Samuel Nunn

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. I certainly agree with my friend from New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask this legislative proposal also be printed in the Record.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I want to thank a few people, and I inadvertently may not name everyone. There have been many people involved in this effort. On my staff, Mike McCord and Rocky Rief; on Senator Domenici's staff, Bill Hoagland and Denise Ramonas. I would like to thank David Abshire and his entire team at CSIS--Dick Fairbanks, Debbie Miller, and John Yochelson--who worked on the Strengthening of America report, and the many people who have worked so hard to help us develop the concept we endorsed in that report into the detailed proposal we are introducing today. Barry Rogstad and John Endean of the American Business Conference have helped immensely. Barry was on the commission and we asked him to work with us after we came out with this report. Ernest Christian of the Center for Strategic Tax Reform, who has been very, very, instrumental in helping us turn this overall concept in a working tax system, because he has great expertise in the tax area. I also want to thank Rudy Penner, the former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, who has done a great deal in coming up with rate structure and conceptual framework of the USA tax, and Lin Smith and Paul Burnham who are part of Rudy's team at KPMG Peat Marwick. Barry, Ernie, and Rudy in particular have spent countless hours helping Senator Domenici and I develop this proposal. These key players deserve great credit. I also want to thank Bob Lutz, Paul O'Neill, Barbara North and all the members of Alliance USA for their support. While he has not reviewed the legislation we are introducing today, and may not necessarily agree with everything in it, this proposal has benefited from the pioneering conceptual work in this area over the past 20 years by David Bradford. The cash-flow business tax component of our proposal has also built on the foundation of several years of work by our two distinguished friends and former colleagues, Senator David Boren and Senator Jack Danforth, and their very able staffers, Beth Garrett, and Mark Weinberger, who also served as Chief of Staff of the Kerrey-Danforth Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. I would also like to thank Jim Fransen and Mark Mathiesen of the Senate Legislative Counsel's office, and the staffers from the Joint Committee on Taxation, especially Jon Talisman, Joe Mikrut, Tom Bowne, and Tom Barthold, who have spent many hours working with us on this legislation. I know that the Legislative Counsel's office and the Joint Committee have both been extremely busy this year, and probably will continue to be, given the large numbers of both incremental and fundamental tax reform proposals being introduced, marked up, and debated this year. I have no doubt that if we and they had the luxury of having all the time needed to produce a bill that contained every detail necessary to implement such a comprehensive reform as the USA Tax System, we would be able to improve it still further. While all these individuals have shared their time and talents with Senator Domenici and I and our staffs, and we have spent hours and days and weeks and months working on this proposal, I would be the first to say that the legislation we are introducing today is not complete, it is not perfect, it is not the last word on tax reform that will ever need to be written. which I believe is far more detailed than any of the other reform proposals being discussed--before the American people at this time so that the American people can learn more about our proposal, and so that we can learn from them. We believe our proposal can and will be further improved as people study it and debate it. In the end, we believe we can make a compelling case why our USA proposal best serves the needs of the American people, and addresses the competitive realities of the global marketplace, for the next century. Let me see if I can summarize the USA tax proposal in a very brief time. The fundamental premise is that the United States has a serious savings problem. The private savings in this country have continued to go down, down, down, while the Federal deficit has eaten up the savings by going up, up, up. We have the lowest savings rate in the industrial world, as Senator Kerrey from Nebraska and Senator Danforth from Missouri pointed out so clearly in their study, as we pointed out in the Strengthening of America Report, and as many other commissions, including Warren Rudman, Paul Tsongas, and Pete Peterson of the Concord Coalition, who have done so much work in that area, have reported in the work they have done on trying to reduce the Federal budget deficit. The fundamental premise is we have much too low a rate of savings, and we have to do something about that. The other fundamental premise is that higher savings is directly connected with real income, because higher savings produces more investment, higher productivity and improved competitiveness, better jobs, and a higher standard of living for our American workers. The goals of our tax reform effort is to promote savings and investment; to ensure fairness while we are doing that; to not increase the budget deficit, which is enormously important; to strengthen America's competitive position--and I have talked about that at length this morning on the export/import matter--to make our Tax Code as simple and as efficient as possible in a complicated, complex world; to give individual Americans at all income levels a chance to save, to invest for their future, for their children's future, and to raise the standard of living for themselves and their families; and, finally, to produce the revenue required for the U.S. Government with the least detrimental effect on our economic growth. The advantages of the USA tax system are many. I will try to capture those very briefly. No. 1, we eliminate the bias against savings in the current Tax Code. No. 2, we do not increase the budget deficit, we break even if there is adjustment required. That is the fundamental premise. We will adjust to accommodate whatever tax estimates come forward. The third point is increase the national savings and thereby we give ourselves an opportunity to increase investment and to increase productivity and real income. No. 4, we help level the international playing field for U.S. business by not taxing exports and by having the same tax on imports as on domestically-produced goods. This equalizes the tax treatment with our competitors. Both Japan and Europe have a value-added tax where they rebate on exports and they tax our imports. So we are doing the same thing that they are doing, equally, and leveling the playing field. It gives our American producers a level playing field with workers abroad. That is enormously important. Finally, it makes our Tax Code more understandable and more efficient. The other dimension that I emphasized this morning that I think bears repeating, is that this is a major step toward giving unskilled people at the bottom end of the economic ladder a chance to get started, to get the foot on the bottom rung of the economic ladder, and to get a job, because we basically merge the FICA tax, the Social Security, with the income tax and we give full credit back to employees for the portion of that tax they paid, even if it is refundable. Even if their FICA tax exceeds the amount they owe on income tax, they will get a refund. So this eliminates the most regressive feature of our current tax system and removes a very large obstacle to employment. Mr. President, we welcome constructive criticism. We know that we do not have a perfect Tax Code--there is no such thing. We understand that there are going to be changes that need to be made. We understand there are things we have overlooked. We welcome suggestions. We welcome constructive criticism. I know we will have a lot of debate and discussion on this proposal and I am delighted, with my friend from New Mexico, as partners, to jointly send this proposal to the desk and ask it be reported and properly referred. I also ask the cosponsors be listed: Mr. Domenici, introducing the bill with myself, Senator Kerrey, and Senator Bennett--so those will be the cosponsors. I believe Senator Lieberman has indicated an interest and I believe later he would like to be added as a cosponsor, but we have not yet heard from him. He has been enormously interested in this proposal.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes this evening on a subject close to my heart, and that is the memory of our former colleague, John C. Stennis, who passed away on Sunday, April 23, at the age of 93. Senator Stennis served in this body for over 41 years, from 1947 to 1989. For a long number of years, as I was growing up and following the activities of the Congress of the United States, Senator Stennis was one of my heroes, and that was long before I came to U.S. Senate. John Stennis personified for me the image of what a Senator should be, and that image inspired me as I considered whether to seek a seat in the U.S. Senate in the 1972 election. From my first days in the Senate, John Stennis was a patient mentor, a strong and valuable colleague, and a cherished friend. It has been said that ``Great men are like eagles, they do not flock together. You find them one at a time, soaring alone, using their skills and strengths to reach new heights and to seek new horizons.'' Such an eagle was John Stennis. John Stennis was a Senator's Senator. He was gentle and courteous in conduct, but tough and strong in conviction and in character. He was a man of singular purpose and broad vision--yet he was sensitive, very sensitive, to the needs and the wishes of others. John Stennis personified the highest ideals of honor and integrity within the U.S. Senate. Members of the Senate from both parties and from widely divergent philosophical points of view treasured his steadfast leadership, his fearless courage, his kindness toward others, his unselfish devotion to public service, his love and respect for the U.S. Senate, the Congress, his reverence for the U.S. Constitution, and his unshakable faith in God. Senator Stennis was an outstanding lawyer and judge before he came to the Senate, and his judicial temperament marked every aspect of his Senate service. Time after time, the Senate turned to him to address the most difficult and divisive issues, such as the conduct of Senator Joseph McCarthy. When the Senate established the first Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, which was the predecessor of the Ethics Committee, it was only natural that Senator Stennis was selected as the first chairman. From 1961 to 1981, he served as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. As chairman, he set a standard that all of his successors strive to meet. He was a man of conviction, strong, moral character, and absolute and total courage. Despite much adversity--a life- threatening gunshot wound in 1973, right after I came to the Senate that tragedy happened, also the loss in 1983 of his beloved wife, Miss Coy, and the challenges of serious operations in later years, through all of that he served the people of Mississippi and the people of this Nation with courage and with strength. Chairman Stennis was the Senate's preeminent authority on military affairs. His career spanned the period of the cold war. He came to the Senate in 1947, the year the Marshall plan was announced. He left in 1989, the year the Berlin Wall came down. He played a very large role in those events and all the events in between. He had guided this body through the difficult years of the post-Vietnam era and through the subsequent revitalization of America's Armed Forces. Senator Stennis consistently supported a strong national defense even in times when it was not popular to do so. I recall clearly the first few years after I came to the Senate in the early 1970's, when virtually all defense programs were being challenged one after another on the Senate floor. Senator Stennis remained in the Chamber steadfast for hours and weeks and sometimes even months while the bill was pending in the Senate, making the case for maintaining a strong defense for our Nation. At the same time, Senator Stennis was downright intolerant of wasted and misspent dollars, and he consistently opposed those who simply wanted to write a Pentagon blank check. Senator Stennis remembered well the lessons of pre-World War II isolationism and he constantly opposed the recurring isolationist impulse, especially during the difficult post-Vietnam years. He was a rock of support for NATO at a time when there was strong opposition in the country to foreign military alliances. One of the first assignments he gave me when I got to the Senate was going to NATO and coming back and reporting to him on what I found there. Yet he remained skeptical of excessive military involvement overseas and he expressed great concern about the plans for intervention in Vietnam before that intervention occurred. Once the Nation was committed to war, however, he always believed that American forces should be provided with the means necessary and the backing to accomplish the objectives assigned to them. It was my privilege to serve with him since coming to the Senate in 1973 until he left in 1989. He was my friend. He was my mentor. He remained my hero. I will miss him, and I will miss his sound advice and wise judgment. During my first campaign for the Senate in 1972, I came to Washington to meet with Senator Stennis. This was before I was elected in November but after I had won the Democratic primary. I told him of my strong interest in military affairs, and I asked for his support in obtaining a seat on the Armed Services Committee if I should be elected. I will always be grateful for his assurances of support and his assistance once I arrived, and certainly all of that played a very important part in my Senate career. With his support, I obtained a seat on the Committee on Armed Services, and I promptly sought his advice on how I should fulfill my duties. He told me, and I recall it well, that the best way to learn about the Defense Department and the military services was to deal directly and extensively with the men and women in uniform as well as the civilian employees of the Department of Defense. He encouraged me to listen to their advice and understand their point of view, to remain open and objective but always to at least listen. He appointed me to be the chairman of the newly created Manpower and follow his advice in a great number of details and with considerable amount of time. Over the years, I listened to and learned from Senator Stennis as we debated the great issues of national security and other national affairs that faced our country in the 1970's and 1980's, and the lessons learned then still apply almost every day in the Senate in the 1990's. It was a marvelous education in the ways of the Senate, the conduct of national security affairs and the Constitution of the United States. In 1987, Senator Stennis became chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I became chairman of the Armed Services Committee. It was my good fortune to have him continue to sit on that committee, to be able to begin my chairmanship with Senator Stennis at my side, because I frequently consulted with him and benefited from his advice on the problems and issues that arose under the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee as well as many other matters that came to the floor of the Senate. When Senator Stennis first came to this body, he said in his classic direct style, ``I wish to plow a straight furrow right down to the end of my row.'' There is no doubt he did exactly that. Senator Stennis grew up on a farm and he knew how difficult it was to plow a straight furrow with a mule. You cannot plow a straight line to your immediate goal or mark a stake in the field unless you keep your eye on the distant point that establishes your sight line. That is the way John Stennis lived. He staked out his immediate goals, but he always kept his eye on the distant goal, the values and principles that enabled him to plow a straight furrow right to the end of the row. Mr. President, I also remember well his advice to me when I came to the Senate. I hope I never will forget this. He said, ``Sam, some new Senators grow and some simply swell. Make sure you continue to grow.'' Mr. President, no higher honor has come my way than serving in the Senate with John Stennis. When he retired a few years back, I said then it was hard for me to imagine the Senate without John Stennis at his desk. It is now hard for me to imagine the Nation without the benefit of his talent, counsel, and his sterling example. We will miss him. We will all miss him. But his legacy of integrity and devoted service to the country will inspire the Senate and the Nation and young people particularly for generations to come. Mr. President, Colleen, my wife, and I extend our sympathies to his son, John Hampton Stennis, his daughter, Mrs. Margaret Stennis Womble, and to all of his grandchildren and great grandchildren, indeed, to all of his family and his friends, and we thank the people of Mississippi for sending this giant to the Senate for the number of years that he served. The people of Mississippi and the people of this Nation can be very proud of Senator Stennis. He will be remembered in history as one of the giants of the Senate. As long as there is a Senate, John Stennis will be remembered for his service, for his integrity, and for his character. I thank the Chair. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. My second point is that National Service is successfully accomplishing its primary mission--performance of service. The anecdotal evidence last year's floods in the Midwest to immunizing 105,000 children in Texas, to building 60 homes for poor people in Americus, Georgia, these youngsters are performing real work that is needed by our communities. The independent research firm of Aguirre, International provides confirmation. They did a study of 52 randomly selected AmeriCorps sites across the country, and the findings from the study confirm that the achievements of this program are many and varied. I ask consent that the Aguirre International study be also printed in the Record.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I understand that an agreement has been worked out between the two sides on this legislation, but I want to set the record straight on a few issues which I believe to be of particular importance. The initiative in question is the Corporation for National and Community Service. In the last few days, several of our colleagues have come to the floor and, for one reason or another, discussed this initiative in a way which has deviated substantially from the facts. I want to provide information for the record to eliminate some of the misconceptions which may have been formed about National Service. First, I would like all of us to be clear on the facts. Contrary to what we have heard on the Senate floor in the last week, AmeriCorps does not cost the taxpayer outrageous sums. Counting all costs, the average annual cost per AmeriCorps member is $17,600. $4,725 of that amount is an education award which is not given until after the year of service is complete. Additionally, the program has benefited the efforts of many private organizations which depend on volunteers for their work. Many charitable organizations, from Habitat for Humanity to the Red Cross have resoundingly rebutted the argument that National Service injures the ethic of voluntarism in this country. These groups have often stated that the presence of AmeriCorps members has made their efforts to attract traditional volunteers even more effective. Charitable organizations are not the only ones who have seen sufficient worth in the program to give it their vocal support. Many businesses also have seen the value of AmeriCorps as an investment and given it their own dollars to supplement those provided by the federal government. These private partners range from Alcoa to Xerox, with many others in between. I request unanimous consent that this information regarding the cost per AmeriCorps participant and the number of volunteers and business organizations supporting AmeriCorps be printed in the Record.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, my final point is that this project should not be a partisan issue. The debate on the original authorization was not marred by the misinformation and partisan rancor that we have seen during the last week. Indeed, the 1993 bill passed with the support of a number of Republicans in both Houses. I would hope that we could return the debate to that higher plane in the future. To that end, I would hope that my colleagues, whether they agree or disagree with the program, would take the time over the upcoming recess to visit an AmeriCorps site in their states. To my colleagues who are willing to make this visit, if you still have concerns about the program after you have made this good-faith effort to see it in action, that will be useful to an open, straightforward debate on the upcoming reauthorization. I believe that the minds of my colleagues will be changed when they see the results of this program. In conclusion, I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues on this matter, and I hope that we can continue the debate in an objective fashion. I am fully aware of the funding constraints which face our nation's government, but I am confident that the program will be judged valuable to our nation if judged on its true merits and true costs. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Dr. Michael H. Mescon, Dean Emeritus of Georgia State University, as he is honored by [[Page S5513]] the United States Small Business Administration [SBA] with their 1995 award of SBA Georgia Veteran Advocate of the Year. This SBA award recognizes Dr. Mescon's 12 years of volunteer contributions as a mentor, teacher and supporter of the Georgia Vietnam Veterans Leadership Program Small Business Training initiative. In his position as Dean of the Georgia State University School of Business, Dr. Mescon provided the Georgia Veterans Leadership Program with facilities, administrative support and access to the Georgia State University Small Business Development Center. He also gave his own time as a lecturer at seminars and special functions. These contributions, along with Dr. Mescon's perseverance and leadership, helped the fledgling program gain the necessary attention, support and credibility to successfully launch it's training initiative. This Small Business Training initiative, begun in Georgia in 1983, has now been replicated across the nation. The Georgia Veterans Leadership Program has conducted seminars in 16 cities across the state of Georgia as well as in a dozen other states, reaching more than 10,000 veterans. The Georgia Veterans Leadership Program Small Business Training initiative has generated over 650 Small Business Administration-Veterans direct and guaranteed loans--for a total of nearly $400 million in loans. Helping Dr. Mescon in his important work over the past 12 years has been a dedicated team of volunteers including Mr. Ron Miller, Mr. Tommy Clack, Mr. Rodney Alsup, Mr. Max Carey, Mr. Tom Carter, Mr. Ted Chernak, Mr. Andrew Farris, Mr. Dixon Jones, Ms. Mary Lou Keener, Mr. John Howe, Mr. Jim Mathis, Mr. Michael Mantegna, Mr. John Medlin, Mr. Steve Raines, Mr. Chuck Reaves, Mr. Richard Schuman and Mr. Dan Wall and the Honorable Max Cleland. Mr. President I applaud the dedicated work of these Georgians and the many others who have helped with this initiative over the years. I congratulate Dr. Mescon for his receipt of the 1995 SBA Georgia Veteran Advocate of the Year and hope he will continue in his tireless work in support of Georgia's veterans.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Conference Report on the ``Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995'', S.244, a bill which I introduced on January 19, with strong bipartisan support. I anticipate that the conference report will be accepted by the Senate. The leadership of the House is eager to take action before the recess. Representatives of the administration have stated that the President is equally eager to sign into law this legislation to substantially strengthen the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, and reauthorize appropriations for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [OIRA], which has been without an authorization since October of 1989. Mr. President, before making some observations about the substance of the conference report upon which the Senate is about to act, I would like to briefly share with some of our newer colleagues some highlights of the very long march that had to be taken to get us to this point. The effort has spanned more than 5 years, beginning in 1989. In the fall of 1989, the small business community sought the assistance of members of the Committee on Small business to advance a package of amendments to S. 1742, legislation in the 101st Congress. They asserted that these amendments were desperately needed if the effectiveness of the Paperwork Reduction Act was to be preserved. These proposed amendments garnered bipartisan support within the Small Business Committee and were advanced during the Governmental Affairs Committee's consideration of the bill. S. 1742 was not passed by the Senate before the end of the 101st Congress. With the beginning of the 102d Congress, I offered the ``Paperwork Reduction Act of 1991'', the first predecessor to the legislation being considered today. From the outset, this legislation has garnered strong bipartisan support, especially within the membership of the Committee on Small Business. Successive ranking Republican Members of the Committee on Small Business, including Senators Boschwitz, Kasten, and Pressler, have all been original cosponsors. My friend from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], then chairman of the committee, has each time consented to serve as the principal Democratic cosponsor. With the introduction of S. 1139, the effort has had the strong support of a broad Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition, representing virtually every segment of the business community, but especially the small business community. Mr. President, I will have more to say about the Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition later in my remarks. The 102d Congress ended without seeing any action on S. 1139. Consideration of that bill became ensnared in the controversies regarding OIRA's regulatory review activities on behalf of the President, conducted pursuant to executive order, and the activities of the Council on Competitiveness, chaired by Vice President Quayle. At the beginning of the 103d Congress, I introduced S. 560, again with strong bipartisan support. Our former colleague from Missouri, Senator Danforth, served as the principal Republican cosponsor. Senator Danforth had been the principal Republican cosponsor of the legislation sponsored by our former colleague from Florida, Lawton Chiles, that became the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. During the last Congress, real progress was finally made. S. 560 was skillfully blended with Senator Glenn's bill, S. 681. Both had the same basic objective--to reauthorize appropriations for OIRA and to strengthen the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. Each bill, however, reflected substantially different perspectives of how the Paperwork Reduction Act should be strengthened. A committee substitute for S. 560 was developed, reflecting the core of both bills. My friend from Ohio [Mr. Glenn], then chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee displaying skillful leadership and tenacity to break the logjam. Progress would not have been possible without the steadfast support of my friend from Delaware [Mr. Roth], and many of my Republican friends on the Governmental Affairs Committee. Before the end of the last Congress, we were able to have the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1994, S. 244, as amended, approved by the Senate not once but twice in the closing days of the 103d Congress. S. 560 passed the Senate by unanimous voice vote on October 6, 1994. The following day, the text of S. 560 was attached to a House-passed measure, and returned to the House. Unfortunately, neither bill was cleared for action before adjournment of the 103d Congress. [[Page S5399]] With the convening of the 104th Congress, I introduced the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, S. 244, a bill substantially identical to the text of S. 560, as passed by the Senate. A substantially identical House companion, H.R. 830, was introduced in the House. H.R. 830 was passed by the House on February 22 by a rollcall vote of 418-0. Given all of the bipartisan consensus that had been developed around S. 560 during the prior Congress, the Senate was able to promptly turn to the consideration of S. 244, following its being unanimously ordered reported by the Committee on Governmental Affairs on February 1. On March 7, the Senate passed S. 244 by a rollcall vote of 99-0. Since the version of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 passed by the House contained virtually all of the provisions of S. 244, as reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee, the conferees' focus was on those provisions of the House-passed bill that sought to further strengthen provisions of the 1980 act and the provisions added during consideration on the Senate floor. Mr. President, the text of S. 244 is truly not the least common denominator of the two versions of the bill, but rather almost an aggregation of the best features of both. Those who have worked long and hard on this effort over the years, within this body, within the House, and especially the organizations that comprise the Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition, can be justifiably proud of what has been accomplished. Only the fewest of House provisions to further strengthen the 1980 act were not included in the conference report. S. 244 forcefully reaffirms the fundamental congressional objective of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980: to minimize the Federal paperwork burdens imposed on the public. It improves the act's effectiveness as a restraint on the natural tendencies of individual Federal agencies to levy a relentless stream of paperwork requirements on businesses, small and large, State and local governments, educational institutions, non-profit organizations, and individual citizens. S. 244 makes a series of specific amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, based upon almost 15 years of experience under the act. These amendments reemphasize the fundamental responsibilities of each agency to carefully consider each proposed paperwork requirement to determine if it meets the act's fundamental standards of need and practical utility. And, if needed, assures that the proposed requirement imposes the least burden on those segments of the public against whom the paperwork requirement is directed. S. 244 also substantially improves the opportunity for public participation in the review of proposed paperwork burdens. Under the changes made by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the public will have a chance to review and comment on the proposed paperwork requirement, while the agency is conducting its review, so that the public comments or suggestions for a less burdensome alternative approach can more effectively influence the final outcome. S. 244 will not merely preserve, but substantially enhance the role of OIRA, which was created by the 1980 act. Located within the Office of Management and Budget, OIRA was from the outset expected to regulate the regulators in the words of President Carter, when he signed the orginal Paperwork Reduction Act into law. OIRA brings a Government-wide perspective to the act's implementation, serving as both traffic cop and honest broker, regarding paperwork requirements advanced by individual Federal agencies without regard to related burdens being imposed by other Federal agencies. We all hear complaints that it is the cumulative effect of Federal paperwork burdens that so infuriates the public. To demonstrate congressional confidence in OIRA, the conference agreement on S. 244 provides a 6-year authorization of appropriations. The conferees rejection of the provision from the House-passed bill providing a permanent authorization of OIRA's appropriations should not be construed negatively. In fact, most of the pending legislation relating to reform of the regulatory process expands OIRA's role as the focal point within the Executive Office of the President for the fight to minimize regulatory and paperwork burdens which Government imposes on the public. S. 244 begins that process. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, OIRA has more authority and more responsibility to spur individual agencies in the direction of minimizing regulatory paperwork burdens. For example, S. 244 reaffirms OIRA's authority to prescribe standards under which agencies estimate the number of burden hours imposed by a proposed paperwork requirement. Today, too many agency paperwork estimates severely underestimate the total burden likely to be imposed. It is not merely the time needed to complete the form. That is just part of the burden. The time needed to understand the paperwork requirement, collect the information, and then array it in the manner requested, cannot be ignored. Further, if the paperwork requirement is to be a recurring requirement, it may require the establishment of a special record keeping system and the associated equipment and personnel. S. 244 modifies the Act's definition of burden to capture the full range of regulatory paperwork compliance costs. S. 244 clarifies and strengthens the act's public protection features. The act currently permits a member of the public to ignore a paperwork collection requirement that does not display a valid OMB control number, indicating that the paperwork collection requirement has been approved by OIRA, and that approval has not expired. The conference agreement makes explicit that the protection afforded by the act may be asserted or raised in the form of a complete defense at any time if the agency should seek to enforce compliance with the unapproved collection of information or impose a penalty through administrative or judicial action. The enhanced public protection provision of S. 244 also requires the agencies to provide an explicit notice on the form that the public need not comply with a paperwork requirement that fails to display a valid control number. Such a warning label should help educate the public regarding the protections afforded them by the act against unauthorized collections of information. The conference agreement reflects another provision of S. 244 designed to empower individual members of the public to help police unauthorized paperwork requirements. Under S. 244, a member of the public empowered to seek a determination from the OIRA Administrator regarding whether the manner in which an agency is implementing a paperwork requirement is in conformity with the act. The provision establishes response times and provides the OIRA Administrator with authority to seek appropriate remedial action by the agency, if warranted. The conference agreement also includes a substantially strengthened requirement relating to paperwork reduction goals. S. 244 requires the establishment of a Government-wide paperwork burden reduction goal of at least ten percent for each of the fiscal years 1996 and 1997. A Government-wide goal of at least 5 percent would be required in each the fiscal years 1998 through 2001. After the establishment of the Government-wide goals, goals would be negotiated between OIRA and the individual agencies, which reflect the maximum practicable opportunity for paperwork burden reduction. More important than the simple establishment of more aggressive Government-wide paperwork reduction goals is the provision adopted from the House-passed bill which will contribute to making them a reality. Under the conference agreement, OIRA's annual report to the Congress would identify those agencies which had failed to attain their burden reduction, set forth the reasons given by the agency for such failure, and specify the agency's proposals for remedial action. Mr. President, such a burden reduction program is sorely needed. In fiscal year 1994, the American people spent more than 6.6 billion hours filling-out forms, answering survey questions, and compiling records for the Federal Government. On the basis of a 40-hour work week, that's the equivalent of 3 million Americans being employed full-time solely to meet the Government's [[Page S5400]] paperwork demands. And, these are conservative estimates, compiled by OIRA on the basis of the burden hour estimates assigned by the agencies to their approved paperwork burdens. Burden estimates, which many in the private sector, those on the receiving end of these paperwork demands, believe to be very low. These estimates are contained in an Information Collection Budget, annually published by OIRA. Our former colleague, Lawton Chiles, the father of the Paperwork Reduction Act, used the word budget to emphasize that Federal paperwork requirements impose real costs on the public and the Nation's economy. Mr. President, at the same time, there can be no doubt that Government requires information to serve the people. We are in the Information Age. In the words frequently used by my colleague from Georgia the Speaker of the House the ``Third Wave'' is upon us. With respect to Government's real need for information, the key is to obtain only what is necessary and to do so in the least burdensome manner. Improving the Government's use of information technology is, and should be, an important function of OIRA. It can simultaneously lessen the burden of information collection on the public, enhance Government's effective use of the information collected, and foster dissemination of Government information for the benefit of the public. Although the product of an era in which mechanical typewriters dominated Government offices, the Paperwork Reduction Act provides the broad legislative foundation to serve as a key tool for copping with the new demands being placed upon the Federal Government. That foundation was broadened and substantially enhanced by the provisions in the Senate's version of S. 244 derived from the work of my good friend from Ohio [Mr. Glenn]. Mr. President, I would like to highlight one additional point about S. 244, although it was not an issue in conference since both versions of the bill contained identical language. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 clarifies the 1980 Act to make explicit that it applies to Government-sponsored third-party paperwork burdens. These are recordkeeping, disclosure, or other paperwork burdens that one private party imposes on another private party at the direction of a Federal agency. In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that such Government- sponsored third-party paperwork burdens were not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Court's decision in Dole versus United Steelworkers of America created a potentially vast loophole. The public could be denied the act's protections on the basis of the manner in which a Federal agency chose to impose a paperwork burden, indirectly rather than directly. It is worth noting that Lawton Chiles filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court arguing that no such exemption for third-party paperwork burdens was intended. Given the plain words of the statute, the Court decided otherwise. S. 244 makes explicit the act's coverage of all Government-sponsored paperwork burdens. We can feel confident that this major loophole is closed. But given more than a decade of experience under the act, it is prudent to remain vigilant to additional efforts to restrict the act's reach and public protections. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, like its predecessor bills, has enjoyed the steadfast support of the Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition, representing virtually every segment of the business community. Participating in the Coalition are the major national small business associations--the National Federation of Independent Business [NFIB], the Small Business Legislative Council [SBLC], and National Small Business United [NSBU], as well as the many specialized national individual small business associations, like the American Subcontractors Association, that compromise the membership of SBLC or NSBU. Other business associations participating in the coalition represent many types of manufacturers, aerospace and electronics firms, construction firms, providers of professional and technical services, retailers of various products and services and the wholesalers and distributors who support them. I would like to identify a few of the coalition's member organizations: the Aerospace Industries Association [AIA], the American Consulting Engineers Council [ACEC], the American Subcontractors Association [ASA], the Associated Builders and Contractors [ABC], the Associated General Contractors of America [AGC], the Contract Services Association [CSA], the Electronic Industries Association [EIA], the Independent Bankers Association of America [IBAA], the International Communications Industries Association [ICIA], the National Association of Wholesalers and Distributors, the National Association of Manufacturers [NAM], the National Tooling and Machining Association [NTMA], the Printing Industries of America [PIA], and the Professional Services Council [PSC]. Leadership for the Coalition is being provided by the Council on Regulatory and Information Management [C-RIM] and by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. C-RIM is the new name for the Business Council on the Reduction of Paperwork, which has dedicated itself to paperwork reduction and regulatory reform issues for a half century. The coalition also includes many other professional associations and public interest groups that support strengthening the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. Because of their efforts, two deserve special mention. The Association of Records Managers and Administrators [ARMA] have worked long and hard. The conference agreement reflects their valuable contribution--a requirement that any collection of information imposing a recordkeeping requirement also specify how long the public must retain the required record. According to ARMA, tens of millions of dollars are being wasted in the needless retention of records. The coalition has also been substantially enhanced by the participation of Citizens for a Sound Economy [CSE]. With this victory nearly at hand, CSE has been working hard at reform of the Government's basic regulatory processes. Given the regulatory burdens faced by State and local governments, legislation to strengthen the Paperwork Reduction Act is high on the agenda of the various associations representing our Nation's elected officials. As Governor of Florida, Lawton Chiles, has worked hard for the cause with the National Governors Association [NGA]. NGA adopted a resolution in support of this legislation during its 1994 annual meeting, thanks to the work of Governor Chiles and others. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a list of the membership of the Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the conference report on S. 244, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the resolution submitted by my distinguished colleague Senator Domenici, Senate Resolution 103. This resolution, which would designate the week of October 15-21, 1995, as the second annual National Character Counts Week. Last year I joined with Senator Domenici and several of our other colleagues in introducing similar legislation, and was very pleased that the proposal was extremely well-received by my colleagues, as well as people in New Mexico, Georgia, and throughout our Nation. This resolution represents a renewal of that effort. This group of our Senate colleagues has come together again this year to continue its recognition of the fact that our Nation is experiencing a crisis of values. This crisis is reflected in the rising tide of violence that kills little children in the cross-fire on school yards and in front of their houses, in the increasing number of children who kill each other and others. This crisis goes beyond crime. It is reflected, also, in the recent survey of youngsters conducted by the Josephson Institute of Ethics. These ordinary youngsters may never by involved in crime, drug abuse, or teenage pregnancy, but they still acknowledge disturbing ethical lapses: 2 out of 5 high school age boys and one in four girls have stolen something from a store; nearly two- thirds of all high school students and one-third of all college students had cheated on an exam, and more than one-third of males and one-fifth of females aged 19-24 said they would lie to get a job and nearly one-fifth of college students had already done so in the last year; 21 percent said they would falsify a report to keep a job. As a character in John Steinbeck's novel ``Of Mice and Men'' complained, ``Nothing is wrong anymore.'' Unfortunately, a lot is wrong, and our society seems reluctant to admit the problem. This is the core message of character counts, that there are core values that our society agrees on and that should guide our decisionmaking. These values, as set out in the resolution, are trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. These values are supported by an extremely broad and diverse coalition of people, including former Secretary of Education William Bennett, former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, actor-producer Tom Selleck, and Children's Defense Fund Founder Marian Wright Edelman. Among our colleagues, Senators with such diverse political viewpoints as Senator Helms and Senator Boxer consponsored last year's resolution. I come before the Senate today on behalf of this group to urge continued attention to this important problem. We must remember that all those children who are never taught the values of trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship are future citizens. This is a resolution considered by Members of the Senate and House in Washington, DC. But it is the parents, teachers, coaches, ministers, big brothers and sisters in local communities who will lead the fight for values in our Nation. As a result of the efforts by the character counts coalition, people in all areas of the country are more aware of the problems we face, and have begun to incorporate these values into their everyday lives and those of their children. Senator Domenici has outlined some of these efforts. This year, we introduce this resolution to remind the Senate that the work on this issue is far from over, and again to enlist their support in reinstating these values to their proper places as fundamental to our society. I am proud to join my colleagues, especially Senator Domenici, in this effort once again, and I urge the Senate to support this resolution.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time we used for that dialog not come out of my time.

Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I need to go ahead and make my remarks. I have been waiting for some time, but I will certainly yield.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I wanted to thank the Senator from Indiana for his statement this morning, which shows that we have a united view here. I know the Chair, the Senator from South Carolina, the chairman of the committee, also agrees with our view and has made that clear in his statement. So I think we have very strong consensus in our committee. I thank the Senator from Indiana for the tremendous amount of work he has done on this issue over the last years. He has been an extraordinary partner in dealing with a very difficult, sensitive issue, but one that is important to the U.S. military and our national security. So I thank him very much for his support.

Mr. NUNN. Madam President, in view of the recent attention to the policy on homosexuality in the Armed Forces, Senator Coats and I would like this morning to update the Senate on the status of the legislation which was enacted in 1993 as section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994. Both Senator Coats and I will be speaking to this subject this morning. I think that our joint statements certainly reflect the continuing bipartisan consensus in support of the basic legislation that was enacted in 1993. This discussion is precipitated by the recent district court decision in Able versus the United States and the reaction to it. In my view, the Able decision was not correctly decided. I believe it will be reversed on appeal, particularly in view of the unusual approach taken by the district judge in which he, in effect, drafted his own statute, manufactured his own legislative purposes, and reviewed the policy period of years by the Supreme Court of the United States. And I will speak further to each of those matters. I believe that our legislative record is solid and the case will be reversed on appeal, and I do not see any need for further legislative action at this time. background At the outset, I would like to summarize briefly the events which led to the enactment of this legislation. A more detailed discussion of these events is in the committee's report on the legislation, Senate Report 103-112. The prohibition on homosexual acts has been a longstanding element of military law. The prohibition on service by gay men and lesbians has been covered in military regulations. In September 1992, during the Senate's debate on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1993, Senator Howard Metzenbaum offered an amendment that would have established a ``prohibition on discrimination in the military on the basis of sexual orientation.'' I observed that ``this subject deserves the greatest care and sensitivity'' and stated: We will have hearings on the subject next year. We will hear from all viewpoints, and we will take into consideration the viewpoints of our military commanders, the viewpoints of those in the homosexual community, the viewpoints of those who are in uniform who may be homosexual, gay, and we will also consider the men and women in uniform who are not in that category and the effect it would have on military morale. Based upon the assurance that hearings would be held in 1993, Senator Metzenbaum withdrew his amendment. During the 1992 election campaign, Presidential candidate Bill Clinton said that, if elected, he would take action to change the current policy restricting the service of gay men and lesbians serving in the Armed Forces. He also spoke of the need to consult carefully with the military leadership on this issue. After the election, he reiterated his views on changing the policy and the need to consult with the military leadership. Secretary of Defense Aspin, during his confirmation proceedings in January 1993, indicated that there would be extensive consultations with Congress on this subject. Shortly after the Inauguration, a series of media reports suggested that a significant change in the Department's policy was imminent. A number of Senators indicated that they would offer an amendment early in the congressional session that would prohibit any change in policy. I expressed the view that neither the executive branch nor Congress should institute a significant change in the current policy, by Presidential order or by congressional action, prior to undertaking a comprehensive review, including hearings, on this subject. In late January, I participated in a series of meetings with the President on the subject of homosexuality in the Armed Forces. Other participants included then-Senate majority leader George Mitchell and Democratic members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In addition, I consulted extensively with members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As a result of these meetings and further discussions with the President, an interim policy was announced by the President on January 29, 1993, to remain into effect until July 15, 1993. This interim policy retained then-existing rules restricting the service of gay men and lesbians in the Armed Forces. The policy also set forth two modifications that would apply during the interim period. First, reflecting a recommendation made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, new recruits would not be questioned about homosexuality during the enlistment process. Second, gay and lesbian cases that did not involve homosexual acts would be processed through separation from active duty, and the individual would be placed in a nonpay status in the Standby Reserve during this interim period. In additional, the President directed the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of the current policy and to provide him with a draft Executive order by July 15, 1993. On February 4, 1993, during Senate consideration of the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Senate debated two amendments related to the service of gay men and lesbians in the Armed Forces. The first amendment would have frozen in law ``all Executive Orders, Department of Defense Directives, and regulations of the military departments concerning the appointment, enlistment, and induction, and the retention, of homosexuals in the Armed Forces, as in effect on January 1, 1993.'' The amendment was tabled by a vote of 62-37. The Senate then unanimously adopted an amendment expressing the Sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should conduct ``a comprehensive review of the current Department of Defense policy with respect to the service of homosexuals in the Armed Forces.'' The amendment further expressed the sense of Congress that the results of the review should be reported to the President and Congress not later than July 15, 1993. In addition, the amendment expressed the sense of Congress that the Senate Committee on Armed Services should conduct comprehensive hearings on the current military policy and should conduct oversight hearings on the Secretary's recommendations as such are reported. The amendment, as adopted, was enacted as section 601 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Public Law 103-3. The Senate also agreed to an order that effectively precluded consideration of any further amendments in the Senate relating to the service of gay men and lesbians in the Armed Forces until July 15, 1993. This procedure permitted the Department of Defense and the Committee on Armed Services to conduct their reviews prior to legislative action on specific amendments. The legislation Madam President, the legislation passed in Congress in 1993 contains 15 findings, which address the constitutional role of Congress in establishing military manpower policy, the unique nature of military service, and the fact that the presence in the military of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to military capability. The legislation codifies specific grounds for discharge--homosexual acts, statements, and marriages--reflecting DOD's longstanding policy on homosexuality in the Armed Forces. The legislation also provides the Secretary of Defense with discretion to reinstate accession questioning if the Secretary determines it to be necessary to effectuate the restrictions on homosexuality in the Armed Forces. On February 28, 1994, the Department of Defense issued final regulations implementing the legislation. The Litigation In the 13 months since the regulations were issued, there have been a number of judicial decisions addressing homosexuality in the Armed Forces, but most have dealt with the old administrative rules rather than the new legislation. The authority of the Armed Forces to discharge members based upon homosexual acts has been routinely sustained by the courts, including those courts such as the ninth circuit, that have questioned separation based on statements. Two leading cases illustrate the differing approaches that the courts have taken on the impact of statements. In Meinhold v. Department of Defense, 34 F.3d 1469 (9th Cir. 1994), a case arising under the old policy, the ninth circuit held that a servicemember could not be discharged solely because he or she said ``I am gay'' but could be discharged for making a statement which ``manifests a concrete expressed desire or intent to engage in homosexual acts.'' The court reached this conclusion based on its construction of the regulations, which make it unnecessary to decide any constitutional issue. In Steffan v. Perry, 41 F. 3d 677 (D.C. Cir. 1994), the D.C. Circuit ruled that the statement ``I am gay'' constituted sufficient evidence under the regulations of a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts to justify a discharge. The court rejected any constitutional challenge to a discharge based upon such a statement. Last week, in a case arising under the new legislation, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York took a different approach. In Able versus United States, Judge Nickerson held that the act and the implementing directives violate the first amendment as a restriction on protection. The judge's decision applies only to the six plaintiffs in the case, and has no wider direct application. As a result, the legislative policy remains in effect. Madam President, to put this matter in perspective, there are over 600 district court judges in the United States, and it was predictable some district judge somewhere in the country would rule the statute unconstitutional. That does not mean though that the upper courts will uphold this. I made this point at the time the legislation was enacted. I also said that I believed the legislation would be sustained on appeal. I am pleased that the Clinton administration has made it clear that it will appeal the Able decision, and I continue to believe that the legislative policy will be sustained on appeal. My confidence is even higher after reading the opinion. In my view, the opinion does not reflect sound judicial craftsmanship or scholarship. The district court's opinion ignores the plain word of the statute, misconstrues the legislative history, relies on speculation about the purposes of the legislation rather than the clear words of the statute, and fails to discuss circuit court opinions which take a contrary view. There are many flaws in the Able decision, which will undoubtedly be raised on appeal. Today, I will highlight some of the more egregious errors from a congressional perspective. First, the decision misstates the definition of homosexuality in the statute and then proceeds to analyze the statute in terms of the judge's erroneous definition. The opinion states: The first question for the court is whether the Government may under the first amendment prohibit a member of the Services from stating that he or she is a homosexual, that is, that he or she has ``an innate feeling within''-- I am emphasizing those words-- that indicates the status of a homosexual. This completely ignores the specific conduct-based definition in the statute, which provides: The term ``homosexual'' means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms ``gay'' and ``lesbian''. The statute talks about conduct, what a person does or intends to do. We do not mention what the judge put so much emphasis on, that is, in his words, ``an innate feeling within that indicates the status of a homosexual''. That is nowhere in the statute. Judge Nickerson, in effect, rewrote the statute to conform to his own views of his concept of ``status.'' Second, the decision disregards the Supreme Court standard of review in military cases. As the Supreme Court stated in Rostker v. Goldberg, 433 U.S. 57 (1981), ``judicial deference to * * * congressional exercise of authority is at its apogee when legislative action under the congressional authority to raise and support armies and make rules and regulations for their governance is challenged.'' The Supreme Court emphasized that a court may not ``substitute [its] own evaluation of the evidence for a reasonable evaluation by the legislative branch.'' The Able decision, however, is replete with the district court's evaluation of the testimony presented in congressional hearings, while ignoring virtually all of the analysis presented by authoritative sources such as the committee's report. Third, although the Able decision assumes there is no rational basis for the presumption that a statement by an individual that he or she is gay indicates a likelihood that the service member engages in or will engage in homosexual acts, the court makes no attempt to address the opinions that are directly contrary in Steffan v. Perry, 41 F.3d 677 (D.C. Cir. 1994) and ben Shalom v. Marsh, 881 F.2d 454 (7th Cir. 1989), cert. denied 110 S.Ct. 1296 (1990), which found the presumption to be valid. It is a puzzle to me how a district court judge completely ignored-- he can disagree if he chooses--but how he completely ignored two circuit court opinions on this subject. Fourth, the Able decision bases its equal protection analysis on the unwarranted assumption that the legislation is based upon the irrational prejudice of service members against gays and lesbians. The decision totally ignores the lengthy discussion of the issue of prejudice and stereotypes in the committee's report on the legislation, in which the committee concluded that ``our position on the service of gays and lesbians is not based upon stereotypes but on the impact in the military setting of the conduct that is an integral element of homosexuality.'' Fifth, instead of relying on the legislation and the committee report, the Able decision manufactures its own view of the legislation. The decision states: Although the act's findings are silent as to the response of heterosexuals to the presence of known homosexuals in the services, the court will analyze the act as if it said that a statement of homosexual status was in itself an evil because heterosexuals would not like to hear it and would react so as to damage unit cohesion. Madam President, it is a very large leap from the Supreme Court's decision in the Rostker case, which requires deference to Congress in these matters, to the decision of the district court in Able, in which the judge disregards the analysis provided by the committee and substitutes his own version of what he thinks motivated the Congress. In summary, Madam President, the judge in Able has drafted his own statute, manufactured his own legislative purposes, and reviewed the policy without regard to the standards articulated by the Supreme Court. That is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they drafted a Constitution based upon the separation of powers. Madam President, the media understandably have focused on the inflammatory language in the opinion, such as the suggestion that the policy is ``Orwellian'' and that it ignores what ``Hitler taught the world,'' in the judge's view. The opinion is long on rhetoric and short on analysis. Speaker Gingrich, in reaction, has raised the issue of whether we should reopen the legislative debate and reinstate the policy that predated the legislation. In my view, Madam President, we should not do so. The policy on homosexuality in the Armed Forces is on much stronger ground than it was prior to enactment of this legislation. It is more likely to be sustained in the Supreme Court based on the law and the findings of Congress than if we went back to the old standards which were based on regulatory policy alone. We have a strong legislative record, reflecting the common agreement of the civilian and military leadership of the Department of Defense, and of the Congress, that there is a clear military need for the policy on homosexuality in the armed forces. We have a detailed set of legislative findings, which we did not have prior to enactment, setting forth the basis for the policy. We have clear procedures for separation proceedings based upon homosexual acts, statements, and marriages. The legislative policy is clearly consistent with the preexisting administrative policy requiring separation on the basis of homosexual acts, statements, and marriages. The new policy, of course, makes a change in previous practice in that the legislation does not require the government to initiate questions to an individual about homosexuality, and the regulations do not currently permit such questions to be asked. As I noted earlier in my statement, the recommendation to drop such questioning from the enlistment form was made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff--our military leadership--based on their determination that the questioning was not necessary to effectuate the policy on homosexuality in the Armed Forces. During our hearings, the military chiefs, when asked for their personal opinions about this policy--General Powell, General Sullivan, Admiral Kelso, General McPeak, General Mundy, and Admiral Jeremiah-- each stated he supported the policy. Each was also asked whether the policy could be implemented in a manner consistent with morale, good order, with discipline, with unit cohesion, and without a degradation in readiness. Each responded that the military could actually implement the policy without such adverse effects. Mr. President, the policy in effect reflects the recommendations of the military leadership, which were endorsed by the civilian leadership and aisle worked closely to ensure that there was a solid legislative record based upon sound military requirements. The hearings were conducted with dignity and respect for all involved, and reflected a sober, careful analysis of a very difficult time. In my judgment, Mr. President, there is no need at this time for any legislative action. The policy is in place. The policy is working. I do not believe that the opinion in the Able case will survive appellate judicial scrutiny, particularly in light of the clear legislative findings and sound congressional action reflected in the statute. There is no call on the part of our military leadership for change. On the contrary, they believe the policy is working well. Moreover, if they come to the conclusion in the future that it is necessary to reinstate questioning, the statute gives the Department of Defense the authority to do so without further legislative action. In the absence of evidence that a legislative change is needed, it is my recommendation that the Congress take no further legislative action at this time.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. We call the military services now a volunteer force, but they are paid substantially more, even at entry levels, than any of the young people in national service. I think that is appropriate. The educational benefits are also higher, substantially higher, than the national service educational benefits. If we add educational benefit to the total pay package, there is no real comparison between the pay and benefits of the military, which is much higher than national service, and that is the way it should be, because military personnel are also in harm's way on many occasions. It is a different occupation, but the thing that is very similar is that they are both called voluntary and they both are voluntary. No one is compelled to take either occupation or either program. I think we should be very careful in saying on the one hand that national service is not voluntary because these young people are being paid, and the military is voluntary because they are also being paid and they are also in many of the occupations, getting special bonuses. They are still volunteers. Considering all the benefits national service provides, at the community level, it is difficult to see why some of our colleagues object to it. Indeed, given the debates we have heard on unfunded mandates legislation and the, I think, justifiable move for continued devolution of responsibilities from the Federal to State and local governments in this body, I would hope that our colleagues would agree that national service represents the type of government we ought to support. National service is not a Federal mandate for any specific type of service. That is left up to the communities, and the communities decide whether they want to participate at all. National service gives communities and service organizations the chance to voluntarily identify and perform the kind of service which best meets the local need, with the Federal Government providing most, but not all, of the funding. At the same time, it allows young people to serve their communities and micromanagement. Finally, Mr. President, I would make the point that the proposed rescission of national service funds is, to say the least, premature. The first full funding year is only half complete and the data on the programs' accomplishments is only available in anecdotal form. We need analysis on the program. Rather than making a decision to cut this program based on incomplete information now available to the appropriations process, we should save this debate on the scope and the direction of the program for the authorizing committee next year, when more complete information is available. I am confident that the program, if given a chance to do so, will admirably prove its worth. At least we should give it a chance. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to restore funding of the national service program. I urge them not to fail the students and the young people who are learning maturity and life skills through their service in the program. Most important, I urge them not to fail the communities, the churches, the schools, the businesses, and the individuals who benefit from the hard work of our young people. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Senate to support an effort to restore funding to the Corporation for National and Community Service. The case for national service depends on understanding that it uniquely offers a triple investment in the future productive capacity of our people and our communities: First, the service performed; second, the service experienced; and third, the postservice educational benefit. I know the word ``investment'' has been abused and debated on the Senate floor over the years. For some, it is just a code word for Government spending. We must not, however, become so cynical that we do not see a real investment when a payoff is staring us in the face. The first component of benefit of this investment is the word in the name of the organization--service. Critics have tried to attack national service in a number of ways. During the debate on the authorizing legislation, we heard cries about how many more Pell grants we could fund with the money, or how many more job training programs we could fund with the same money. Though these criticisms make valid points as far as they go, they lose sight of the crucial fact that national service does not exist to provide student aid or job training. The most important benefit of this program is the service provided by AmeriCorps members. Mr. President, I visited a number of these AmeriCorps projects, and before that, the national service projects that were the pilot projects authorized before this program. I have seen young people in a small town of Vidalia, GA, helping teach Spanish to young students that did not understand basic Spanish. Most importantly, these students were filling a huge void where there were no Spanish teachers in the community by helping immigrants learn to speak English, because they had no way of learning without someone who could converse with them. I have seen young people also in the same community and in Thomson, GA, helping in nursing homes in crucial kinds of occupations with our elderly citizens. I have seen them in homes for the elderly. I have seen them helping the elderly stay in their own homes, which is most important in terms of both their quality of life and in terms of actually saving taxpayers' dollars. I have seen them in tutoring and mentoring positions for young kindergarten, first, second and third graders in inner-city schools. And I have seen them in connection with Habitat for Humanity building new homes for needy families and have begun construction on many other homes. I have seen them in many other occupations, as have others who have observed this program throughout the United States. The second kind of benefit national service provides is the personal and civic development of the participants. In recent years, too many Americans have forgotten the relationship between rights and responsibilities. We often see reports in the news media about various groups or individuals proclaiming that this Government service or that protection is a right. We are all so often reminded of the rights all Americans should enjoy that we lose sight too often of the other side of the same coin: The responsibilities that we share in order to make the rights possible. Just as we have rights to freedom, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, those sacred rights carry with them equally sacred responsibilities. National service is reconnecting the relationship between the two fundamental tenets--rights and responsibilities--of our democracy for thousands of young people. This program provides young people with opportunities to fulfill that obligation to give something back to their country and to their communities. The third kind of benefit which is derived from the national service program is the postservice educational benefit. As most of my colleagues will agree, education is the best indicator we have of upward mobility. Not only does the participant increase his or her potential to get a high-paying job and become a contributing taxpaying member of the community, the community also benefits from citizens who run businesses, citizens who pay taxes, citizens who participate in civic organizations, and citizens who contribute to the community. This sort of educational assistance becomes even more important in a time when our more traditional forms of educational financial assistance are facing severe funding restrictions and reductions. I hope all of my colleagues understand this is not a program which fills members' time doing calisthenics or singing ``Kum Bah Yah'' around the campfire. They perform hard work desperately needed by local citizens, governments and businesses that is not being performed by others in the community. of the day. They occasionally pound a thumb with a hammer in the building occupations which many of them are doing. The bottom line is that the work they do is needed by our communities. Along the way, they acquire real world skills and maturity that will make them better citizens and help the country. For Congress to decimate this program at a time when it has only begun, before any organized results can be compiled, would be to sell this program, and I believe our young people, and our Nation short. There is a good analogy, Mr. President, to be found between national service and our Nation's Armed Forces. We do not maintain Armed Forces in order to provide valuable skills and develop good character in young men and women. Rather, Armed Forces personnel develop skills and character in the military as they carry out their primary mission of providing for our Nation's security. The same is true of national service. Members perform crucial important services in their communities, and along the way they gain important life skills. Additionally, we often hear from some critics who attack national service as coerced voluntarism--as if the provision of a stipend for living expenses somehow cheapens the service performed or stains the motives of the participant. I note the critics seldom raise the same objections to our Nation's All-Volunteer military force. I believe these points are made very clear in a recent op-ed by Charlie Moskos, a respected sociologist at Northwestern University, and I ask unanimous consent that this op-ed piece be reprinted in the Record.

Mr. NUNN

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

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Hutchison in introducing legislation to establish equity in military retirement procedures. This legislation will provide that the retirement of 3- and 4-star officers will be considered under the same standards and procedures as other general and flag officers at the 1- and 2-star level. It will also ensure that 3- and 4-star officers facing retirement are not subjected to confirmation procedures that do not apply to their civilian superiors or other civilian government officials. In other words, this legislaion would apply the same procedures to 3- and 4-star officer retirements that apply to other military and civilian officials seeking retirement. By way of background, promotions to 3- and 4-star positions are treated as temporary, rather than permanent promotions. This means that the individual holds the 3- or 4-star grade only while serving in the 3- or 4-star position. The member also may hold the grade for brief transitional periods to cover transfers between assignments, hospitalization, and before retirement. Because these grades are temporary, an individual who is in a 3- or 4-star grade retains his or her permanent grade, which is typically a 2-star grade. This means that if the individual is not nominated, confirmed, or appointed to another 3- or 4-star position, the individual will revert to his or her permanent--for example, 2-star grade. Under current law, these considerations apply to retirements as well as promotions. As a result, if a 3- or 4-star officer who retires is not nominated, confirmed, or appointed to retire in a permanent 3- or 4-star grade, the individual will revert to his or her permanent--for example, 2-star grade upon retirement--with the attendant loss of retired pay and status. This situation applies uniquely to 3- and 4-star officers. Other flag and general officers, as well as other commissioned officers, retire in the highest grade held, subject to minimum time-in-grade requirements, without a requirement for nomination, Senate confirmation, and appointment to a retired grade. Similarly, civilian officials who retire from the civil service are not required to face Senate confirmation, no matter how high their grade. Thus, a cabinet or subcabinent official, as well as career civil service officials, who qualify for civil service retirement will receive their full retired pay--based on years of service and high-3 years rate of pay--without action by the President or the Senate. The effect is that 3- and 4-star officers are the only Government officials who are subject to losing retired pay and status as a result of a requirement that they be confirmed in a retired grade. Neither their civilian superiors nor any other Government officials can have their retired pay and status reduced through the confirmation process. The proposal we are introducing today would end the requirement for retiring 3- and 4-star officers to be nominated, confirmed, and appointed in a permanent 3- and 4-star grade. The result would be that 3- and 4-star officers would retire under the same conditions as other officers--for example, 2-star officers. That is, they will retire in the highest grade they held, subject to minimum time in grade requirements. The proposal would not change the current requirement for nomination and Senate confirmation of all 3- and 4-star active duty promotions, assignments, and reassignments. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] for preparing this proposal. I believe the concept warrants favorable consideration, but the details should receive careful review and study. The Committee on Armed Service will obtain the views of the Department of Defense, and the proposal will be considered by the Personnel Subcommittee. I look forward to working on this issue with Chairman Thurmond, and with Senator Coats, the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, and Senator Byrd, the ranking minority member of the subcommittee.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, today I want to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the conclusion of the World War II battle for Iwo Jima. Exactly 50 years ago today, the U.S. Marines successfully finished a fierce battle for a small dot in the Pacific that had been turned into one of the most heavily fortified islands in the world by a hard-as- nails Samurai warrior Japanese Lieutenant General Kurabayashi. The battle for Iwo Jima had started on February 19, 1945. American military planners half-a-world away came up with only one way to make Iwo into the needed U.S. forward base: an attack right into the teeth of the Japanese defenses. The ensuing 33-day battle was the basest form of struggle--individual against individual, inch by inch. Artillery, mortars, naval gunfire, and air--the traditional combined arms of the Marines--provided only marginal help to the attackers. The most powerful weapon was the individual marine who hadto drive the enemy from gun emplacements, caves, tunnels, and spider holes. There were 2,500 marines killed on that first day--February 19, 1945. The death toll tripled by the time the first marine fire team fought to the top of Mt. Suribachi 6 days later. Mt. Suribachi was the strategic high point from which the defenders were pinning the marines down on the beaches and was the dominating feature of the entire island. Three reserve marines, two regular marines, and one Navy corpsman joined together in a moment that captured the soul of a service. They raised Old Glory atop that 550-foot extinct volcano. Those on the beach below saw the red, white, and blue flutter in the breeze. Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, there with the Marine Commander Major General ``Howling Mad'' Smith, turned and said: ``The raising of the flag on Mt. Suribachi means a Marines Corps for the next five hundred years.'' I certainly hope so. Though organized resistance continued until mid-March, the flag raising, which produced perhaps the most famous and inspiring combat photograph of World War II, symbolized one of the hardest won victories of that war. Military historian Allan Millett has written of Iwo Jima that, ``Of all the unpleasant islands the marines saw, Iwo Jima was the nastiest-- prepared by nature and the Japanese armed forces as a death trap for any attacker.'' And so it was. There were 70,000 marines locked in combat on this tiny island in the Pacific; 5,931 died; 17,372 were wounded; Presidential and Navy Unit Citations were awarded and 22 marines earned the Medal of Honor. The fighting was so brutal, and the determination and bravery of the marines so stunning, that Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, was moved to say that on Iwo Jima ``uncommon valor was a common virtue.'' They fought and died so that others might live in freedom. The purpose of wresting Iwo Jima from the Japanese was to establish a forward air base on the island which served, among other things, as an interim emergency landing base for United States bombers making the long run between the Marianas to targets in Japan. More than 25,000 airmen in the Army Air Force subsequently used Iwo Jima for emergency landings. Mr. President, I know I speak for all in saying we honor both those who fell on Iwo Jima and those who fought but managed to survive. I know it must have been a very emotional ceremony last week on the black sands of Iwo Jima when thousands of the survivors joined Secretary of the Navy John Dalton and current Marine Commandant Gen. Carl Mundy in paying tribute to their bravery and sacrifice and to commemorate those who did not return. I felt of that same emotion when I was fortunate to be on the Senate floor March 2, 1995, when Senator John Glenn was making a very moving tribute about the marines who fought on Iwo Jima. This was part of a series of speeches about that battle by Senators who have served as marines. Each spoke about a different aspect of Iwo Jima. We would all benefit from reading all these speeches and so I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of the Senators, the date of their speech, and the page in the Congressional Record where their remarks can be found.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding Army organization in recognition of its distinguished service to this Nation and extraordinary performance during World War II. The 87th Engineer Battalion was the first heavy pontoon battalion activated at Fort Benning, GA, on August 1, 1940. Also trained at Fort Benning, this battalion went ashore at Utah Beach in the Normandy landing to build the bridges needed to liberate France. Among the many rivers that had to be crossed were the Meuse, the Saar, and the Moselle. The 87th Engineers bridged them all. This brought the 87th Engineer Battalion to the most awesome and difficult of all European rivers, the Rhine. Fifty years ago today, on March 24, 1945, the 87th Engineer Battalion made history when they constructed the longest pontoon bridge in the world across the Rhine River at Oppenheim. Despite shortages of personnel and equipment, the 87th was ordered to move Patton's 3d Army across the Rhone. They built a 1,237 foot span in 13 hours while under constant enemy attack. Their efforts resulted in the establishment of the second American bridgehead across the Rhine and contributed directly to the overall success of Allied operations. When they were not building bridges, the soldiers of the 87th Engineer Battalion assisted in hauling thousands of tons of critical supplies from the beaches to the interior depots. Their successful accomplishment of this critical mission helped to maintain the Allied momentum throughout the war. The soldiers of the 87th Engineer Battalion repeatedly distinguished themselves as professional soldiers, technically competent engineers, and great Americans whose performance of duty was outstanding. For their efforts and impressive successes, it is my privilege to wish the World War II veterans of the 87th Engineer Battalion the best in the years ahead and join the Nation in expressing our heartfelt thanks for their dedication and selfless devotion and service to the United States of America.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Will the----

Mr. NUNN. I say to the Senator, I will yield to him when I finish my remarks. I will be glad to yield, glad to have a discussion. I know there is limited time and I have to complete my remarks. As drafted, Mr. President, the substitute provides: The Committee on Appropriations of either the House or the Senate shall not report an appropriation measure that fails to contain such level of detail on the allocation of an item of appropriation as is set forth in the committee report accompanying such bill. The whole thing is tied to the committee report, but there is no requirement for a committee report. This is an empty shell unless the Appropriations Committee decides they are just going to send a report to the President, incorporate it in a bill, have it engrossed, and give him a target to either increase or decrease spending, change policy, whatever he would like to do. change. We are on the floor of the Senate under a time agreement and we are now going to make fundamental changes by amendment in a bill that is flawed, badly flawed. We are going to, in the last hour, deal with questions of war powers; we are going to deal with questions of whether rescissions will be deleted. In effect, if they can delete a rescission, the President has increased the spending. The best indictment against this approach comes from the Republican majority on the Governmental Affairs Committee, because they brought out bills that deal with rescission. The Domenici bill, now known as the Exon-Daschle bill, that is based on rescissions, does not have these flaws in it. It does not tie the President's powers to items in the committee report. If it is a letter, if it is a statement of managers, the President can delete by rescission under the Domenici bill. That is the bill we ought to be voting for. I know the majority is going to vote against it, but the majority is going to regret this. Look at what the majority said in Governmental Affairs Committee in their report on this bill 10 days ago. And this goes right to the heart of the way we are now proceeding under this substitute. This is a quote from the majority report of the Governmental Affairs Committee. It is possible, although not desirable, to apply the state budgeting system to the Federal Government and give Presidents the kind of line-item veto available to Governors. To maximize item-veto authority for the President, the details in conference reports, agency justification materials, and other nonstatutory sources could be transferred to appropriations bills. . . . That is precisely what the substitute does, precisely. However, placing an item in appropriations bills would produce an undesirable rigidity to agency operations and legislative procedures. That is a quote. Exactly what this bill does. If Congress placed items in appropriations bills, agencies would have to implement the bill precisely as defined in the individual items. That is exactly what this bill does. You talk about tying up the Department of Defense. This bill is going to do more damage to the Department of Defense than anything I can imagine. They are not going to be able to shift money on lapsed contracts or delayed contracts with the permission of Congress to pay or to have readiness to make up for critical shortfalls. Last fall, the Republicans complained about readiness in the campaign. I share some of those concerns. We had a committee this week that reported at the request of the Senator from Arizona. Four retired generals talked about the problems with the defense budget--not enough funding for force structure, not enough funding for modernization. Now, what are we going to do? We are going to take all of this material, if the Appropriations Committee acts in good faith, and we are going to put it into a law. They are going to have no flexibility whatsoever unless they come back for statutory changes. We are going to have the most bogged down legislative process that I can imagine in the history of this Republic. We are going to have statutory changes by the hundreds requested on every single defense bill. Quoting again from the majority report: In cases where the specific amounts detailed in the appropriations statutes proved to be insufficient as the fiscal year progresses, agencies could not spend above the specified level. Doing so would violate the law. Exactly what we are doing in this bill. I will not quote it because I do not have the time this morning, but the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the majority Republicans, said the same thing when they brought out their rescission bill. So we have the absolute, unbelievable paradox where the majority reports of the Republicans on the Governmental Affairs Committee, in the House and the Senate, have decried the very approach that we are now about to vote on and pass. And it has all been done in the last 2 weeks. This is not a Democratic kind of critique. This is a Republican critique of the legislation now being presented and supported by the majority. Continuing to quote the Governmental Affairs majority report: Agencies and departments would have to come to Congress and request supplemental funds for some items and rescissions for others, or request a transfer of funds between accounts. Neither the Congress nor the agencies want this inflexibility and added workload for the regular legislative process. Mr. President, I will conclude my remarks very briefly. There are at least five serious problems with the proposed substitute. First, it contains loopholes so large that proponents of pork will be able to insulate whole barrels of pork from a Presidential veto if they choose to do so. Second, the separate enrollment procedure would allow the President to veto funding limitations as well as funding amounts, which would inhibit the ability of Congress to address legitimate policy differences with the President. Some examples I have already given are abortion and troop restrictions on Somalia. He can veto those paragraphs. Maybe that will be changed, but it is my view that you are going to have a hard time changing that without deleting the ability of Congress to do away with earmarks, the very target the Senator from Arizona has been shooting at. Third, this proposal permits the President to increase as well as decrease spending by allowing him to sign into law those portions of an appropriations bill that increase spending and to veto those portions of an appropriations bill that rescind or reduce pending. In other words, if a President chose to, under this authority, he could take an appropriations bill that had been passed by the Congress and he could basically increase the amount in that appropriations bill by doing away with or vetoing the rescissions in that bill to reduce funding. Mr. President, I hope that will be cured. But, again, on something this important, to come out here and have to cure these absolutely colossal defects in this bill in the last few hours is really a hard way for me to visualize responsible legislation occurring. So just the opposite of what the sponsors have intended could occur. This is just saying to the President: We think you are a whole lot better at this than we are, so we are giving you congressional authority. We are giving you the power of the purse to make decisions to increase or decrease. You do whatever you want. We want you to do it, because we have proven that we cannot. Mr. President, the other thing this bill does not do, it does not go after the real problems with our own process--the real problems the Senator from Arizona has pointed out, earmarked funds. We could have a point of order against that. We could have a point of order against an appropriation that comes back from the conference that was not even in the House bill or the Senate bill. We could have a point of order on that. But none of that is in here. We are basically saying, ``We cannot take care of our problems, so we are going to give the President a huge additional authority.'' Well, the result of that is, believe me, within a year, everybody will realize what we have done and then we will move away from committee reports and we will have statements by managers. And then there will not be anything for the President to veto, and we will start the process all over again, and we add to the disillusionment of the American people. They will finally ask: ``Can't you guys do anything right? We thought we were getting rid of spending, but we are not.'' That is what is going to happen if this goes into law. If this goes into law--and the President says he is going to sign whatever we send down there. That ought to frighten a few people. That ought to make us think. It is a great pleasure to be able to vote for darn near anything, knowing the President will veto it and you can make your speeches and it is not going to go into law and you do not have to suffer the consequences and the country does not. It is another thing entirely when the President says he is going to sign it. He is going to sign what we send down there on this. And I suppose any President would because, are going to give him the largest new hunk of Presidential power that we have given any President in many, many, many years. And then, what we will do, because there are loopholes here, we will take it away by moving the pork out of the reports and moving it into speeches on the floor or statements on the floor, and we will be right back where we are with disillusionment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mr. NUNN. I will be glad to yield. I just have brief time remaining, and I will yield right at the end of it.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I made a lengthy presentation last evening relating to the defects in this substitute that is now before us. I would like to say at the outset I believe the current practice, where rescissions come over from the President and if we take no action nothing is changed, is unacceptable. That practice gives the President, really, no authority to point out specific items in appropriations bills and to have any hope that they will be corrected if they are wasteful. I have always contended and still contend that Presidents have enormous power if they would just veto the whole bill and then indicate to the American public what is wrong with the bill. That would put the onus on Congress to correct it. But apparently Presidents do not choose to do that. I have listened with care in the last few days to the debate on this so-called line-item veto. There are several things I do not believe we have properly focused on. The first point that I think people need to understand is the current appropriation process. There are two types of documents that are produced by the Congress in the appropriation process, and I really do not believe the distinction between the two is commonly recognized in this Chamber. The first document is an appropriation bill, which is passed by both Houses of Congress. It is signed into law by the President, or vetoed-- usually signed. Last year's defense appropriation bill, for example, was 61 pages long. The bill is legally binding on the executive branch. It becomes law. The second type of document is a different type of document altogether and that is the report issued by the Appropriations Committees and the report issued by the House-Senate conferees. The three reports issued, just for instance, in connection with last year's Defense bill are 853 pages, covering over 2,300 lines. The policy direction in these reports, often known as pork-barrel spending to the critics--some of it--is not binding on the executive branch. by the President and by the media and by others, including people in this body, is not even binding on the executive branch. But people do not recognize that. Not all of it, but much of it. There is no requirement in law or Senate rule that an appropriations bill or report must contain any specific level of detail. I want to repeat that because that goes to the heart of what is wrong with this proposal. There is no requirement in law and no Senate rule, nor would they be if we passed this--there is no change here--that an appropriations bill or report contain any specific level of detail. Mr. President, I want to repeat that. There is no requirement in law nor any Senate rule that an appropriations bill or report contain any specific level of detail. Most appropriations bills, particularly in the defense arena but not limited to defense, set forth large lump sum amounts that are not tied to specific programs, projects, or activities. Looking to an example from last year's Department of Defense Appropriations Act, the act provided a specific sum for Army aircraft procurement, $1.164 billion. The text of the act does not require the Army to spend that money on any particular type of aircraft. Then the report comes along and indicates how the Congress expects the money to be spent. But that is a matter of political comity. It is not binding. That is the key to understanding what is wrong with this substitute proposal which we have before us. I would say most of the defects I have pointed out do not apply to either of the bills based on rescissions. These defects do not apply to the Domenici rescission bill, which is now before us and is known as the Daschle-Exon amendment, nor to the McCain rescission bill. Most of the defects I am pointing out here this morning do not apply to either of those. I do have some problem with the McCain proposal, as I said last night, because of the two-thirds requirement and the huge, huge shift of power to the executive branch of government, but that is a different matter. What is wrong with this proposal? This proposal is aimed at cutting out pork-barrel spending. That is the aim of it. I understand that. I share that goal. I quote directly from the Dole substitute: The Committees on Appropriations of either the House or the Senate shall not report an appropriations measure that fails to contain such levels of detail on the allocation of an item of appropriation proposed by that House as is set forth in the committee report accompanying such bill. So what is it we are calling for the President to have on his desk to be able to veto out, to cut out, pork? In the words of the amendment, we are calling for such level of detail as is set forth in the committee report. There is no requirement that there be any specific level of detail in the committee report. So what are we saying is going to be on the President's desk? Nothing, unless the Appropriations Committees choose to do it voluntarily. We are basically creating a loophole big enough to drive all the pork through that has ever passed the Congress, if the Appropriations Committees decide to move in that direction. So that is what is wrong with this proposal. There can simply be an appropriations bill that says so many dollars for Army procurement. Then instead of having the information in a report, the Appropriations Committee can come out on the floor, and they can make a statement saying here is what we expect. And that statement would not be subject to being put in the bill. The President will not have anything to veto. The same thing could be done on a conference report. This proposal is shooting at a target and missing it completely, unless the Appropriations Committees decide to continue to put all of it in the appropriations report and then to incorporate that in the bill, which would be an entirely voluntarily act. So the authors of this bill are trying to reach a compromise and have totally missed the target. Mr. President, the other big feature that is wrong with this: Let us assume for a moment that the Appropriations Committee decides that, in spite of this legislation, they are going to continue to operate with detailed reports which will invite the President of the United States to take certain actions on items which he does not like. If they do that, what they are going to do then is they are going to put all of these line items in a report. They are going to put it in a bill. It will be enrolled. We will send down to the President thousands of bills. He will get Band-Aid hands doing it. We will get candidates for the Presidency on TV, and let us see who can sign the things the quickest because that will be the criteria of who will be President. They will have to sign 10,000 or 15,000 bills a year. We will have to get a great signature guy, or gal, in there for President of the United States. So let us assume, though, that they decide not to drive a pork truck through this huge loophole. Let us assume they do not. Let us assume they send all of these bills down there. Now guess what happens? The Department of Defense then has no flexibility for reprogramming. What that means in practical effect is, if the C-17 runs into a contractual problem or some kind of technical problem and it can spend only $500 million of a $1 billion account, the $500 million that would otherwise be available to put on readiness or pay or some other urgent need will not be able to be reprogrammed because you will have a line item in there. What does that mean? It means every time the Department of Defense, or any other Department for that matter, decides they are going to change anything on the budget--and that happens every year; that happens to the tune of billions of dollars--they could not do so. Congress has the informal procedure we call reprogramming. They send over to us a letter to let us know over a threshold what they are doing, lets all four committees sign off on it. It is not telephone; it is in writing. All four committees have to sign on it--Appropriations, and Armed Services in the case of defense. Then they are able to shift money around. That is good government. It encourages managing programs right. What we are doing is we will now be saying they have to come over for a statutory change on every single item that is signed into law. Do you know how many bills they are going to have to come over here with every year? Hundreds of them. We struggle to get one supplemental through. This bill here is an absolute joke. It is a joke. I really have a hard time believing we are really even considering this.

Mr. NUNN. There is no doubt about it. I will tell you what else it gives the President. We passed a supplemental appropriations bill last week that had rescissions in it. Some of the President's favorite programs were cut. The Technology Reinvestment Program was cut $200 million, as I recall. Environmental restoration funds were cut. Now this proposal is intended to just let him cut spending. That is what the authors intend. I know that. But it lets him veto rescissions. If we had had this in effect last week, the President could have vetoed the deletions or the reductions in his own budget and left the increases in.

Mr. NUNN. I yield.