John Johnston

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hatfield and myself, I would like to introduce to the Senate the distinguished President of Mongolia, President Ochirbat and the First Lady, First Lady Tsevelmaa. Mr. Ochirbat is not only President of Mongolia, but he is generally credited with being the architect of democracy in Mongolia. Senator Hatfield and I, and a number of other United States Senators, had the great pleasure and honor of going to Mongolia in August of this year, and frankly we were overwhelmed not only with the friendship extended to us but with the importance of this country, its strategic location in Asia and its friendship toward America. So we welcome the President of Mongolia and the First Lady, and look forward to many years of friendship with the President and his great country. [Applause, Senators rising.]

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleagues in introducing the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1995. This is the first step in changing a law of which I have urged reform for many years. The purpose of this bill is to bring into the 1990's a 60-year- old, now-antiquated law: the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 [PUHCA]. Our goal is to do away with burdensome and duplicative regulation, which stifles our Nation's economic well-being, and yet still provide adequate protection for electricity consumers. In this regard, this bill effectively implements the recommendations of Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt. At the time of its enactment in 1935, PUHCA was clearly necessary. The aim of this New Deal era law was to eradicate the abuses of large, monopolistic public utility holding companies. The holding company structure permitted such companies to deceive investors and obstruct State utility regulation. Importantly, in 1935, Federal regulation of holding companies was nonexistent. Times have clearly changed. State regulators have the authority to protect retail ratepayers from monopolistic prices, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] has similar authority with respect to wholesale ratepayers. This proposed bill does away with unnecessary regulation of public utility holding companies by the Securities and Exchange Commission, but augments the authorities of State and Federal utility regulators to do their jobs better. Times have clearly changed. State regulators have the authority to protect retail ratepayers from monopolistic prices, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] has similar authority with respect to wholesale ratepayers. This proposed bill does away with unnecessary regulation of public utility holding companies by the Securities and Exchange Commission, but augments the authorities of State and Federal utility regulators to do their jobs better. Specifically, the bill gives FERC and the States augmented authority to review the books, records, and accounts of companies within holding company systems. The bill also gives FERC and State public utility commissions the ability to examine so-called affiliated transactions, that is, the authority to determine whether a public utility company may recover in rates any costs of an activity performed by an associate company, or any costs of goods or services acquired by public utilities from their associate companies. Although I support the goals of this bill, I wish to make one point clear. I understand that, in a letter to Senator D'Amato, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has raised several concerns regarding the specific provisions of any proposed bill which would reform PUHCA. I am in receipt of FERC's letter to Senator D'Amato, and am committed to working with the Banking Committee to achieve a resolution of any outstanding issues. Although I believe the bill introduced today goes a long way toward achieving reform of PUHCA, I believe a number of issues must be resolved, particularly, the way in which FERC will carry out its new authorities under the bill as proposed with respect to holding companies which were formerly exempt from PUHCA.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleagues in introducing the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1995. This is the first step in changing a law of which I have urged reform for many years. The purpose of this bill is to bring into the 1990's a 60-year- old, now-antiquated law: the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 [PUHCA]. Our goal is to do away with burdensome and duplicative regulation, which stifles our Nation's economic well-being, and yet still provide adequate protection for electricity consumers. In this regard, this bill effectively implements the recommendations of Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt. At the time of its enactment in 1935, PUHCA was clearly necessary. The aim of this New Deal era law was to eradicate the abuses of large, monopolistic public utility holding companies. The holding company structure permitted such companies to deceive investors and obstruct State utility regulation. Importantly, in 1935, Federal regulation of holding companies was nonexistent. Times have clearly changed. State regulators have the authority to protect retail ratepayers from monopolistic prices, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] has similar authority with respect to wholesale ratepayers. This proposed bill does away with unnecessary regulation of public utility holding companies by the Securities and Exchange Commission, but augments the authorities of State and Federal utility regulators to do their jobs better. Times have clearly changed. State regulators have the authority to protect retail ratepayers from monopolistic prices, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] has similar authority with respect to wholesale ratepayers. This proposed bill does away with unnecessary regulation of public utility holding companies by the Securities and Exchange Commission, but augments the authorities of State and Federal utility regulators to do their jobs better. Specifically, the bill gives FERC and the States augmented authority to review the books, records, and accounts of companies within holding company systems. The bill also gives FERC and State public utility commissions the ability to examine so-called affiliated transactions, that is, the authority to determine whether a public utility company may recover in rates any costs of an activity performed by an associate company, or any costs of goods or services acquired by public utilities from their associate companies. Although I support the goals of this bill, I wish to make one point clear. I understand that, in a letter to Senator D'Amato, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has raised several concerns regarding the specific provisions of any proposed bill which would reform PUHCA. I am in receipt of FERC's letter to Senator D'Amato, and am committed to working with the Banking Committee to achieve a resolution of any outstanding issues. Although I believe the bill introduced today goes a long way toward achieving reform of PUHCA, I believe a number of issues must be resolved, particularly, the way in which FERC will carry out its new authorities under the bill as proposed with respect to holding companies which were formerly exempt from PUHCA.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, sadly we learned yesterday of the death of Rachel Mellinger Schlesinger, the wife of Jim Schlesinger and the mother of his eight children. On behalf of the Senate, I want to convey to Jim our deepest sympathy on the loss of his beloved companion of more than 40 years. I also want to say something about Rachel who, quietly and without fanfare, did those good works that the Book of Proverbs praises. She genuinely did open her hands to the poor and reach out her hands to the needy, distributing sandwiches to the homeless and testifying before Congress on the problems of the mentally ill. Rachel was a gifted, energetic, and compassionate woman, but such a private person that few Americans know of her contributions to the quality of our community life. I would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation of what she did for us. Rachel Line Mellinger was born on a farm in Springfield, OH, and always considered herself a country girl. She loved gardening, and in the 1980's, she bought a farm in the Shenandoah Valley to raise Christmas trees which she delivered personally to satisfied customers and delighted children. Thanks to her interest in the preservation of historic sites and rural land, Americans will have more of both to enjoy in times to come. Like Thomas Jefferson, a fellow Virginia farmer, she was a talented writer and musician. She played the violin, not only for her own pleasure, but to give pleasure to others. She played with the Arlington Symphony Orchestra for 12 years and served on its board of directors. She was the founder and first chair of the Ballston Pops, a May festival which she originally organized 10 years ago. She was active in the community both publicly and privately. She served as deacon of the Georgetown Presbyterian Church and on the overseers committee of the Memorial Church at Harvard, but on Sundays she could be found in the Sunday school where she taught classes. She was active in the mental health movement, and worked with the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. We all know that in public life, public service can be hard on families. Jim Schlesinger served in Cabinet positions in three administrations. Rachel Schlesinger also served, in strength and dignity, preserving the privacy of her children and supporting her husband with the warmth of her presence. It is not an exaggeration to say that in all the agencies in which her husband served, she was universally loved. Rachel Mellinger Schlesinger was a wonderful person, wise, kind, and thoughtful, who did good and not harm all the days of her life. She will be missed. Mr. President, I was please to be able to see her 3 days ago and can report that in her last days she was cheerful and reassuring to all of those around her. She will be greatly missed. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator will yield, I have only said I was second to ``Nunn'' in seniority.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, just for one moment, I want to congratulate, of course, the Senator from Texas for her leadership, but the Senator from Georgia for his leadership on this issue, which is just another one of those issues in which, through the years, he has led this Senate, has led this country in its political thinking. Most Senators of this body are content to properly represent their people, to reflect their political views, to be popular in the polls, to vote right, to vote in the national good. Other Senators like to think of themselves as being effective enough to be able to take the ideas of others which they agree with, to take the speeches, to take the bills, to take the thoughts of others and effectively represent those thoughts and feelings and bills out here on the floor of the Senate so as to move the country in the right direction. There are occasional Senators, Mr. President, by virtue of their wisdom, their training, their background, their effort, their industry, their dedication, their devotion, but mainly by virtue of their God- given gifts, who are able to lead, to conceive the ideas by which the country ought to move, to determine what those policies are and, in the process, to serve as the beacon, the guidepost by which the rest of us Senators may guide our thoughts and our policies and our votes. The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] is one of those rare individuals. As Senator Byrd said here on the floor not too many months ago, Senator Nunn will stand out in the history of this country through the 200 years of this Senate as one of the outstanding leaders, not just for the 1990's or the 1970's when he came, but throughout the history of the country. He really gives lie to that old aphorism that no one is essential because, Mr. President, when Senator Nunn leaves this body, there will be left a tremendous hole. Of course, in his experience, and know-how and technique, but really in that kind of wisdom that guides the country, that forms policy, that gives Americans, and especially gives Senators, the confidence that the country is moving in the right direction. As long as Senator Nunn was here, we always knew there was a voice on foreign policy matters upon which we could rely, and defense matters. He will be greatly missed and, I suspect, if he is ever replaced, it will be many, many decades before we ever develop a man of his ability and wisdom and judgment. Mr. President, he will be greatly missed and, from a personal standpoint, I can say that many of us will miss him and certainly his wife, Colleen, who is one of the most beloved Senate wives in this body and certainly one greatly beloved by me and my family. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. I did want to speak on this subject.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I notice that the time is due to expire momentarily.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend the time for morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the occupant of the chair. Mr. President, over the Memorial Day recess, I had the opportunity, along with the Senator from Georgia and other Members of the Senate and of the House, to go to a conference sponsored by the Carnegie Institute for Peace in Madrid. It was a joint conference between us and Members of the Russian Duma. Those Members had been selected on a broad philosophical spectrum properly and as fully representative of the Duma as we could get. There were those who were the nationalists, there were those who were the Democrats, there were those representing every spectrum of the Duma. We thought we were going to discuss a whole range of issues, but the theme that came back over and over and over again was the threat that all of these Members of the Duma feel from making the bordering countries around them of Eastern Europe members of NATO subject to the nuclear shield of the United States. It is an obsession with those Members of the Duma, and as we discussed it with them, it struck me, first of all, that what possible interest is there of the United States to so threaten Russia that all of the ongoing things we have with respect to nuclear proliferation, with respect to the dismantlement of the Soviet nuclear weapons to threaten that ongoing process? I think it is one of those policies, I do not know how conceived, but we really ought to rethink that and rethink it immediately. A number of things occurred to me as we were at that conference in Madrid. [[Page S 14851]] As I say, first was the overwhelming universal feeling of all parts, all of the philosophical spectrum in Russia opposing this, not only opposing it but emotionally opposing it, feeling threatened by it. Second, Mr. President, I was struck by what you might call the political immaturity, the fact that the political personality of Russia has not yet matured. Their national psyche is still in the formative process. Their emotional involvement in this new democratic experiment--it was just overwhelming to see the emotion of these Members of the Duma. At this critical time, at this time in a formative process for Russia, for us to come along, rather than portray ourselves as their friend, their ally, their helper, someone who is interested in seeing the country move forward, to come along, in effect, with a new policy of containment to me, Mr. President, is absolute madness. It seems to me that we ought to find some way to have cooperation with these new Eastern European democracies to make them feel part of our political family without having them be part of our nuclear umbrella, particularly when that umbrella is surrounding the former Soviet Union, containing the former Soviet Union, and threatening the former Soviet Union.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I have looked into this matter in great detail, and I think the Senator from Delaware is exactly correct. I have read the decisions and read the letters. I think he is exactly correct. I must say that it is a very fine legal point. Even with what my friend from Mississippi said, it is hardly the kind of matter that is so serious as to deny a person a role on the court. The question of whether or not this issue was really at issue before the supreme court--it had not been appealed on actually what we call a writ of certiorari. So this question was not really before the supreme court. What was really before the supreme court was whether the Times- Picayune was entitled to its attorney's fees and whether or not the writ of mandamus was premature. But, Mr. President, I daresay, if we gave our colleagues a pop quiz on this question nobody, save those at least on the floor, could answer the question, it is such a complicated legal matter. Suffice it to say the matter has been, I believe, effectively and thoroughly decided by the Judiciary Committee. This matter was pending for a long time. I really do not think that is the real issue behind whether Judge Dennis ought to be on the fifth circuit. Mr. President, the real question is should Judge Jim Dennis be on the circuit court of appeals? Mr. President, I have known him for over 30 years. We served in the State legislature together. He is one of the most distinguished jurists the State of Louisiana has ever produced. His life has been marked by excellence in everything he has done. In law school, he was in the Order of the Coif; that is, a top scholar. He was on the Law Review, again a top scholar. He was in the State legislature, where he made an outstanding record. He has been on the bench in every level--the district court, the court of appeals, and the supreme court--for many years. He is one of those gifted legal scholars who can write things in ways that are clear and he can marshal up the English language and make it march, as someone said about Winston Churchill. He is that good, and recognized as such. He is a great favorite of both the bench and the bar in Louisiana. Mr. President, he would be an enormously popular judge. Now, he has certainly come within the cross hairs of the Times- Picayune, no doubt. I must say, he is in very good company in that, Mr. President. You see, Paul Tulane, when he made his bequest to Tulane University, went to the legislature and said, ``We want people from every parish in the State. And we want a little financial help. Will you pass a law that says legislators are entitled to name people to Tulane tuition free?'' The legislature passed that law over 100 years ago. For over 100 years, it was in place in Louisiana and never questioned. I think my colleague said for 80 or 90 years. No, it was for over 100 years. But it has to be a real hot issue with the Times-Picayune. They have gotten Members of Congress in both Houses, in both parties--some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and in the other party are also in these cross hairs--and a former Republican Governor, one of the most honest and best we ever had, in my view. I liked him a whole lot. All of you know him and served with him. He is one of those in the cross hairs. Also a State treasurer and State legislators of both parties. I submit to you not all those folks are ethically deficient. That was a legal, ethical, proper thing. That is really what is involved. The Times-Picayune, though, has a great story, and they are pursuing it. This judge ruled against them, denied them attorney's fees. I do not know whether that has anything to do with it, but I will tell you one thing: If this were an opinion, rather than a newspaper story, they would certainly be recused because they certainly had an interest in this matter. Be that as it may, Mr. President, this is a good judge. He is a good man. This is a complicated legal question. The staff has looked at it, majority and minority. Look, it is not something where Joe Biden is our Democratic head of this thing, and sort of squelched this matter. That is not it at all, Mr. President. That is not it at all. This is a good man. He is not ethically deficient, I can guarantee you that. He ought to be confirmed to the fifth circuit. He deserves it. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Senator.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I proposed some report language on this topic that was accepted by the full Committee on Appropriations at its markup and would be happy to discuss it.

Mr. JOHNSTON. The intention is very clear and specific. In the President's budget submission to Congress, funds were requested for EPA for a series of 21 activities, many of which clearly overlapped and duplicated specific statutory authority provided to the Secretary of Energy and others by the Congress through the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, of which I am the ranking member, has jurisdiction under the Senate's rules for all aspects of energy policy, energy regulation, and conservation, energy research and development, and oil and gas production and distribution. Yet the committee has never been approached by the administration with a request to authorize any activities for EPA in this area. The committee, rather, has made some fairly clear assignments of responsibility to agencies other than EPA for topics such as product labeling for energy efficiency. I do not believe that it is acceptable for the administration to request funds in a manner that contravenes the clear intent of Congress with respect to statutory assignments of responsibility.

Mr. JOHNSTON. No; the report language that I proposed is very clear. If EPA lacks statutory authority for a particular activity that the Department of Energy or some other agency possesses, then EPA should not undertake that activity. The report language that I proposed would not preclude EPA from exercising its legitimate statutory authorities. For example, EPA is working with the gas industry in a program called Natural Gas Star to reduce losses of methane to the atmosphere from gas pipelines and other transmission equipment, under the aegis of the Pollution Prevention Act. My report language would not transfer this program to DOE.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes; I think that such a report would assist the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in exercising its jurisdiction, under the rules of the Senate, over energy conservation and energy supply issues. As you know, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources must reauthorize the Energy Policy and Conservation Act in this Congress, and if a majority of members of the committee were to believe that the EPA had a valuable role to exercise in this area that is not duplicative of what DOE or some other Federal agency is contributing or could contribute, such a role might be legitimately created in that context.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, when I arrived in the Senate in 1972, the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Pell, had already achieved a record which made him known as one of the best and brightest, one of the most accomplished Senators. In the ensuing 23 years, he has built that reputation into a legend. Mr. President, we have heard detailed here by my colleagues these last few moments the details of that record--Pell grants, foreign relations. I will not repeat that record except to say it is historic in proportions and outstanding in its quality and its merit. The remarkable thing to me, Mr. President, is the character of the man who has achieved the record. And I would like to take note today, as Senator Pell announces his retirement, of the kind of person and the kind of civility which he brought not only to this Chamber but to politics in general. Mr. President, at this difficult time in American political history, at a time when a former Governor of New Jersey announced that he would not run for the Senate in large part because of the lack of civility in this body, because of the lack of civility in politics, I think it is important and appropriate we take note of the career of Senator Pell and what he was able to bring to this body in terms of civility. In all those terms of running for office, always very successful, usually by huge margins, it is just absolutely astonishing and remarkable that he never said anything bad or negative about his opponents. It shows, Mr. President, that you need not be negative in order to be successful. In all these years serving with Senator Pell in this body, there has never been the slightest deviation from those standards of friendship, respect, courtesy, and warmth of character which was unfailing in even the most difficult of circumstances. You do not amass a record like Senator Pell has amassed without mixing it up on very difficult and very controversial issues, and yet he was able to do that while at the same time having the love and respect and the warmth and the feelings from all of his colleagues. This will unquestionably be a lesser place when Senator Pell is gone. Nuala Pell, his wonderful, wonderful wife will certainly make it a lesser place in the pantheon of Senate wives because she in her way adds the same thing to the Senate wives that Senator Pell does to the Senate. Mr. President, I just hope that we can take example from his service, not [[Page S 12564]] only in what he has accomplished in terms of things for the Nation, which have been very well detailed and, as I say, which constitute a legend in itself, but the quality of his character and the quality of his service and his relationship with his colleagues. If we could just somehow take that and bottle it and keep it and profit by it and emulate it, we would have a much better and different country and Senate. I salute Senator Pell on his outstanding record of service to the Nation. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the amendment that I have offered addresses two crucial management issues for the defense-related environmental restoration and waste management programs authorized in this bill. The first issue is the continued existence of obsolete conflict-of-interest and financial reporting requirements at the Department of Energy that conflict with governmentwide standards. These requirements result in unnecessary duplication of effort and have deterred outstanding individuals from accepting managerial positions within the Department. The second issue is the impending imposition of criminal liability for Federal managers of environmental cleanup activities in the case of a funding shortfall that prevents full compliance with the law. Action on these management issues is essential, if defense environmental restoration and waste management programs are to succeed. My amendment will remove the first of these two obstacles and express the sense of the Congress on the the second. The first part of my amendment repeals three sections of the Department of Energy Organization Act, Public Law 95-91, that were enacted in 1977 and that deal with conflict-of-interest requirement for departmental employees. It also repeals two other free-standing financial reporting requirements enacted as parts of other legislation in 1977. All of these requirements were enacted prior to passage of governmentwide ethics requirements in the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, and in some sense served as a prototype for these requirements. Since the passage of the Ethics in Government Act and the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, though, the need for specific ethics and financial reporting requirements in DOE that are different from governmentwide requirements has disappeared. Adoption of this provision would not affect the applicability of governmentwide conflict-of-interest and financial reporting requirements to DOE employees. These restrictions, codified in 18 U.S.C. 207 and 208, 41 U.S.C. 423, and 5 CFR 2634 are not affected by the amendment and would remain fully in force for DOE employees. The Senate has, on four different occasions during the last two Congresses, approved language to repeal these requirements--in the Energy Policy and [[Page S 12602]] Conservation Act Amendments of 1994, S. 2251, the Department of Energy Laboratory Partnership Act of 1994, S. 473, the fiscal year 1994 Department of Defense authorization bill S. 1298, and the fiscal year 1992-93 Department of Defense authorization bill. In addition, Congress has twice enacted into law temporary suspensions affecting the sections of the Department of Energy Organization Act that would be repealed by this amendment. The Department of Energy and the administration strongly support this part of my amendment. Repeal of these provisions has also been recommended by the National Academy of Sciences in its 1992 report on ``Science and Technology Leadership in American Government: Ensuring the Best Presidential Appointments.'' I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the administration transmitting the text of this part of the amendment and supporting the repeal of these provisions be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the second part of my amendment provides the sense of the Congress on an issue that, if unresolved, will greatly increase the difficulty of attracting and retaining the best managers possible for cleanup activities. Under the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992, beginning on this October 6, Federal managers in the DOD and DOE cleanup programs will incur criminal liability for instances of noncompliance resulting from funding shortfalls. They literally can be sent to jail under State or Federal law if the appropriations acts do not contain enough funding to satisfy every last requirement of every State and local solid or hazardous waste law. No manager, scientist, or engineer worth having in a cleanup program can be expected to be attracted to a job in which they are exposed to this sort of criminal sanction. This potential criminal liability problem may become very real very soon, depending on the outcome of the conference on the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996. The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, of which I am the ranking member, reported a bill that was passed by the Senate and that fully funded the President's budget request for the Department of Energy environmental management program for fiscal year 1996. We will strongly support the Senate position in conference against a House mark for this program that is far smaller. I hope that we prevail. In any case, it is clear that the problem of appropriating funds to meet the expanding requirements of the DOE environmental management program will become increasingly acute over the next several years. I strongly believe that we should start thinking about this problem now, in a deliberative manner, rather than wait for a crisis. My amendment provides the sense of Congress that-- (1) individuals acting within the scope of their employment shall not be personally subject to civil or criminal sanction for any failure to comply with environmental cleanup requirements under the Solid Waste Disposal Act or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or an analogous requirement under comparable Federal, State, or local laws, where the noncompliance is due to lack of funds; and (2) if appropriations are insufficient to fund environmental cleanup requirements, the Congress shall consider appropriate statutory amendments to address potential liability issues for Federal agencies and contractors, after an examination by the appropriate Committees, and after affected Federal agencies, States, and the public have had an opportunity to express their views. This amendment has been cleared on both sides by the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Governmental Affairs. I urge its adoption. Exhibit 1 The Secretary of Energy Washington, DC, April 28, 1995. The Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker. Enclosed is proposed legislation that would place employees of the Department of Energy on the same basis as most other government employees with respect to restrictions on holding financial interests that have the potential to conflict with official responsibilities, and with respect to financial disclosure requirements. The legislation would repeal the divestiture provision of the Department of Energy Organization Act (DOE Act) and related disclosure statutes that were enacted in the mid- seventies. The criminal conflict of interest statutes, the standardized financial disclosure rules under the Ethics in Government Act, and the executive branch standards of conduct which are now in place make these provisions no longer necessary. More specifically, the enclosed proposal would repeal the divestiture provision in part A of title VI of the DOE Act and also would repeal disclosure provisions in other laws that were superseded but not repeated by part A when it was enacted. The divestiture provision was the only conflict-of- interest provision of the DOE Act not repealed by section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Pub. L. No. 103-160). That Act repealed several obsolete conflict-of-interest requirements concerning financial disclosure, post-employment restrictions, and participation restrictions, and was a significant step in ensuring consistency in the application of conflict-of- interest requirements throughout the executive branch. In addition to repealing most of the Department's obsolete conflict-of-interest provisions, section 3161 required the enclosed report on the divestiture provision. The Department submitted this report to Congress on April 8, 1994, after its review by the Office of Government Ethics which has no objection to repeal of the divestiture provision. The report affirms our earlier conclusion that the divestiture requirement is obsolete, overly broad, and unnecessary, and our recommendation that it should be repealed. The Department of Energy has been and continues to be strongly committed to the highest ethnical standards. Every employee of the Department is expected to follow not only the letter of the conflict-of-interest laws and regulations, but also their spirit. Elimination of the Department of Energy divestiture provision that, more often than not, requires divestiture when there is no actual conflict-of-interest, would lessen employee perception that the conflict-of- interest rules are arbitrary and unfair. Approval of this proposal would be a significant step in ensuring consistency in the application of conflict-of-interest requirements throughout the executive branch, and we request its prompt consideration. If these provisions are eliminated, the conflict-of- interest concerns underlying the divestiture provision will continue to be addressed by a statute and regulations applicable to all executive branch employees. These regulations were promulgated by the Office of Government Ethics (Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, 5 CFR Pan 2635) and provide a mechanism for the Department to issue supplemental regulations that would prohibit or restrict the acquisition or holding of a financial interest or a class of financial interests by agency employees, or any category of agency employees, based on the agency's determination that the acquisition or holding of such financial interests would cause a reasonable person to question the impartiality and objectivity with which agency programs are administered. If needed, regulations to this effect will be pursued. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that from the standpoint of the President's program there is no objection to the submission of this proposal. Sincerely, Hazel R. O'Leary.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, on August 17th, the Republic of Indonesia, one of America's strongest and best allies, will celebrate the 50th anniversary of its declaration of independence. It was on this day 50 years ago that this great friend ended 300 years of colonial rule by the Dutch. The United States, I am pleased to say, was the first to recognize Indonesia. Since that momentous day one half century ago our two nations have enjoyed a warm and mutually supportive relationship. Indeed, Indonesia has proved this friendship time and time again in matters as diverse as votes in the United Nations and support of the United States position during the Vietnamese war. Mr. President, on this anniversary it is also appropriate to pay tribute to President Soeharto under whose leadership, truly astonishing progress has been made. President Soeharto assumed control of the country in 1965 and was named Acting President by the [[Page S 12311]] national legislature 2 years later and was then formally elected to office in 1968. Today, the adult illiteracy rate has been cut by two-thirds and primary education is now universal throughout the islands. Per capita income is over $900 a year, putting Indonesia at the edge of membership in the tigers groups. Life expectancy at birth has increased by 20 years, or 50 percent, and the rate of infant mortality has plummeted. Perhaps the most telling measure of all, overall poverty rates, best illustrates the economic miracle which has occurred in Indonesia. From a rate of 60 percent in 1967, today less than 15 percent of the total population is now considered to live in poverty. Indonesia's remarkable growth and development has affected every sector of society, every geographic area of this island nation, and all ethnic groups. There is no question in my mind that these wise economic and social achievements have helped build and nurture this relatively new nation, and that the nation of Indonesia now rests on a solid foundation. We in the United States along with our many friends in Asia and elsewhere have also benefited from the stability which has emerged in Indonesia. This stability has enabled Indonesia to move away from the earlier years of konfontasi and toward the regional leadership role Indonesia has asserted in promoting the peaceful resolution of disputes in Southeastern Asia including Cambodia and the Sprattlys. Indonesia has become an important voice of reason throughout Asia and the third world, and is a key part of a peaceful stable Pacific. Mr. President, I know I am joined by my colleagues in sending our very best wishes to our great friend and ally, the Republic of Indonesia, and in sending our heartiest congratulations to its distinguished President.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, windshear remains the primary weather- related threat to airline safety. The FAA originally established a requirement for 102 TDWR systems for the U.S. airports that have significant risks from windshear--severe weather exposure. To date, 47 TDWR systems have been purchased; 55 systems remain to be acquired and installed. The Senate Appropriations Committee was under severe budget restrictions, but did add funding of $2,500,000 above the FAA request for the installation of a previously purchased TDWR at Las Vegas and for the environmental impact statement process in New York. The House added funding for five new TDWR's. Baton Rouge and Shreveport have been identified as airports in need of TDWR systems to identify windshear. Both the chairman and ranking Member spoke of the need for additional funding for worthy projects. While I fully understand the budget constraints on all of the appropriations bills, I would encourage the conferees to review the potential for saving lives that these systems bring to those of us who travel, or have loved ones who travel by air.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the distinguished managers and yield the floor. marine corps reserve end strength

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, last Congress we passed and the President signed into law the Federal Acquisition Standards Act, or FASA. That Act generally seeks to promote efficiencies and cost savings through competition in contracting services. It provides, among other things, that contracts for Advisory or Assistance Services above certain thresholds must have multiple awards. The theory was that a series of smaller contract awards would generally be more cost effective that one large contract. At the same time, we recognized that not all contracts would benefit by multiple awards. This could result either because of the specialized subject matter of the contract itself, or because the nature of the contract indicates that a single award would be more efficient. For that reason, we put in place a specific provision for a waiver from the multiple contract award provision. Mr. President, just last week, the Department of the Army issued its first solicitation for Contractor Advisory and Assistance Services since FASA was passed. This particular solicitation was for a series of support and integration services for the Chemical Weapons Demilitarization program. It would take the current integration and support contract and divide it into five component parts in an effort to comply with FASA. The Chemical Weapons Demilitarization program has been slow to show progress since we first directed Disposal of those weapons in 1986. Nevertheless, progress is beginning to make itself apparent. Facility testing has begun at Tooele, UT, and the next facility at Anniston, AL is scheduled to begin construction in 1996. Mr. President, disposing of our chemical weapons stockpile is a high- priority mission, and one which is very highly specialized. I question whether this particular mission lends itself to multiple integration contract awards. I am concerned that because this is the first contract to be let for Contractor Advisory and Assistance Services since FASA was passed, the Army might have felt compelled to call for multiple contract awards rather than seeking the exemption. I would like to ask the distinguished bill managers whether they share my opinion that Chemical Weapons Demilitarization is precisely the kind of specialized contract which led to our including the exemption provisions in FASA.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I take it that both of the distinguished managers of this bill agree with me that the Army should consider the waiver provisions of FASA as being completely available in the case of this particular contract award. Is it the intention of the managers to make that clear in the Statement of Managers which would accompany the Conference report on this legislation?