John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I associate myself with the remarks all the people made regarding our new Secretary of Defense, now made official in that capacity this afternoon. I have known Bill for many years. I worked with him. I think he will be a great Secretary of Defense. He will try to fill some very big shoes over there that Bill Perry leaves, who I think turned into one of the greatest Secretaries of Defense since there has been that position in Government. But I have talked to Bill personally. He knows my admiration for him and my support for him in that office. So I just want to associate myself with all the other fine congratulations that are being offered here on the floor today. Madam President, I also rise today to introduce the Human Research Subject Protection Act of 1997.

Mr. GLENN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Glenn pertaining to the introduction of S. 193 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Human Research Subject Protection Act of 1997. I send the bill to the desk.

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, if I approached any Senator here and I said, ``You did not know it, but the last time they went to the doctor or went to the hospital, your wife or your husband or your daughter or your son became the subject of a medical experiment that they were not even told about. They were given medicine, they were given pills, they were given radiation, they were given something and were not even told about this, were not even informed about it, yet they are under some experimental research that might possibly do them harm--maybe some good will come out of it, but maybe it will do them harm also--but they do not know about it,'' people would laugh at that and say that is ridiculous. That cannot possibly happen in this country. Yet, that very situation is what this piece of legislation is supposed to address. I have been in public life and have served this country for many years. Frankly, I do not think too many things that I see surprise me anymore about our laws and about Government. Three years ago, though, I began to learn about a gap in our legal system that does truly concern me. In 1993 the Governmental Affairs Committee began to investigate the cold war radiation experiments. These experiments are one of the unfortunate legacies of the cold war, when our Government sponsored experiments involving radiation on our own citizens without their consent. They did not even know the experiments were being run on them. It was without their consent. One of the most infamous of these experiments took place in my own State of Ohio, when scores of patients at the University of Cincinnati were subjected to large doses of radiation during experimental treatments, without their consent, without their informed consent. During the course of this investigation, I began to ask the question, what protections are in place to prevent such abuses from happening again? What law prohibits experimenting on people without their informed consent? What I found, when I looked into it, is there is no law on the books requiring that informed consent be obtained. More important, I believe there is a need for such a law, as there continue to be cases where this basic right--I do view it as a basic right--is abused. As I started out, I would like to put this on a personal level for everyone of my colleagues. You just think about your own family, your own son, your own daughter, or grandchildren who might be, the next time they go to a doctor, the subject of some medical experiment that they are not even told about. I do not think there can be many things more un- American than that. With the introduction of this bill today I hope to begin the process of correcting some serious gaps in our legal system. I want to make clear right now I am not seeking to bring medical research to a screeching halt. Please do not anybody at NIH, or anybody doing research throughout this country, think we are trying to stop that. We are not. That is not my intent and not the intent of this bill. This country has the very finest health care system in the world, in part because of basic research. In fact, in large part because we have put more effort, more resources, more of our treasure into health research than any other nation in this world. In fact, I believe most people are not opposed to participating themselves in scientific research, if they are told about the pros and the cons. That is the goal of this legislation, to make sure that people have the appropriate information to make an informed choice about their medical treatment. Everyone listening today probably has heard of the Nuremberg Code. That is the list of 10 ethical research principles which were produced as part of the judgment against Nazi physicians who engaged in truly heinous medical experiments during World War II. The first principle of the Nuremberg Code states that the voluntary consent of the human subject of research is absolutely essential. Unfortunately, as we look back through our history since the late 1940's, it appears that researchers in America may not have taken all that Nuremberg lesson completely to heart. I ask my colleagues what the following names might have in common: thalidomide, Tuskegee, and Willowbrook? Well, the answer is that these are all sad examples of unethical research conducted in the United States, and in the United States well after the Nuremberg Code was issued, adopted and worldwide attention had been focused on some of the abuses of that time during World War II. Given this history, I find it astounding that even after Nuremberg, the thalidomide babies, Willowbrook, Tuskegee and the cold war radiation experiments, and who knows how many other cases, we still don't have a law on our books requiring that informed consent--those two words, ``informed consent''--be obtained prior to conducting research on human subjects. I have had research conducted on me because of my past activities before I came to the Senate in the space program and so on, but I knew what was being looked at, what was being tried. I knew the objectives of it, and I was willing to do that. I was happy to do it. But it was informed consent that I had personally, and I knew what I was getting into and glad to do it. I think most people feel the same way. If they know what they are getting into and they feel there is a good purpose to it, they are willing to do it. But to do research on people when they don't even know what the research or the medicines or the radiation is that is being tried on them, I think is unconscionable. What it comes down to is there are no criminal fines or penalties for violating the spirit or the letter of that Nuremberg Code that should be the basis of all of our informed consent in this country. In fact, our own Constitution says, ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . shall not be violated.'' So there is no explicit statutory prohibition against improper research. I must add that just because there is no law on the books does not mean there are no protections for people from unethical medical or scientific research. These tragic incidents I have mentioned have resulted in changes in the way human research subjects are treated. I don't want to misrepresent this, because there is a very elaborate system of protections that have developed over the years. Unfortunately, though, this system does have some gaps and, if enacted, I believe this legislation will close those gaps. Let me briefly describe the system that is currently in place. Regulations governing the protection of human research subjects were issued by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1974 and may be found at part 46 of title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In 1991, 10 years after a recommendation of a congressionally chartered Presidential advisory board, 16 other agencies adopted a portion of this rule, a portion of the rule to apply to research that these agencies sponsored. And at that point, these regulations became known as the common rule. The common rule requires research institutions receiving Federal support and Federal agencies conducting research to establish committees, and these are known as--the shorthand version is IRB's-- Institutional Review Boards. Their job is to review research proposals for risk of harm to human subjects and to perform other duties to protect human research subjects. The common rule also stipulates requirements related to informed consent, how researchers must inform potential subjects of the risks to which they, as study participants, agree to be exposed. It should also be noted that HHS regulations contain additional protections not included in the common rule for research involving vulnerable populations; namely, pregnant women, fetuses, subjects of in vitro fertilization research, prisoners and children. No other Federal agency has adopted these additional protections. Several mechanisms have been developed by HHS and research institutions over the years to extend the common-rule protections to more people. For example, many, but not all, research institutions which receive some Federal support voluntarily apply common-rule guidelines to all research conducted at their institutions. Additionally, in order to receive approval for a drug or device from the Food and Drug Administration, a research institution or pharmaceutical company must comply with the requirements of the common rule as administered by the FDA. In addition to the Federal regulations, most professional medical societies and associations have adopted ethical codes of conduct regarding research. The first such ethical code, called the Helsinki Code, was adopted by the World Medical Association in 1964. So it has been on the books for a long time. Since that time, other prominent organizations, like the American Medical Association, the American Society for Clinical Investigation, and the American Federation of Clinical Research have also adopted such ethical codes. Most recently, in October 1995, the President exhibited, I believe, strong leadership and established the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, NBAC. This had been a long time coming. It had been suggested, but no one had ever gone ahead and done this, and the President exerted the leadership and established the NBAC. Quite simply, the scientific and ethical issues which the NBAC are supposed to evaluate represent some of the most important, some of the most complex and controversial questions of our time. NBAC's input will be critical to informed policymaking for both the legislative and executive branches. The two primary goals of NBAC are to, first, evaluate the current level of compliance of Federal agencies to the common rule, and, second, evaluate the common rule and advise both the executive and legislative branches on any changes that might be needed to it. I very strongly support the work of the NBAC but recently have become extremely concerned to hear that more than 15 months after its establishment, the NBAC is still operating with a volunteer staff. It was my understanding that a number of Federal agencies supported the creation of the NBAC and agreed to back up their support with resources and staff. Some NBAC members have stated in public meetings that they are frustrated with the progress the Commission is making and attribute the slow pace to the lack of resources. Additionally, the resource problem may be limiting the number of meetings of the Commission. Further, if this problem is not resolved in the near term, the Commission may have to stop meeting altogether. I sent a letter to the President's science adviser a few days ago, Dr. John Gibbons, to express my concerns about this. Dr. Gibbons was working to resolve this funding problem, which I view as an urgent priority. I am very glad to announce--as a matter of fact, it was just today-- that these groups in Government that are interested in this had a meeting under Dr. Gibbons' leadership, and the $1.6 million that was supposed to accrue from these different agencies to be used by the NBAC is now forthcoming. So the NBAC is now funded so they can do the job they were originally supposed to do. We are very glad to say that has happened just today, and I am glad it happened today, just when I am introducing this bill, because it looks as though we now truly are moving to support the NBAC that did not receive the kind of monetary support, the kind of funding that we thought it was going to have when it was first formed a year and a half ago. There are a number of existing mechanisms that do protect human research subjects today. In fact, in March of 1996, the GAO reported to me that the testing protection system has reduced the likelihood of serious abuses from occurring. However, the GAO also pointed out a number of weaknesses and gaps in the current system. There are at least four areas, four major gaps. First, not all agencies have adopted the common rule, including agencies that currently sponsor research involving human subjects. The Department of Labor and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are examples of agencies that sponsor such research but those agencies have not adopted the common rule, which I think they should have. Second, the common rule's research is voluntarily applied in many cases. Most institutions which receive Federal funds will voluntarily apply the common rule to all research conducted at their institution. However, not all research institutions adopt this policy. And in any case, if any improper research is discovered at these institutions, there are very few steps available to the Federal Government to do much about it. Third, a private institution or a researcher who conducts nonfederally funded research or is not seeking approval of a drug or device with the FDA does not have to apply the principles of the common rule to its research. In other words, there is a huge area of all the private medical research out there that is not under the common rule unless they just choose themselves to just voluntarily do it. Fourth, no Federal agency, other than HHS, has applied the additional protections described in 45 CFR 46 for vulnerable populations--pregnant women and their fetus, children, prisoners--to their own research. So the purpose of this legislation is to help close the gaps that exist within the current system for protecting research subjects. Well, is there really a problem out there? Is this just a paper loophole that I am trying to close? Unfortunately, Mr. President, there are ongoing problems with inappropriate, ethically suspect research on human subjects. It is difficult to know the extent of such problems because information is not collected in any formal manner on human research. The Cleveland Plain-Dealer in my home State of Ohio has recently reported in a whole series of articles, after much investigation of this issue. And I quote from them: What the government lacks in hard data about humans, it more than makes up for with volumes of statistics about laboratory animals. Wonder how many guinea pigs were used in U.S. research? The Agriculture Department knows: 333,379. How many hamsters in Ohio? 2,782. So we have all this data on animals and little on human beings. I would hasten to add that the guinea pigs the Plain-Dealer refers to are the four-legged kind too and not the guinea pigs that are humans being used for research. The reason we know so much about the use of animals in research is that we have laws governing the handling and treatment of them. For example, the Animal Welfare Act requires that certain minimum standards be maintained when using animals in research. Let me give you some recent examples which indicate why, notwithstanding the common rule and the other protections that are in place, I think additional protections are needed in statute. In 1994-95, in an effort to explore the rights and interests of people currently involved in radiation research conducted or sponsored by the Federal Government, the Presidential Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments conducted an in-depth review of 125 research projects funded by HHS, DOE, DOD, VA, and NASA. According to the ACHRE report: Our review suggests that there are significant deficiencies in some aspects of the current system for the protection of human subjects. The ACHRE found that documents provided to IRB's often did not contain enough information about topics that are central to the ethics of research involving human subjects. In some cases the committee found it was difficult to assess the scientific merit of a protocol based on the documentation provided. ACHRE's report states that some consent forms studied by the committee are--and I quote-- . . . flawed in morally significant respects, not merely because they are difficult to read but because they are uninformative or even misleading. The report states further: Our review also raises serious concerns about some research involving children and adults with questionable decision- making capacity. And the ACHRE concludes: All told, the documents of almost half the studies reviewed by the committee that involved greater than minimal risk [to the subject] raised serious or moderate concerns. That is a horrible indictment. As I mentioned earlier, from December 15 to 18, 1996, the Cleveland Plain-Dealer published a series of articles entitled ``Drug Trials: Do People Know the Truth About Experiments.'' And I want to give credit to the people that worked on that. Keith Epstein, has covered Capitol Hill here and has written much and done much investigative reporting working on this, as did Mr. Sloat, S-l-o-a-t, Bill Sloat. Those two fellows worked on this and did a great job in pointing out some of the problems that still exist. And we have talked to them about some of these things. The Plain-Dealer uncovered a number of disturbing cases, very disturbing cases as a matter of fact, where people were either unaware of the fact that they were involved in research or were not provided full information about potential side effects of research. The series raises very serious questions about the adequacy of our current system of protecting human research subjects. The Plain-Dealer found, for example, of ``4,154 FDA inspections of researchers testing new drugs on people [since 1977] . . . more than half the researchers were cited by FDA inspectors for failing to clearly disclose the experimental nature of their work.'' Another serious finding in this series is that researchers who receive the most severe penalty by the FDA, being designated ``Disqualified Investigators,'' have little fear of this fact being found out by their peers or patients. One of the articles discusses potentially serious problems in the way research conducted outside of the United States is incorporated into applications for drug approvals in the United States. The Plain-Dealer uncovered much evidence to suggest that the Federal Government continues to sponsor research where informed consent is not obtained. And this fact disturbed me greatly also. On November 14, 1996, the Wall Street Journal published an article that examined the practice at one pharmaceutical firm, Eli Lilly and Co. in using homeless alcoholics in their clinical trials. The article raises some disturbing questions about the quality of the phase I trials conducted by this one company. Also serious ethical questions are raised concerning the appropriateness of paying homeless alcoholics significant sums to be human guinea pigs. It is not clear from the article whether these tests were reviewed by any IRB. On December 27, 1996, the New York Times reported on a New York State appeals court ruling which found that the State's rules governing psychiatric experiments on children and the mentally ill were unconstitutional. The court found that the rules did not adequately protect people who, because of age or illness, cannot give informed consent to take part in drug tests or other experiments. The article mentions 10 to 15 of the 400 psychiatric experiments covered by the ruling as being ``privately financed'' and therefore outside the coverage of Federal rules. How would you like it if your father, mother, son or daughter, husband, wife was in one of those institutions and was having experiments conducted on them without your knowing about it or without them knowing about it? That is what we are up against. On August 15, 1994, the New York Times reported on ethical and legal questions regarding a company's efforts to promote a drug that can make some children grow taller than they otherwise would. The drug in question, Protropin, has been approved by FDA for use in children whose bodies do not make sufficient quantities of human growth hormone. However, once approved, doctors may prescribe it for other purposes at their discretion. In this case the company was apparently surveying schools for short children and then trying to funnel those children to doctors who would prescribe the drug whether or not the children lacked the human growth hormone. This unapproved research was occurring without the oversight of an IRB. And at least 15,000 children have taken this drug. Another illustration of the precarious coverage of the common rule occurred in 1995 when it became known that researchers from the Center for Reproductive Health at the University of California Irvine, were fertilizing humans and implanting theses in different mothers without the consent of the donor. This research was not being funded by any Federal agency; however, NIH was funding more than $20 million worth of other research at the university. Even though several internal and external investigations by the university and the district attorney were being conducted on this experiment, a clarifying moment occurred when investigators from OPRR visited UC Irvine early last year. These investigators reminded university officials of the common rule; the fact that the university had agreed to apply it to all research conducted there--through OPRR's assurance process; and that NIH was currently funding a good deal of research at the institution. Within a week of OPRR's visit, the university took public action to halt the research and formally investigate the researchers. On October 10, 1994, the New York Times reported on a New York doctor who adopted two types of drugs approved by FDA for cancer treatment and stomach ulcers for an unapproved use to perform nonsurgical abortions. The article quotes the doctor saying that in 121 of 126 cases his approach was successful. The remaining five cases required surgery to complete the procedure. Because the drugs were FDA approved and the doctor was not funded or connected to federally sponsored research, no IRB or approved informed consent procedures were required. Apparently, each patient signed a three-page consent form, but this was not approved by an IRB. According to the Times, once FDA approves a drug, physicians are generally allowed to use it for off label purposes. Now Mr. President, some of the issues discussed in these articles are problems with how the common rule itself is being applied. Some of these examples illustrate the gaps in the common rule coverage. My legislation will address both the coverage and the application of the common rule. Now how precisely would the legislation work? It would require all research facilities to register with HHS. Registration shall include: First, statement of principles governing the research facility in its conduct of human subject research; second, designation of the official responsible for all human subject; third, designation of membership roster of IRB(s); and fourth, attestation that the research facility is complying with the protection requirements of the common rule. The legislation includes a grandfather provision for all research entities which currently have negotiated project assurances with HHS. The vast majority of research facilities have such assurances. The legislation contains a 3-year reregistration requirement. The legislation includes criminal penalties for failure to comply with the act. Therefore, if enacted it would be a felony offense to experiment on someone without their informed consent. The intent therefore of this legislation is twofold: First, to fill in the gaps of coverage of the common rule by requiring all research involving human subjects to abide by the rule; and second, to elevate the importance of conducting research ethically, the bill provides criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with the requirements of this law, and by extension 45 CFR 46. Finally Mr. President, my legislation would codify a recommendation which the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments made regarding the conduct of classified research involving human subjects. Specifically, the advisory committee recommended that informed consent of all human subjects of classified research be required, and that such requirement not be subject to waiver or exemption. Under current rule and executive order, it is possible to waive informed consent and IRB review for classified research. Title II of this legislation would prohibit the waiver of either informed consent or IRB review for classified research. The advisory committee also recommended that human subjects of classified research be provided with certain information regarding that research. My legislation would require that such subjects be information concerning: First, the identify of the sponsoring Federal agency; second, a statement that the research involves classified information; and third, an unclassified description of the purpose of the research. Mr. President I have tried today to briefly lay out the case for the need for the legislation I am introducing. I know that my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, is also concerned about the issues I have raised today, and about those that appeared last month in the Plain Dealer. I believe that he has requested that the chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee hold hearings on this subject. I think that is entirely appropriate. And I hope that this legislation could be considered in that process. I look forward to working with the Labor Committee in this regard. I do not claim to have the magic bullet solution with this bill. However, I believe there are some key principles which should guide the Senate's consideration of this legislation. These principles are: First, informed consent and independent review of experiments involving human subjects must be required. Second, anyone who violates the right of research subject to have informed consent, should be held criminally responsible for that violation. I want to put this in personal terms once again. You can imagine your spouse, husband, wife, father, mother, children, being experimented on without your knowledge or their knowledge. That is unconscionable, and we should not permit that. This legislation will close many of the loopholes that permit that to happen now. As the legislative process moves ahead, it is certain that the bill will undergo scrutiny and amendments. But I think the outcome, if this legislation is enacted into law, will be improved protections for all Americans. Madam President, obviously, I welcome any cosponsors on this legislation. I will be sending out a ``dear colleague'' letter to all the offices, and I hope we get a good response to that. I think there are very few Senators who will not back this when they hear what can happen then to them, their families, and their constituents back home, if we do not pass something like this. I think this is many years overdue. I don't want to scare people to death with this, because I think most of the research in this country is conducted in a way that is good and is with informed consent--in most cases. But just the few examples that I have mentioned here today, as well as the articles in the Cleveland Plain Dealer and New York Times I quoted from, indicate there is still a very major problem in this area and one that we want to close the gaps on so that no American is subjected to experiments like this, unless they know exactly what is going on and have given informed consent. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I thank the Senator from South Dakota for his efforts in responding to the urgent national need for ballast management to prevent unintentional introduction of nonnative species into U.S. waters. As you know, some Senators raised concerns about the initial House-passed version of the National Invasive Species Act [H.R. 3217] because it does not give assurance that onerous requirements will not be imposed upon vessels that exercise the safety exemption from national ballast exchange requirements. This version, [H.R. 4283], rectifies that problem. The Great Lakes Program which already leaves sole discretion over safety to the ship master, and already requires alternatives if high seas exchange is not possible, will not be affected by this amendment. I ask the Senator, is it his opinion that the Coast Guard will actively seek to identify alternatives of which vessels may avail themselves in other coastal regions, and will it request vessels to conduct these alternative precautions on a voluntary basis in the new national program?

Mr. GLENN. I also ask the Senator, if he believes that the Coast Guard will keep careful records regarding the extent to which the safety exemption is utilized, under what circumstances, and the extent to which vessels attempt in good faith to use alternatives that may be identified?

Mr. GLENN. As I mentioned, the Great Lakes Program currently requires alternatives to ballast exchange if high seas exchange is not possible due to safety concerns. While these alternatives are not overly onerous, I can understand industry's concern in other regions where the alternatives have not yet been developed. A cooperative relationship between the Committee of Environment and Public Works at the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation is crucial to the passage of this legislation and its effective implementation. I hope that these two Committees that share jurisdiction over this issue continue to work together to evaluate progress under the National Invasive Species Act.

Mr. GLENN. H.R. 4283 includes an exemption from the National Ballast Management Program for crude oil tankers engaged in coastwise trade. While the majority of this trade is conducted between Hawaii and Alaska, the risk to receiving waters of ballast water from these vessels may be significant. As the Senator knows, there is concern that fish pathogens may have been transported to Alaskan waters via this trade. I would hope that every effort will be made to study the baseline conditions of the Prince William Sound ecosystem to assure that invasive species problems in fact have not been arising from this trade, and will not arise in the future.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I do not wish to delay adjournment of the Senate nor hold up passage of the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] authorization bill. Absent the provision we have been discussing these past few days, the FAA bill could pass the Senate with near unanimous, if not unanimous, support. However, I cannot acquiesce in this ploy to circumvent normal Senate procedure, and thus will vote against cloture at this time. There have been no hearings on the so-called express carrier provision. Until it was presented to us as a non-germane provision in an unamendable conference report, it was never debated on the floor of the Senate. The provision was not included in either the House or the Senate version of the FAA authorization bill, nor had it been approved as part of any other legislation passed by the House or the Senate. Hence I believe it was most irregular for the conference committee to even have taken up this issue, much less to have inserted it into this conference report. If the debate on the Senate floor these past few days has told us anything, it has told us quite clearly that this rider is anything but a noncontroversial technical issue. Hearings should be held, the ramifications of this change in the law should be fully explored, interested parties should be given an opportunity to express their views, and Members of Congress should be able to offer amendments. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there has been no designated express carrier operating for some 20 years and that Federal Express was not when the ICC existed, and is not now, an express carrier. Hence the action of the Congress in deleting this obsolete designation, in the course of terminating the Interstate Commerce Commission, last year still seems entirely appropriate. If there is a case to be made for the resurrection of this outdated designation, then let us see a separate piece of legislation, let us see some hearings, let the normal legislative process make the case for why the change is needed. The very process by which this matter is finally presented to the Senate--in a conference report at the very end of the session-- makes me suspect that the issue deserves a much closer look than we are able to give it in this setting.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 4283, the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 and urge my colleagues to join me in approving this measure. I authored and introduced S. 1660, the National Invasive Species Act, in cooperation with a broad community of interest groups and regional delegations. Nineteen fellow Senators, from both sides of the aisle joined me in gaining passage of this critical bill. I am particularly grateful to my Ohio colleague, Congressman Steve LaTourette, for his skilled leadership in introducing and gaining House passage of H.R. 4283, the companion to my bill, S. 1660. The National Invasive Species Act of 1996 addresses the growing problem of the unintentional introduction of aquatic nuisance species into the waters of our Nation via the ballast water of vessels. The National Invasive Species Act will prevent the introduction of these pest species through the establishment of a national ballast management program. In addition, it will set up a national program of monitoring, management and control of invasive species already established in U.S. waters. The bill before us represents a consensus among interest groups. The environmental programs it sets forth are both reasonable and effective. In the Great Lakes region, we spend millions of dollars annually to battle sea lamprey and zebra mussel infestations, I can attest that such biological spills can and do happen elsewhere, their impacts on the receiving system are additive, and the resource degradation is permanent. The zebra mussel, a native species of Eastern Europe, has spread throughout the United States from the Great Lakes where it was unintentionally introduced in ballast water of commercial vessels. Wherever it becomes established, the zebra mussel threatens the economy and the environment. It clogs intake pipes, fouls drinking water, and covers swimming beaches with sharp shells. It has cost $120 million over 5 years in direct costs to the raw water industry of our region. The zebra mussel also contributed to the loss of many highly valued native species of freshwater mussel in both the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River. The Great Lakes are not the only entry way for invasive species into U.S. waters. In March, I hosted a National Forum on Nonindigenous Species Invasions of U.S. Marine and Fresh Waters. At the day-long event, experts from around the country cited serious species invasion in just about all of America's fresh and marine waters. Biodiversity and economic well-being are suffering due to invasions of nonindigenous species in the Pacific Northwest, San Francisco Bay, the Pacific Islands, the Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi River, the Atlantic coasts, the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain. In particular, studies show that a new species of aquatic organism invades San Francisco Bay every 12 weeks. A crab which is the host of a dangerous parasite has been found in U.S. waters within the Gulf of Mexico, fortunately not yet established. In 1990, I authored and Congress enacted the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act to begin to address the tremendous problem of unintentional invasions of aquatic species into the Great Lakes and other U.S. waters. The 1990 act consisted of two basic parts: A regional program to prevent new introductions of species into the Great Lakes by the ballast water; and a national program of monitoring, management and control of invasive species once established in U.S. waters. Most of the revisions contained in H.R. 4283 revise the prevention portion of the act. As you know, ballast water is the leading vector for unintentional transfers of nonindigenous species into U.S. waters. Ships carry ballast water to maintain trim when they are empty or partially empty of cargo. They discharge this water at their ports of call. An estimated 21 billion gallons of ballast water from vessels from foreign ports is discharged into U.S. waters each year. That's 58 million gallons per day, and 2.4 million gallons per hour. This ballast water contains just about everything and anything that was in the harbor from which the water was drawn. It is estimated that 3,000 species of aquatic organisms are in transit in ballast tanks around the world in any given 24-hour period. Most of these organisms will come to nothing in the receiving ports, but any one of them could cause billions of dollars of damage. It's a huge gamble. Even human cholera is transported in ballast water and has been detected in ships visiting Mobile Bay and the Chesapeake, among other regions. Fortunately, a ballast management practice known as high seas ballast exchange can greatly reduce the transfers of dangerous organisms through ballast water. This technique is not applicable in all circumstances; it cannot be employed in stormy weather and with some types of vessels. However, if applied where it can be employed safely, it would result in a substantial reduction in the risk of invasive species transfers into our waters. It is for this reason that the International Maritime Organization already encourages ballast management practices for commercial vessels. The 1990 law included a voluntary ballast management program for the Great Lakes which automatically became regulatory in 1992. The act assigned the Coast Guard the task of consulting with the maritime industry and Canada to develop voluntary guidelines, conducting education and outreach, and, after 2 years, promulgating regulations to help reduce the probability of new introductions of alien species by commercial vessels into the Great Lakes. This program has been highly successful. My 1996 proposal establishes a national ballast management program to begin to address concerns of other U.S. coastal regions. The Coast Guard is directed to issue ballast management guidelines for all vessels visiting U.S. ports after operating outside the exclusive economic zone. Consistent with the Great Lakes program, I want to stress that this program puts safety first. The guidelines will protect the safety of vessel and crew, whatever that may entail. There will be no penalty against vessels which do not participate in the initial national program, though recordkeeping by vessels to document participation is required. However, in the interest of maintaining a level playing field nationally, the Coast Guard has authority to issue the same guidelines as regulations in regions where a review of ship records reveals poor cooperation with the voluntary approach. Thus, the maritime industry would see only one set of rules nationally. However, over time, there may be enforcement associated with the guidelines in certain regions. Of great interest to the Great Lakes community, the successful Great Lakes regulatory program remains in place. For better prevention of invasions in the future, a demonstration program is established in the act. Over time new technologies and practices may replace ballast exchange as safer and more effective means of prevention. Other changes to the 1990 program which are contained in our National Invasive Species Act of 1996 include (1) the authorization of research in several coastal regions--including the Chesapeake Bay, Lake Champlain, the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico--which are at particular risk of degradation by species invasions; (2) voluntary guidelines to help recreational boaters to prevent unintentional transfer of zebra mussels; and (3) provisions to encourage more regions to set up coordinating panels and develop State management plans for invasive species prevention and control. Though now much broader in scope, I am proud to announce that the overall cost of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 does not exceed that of the 1990 law. Recent discussions with interest groups have revealed gaps in S. 1660, which I have urged the lead sponsor of the House companion legislation, Congressman Steve LaTourette, and my Senate colleagues to address. I am pleased that H.R. 4283 accommodates these concerns. For example, H.R. 4283 addresses the need for research on the fragile and precious natural resources of California, Rhode Island, and the Columbia River. Establishment of an ecological baseline and identification of alien species impacts in these regions will help us to ascertain whether our protection efforts are adequate. A second set of concerns arose from the maritime industry. Senator Johnston and I convened the leaders of this industry in Washington about a month ago to explore their position on the legislation and seek ways to increase their level of support without compromising the effectiveness of the legislation. While their initial response was skeptical and critical of the potential for regulation within NISA, ultimately they agreed to the legislation if certain clarifications were made in the legislative language. These clarifications--already a matter of Coast Guard policy--concern the priority on vessel safety, international consistency, and he equitable treatment of foreign and U.S.-flag vessels. With respect to ship safety, the bill now explicitly gives sole discretion over safety to the ship master. The Coast Guard does not want to be put in the position of second-guessing the ship's master on safety, unless the call is not made in good faith. While the safety exemption clearly could still be exploited by those who simply do not want to undertake an exchange, ship masters have highly responsible positions and we would expect them to act responsibly with respect to these guidelines. In addition, by measuring the rate at which the safety exemption is utilized, we can gauge the extent to which the use of it may impede effective prevention of new invasions. We may find that alternative technologies should replace ballast exchange. H.R. 4283 also assures that additional requirements will not be imposed upon vessels that exercise the safety exemption from national ballast exchange requirements. This provision does not affect the Great Lakes region, where an alternative exchange zone is already identified and convenient for vessels. For the national program, because alternatives are not yet identified, the Coast Guard is likely to encourage a vessel master using the safety exemption to attempt alternative actions to reduce the amount of unexchanged ballast that is discharged into one of our harbors, but leave the exercise of them to the master's discretion. In addition, the bill now explicitly requires the equal treatment of United States and foreign-flag operators and encourages consistency of our guidelines with any international regulatory regime established through the International Maritime Organization. Finally, to benefit all of us in assessing the adequacy of the program, the legislation includes a report to Congress by the Coast Guard after 2 years of implementation of the national guidelines. While it will consume some time, this report will assess for all to see, the rate of compliance by vessels, the extent to which the safety exemption has been utilized, the effectiveness of the guidelines at preventing new introductions of exotic species, and the regions--if any--in which the Coast Guard intends to enforce the guidelines due to poor compliance. The report will give Congress and the public a chance to review prevention program implementation and its effectiveness at meeting our resource protection and ship safety needs. In a last minute change, the House also included an exemption for crude oil tankers engaged in coastwise trade. Most of this trade takes place along the West Coast and while coast-wise, some of these vessels will exit the exclusive economic zone and ply the high-seas on their way to Alaska from Hawaii or California. I am happy to say Senator Stevens has included an amendment reflected in H.R. 4283 which evaluates the potential for upgrading a shore-side treatment facility, currently targeted at removing hydrocarbons from ballast water, for use in preventing non-native species transfer. I would like to close by pointing out that biological pollution of U.S. waters, so far, has not had serious public health implications. But the 1992 transfer of human cholera from South American ports to the shellfish beds of Mobile Bay via ballast water of commercial vessels reminds us that our luck may not hold forever. It is in everyone's interest to improve our Nation's precautions against invasions of aquatic nuisance species. Clearly, at this juncture, we do not have all the answers necessary to solve the problem of unintentional transfer of species via ballast water. H.R. 4283 has been carefully crafted to both generate and accommodate new information that will lead to rapid progress in protecting the natural resource wealth of our coasts. Unusual in the environmental arena, this issue offers us ``low-hanging fruit'' and bipartisan enthusiasm. I am grateful to my colleagues for joining in support of the National Invasive Species Act and urge enactment of this legislation this year.

Mr. GLENN

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

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, earlier this morning, in fact, 8:13 this morning to be exact, the crew of the space shuttle Atlantis returned to Earth having completed another successful docking mission with the Russian Mir space station. I want to extend my heartiest congratulations to the Atlantis and the Mir crews, as well as the thousands of NASA employees and contractors who brought this mission to completion. Mr. President, this mission is one for the record books. When docked with the Mir, the shuttle-Mir structure represented the largest manmade structure ever put in orbit. It weighed more than 240 tons. The Atlantis crew also set a record by transferring nearly 5,000 pounds of equipment and supplies and water to the Mir, and returning with more than 2,150 pounds of Mir equipment, along with the experiments and, of course, some of the things they did not want to toss overboard, some of the trash. In addition, the return of STS-79 concludes a mission of experiments in a number of different fields. I think we too often lose sight of some of the things going on in the program. We think of the human experience up there, and we try to emote to that and think what it is like to be up there as long as some of the people were on this particular flight. But these missions are all to do research. They are basic, fundamental research. The experiments that they had on this mission included things in the fields of advanced technology, Earth sciences, fundamental biology, human life sciences, microgravity, and space sciences. These are things largely that will be of benefit to people right here on Earth. Data from this mission also will supply the insight for the planning and development of the international space station, Earth-based sciences of human and biological processes, and the advancement of commercial technology. In other words, this sets the stage for even more ambitious programs, and ones that I think will be even more productive. However, by far, the most significant event is the return of Astronaut Shannon Lucid. Dr. Lucid now has more time in space than any other U.S. astronaut. She is a veteran of six shuttle missions, including the latest STS-79. She has logged, as a grand total, including this mission, a little over 223 days in space, including 188 days on this most recent mission. She has more cumulative time and more continuous time in space than any other U.S. astronaut. Now, we have to put this in perspective. She traveled on this flight some 75 million miles, the same as 157 round trips to the Moon and back, and she has completed on this mission and the others she was on, a total of 3,008 orbits of the Earth. Furthermore, when Dr. Lucid began her mission on Mir, she kicked off a 2-year period of continuous U.S. presence on the Mir spacecraft. This is a feat of a rather remarkable woman. I would like to provide my colleagues with a little background. Shannon Lucid, Dr. Lucid, was born January 14, 1943, in Shanghai, China. I believe her parents were missionaries. She considers Bethany, OK, to be her hometown. She is married with three children. She graduated from Bethany High School, Bethany, OK, in 1960, and received a bachelor of science degree in chemistry from the University of Oklahoma in 1963, and a master of science and doctor of philosophy degrees in biochemistry from the University of Oklahoma in 1970 and 1973, respectively. As I mentioned earlier, Lucid holds the endurance record for American astronauts in space. STS-79 is her sixth space shuttle mission, having flown previously on STS 51-G in 1985, STS-34 in 1989, STS-43 in 1991, STS-58 in 1993, and STS-74 in 1996. Dr. Lucid began her record-setting mission when she joined the Mir 21 crew with the March 24, 1996, docking of STS-76. In a recent interview, Dr. Lucid was asked the following question: What motivated you to get involved in the space program? I thought her answer was very interesting and I think we all may be able to learn a little from it. She said: You have to go way back to when I was a little girl. When I was a little girl I was very interested in being a pioneer like in the American West and I really liked those stories and I thought, ``Well, I was born in the wrong time.'' And then I thought, ``Well, I can just be an explorer,'' but then I thought, ``When I grow up all the Earth will be explored.'' And then I started reading about Robert Goddard and the rockets he had done and so I read a little about that. And then I started reading about science fiction. This was when I was in fourth and fifth grade and I thought, ``Well, that is what I can do when I grow up. I can grow up and explore space.'' And of course when I talked to people about this they thought that would be rather crazy because that was long before America even had a space program. So I just think it's pretty remarkable things turned out the way they did. That is a quote from Shannon Lucid. I think it is pretty remarkable, too. I think Dr. Lucid is truly a space pioneer and a hero for our young people. I think she represents what is best about our space program. She demonstrates setting goals, pursuing them, thinking about them, studying them, and with hard work and education can bring about truly momentous results. Mr. President, I welcome Dr. Lucid and the rest of the STS-79 crew back to Earth. In addition to Dr. Lucid, the STS-79 crew includes: Jay Apt, Terry Wilcutt, the pilot, William Readdy as the commander, Tom Akers, Carl Walz, John Blaha, who is replacing Dr. Lucid on Mir. Now, John Blaha will go ahead with the experiments that were left up there and some they took up just for him. I read from Aviation Week and Space Technology of September 9: After Atlantis departs, Blaha on Mir will begin work on 38 science investigations, including 26 being continued from Lucid's mission. His major science topics and the number of investigations planned in each includes: Advanced technology (3); Earth remote sensing (8); biology (2); human life sciences (10); microgravity/biotechnology (9), and tests to reduce international station design risks (6). Blaha will also do significant Mir systems work, including piloting attitude maneuvers and changing solar array angles when his two Russian colleagues are working outside the station. He is to remain on board Mir until picked up by shuttle Mission 81 in mid-January. Mr. President, this was indeed a great transfer and it sets the stage for the space station. Some of the hardware on the space station will begin to be put up by the end of next year by 1997 if everything remains on schedule, and we certainly hope it does. All on this mission, and John Blaha, who is up there now, we wish him well, of course, and we welcome this whole crew back to Earth. Congratulations to them. From Dan Goldin at the top of NASA, the Administrator of NASA, to all the employees down the line, they all deserve a great round of applause from all of us. They deserve our thanks and congratulations on a job well done. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support passage of this legislation to amend the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). By clarifying and improving a number of provisions of ICWA, this legislation brings more stability and certainty to Indian child adoptions while preserving the underlying policies and objectives of ICWA. This bill embodies the consensus agreement reached when Indian tribes from around the Nation met in Tulsa, OK, to address questions regarding ICWA's application. Mr. President, I believe that the overriding goal of this agreement, which I support, is to serve the best interests of children. This bill deals with several issues critical to the application of ICWA to child custody proceedings including notice to Indian tribes for voluntary adoptions, time lines for tribal intervention in voluntary cases, criminal sanctions to discourage fraudulent practices in Indian adoptions and a mandate that attorneys and adoption agencies must inform Indian parents under ICWA. I believe that the formal notice requirements to the potentially affected tribe as well as the time limits for tribal intervention after the tribe has been notified are significant improvements in providing needed certainty in placement proceedings. Mr. President, I am also pleased that this legislation contains provisions addressing my specific concern--the retroactive application of ICWA in child custody proceedings. ICWA currently allows biological parents to withdraw their consent to an adoption for up to 2 years until the adoption is finalized. With the proposed changes, the time that the biological parents may withdraw their consent under ICWA is substantially reduced. I believe that a shorter deadline provides greater certainty for the potential adoptive family, the Indian family, the tribe and the extended family. This certainty is vital for the preservation of the interest of the child. Mr. President, my concern with this issue and my insistence on the need to address the problem of retroactive application of ICWA was a direct response to a situation with a family in Columbus, OH. The Rost family of Columbus received custody of twin baby girls in the State of California in November, 1993, following the relinquishment of parental rights by both birth parents. The biological father did not disclose his native American heritage in response to a specific question on the relinquishment document. In February 1994, the birth father informed his mother of the pending adoption of the twins. Two months later, in April 1994, the birth father's mother enrolled herself, the birth father and the twins with the Pomo Indian Tribe in California. The adoption agency was then notified that the adoption could not be finalized without a determination of the applicability of ICWA. The Rost situation made me aware of the harmful impact that retroactive application of ICWA could have on children. While I would have preferred tighter restrictions to preclude other families enduring the hardship the Rosts have experienced, I appreciated the effort of Senator McCain, other members of the committee and the Indian tribes to address these concerns. I believe that the combination of measures contained in this bill will significantly lessen the possibility of future Rost cases. Taken together the imposition of criminal sanctions for attorneys and adoption agencies that knowingly violate ICWA, the imposition of formal notice requirements and the imposition of deadlines for tribal intervention, provide new protection in law for children and families involved in child custody proceedings. Mr. President, I have reviewed the Rost case to reiterate that my interest in reforming ICWA has been limited to the issue of retroactive application. Once a voluntary legal agreement has been entered into, I do not believe that it is in the best interest of the child for this proceeding to be disrupted because of the retroactive application of ICWA. To allow this to happen could have a harmful impact on the child. I know that my colleagues share my overriding concern in assuring the best interest of children, and I am pleased that the bill we are passing today reflects that concern.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I thank my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island. Mr. President, I rise today also to speak on behalf of Senate ratification of the third International Rubber Agreement, INRA III. As my colleagues are well aware, INRA III is a renewal of an existing commodity agreement. This is not new. It has been in existence between more than two dozen nations who are either producers or consumers of natural rubber. The first INRA was ratified in 1979. It was renewed in 1987. INRA III was negotiated in 1994-95 with the very active participation of the United States. According to the Department of State. . . . the objectives pursued by the United States resulted in a well-structured accord which offers a fair balance of benefits and responsibilities for both consumers and producers of natural rubber. In the negotiations, the United States sought and achieved a number of improvements in the new agreement. After a very lengthy interagency review, INRA III was formally signed by the United States and sent to the Senate for our ratification. United States participation in INRA has been supported by Republican and Democratic administrations, including those of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. So it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the Senate when INRA I and INRA II were considered. This year, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended ratification of INRA III by a near unanimous and bipartisan majority. The agreement is strongly supported by the Rubber Manufacturers Association and by the Rubber/Plastic Industry Conference of the United Steelworkers. Mr. President, more than two-thirds of the world's production of natural rubber comes from just three countries: Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. The purpose of INRA is very simple. It is to ensure an adequate supply of natural rubber at fair and stable prices without distorting long-term market trends and to foster expanded natural rubber supplies at reasonable prices. As Secretary of State Christopher points out in his letter of submittal accompanying the agreement: Prior to conclusion of INRA 1979, rubber prices had historically been unstable with strong rises. This was particularly noticeable, Mr. President, in 1951, in 1955, in 1960 and in 1973, 1974, followed by sharp and sudden declines. ``This behavior not only destabilized producers' incomes, but also contributed to inflation in industrial countries.'' That was a statement by Secretary of State Christopher. So those ups and downs in 1951, 1955, 1960, 1973 and 1974 are what led to INRA being passed in 1979. The Secretary continued: In addition, it discouraged needed long-term investments in natural rubber production. This was and is of particular concern to the United States which, as the world's largest consumer of natural rubber, has a substantial interest in assuring adequate future supplies of this commodity. In other words, what that says in simpler terms is, it's good for the consumers of this country that we have this kind of supply arrangement that does not permit price fluctuations. In contrast with other commodity arrangements which have sought to control prices, INRA uses a buffer-stock mechanism to avoid severe price fluctuations which can injure both producing and consuming countries. Absent alternative institutions to manage market risk, the agreement represents the best way of assuring predictable supplies of fairly priced natural rubber. INRA III will provide a transition period needed to allow industry time to prepare for a free market in natural rubber and to allow for the further development of these alternative institutions. That is very important. I already pointed out why to my colleague from North Carolina, because the fact is this will be the last INRA. After this, we go to a free market, and this time period for this INRA that we are going to approve today, I trust, will provide for arranging for development of these alternative institutions. INRA has effectively discouraged cartel-like behavior on the part of the producing countries by supporting prices sufficient to ensure adequate production, as well as a fair return to the producer, while giving consuming countries an equal voice in how this unique commodity agreement is implemented. The best part about it is, Mr. President, it has worked, it has been successful. Over the life of INRA I and II, production has increased by 50 percent to meet rising demand, yet prices have remained relatively stable. That is a great testament to the success of INRA I and II since they have been in effect. I repeat that. Over the life of INRA I and II, production has increased 50 percent to meet rising demand, yet prices have remained relatively stable. Natural rubber is a component of every tire and many rubber products. There is no substitute. The amount of natural rubber used varies depending on the type of tire or rubber product. All aircraft, as an example, however, including military planes, have tires which contain a high percentage of natural rubber. The economic impact on our whole Nation of ups and downs in the price of rubber is very real. A 1-cent-per-pound rise in natural rubber prices costs the United States an additional $22 million. Hence, the importance of price and supply stability is readily apparent. Short supplies or unreasonably high prices would be costly to American consumers and could be devastating to the tire and rubber industry in the United States. I will say, we have a very substantial part of this industry represented in my home State of Ohio. U.S. participation in INRA III should not require any additional money to cover our share of the buffer stock. It is my understanding the administration and the Senate are agreed that we will roll over moneys already invested in the buffer stock. This arrangement seems the simplest and most sensible means of addressing the financing question and is the same procedure which was used successfully for the transition from INRA I to INRA II. In closing, Mr. President, as the world's largest consumer of natural rubber, U.S. participation in INRA III is critical to the continued viability of the arrangement. I urge my colleagues to approve INRA III in the broad, bipartisan fashion which has characterized consideration of this issue to date. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time to Senator Pell. Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator from Michigan yield?

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I have been pleased to work with the Senator from Michigan on this matter as well as the overall issue of regulatory reform. In August I wrote to the majority leader, Senator Lott, who has taken a strong interest in drafting this legislation, and explained to him our concern about the cost-benefit standard contained in this bill. My concern, like Senator Levin's, was that this legislation could be used as a precedent in the debate on the larger regulatory reform bill. The majority leader, in a letter dated August 9, 1996, assured me that would not be the case. He said in that letter, ``S. 1505 only applies to the federal pipeline statute. In fact, it will affect only one federal agency with 100 employees and could impact less than ten rules per year. This is not a precedent setting proposal.'' Would the majority leader be able to confirm his earlier statement?

Mr. GLENN. I thank the Senator from Mississippi and I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I join with my colleague and friend from Michigan, Senator Levin, in saying that I can support this legislation with respect to this issue. I am also happy to support the inclusion of added language to protect the public's right to participate in the development and approval of the risk management demonstration projects provided udner this bill. I was concerned that as initially drafted, communities affected by these projects might not have a voice in commenting on the proposals made by pipeline owners and operators for alternative methods of complying with the law. The sponsors of the legislation agreed to add statutory language to protect that right to public participation. With that addition, as well as the statement of the sponsors as to the scope of the bill, I will support this legislation.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. About 5 minutes.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I still have some questions about this. I come at this with some background of longstanding. The Volcker Commission report is about 7 years old at this time. I had hearings on it when it first came out of the Governmental Affairs Committee. I am very familiar with the Volcker Commission report. It came out in 1989, I believe. I had hearings on it in the Governmental Affairs Committee at the time it came out because I, too, was concerned about the growth of Government. We had hearings and worked on some ways to peel back on some political appointees to hit the proper balance that needs to be hit. I do not believe, however, that just mandating it, as we are doing with this particular proposal, is the way to go at this thing. I think it is in many ways unnecessary and unwarranted because the proposed legislation would enforce an arbitrary cap. And it is arbitrary. It is not done going department by department and agency by agency, and saying, ``Here are some that are excess; here are some that are not.'' Doing a study that way just lops off about a third, or 30 percent the total number of political appointees, without saying who is going to do this job or whether their job can be done by somebody else or absorbed by people in the regular civil service ranks, or whatever. Let me just say that President Clinton has taken the lead to reduce Federal employees while making Government work better. The President's plan has carefully analyzed the Federal Government, and it has recommended specific and pragmatic ways to reduce the number of Government employees. The plan makes 180 specific recommendations to streamline the Government and deliver more services for less money. By contrast, the proposed legislation singles out political appointees while failing to account for how the arbitrary number of remaining appointees will manage the Government. As far as reducing Government and cutting costs, we began 3 years ago when President Clinton began the effort to reduce Government. We are all familiar with the National Performance Review under the direction of the Vice President. His goal was to create a Federal Government that works better and costs less. Under the NPR--let us see how we have done with the NPR. After 3 years in office, the President is well ahead of schedule to reduce the size by 272,900--that was the goal by the end of this year--or about a 12-percent reduction in the Federal workforce. In fiscal year 1995, 185,000 full-time equivalent positions were cut. By the end of fiscal year 1996, 214,000 will have been cut. So we are well on the way to cutting that 272,900. So we have reduced. We are about two-thirds of the way toward the goal in one-third of the time that we thought it was going to take. In the Reagan and Bush administrations, from 1980 to 1992, we saw an increase of 67,000 in the Federal civilian workforce. That was an increase of 3.1 percent. This administration has cut the number of on- board Federal employees by 225,000 in 3 years. It is a decrease of 10 percent. A similar reduction has occurred in the percentage of political appointees. So it has been across the board. It has not been only civil service. It has also been the political appointees. There are approximately 6 percent fewer political appointees in this administration than there were during the previous administration. This is an important thing to note. The last time American taxpayers saw levels of Federal employment this low was during the administration of President Kennedy. This administration established a plan to reduce not only the size of the Government but also the number of programs, the number of regulations, and the way Government works to develop new partnerships. Even though the current level of appointees in this administration is below that of the Bush administration in 1992, the proposed legislation would force a 30-percent reduction of political appointees in addition to the reductions that have already been accomplished. The National Performance Review accomplishes the goals of this proposed amendment. I have been much involved with the NPR. President Clinton has sought to reduce the cost of Government to the American public while providing higher quality services. The National Performance Review has carefully analyzed the Federal Government and has recommended specific, pragmatic ways to reduce the number of Government employees, including political appointees, to manage with fewer layers of middle management, and to reduce Government regulations. For example, President Clinton has reduced the number of Department of Agriculture agencies from 43 to 29 and plans to close or consolidate 1,200 field offices. I think the proposed amendment looks only at one frame of really the big picture. The proposed amendment singles out political appointees. By singling out political appointees, it examines only one-sixth of 1 percent of the total Federal employees. About half of the political appointees are schedule C employees who are junior and midlevel staff. These are not all senior-level managers even though they may be political appointees. This administration has instead focused on all Federal employees by removing layers of management to offer lower level employees greater responsibility. It also decentralized decisionmaking and increased the scope of managers' control. Political appointees execute the policy priorities voiced by the American public at the ballot box. Political appointees play a key role in carrying forward policy priorities. The Clinton administration has an obligation to ensure that the Government is a well-managed instrument of the public interest in carrying out programs important to the public. Political appointees are entrusted with managing the priorities of the American public. So just arbitrary cuts in the number of political appointees endanger the administration's ability to respond to policy priorities created both by law and the American public at the ballot box. Mr. President, there was a statement made about how the British functioned and how their Government operates and how they can turn around the Government in a much shorter time than we can. That is very true. Perhaps there are some areas where we can learn from the British and other parliamentary forms of government. But they operate on a parliamentary form of government quite different from ours. Indeed, they are a democracy, but their functions of government are completely different than ours where we split the powers out and have the powers of government balance each other between the executive and legislative branches. Then ours is monitored by the judicial branch, of course, when there are any challenges to this. But in a parliamentary system theirs is centered in that Prime Minister, and a Prime Minister is normally far more powerful than any American President. We may be a bigger country and a bigger economy, but as far as the authority to commit the affairs of government in a certain direction, a Prime Minister speaks with authority for his or her government with a shadow Cabinet out there in the offing. That is the reason they always can turn over faster than we can. In a parliamentary form of government, the Prime Minister can say, ``Here is what is going to happen,'' and that is a commitment of government, or that person is turned out of office when there is a new election or the party turns him or her out of office. And so a Prime Minister, as far as getting things done, and as far as the hierarchy, the bureaucracy of Government to back that person up, there is less turnover in that type system than there is normally in our type system with all of its remainder of powers back and forth. The loyal opposition in a parliamentary situation has a cabinet, a shadow cabinet standing there waiting to come in. They know right then who their appointees are going to be, if there are going to be many at all, and the actual form of Government goes on. The full-time civil servants are lifetime, usually spend a lifetime career in those particular positions. Now, let us look back at the NPR a minute, the National Performance Review. We worked very closely with the National Performance Review in the Governmental Affairs Committee. We provided some of the legislation, the legal authority for buyouts, for early outs, for early retirements, but done with fairness--done with fairness. We have cut out a lot of those positions. And as I just read a moment ago here, we have, indeed, cut out a number of the political appointees with that, and that was done at the initiative of the administration, to cut some of those out, cut out some of these layers of management. I know Paul Light, in reference to his work. I have his book and have read his book. He was on our committee staff at one time and went from the committee staff, I think, to the position he has now where he has authored a lot of articles, and so on, has done an excellent job in what he has done. So I am thoroughly familiar with Paul's work. I know him personally. He has done a good job in pointing out a lot of these things. We do, indeed, have to be working toward the end he points out in the book of this layering of Government, the many layers and levels that we have to fix if we truly are going to have efficiency in Government. But as my distinguished colleague from the Nebraska, the floor manager of the bill, pointed out a few moments ago, political appointees in our system come in not just as political favors to give somebody a Government job. They are put in over the normal civilian bureaucracy, the civil service, so that the policies of the new President can be implemented; you have people in each one of these departments or agencies to do exactly that, to see that the President's policies are carried out. They are the implementers. Now, do we have too many implementers? Well, I would not quarrel that maybe we do, but I think to just arbitrarily say we are going to lop off a third of these because we do not like that big number out there is a pretty shortsighted way to go at this thing. How do we make that kind of change, just whacking away at the management levels that the President uses for control in these different agencies and departments? How do we just whack away at them without knowing what the impact is going to be? I guess I would feel much better about it if we had had some hearings on this and have some specificity about where we are going to see these cuts occur, how they are going to do this. Maybe it will work in some departments; in other departments, it might be catastrophic. I do agree very much with the distinguished Senator's comments about the turnover in the political appointees once they are in office, and that disturbs me mightily because we did some studies on that and have GAO figures on it. I do not have the current figures with me to be up to speed on this. Well, I guess I do. Staff just handed me a comment on this. Turnover rates of political appointees: Appointees average 2 years of service. When NPAS vacancies occur, it often takes months, if not years, to fill the slots. Some positions go unfilled for months, if not years. By the time you get up to speed on major issues and budget procurement and financial management, you are on the way out, and that is no way to run the Government. So when I have conducted hearings in the past, when we have had people come up for confirmation before the committee, I have always asked them for a commitment. I asked them for a personal commitment that they are in for this term of office of the President. Everyone I have run into so far, all those who have been through confirmation--we had, I think it is, 40 or 40- some who have come before our committee--everyone has given me that commitment. I do not think anyone has violated it. So we are doing our little bit to get this constancy of Government in there also, which I think is very important. I think it is about half of the appointees are gone within 28 months, or something like that, I think, is the current figure. That is in the ballpark anyway. We would have to get more detailed figures on that. In fact, we had a hearing on this back a few years ago; I was concerned enough. We had GAO do a study, and they came up and gave the results to us. We were trying to make sure whatever administration, Republican or Democratic, it got a commitment from their political appointees coming in not just to get a new entry in their dossier or in their record but came in to do their job to the end of that administration's 4-year term, whatever it might be. So I would feel better about this proposal if we had had some hearings or we had details on exactly who was going to be affected-- most, how the President is expected to do his job if he does not have his political appointments in there to carry out the policies that he has been elected to put into effect in Government, and I do not think we have that. So I hate to oppose this, but I have to, in all good conscience, do that because I do not like this sort of, what I call, a meat-ax approach to Government, just say we do not like the number of employees; we will whack a third of them off. That is basically what we are doing with this. It sounds great. Political appointees, everybody would probably agree they are the most expendable people in Government, but they are not really. Whether it is a Republican administration or Democratic administration, there are people out there in Government as political appointees, either Secretary, Under Secretary level or whatever, who are implementing the policies the administration had just been elected to put into practice. So just to say that because they are political appointees we automatically can do away with approximately a third of them I do not think is realistic. So I have to oppose this. This will probably be popular enough--we are going to have a vote on it--to go through, but I urge my colleagues to think twice about this before they vote for something like this. We are progressing in this direction. The administration has had well over 200,000 positions cut. We are at the lowest employment level since John F. Kennedy. We are bringing the employment of Government down not only in civil service but in these political appointments. A number of those positions, as I said earlier, have already been eliminated by the National Performance Review and more are coming. That, to me, is the way to go at this thing--keep the course we are on of cutting down civil service. Right now, we are ahead of schedule on reaching that cut of 272,900 that the administration set as a goal after they did their assessment of all the civil service and of all the Government positions. I hope we will vote this down so that we do not do more damage here than we are doing good. We are heading in the right direction right now, and to just automatically say we are going to arbitrarily pick a number off the top of our head and whack away is the wrong way to go, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. I have just a few comments here and then we will be finished with this. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article out of the Washington Post from back in 1994, April 21, 1994, called ``The Permanent Non-Government.''

Mr. GLENN. It goes into some of these things about the high turnover rate that we have of these appointees that come in. I think that is almost scandalous in the turnover rate. Since I mentioned this a moment ago, we have had a chance to look up the figures here. Back in May of 1994, I had hearings on this subject. We looked into what had happened over the past decade. In fact it covered an 11-year period, back through the Reagan and Bush years. I am not pointing it out just politically, because I think the same kinds of figures apply, maybe slightly reduced, in the Clinton years so far, also. At that time, over that 11-year period, during the Reagan and Bush years, 30 percent of political appointees had left the Government within 18 months of their appointment. Almost one-third of the people did not even stay beyond 18 months after being politically appointed. And 50 percent--this was the average for that 11-year period--50 percent of the political appointees were out of Government 27 months after their appointment. You know, a person comes in here and it takes them a little while to find out where the washroom is and who they write to and hiring their secretary and one thing or another, so the first 2 or 3 months they are here they are not as productive as they should be. And once they decide they are going to leave, they are out there and they are short-timers, as we used to say in the service. Because they are short-timers and you cannot expect anything out of them, so do not give them anything real to do. So, take that 6 months out of the service; 30 percent are gone after 18 months, you get 1 year out of these people and you cannot expect the President's appointees, whether it is Reagan, Bush or anybody else, to do a good job in implementing their policies if their political appointees are going to turn over in that fast a period of time. I don't have complete, up-to-date, current figures that compare with those. I think it has improved a little bit, but I think it is still one of the major problems we face in administering Government, is getting these political appointees, not just reducing their overall numbers, but getting them to come in and stay long enough to do the job for which they were appointed to do. I just wanted to get those figures in the Record. I gave all my reasons for opposing this before. I would feel much better if we had hearings and detailed the exact effect of this thing. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. I yield the floor and yield back whatever time I have remaining. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I support the Regulatory Accounting amendment offered by Senator Stevens. Senator Levin and I have worked with our Governmental Affairs Committee chairman, Senator Stevens, to refine the language since it was initially added to the Treasury, Postal appropriations bill. While I have reservations about legislating on appropriations, the result of our collaborative effort is a bi- partisan amendment that should be supported. It will provide one significant step towards regulatory reform, a goal to which I continue to be committed. Government regulation has proven an important element in our Nation's effort to protect public health and safety, restore our natural environment, and provide for the welfare of the American people. I believe, however, that our Government often relies too heavily on regulation, for example, without considering costs that can significantly burden businesses, State and local governments, or individuals. Our task in regulatory reform is to address the excesses and weaknesses of our regulatory system without undermining the protections it has provided. As I said many times during the regulatory reform debate of this 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. A necessary element of true regulatory reform is the development of objective information on which to base and question regulatory decisions. The amendment before us today should assist in this regard. The proposal for an estimate of the costs and benefits of all Federal regulation was first made this Congress in our bipartisan Governmental Affairs Committee regulatory reform bill (S. 291). It was also in subsequent bills. A modified version was most recently added to the Treasury, Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756) during the Senate Appropriations Committee markup. Senator Stevens' floor amendment-- amendment No. 5226--refines that language, revising section 645 of H.R. 3756. The revised language reflects a collaborative effort by Senator Stevens, Senator Levin, and me to craft a practical requirement for a useful report on Federal regulation. Under the amendment, OMB will compile in a one-time report existing analyses and estimates of regulatory costs and benefits, both in terms of estimates of the total annual costs and benefits of all Federal regulation and in terms of specific major rules--these would be the significant rules that have gone through OMB regulatory review with a cost/benefit analysis. OMB will also provide a discussion of those costs and benefits as direct and indirect impacts on sectors of our Nation. This assessment should encompass not only various estimates of impacts, but also alternative approaches to making such estimates. In each of these steps, OMB will not have to engage in extensive analyses of its own, but rather is expected to use existing information. The sponsors of this amendment are aware of OMB's resource constraints and intend that the report be based on a compilation of existing information, rather than new analysis. OMB should insure, of course, that all considerations of costs and benefits take into account relevant quantifiable and nonquantifiable impacts. For example, visibility over the Grand Canyon is important to our country, yet is difficult to value as an economic benefit. Thus, to be useful in regulatory decisionmaking, cost/benefit analyses must be able to address both quantifiable and nonquantifiable impacts. Finally, the amendment requires OMB to provide recommendations for reforming existing regulatory programs along with a description of significant public comments made on its report before submission to Congress. The recommendations for reform should include programs that should be eliminated or altered because, for example, they are too burdensome or are obsolete, as well as programs that should be strengthened to more effectively implement public policy. While the study of regulatory costs and benefits is far from an exact science, and definitely does not provide the detail or accuracy of financial accounting, it is an area of study in which we do need to develop more widely accepted measures and methodologies. The OMB report should highlight areas in which analysis is clear and productive and those areas in which more work is needed to refine analytic techniques. It should also suggest approaches for analyzing non-quantitative impacts and for integrating them with economic analyses. In these ways, the OMB report should provide an important service by informing agencies, Congress, and the public about evaluating the costs and benefits of Federal regulation. regulatory accounting

Mr. GLENN

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

Mr. GLENN. Yes. There is objection.