John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. The Senator from Michigan is correct. That is the intent.

Mr. GLENN. The bill's provision appointing tribal representatives to the committee created by the bill is not intended to expand their existing authorities.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues for taking the time today to consider this legislation which is so important to my region. I introduced The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act GLFWRA of 1997 as S. 659 in the Senate in April of 1997, in coordination with the introduction of the companion bill, H.R. 1481, in the House by Congressman Steve LaTourette. It's been a long process, but one in which bipartisan and bicameral cooperation at every step of the process served to create a better and stronger bill to serve the needs of the Great Lakes region. The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act has eight Senate sponsors, including myself, and twenty-eight of our colleagues on the House are also cosponsors. This bill represents the consensus of a diverse collaboration of tribal, state, federal and international agencies with jurisdiction over the management of fish and wildlife resources of the Great Lakes. The bill also has received favorable review and broad support of organizations throughout the Great Lakes region for the approach it takes toward restoration of the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem. The primary purpose of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act is to implement proposals that address recommendations put forth by the Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study. To this end, the Act reauthorizes the existing Great Lakes Coordination and Great Lakes Fishery Resources Offices. The bill also sets up a proposal review committee under the guidance of the existing Council of Lake Committees to review grant proposals and identify projects of the highest priority for the restoration of the fish and wildlife resources of the Great Lakes Basin. The Act encourages, supports, and coordinates Federal and non-federal cooperative habitat restoration and natural resource management programs in the Great Lakes Basin. The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act represents a new generation of environmental legislation, one that recognizes the complexity and inter-relatedness of ecosystems. This act seeks to address natural resource management in a comprehensive and conscientious manner by building partnerships among the Great Lakes states, U.S. and Canadian governments, and native American Tribes. Through regional cooperation, I believe we can address the environmental and economic concerns of the Great Lakes Basin and continue on the road towards the recovery of this precious natural and national resource. By passing this legislation, we in the Congress will be taking the right next step toward responsible stewardship of the Great Lakes as we venture into the new millennium. This fall, as I look back on the earth from space, I will be sure to look down on the Great Lakes. I know that they will be a cleaner, safer place for both humans and wildlife to live than they were at the time of my last flight because of the efforts we have made over the past decades. With the passage of this legislation, I will also be sure that they will continue to become even cleaner, safer places where fish and wildlife communities, and the human communities who enjoy them can continue to prosper.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today as we consider the fiscal year 1999 Defense authorization conference to draw the Senate's attention to what appears to be a brewing controversy over the state of our military's readiness. Yesterday, the Committee on Armed Services held a hearing with Joint Chiefs to discuss some readiness issues that recently have been brought to the committee's attention. I believe there are very legitimate concerns regarding recruiting and retention trends, increased Personnel Tempo, as well as pay and benefits comparability, spare parts availability, and growing depot and real property maintenance issues to be examined. I agree that we must pay very close attention to these issues because we are asking our men and women in uniform to do more today than we ever have during peacetime. We are asking them to do more, not so much with ``less,'' but with fewer and fewer people and that is placing a strain on our military. I believe we must proceed very, very carefully before any further reductions are considered. I am concerned that our problem may be more basic than these issues I have just mentioned. I have come to this Senate floor many times over the years and have spoken repeatedly in the Armed Services Committee to voice my concerns over the drawdown in our end strength. In my view, I don't believe we should have gone below 1.6 million in our active duty end strength. I am concerned that with fewer than 1.6 million in end strength our military strategy becomes a bit of a myth, Mr. President. I don't think we can fight two contingencies today with an end strength of 1.4 million. I'm not confident we could repeat Desert Storm and embark on a second contingency if something broke out in Korea. 1.6 million is not a number I pulled from thin air. Rather, it is based on a time-proven formula that requires a force that basically is divided in three. One third of the force is forward deployed and fighting, one third of the force is training for deployment or in transit and one third of the force is maintaining the other two- thirds-- manning the Pentagon, plowing the runways, etc. In the Persian Gulf, we had about 575,000 Americans deployed. That's one major regional contingency or one major theater war (MTW) as we are now calling them. To repeat Operation Desert Storm, we need an end strength of at least 1.6 million. Today, we appear to be falling below the manning levels necessary to conduct our peacetime operations let alone credibly maintain a combat force capable of carrying out two nearly simultaneous major operations. Mr. President, let me add at this point that I believe those commitments are important. We have alliance deployments in Japan, Korea, and Europe. We are conducting peacekeeping operations on the Kuwait border and in the Western Sahara. Our so-called ``Operations Other Than War'' also require American service members to be deployed to the Sinai, to Bosnia, to the Persian Gulf in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and on the border between Peru and Ecuador. We've had deployments to Rwanda, Angola, Somalia, Haiti and Cambodia to name a few other operations that have all contributed to the services' high OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO. I support these operations. We literally have saved millions of lives through our presence in troubled areas of the world and I believe that that is an appropriate use of our military forces. The cold war may be over but the killing has not stopped. The United States has no territorial ambitions but we do need to remain engaged. The constant demands on our personnel around the world, however, are not without consequence. We are asking the men and women in our military services to be deployed for longer periods and more often than we have in the past. They have served well through a difficult and turbulent period. I understand, and I hope my colleagues understand, the rationale for continued reductions in our end strength. End strength cuts are being made in order to generate cash to pay for modernization programs. I agree that our service members deserve the best and most modern equipment available but I do not agree that reductions should be made simply to generate cash. Even if modernization programs can reduce manpower requirements in the long term, in the near term, we still need people to carry out our important worldwide commitments. The time has come to step back and consider how we are going to achieve our goals. We may need more funding for modernization. In my view, we also need funding for more people. We also need to impose more discipline before simply raising the topline. We should have given the Department base closure authority so we could get unneeded bases off the books. And we should impose more discipline on ourselves. This year we added about $2 billion in items that the Services didn't request in the procurement and research and development accounts. We added over $600 million in military construction add-ons. It is only in the past few years that the Congress has agreed that when adding military construction projects, those projects should at least be projects that the Defense Department wants. Even meeting that criteria, I am not sure that annually adding hundreds of millions of dollars for military construction projects just to ``bring home the bacon'' is necessarily the best approach to establishing and funding national security priorities. I am supporting this conference report because on balance I believe it is a good conference report but I do believe that the Congress needs to focus more carefully on true spending priorities particularly as we are learning that there may be some readiness funding problems.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint resolution commemorating the Inspector General Act in the year of its 20th anniversary. The Governmental Affairs Committee, on which I serve as Ranking Minority Member, has a long and bipartisan history with the IG community. In fact, I am very proud that I was an original sponsor of the IG Act and author of the 1988 amendments, both of which have played a major role in making our government function more efficiently, effectively, and with greater trust and confidence on the part of the American people. So, it is fitting that the Senate and House note this anniversary. Throughout government, IGs have had tremendous success. I note just some of these accomplishments as follows, from the latest (1996) PCIE report: Inspector General (IG) investigations led to $1.5 billion in ``recoveries'' in 1995. (This is money which has been recovered by the Government from people who have attempted to defraud it). In addition, based on IG recommendations, agency managers agreed to cancel, or seek reimbursements of, $2.3 billion from contractors or grantees in 1995. Also based on IG recommendations, managers changed how they planned to spend $10.4 billion to maximize return on the Federal dollar. Overall, between 1981-1994, IG's reported $340 billion in recoveries & funds put to better use from their efforts. In addition to IG work on program improvements, and the figures cited above, the report compiles other important IG accomplishments from FY 1995: $26.8 billion in recommendations that funds be put to better use; $7.2 billion in questioned costs; 14,122 successful prosecutions; 2,405 personnel actions; and 4,234 suspensions and debarments of persons or firms doing business with the Government. These facts suggest that IGs are doing the job we intended them to do, in spite of the fact that they are operating in a very difficult and more complex environment. The data also support the fact that the IG's first responsibility continues to be program and fiscal integrity; they are not ``tools'' of management. Even though, in this day and age, IGs need to make themselves ``relevant'' to both Congress and the agency, they first must help to make good programs work better, target those most vulnerable to waste and fraud, and help achieve savings wherever they can find them. The record proves this is clearly what the IG's have been about. The progress I have mentioned is particularly important since, if anything, the IG's role has only become more difficult in a new political culture dedicated to improving management. With the passage of the CFO Act, the Government Management Reform Act (GMRA), and the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), IGs have inherited some new authority and some new duties. They now have some responsibility to ensure that we have accurate, reliable, and complete financial information on which to base our policy decisions and, down the road, which measure how well each program achieves its goal and at what actual cost. In that context, IGs have a unique role in helping to solve management problems throughout the federal government. The test of their success in this new mission is much like the one applied to their old one and--as I have indicated--the measure of their success is already evident. As I approach my last months as a United States Senator, I look back with great pride on the accomplishments we have made so far among the more than 60 statutory IGs. I am the first one to admit that the IGs do not function perfectly. In fact, any government operation can always stand improvement. But I strongly believe that we now have in place a fair, effective, and useful--if partial--solution to some very serious management problems in government. To me, this represents a singularly important success for the Congress and the American people, and one upon which I am hopeful we will continue to build into the 21st century and beyond. I hope all Senators will join me in supporting this important resolution.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 2176, the ``Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998'' introduced this summer by Senator Thompson, Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee with jurisdiction over the Act. I want to thank Senator Levin for managing the bill today. I also want to thank Chairman Thompson for the accommodations his staff has afforded Democratic staff in the negotiations leading up to this brief debate. We, on our side of the aisle, were blindsided, to say the least, by the filing of the cloture petitions last week as staff were negotiating the terms of a unanimous consent agreement on, and the substance of a managers' amendment to this very bill. As we know, the Vacancies Act governs the temporary filling of what we call ``advise and consent'' or PAS positions (Presidentially- appointed, Senate-confirmed) in the Executive Branch. As I have said many times before, I remain concerned about two important goals of any new law we pass: (1) As Senator Byrd--the best expert this body has on Senate procedure and constitutional law--has repeatedly noted, this is one of the Senate's most important and serious constitutional prerogatives in that we are expected--required, in fact, under the Constitution--to provide our advise and consent on the nominees the President submits to us for our consideration; and (2) maintaining the smooth functioning of government with the large number of vacancies we seem to have to deal with. On one hand, we have more slots in government than ever before which means more vacancies. On the other hand, our confirmation process is long and tedious keeping acting officials (many of whom are very qualified to fill their slots) in their positions for longer than we intend. Combined, these concepts make the continuity of the functioning of government a challenge to achieve, but certainly not impossible. We should be creating a process that reflects reality and provides the proper safeguards and enforcement mechanisms. I believe the bill as it stands now improves on current law, but I think there is still work to be done. The White House has issued a veto letter on this bill. While I consider this important legislation, I remain concerned about many of the issues raised by the Administration, and I have filed amendments to address many of these concerns. For instance, are we being too limiting in who can become an acting official? Current law mandates that an acting official can be the first assistant or anyone the President designates. We will be narrowing current law to include the first assistant or any PAS official the President designates. The importance of this change is that in the absence of a first assistant or at the President's discretion, we will be requiring someone whom the Senate has already approved to fill a slot for which the Congress has required the Senate's advise and consent. But do we really want a President to designate a PAS from HUD to assume the additional responsibilities of a PAS position at Department of Education? Or vice versa? Do we want these folks who already have plenty of responsibility as it is to assume the added responsibility of a second position? With the vetting process taking longer and the noteworthy downsizing in government that has occurred over the last 6 years, perhaps it's time to consider a hybrid category of who can be a temporary acting official. I intend to offer an amendment to add a third category which would include qualified individuals of a certain level or higher who are already within an agency in which a vacancy occurs. Such individuals-- who could include high-level members of the civil service--would be familiar with the agency, its processes and culture; possess some institutional memory; and be fully capable of the task. This gives the President a larger pool from which to choose an acting official, particularly in a case where there is no first assistant, and the President must turn to another PAS official to temporarily fill the slot. In addition, it allows a larger category of who can act at the beginning of an administration to keep government functioning at a time when there are not many PAS officials. I think this amendment is critical to the success of the legislation, and I hope Senators on both sides will give it serious consideration. I will not be able to support the bill if this issue is not addressed in it. In addition, I hope to offer amendments which would give the President the authority to extend the period for a temporary official if a case of national interest arose and a nomination for the position had not yet been sent up. In such cases, under the amendment the President upon certification to Congress of the particular national interest--be it national security, natural disaster, economic instability or public health and safety--would be able to extend the temporary appointment one time for 90 days. Finally, I hope to offer an amendment which would further decrease the requirement for a first assistant who will be an acting officer and the nominee to 45 days. At the beginning of a new administration, there may not be enough PAS officials to perform their own duties let alone those of another position. This will be the case particularly where there is a change in party in the White House. In addition, because of the restriction in the bill on first assistants who serve in acting capacities who will also be the nominees, the administration will be required to fill the first assistant slot as well as the vacant PAS slot. My amendment would allow first assistants to be appointed, act in the vacant slot for 45 days and then be nominated to fill the slot on a permanent basis before the end of the 60-day period for which extensions are granted at the beginning of a new administration. I hope that other amendments that may be offered which would impose the same constraints on the Senate as this legislation would impose on an administration will also have a fair opportunity to be considered. While some see no connection between the Vacancies Act and the responsibilities of the Senate to act on nominations, I believe the two are inextricably linked. I do not believe we can go forward in reforming one process until we commit to reforming our own. I want to note that as the negotiations on this bill proceeded, we were not only looking to see how this law would operate in this second- term Democratic administration. Indeed, some day this law will be utilized by a Republican administration. With this in mind, we attempted to help craft a fair piece of legislation. In that vein, I want to emphasize again that the process by which this bill has come to the floor for such limited debate with no opportunity for action prior to the cloture vote, is discouraging both for our faith in a fair process and for the fate of this legislation. Nomination of Bill Lann Lee

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, today, I introduce the Power Marketing Administration Reform Act, a bill that will require the Power Marketing Administrations, or PMAs, to sell power at market rates. The Tennessee Valley Authority, or TVA, will also be included in the bill's requirements. My bill is a companion to H.R. 3518, introduced by Representatives Bob Franks (R-NJ) and Marty Meehan (D-MA) in the House. PMAs have failed to recover their operating costs for too long. My colleagues in the Senate are well aware of my activities to rectify this discrepancy that has brought about a fiscal shortfall and significant environmental damage. I have been joined by many in this Chamber in requesting reports from the Government Accounting Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Energy, the federal department that oversees the operation of the PMAs. All of the reports on the PMAs and the TVA have indicated severe financial problems. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in a report released in March, 1997, selling PMA electricity at market rates rather than at the currently subsidized rates will raise approximately $200 million per year, money that will be returned to the U.S. Treasury. Later in 1997, CBO concluded that eliminating this costly subsidy would complement steps already taken by Congress to deregulate energy markets and to reduce government interference in market operations. When the PMAs were established during Franklin Roosevelt's administration, they served a useful and necessary purpose. Jobs were created for a nation that was struggling out of a horrible depression. Areas that could not afford the cost of purchasing power lines and generators for their residents were provided electricity at below market rates. At that time, below market sales were a good idea that allowed many more Americans than could afford electricity to enjoy its benefits. CBO concludes that over the past sixty years, many of the concerns that brought about the federal government's role in supplying power have diminished greatly. Nearly 60% of federal sales go to just four states: Tennessee, Alabama, Washington, and Oregon. In fact, nonfederal dams produced an average of 20% more electricity per unit of capacity than did dams supplying the PMAs. According to a General Accounting Office report entitled, ``Federal Electricity Activities,'' released in October, 1997, in fiscal 1996, Bonneville, the three other PMAs, and the Rural Utilities Service cost the American taxpayer $2.5 billion. In the four year period from 1992 to 1996, the government's net costs were $8.6 billion. In March, 1998, the GAO released an additional study entitled, ``Federal Power: Options for Selected Power Marketing Administrations' Role in a Changing Electricity Industry.'' Among the conclusions in this report were that for that same four year period from 1992-1996, the federal government incurred a net cost of $1.5 billion from its involvement in the electricity-related activities of Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western. Up to $1.4 billion of nearly $7.2 billion of the federal investment in assets derived from these activities is at some risk of nonrecovery. As for fairness in lending, the GAO found that the interest paid by the PMAs on their outstanding debt (3.5%) is often substantially below the rate that the U.S. Treasury incurred while providing funding to the PMAs (9%), resulting in a shortfall on interest alone of 5.5%. And rates charged by these PMAs were 40% or more below market rates. Mr. President, it is important to note that my bill does not close the PMAs or the TVA. Rather, it helps them to transition to a market- based operation whereby the vast majority of consumers who do not benefit from PMA below-cost power sales will no longer be penalized so that a few large power companies can purchase cheap, bulk power. My bill will provide for full cost recovery rates for power sold by the PMAs and the TVA. To accomplish this goal, PMA and TVA rates will be recalculated and resubmitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for approval. In addition, the bill requires that PMA and TVA transmission facilities are subject to open-access regulation by the FERC, and that regulation will be strengthened by authorizing FERC to revise such rates. Cooperatives and public power entities will be given the right of first refusal of PMA and TVA power at market prices. Revenue accrued from the revisal of these rates will go first to the U.S. Treasury to cover all costs. The residual amount will then be disbursed by formula to the Treasury to mitigate damage to fish and wildlife and other environmental damage attributed to the operation of PMAs and the TVA, and to support renewable electricity generating resources. Mr. President, these figures speak for themselves. In an era where the Congress has taken great strides toward eliminating the government's involvement in private industry, the PMAs are a white elephant. Sixty years after its inception, public power is less expensive, more accessible, and more widely available than ever before. There is no reason for the government to continue this wasteful subsidy to the fiscal detriment of the American people and the U.S. Treasury. I urge my colleagues to join me and my colleagues, Senators Moynihan and Reed of Rhode Island, in supporting this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, today, I introduce the Power Marketing Administration Reform Act, a bill that will require the Power Marketing Administrations, or PMAs, to sell power at market rates. The Tennessee Valley Authority, or TVA, will also be included in the bill's requirements. My bill is a companion to H.R. 3518, introduced by Representatives Bob Franks (R-NJ) and Marty Meehan (D-MA) in the House. PMAs have failed to recover their operating costs for too long. My colleagues in the Senate are well aware of my activities to rectify this discrepancy that has brought about a fiscal shortfall and significant environmental damage. I have been joined by many in this Chamber in requesting reports from the Government Accounting Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Energy, the federal department that oversees the operation of the PMAs. All of the reports on the PMAs and the TVA have indicated severe financial problems. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in a report released in March, 1997, selling PMA electricity at market rates rather than at the currently subsidized rates will raise approximately $200 million per year, money that will be returned to the U.S. Treasury. Later in 1997, CBO concluded that eliminating this costly subsidy would complement steps already taken by Congress to deregulate energy markets and to reduce government interference in market operations. When the PMAs were established during Franklin Roosevelt's administration, they served a useful and necessary purpose. Jobs were created for a nation that was struggling out of a horrible depression. Areas that could not afford the cost of purchasing power lines and generators for their residents were provided electricity at below market rates. At that time, below market sales were a good idea that allowed many more Americans than could afford electricity to enjoy its benefits. CBO concludes that over the past sixty years, many of the concerns that brought about the federal government's role in supplying power have diminished greatly. Nearly 60% of federal sales go to just four states: Tennessee, Alabama, Washington, and Oregon. In fact, nonfederal dams produced an average of 20% more electricity per unit of capacity than did dams supplying the PMAs. According to a General Accounting Office report entitled, ``Federal Electricity Activities,'' released in October, 1997, in fiscal 1996, Bonneville, the three other PMAs, and the Rural Utilities Service cost the American taxpayer $2.5 billion. In the four year period from 1992 to 1996, the government's net costs were $8.6 billion. In March, 1998, the GAO released an additional study entitled, ``Federal Power: Options for Selected Power Marketing Administrations' Role in a Changing Electricity Industry.'' Among the conclusions in this report were that for that same four year period from 1992-1996, the federal government incurred a net cost of $1.5 billion from its involvement in the electricity-related activities of Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western. Up to $1.4 billion of nearly $7.2 billion of the federal investment in assets derived from these activities is at some risk of nonrecovery. As for fairness in lending, the GAO found that the interest paid by the PMAs on their outstanding debt (3.5%) is often substantially below the rate that the U.S. Treasury incurred while providing funding to the PMAs (9%), resulting in a shortfall on interest alone of 5.5%. And rates charged by these PMAs were 40% or more below market rates. Mr. President, it is important to note that my bill does not close the PMAs or the TVA. Rather, it helps them to transition to a market- based operation whereby the vast majority of consumers who do not benefit from PMA below-cost power sales will no longer be penalized so that a few large power companies can purchase cheap, bulk power. My bill will provide for full cost recovery rates for power sold by the PMAs and the TVA. To accomplish this goal, PMA and TVA rates will be recalculated and resubmitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for approval. In addition, the bill requires that PMA and TVA transmission facilities are subject to open-access regulation by the FERC, and that regulation will be strengthened by authorizing FERC to revise such rates. Cooperatives and public power entities will be given the right of first refusal of PMA and TVA power at market prices. Revenue accrued from the revisal of these rates will go first to the U.S. Treasury to cover all costs. The residual amount will then be disbursed by formula to the Treasury to mitigate damage to fish and wildlife and other environmental damage attributed to the operation of PMAs and the TVA, and to support renewable electricity generating resources. Mr. President, these figures speak for themselves. In an era where the Congress has taken great strides toward eliminating the government's involvement in private industry, the PMAs are a white elephant. Sixty years after its inception, public power is less expensive, more accessible, and more widely available than ever before. There is no reason for the government to continue this wasteful subsidy to the fiscal detriment of the American people and the U.S. Treasury. I urge my colleagues to join me and my colleagues, Senators Moynihan and Reed of Rhode Island, in supporting this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN

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

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, in the next few weeks I will be casting my final votes and concluding my four terms in the Senate. During this last term, a significant amount of my time has been devoted to investigating abuses of our current campaign finance system. What I have learned is that this is a problem which cannot wait. I am pleased that one of my remaining votes can be cast in support of important reform, however, I am disappointed that the Senate will likely not pass this much needed legislation. Although I have always been a supporter of campaign finance reform-- and indeed I personally believe that a system of campaigns fairly and equally underwritten by all Americans through some form of publicly supported financing is the only way to ensure public officials are not unduly influenced--but this last session has been a lesson for me on just how urgently we need to fix the campaign finance laws. When we originally passed the current campaign finance laws it was in the wake of allegations that the presidential campaigns of the early 1970s had accepted hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars from secret contributors not known to the voters. The goals of that law were right and for many years it served us well. But there are few things that change as quickly as campaigns and politics. By 1996 our law had been eroded to the point that it was barely recognizable. In 1996, we again faced a system totally out of control--filled with soft money and thinly disguised political advertisements masquerading as ``issue'' advertising funded by secret sources. We faced an election in which even the Members of this body--the people governed by the campaign finance laws--did not know what was legal and what was not. The amendment that is before us today and the bill that passed the House are a direct product of the chaos of the 1996 election. They are good legislation that address the two key problems of our campaign finance system--the proliferation of soft money and the use of thinly disguised ``issue'' advertisements. In addition, the legislation takes important steps to strengthen the Federal Election Commission. The goals of the bill before us today are the same as those of the original law: to deter corruption, to inform voters and to prevent wealthy private interests from exercising disproportionate influence over the government. There is no question that most problems we saw in the 1996 election stemmed from legal activity. There is also no question that both political parties and groups supporting candidates on both sides of the aisle in 1996 took advantage of these loopholes in their quest to win. The problems of soft money being used to purchase access and of secret contributors funding their own attack advertising campaigns without disclosing their identity can not be solved by any other means than by passing a new law. The proposals in this bill are carefully drafted to protect the First Amendment right of voters to engage in political speech. The legislation simply requires public disclosure and compliance with contribution limits. To those who see no problem with soft money advertising campaigns by parties and issue advertising by unknown and undisclosed contributors I can only wonder what they will say after the next time they run for re-election and discover they no longer have any control over the course of their own campaigns? No one can seriously argue that the system of soft money and secret issue ads is consistent with the spirit of the campaign finance laws. Together, the soft-money and issue-advocacy loopholes have eviscerated the contribution limits and disclosure requirements in federal election laws and caused a loss of public confidence in the integrity of our campaign finance system. By inviting corruption of the electoral process, they threaten our democracy. For parties to accept contributions of hundreds of thousands--even millions--of dollars, from corporations, unions and others to air candidate attack ads without meeting any of the federal election law requirements for contribution limits and public disclosure is a fundamental step backwards. Twice in the past year we have voted on the amendment before us today. Each time, although a majority of the Members of this body have voted in support of the bill--a minority opposed to reform has blocked its passage. Today we again take up this measure--but this time with a difference--this time the House of Representatives has worked together in a bi-partisan manner, recognized the critical need for reform, and passed a bill. By coming together and passing this reform legislation we in the Senate can take advantage of a narrow window of opportunity and turn these bills into a new and vital campaign finance law. This is a rare chance to fix a major problem. If we fail, it will plague us in many elections to come. Over the course of my Senate career, I have watched as public cynicism about government increases, and trust in government declines. In 1996, for the first time, less than half the people in this country eligible to vote cast a ballot. We must assure the integrity of our campaigns if we are to have any hope that young Americans will continue to have the faith in our government and in its public servants. If we do not act we here in the Senate will be responsible when the abuses witnessed by the American people in 1996 are repeated. All that will change is that amounts of money will continue to increase and public faith will continue to decline. In less than two months we will see the loopholes ripped open in 1996 resulting in an even greater flood of money into the system as each party tries to elect their chosen candidates, and the candidates battle to be heard against the flood of issue advertising. There is nothing I should like to be able to say so much as that I left the Senate having helped to pass into law the amendment before us today. I would ask that my colleagues join with me to cast a vote to enact into law these sensible reforms that we know we need. Only then can I depart with the confidence that we have acted to protect our electoral process from the apathy and cynicism that are a danger to democracy.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose cloture on the Cochran bill. I will agree at the outset that the many cosponsors of this bill, though haling overwhelmingly from a single party, probably believe they have the best interests of the nation in mind by giving their support to this bill. So I am not here today to challenge their motives or to impugn their character. I am here instead to state as concisely and sincerely as I can how and why I believe they are simply wrong. This bill is fatally flawed because it bases a profound national security decision--that is, the decision to deploy a missile defense system spanning the entire territory of the United States--upon one single consideration . . . its technological possibility. Voters across the land sent us here to Washington because here is where the tough decisions are made that face all Americans. They are tough decisions precisely because they rarely if ever involve only one consideration. They are tough because they often entail tough trade- offs in the pursuit of goals that our country simply cannot achieve all at once. As members of Congress, we have to consider politics, economics, short-term and long-term effects, impacts on other policies, legal issues, and other factors. We have to weigh all these considerations and reach a judgment on what will serve the interests of the nation. Yet here we are today, deliberating a decision that could well lead to the expenditure of tens or potentially hundreds of billions of dollars solely on the basis of a wish on a star. And that star is Star Wars. This is my main objection to the bill--I just do not think it is wise to base fundamental national security decisions on simply one criterion, especially one so notoriously ill-defined as the notion of a ``technological possibility.'' But I have other concerns as well. These relate to the potential cost of the policy enshrined in this bill. And they focus on the dubious technological objective that lies at the heart of what is known as ``National Missile Defense.'' I think it is certainly appropriate to ask some tough questions--as the Rumsfeld Commission did--about the foreign missile threat to determine if this threat is so grave or so imminent that it requires throwing twin babies out with the bath water: first, by abandoning standard US government procurement laws and procedures when it comes to acquiring major technological systems, and second by setting America on a course that is contary to our nation's arms control treaty obligations. And with respect to the consideration of what is actually possible, I also want to call my colleagues' attention to an article in the New York Times dated July 28 by Richard Garwin, a member of the Rumsfeld Commission. The article makes a persuasive point: that we cannot--must not--depend on a system for our defense which, even under the best circumstances, cannot accomplish its mission. In fact, it is not at all clear that any system we design could ever deal with all of the varied threats from different quarters. Mr. President, the American people are not dummies. I am convinced that when they listen carefully to both sides on this issue, they will recognize that nobody has yet come up with an improvement on existing US policy for missile defense. They will come to this conclusion precisely because our current policy is premised upon all of the many considerations I have just summarized . . . not just one. Americans understand that it makes sense not to force the government to buy costly, high-risk technologies that simply have the possibility of being effective. They understand that America's national security decisions must not be made without considering the impacts of these decisions on the defense choices that will be left open to other countries. They understand that in an age of balanced budgets, large new public sector commitments will jeopardize funding prospects for a multitude of other precious national goals. They will know how to assess the incorrect claim so frequently made by missile defense advocates that America is allegedly ``defenseless'' against the foreign missile threat. The closer they look at the $270- plus billion that we are spending each year on the nation's defense (not to mention the additional billions that we are investing in our diplomatic and intelligence capabilities), the sooner they will see the fallacy in the idea of a defensless America.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I would like to second the comments of my colleague from Michigan and add that I also have no objection to the McConnell amendment as it has been changed and offered today. The amendment as it is now constructed will call for a periodic vote of the Commission to re-confirm the General Counsel, but it will not allow a partisan minority of the Commission to act unilaterally, and it will not leave the position of General Counsel open until a successor is appointed, thereby paralyzing the enforcement efforts of the agency. I am also pleased that this amendment allows the current General Counsel to serve a term of eight years from enactment. I am confident that the amendment in its current form will be enacted into law and signed by the President. Finally, today we add crucial money to the FEC budget in order to help the agency to investigate and prove violations of the existing law. The additional 2.8 million dollars in enforcement funds bring our Senate appropriation for the FEC up to the same level offered in the House. These funds are an important step in allowing the agency the resources it needs to investigate and enforce our remaining campaign finance laws.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Thank you.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I don't plan to object, I want to clarify, this would in no way affect the voting order we agreed to last night on other amendments?

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

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I urged last night to put this on the table. This would really knock the socks off any election law enforcement over at the FEC. We oppose this very much. It would mean there would be a restriction on the FEC that is not on any other agency or department of government as far as their general counsel goes and their staff director. The efforts to oust him over there, I think, are unconscionable. He has been doing a good job. This just stands starkly opposed to our efforts for campaign finance reform. At the appropriate time I will move to table this, but I yield the remaining time to Senator Levin.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, that's difficult to respond to, to say the FEC needs more resources. My distinguished colleague, my friend from Kentucky, says they need to monitor disclosure better; but how do they monitor that if they don't have the people to do it? They should crack down on violators. How do they crack down if they don't have the people on the staff to do it? They have a grand total of 25 staff attorneys. Until 1994, they didn't have any investigators. To say that we put them up a certain percentage this year, when estimates we had in testimony before the Governmental Affairs Committee were that we should probably double their budget to give them a fair shot at doing their job, which would put their budget up around, somewhere around $50 million was the estimate, instead of where it is now, to think if they could even come close to fulfilling the law and the requirements they are supposed to monitor with the staff they have, just isn't right. I said in my statement a moment ago, the FEC has 200 cases pending. They are only investigating 93. Why? It is because they don't have the people to do it. To say that they don't need more money and are quite adequately funded just flies in the face of logic. They do not have adequate staff. They can't even keep up with these things. These cases are years and years old. Many of them will not even be settled before the next election cycle comes around. They don't have the staff over there for any expeditious treatment. Ninety-three of those cases are under investigation, 107 cases are sitting in file cabinets for lack of people. In 1994, they didn't have any investigators and then they hired one. Then it was said later on they had 100-percent improvement in their investigative staff because they then hired two; they had two people on their investigative staff. None of these attorneys are people who are normally going out and doing all the spadework, doing all of the investigating, doing the fieldwork out in the field. To say that they have quite adequate funding because they went up a certain small percentage just flies in the face of logic. I know we are not going to probably change many minds on this particular subject, but if we are serious about ever improving our campaign financing and having the FEC as the monitoring body that does that, this is such a modest little amount of $2.8 million. I hope my colleagues will vote for this and match the House with the exact same amount the House put in. We wanted to match what they have done. They had a debate on this in the House and decided to put this in. It was because they felt they not only needed this, they probably needed much more, but could not get more through. I would like to see us do this an extra $15 million or $20 million. I know we are not going to do that here, but this is such a modest increase and they need it so badly that I hope my colleagues will agree to the amendment I am proposing when we vote tomorrow.

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

Mr. GLENN. We are prepared to go to a vote. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time if the Senator from Kentucky is prepared to do the same thing.

Mr. GLENN. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GLENN. One other item I would like to note for everyone's illumination on this. The House had a similar provision to that which is proposed by the Senator from Kentucky. They had a similar provision in the bill when it came to the House floor. They had a debate over there on this very provision which was described to me as being a bitter debate, a lot of rancor in it. It wound up with a bipartisan effort being put forward to strike this position on the floor of the House; and it was struck. They voted this provision out of the House bill on a bipartisan vote. And now this is an effort being made to put it back in on the floor of the Senate here. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. I yield such time as the Senator may desire.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment. If this is adopted, this means that this will be the only independent agency or department of Government to time limit the general counsel or staff director--the only independent agency in the Government. One of the FEC Commissioners has indicated to us what he thought would happen in this regard. He said it would cause chaos in the agency because, as the distinguished Senator from Kentucky has said, the Commission normally must have four votes for any action to ensure action is bipartisan. This means that if they were trying to get rid of the general counsel for whatever reason, the amendment would allow a minority of three to fire the general counsel because there wouldn't be a majority to retain, there wouldn't be the four votes. So there is concern about who they can get to even serve in a general counsel position in that situation. I think this will go a long ways toward destroying the FEC's independence in its own investigations under the law, because the general counsel will have to continually lobby for reinstatement. That just doesn't make any sense. I see no reason why we should be carving out the FEC, which is so important to us these days in trying to get elections laws straightened out, to be the only independent agency in all of Government to have such a time limit put on their general counsel or their staff director. They serve there, they have served for longer terms before, and served very honorably and well, but to place them under these different restrictions on voting, that would mean a general counsel could be ousted much more easily than I believe any of us would like to see and is something I don't think we should do. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this. If there are any others who wish to speak against this amendment, I will be glad to yield such time. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I will reserve the balance of my time. Do we have 2 minutes to explain this before the vote tomorrow? Was that the agreement?