings. He was the first Director of the National Institute on Aging and did a superb job in getting that whole agency started. Nearly 45 million Americans today are 60 years of age or older. The demographic experts tell us that that is projected to grow to about 100 million over the next 50 years, by the year 2050. NASA has begun to formally explore the similarities between the aging process and what happens to astronauts in microgravity. There are physical changes that occur in space and the National Institute on Aging has been very interested in and has worked with NASA to review these changes. They are in the process now of coming up with very specific proposals as specific experiments. But there is a great similarity between what happens to astronauts in the short term--it starts 3 to 5 days after they have been up there on current missions--and what happens to the elderly right here on Earth by the normal process of aging. This is fascinating because of the similarities in osteoporosis, for instance, changes in bone density, changes in orthostatic intolerance--in other words, the ability of the body to keep blood in the upper part of the body so you do not just black out--the vestibular and balance problems, sleep disturbances, decrease in muscle strength, the decrease in immune response, and similar changes in cardiac activity and blood glucose. Now, these changes occur in the younger astronauts in space right when they go up today. They occur during the first 3 to 5 days, or are noticeable, as I understand them, in the tests that have been run. At the end of the flight when they come back to Earth, the younger astronauts return to normal, their bodies recover, their bone structure is basically reformed again. They recover from it. Now, in the elderly here on Earth there is not that same kind of recovery. But what the National Institute on Aging and NIH is looking into with NASA is to propose experiments to see what happens if you did put an older person into space. What would happen? Would the changes that happen to the younger astronauts be additive to the older astronaut or would that person be semi-immune from those same changes? Would the change be to the same degree? What happens when you come back to Earth again? With these changes, would the older astronaut recover as fast as the younger ones? If not, why not? In other words, the questions being asked are basically what triggers these different systems and why do they change? Why do they change in microgravity? Why do they change in orbit? Would they change the same for an older person as they do for the younger people? I think this is a fascinating field. I am very hopeful that NASA and NIA will formalize this program primarily for the potentially enormous benefit that may come from it for hundreds of millions of people, not just people in this country, but people literally all over the world, and also because I can think of no more powerful and essentially untapped constituency for human research in space than the elderly. I will say a few words about the importance of international cooperation in space research, also. If you had told me some 35 years ago when I made my flight back in 1962 that in June 1997, a U.S. astronaut would be beginning the 16th month of continuous U.S. presence on a Russian space station, I certainly would not have believed it. As a veteran of the cold war and the space race, I guess I could not be more pleased to see this kind of progress. Obviously, there is tremendous symbolic value when former enemies work together cooperatively. But symbolism isn't the most important reason we cooperate. Again, it gets back to basic research. The quality of research is going to improve if we have the best and the brightest from 15 nations working on a project. The shuttle-Mir program, also called phase I of the international space station, is a perfect example of the benefits of such cooperation. As many of you know, this program consists of nine shuttle-Mir docking missions. The program is helping both the United States and Russia learn countless valuable lessons which will be put to use on the international space station. Now, obviously, the Mir space station has been having problems. We are aware of those from the daily news. Some problems are due to aging components of the station; some may have been due to crew or ground control errors. We will see what NASA and the Russian space agency leadership will recommend. Usually, for both the Russians and the Americans, space operations have been nearly flawless. For example, just a few days ago, the crew of STS-89 returned from a 16-day science mission which appears to have exceeded all expectations for scientific data. I would like to remind people of two things. First, space travel and research is still a risky and technologically complex undertaking. Things do not always go right. We are dealing with new fields of power and speed. There are going to be times when things do not always go right. So it would be completely inappropriate for us at the first sign of serious trouble to cut and run. Second, NASA emphasizes safety above all else. No one has ever intentionally put our astronauts in unsafe or hazardous conditions. Quite the opposite. I know from firsthand experience our astronauts are trained to handle emergencies of all sorts that can be foreseen. Some have suggested that before we send another astronaut to Mir, NASA must certify to Congress that it has done everything possible to make it safe. I find that an insult to NASA, because that has been their primary objective all the way through the whole program. For Congress to require that NASA had to certify it has done everything possible to make it safe before we would have another astronaut sent to Mir was about as unnecessary as anything I have seen since I have been around here. I think such a certification would be an insult to the men and women who work on this program every day. No one at NASA intentionally ever takes risks with people's lives. But space flight is risky, and we have to accept that. I do not know whether people realize the speeds involved up there. I meet with school groups quite often. I find them amazed when you say, well, we have to travel nearly 18,000 miles an hour just to stay in orbit up there. That is true. But that is such a large number, it does not mean much until you ask the same students, ``What is 5 miles from your school? Is the mall 5 miles from your home?'' It seems the mall has an attraction for a lot of the young people these days. To make that 5 miles trip in a spacecraft would take just 1 second. To stay in orbit you are traveling about 4.8 miles per second--per second. And when you come back in and start hitting the atmosphere again with the spacecraft, there is tremendous heat buildup just from the friction of the atmosphere, ionized layers out ahead that get up around 9,000 or 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and surface temperatures of, say, somewhere around 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit. We confront many challenges we have come to take for granted almost that we can meet the challenge successfully. We have done it amazingly successfully throughout the history of the space program. It has not been perfect. So to think that it is going to be perfect is just a wish. Even if we were forced to curtail the Mir activity, we have already learned a tremendous amount from the seven shuttle flights that have been made to that station. Let me just enumerate a few of the accomplishments. Most importantly, we have conducted countless joint science experiments in a variety of disciplines. American astronauts have maintained a continuous presence in space for nearly 470 days. We have successfully conducted six shuttle-Mir docking missions, with three more missions for the future. Russian and American engineers, astronauts and cosmonauts, in performing joint operations, have developed mutual understanding in originally dissimilar design philosophies and established close rapport between counterparts of the two different cultures. That is important for the future. We have learned to plan and execute a typical shuttle mission to a space station. We have verified and developed rendezvous and docking procedures. We have conducted joint ground and mission control operations. We have learned to transport and exchange supplies. We have developed joint extra-vehicular activities. We are testing schedules for long-duration Mir and short-duration shuttle crew work rest cycles during the docked and undocked phases of missions. We are jointly resolving safety and acceptance testing differences. And we are developing in-flight training protocols. Most importantly, we are working together on joint research projects. These accomplishments place us in an excellent position for initiating and conducting the assembly and subsequent operation of the international space station with reduced risk, with greater confidence and reduced learning curve expenditures in time and costs. The only other way to gain this experience would be to wait until assembly of the ISS and then learn, and that is a little late. Now all of this is leading up to construction and operation of the international space station. Let me show just a couple of charts here. This effort will be the largest peacetime international science collaboration in the history of this world. These international partners will include Canada, Japan, Russia, Britain, Italy, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. On-orbit weight will be 470 tons, and almost 20 percent of that, over 85 tons, of hardware has already been built. This is an example of one piece of hardware now, one of the modules right here. When built it will have some 43,000 cubic feet of pressurized volume, which is the equivalent of a 747. When you think about the number of scientific breakthroughs that can come from such an orbiting laboratory as this, it is sort of mind boggling. I want to remind everyone of the critical importance of spreading the word about the benefits of human space flight. I hope staffs listening in the offices as well as Senators may go back to our communities in our States and find new outlets or organizations which may not have considered the significant impact which space research has had and could have and will have on their lives. If we can just invigorate and sustain such an effort I am very confident that the shuttle Mir and the international space station will merely be steppingstones to a much greater future. I have asked NASA to put together, if they can, a compilation of the of the scientific research projects that have gone on on each one of those shuttle flights. I hope I can get that this evening so we can put that in the Record tomorrow because I think it will show the diverse nature of the scientific experiments, some of the breakthroughs that have occurred because of those experiments, and I think that is the best way to show what has happened in the shuttle program and the potential that gives for the international space station. We have some other pictures of the space station that is already put together and is being worked on. This shows a technician working on this particular hatch. This shows two of the modules here that are already built, already tested out, and we have one unit that is undergoing tests down at the cape right now. This shows another view of what is being done. This is not something that is theoretical into the future. It is being done right now. This is a picture of some of the testing area where the hardware is being checked out. The hardware is roughly, as I said, almost 20 percent complete right now. Now, that 470 tons will be the final size of the vehicle once it is up there. I see this as an extension of the best that our country has to offer in the way of science and research and the questing nature of our people that have given us a standard of civilization beyond anything the world has ever seen. We have been a Nation that did not just say we will live on the Atlantic shore on the coastal plain. We moved beyond that to the Ohio River, to the Mississippi and on to the Plains. I read into the Record last year, and I may bring it to the floor again tomorrow, the statement by Daniel Webster, who for all his other brilliance was a skeptic, sometimes, and had a rather myopic vision. When they were considering buying lands west of the Mississippi from Spain or Mexico, Daniel Webster was against it and he rose and said words to the effect of ``What use can this area west of the Mississippi be, this area of cactus and prairie dogs, of blowing sand, of mountains with snow, impenetrable snow, to their base? Mr. President, I will not vote 1 cent from the public Treasury to move the Pacific coast 1 inch nearer Boston than it now is.'' That may show somewhat of a myopic view of even such a learned person as Daniel Webster, but it does. And that is repeated somewhat today by people who say, ``What is the possible value of this?'' The possible value is clear in just a few of the things I have mentioned here today. We have whole catalogs that have come out, things that have benefited science, research, medicine, and engineering in this country, and they are continuing. That is what this is about. For the first time we will have some 15 nations involved in an international space station, working together instead of preparing to fight each other, working together using the best brains out of each of those countries to do research that is of benefit to people all over this Earth. That is the importance of it. Some years ago when people would rise on this floor and say what possible benefit can it be, we now have a good story to tell them. It is a success story that every single American can be very, very proud of. I am happy to be supporting the station. I presume we will have some amendments proposed on the floor that will change some of the program and the way it is outlined. I hope we will not approve those. I think the program has been revamped now. It is very well thought out. It is being done at about the cheapest we can possibly do it and still keep safety paramount, which is No. 1. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record a paper, ``Microgravity Research and Exploration'' provided by the NASA Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications.

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

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. How are we to interpret such activities? Should we just write them off as due to India's own irresponsible nuclear and missile programs? Is it due to the so-called inevitability of proliferation? No, indeed, we need to redouble our efforts to roll back both countries' programs. Above all, we should not be engaging in acts that can reasonably be interpreted as rewards for proliferation. I do not myself see this legislation as a reward for proliferation and do not believe that its sponsors, including its supporters in the Administration, so view it. But I worry more about how others will perceive it, particularly those in Pakistan and in the various ministries of other countries that may be working on clandestine projects to develop weapons of mass destruction. How far can Uncle Sam be pushed when it comes to avoiding sanctions against the bomb? If past is prologue, it appears that the unfortunate answer is, pretty far indeed. Through this legislation, America has now made a gesture--based more on hope than on experience--that the Government and people of Pakistan will interpret as they wish. I hope they will recognize that America is sincere about its global commitments to nuclear and missile nonproliferation. I hope they recognize that America remains determined to pursue vigorously these commitments not only in Pakistan, but also in India, and indeed, wherever such illicit programs may exist. I also hope--as the profound direct and indirect costs mount of maintaining these dangerous nuclear and missile programs--that the Government and people of Pakistan will come in due course to realize that there is a more rational course to follow and a new day will dawn. It is a course charted by the governments and people of South Africa, Brazil, Sweden, Switzerland, South Korea, Taiwan, Germany, Japan, and numerous other countries that individually reached their own decisions that their latent nuclear weapons options are just not worth the substantial national security and economic costs of exercising those options. Make no mistake about it: cost assessments have been and will continue to be crucial to national leaders around the world in making such decisions. We will not come any closer to witnessing the dawn of that new day, however, if we continue on our current course of incrementally weakening the costs we impose for proliferation where it occurs. I remain concerned that while today's step is quite modest and incremental, the overall tendency is one that is suggestive of a weakening of America's resolve to pursue vigorously its key nonproliferation goals. Last week we gave the Senate's blessing to the disposal of licensing requirements for computers that were used in making hydrogen bombs. Today we loosen sanctions on Pakistan despite its ongoing nuclear and missile programs. Where will this process lead tomorrow? That is the question that remains unanswered by today's legislation. It is a question that I surely hope is on the minds of each Member of Congress and the relevant offices in the Executive. Indeed, this is a question that should be on the minds of all Americans. Exhibit 1 U.S. Aid Policies and Pakistan's Bomb: What Were We Trying to Accomplish? Letters to Congress from Presidents Reagan & Bush, 1985- 1989, required under sec. 620(e) of Foreign Assistance Act (Pressler Amendment)--``The proposed United States assistance program for Pakistan remains extremely important in reducing the risk that Pakistan will develop and ultimately possess such a device. I am convinced that our security relationship and assistance program are the most effective means available for us to dissuade Pakistan from acquiring nuclear explosive devices. Our assistance program is designed to help Pakistan address its substantial and legitimate security needs, thereby both reducing incentives and creating disincentives for Pakistani acquisition of nuclear explosives.''--President George Bush, 10/5/89; President Ronald Reagan, 11/18/88; 12/ 17/87; 10/27/86; & 11/25/85. President George Bush, letter to Congress (addressed to J. Danforth Quayle as President of the Senate), 12 April 1991, urging abandonment of Pressler certification requirement: ``. . . my intention is to send the strongest possible message to Pakistan and other potential proliferators that nonproliferation is among the highest priorities of my Administration's foreign policy, irrespective of whether such a policy is required by law.'' Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Teresita Schaffer, testimony before House subcommittee, 2 August 1989: ``None of the F-16's Pakistan already owns or is about to purchase is configured for nuclear delivery . . . a Pakistan with a credible conventional deterrent will be less motivated to purchase a nuclear weapons capability.'' Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Arthur Hughes, testimony before House subcommittee, 2 August 1989: ``Finally, we believe that past and continued American support for Pakistan's conventional defense reduces the likelihood that Pakistan will feel compelled to cross the nuclear threshold.'' Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Robert Peck, testimony before House subcommittee, 17 February 1988: ``We believe that the improvements in Pakistan's conventional military forces made possible by U.S. assistance and the U.S. security commitment our aid program symbolizes have had a significant influence on Pakistan's decision to forego the acquisition of nuclear weapons.'' Special Ambassador at Large Richard Kennedy, testimony before two House subcommittees, 22 October 1987: ``We have made it clear that Pakistan must show restraint in its nuclear program if it expects us to continue providing security assistance.'' Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy, testimony before Senate subcommittee, 18 March 1987: ``Our assistance relationship is designed to advance both our non- proliferation and our strategic objectives relating to Afghanistan. Development of a close and reliable security partnership with Pakistan gives Pakistan an alternative to nuclear weapons to meet its legitimata security needs and strengthens our influence on Pakistan's nuclear decision making. Shifting to a policy of threats and public ultimata would in our view decrease, not increase our ability to continue to make a contribution to preventing a nuclear arms race in South Asia. Undermining the credibility of the security relationship with the U.S. would itself create incentives for Pakistan to ignore our concerns and push forward in the direction of nuclear weapons acquisition.'' Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Howard Schaffer, testimony before House subcommittee, 6 February 1984: ``The assistance program also contributes to U.S. nuclear non- proliferation goals. We believe strongly that a program of support which enhances Pakistan's sense of security helps remove the principal underlying incentive for the acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability. The Government of Pakistan understands our deep concern over this issue. We have made clear that the relationship between our two countries, and the program of military and economic assistance on which it rests, are ultimately inconsistent with Pakistan's development of a nuclear explosives device. President Zia has stated publicly that Pakistan will not manufacture a nuclear explosives device.'' Special Ambassador at Large Richard Kennedy, testimony before two House subcommittees, 1 November 1983: ``By helping friendly nations to address legitimate security concerns, we seek to reduce incentives for the acquisition of nuclear weapons. The provision of security assistance and the sale of military equipment can be major components of efforts along these lines. Development of security ties to the U.S. can strengthen a country's confidence in its ability to defend itself without nuclear weapons. At the same time, the existence of such a relationship enhances our credibility when we seek to persuade that country to forego [sic] nuclear arms . . . We believe that strengthening Pakistan's conventional military capability serves a number of important U.S. interests, including non-proliferation. At the same time, we have made clear to the government of Pakistan that efforts to acquire nuclear explosives would jeopardize our security assistance program.'' Statement by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Harry Marshall, 12 September 1983, before International Nuclear Law Association, San Francisco: ``U.S. assistance has permitted Pakistan to strengthen its conventional defensive capability. This serves to bolster its stability and thus reduce its motivation for acquiring nuclear explosives.'' President Ronald Reagan, report to Congress pursuant to sec. 601 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act (``601 Report''), for calendar year 1982--``Steps were taken to strengthen the U.S. security relationship with Pakistan with the objective of addressing that country's security needs and thereby reducing any motivation for acquiring nuclear explosives.'' President Ronald Reagan, report to Congress pursuant to sec. 601 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act (``601 Report''), for calendar year 1981--``Military assistance by the United States and the establishment of a new security relationship with Pakistan should help to counteract its possible motivations toward acquiring nuclear weapons . . . Moreover, help from the United States in strengthening Pakistan's conventional military capabilities would offer the best available means for counteracting possible motivations toward acquiring nuclear weapons.'' Assistant Secretary of State James Malone, address before Atomic Industrial Forum, San Francisco, 1 December 1981: ``We believe that this assistance--which is in the strategic interest of the United States--will make a significant contribution to the well-being and security of Pakistan and that it will be recognized as such by that government. We also believe that, for this reason, it offers the best prospect of deterring the Pakistanis from proceeding with the testing or acquisition of nuclear explosives.'' Undersecretary of State James Buckley, testimony before Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 12 November 1981: ``We believe that a program of support which provides Pakistan with a continuing relationship with a significant security partner and enhances its sense of security may help remove the principal underlying incentive for the acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability. With such a relationship in place we are hopeful that over time we will be able to persuade Pakistan that the pursuit of a weapons capability is neither necessary to its security nor in its broader interest as an important member of the world community.'' Testimony of Undersecretary of State, James Buckley, in response to question from Sen. Glenn, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 12 November 1981, on effects of a nuclear detonation on continuation of cash sales of F-16's: ``[Sen. Glenn] . . . so if Pakistan detonates a nuclear device before completion of the F-16 sale, will the administration cut off future deliveries? ``[Buckley] Again, Senator, we have underscored the fact that this would dramatically affect the relationship. The cash sales are part of that relationship. I cannot see drawing lines between the impact in the case of a direct cash sale versus a guaranteed or U.S.-financed sale.'' Undersecretary of State James Buckley, letter to NY Times, 25 July 1981: ``In place of the ineffective sanctions on Pakistan's nuclear program imposed by the past Administration, we hope to address through conventional means the sources of insecurity that prompt a nation like Pakistan to seek a nuclear capability in the first place.'' Exhibit 2 [From Nucleonics Week, April 24, 1997] PAEC Official Says China Will Make Key Parts, Finish Chashma by 1999 (By Mark Hibbs) Tokyo.--Pakistan's first imported PWR will be finished by the end of 1998, and contain equipment which China imported for its prototype PWR at Qinshan but which Chinese firms have since learned to make, according to Parvez Butt, a member of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC). Butt described the 300-MW PWR at Chashma as 70% complete in terms of both cost and equipment installed. Still to be installed are reactor internals. For Qinshan-1, the reactor vessel and internals and steam generator tubing were manufactured in Japan, Germany, France, Sweden, and Britain. At that time, Western industry firms involved in making the equipment claimed that China did not have the metallurgical know-how needed to make all the equipment needed to replicate the plant in Pakistan (NW, 6 Feb. '92, 2). South Korean officials said in 1995 that Korea Heavy Industry & Construction Co. Ltd. (KHIC) had been approached to make the vessel, since it is already manufacturing vessels for China's larger indigenous PWRs at Qinshan, but the idea was dropped when Seoul applied to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NW, 28 Sept. '95, 1). Butt said that the pressure vessel for Chashma-1 was made at a factory in northern China and has been undergoing testing since October. Butt said the vessel would be ``ready soon'' and would conform to international quality standards. According to French industry sources, China sought to make larger pressure vessels for the next French-supplied PWRs to be build in Guangdong Province, but experts at Framatome refused, citing quality concerns. The steam generators for Chashma-1 will be made by Shanghai Boiler Works, and Shanghai Turbine Works will make the turbine generator. The unit's two main circulation pumps will also be provided by Chinese firms. Instrumentation and control (I&C) equipment is of Chinese design, Butt said, and will be manufactured by Chinese firms in Shanghai and Beijing. Butt said China will also provide the first core and three reloads, using Chinese uranium enriched and fabricated into fuel in China. China has trained about 150 Pakistani operating and maintenance personnel at Qinshan, Butt said. Pakistan industry input to the Chashma project has been limited to some auxiliary equipment such as decontamination tanks in the liquid waste treatment system. According to Butt, Pakistan paid cash for all the Chinese input to the Chashma project. Financing for a second Chinese unit there, he said, has ``not yet been arranged.''

Mr. GLENN. I would like to remind my colleagues that most United States economic and military aid to Pakistan was cut off in October 1990 by President George Bush, when he was no longer able to certify that Pakistan did not possess nuclear weapons or that the provision of further United States aid would reduce the risk that Pakistan would come to possess such weapons. That language, found in the Pressler amendment, sec. 620E(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act, has been substantially relaxed in recent years, in part by the actions of Congress, and in part by actions taken unilaterally by the Executive. Let me review briefly just how far America has gone already to relax these sanctions. The Brown amendment, which was enacted in February 1996, amended the Pressler amendment to allow the provision of all types of economic assistance, notwithstanding Pakistan's continuing non-compliance with the Pressler criteria. In addition to allowing the transfer of over a third-of-a-billion dollars of embargoed military gear to Pakistan-- including spare parts and upgrades for Pakistan's probable nuclear- weapons delivery vehicle, the F-16--the Brown amendment also unconditionally authorized the resumption of the following aid: international narcotics controls; military-to-military contacts, including IMET; humanitarian and civic assistance projects; peacekeeping and other multilateral operations; antiterrorism assistance; an exemption from storage costs for embargoed military equipment; and delivery of military items sent to the United States for repair before the 1990 sanctions. For its sponsors, the Brown amendment suffered from one rather serious problem, however. That amendment failed to recognize that Pakistan was still in violation of the Symington amendment, sec. 101 of the Arms Export Control Act, and the likelihood of presidential waiver of the latter was extremely remote, in light of Pakistan's continued violations of that law. In short, because the Brown amendment neither repealed nor amended the Symington amendment, the Symington amendment continues to outlaw the provision of aid under the Arms Export Control Act or the Foreign Assistance Act to Pakistan. That is why the present amendment is being offered--it is being offered to liberalize the sanctions under the Symington amendment. I note that the International Financial Institutions Act only requires U.S. executive officers at those institutions merely ``to consider'' the nonproliferation credentials of the potential recipient country, and hence this does not prohibit continued aid via such institutions. Pakistan has received hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance from such institutions since October 1990. The Export-Import Bank Act only requires the denial of credits in the event of violations of safeguards or a US nuclear cooperation agreement; nuclear detonations; or persons or countries that willfully aid and abet non-nuclear-weapon states to get the bomb. A host of other legislative amendments have authorized the provision of the following forms of assistance to Pakistan, notwithstanding existing nuclear sanctions, via nongovernmental organizations: agricultural, rural development, and nutrition; population and health; education and human resources development; energy; appropriate technology; use of cooperatives in development; integrating women into national economies; human rights; environment and natural resources; endangered species; and private and voluntary organizations. So America has not been heartless to the lot of Pakistan's vast majority, its poor people. We have over the years provided billions of dollars of assistance intended to improve the living conditions of the people of Pakistan. Our grievance today is not with the people of Pakistan but with their Government. It arises in particular from the awesome and growing credibility gap between the peaceful words of Pakistan's leaders about their country's nuclear program, and the certain fact that Pakistan is continuing to develop nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Now some might argue that we should simply be grateful that Pakistan is not detonating nuclear weapons right now. We should rejoice that Pakistan is not transferring its bombs, bomb designs, or bomb components--right now anyway--to other countries. We should be happy that Pakistan has not yet imported a complete nuclear reprocessing plant or uranium enrichment plant from China, and be grateful that it is only technical assistance and components that Pakistan has received for its bomb program from China. By golly, we should celebrate the fact that Pakistan does not yet have an ICBM, or that it has not yet attacked Indian civilian or military positions with nuclear weapons hung under the wings of United States-supplied F-16 aircraft. Yes, we can surely be grateful for all the above restraint. But maybe, just maybe, all of this heroic nuclear restraint that Pakistan has exercised is due in good measure to the real and palpable costs that Pakistan would pay if it engaged in any of those flagrant activities--costs that include, but are no means limited to, the costs that are found in existing United States sanctions legislation. We must examine, however, not just at what Pakistan has not done, but also recall what Pakistan has done. Here is what Pakistan has done recently: Pakistan has acquired thousands of specially-designed ring magnets for its unsafeguarded uranium enrichment project, and reportedly acquired them just about the time the United States Congress was debating the Brown amendment in 1995. Pakistan's actions make a mockery not just of the Brown amendment, but also of America's nuclear nonproliferation policy as a whole. Pakistan is nearing completion of an unsafeguarded plutonium production capability with its production reactor at Khushab and, by some reports, a related nuclear reprocessing plant. Pakistan has in the eyes of most of the world, but evidently not yet those in our own State Department, acquired nuclear-capable M-11 missiles from China, and recently test-fired its HATF missile. On March 20, 1997, the trade publication, Nucleonics Week, reported that ``Pakistan has completed its tests of its atomic bomb capability successfully through computer simulation.'' This claim was made by one who should know, Pakistan's former Army Chief of Staff, Mirza Aslam Beg, and comes as a particularly bitter reminder of the Senate's unfortunate decision last week to vote down a proposal by my colleagues, Messrs. Cochran and Durbin, to tighten up export controls over high-powered computers going to Pakistan and other risky countries. In June 1997, the CIA Director sent to Congress an unclassified report on global weapons proliferation in the last 6 months of 1996-- Report entitled: ``The Acquisition of Technology Related to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions: July- December 1996''. Here is what the report had to say about Pakistan: Pakistan was very aggressive in seeking out equipment, material, and technology for its nuclear weapons program, with China as its principal supplier. Pakistan also sought a wide variety of nuclear-related goods from many Western nations, including the United States. China also was a major supplier to Pakistan's ballistic missile program, providing technology and assistance. Of note, Pakistan has made strong efforts to acquire an indigenous capability in missile production technologies. The report also said that, The Chinese provided a tremendous variety of assistance to both Iran's and Pakistan's ballistic missile programs. Needless to say, these are some of the key findings from just one recent unclassified U.S. government report, perhaps the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record at the end of my remarks copies of some of these relevant reports.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the amendment offered by my colleagues, Messrs. Harkin and Warner, which would authorize the resumption of certain forms of economic assistance and military training activities with Pakistan. The amendment would allow the provision of assistance by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation [OPIC], the resumption of military training activities, and certain other trade and democratic assistance to Pakistan. This aid had been terminated due to Pakistan's continued inability to keep its many promises and assurances to the United States concerning the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. The amendment would resume this specific assistance and do so unconditionally. I used the word, ``unconditionally.'' That means, the assistance could continue in the future to flow even if Pakistan acquired new uranium enrichment assistance from China or transferred its own technology to some other country. The aid could flow if Pakistan detonated a nuclear device or transferred nuclear weapons designs or components to some other country. The aid could flow if Pakistan once again attempts to violate United States nuclear export control laws by acquiring nuclear equipment or materials for its bomb program. The aid could flow if Pakistan starts the unsafeguarded production of plutonium, an activity that may soon commence with the completion of its production reactor at Khushab. The aid could flow, in short, with no expectation whatsoever that such aid would be accompanied by further progress in restraining Pakistan's bomb program. And in so flowing, the aid could help Pakistan--albeit in a restricted way--to alleviate the burdens of United States nuclear sanctions. In other words, America could be helping Pakistan to cope with United States nuclear sanctions, rather than signaling our fundamental national conviction in policy and in law that proliferation must have a price. Instead of making proliferators pay, we could be issuing special rewards for proliferation. The key here is obviously the word, ``could''. The President would be left, under this legislation, with the delegated responsibility of determining whether the continuation of U.S. assistance in the face of any of the activities above would truly serve the U.S. national interest. And I for one surely cannot imagine any circumstance where such a determination could be made. Yet I hope that this amendment will not send the entire world exactly the wrong message about America's commitment to nonproliferation. The amendment must not suggest that America has lost the political will to keep nonproliferation as a key national security policy in our dealings with other countries. It must not signal that our country is more concerned with promoting its opportunities for trade and investment than it is about curtailing the global spread of nuclear weapons. It must not indicate that countries can make--and then systematically break--solemn promises to the United States concerning matters of profound importance to regional and international security, and do so without jeopardizing the flow of much-desired U.S. foreign assistance. Now all of us here today are familiar with the notion that America should engage Pakistan by providing increased United States assistance as a means of restraining its nuclear program. It would not be the first time that members of the Senate or the Executive had argued that additional military or economic aid would serve as a valuable instrument of nonproliferation. But I do not believe that the sponsors of this amendment today would sincerely make such an argument. We simply cannot turn a blind eye to history. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert at the end of my remarks a list of statements concerning the alleged value of United States foreign assistance as a tool of nuclear restraint in Pakistan. I urge my colleagues to read a few of such assurances that United States officials provided to Congress throughout the decade of the 1980's, the very decade, lest we forget, that Pakistan crossed its most significant milestones on its march to the bomb.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I am pleased the committee has adopted an amendment Senator McCain and I have offered which requires the General Services Administration to conduct a Federal screening of property conveyed by the Department of Defense. This amendment also requires that GSA provide Congress with a statement of value for any real property which is conveyed by the Department of Defense. This provision will codify a process which started when I was chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, and which was continued by Senator McCain when he was chairman. I congratulate and thank Senator Inhofe and Senator Robb for accepting this amendment. In previous years, this informal process sought to ensure that taxpayer's interests were partially protected, by conducting an expedited 30-day screen conducted by the General Services Administration for other Federal interest of each proposed land conveyance in the defense authorization bill. Because these land conveyance provisions implicitly waive the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, the committee cannot assure taxpayers that the Federal Government is not seeking to acquire property that is similar to what the legislative provisions are giving away. Now, Mr. President, some have suggested that screening this property for Federal interest is just a bureaucratic procedure that delays the productive use of property which the member in his or her judgment believes to be the best interest of his or her constituents. Others have suggested that this process is a waste of time because the expedited screening policy implemented by Senator McCain and myself never resulted in property being flagged for other Federal use. I would like to address each of these points. First, Federal screening is the law of the land. If Congress, and the Armed Services Committee in particular, believe that it is no longer necessary, the appropriate action is to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act. Now let me explain why Federal screening of excess property makes sense. I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record, at the conclusion of my remarks, a chart provided by the General Services Administration entitled, ``Recent Examples of Excess Real Property Screened by GSA with Federal Agencies and Subsequently Transferred to other Federal Agencies for Continued Federal Use.'' Mr. President, this chart shows why Federal screening of excess property saves taxpayer dollars. The chart lists five examples, including two from the Department of Defense, where excess property from one agency was transferred to another Federal agency as a result of the screening process. The total value of property in these five examples is almost $36 million. What this means, Mr. President, is that the screening process saved Federal taxpayers $36 million because the receiving agencies were able to utilize property which the holding agency no longer needed. I would expect that my colleagues who speak of the importance of balancing the budget and are so-called deficit hawks would be interested in the result of GSA's valuation of these properties. So to conclude, I am pleased that the committee has accepted this amendment. As a result I do not intend to offer the amendment I have filed on the individual land conveyance provisions. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this provision is retained in conference.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to make a few comments concerning S. 936, the fiscal year 1998 national defense authorization bill. I worked this year with my colleague from Indiana, Senator Coats, on the Subcommittee on Airland Forces. This was our first year as chairman and ranking member on the subcommittee and I am pleased that we were able to work together very cooperatively. It was in the spirit of bipartisanship that we reviewed the administration's budget request, the services' so-called wish lists, the testimony of our witnesses and our colleagues' requests for funding of various programs. In our first meeting, we agreed that we would adopt criteria for assessing funding requests, not unlike the criteria Senator McCain and I established in the area of military construction several years ago. Section 1059 of the bill expresses the sense of the Senate that, in considering providing additional funding for the Reserve Component equipment, the Senate look to whether there is a Joint Requirements Oversight Council validated requirement for the equipment, that the equipment is in the Reserve Component's modernization plan and is in the Defense Department's Future Years Defense Program, that the equipment is consistent with the employment and use of the Reserve Component, that the equipment is necessary for the national security of the country, and that additional funds could be obligated in the upcoming fiscal year. Section 1059 expresses the sense of the Senate that these criteria be met to the maximum extent practicable. I appreciate my colleagues' willingness to apply these standards to our funding decisions, so that we can work to make sure we are buying things that we truly need. In accordance with the recent report of the Quadrennial Defense Review, the bill also adds about $150 million in funding for the Army's Force XXI [``21''], a ``digitization'' program that I agree has a great deal of potential. I am a strong supporter of the Army's efforts and I certainly agree that digitization of the battlefield offers tremendously enhanced situational awareness. My concern as we embark on this multibillion dollar effort is that, in our enthusiasm to exploit these technologies to our advantage, we should not ignore the vulnerabilities to which these systems could already succumb. We need to red team this technology--by this, I mean, we need to put ourselves in our adversaries' shoes and think about what our enemies would do to capitalize on our reliance on digitization. Would they jam us, would they spoof us, could they bring the whole system down? I believe that we need to be just as enthusiastic about testing potential vulnerabilities of digitization, because we can bet that our potential adversaries will be trying to undo us. So, we are requiring a report on digitization and I am pleased that, at my request, the report will also outline the Army's plans to address jamming vulnerabilities and to use electronic countermeasures. I will be looking forward to that report, Mr. President. I'd also like to take a moment to discuss one of the most difficult areas in the budget request: funding for tactical aviation programs. The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps will all be modernizing their fighter forces over the course of the next two decades. The good news is the services will field the most modern and the most lethal aircraft in the world, the bad news is that these programs will be extraordinarily expensive. Over the life of the F-22, the F/A-18 E/F and the Joint Strike Fighter programs, we can expect to spend several hundreds of billions of dollars in procurement alone, never mind operations and support costs. Some thought that maybe the QDR would make dramatic changes to these programs, but the QDR essentially revalidated the requirements for these programs with relatively small changes in the number of aircraft to be purchased in the out years--and it is still unclear to me when, or even whether, those cuts in the number of aircraft we will buy are going to generate any meaningful savings. Making decisions on the enormous funding requests associated with these programs would be challenging enough alone, Mr. President, but when they are put in the context of the overall DOD budget and what just about everyone acknowledges is a sizable funding shortfall in future procurement accounts makes this task all the more daunting. The Subcommittee on Airland Forces had several very good hearings on these programs. We had service witnesses, OSD witnesses, CBO, and contractors present testimony on our requirements and our progress in these programs both from a technical risk and a cost standpoint. I have been very concerned that we not repeat mistakes made in the past, where Congress was left in the dark and we ended up with an unacceptably expensive program like the B-2 program. I'll be very candid, Mr. President, I have some strong reservations about what is currently happening in the F-22 program. The program is experiencing a $2 billion overrun in the research and development program, with a risk that there may be sizeable cost growth in the procurement program as well. The Air Force and the contractor assure us that they can absorb these overruns by re-structuring the program and by taking out some preproduction verification aircraft. Some argue that this approach increases concurrency in the program, while the Air Force argues that by slowing down the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the program that they will be able to reduce overall concurrency. I think the jury is still out on that Mr. President, and that we are going to have to watch this program very carefully. Reasonable minds are going to disagree on what the best approach is to addressing this problem. I am afraid that I must disagree with the committee's approach on F-22. The bill before us cuts $500 million out of the program--20 percent of this year's request. I just don't see how taking such a big cut out of the program can address the cost overrun. There's no connection between the two as far as I can tell, and worse than that, I'm concerned that cutting the program will only serve to increase the technical risk. I don't want my colleagues to misunderstand me. I agree that we need to be vigilant in our oversight of the F-22 program and we need to make sure that adequate controls are in place so that we don't end up with runaway costs. But, I think a better way to deal with the situation is to fence the money--put up hurdles that the Air Force must clear before it can have all of the money that's been requested. Once those hurdles have been cleared, the Air Force can move forward with the program as planned. Under the committee bill, even if the Air Force meets every program requirement, they will still be $500 million short at the end of the year--it seems more punitive than remedial, Mr. President. There are some other parts of the bill to which I am adamantly opposed. First, I take strong exception to the section included in the general provisions which would prevent the General Accounting Office [GAO] from conducting any self-initiated audits, under its basic legislative authority, until all other outstanding congressional requests have been completed. This language amends title 31 of the United States Code and is an unwarranted and unjustified intrusion into the jurisdiction of the Committee on Governmental Affairs. It represents a major policy shift in the operation and authority of GAO. One which this committee adopted without any consultation or input from the Governmental Affairs Committee. The Governmental Affairs Committee held an oversight hearing on GAO last Congress. There were several Members on each side of the aisle at that time who served on both committees. I don't recall any Member raising this as an issue or discussing problems regarding GAO's self- initiated audits to light. Moreover, the committee, under my chairmanship, contracted with the National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] to comprehensively review GAO's management and operations. The NAPA study did not identify any problems related to GAO's conduct under their basic legislative authority, nor did it make any recommendations for our consideration on this issue. In fact, quite the contrary. Some analysts thought GAO should perform more, not less, self-initiated audits. In their view, GAO was often subject to rather parochial and narrow Member requests which only drained GAO's time and resources. I would note that GAO currently conducts 80 percent of its work in response to Member requests. A few years ago, it was far more evenly split. Since 1921, the Comptroller General has had broad authority to evaluate programs and investigate on his own initiative all matters relating to the receipt, disbursement, and use of public money. Self- initiated authority has provided GAO the flexibility to pursue critical issues that auditors and investigators uncover in the course of their work. It is essential to the maintenance of generally accepted standards of independence and impartiality. Any restriction of this authority would be akin to us muzzling the auditor. The effect of this provision would be that, for example, work could not proceed on the next set of high risk list reports until all Member requests--just think if a Member requested GAO to examine alien abductions--not only had been staffed, but had been completed. On large jobs, it may take well over a year to do the work. I know from my long service on the Governmental Affairs Committee that Members often disagree with GAO's conclusions on a particular report. That has happened to me more than once. But if we demand objectivity, and I think all of us do, then we must give GAO the independence and authority they need to do the job. We want them to be able to investigate mismanagement or fraud wherever it exists. I regret that this committee did not see fit to consult with GAO's authorizing committee before slipping this provision in a massive bill at the last moment. I know that I, during my chairmanship of the Governmental Affairs Committee, would at least have consulted with the Armed Services Committee if we were going to act on legislation affecting title 10. For these reasons, I will do all I can to strike this provision from this bill and I would hope my colleagues on both committees would join with me. The committee's bill contains five land conveyance provisions-- including one that was added at literally the last minute of the markup--and in their current form I am opposed to each of them. These conveyances are as follows: Section 2813, Land Conveyance Hawthorne Army Ammunition Depot, Mineral County NV. This provision would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, at no cost, 33 acres of real property currently used as Army housing to Mineral County Nevada. Section 2815, Land Conveyance, Topsham Annex Naval Air Station, Brunswick ME. This provision would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey, at no cost to the Maine School Administrative District No. 75, 40 acres or real property including improvements to the property. Section 2816, Land Conveyance Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant No. 464 Oyster Bay, NY. This provision would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey at no cost 110 acres of real property, including equipment, fixtures, special tools, and test equipment all of which comprise the Naval Industrial Reserve Plant No. 464 to the County of Nassau, NY. Section 2817, Land Conveyance Charleston Family Housing Complex, Bangor ME. This provision would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to convey at no cost 20 acres of real property currently used as Air Force housing to the city of Bangor ME. Section 2818, Land Conveyance Ellsworth Air Force Base, SD. This provision would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to convey at no cost 5 parcels of land totalling more than 290 acres to the Greater Box Elder Area Economic Development Corporation in Box Elder, SD. Each of the five parcels of land contains military housing units. I am extremely disappointed that the committee has discontinued a process to evaluate land conveyances which started when I was chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, and which was continued by Senator McCain when he was chairman. This informal process sought to ensure that taxpayer's interests were partially protected, by conducting an expedited 30-day screen conducted by the General Services Administration for other Federal interest of each proposed conveyance. Because these land conveyance provisions waive the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, the committee cannot assure taxpayers that the Federal Government is not seeking to acquire property that is similar to what the legislative provisions are giving away. Now, Mr. President, some have suggested that screening this property for Federal interest is just a bureaucratic procedure that delays the productive use of property which the Member in his or her judgement believes to be the best interest of his or her constituents. Others have suggested that this process is a waste of time because the expedited screening policy implemented by Senator McCain and myself never resulted in property being flagged for other Federal use. I would like to address each of these points. First, Federal screening is the law of the land. If Congress, and the Armed Services Committee in particular, believe that it is no longer necessary, the appropriate action is to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act. It also appears that the intent of several of these conveyances is to get around the McKinney Act which Congress passed to address the needs of the homeless. I think it should be made clear that the McKinney Act has by and large been successful in providing housing to the homeless. If the proponents of these conveyances disagree, they should seek to amend McKinney rather than continually waive it. Now let me explain why Federal screening of excess property makes sense. I refer to a chart provided by the General Services Administration entitled, ``Recent Examples of Excess Real Property Screened by GSA with Federal Agencies and Subsequently Transferred to other Federal Agencies for Continued Federal Use.'' Mr. President this chart shows why Federal screening of excess property saves taxpayer dollars. The chart lists five examples, including two from the Department of Defense, where excess property from one agency was transferred to another Federal agency as a result of the screening process. The total value of property in these five examples is almost $36 million. What this means Mr. President, is that the screening process saved Federal taxpayers $36 million dollars because the receiving agencies were able to utilize property which the holding agency no longer needed. Now I would ask the chairman or ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee whether he can tell me if there is any Federal interest in the property which the committee proposes to give away? I would further ask my friends what harm they see in ensuring that taxpayer's interests are minimally protected by requiring a Federal screen before allowing these conveyances to go forward? Would my colleague consider accepting an amendment for each of the conveyances I have identified that would require a satisfactory Federal screen as a condition of the conveyance? It seems to me that there is the potential with these land conveyances for the taxpayer to lose twice. Once because another Federal agency may have a need for this property. And a second time because we are authorizing the military to give away the property instead of trying to seek a fair market value for it. In the past, when I was chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee we asked the General Services Administration to provide a preliminary estimate of the value of the property which the committee was proposing to give away. I would note that each of the five conveyances included in the committee's bill would convey the property for no consideration. I think, at a minimum, we should at least have a ball park estimate of how much money the Government is losing with these provisions. I would expect that my colleagues who speak of the importance of balancing the budget and are so-called deficit hawks would be interested in the result of GSA's valuation of these properties. To conclude I have asked the GSA to conduct a 30-day screen for each property, and make an estimate, to the extent possible, of the value of each proposed conveyance. I will make this information available to my colleagues as soon as I have it. In addition, I am strongly opposed to the committee's action in raising the budget for the space-based laser by $118 million. Deployment of this dubious star wars holdover would violate the ABM Treaty, cost an exorbitant amount, and not address any real current or anticipated near-term threat to our security. I have similar concerns about the $80 million that the committee is recommending for the antisatellite [ASAT] program. The committee can find $118 for the space based laser and $80 million for ASAT, but is slashing $135 million from one of our most valuable national security programs, the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. The proposal to cut $25 million from the Energy Department's Materials Protection, Control and Accounting [MPC&A] Program, another $50 million from the Department's international nuclear safety program, and $60 million from the CTR program itself--are to me extremely ill-advised. I strongly support the efforts by Senator Bingaman to restore and to increase funds for the MPC&A Program and the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program. Perhaps most extraordinary of all was the committee's agreement to increase the National Missile Defense Program by a whopping $474 million without even first requiring a detailed explanation of how these funds would be spent. The committee's action offers strong evidence of a double standard at work in the current Congress, in which social and environmental programs are being slashed and subjected to congressional micromanagement, while a massive and provocative defense program escapes close congressional scrutiny. The committee is giving all the appearance here of handing the NMD Program a blank check, at the same time another bill, S. 7, would force the President to deploy a NMD system by the year 2003. I regard these actions both as poor defense policy and poor management of the public's funds. Finally, I regret that the committee has acceded to the Department's request to cut end strength further. I understand the rationale that is used to support continued end strength reductions, i.e., to cut end strength in order to generate cash savings that can help pay for modernization programs, and I agree completely that our service-members deserve to have the best and most modern equipment available. However, I do not agree with the approach that we reduce the size of the force to pay for it. We are using the military for peacetime operations as much today as at any time during the cold war. I believe that if we want to continue to deploy a superb and ready force, we cannot cut the size of the force year after year and operate at the same optempo. Even if modernization programs can reduce the manpower needed to conduct wartime or peacetime operations in the long term, in the near term, we still need people to carry out our important worldwide commitments. I am concerned that we are rapidly falling below the manning levels necessary to either conduct our peacetime operations or credibly maintain a combat force capable of carrying out two nearly simultaneous major regional contingencies. Unfortunately, I do not believe it is possible to build a consensus in the Congress to maintain the appropriate size force, which I believe to be about 1.6 million active duty, when the Defense Department, itself, argues that it does not need these personnel and views the savings from end strength reductions as a relatively easy way to fund its weapons programs.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of an amendment offered by my colleagues, Messrs. Cochran and Durbin, to correct a significant deficiency in our export licensing system. I will speak today of the current practice of allowing the export from the United States of high-powered, dual-use computers--machines that until very recently were called supercomputers--without any prior U.S. Government assessment of their end uses or end users. The amendment takes a significant step to correct this problem--not by banning the export of such machines, but merely by requiring exporters to obtain an individual validated export license before exporting them from the United States or reexporting them from elsewhere. The amendment specifically requires a license for the export of computers with a composite theoretical performance level equal to or greater than 2,000 million theoretical operations per second [MTOPS], when such machines are destined to a group of countries that now receive such computers--up to a level of 7,000 MTOPS--without U.S. Government end use or end user checks. The specific group of controlled countries--the so-called ``Tier 3'' countries--is described as follows in the Bureau of Export Administration's Report to Congress for Calendar Year 1996: ``* * * countries posing proliferation, diversion or other security risks.'' So we are dealing here with certain countries that our government, on the basis of all the information at its disposal, has determined pose risks to our security. Some Ancient History This is not the first time I have spoken about the proliferation risks associated with high-powered computers. On October 31, 1989, I spoke of the dangers from supercomputers and super bombs (Congressional Record, 10/31/89, p. S-14382 ff.). On that occasion, I reminded my colleagues of the role computers play in designing nuclear weapons, and this particular application will only grow in importance now that the world appears heading for a ban on all nuclear explosions. Though it is true indeed that countries do not need high-powered computers to build the bomb--witness America's 1945- vintage Fat Man and Little Boy bombs--it is well recognized today that such computers are absolutely essential to developing advanced nuclear weapon designs, including H-bombs, especially when nuclear test explosions are prohibited. These computers are also useful in designing nuclear weapon delivery systems, the full gamut advanced conventional weapons systems, and have other national security applications-- cryptography, for example. Over a decade ago, in January 1986, America's three nuclear weapon labs--the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia National Laboratories--issued an unclassified report aptly titled, ``The Need for Supercomputers in Nuclear Weapons Design.'' The following extracts clearly identify the utility of supercomputers--as defined back in 1986--in the design and improvement of our Nation's nuclear weapons: Large-scale computers are essential to carrying out the weapons program mission. Computers provide essential understanding and enable us to simulate extremely complicated physical processes . . . Computers enable us to evaluate performance and safety over the decades of a weapon system's lifetime . . . computers enable us to verify weapon designs within testing limits. With large-scale computers, we have been able to improve our designs by optimizing design parameters, while reducing the number of costly experiments in the design process . . . Tests involving high explosives have been reduced from 180 tests for a 1955-vintage weapon to fewer than 5 for today's weapons because of computation. Computers enable us to extrapolate to new capabilities . . . it is this computational capability, driven by the needs of the weapons design, that has made possible new concepts and enhanced safety in weapons. The inability to calculate solutions to complex problems [during the years of the Manhattan Project] hampered development and forced weapons designers to build in large margins against error (e.g., large amounts of high explosive, which increased weight to such an extent that some designers were uncertain the devices could actually be carried by existing aircraft) . . . It has been estimated that a team of scientists using the calculators of the 1940s would take five years to solve what it takes a Cray computer one second to perform. Without supercomputers, the nation's nuclear weapons program would be deprived of much of its vitality . . . supercomputing is essential . . . in providing us with a tool to simulate the complex processes going on during a nuclear explosion . . . computers enable us to infer real- environment weapon performance from underground nuclear tests. The computer becomes absolutely essential in the evolution of a design that will survive the ``fratricide'' threat . . . the computer is essential in designing a system whose vulnerability to an ABM attack is reduced to an acceptable level. [Computers] enable the designer to ``test'' ideas before actually committing to hardware fabrication . . . computing capabilities are absolutely critical to progress in new designs. OK, so those were the uses of high-powered computers a decade ago. Obviously, computer technology has grown rapidly--even exponentially-- since that time. This growth has led to much higher computing speeds, more manufacturers, more applications, improved software, and more countries seeking such machines. The growth has been so rapid that many both in and out of Government have come to believe--or appear to have convinced themselves--that this technology is completely uncontrollable. The rapid advancement of this technology has been accompanied by an equally rapid decontrol of some of the very devices we used to make some of the most powerful weapons the world has ever known. The Commerce Department's Bureau of Export Administration, for example, reports in its most recent Annual Report to Congress that--``Due to the 1994 and 1995 liberalization for computers, this commodity group has been replaced by shotguns as being the most significant commodity group for which export license applications were received in fiscal year 1996.'' So it now appears that we are giving closer regulatory attention to shotguns than to a key technology that our top weapons labs have characterized as essential to performing a variety of nuclear-weapons applications. But the supporters of this decontrol effort are not daunted by this news. They have consistently argued that if some other country is exporting high-powered computers without rigorous controls--or without any controls at all--then by golly, so should we, or else we would face the horrible accusation of ``shooting ourselves in the foot'' by denying U.S. manufactures market opportunities that are available to their foreign competitors. If there is evidence of foreign availability, in short, if there is at least one other country out there--whether it be North Korea, or Iran, or China, or any other nation --if just one of these countries decides to cash in on America's restraint, then we should have the same profit-making opportunities. Well, there are a lot of problems with this point of view, some legal, and some political and moral. Let's have a closer look at these problems. The Legal and Political Foundations of Licensing Under our Constitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land. One of our treaties, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 [NPT], explicitly requires America not in any way to assist any non-nuclear weapon state to acquire the bomb. That treaty does not contain any proviso indicating that assistance may be provided if some other country is providing such assistance. It has no loophole allowing such assistance provided though a third party. It contains no codicils exempting the computer industry or any other industrial sector from the duty not in any way to assist the proliferation of nuclear explosive devices. The taboo on assistance is clear and categorical. As well it should be. Indeed, America is quite fortunate that the term ``not in any way'' does not mean ``except in some ways.'' After all, there are 5 nuclear-weapon states today in the NPT and over 175 non-nuclear-weapon states in the world that have ratified or acceded to that treaty. If today we decide that it is fully consistent with this treaty obligation for the United States to decontrol completely technology that our top weapons designers at our nuclear weapon labs have publicly identified as essential to performing a variety of nuclear weapons-related activities, then how can we even pretend to be complying with this treaty? Is this the kind of approach we wish for other members of the treaty to adopt, to interpret that treaty as only requiring the regulation of state-of-the-art technology or goods that are only exclusively available at home? Is this what is ahead for American leadership in the global nonproliferation regime? If this is the reasoning that is to guide America's technology transfer control policies into the 21st century, then I truly worry not just for the future of the NPT but for the future security of our country. To those who argue that we should only control state-of-the- art or sole-national-source technology, I ask: Why limit this logic only to the controls over computers? Why not, after all, also decontrol all of the other technologies that go into making bombs, except those items that are the most modern or exclusively sold in the U.S.? The answer of course, is self apparent. Such a step would amount the crudest possible form of technological indexing, where U.S. controls would simply be ratcheted down with every new technological advancement. Such an approach would wreak havoc on any responsible nonproliferation policy. The hydrogen bombs that America fielded in the 1950's and 1960's are no less dangerous in the hands of our adversaries just because they were made with technology that is now a half-century old. To advocate the decontrol of a technology strictly on the bases of so-called foreign availability, or the age, or level of sophistication of the item, without regard to either the actual end use or identity of the end user, is to turn a blind eye to proliferation. It is a sure-fire method to bring, as fast as possible, anachronistic weapons of mass destruction back into fashion. Fortunately, the NPT does not only aim at preventing the proliferation of state-of-the-art bombs--and we and our friends and allies around the world are much better off as a result. Nor does our domestic legislation take such an approach. I am proud, for example, to have been the principal author of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Act of 1978 [NNPA], which requires the President to control ``all export items * * * which could be, if used for purposes other than those for which the export is intended, of significance for nuclear explosive purposes'' (section 309(c)). Now I suppose it might have been possible to have written this law only to control: The smallest possible number of choke-point export items . . . which are known beyond even the faintest shadow of a doubt to be exclusively intended for a weapons-related use in a publicly-listed bomb plant in a rogue regime that is known to be pursuing weapons of mass destruction. But fortunately that is not how the law was written and our Nation is quite a bit safer with the original text. No indeed, the law was quite explicit in requiring the control over ``all'' export items--and all means all--which ``could be''--not just are--``of significance for'' nuclear explosive purposes--not just absolutely critical to performing such functions. We also have several sanctions laws that punish foreign countries and firms that assist other countries to acquire nuclear weapons. The so- called ``Glenn/Symington amendments'' in sections 101 and 102 of the Arms Export Control Act, for example, require sanctions against any party involved in the transfer of unsafeguarded uranium enrichment technology or nuclear reprocessing technology. These are the types of technology that produced the nuclear materials used in the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings. I guess you can call that old technology. I guess you could say there is ``foreign availability'' of that technology since many other nations can perform these fuel cycle operations. I guess that today's methods of enriching uranium or separating plutonium are more sophisticated than they were 20 years ago. But does any of this mean that we should rewrite all of our nuclear sanctions laws to correspond to this dubious new doctrine of controlling only state-of- the-art goods? Absolutely not, the question answers itself. When China transferred ring magnets to Pakistan's unsafeguarded uranium enrichment plant, I did not wonder, ``now gee, were these items state-of-the-art quality or just 1970's-vintage?'' I was not angry that the items did not come from San Francisco, Chicago, New York, or even Cleveland. I did not care how sophisticated, or how old, or how cheap, or how ``available'' such items were. I did care, however, that China was assisting Pakistan to produce nuclear materials for its secret bomb project. Nonproliferation is about not assisting countries to get the bomb-- not just a duty to control the most modern gadgets available. When the special U.N. inspectors found tons of Western dual-use goods in Saddam Hussein's weapons bunkers, did any of my colleagues recall an avalanche of mail from their constituents expressing outrage that more U.S. goods were not found in Saddam's arsenal? Were there pickets in front of the Capitol haranguing the Congress further to relax export controls so that we can lower our Nation to that grimy ``level playing field'' quite evidently enjoyed by some of our European friends? None that I could find. None indeed. Here is what happened instead. The public was outraged, and outraged all the more amid revelations shortly after the gulf war in 1991 that United States dual-use goods did, indeed, turn up in Iraq. This outrage, with a little help from the news media, helped to stimulated some constructive reforms in America's nonproliferation policy. In 1992, America succeeded in getting 27 nations of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to commit themselves not to export dual-use goods to unsafeguarded nuclear facilities and to require full-scope international safeguards for all exports of nuclear reactors and other nuclear energy-related technology. Before these sensitive dual-use goods can be exported, under this multilateral understanding, member governments must review specific license applications and review the specific nonproliferation credentials of the importing parties. In this instance, America did not stoop to adopt the laissez faire nuclear trading practices of other countries; instead, we raised the level of the international playing field to our level by showing that our Nation is a leader not a follower when it comes to nonproliferation. Another positive reform in U.S. nonproliferation controls was implemented just a few months after Iraq invaded Kuwait. President Bush unveiled the ``Enhanced Proliferation Control Initiative'' [EPCI], which authorized the U.S. Government to prohibit the export of any item--repeat, any item--that could contribute to the proliferation of missile technology or chemical and biological weapons. A similar control had existed for years covering dual-use nuclear technology where the exporter ``knows or has reason to know'' that the item would be used in a weapons-related application. The EPCI or so-called knows rule was intended, however, to complement--not to replace--the Nation's export licensing system. Let me cite a recent case to illustrate this point. On February 19, 1997, for example, the Washington Post reported that a California computer firm, Silicon Graphics, Inc., had illegally sold four supercomputers to a Russian nuclear weapons facility. The article quoted the chief executive officer of this firm as offering the following explanation for the export: ``The Department of Commerce doesn't provide a list of facilities around the world that we shouldn't ship to. So we tend to rely on the end-user statement on how they will be used.'' In short, the company interpreted the knows rule as applying only to the importer's stated end-use for the specific export. The company, and it is probably not alone in this respect, evidently did not even consider the possibility that its importer would consider offering a bogus end use. Now there are several reasons why the U.S. Government cannot go around publishing the names and locations of all the world's secret bomb facilities and their suppliers. Here are three of them--First, the names change rapidly in the black business of nuclear proliferation and a printed list would no doubt be obsolete as soon as its ink was dry; second, the public identification of such facilities and suppliers could well jeopardize U.S. intelligence collection capabilities; and third, such a listing could be quite useful to a proliferant country or group, effectively amounting to free market research for the proliferators. So there are some significant limitations in the extent to which the Government can delegate export control responsibilities to the private sector. Companies simply do not have the capabilities of U.S. intelligence agencies. That is the reason why licensing is such a good idea: It is the best known technique for making efficient and effective use of the resources of our Government--for which the U.S. taxpayer has paid so dearly over the years--to assess proliferation risks in specific exports. Thus even if some of the goods we control are being sold by foreign competitors, and even if some goods are not state-of-the-art, it still makes considerable sense for the U.S. Government to require licenses for items that could assist countries to make bombs. Why? For two key reasons. First, licensing is the Government's window on the world market for U.S. products; export decontrol or devolution of export controls to the private sector slams that window shut. In other words, licensing creates a paper trail, generates data, and gives our Government's nonproliferation analysts something concrete to work with. This information is valuable in assessing --and subsequently reducing-- proliferation risks. Thus, even if license applications are rarely denied as is currently the case, it still makes sense to require licenses for goods that, as our treaties and domestic laws specify, could assist other countries to make weapons of mass destruction. Second, our leadership role in international nonproliferation regimes requires not just words but deeds. If we want other nations to strengthen their controls, we should be prepared to do so ourselves. Again, our job must be to use our leadership to raise international standards up to our own level playing field, rather than lower our own to some homogenized least-common-denominator standard set by the world's most irresponsible suppliers. Some Additional Loose Ends Before concluding today, I would like to touch upon a few other charges that have been leveled against the very idea of requiring export licenses for any but state-of-the-art computers. I will address two of such charges. First, our national economy will allegedly be hurt by the establishment of licensing requirements for computers rated at over 2,000 MTOPS going to the designated nations. We should keep in mind here that the overwhelming majority of America's exports leave the country without requiring export licenses at all. In 1995, for example, America exported $969 billion in goods and services, while the Government denied export licenses for goods valued at only $30 million. To give my colleagues an idea of the scale we are talking about here, the ratio between the value of those goods that were denied licenses and the total value of U.S. trade in that year is analogous to the difference between the length of a pencil eraser and the height of the Washington Monument. That is about the same ratio as the size of garden pea on the quarter-inch line of a 100-yard football field, or the amount of calories in a single carrot relative to a year's worth of balanced meals. Here is another way to put this problem in its proper context: $99.20 out of every $100 in U.S. exports did not require an export license. And of the few that did require such a license, only one license in a hundred was denied. That was in 1995. Since then, computer controls have been substantially liberalized (along with chemical exports going to parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention), while overall U.S. exports were just over $1 trillion in 1996. Relative to total U.S. trade, therefore, fewer and fewer goods are requiring licenses. Now some might argue that while these figures may be true, certain industries face a greater likelihood of having to face license requirements than other industries. Yes that is undoubtedly true: If you produce something that is likely to assist another country to get the bomb, you can expect Uncle Sam to get a bit nosy and, if the system is working right, to be an outright nuisance. No company, however, can claim any right under U.S. law to help another country to make nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction. We have a free economy--but our individual freedom to produce and market goods is not unlimited, especially when it comes to goods that can jeopardize our national security. As John Stuart Mill once wrote in his book, ``On Liberty,'' over a 100 years ago: ``Trade is a social act. Whoever undertakes to sell any description of goods to the public, does what affects the interest of other persons, and of society in general; and thus his conduct, in principle, comes within the jurisdiction of society.'' The writer of those words was one of England's foremost liberal economists. Even Adam Smith himself admitted that the Government had a legitimate responsibility to regulate certain forms of trade. And I for one cannot imagine a more legitimate basis for regulating trade than to ensure that America is not assisting other countries to make the bomb. Fortunately, I am not alone in this conviction. As President Clinton stated on October 18, 1994: ``There is nothing more important to our security and to the world's stability than preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.'' The key legislative task--a responsibility now before us today--is to ensure that this principle is reflected in the rules and procedures America uses to control its own exports. License-free exports of technologies that our weapons labs have repeatedly identified as useful in making bombs and reentry vehicles hardly seems to me an appropriate way to implement this Presidential statement of our top national priority. Our national economy will not be hurt, and America's international economic competitiveness will not be crippled, by the establishment of a licensing requirement on computers rated at 2,000 MTOPS and above going to certain destinations--though our national economy could well be endangered, and considerable business opportunities lost, if a nuclear war should someday break out involving foreign weapons that designed with computers that were Made in USA. Most computers, moreover, will still leave the country without export licenses. We are talking about today machines that have special capabilities. On June 12 of this year, a senior strategic trade advisor at the Department of Defense, Peter Leitner, testified before a hearing of the Joint Economic Committee on ``Economic Espionage, Technology Transfers and National Security.'' Dr. Leitner included with his testimony a graphic showing some of the functions in our own military of computers operating at levels actually less than 2,000 MTOPS. He pointed out that NORAD had recently upgraded its computers by buying Hewlett-Packard computers rated between 99 and 300 MTOPS. He testified that machines have been used below 2,000 MTOPS to perform the following functions: space vehicle design (launch and control); high-speed design simulations; pre-wind tunnel modeling; reentry vehicle design (ICBMs); and high-speed cryptography. Perhaps we should require licenses for computers at even lower levels than 2,000 MTOPS, as Dr. Leitner's testimony implies. It seems hard to justify the authorization of exports--without even requiring a license or an end use or end-user check--of technology that is capable of being used in designing nuclear weapons or reentry vehicles as being in any way consistent with our national security interests. Until some international agreement can be reached on an alternative level, however, the 2,000 MTOPS level is a good place to begin to strengthen controls over these sensitive dual-use items. Multilateral control over this technology is of course the best course to pursue, but multilateralism has to begin somewhere. The United States--with its reputation as the world's leading champion of nonproliferation and with its world-class computer industry--has an extraordinary opportunity for leadership in encouraging other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to adopt similar controls. A diplomatic effort of this nature would also help to alleviate fears of our industry that the duty of complying with these controls would fall only on U.S. exporters. Our negotiations with other members of the NSG should begin with one basic question: Why should computers be exempt from the no-assistance norm that lies at the heart of the global nonproliferation regime? My colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Grams, has recently suggested that perhaps the General Accounting Office might be called upon to examine the national security risks of unregulated exports of computers in this range and, depending on the scope and content of the request, this might be a good idea indeed. But until we see a specific request and a finished study, I think the amendment proposed by Messrs. Cochran and Durbin is a prudent course to follow for the immediate future. It is useful to recall that GAO does indeed have some relevant background in dealing with the proliferation implications of such computers. At my request back in 1994, the GAO prepared a lengthy report on U.S. export licensing procedures for handling nuclear dual- use items. In testimony before the Committee on Governmental Affairs on May 17, 1994, a senior GAO official, Joseph Kelly, noted that recent export control reforms in recent years ``. . . will almost certainly result in a substantial decline in the number of computer license applications and could complicate U.S. efforts to prevent U.S. computer exports from supporting nuclear proliferation.'' GAO concluded that ``many of the computers that will now be free of nuclear proliferation licensing requirements are capable of performing nuclear weapons- related work.'' (GAO/NSIAD-94-119, 4/26/94 and GAO/T-NSIAD-94-163, 5/ 17/94.) Mr. President, these do not seem to me to be the types of items that should be, in GAO's terms, ``free of nuclear proliferation licensing requirements.'' The second charge leveled against the establishment of a licensing requirement is that it would place U.S. exporters at a competitive disadvantage, due to the protracted delays in obtaining the necessary license approvals. This argument also lacks credibility. The Bureau of Export Administration [BXA] in the Department of Commerce is so proud of its recent efforts to streamline the export license application process that it trumpets this achievement in its most recent annual report to Congress. Here is what that report had to say about the licensing process: . . . BXA implemented significant improvements in the export license system via Presidential Executive Order 12981 [which] . . . limit the application review time by other U.S. agencies, provide an orderly procedure to resolve interagency disputes, and establish further accountability through the interagency review process. [E.O. 12981] . . . reduces the time permitted to process license applications. No later than 90 calendar days from the time a complete license application is submitted, it will either be finally disposed of or escalated to the President for a decision. Previously, all license applications had to be resolved within 120 days after submission to the Secretary. . . . By providing strict time limits for license review and a ``default to decision'' process, it also ensures rapid decisionmaking and escalation of license applications. In FY 1996, the Bureau introduced a PC-based forms processing and image management system which, along with the new multipurpose application form, enhances BXA's ability to make quick and accurate licensing and commodity classification decisions. BXA ensures that export license applications are analyzed and acted upon accurately, quickly, and consistently, and that exporters have access to the decisionmaking process, with current status reports available at all times. Rapid processing is available for the majority of applications BXA receives. BXA also notes that it is in the process of upgrading and expanding its electronic licensing process to provide prompt customer service. It is also noteworthy that BXA discusses in the same report its assistance to Russia and other new republics of the former Soviet Union to upgrade their national systems of export control. Obviously, if America is decontrolling goods useful in making nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and the missile systems to deliver them, then we can hardly hope to inspire these other countries to show any greater discipline. It would be far better for us to be sticking to a strict interpretation of the ``not in any way to assist'' obligation that the United States and every other nuclear-weapon state in the NPT has vowed to implement. We should lead the way in strengthening international controls, not in relaxing them under the false flag ``economic competitiveness.'' We should remember that these other countries have their own conceptions of ``economic competitiveness'' that, if allowed to become a global norm, could lead to a total collapse of the international nonproliferation regime. We have as much at stake in encouraging these countries to place nonproliferation as a high- national priority as we have in ensuring a similar priority here at home. Conclusion So I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this constructive reform of our export licensing process. We have the people in our government who are competent to review these licenses. We have the technology and procedures in our Government to ensure the prompt and efficient handling of license applications. We have both domestic and international legal obligations that requires the control of technology that could assist other countries to get the bomb. And we have legitimate national security interests to protect. America can be a formidable economic competitor in the world without becoming the world's most formidable proliferator of nuclear or dual-uses goods. I urge my friends and colleagues to vote for this amendment. high-performance computers

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to speak as a cosponsor of the amendment offered by my colleagues, Messrs. Bingaman, Levin, Lugar, Domenici, and others, to restore $60 million to the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program, $25 million to the Department of Energy's Materials Protection Control and Accounting [MPC&A] Program, and $50 million to the International Nuclear Safety Program. The administration requested these funds because they are needed to serve our national security interests. I have heard or seen nothing to dispute this basic conclusion and therefore strongly support the full requested amounts. These funds serve our interests because they work to alleviate one of the gravest national security threats facing our nation. Acknowledged by the President and Congress, by liberals and conservatives, by the House and the Senate, by Republicans and Democrats alike--indeed by all thinking Americans--this threat arises from the dangers all of us would face from the further erosion of Russia's ability to protect its weapons-usable nuclear materials and the technology and dual-use goods needed to produce them. In light of this broad national consensus, I find it hard to understand why we are here today debating a proposal to slash the funds for the programs designed to alleviate this very threat. Congress should, of course, give close scrutiny to all Federal programs to see if further economies can be made. No one should look upon the Nunn-Lugar program as immune from vigorous congressional oversight. But when one considers the magnitude of the potential threats our country faces from these deadly materials, and considers these threats in light of the genuine progress that has been made (thanks to Nunn-Lugar) in reducing clear and present nuclear dangers in the former Soviet Union, it should be clear to all that Congress has, if anything, short-changed this program rather than over-funded it. I find these proposed cuts all the more remarkable given the committee's apparent determination to shovel hundreds of millions of additional taxpayer dollars at the National Missile Defense Program, despite the disturbing implications of that program for the future of the Antiballistic Missile [ABM] Treaty, and despite any serious accounting for precisely how these additional funds will be spent. In 1991, a far-sighted bipartisan coalition gathered to support a proposal offered by our colleagues, Messrs. Nunn and Lugar, to curb present and potential future proliferation threats emanating from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In 1997, there continues to be a strong consensus both in Congress and across America that it is in our collective national interest to address these threats. Some misinformed commentators have attacked the CTR and MPC&A programs as a form of ``subsidy of Russia's nuclear security'' or ``foreign aid.'' Perhaps what the critics fear most is that the programs might actually succeed in achieving their ambitious goals, and thereby reduce the need for our government to spend additional billions more to address these grave foreign threats. I will leave it for others to speculate further about what must be motivating critics of the Nunn-Lugar program--and some of these criticisms might occasionally even be on target--but I remain convinced that the modest funds our country is allocating to CTR and MPC&A efforts are not only well within our means, but vital to our long-term national security and nonproliferation interests. And these funds are truly modest, compared against the billions we continue to spend on such programs as the B-2, the ever-expanding National Missile Defense program, the airborne and space-based laser programs, and other dubious programs that are well funded in the present bill. A $135 million cut to these Nunn-Lugar activities is the last thing this program needs. What, after all, has the program already accomplished? The CTR Program has worked and continues to work to ensure that significant numbers of strategic Soviet nuclear weapons will not be available for use against the United States and its friends and allies around the world. The program has worked to help reduce the risk of nuclear materials finding their way into black markets in unstable regions around the world. The program has worked to facilitate the removal of all nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakstan. The program has worked to help remove over 1,400 nuclear warheads from Russia's strategic weapons systems, and to eliminate hundreds of delivery vehicles for such systems, including submarine launched ballistic missile launchers, ICBM silos, and strategic bombers. The committee has claimed that the CTR Program can be cut because the loss could be made up with prior years' funds. Yet, Defense Secretary Cohen wrote to the chairman of the committee on June 19 that ``All unobligated CTR funds have already been earmarked for specific projects''. The CTR Program continues to serve the national interest by helping to eliminate strategic arms programs in Russia and Ukraine--if anything, Congress should be debating today measures to accelerate these efforts rather than to chop them back. The committee's proposal would only work to convert the CTR Program into a competitive threat renewal program. A few years before Congress made the mistake of eliminating the Office of Technology Assessment, that organization produced an excellent report entitled, ``Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing the Risks'' (OTA-ISC-559, August 1993). On page 6 of that report, readers will find the following unambiguous finding: ``Obtaining fissionable nuclear weapon material (enriched uranium or plutonium) today remains the greatest single obstacle most countries would face in the pursuit of nuclear weapons.'' Those were OTA's words, ``the greatest single obstacle'' to proliferation. Now, what kept Saddam from getting the bomb sooner than he could have? Access to special nuclear material. What is America's leading defense against future nuclear terrorism? Limiting access to special nuclear materials. We should not be cutting programs that help Russia to serve our common interest in limiting international trafficking in special nuclear materials. We should instead be reaffirming and even expanding such programs. Helping Russia to serve our interest in these ways is not foreign aid, it is part and parcel of our national defense strategy. The MPC&A programs run by the Department of Energy work specifically on this problem of enhancing controls over these special nuclear materials, plutonium and highly enriched uranium. I have seen the letter that the Energy Secretary sent to the chairman of the committee on June 19--Secretary Pena wrote that the proposed $25 million cut in the MPC&A program would lead to a 2-year delay in achieving key program objectives. This program deserves our full support. After all, as Secretary Pena says, this program has secured ``tens of tons'' of nuclear material at 25 sites, and is working on enhanced controls at a total of 50 sites where this material is at risk in Russia, the Newly Independent States, and the Baltics. When we consider that we are dealing with a problem involving hundreds of tons of such material, it hardly seems wise for us now to be cutting back on our efforts to address this formidable threat to our national security. Another program cut by the committee is the International Nuclear Safety Program. That program is essentially an investment to reduce the risk that fallout from a future Russian nuclear reactor accident will not once again--only a few years after the disastrous Chernobyl accident--be falling down from the sky on United States citizens and other people around the world. There is no fallout defense initiative-- or FDI, so to speak--in this bill that would offer any shield over our country or the territory of our allies against such radioactive debris from a future reactor explosion in Russia. The best initiative of this nature is the one in this amendment, to restore the funds needed to enhance the safety and security of certain old Soviet-designed power reactors in the Newly Independent States and Russia. So, in conclusion, I believe that the bipartisan consensus behind Nunn-Lugar, which is represented in this bipartisan amendment offered today, is alive and well because it addresses genuine threats to our security. I hope all Members will support full funding for these programs.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, section 1040 of the fiscal year 1998 DOD authorization bill (S. 936) amends title 31 of the United States Code to effectively prevent the General Accounting Office [GAO] from conducting self-initiated audits--work performed under GAO's inherent authority without a formal Member request--unless all congressional requests then-pending have been completed. Since 1921, the Comptroller General has had broad authority to evaluate programs and investigate--on his own initiative--``all matters relating to the receipt, disbursement, and use of public money.'' Self- initiated authority has provided GAO the flexibility to pursue critical issues that auditors and investigators uncover in the course of their work. It is essential to the maintenance of generally accepted standards of independence and impartiality. Title 31 is under the purview of the Governmental Affairs Committee [GAC], which has jurisdiction over GAO's organization, management, and authority. It represents a major policy shift in the role and operation of GAO, adopted without benefit of any hearings, legislative record, or prior consultation with GAC. At GAC's June 17, 1997, reconciliation markup, Senators Levin, Glenn, Thompson, and Domenici discussed this provision and indicated their strong reservations. Following that markup, Chairman Thompson and Senator Glenn sent a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee [SASC] requesting a sequential referral of the bill for the purpose of reviewing this provision as contained in title X. We were unable to get the consent needed for such a referral.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to cosponsor the Regulatory Improvement Act of 1997. This legislation, introduced today by my colleagues Senator Carl Levin and Senator Fred Thompson, reflects a bipartisan effort to establish a balanced, comprehensive governmentwide standard for Federal rulemaking. As former chairman and current ranking member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, I have worked for over a decade to improve the Federal regulatory process. I must note that with me at every step has been my good friend and colleague, Senator Carl Levin. Now, we are joined by our new Committee Chairman, Senator Fred Thompson. I am very happy to take part in this bipartisan effort. Regulatory reform has seen many forms in Congress over the years, from S. 1080 over 15 years ago, to several bipartisan bills in the 104th Congress--S. 291, our unanimous Governmental Affairs Committee bill introduced by Senator Roth and me, the Dole-Johnston S. 343, and the Glenn-Chafee S. 1001. While these bills differed in many ways, they all had one thing in common, a bipartisan resolve to reform the Federal regulatory process. The regulatory process is important because in our system of government, Congress relies on agency regulations to ensure the effective implementation of the laws we enact. Improved public health and safety and environmental protection are some of the successes provided by this process. Unfortunately, despite these successes, congressional oversight has shown there are too many instances where agencies have regulated without sufficiently analyzing the costs and benefits of regulation. Individuals, businesses, and State and local governments pay too high a price for such thoughtless rules. They also are often burdened by statutory requirements that force agencies to impose overly prescriptive requirements, unnecessary unfunded mandates, or unjustified costs. So, while I have supported many programs to improve health and safety and the environment, I have also worked to improve the regulatory process. This has involved legislation and oversight in several different areas. For example, the Paperwork Reduction Act, which we strengthened in 1995, requires Federal agencies to reduce burdensome information collection activities, such as forms and regulatory reporting requirements. The Unfunded Mandates Act of 1994, which I introduced with Senator Dirk Kempthorne, requires Congress and Federal agencies to account for unfunded legislative and regulatory requirements imposed on State and local governments. Most recently, I supported enactment of the Congressional Review Act, which provides for expedited congressional review of new regulations, so that we, as politically accountable public representatives, can take responsibility for implementation of the laws we enact. These initiatives addressed several parts of the administrative process. Still lacking is a comprehensive statutory framework for regulatory analysis. The search for the right mix of these regulatory analysis requirements was at the heart of the regulatory reform debate in the early 1980's, in the last Congress, and now again, in the legislation introduced today. I believe that this legislation would establish the needed reforms in a balanced and fair manner. It would require cost/benefit analysis and risk assessment of major rules, and require periodic review of existing rules. These basic requirements will improve regulatory decisionmaking and ensure that Congress and the public are better informed about regulatory impacts. I believe that such regulatory reform can improve our Government and reduce regulatory burdens without harming important public protections. As I said many times during the debate in the last Congress, true regulatory reform must strike a balance between the public's concern over too much government and the public's strong support for regulations to protect the environment, public health and safety. The legislation developed by Senator Levin and Senator Thompson strikes this balance. It requires: Cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment of major rules; An agency cost justification statement to explain whether a rule's benefits justify its costs and whether it is more cost-effective or has more net benefits than other alternatives. If the agency cannot make that determination, it must explain why not, and if feasible describe an alternative that would, if permitted, be cost justified; peer review of cost-benefit analyses and risk assessments; OMB regulatory review, with sunshine protections for fairness and accountability; judicial review of relevant regulatory analyses, but only in the context of review of the final rule and the rulemaking record; and periodic review of existing rules. All in all, I believe these are the necessary core elements of an effective regulatory reform bill. Nonetheless, past debates have shown that the devil is in the details. This legislation will be no exception. There are several areas, in fact, that I believe should be examined closely in committee hearings to ensure that the regulatory process is improved and not impeded by this reform effort. First, the legislation's most fundamental provision is the requirement that all agency major rules must have a cost-benefit analysis. I believe that given 16 years experience with regulatory review under Presidential Executive order, it is appropriate to establish a statutory bottom line that all major rules must be accompanied by a cost-benefit analysis. While a cost-benefit analysis should not control decisionmaking, it is a very useful tool for decision-making, and should be used to the extent both practical and permitted. We need to be sure, however, that this requirement is not used to undermine program-specific statutory requirements that may, for example, preclude consideration of certain costs or alternatives. While I believe that a cost-benefit analysis should be done to inform every major rulemaking decision, if a statute requires a certain approach to decisionmaking, the agency has to be bound by that requirement. I think it will be very important to discuss this issue during committee hearings and decide whether the bill's formulation is sufficient. A more explicit savings clause may be needed. While we want to improve decision-making, we do not want paralysis by analysis. And we do not want to create new avenues for litigation to undermine statutory requirements. If there is a problem with a statute, Congress should be informed and Congress should correct the problem. The bill's second basic requirement is for evaluating the risks that would be addressed by a major rule. This is also a fundamental provision, but here too, I believe it will be very important to explore the bill's specific risk assessment language in more detail during committee hearings. For example, while science can provide critical data with which to inform a rulemaking decision, often times general observations cannot be reliably reduced to single point conclusions. Thus, I am concerned that the bill's use of the phrase ``most plausible estimate of risk'' could lead to the arbitrary selection of a single risk figure, when a range of risks is all that the scientific evidence would support. I agree that agencies should not be led by speculation, but we must not lose sight of the fact that caution is always in order when it comes to protecting public health and safety, and the environment. Finally, committee hearings will also be needed to explore the practical impact of the legislation's requirements for agency advisory panels, both for peer review of regulatory analyses and identifying current rules for review. These panels can provide a fair and effective means of providing important information to agencies. But they can also be used to unfairly sway decision-makers and obscure behind-the-scenes lobbying. Care must be taken to ensure that such panels are broadly representative and do not introduce undue delay or waste agency resources. Again, our committee hearings will be important to discuss these issues. Senator Levin and Senator Thompson are to be commended for the work they have done to sift through the contentious regulatory reform record and draw out the core requirements and many of the needed details for effective regulatory analysis. I believe we are very close to having a bill that should pass the Senate unanimously. I support this legislation and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to cosponsor the Regulatory Improvement Act of 1997. This legislation, introduced today by my colleagues Senator Carl Levin and Senator Fred Thompson, reflects a bipartisan effort to establish a balanced, comprehensive governmentwide standard for Federal rulemaking. As former chairman and current ranking member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, I have worked for over a decade to improve the Federal regulatory process. I must note that with me at every step has been my good friend and colleague, Senator Carl Levin. Now, we are joined by our new Committee Chairman, Senator Fred Thompson. I am very happy to take part in this bipartisan effort. Regulatory reform has seen many forms in Congress over the years, from S. 1080 over 15 years ago, to several bipartisan bills in the 104th Congress--S. 291, our unanimous Governmental Affairs Committee bill introduced by Senator Roth and me, the Dole-Johnston S. 343, and the Glenn-Chafee S. 1001. While these bills differed in many ways, they all had one thing in common, a bipartisan resolve to reform the Federal regulatory process. The regulatory process is important because in our system of government, Congress relies on agency regulations to ensure the effective implementation of the laws we enact. Improved public health and safety and environmental protection are some of the successes provided by this process. Unfortunately, despite these successes, congressional oversight has shown there are too many instances where agencies have regulated without sufficiently analyzing the costs and benefits of regulation. Individuals, businesses, and State and local governments pay too high a price for such thoughtless rules. They also are often burdened by statutory requirements that force agencies to impose overly prescriptive requirements, unnecessary unfunded mandates, or unjustified costs. So, while I have supported many programs to improve health and safety and the environment, I have also worked to improve the regulatory process. This has involved legislation and oversight in several different areas. For example, the Paperwork Reduction Act, which we strengthened in 1995, requires Federal agencies to reduce burdensome information collection activities, such as forms and regulatory reporting requirements. The Unfunded Mandates Act of 1994, which I introduced with Senator Dirk Kempthorne, requires Congress and Federal agencies to account for unfunded legislative and regulatory requirements imposed on State and local governments. Most recently, I supported enactment of the Congressional Review Act, which provides for expedited congressional review of new regulations, so that we, as politically accountable public representatives, can take responsibility for implementation of the laws we enact. These initiatives addressed several parts of the administrative process. Still lacking is a comprehensive statutory framework for regulatory analysis. The search for the right mix of these regulatory analysis requirements was at the heart of the regulatory reform debate in the early 1980's, in the last Congress, and now again, in the legislation introduced today. I believe that this legislation would establish the needed reforms in a balanced and fair manner. It would require cost/benefit analysis and risk assessment of major rules, and require periodic review of existing rules. These basic requirements will improve regulatory decisionmaking and ensure that Congress and the public are better informed about regulatory impacts. I believe that such regulatory reform can improve our Government and reduce regulatory burdens without harming important public protections. As I said many times during the debate in the last Congress, true regulatory reform must strike a balance between the public's concern over too much government and the public's strong support for regulations to protect the environment, public health and safety. The legislation developed by Senator Levin and Senator Thompson strikes this balance. It requires: Cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment of major rules; An agency cost justification statement to explain whether a rule's benefits justify its costs and whether it is more cost-effective or has more net benefits than other alternatives. If the agency cannot make that determination, it must explain why not, and if feasible describe an alternative that would, if permitted, be cost justified; peer review of cost-benefit analyses and risk assessments; OMB regulatory review, with sunshine protections for fairness and accountability; judicial review of relevant regulatory analyses, but only in the context of review of the final rule and the rulemaking record; and periodic review of existing rules. All in all, I believe these are the necessary core elements of an effective regulatory reform bill. Nonetheless, past debates have shown that the devil is in the details. This legislation will be no exception. There are several areas, in fact, that I believe should be examined closely in committee hearings to ensure that the regulatory process is improved and not impeded by this reform effort. First, the legislation's most fundamental provision is the requirement that all agency major rules must have a cost-benefit analysis. I believe that given 16 years experience with regulatory review under Presidential Executive order, it is appropriate to establish a statutory bottom line that all major rules must be accompanied by a cost-benefit analysis. While a cost-benefit analysis should not control decisionmaking, it is a very useful tool for decision-making, and should be used to the extent both practical and permitted. We need to be sure, however, that this requirement is not used to undermine program-specific statutory requirements that may, for example, preclude consideration of certain costs or alternatives. While I believe that a cost-benefit analysis should be done to inform every major rulemaking decision, if a statute requires a certain approach to decisionmaking, the agency has to be bound by that requirement. I think it will be very important to discuss this issue during committee hearings and decide whether the bill's formulation is sufficient. A more explicit savings clause may be needed. While we want to improve decision-making, we do not want paralysis by analysis. And we do not want to create new avenues for litigation to undermine statutory requirements. If there is a problem with a statute, Congress should be informed and Congress should correct the problem. The bill's second basic requirement is for evaluating the risks that would be addressed by a major rule. This is also a fundamental provision, but here too, I believe it will be very important to explore the bill's specific risk assessment language in more detail during committee hearings. For example, while science can provide critical data with which to inform a rulemaking decision, often times general observations cannot be reliably reduced to single point conclusions. Thus, I am concerned that the bill's use of the phrase ``most plausible estimate of risk'' could lead to the arbitrary selection of a single risk figure, when a range of risks is all that the scientific evidence would support. I agree that agencies should not be led by speculation, but we must not lose sight of the fact that caution is always in order when it comes to protecting public health and safety, and the environment. Finally, committee hearings will also be needed to explore the practical impact of the legislation's requirements for agency advisory panels, both for peer review of regulatory analyses and identifying current rules for review. These panels can provide a fair and effective means of providing important information to agencies. But they can also be used to unfairly sway decision-makers and obscure behind-the-scenes lobbying. Care must be taken to ensure that such panels are broadly representative and do not introduce undue delay or waste agency resources. Again, our committee hearings will be important to discuss these issues. Senator Levin and Senator Thompson are to be commended for the work they have done to sift through the contentious regulatory reform record and draw out the core requirements and many of the needed details for effective regulatory analysis. I believe we are very close to having a bill that should pass the Senate unanimously. I support this legislation and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, next week the eyes of the world will be focused on Hong Kong when the British dependent territory reverts to Chinese control. The end result of a negotiated agreement between the United Kingdom and China, the reversion itself is widely accepted and not a matter of controversy. Nevertheless, how China will handle the dynamic and thriving territory of Hong Kong in the near and longer term future is a matter of great interest, and of considerable difference of opinion. I count myself among those who are cautiously, I underscore cautiously, optimistic about the future of Hong Kong. The principle reason for my cautious optimism is a belief that, in this area, China will be guided primarily by consideration of its economic self interest. Many have likened Hong Kong to the goose that laid the golden egg. That characterization is well deserved. Simply put, China has an enormous stake in continued economic growth and prosperity in Hong Kong. Over the last several years, economic growth in Hong Kong has averaged 5 to 6 percent a year; Hong Kong is now the eighth largest trader in the world; and its GDP of almost $24,000 per capita exceeds that of several western industrialized nations. Hong Kong is an international business and financial center. The Hong Kong and Chinese economies are already intertwined and codependent. Hong Kong is a source of substantial investment in China and a conduit for Chinese exports around the world. To a large extent the Chinese leadership has staked its legitimacy and its future on the ability to bring growth to China's economy and an improving standard of living to its people. Over the next 5 years China will have to find jobs for an estimated 216 million new or displaced workers. Reason would argue that China simply cannot afford to substantially tamper with the economic growth engine that is Hong Kong. In addition to the negative economic consequences of mishandling the Hong Kong reversion, China has other incentives to try hard to make things work. China has advertised the Hong Kong one country-two systems principle as a model for any potential future discussions on reunification of Taiwan with the mainland. While it's still unclear whether or not this is even a feasible proposition, you can be sure if things do not go well in Hong Kong, any possibility of talks with Taiwan on reunification will continue to remain remote for the foreseeable future. Finally, the success or failure of the Hong Kong transition will have a substantial impact on United States-Chinese bilateral relations, as well as on the worldwide perception of China. Having outlined the reasons for my optimism, I must now explain why I temper that optimism with a healthy dose of caution. I am not sure, Mr. President, that the leadership in Beijing understands what it takes to nurture the robust and thriving socioeconomic system of Hong Kong, particularly the relationship between the political and economic spheres. I am not sure that the Chinese leadership will necessarily favor their economic interests over political or perceived security interests, if the two sets of interests collide. The record of the period of preparation for reversion is mixed. Hong Kong continues to thrive economically and business confidence remains high. China has agreed to Hong Kong's continued membership in international institutions as a separate entity and to the continuation of Hong Kong's experienced and professional civil service. On the other hand, China's decision to replace the elected legislature, Legco, with an appointed provisional legislature and certain statements by Chinese officials concerning definition of freedom of the press have caused considerable unease among Hong Kong's democratic political organizations, in the United States and in Britain. The great unanswered question is whether the Chinese leadership will be willing and able to effectively implement the one country-two systems model, preserving Hong Kong's economic prosperity as well as the political freedoms the people began to enjoy under British rule. If alternatively, they begin to roll back the political freedoms and individual liberties, in my view, the economy will not be immune, and they may well end up sacrificing that fabled golden goose. We may not know the answer to that question for several years. As I said earlier, the eyes of the world will be on Hong Kong next week. But, those eyes will not be taken off Hong Kong on July 2. You can be sure the world will continue to watch China's stewardship of Hong Kong with intense interest for many years. And, we shouldn't just watch. The United States should do everything it can to support the people of Hong Kong. The United States should encourage China to see and understand that its own interests are best served by maintaining true autonomy for Hong Kong. Anything less would be a failure.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity today to support my colleagues, Senators Kerry and Wellstone, in cosponsoring this much needed reform of our campaign finance system. I believe that simple principles should be applied in our democracy. We should encourage the active participation of the greatest possible number of citizens and restrain the undue influence of narrow and divisive factions and special interests. I believe that our democracy must be built on common rather than special interests and that our elections should depend upon common sense rather than dollars and cents. Only through an open and fair election system can we guarantee that our democracy will be open and fair. Only then can the notion of consent of the governed have any true meaning. I believe that many of the statements made here today underscore the need to reform our current system. I have been working with Senators Kerry and Wellstone to provide a workable alternative that will go a long way toward bringing long overdue improvements to our electoral process. Let's face facts. Our current system of paying the bills for American elections is awash in money, largely unregulated and often unreported. The improvements made a generation ago to provide partial public financing for presidential campaigns and contribution and spending limits for all federal elections have been eroded and are now overwhelmed by Supreme Court decisions, overly partisan competition for money, increased costs of advertising and special interest contributions. Nothing undermines the legitimacy and integrity of our elections more than the belief that special interests have special privileges. Many American voters believe that campaigns are too expensive, that special interests wield too much influence, while the average voter has too little, and that elected officials spend too much time raising money and not enough time solving the Nation's problems. The McCain-Feingold proposal to provide voluntary campaign spending limits is supported by a number of Senators and I am pleased to be a cosponsor. However, even with the much needed improvements in that legislation, I believe that the only way to eliminate any doubt about who influences elections is to provide financing underwritten by the American people. The Clean Money, Clean Elections Act built upon the plan proposed in Maine would limit campaign spending, prohibit special interest contributions to candidates, eliminate fund raising efforts, provide equal funding and a level playing field for all candidates, and end many of the loopholes that have wrecked our current system. Let's end this current abuse and establish a system that leaves no doubt that only the clean money of the American people pays for American elections. Building on that Maine ballot initiative, nearly 20 States are now reviewing how they can improve their elections. Federal legislation is needed to bring these reforms to Federal elections and we propose to bring those improvements into the congressional debate on campaign finance reform. This proposal will provide: The most comprehensive reform of all the proposals currently under consideration; the lowest spending limits: the most free time and discounted media; the strictest limits on special interest money and influence; the most competitive election financing; an end to the money chase and dialing for dollars. As the Nation's attention turns to the campaign finance investigation in the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, I want everyone to understand that highlighting these issues will be of little use if action is not taken. Certainly, the investigation should be conducted in a full and fair manner. But at the end of day, I believe that we owe it to ourselves as a people to end our current campaign finance system and bring true reform. I am pleased to join my colleagues who are long time advocates of serious campaign finance reform and look forward to working together to enact this important legislation.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I want to voice my very strong objections to the 2000 census language in this bill. It bans the use of sampling-- and any other statistical technique--to count the American population for purposes of apportionment. It's unfair--it will cost the American tax payers about a billion dollars--it's political--it just doesn't make sense. Let's talk about fairness. Without sampling, the Census bureau tells us that the 2000 census may be about as accurate as the 1990 census. That's the best case scenario. But in 1990, the census missed 10 million people. It counted 6 million people twice. And it counted another 10 or 20 million people in the wrong place--maybe even in the wrong congressional district. Is that our idea of fairness? Is that our idea of ``one man, one vote?'' And many of the people undercounted in the last census are poor. Many of them belong to ethnic and racial minorities. We excluded some of America's most vulnerable people from the democratic process. Is that our idea of fairness? Of course not. But that's the kind of census we will have if this language passes into law. Let's talk about cost. The Census Bureau tells us that a non-sampling census could cost almost a billion dollars more than a non-sampling census. Much of that additional cost will go toward various efforts that the Bureau knows will have only marginal pay-off. But if the Bureau can't sample, it will have to make every effort--even marginally effective efforts--to count people the traditional way. Without sampling, we're talking about a higher cost census to deliver a less accurate population count. Is that a responsible use of tax payer dollars? Does that make sense at the precise moment in time when both Congress and the American people are committed to the painful process of balancing the budget? And let's talk about common sense. Statistical sampling is a rigorous, reliable, scientific tool. You can't find a statistician who disagrees with that. That view is supported by GAO, the Commerce inspector general, the National Academy of Sciences, and a host of professional organizations. The Bureau has been using statistical sampling in the decennial census for decades. The census long form--which goes to only one in six households--is a perfect example of a kind of sampling that is widely accepted. Virtually every arm of Government--Federal, State, and local--uses long-form data for enforcement of laws like the Voting Rights Act and for tailoring programs to the cultural diversity of our population. And we are not plagued with law suits challenging the reliability of this data because it is based on sampling. Ironically, the language in this bill would allow continued use of sampling for the long-form. In fact, it allows sampling for every purpose except that most important one--counting the American people for purposes of apportionment. On the one hand, it acknowledges that sampling is valid and valuable--a scientific tool. But on the other hand, it denies us the use of that tool just where it would be most valuable. That makes no sense at all. Finally, despite what I read in the newspapers, I have seen no data whatsoever validating the apparent political assumption that an accurate census means fewer House seats for Republicans. It is true--as I have already stated--that many of the undercounted people are poor or members of minority groups. But other groups are undercounted, too. We undercount people in rural areas--that's a third of the 1990 undercount--and many of those areas are Republican strongholds. We undercount people who are renters rather than homeowners, and statisticians tell us that disadvantages the Sun Belt States--where Republicans are also strong. Just last week the 2000 Census Advisory Committee discussed the politics of the undercount. That committee consists of census and population experts representing the statistical community, every level of Government, and every large minority group. The committee was unable to determine who would be the political winners and losers in an accurate census. This isn't about Democrats versus Republicans. We undercount people of every race, gender, age, State, and political persuasion. The real winners and losers in the sampling debate are the American people. Our system of Government guarantees equal representation for all Americans--regardless of race, ethnicity or economic circumstances-- whether they live in the country or the city--whether they own their homes or rent them. That should be our goal--our only goal--in planning the 2000 census. In my home State of Ohio, we had a slight overcount in 1990. But I don't fear the political consequences of an accurate census. My commitment is to the fundamental principles of America's system of Government. And I'm confident that the citizens of Ohio feel the same way. Give us a fair, accurate census, and let the political chips fall where they may. I know full well that the Census Bureau's plan to use sampling is highly controversial. I have some reservations about it myself. Some people say that sampling doesn't meet the constitutional requirement for an ``actual enumeration.'' Some say that sampling is inherently subjective because it is based on statistical assumptions. These are questions that must be resolved. On the constitutional issue, however, the Governmental Affairs Committee recently heard testimony from a panel of attorneys who are not friends of sampling. The panel included Wisconsin's Attorney General James Doyle. He led the charge against sampling in 1990 because statistical adjustment of that census would have given California an additional House seat at Wisconsin's expense. We also heard from Stuart Gerson, the Assistant Attorney General who advised the Bush administration not to adjust the 1990 census. Both testified that the constitutional requirement for an ``actual enumeration'' doesn't require a headcount. What it requires--what the Framers intended--is the most accurate census possible. That's what we should be aiming for. And those who tell us that sampling is inherently unconstitutional are trying to scare us into a census process that doesn't meet the Framers' goal. What's critical right now is for census to continue its planning process--continue to appear before congressional committees--as it is doing before the Governmental Affairs Committee--and continue to explain its plans. Most importantly, the Bureau must test the proposed census plan in the 1998 dress rehearsal. Only after this process is complete will we know whether sampling will yield a better census--a census that includes every American. The census language in this bill would make that impossible. My heart goes out to all the Americans who are counting on us for the disaster relief this bill will provide. I want to give them that relief. It is extremely regrettable that in our legislative process this has also become a bill that jeopardizes the most fundamental principle of our Democratic society--every American's right to equal representation. If the census language in this bill passes Congress today, it will add to the other reasons that may persuade the President to veto the bill--and send it right back to us. Then perhaps we can get on with the job of providing relief to the thousands of people who are counting on us, and let the Census Bureau get on with planning the best decennial census in American history.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the important resolution before us today, the concurrent budget resolution. This is truly a remarkable occasion. We are considering the outlines of a plan that will balance the budget over the next 5 years. This bipartisan proposal achieves a number of important accomplishments. The most significant of course is balancing the budget by 2002. I believe that the Budget Committee Chairman Domenici and ranking member Lautenberg have done an outstanding job in their work to bring this agreement to the floor of the Senate. Without a constitutional amendment, this agreement will balance a budget that has been the focal point of national debate and a goal supported by most every candidate for President and Senator for at least as long as I have been in office. Four years ago we proposed cutting the budget deficit in half. After many difficult and contentious votes, Senate Democrats along with a tie breaking vote from Vice-President Gore helped enact a program that set us on a course of real deficit reduction. Many criticized that effort and predicted economic disaster. But now after 4 years of economic growth and reduced deficits we are in a position to finish the job. After 4 years, our deficit has been reduced from $290 billion down to $67 billion. This proposal outlines a plan to extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund for at least a decade. It will expand beneficiaries' choice of private health plans by allowing preferred provider plans and provider sponsored plans to compete in the managed care programs in Medicare. Additional preventive health benefits are provided and beneficiary copayments for outpatient services are limited. Part B premiums are maintained at 25 percent of program costs and any increases necessary for home health care benefits are phased in over 7 years. Low income seniors are protected from any potential home health premium increases. In order to ensure that important areas of service are adequately protected this agreement identifies priorities such as education reform, Pell grants, child literacy, and Head Start. Two very important initiatives are anticipated in this agreement. The first provides $16 billion to expand health coverage to up to 5 million children who do not now have health insurance. The second revises last year's welfare reform to restore necessary benefits to disabled immigrants. I believe that the President's initiatives on these issues are commendable. Although important progress is made in this agreement, I want to make clear that I have a number of concerns. I have worked on and voted on budget agreements before and I recognize some of the pitfalls. My first concern is the question of tax cuts. If the first priority of this agreement is to balance the budget, I do not believe that we should make that job any harder. This agreement calls for a net tax cut of $85 billion over 5 years. Why can't we eliminate these cuts and balance the budget sooner? Why can't we apply those funds to establish a budget surplus and apply it to debt reduction?. Or at least, why can't we wait to determine if this agreement and its underlying assumptions prove successful? What happens to our deficit reduction and balanced budget efforts in the event of an economic downturn? There is no assurance that this agreement will be as successful as the one 4 years ago. I recognize that tax incentives have historically been employed to stimulate a sluggish economy. Although some may argue our economic growth could be even higher, last quarter's 5.6 percent growth is the highest in 10 years. The stock market is at record highs, a core inflation rate of 2.5 percent in the last year is the best in 30 years, the monthly unemployment rate of 4.9 percent is at a 25 year low. I am not convinced that this is time to use tax cuts to stimulate the economy. I believe that deficits should be reduced in good economic times. If tax cuts are to be used in good economic times what tools will we have in a less favorable economy? The tax cuts anticipated in this resolution are calculated to cost a net $85 billion over 5 years. I am concerned, however, that beyond the scope of the 5 year resolution the cost of these tax cuts will go even higher. Indeed the agreement expects that the 10 year cost will rise to $250 billion. Even though this agreement provides for a balanced budget in 2002, entitlement spending is expected to soar beyond the turn of the century. Yes, we improve the solvency of Medicare in this budget and put it on a firm footing for 10 years, but beyond that time frame Medicare costs will rise. This agreement continues to use the surplus provided by the Social Security system to reach a balance. Beyond the turn of the century the surpluses will provide retirements benefits for baby boomers. I am concerned that again we are putting off finding a solution to these problems when relatively small steps taken now can avoid much larger steps that will undoubtedly need to be taken later. During the consideration of the resolution I supported efforts to provide additional support for children without health insurance, additional support for early childhood development, and additional support to rebuild crumbling schools. Although we were unsuccessful on these amendments, this will not be the end of the work. Those battles will continue throughout the reconciliation and appropriations process and I am hopeful that we will have some success. Let me say further that I recognize that just because this agreement does not solve each and every problem is no reason to oppose it. The perfect then becomes the enemy of the good. Important progress is made here and although not perfect I intend to vote for the good. growth wins

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I agree with a May 10, 1997, New York Times editorial regarding legislation to ban so-called partial- birth abortions and the alternatives to it which we are considering today in the Senate. The editorial states, These proposed bills, while well intentioned, still interfere in judgments best left to doctors and their patients. Some of the 40 states that have passed or are considering bans on `partial-birth' abortions have fallen into the same trap. Whether at the state or the Federal level, these political intrusions into medical practice and attempts to limit women's access to abortions deserve to be defeated. I am opposed to the Government making medical decisions that should be handled by qualified physicians on a case-by-case basis. During my 22 years in the Senate, I have voted to uphold the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe versus Wade decision that a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion is protected, within specified limits, under the constitutional right to privacy. This means that a woman can make her own choice, based on her moral and religious beliefs and in consultation with her family, her physician, her priest, rabbi, minister, or whomever she chooses. I respect the heartfelt views of those who are opposed to abortion, but I do not believe they should be imposed on those who hold a different but equally firm conviction. Having said that, I did support Senator Feinstein's amendment as a substitute to the partial-birth abortion ban. Senator Feinstein's amendment would have banned postviability abortions, but like Roe versus Wade, it includes exceptions for cases where the attending physician makes a medical decision that the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the woman or to avert serious adverse health consequences. As you know, under the provisions of Roe, States can pass such laws now. If this amendment had passed, I believe late-term abortions would remain available to women who need them for serious medical reasons. I opposed Senator Daschle's amendment because I believe its health exception could provide roadblocks to a woman seeking a late-term abortion for serious medical reasons. I have concerns about the constitutionality of the health exceptions in this amendment because they are more restrictive than those in Roe versus Wade. Mr. President, the American people overwhelmingly support the right of a woman to choose regarding abortion. This does not mean they are pro-abortion, it means they are pro-choice as I am. I urge my colleagues to oppose the partial-birth abortion ban, which is clearly unconstitutional, and to allow women and their physicians to make the best decisions based on each individual case.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I commend my colleagues, Senator Stevens and Senator Hollings, for working out this amendment, because it will let the Census Bureau proceed with planning and testing of statistical sampling. We need the best possible information before making a final call on the design of the 2000 census. The language we have agreed upon, as my distinguished colleague from South Carolina has just said, will let us get that information and get it in good shape, I believe. Thousands of Americans are waiting for the disaster relief to be provided by the legislation on the floor today, and they need this money to rebuild their homes and their lives. I am very relieved we are working together to get this aid to those needy people. I know full well the Census Bureau's plan to use sampling is highly controversial. I do not like sampling any better than anybody else. The only problem is, there is no better way to get a more accurate count of all the people in this country than by using all the regular procedures we have used before plus the sampling. There is no better way, even though none of us like it. We wish it were a perfect situation where we could go out and count every single American, just like the Constitution says we are supposed to do. But, as Senator Hollings said just a moment ago here, you cannot do that. We normally do not get full returns on all the census reports. We wind up traditionally with about 10 percent of the people not sending returns back, even though census takers call multiple times on their domicile or their businesses. So we wind up having to do some sampling to get a more accurate census, and that is what the whole thing is all about. So, it is controversial. Some people say the sampling does not meet the constitutional requirement for an actual enumeration. Those are the words, ``actual enumeration,'' in the Constitution. Some say sampling is inherently subjective because it is based on statistical assumptions, as it has to be. We have been arguing about this ever since 1990, when post-census surveys showed that 1.6 percent of the population had been missed. That may not sound like a big figure, but it is big if you are laying out plans for Federal appropriations that have to apply to these certain areas. The Bush administration decided finally not to use sampling to adjust that census. They decided the census statistical adjustment plan had too many problems. Here we are 7 years later. I must admit that, like my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, I, too, have some reservations about sampling. But we have to remember that the Census Bureau is not looking at sampling because they think it is the ideal method. Quite the contrary, an accurate, direct count would be the best. The problem is, a direct count has never worked in the past. And every census is more difficult than the last one. That is because our population keeps getting larger. It is more mobile. It is more culturally diverse, while public cooperation keeps declining. That is why the bureau is looking at new approaches. A complete sampling ban would require the bureau to cancel current testing plans and contracts, and that would just waste money that has already been spent for good purposes. A complete ban would require hurried development of new plans for next year's Census Dress Rehearsal. That would waste more money. Finally, a complete ban would require hurried development of a new plan for conducting the 2000 census. That would require many more census takers and would cost a lot more money. This is the tragic part, it might lead to a much less accurate census, more litigation, and more suspicion of Government. The language we have worked out prevents all that waste and keeps all our options open. At the same time, it lets the Census Bureau know the seriousness of our concerns. Let me tell you a little bit about the 2000 census--something the Governmental Affairs Committee is looking at right now. The census will set a new record as the largest peacetime mobilization in American history. The Bureau will hire 600,000 temporary workers, knock on 120 million doors, and count about 270 million people. By statute, the entire process has to play out smoothly over 9 months. The questions will begin on Census Day, April 1, and the results have to be given to Congress by December 31. Census Bureau officials tell us that, if they use sampling, they can keep the cost of the 2000 census down to about $4 billion, a little less than the 1990 cost of $25 per household. Without sampling, it will cost the taxpayers a whole lot more--perhaps as much as another billion dollars. Most important of all, the census is a highly serious enterprise. It is the process we use to make sure that every American--every American--is fairly represented in the governing of this great country. It is so fundamental to our democratic system that the Constitution specifically requires an actual enumeration of our population once every 10 years. These facts tell me that the decennial census calls for our very best thinking, our very best planning, and the very best scientific tools the statistical community has to offer. To quote the Commerce Inspector General: We continue to believe that, if carefully planned and implemented, sampling can be employed by the Bureau in the 2000 census to produce overall more accurate results than were produced in the 1990 census, at an acceptable cost. We further believe that the Congress should allow the Bureau the freedom to complete its work on sampling and then select the optimal census design based on all of the available information. According to the bureau's plan, fundamental work on all potential uses of sampling will be finished by December 1997. We do not believe an informed design decision can be made until this work is completed and the various design components are tested during the April 1998 dress rehearsal. I think the Commerce IG gave us some very good advice, because some hard facts have begun to emerge from the wealth of opinion about sampling. Fact: The Bureau has been using statistical sampling in the decennial census for decades. The census Long Form--which goes to only one in six households--is a perfect example of a kind of sampling that is widely accepted. If Congress bans sampling completely, we will not be able to use sampling for the Long Form any more. But the information gathered by the Long Form is still required by law. So we will have to send the Long Form to every single household across the country. And the American taxpayers will have to foot the bill. Another fact: It is inherently impossible to count everybody correctly the traditional way. All the experts agree on that. There will never be enough time or money. There will always be people not at home no matter how many times the census taker calls. When President George Washington received the first census data in 1790, he also got an estimate of the undercount. That has been the story ever since. In 1990, the census missed 10 million people. It counted 6 million people twice. And it counted another 10 or 20 million people in the wrong place. After that experience, everyone involved agreed that a better plan, a scientific plan, had to be developed for 2000. Another fact: The undercounted people are some of the most vulnerable in our society, minorities, poor people, both rural and urban, the non- English speaking, the homeless. These are the people we are excluding from the democratic process. Still another fact: Virtually all statisticians say that our scientific tools have been developed and tested to the point that we can finally fix the undercount problem. That view is supported by GAO, the Commerce IG, the National Academy of Sciences and a host of other professional organizations. Yes, 1990 sampling methods were flawed. That is precisely why the Census Bureau has spent 7 years developing a reliable plan for 2000. It is precisely why the Census Bureau needs to keep testing and planning, and it needs to go on with that right now and not have it cut off. What about the constitutional arguments? On April 16, at one of our committee's two recent hearings on the census, we heard testimony from Wisconsin's Attorney General James Doyle. He led the charge against sampling in 1990 because statistical adjustment of that census would have given California an additional House seat at Wisconsin's expense. Mr. Doyle testified recently: I think the Constitution requires that we make the best effort we can to an actual headcount, and I recognize that is a very complex task, and I recognize that within that task, we have to leave a good deal of discretion to the Census Bureau to, in fact, make some counts where you are not actually counting actual human beings. For example, you go to a locked apartment building and you go back there 5, 6, 7 times. At some point, somebody has to make a reasonable estimate on how many people are in that locked apartment building, and there are other kinds of procedures that the Census Bureau has built up over time to try to build that accuracy. So I recognize that there has to be a good deal of discretion given to do things other than summon everybody to Bethlehem and count how many people are there. At the same hearing, we also heard testimony from Stuart Gerson, the Assistant Attorney General who advised the Bush administration not to adjust the 1990 census. Mr. Gerson said, and remember, this is a person who advised against sampling in the Bush administration: Whatever an enumeration means, it does mean an accurate count and that should be our guideline--it does appear that the Constitution would permit a statistical adjustment if it would contribute to an accurate count. Note the caveat: ``if it would contribute to an accurate count.'' Both of those legal experts agree, and again, one of them led the fight against adjustment in 1990, that the key to the constitutional requirement for an ``actual enumeration'' is accuracy. They both agree that sampling is legally acceptable under two conditions: The Census Bureau has to make a good faith effort to count everybody the traditional way; and the Bureau has to demonstrate that sampling improves accuracy. Let us look at whether the Census Bureau's plan can meet those requirements. The plan itself was described in our committee hearing of March 11. We heard from Commerce Secretary William Daley, from Ev Ehrlich, the Commerce Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, and from Martha Richey, Director of the Census Bureau. As they explained, the first proposed use of sampling is to help count people who don't send back their census questionnaires by mail. The Bureau won't even start this sampling until after they have first made the greatest effort in the history of census-taking to convince Americans to send back their questionnaires. First, questionnaires will be mailed to every household found on the combined Census/Postal Service national address list. To insure the most complete national address list possible, the Bureau will also get several updates from local governments. Every household in America will get precensus letters and post-mailout reminders. Questionnaires will be available in town halls, post offices, community centers, and even stores. And finally, the Bureau plans an aggressive outreach campaign of school presentations, community meetings and paid advertising--all to give every single American every possible opportunity to participate and be counted in the time-honored way. I would say that passes the first test of constitutionality, a good faith effort to do an actual head count. Even with all this effort, experts project that only 65 percent of the American public will be counted using these methods. Our population is just too big, too mobile, too diverse, and too apt to ignore Government requests for information--even when it is this important. The question for the Bureau is, how do we count that last 35 percent? As the lawyers have told us, the Constitution and Federal law require our best effort. The census plan is to follow up the mail process with a large sample of those who did not send back a questionnaire. That sample will be large enough to make sure that census takers contact at least 90 percent of the people in each census tract. Yes, that means census enumerators will go into communities, just as they always have, to count at least 90 percent of Americans in the traditional way, by headcount. Then, and only then, will statistics be used to estimate the last 10 percent of the population. What about the second constitutional requirement? Can the Bureau demonstrate that sampling improves accuracy? At our second oversight hearing on April 16, we heard testimony from Prof. Lawrence Brown of the Wharton Business School. He strongly opposed adjustment of the 1990 census based on the sampling plan the Bureau used to generate the ``corrected'' counts. Professor Brown didn't think the Bureau's sample was large enough, and he didn't think the statistical model was valid. But he told our committee last month that the Census Bureau's plan for 2000 addresses the concerns he had in 1990. He told us the Bureau's plan can work. And he told us we will again have an undercount if we do not use sampling. On the charge that sampling is inherently subjective, Professor Brown said: Certainly, there is some subjectivity in how the process is designed and how the analysis is--conducted. But if all of this planning is done in advance, it is very very hard for me to see how one could direct these subjective decisions towards any desired goal. Notice the caveat: ``if all of this planning is done in advance. * * *'' That is just what the Census Bureau proposes to do over the next year. And this new language we have agreed on today will permit that work to move ahead and still give Congress the final decision. As Professor Brown's testimony proved--even for experts who questioned sampling in 1990--the Census Bureau seems to be on the right track for 2000. At this point in time, it is very hard to find even one statistician who doesn't think that sampling should be able to improve the accuracy of the 2000 census. The Bureau is doing its research; it is testing its plans; and it is having its plans reviewed by experts. Everything the Governmental Affairs Committee has learned so far tells me we need to keep the sampling debate open. And we need to give the Census Bureau a fair hearing. To disrupt the planning process now would set the Bureau back a year or more. And it would lock the Bureau and the Congress into a traditional census that we know will cost much more and we know will be inaccurate. I have already told you that I have some personal reservations about sampling. I wish it were possible to get an actual head count directly on every single American. I am sure the American public has concerns as well. We all get survey calls at home, around dinner time, usually. We also know about polls--surveys that conclude one thing or another-- often depending on who paid for the poll. We know all this. We know that surveys can be used in many different ways. So, we have to agree that the Census Bureau has a very heavy burden to prove to Congress and the American people that its survey methods are objective and scientifically sound, and that they will produce accurate, reliable information. The Constitution requires no less. What is critical right now is for census to continue its planning process--continue to appear before congressional committees--as it is doing before our committee--and continue to explain and review its plans. Only after this process is complete can we decide if the 2000 census will be a success. At this point in the debate, I am less worried about the constitutional and scientific issues than I am about the Census Bureau's management capacity. GAO and the Commerce IG agree with me on that. The viability of sampling depends on the Bureau's capacity to design and faithfully execute a good plan. Our debate here today proves that Congress is not yet sure of the Bureau's abilities. The Bureau has to give us more information. And we have to be willing to listen. The Bureau also has to show us that they have the management capacity to carry out a sampling plan if we approve it. These are the questions I think we should be focusing on. It is time for some plain talk--about the stakes involved here. Most of those people undercounted in last census were poor, and many of them belong to ethnic and racial minorities. We cannot tolerate any undercount. Our system of government guarantees equal representation for all Americans--regardless of race, ethnicity or economic circumstances--certainly regardless of political affiliation. I can only hope that my colleagues will not trade off this fundamental principle of democratic government for assumptions about partisan political advantage. Let me remind you about where the undercount is found. Look at the States that had high undercounts in 1990--New Mexico, 3.1 percent; Montana, 2.4 percent; Texas, 2.3 percent; Mississippi, 2.1 percent; Idaho, 2 percent. This is not a Democratic versus Republican issue. The undercount is a problem for every Member of this body. We undercount people in rural areas--that is a third of the 1990 undercount. We undercount people who are renters rather than homeowners. And we undercount over 12 percent of native Americans who live on reservations. Let's not throw away our opportunity to fix the undercount, without taking a good hard look at whether we have to and what are our options. Funding formulae, equal protection, civil rights, State and local planning, school building, targeted aid, business planning--almost every aspect of American life--would benefit from the best possible census in the year 2000. My heart goes out to all the Americans who are counting on us for the disaster relief this bill will provide. I want go give them that relief. I want to vote for this bill. So, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. I congratulate Senator Hollings, Senator Stevens, and their staff for working this out. Let the Census Bureau get on with planning what could be the best census, the finest census in American history. And let us get on with providing relief to those tens of thousands disaster victims who are counting on us. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, arson poses a serious but preventable threat to our society. This week, the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] is launching a community-based campaign entitled, ``Target Arson.'' Developed by FEMA in conjunction with the National Arson Prevention Initiative, ``Target Arson'' will educate young people on the dangers of fire, the importance of parental control of access to matches and cigarette lighters, and the need for adults to set good examples for children. I have long been a supporter of efforts to prevent and combat arson. During my second term in the Senate, I sponsored legislation that was enacted that requires the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] to include arson statistics in its Uniform Crime Reports. This legislation increased our ability to detect, prevent, and prosecute arson crimes. One out of four fires is intentionally set. More than 500,000 fires were set deliberately last year, over one-half of which were set by juveniles. These fires killed more than 500 people and caused approximately $1 billion in property damage. Through this education campaign, ``Target Arson'' will emphasize the 100 percent preventable nature of this offense. Mr. President, I join FEMA and its director, James Lee Witt, in supporting this important educational program. I urge my colleagues to support arson education in the schools in their States.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to bring my colleagues' attention to a recent and very significant decision by a dispute settlement panel of the new World Trade Organization [WTO]. The case is extraordinarily complex and I congratulate Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky and her staff at USTR on their skillful handling of this matter on behalf of the United States. To summarize the issue, the United States, Mexico, Ecuador, Honduras, and Guatemala went to WTO dispute settlement seeking an end to an EU banana trade regime which discriminates against banana exports from certain Latin American countries and against certain United States and Latin American banana marketing companies. The EU regime has deprived Latin American countries of market share and export growth in the EU and has taken business away from United States and Latin American banana marketers, giving that business over to European marketing firms. The WTO panel's decision is a major victory for the United States and our Latin American partners in the case. The panel found that the EU banana regime is founded on over 20 violations of international trade agreements, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT], the General Agreement on Trade in Services [GATS], and the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. This case has implications much broader than simply the banana trade. The United States has many, very contentious, on-going agricultural trade disputes with the EU, and for that reason U.S. agricultural interests have been watching the banana case with great interest. First, this case is an example of the successful use of WTO dispute settlement to resolve these agricultural trade issues. Further, according to the American Farm Bureau, the panel's report ``helps establish clear parameters for the implementation of agricultural tariff rate quotas [TRQ's]. These parameters will help prevent TRQ's from becoming the very type of nontariff barrier the Uruguay Round sought to eliminate.'' In addition, this case is the first test of the General Agreement on Trade in Services. The United States was instrumental in ensuring that GATS was included in the final Uruguay Round Agreement. It is in our interest to see the MFN and ``national treatment'' obligations, traditionally applied to goods in trade agreements, now extend to services, an increasingly important portion of U.S. foreign commerce. The panel decision in the banana case interprets broadly the GATS protections against government policies which discriminate against foreign service suppliers. This is an important precedent and a significant victory for U.S. interests. Once again, Mr. President, I complement USTR on a job well done and urge the administration to persevere through the inevitable appeal process, doing everything necessary to ensure that this important ruling is not undermined. I sincerely hope that, with the panel's decision in hand, a negotiated solution to end the discriminatory banana regime can be found. However, if not, the United States has a WTO-sanctioned right to retaliate, which we should not hesitate to invoke, if necessary, to achieve full EU conformity with the panel ruling in this case. A Hopeful Step for America's Farmers