John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I might respond to my distinguished colleague from Minnesota that I am ready to vote right now. I do not think anybody else is prepared to speak. I am prepared to vote right now.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I do not accept it that this is all just a House matter for this reason: I, as a U.S. Senator from Ohio, have to vote on appropriations for the House. Every Senator here has to do that. I vote those appropriations now, knowing full well that part of their cost of transportation back and forth comes back in the form of frequent flier miles, and that does not come back to the Government; it does not inure to the Government or accrue to the Government's benefit, as in the Senate and in the executive branch. It comes back to the individuals. So we appropriate more money here to let the House have their freebies to take families on vacations, fly wherever on their use of frequent flier miles, bought and paid for with taxpayer dollars. I think we ought to remember around here, when all else fails, that a vote on just plain what is right or wrong is in order. The way they are doing it over there now is wrong. This is a smokescreen that it does not make a difference to the Senate. It does, because we have to appropriate the dollars to help them have their freebies. If I rose here and said I am putting in an amendment here that says I want freebies for everybody, not just the House, let us expand it and put the Senate back on the freebies, and the executive branch, and run several million dollars of additional expense through appropriations to accommodate all this so we can take our families everywhere the House is able to take theirs. People would think I was nuts, and they would be right. But yet we try to do the opposite and say we are trying to save taxpayers' money, and we get ridiculed and voted down repeatedly. So I do not mind bringing this up for another vote. We see rebates not only on the airlines with frequent flier miles, we see these things once in a while that if you stay 5 days or 4 days in a certain hotel, I saw advertised in New York, you get a free weekend-- Friday, Saturday--with you and your wife and family, whatever. So we have those rebates. We have some of the rental car companies where, if you rent so many days in a row, you get a freebie or two. Why should that not come back in cash? If we are getting back frequent flier miles and using them ourselves, why should we not say if Hertz gives a Government discount, why do I not pay the full fare and we want a kickback in cash? That would be a kickback we would never condone, and we should not. So I think, when it comes down to it, it is just a matter to me of what is right and what is wrong. And the way the House is doing their business on this right now is just flatout wrong. Mr. President, I do not know whether anyone else wishes to speak, but I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 10

Mr. GLENN. I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, my amendment would apply to the legislative branch the same principles on frequent flier programs that Congress adopted last year in section 6008 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. That procurement act was worked on for about 3 years here, as I mentioned just a few moments ago in referring to Senator Bingaman from New Mexico. Part of that bill provided that frequent flier miles would not accrue to the benefit of the individual in the executive branch but would come back to the Government for the Government's use. In other words, you could not have taxpayer-supported travel and then have a rebate apply for that individual. So the purpose of my amendment, like the purpose of the underlying Ford amendment, is to save taxpayer money. Now, the use of frequent traveler programs is to reduce the cost of official travel, not to accrue to the personal benefit of somebody. Last year's legislation on this subject contained three key provisions. First, guidelines must be issued to ensure that Federal agencies promote and facilitate the use of frequent traveler programs for the purpose of realizing cost savings for official travel. Under my amendment, such guidelines would be issued for the Senate by the Senate Rules Committee, for the House of Representatives by the Committee on House Oversight, and for each congressional instrumentality by the head of the instrumentality. Second, last year's law states that frequent traveler awards accrued through official travel shall be used only for official travel, not personal travel. My amendment would clarify that this principle applies not only to the executive branch but also to the legislative branch of Government. Third, like last year's law, my amendment would require the head of each congressional instrumentality to report to Congress on efforts to promote the use of frequent traveler programs. The bill before the Senate, Mr. President, S. 2 is called the Congressional Accountability Act. Nothing could be a more critical part of congressional accountability than this amendment. It would require us to abide by the same principles that we have enacted last year in the act to ensure that Members and staff will not convert our frequent flier awards to personal use and will instead use these awards to reduce the costs to the taxpayer. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record at the end of my statement the provision in the procurement act of last year which I send to the desk. Section 6008 of the procurement bill of last year, entitled ``Cost Savings for Official Travel'' is a short section. It describes exactly how the administration, the executive branch will ``issue guidelines to ensure that agencies promote, encourage, and facilitate the use of frequent traveler practice programs offered by airlines, hotels, and car rental vendors by Federal employees who engage in official air travel, for the purpose of realizing to the maximum extent practicable cost savings for official travel.'' It is difficult for me how to see anyone can oppose that, but opposition we have had all during the consideration here in the Chamber. I am sorry to see that because I think this is something that needs to be done to restore confidence, particularly in the House of Representatives where they do not follow the same rules that we do in the Senate. I send that to the desk and ask that it be printed at the end of my statement.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. I compliment him for bringing this up. If people just look at the wording in this bill, it is not some wild- eyed thing. It is not something that requires us to do a great deal more work than we are otherwise going to have to do. Let me read what the sense of the Congress is. It is the sense of the Congress that Congress should not enact or adopt any legislation that will increase the number of children who are hungry or homeless. Now, I cannot conceivably think that any Senator would take just the opposite view and say that it is the sense of the Congress that we should adopt legislation that would increase the number of children who are hungry or homeless, and it would be ludicrous to think anybody would do that. So why something of this nature could not be supported I do not know. We would not even consider the opposite and say we will adopt legislation that will increase the hungry or homeless. All this says is that Congress has to be careful and not do something inadvertently that will increase the number of children who are hungry or homeless. Now, the second part of it: Section 2. Accountability. Duties of Congressional committees. Pretty simple really. A report accompanying each bill or joint resolution of a public character reported by any committee of the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall contain a detailed analysis of the probable impact of the bill or resolution on children, including the impact on the number of children who are hungry or homeless. Now, I would say that with probably 90 percent or more of the legislation that goes through here, that requirement will mean practically no work at all for the committee. If you are on the Energy Committee or whatever other committee, it is going to be pretty simple to say no, there is no direct impact on hungry or homeless children. But if, for those committees that deal with things where there is an impact, then at that time it would seem to me that we had better be looking at it, because we certainly do not want to add to the problems we already have with the number of children who are hungry or homeless. The rest is simple. It says that you cannot consider a bill, the same thing for the House, and so on, and the rest is very simple. I think it would be difficult to vote against something that just says we will not adopt legislation that will increase the number of children who are hungry or homeless. I do not see this as adding a big burden to our committee activity around here at all. There will be very few committees. Where some legislation is passed, it would definitely have a negative impact on the number of children who are hungry or homeless. So I urge my colleagues to support the Senator from Minnesota, and I am glad to support him on this. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ford amendment be once again set aside and that we proceed to vote on the Kerry amendment.

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

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from New Mexico. I know he has worked on the 800 panel as part of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the work we did on that procurement bill. It was about 3 years in the making. I think that should be applied here. I think the procurement bill was an excellent bill, and its provisions can well be applied here. I am glad to accept it on our side. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be temporarily set aside to permit Senator Bingaman to bring forth his amendment, which I believe is going to be agreed to.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, is the Ford amendment the pending business now?

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

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, may we have order. I cannot hear, and I am in the front row.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, just to clarify and help people in scheduling, I believe there are two amendments left that might require votes--those of Senator Wellstone and Senator Lautenberg. I do not know how long it will take. Those are the only amendments left, just for the guidance of Members.

Mr. GLENN

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

Mr. GLENN. That would sort of obviate the need for Members to try to accept it then, at this point.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, will my distinguished colleague yield? Would the Senator want the yeas and nays if the majority was going to accept it?

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN. I yield to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I certainly support what Senator Wellstone is trying to do. The gift ban is something we have tried to put through. There has been controversy on it back and forth. He has kept on this, to his everlasting credit. I think it is good he brings it up. I hope the majority, after checking with the leadership, might be able to accept this so that we do not have to go to a vote. I hope that will be acceptable to my distinguished colleague from Minnesota. I think, as I understand it, that is the process we are in now.

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

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, let me just put out a general call here for those who may have amendments to this bill. We do have time. We have handled several this morning. The votes on those will be stacked until this afternoon after our 2:15 end of the respective party conferences. We will vote on those after that. I think the distinguished floor manager on the Republican side was going to propound a UC on that at the appropriate time, on how we will go through the votes, so people will know what to expect. Let me just say, on the Democratic side we are the only ones who have amendments left on this bill. For those watching in the offices, or for Senators or staffs who may be listening, I encourage them to get over right now when we have some time here. We have about another hour before we break for our conference lunches. Get over here and get the amendments taken care of. I heard the majority leader in the opening this morning state we are going to go on this bill until it is done tonight with all the amendments. That puts the heat on our side of the aisle to get the amendments over here and get them taken care of. So I ask staffs and Senators, if they have amendments, let us not wait until 10 or 11 o'clock tonight to bring them up. Let us get them over here while we have time right now. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GLENN

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