Samuel Nunn

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. The 11th amendment to the Constitution is an explicit part of the Constitution, and it does limit judicial review. It says: ``The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.''

Mr. NUNN. My problem is, that is a big ``if.'' If we cannot do it now because there are people who oppose it here, and if we cannot make this clear now when you and I both agree that we do not want the courts involved in this, what makes the Senator believe we can do it by statute?

Mr. NUNN. Why, when one of the authors of the amendment on the House side says he wants judicial review? Evidently, there are people over on the House side that want judicial review. Otherwise, the Senator would not be in the box he is in, in terms of not being able to get this amendment accepted.

Mr. NUNN. To get legislation passed, we do not have to get 50 percent of the constitutional scholars, we have to get 50 percent of the people voting.

Mr. NUNN. There is a group of those who want the judiciary to basically get involved in these decisions.

Mr. NUNN. I say to my friend that I thank him for listening, and I thank him for his concern and leadership. I assure him that until the final vote, I will continue to listen to him and try to work with him. It is my hope, though, that there would be some revisiting going on between the people who are saying they could not accept this amendment and the Senator from Utah, because the people I talked to on the House side, including Republican and Democratic leadership--not all of them, but a number--who are leading the way on this amendment, indicate to me this kind of provision would be acceptable and even welcomed by them.

Mr. NUNN. I wish we did not need it, but we do, I am afraid.

Mr. NUNN. I would like to say that.

Mr. NUNN. I am not one of those.

Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Arkansas. I appreciate his yielding at this point. I do have two amendments. I would like to call up both amendments for the purpose of making sure they are eligible to be voted on, and then I will talk about one amendment tonight relating to judicial review. Amendment No. 299 (Purpose: To permit waiver of the amendment during an economic emergency)

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise today to announce my support for the Reid amendment to the constitutional balanced budget amendment. This amendment proposes to exempt explicitly Social Security from the constitutional balanced budget amendment. I support the Reid amendment for one fundamental reason. Its passage would promote truth in budgeting to the American people. For the past 10 years, the surplus from the Social Security trust fund has been used to mask the size of the annual Federal deficit. Instead of being saved or invested to pay for the retirement of the baby boom generation in the next century, the surplus is being borrowed and used to pay for general fund obligations. Its use in this fashion understates the annual deficit by $70 billion in fiscal year 1995, and this amount will keep increasing each year between now and 2002, at which point the general fund will have borrowed $1 trillion from the Social Security trust fund. Over the next 7 years, the general fund will borrow and spend over $630 billion from the Social Security trust fund. I oppose the use of these surpluses in this fashion. I believe we are setting a fiscal time bomb for the next generation. I understand well why many of my colleagues oppose the Reid amendment. Its passage would make the job of balancing the budget, a goal I support with or without the constitutional balanced budget amendment, more difficult. Under current projections, over $1 trillion in deficit reduction will have to be found over the next 7 years to bring the budget in balance by 2002. Not being able to use the Social Security trust fund surplus would require an additional $110 billion in deficit reduction in the year 2002 in order to balance the budget that year. Budget cuts of this magnitude cannot be made painlessly, although there is a continuing search for such painless methods in order to avoid facing the tough decisions. Realistically, I think the passage of this amendment would mean also that the time frame for balancing the budget would have to be extended, probably by about 3 years. There are some who are promoting the Reid amendment as an effort to avoid all tough decisions on Social Security and to pretend that the system can remain unchanged. I dissent from this view. We must dispel the notion that everything is well with the Social Security trust fund. The important findings of the Kerrey-Danforth Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform clearly spelled out the demographic and fiscal challenges which confront the Social Security system. Thirty years ago, there were four workers for every Social Security beneficiary. Today, there are only three. Thirty years from now, there will be only two. If we do nothing, we know what awaits us. In 2013, receipts from payroll taxes will no longer pay for Social Security benefits. And their news gets even worse--in 2029, if no changes are made, the Social Security system will be insolvent. Some who support this amendment view it as rendering Social Security untouchable. I not only disagree with this interpretation; I believe that considering Social Security untouchable will bring about the long- term insolvency of the Social Security program. My reasons for voting for the Reid amendment are simple. I believe that we are courting fiscal disaster by continuing to use social Security surpluses for general funding programs--in effect putting IOU's from the general fund into the Social Security trust fund for these borrowed funds. According to the Social Security Board of Actuaries, by the year 2013, when payroll tax receipts will no longer cover the cost of Social Security benefit payments, the general fund--the taxpayers of America-- will owe the Social Security trust fund over $2.5 trillion. This means that when the demographics turn around in 2013, the general fund will have to begin paying back the Social Security trust fund. At this point, the Social Security trust fund will remain solvent, but the general funds will be under severe pressure because of the debt which must be repaid each year. The dilemma is that for the next 18 years, based on current projections, excluding Social Security from the constitutional balanced budget requirement will require a tighter fiscal policy and more efforts to balance the budget. Once the Social Security trust fund begins running a deficit, the exclusion will make fiscal policy less stringent. I believe that we must begin to realize that we are mortgaging the future for the taxpayers in years ahead unless we balance the budget without using the Social Security trust fund surpluses. These surpluses should be invested in outside activities beyond the reach of the Federal Government, so that we will no longer borrow these surpluses and mask the true fiscal picture. One of the three central findings of the Strengthening of America Commission, which I cochaired with Senator Domenici, was the need to balance the budget by the year 2002 without using the Social Security surplus. The Commission did not advocate a adoption of a balanced budget amendment, but the balanced budget amendment we have before us, as amended by the Reid amendment, would be consistent with the recommendations of our Commission: balancing the budget by the year 2002 without using the Social Security surplus. Our Commission, however, believed that getting to a real balance without using the Social Security surplus would require 10 years rather than 7.I believe solutions for Social Security's long-term problems can be found and enacted in a fashion which will about to retire, and provide for the long-term fiscal soundness of the Social Security system. But if we ignore the long-term challenges facing the Social Security system, its future is at risk. I think it is important to note that the Reid amendment does not make Social Security a constitutionally protected benefit. It merely excludes it from the calculations under this amendment. The challenge of finding a way to keep the Social Security program solvent into the 21st century remains, with or without the Reid amendment. Indeed, even a constitutional amendment that did purport to guarantee Social Security benefits would be futile. The only guarantee that future benefits can be paid is future economic growth. No amendment can guarantee people a slice of a pie that does not exist. I do not view this amendment as a vote to make a particular Government benefit program a constitutional right. I certainly do not view it as the first step in an effort to place one program after another outside the bounds of the budget process, exempt from scrutiny. Social Security is a unique program with a unique demographic and financial situation. It has a large surplus today, and it will have even larger deficits in the future. My vote for the Reid amendment is in recognition of the fact that we need two solutions: a long-term solution for Social Security, and a long-term solution for the rest of the Federal budget. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on April 19, 1994, the Senate confirmed the nomination of Adm. Frank Kelso, the Chief of Naval Operations, to retire in grade. During the debate on the nomination, a number of Senators raised issues concerning Admiral Kelso's accountability with respect to matters related to the misconduct at the 1991 Tailhook Symposium. At one point, a Senator indicated that no one, other than a victim of the misconduct, lost his or her job as a result of Tailhook. In response, I noted that a number of individuals, including the Secretary of the Navy, resigned as a result of Tailhook. In the course of my remarks, I stated that ``the Navy JAG, the Judge Advocate General, resigned over this.'' I made that statement based upon the fact that the retirement of the Judge Advocate General was announced at the time that the Navy made public its initial reaction to the DOD inspector general's report on the Navy's conduct of the Tailhook investigations. Subsequent to my remarks, I have been informed by the Navy that the then-Judge Advocate General, Rear Adm. John E. Gordon, did not resign in response to the Tailhook report. The Navy has advised me that Rear Admiral Gordon was appointed to be the Judge Advocate General on November 1, 1990, and was immediately scheduled for retirement on November 1, 1992, in accordance with prior Navy practice. Rear Admiral Gordon formally submitted his request for retirement on September 9, 1992, prior to the September 21, 1992 issuance of the DOD/IG report, and retired on November 1, 1992, in accordance with the date originally set in 1990. The Navy has further advised me that no official adverse action was taken against Rear Admiral Gordon. To put this matter in perspective, the Navy has advised me that in the aftermath of the Tailhook matter, 29 Navy and Marine Corps personnel were punished under article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice--nonjudicial punishment--and 3 flag officers received letters of censure from the Secretary of the Navy. Sixty Navy and Marine Corps personnel received nonpunitive administrative letters and 19 received informal counseling. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the record.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I would like for my colleagues in the Senate and my fellow citizens throughout the country to note the passing of Ben R. Rich. Ben was a long-time employee at the famed Lockheed ``Skunk Works'' in California. Ben had just recently published a book, ``Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed,'' with Leo Janos. This book provided us an insight into what was an outstanding career of service and dedication to having our country maintain its technological edge over any potential adversary. During his tenure at the Skunk Works from the mid-1950's until his retirement in 1991, Ben worked on a number of very important aircraft programs, such as the SR-71, the U-2, and the F-104. Perhaps his greatest contribution was to the so-called Stealth fighter program, the F-117. Ben headed the Skunk Works during the development and production of the F-117. We saw the fruits of his leadership on F- 117 in the Persian Gulf war, where, more than any other system, the F- 117 and its stealth gave our forces the capability to attack any of the Iraqi's highest value targets with impunity. This system is revolutionary, and Ben Rich's leadership was critical to making it a success. Mr. President, this country will be a poorer place with his loss. We will all sorely miss Ben and his dedication to excellence. Ben Rich made a difference.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Madam President, in May of last year the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations held a hearing on the growing threat of organized crime in Eastern Europe and the countries of the former Soviet Union. This hearing featured an historic joint appearance by Louis Freeh, the Director of the FBI, Hans-Ludwig Zachert, the President of Germany's Bundeskriminalamt, and General Mikhail Yegorov, the head of Russia's Organized Crime Control Department. In his prepared statement submitted to the subcommittee, General Yegorov made reference to an Austrian company by the name of Nordex, implying that its president was an individual known as Umar Vokov, who is suspected by Russian authorities of underground criminal activity. Recently, the subcommittee has received a letter from the real president of Nordex, a Mr. G. Loutchansky, disputing General Yegorov's statement and denying any relationship between Nordex and Umar Vokov. Mr. Loutchansky also provided the subcommittee with a letter from the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs to Nordex's attorney in which the Ministry accepted Nordex's assurances concerning Vokov and expressed regret to Nordex for any inaccuracies in General Yegorov's statement. Mr. Loutchansky had sought to have these letters added to the subcommittee's hearing record in order to correct any misimpressions which could result from the printing of General Yegorov's original statement. Unfortunately, by the time the subcommittee received Mr. Loutchansky's request the hearing record had already gone to print. While I have directed that Mr. Loutchansky's material be included in the official exhibits to the hearing, I believe it is important that they also be placed on the public record. For this reason, I would ask that the correspondence between Mr. Loutchansky and the subcommittee and the letter from the Russian Ministry of the Internal Affairs to Nordox's attorney be reprinted in the Congressional Record.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on Saturday, February 4, at Camp Lejeune, NC the Marine Corps Reserve Officers Association will bestow upon Lt. Gen. Robert B. Johnston its highest award. The award is ``Non sibi, sed patriae, which is Latin for ``Not for self, but for country.'' Lieutenant General Johnston, currently commander of U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Atlantic, headquartered at the base the marines call ``The Home of Expeditionary Forces in Readiness'' richly deserves this award. Nothing better characterizes this man than his selfless service to his country. Commissioned a second lieutenant in 1961, he ended up 30 years later as Chief of Staff of the U.S. Central Command during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. Along the way, General Johnston completed two tours of duty in Vietnam, where he was decorated for valor in combat. He then went on to perform a host of other assignments with great distinction. Mr. President, it is most fitting that Robert Johnston was in the eye of the American military hurricane that swept the Iraqi Army from Kuwait. General Johnston's association with Desert Storm was no mere coincidence. He was born in Edinburgh, Scotland, and we know the Scots are a fighting people. This is clearly true when they become U.S. citizens and marines. Moreover, General Johnston has more than a few items in common with Scotland's Robert Bruce, later King Robert the First, who gained Scotland's independence from the English in 1314 by handing them a defeat in battle that Sir Charles Oman, the great historian of the Middle Ages, called ``the most lamentable defeat which an English army ever suffered.'' In the Battle of Bannockburn, which was as cleverly planned as Desert Storm, Robert Bruce, lured an English army half again the size of his own into a well-disguised trap, and managed to destroy it, inflicting on it four times the number of casualties as his own army suffered. Robert Bruce devoted his life to creating a country; Robert Johnston has devoted his to defending one. Neither Robert is known for self- promotion or loquaciousness, which may explain why both names are associated with country, not self. Mr. President, I commend the Marine Corps Reserve Officers Association for selecting Lieutenant General Johnston to receive this award, and I add my congratulations and thanks to Lieutenant General Johnston for his outstanding service to our Nation.

Mr. NUNN

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

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

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to the 1996 Atlanta Paralympic games which are to be held following the 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta. Most people who follow sports realize that the Olympic games will begin in Atlanta on July 19 and conclude on August 4, next year, 1996. During those 16 days, over 10,000 athletes will compete in 26 sports and 37 disciplines. Many people are unaware, however, that just 12 days after the conclusion of the 1996 Summer Olympics, a sporting event of similar magnitude will begin. The Paralympic opening ceremony will be held August 16 and over the next 12 days of competition more than 4,000 athletes from 102 nations will compete in 19 different sports. The origin of the Paralympic movement dates back to 1946 when Sir Ludwig Guttman organized the International Wheelchair Games to coincide with the 1948 London Olympics. Since that time, the official Paralympic organization was established and Paralympic games have been held nine times in nine countries across the globe. The 1996 Atlanta Paralympics will mark the 10th and largest gathering with an expected 1.5 million spectators. Very large number of people coming to Atlanta from all over the world. Over the years those competing in the Paralympics have expanded from wheelchair athletes to include amputees, the blind, those with cerebral palsy, dwarfs, and those with a variety of other physical limitations. While the disabilities of the athletes range across a wide spectrum, they are united in their dedication to perfection and their quest for excellence. Many of us, myself included, were not aware of the levels at which these athletes compete. It is truly marvelous. Their times and scores in sports ranging from cycling to powerlifting, judo to swimming, are world class by any standards. The Paralympic world records for various events are, in some cases, just shy of the Olympic world records which is truly amazing. Tony Volpentest, born without hands and feet, ran the 100 meter event in 11.63 seconds--within 2 seconds of the Olympic record held by Carl Lewis. Kim Brownfield, a paraplegic, bench pressed 602 pounds--at that rate he will soon be moving mountains. Without a doubt, the men and women who will be competing in the Atlantic Paralympics are elite athletes, training and performing at the highest levels of their sports. While their scores and records are awe inspiring, perhaps the greatest accomplishment of the athletes who qualify for the Paralympics is their seemingly impossible achievement of conquering their physical impairments. The Paralympic motto is ``The triumph of the human spirit.'' Indeed it is this spirit, above all else, that invites us to share in their victories and revel in their accomplishments. Gathered amongst us in Atlanta in 1996 will be men and women more physically challenged than most of us, yet they will attain levels of excellence far higher than most of us will ever dream of. Through incredible dedication and perseverance and despite every pressure to the contrary, these men and women have accomplished extraordinary feats. As you can well imagine, each of these athletes has a tremendous success story behind their achievements, a success story behind their achievements. One that particularly struck me is that of Al Mead, an above-the-knee amputee, who captured the silver medal in the long jump in the 1992 Paralympic Games in Barcelona with a jump of 4.62 meters. Like many of these athletes, Al was not born with his disability. He was an active 9-year-old, when one day at school he took a hard fall. Afterwards, his left leg was numb and circulation eventually stopped. He faced three operations as doctors tried to correct the problem. First, his foot was amputated; then, his leg just below the knee; and finally, just above the knee. He still remembers when he was having that ordeal wondering why everyone was so upset. The way Al figured it, his leg would grow back as soon as he got out of the hospital. Al, relying heavily on his family's religious faith, remained optimistic during this hospitalization and recovery. Once he returned home from the hospital, he decided to continue doing all the things he had done prior to the operation--despite his doctor's advise to ``take it easy.'' Anyone who knows 9-year-old boys ought to know better than to expect them to sit sill for any length of time. Indeed, while waiting for his prothesis to arrive, Al taught himself how to ride his bike with only one leg. Then, once his leg arrived, Al became more active, playing baseball, hockey, and basketball with community and school teams. Al recalls playing alley football one day when he caught a pass and was running towards the goal line only to have his leg fall off in midstride. While his opponents and teammates were rubbing their eyes in disbelief, Al was laughing at the happenings. Al attended Morehouse College in Atlanta where he now lives with his wife and two children. He is the vice-president of an executive search firm and the music director at his local church. Al has competed in numerous National Handicapped Sports' competitions where he has broken national and world records in the 100- 200- and 400-meter events and the high jump and long jump. He is currently training for the Paralympic Games, and I particularly look forward to watching Al perform in 1996 in his home State and his home town. I also look forward to watching thousands of his fellow athletes who may not have 100-percent bodies but who have 100-percent hearts and give 100 percent of their efforts to their stunning athletic achievements. Mr. President, I will be speaking on this subject several times in the next several months, all the way to the Olympic Games in 1996 because I think it is very important for those of us in this body, those of us who watch this body on television and those people who follow this body throughout the country to understand what a remarkable event is going to take place after the regular Olympic Games in the Paralympic Games in 1996. I believe that all of us will be very interested and fascinated to watch remarkable athletes such as Al Mead who will be competing in 1996. I believe that my colleagues and the American people will be both awed and inspired by what we discover. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein.

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 rise today to discuss the national service program which has been the subject of a good bit of discussion in recent media accounts and which President Clinton addressed this last week. From the outset, I want to make it clear that I join President Clinton in expressing my continued strong support of the concept of national service. The passage of the national service bill in the last Congress was an event that I, along with a number of my colleagues, looked forward to for many years. Since President Clinton signed the legislation into law on September 21, 1993, thousands of Americans have served our country in projects which range from teaching school in inner-city neighborhoods to preventing destruction of lands along our Nation's rivers. The case for this initiative depends on understanding that it is uniquely a program that offers a triple investment in the future productive capacity of our people and our communities--first of all, in the service performed; the service experience, No. 2; and the postservice benefit for our young people, No. 3. I know that the word ``investment'' has been much abused in debate on the Senate floor in recent years, and for some it is just a code word for Government spending. We must not, however, become so cynical that we cannot see a real investment with a real payoff when it is staring us in the face. The idea for this investment came from recognition that many Americans have, for the first time, perhaps, in our history, forgotten the relationship between rights and responsibilities. We often see reports in the news media about various groups proclaiming that this Government service or that Government service is a right. We are so often reminded of the rights all Americans should enjoy that we often lose sight of the other side of the same coin, and that is the responsibilities that we must share in order to make these 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. The National Service Program was created to provide young Americans with opportunities to fulfill that obligation to give something back to their country and to their communities. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who dedicated his life to the cause of civil rights and whose birthday we celebrated this past Monday, understood that only through assuming responsibilities that accompany our rights can we help ourselves. He said in the last Sunday morning sermon before his assassination: Human progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. So we must help time and realize that the time is always ripe to do right. National Service provides young people a means to meet the challenge to do right while expanding their own horizons and building opportunity for their futures. Critics have tried to attack the National Service Program in a number of different ways. During the debate on the authorizing legislation, we heard cries of how many more Pell grants we could fund with the money, or how many more job training programs we could fund with the money. Though these criticisms are valid as far as they go, they almost inevitably lose sight of the fact that National Service does not exist for the purpose of simply providing student aid or even job training. National Service exists primarily to provide service. And if the program is not providing service, then it does not deserve to exist. A good analogy is 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 our Nation's security. The same is true of national service. Would critics have the Senate disregard the benefits to society of national service participants providing employment counseling and tutoring to homeless people in Atlanta? Should we ignore the benefits of the first-time immunization of 33,000 children in Fort Worth, TX, in one month which was carried out by those serving in the national service program? I could go on and on with the kind of service being provided. That is the true test of national service. Are we really serving people and helping communities? Considering the benefits national service provides at the community level, it is difficult to see why there are so many objections to this program. Indeed, given the debates we have heard on unfunded mandates and we continue to hear that on legislation in this body, I would think that our colleagues would agree that national service represents the type of program that we ought to support. National service is not a Federal mandate for any specific type of service, nor does it require that communities participate at all. National service gives communities and service organizations and young people the chance, voluntarily, to identify and perform the kind of service which best meets their local needs with the Federal Government providing the funding. So it is almost the opposite of a Government mandate. At the same time, it provides meaningful work for young people addressing real problems without Federal micromanagement. This real work for real value will ensure a strong payback for the taxpayers' dollar. In the process, national service instills in young people the strong traditional values of hard work and responsibility. They learn those values because they are serving. It is not a program to teach those values. It is a program where the values are learned because of service rendered. one of the critics--``coerced volunteerism,'' I would suggest that critics ask any of the more than 200,000 people who requested applications for last year's AmeriCorps Program or the 20,000 that were selected and are now serving, whether they were coerced. National service is not coercion any more than was the Montgomery GI bill which provides educational benefits for hundreds of thousands of young Americans who serve and have served in our Nation's All-Volunteer Force. Instead, like the Montgomery GI bill, national service is an opportunity, an opportunity that young people all over America have said they want. Nothing is more evident of that than the overwhelming number of applications. I think we will see even more of the applications in the years to come, assuming this program continues. As for the benefits of service, and to me this must be the way we judge the program more than any other judgment, although there are, really, as I said, three parts to the program, service is the No. 1 part. In my State alone the excellent works that have been performed by these young people is very impressive. In Georgia, national service participants are working in Atlanta area schools as teaching assistants, tutors, and mentors. They are aiding police in developing a community-oriented police program in Albany, GA. They are helping create an emergency 911 network in Douglas and Coffee County. They are identifying local environmental programs in Decatur, GA, and developing plans to engage youth in solving them. They are tutoring hundreds and thousands of young people every day in elementary school. They are also in some of the rural areas that I visited. They do not have any foreign language teachers in the schools there and they have found that with the immigration that is growing in our State and other States, these young people who are in school that cannot speak English need help. In many cases, in a couple of the rural communities, that help is coming from national service participants who have a second language and who are able to be the only ones in the community that can really communicate with the newly arrived legal immigrants in our school. All of these efforts are duplicated in national service programs nationwide. From aiding the American Red Cross and providing food and clothing for California flood victims to building homes for needy families in the poorest sections of Miami, with Habitat for Humanity. In conclusion, Mr. President, national service provides a triple payback in valuable service to the community. Higher skills and lower debts for our young people for attending colleges or getting advanced education after high school and a much stronger sense that we are all in the American enterprise together, bound by mutual respect and mutual obligation. In the Peace Corps Program in my State the participants begin each day with a chant announcing their readiness to serve, to earn, and to learn. That, Mr. President, is the most eloquent summary of the concept of national service that I think we can offer: To serve, to earn, and to learn. I urge all Senators to listen to our young people, to visit these programs, to make sure that the criticism of the programs--which is welcome--make sure it is constructive, to make sure we look at whether we are really getting service in the communities where they are serving, rather than simply oppose this program as another governmental program. I urge all Senators to particularly talk to our young people, listen to them, and see what they say about what they are doing in serving and earning and learning and continuing to give them a chance in this regard. There is room for improvement in the program. There is room for constructive criticism. There is room, perhaps, to even critique the program in a way that would affect the budget. In my view, blind opposition to this exciting concept is simply not the way to go at this point in time. I think the main measure must be whether we are getting service from these young people and whether they are helping the communities, helping young people, helping those in need. It is my hope that if this program works and I believe it is working, that it will be viewed in the future as not simply an addition to the way we deliver services to those in need in our country and in our communities but rather in lieu of some of the existing programs. I can think of no better way to deliver social services in this Nation to those in need. We are going to continue to have people in need. We are going to continue to have community demands that cannot be met with nominal funding. I can think of no better way than unleashing the energy, enthusiasm, and idealism of tens of thousands of America's young people in addressing these critical problems. To me this is the way we ought to begin thinking about shaping our social services. At this point in time this program is in addition to the existing programs. We should look at it more and more as a substitute to some of the programs and a supplement to others. I thank the Chair. I know the Senator from New Hampshire would like to speak. I yield the floor. Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise this morning on behalf of myself, Mr. Roth, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Bumpers, to introduce the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This bill is substantially identical to S. 560, which was unanimously approved by the Senate in the closing days of the 103d Congress. I am pleased that the bill enjoys even broader bipartisan support this Congress. It is being cosponsored by the chairman and ranking Democratic member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, Bill Roth and John Glenn, both have worked long and hard on legislation to strengthen the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and to reauthorize appropriations for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [OIRA], which has been without authorizing legislation since October of 1989. Leading cosponsors also include the chairman, Mr. Bond, and ranking Democratic member, Mr. Bumpers, of the Committee on Small Business. The Committee on Small Business, of which I am the senior member, has played a crucial supporting role on behalf of the small business community in maintaining the effort to enact legislation to strengthen the 1980 act. We are being joined by 22 of our colleagues or former members of the Committee on Small Business of the Governmental Affairs. Mr. President, as previously mentioned, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is substantively identical to S. 560 introduced in the 103d Congress. That bill represented the culmination of years of work which began in the 100th Congress. It represents a skillful blending of S. 560, as introduced by me and S. 681, a bill introduced by my friend from Ohio, Mr. Glenn, then chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee. His skill and leadership, and the tenacity of all of the those involved in both bills made possible the crafting of this text of S. 560. It garnered unanimous support within the Governmental Affairs Committee. S. 560, as reported last year, had the support of the Clinton administration and I am hopeful that the administration will also support this bill I introduce today. Senator Roth, chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee indicated to me that we will have a markup on this bill next week. It is my hope that it will be an early legislative initiative in this Congress. I have also talked to Speaker Gingrich about the bill, and it is my hope that they will make it an important part of their legislative agenda on the House side. So I am hoping, Mr. President, we will be able to get this bill to the President's desk in the next several weeks, certainly in the next several months, for actual implementation as law. It also had the support of the broad-based Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition as well as elected officials, and many in the educational and nonprofit communities. S. 560, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1994, 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, H.R. 2561, and returned to the House. Unfortunately, the House Governmental Operations Committee declined to clear either measure before the adjournment of the 103d Congress, so we start anew with our legislative effort this year. In this congress, I am hopeful that the House of Representatives will be more receptive to this legislation and that we can see it enacted into law. A modified version of S. 560 has been included in H.R. 9, the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995, which includes many of the regulatory and paperwork relief provisions of the Republican Contract With America. Representative Bill Clinger, the new chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the new name for the Committee on Government Operations, was the principal Republican cosponsor of H.R. 2995, the House companion to S. 560. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 provides a 5-year reauthorization of appropriations for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [OIRA]. Created by the 1980 Act, OIRA serves as the focal point at the Office of Management and Budget for the act's implementation. The principal purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is to reaffirm and provide additional tools by which to attain the fundamental objective of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980--to minimize the Federal paperwork burdens imposed by individuals, businesses, especially small businesses, educational and nonprofit institutions, and State and local governments. Mr. President, let me highlight some of the provisions of the bill. This legislation reemphasizes the fundamental responsibilities of each Federal agency minimize new paperwork burden by thoroughly reviewing each proposed collection of information for need and practical utility, the act's fundamental standards. The bill make explicit the responsibility of each Federal agency to conduct this review itself, before submitting the propose collection of information for public comment and clearance by OIRA. The bill before us reflects the provisions of S. 560 that further enhance public participation in the review of paperwork burdens, when such burdens are first being proposed or when an agency is seeking to obtain approval to continue to use an existing paperwork requirement. Strengthening public participation is at the core of the 1980 act. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 maintains the 1980 act's Government-wide 5-percent goal for the reduction of paperwork burdens on the public. Given past experience, some question the effectiveness of such goals in producing net reductions in Government-wide paperwork burdens. I believe that the bill should reflect individual agency goals as well, and although this provision is not in the bill introduced today, I am hopeful it will be strengthened in the future. If seriously implemented, such agency goals can become an effective restraint on the cumulative growth of Government-sponsored paperwork burdens. Mr. President, the bill includes amendments to the 1980 act which further empower members of the public to help police Federal agency compliance with the act. I would like to describe two of these provisions. One provision would enable a member of the public to obtain a written determination from the OIRA Administrator regarding whether a federally sponsored paperwork requirement is in compliance with the act. If the agency requirement is found to be noncompliant, the Administrator is charged with taking appropriate remedial action. This provision is based upon a similar process added to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act in 1988. The second provision encourages members of the public to identify paperwork requirements that have not been submitted for review and approval pursuant to the act's requirements. Although the act's public protection provisions explicitly shield the public from the imposition of any formal agency penalty for failing to comply with such an unapproved, or bootleg, paperwork requirement, individuals often feel compelled to comply. This is especially true when the individual has an on-going relationship with the agency and that relationship accords the agency substantial discretion that could be used to redefine their future dealings. Under this bill, which we are introducing today, a member of the public can blow the whistle on such a bootleg paperwork requirement and be accorded the protection of anonymity. Next, Mr. President, I would like to emphasize that 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 worthy of note that Senator Chiles, now Governor Chiles, the father of the Paperwork Reduction Act went to the trouble and expense of filing an amicus brief to the Supreme Court arguing that no such exemption for third-party paperwork burdens was intended. The Court decided otherwise. I know that Governor Chiles will be gratified that this bill makes explicit the Act's coverage of all Government-sponsored paperwork burdens. Once this bill is enacted, we can feel confident that this major loophole will be 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 smart use of information by the Government, and its potential to minimize the burdens placed on the public, is a core concept of the 1980 Act. The information resources management [IRM] provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 build upon the foundation laid more than a decade ago by our former colleague from Florida, Lawton Chiles, the father of the Paperwork Reduction Act. These provisions of the bill are the major contribution of my friend from Ohio, Senator Glenn, who has emphasized the potential of improved IRM policies to make government more effective in serving the public. Mr. President, I will not take any more of the Senate's time today to discuss the individual provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Mr. President, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 enjoys strong support from the business community, especially the small business community. It has the support of a broad Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition, representing virtually every segment of the business community. They have worked long and hard on this legislation for many years. Without them, we would not be able to have the consensus bill that we have today. 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 small business associations, like the American Subcontractors Association, that comprise the membership of the SBLC or NSBU. Other participants represent 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 other organizations that comprise the Coalition's membership: the Aerospace Industries Association [AIA], the American Consulting Engineers Council [ACEC], the Associated Builders and Contractors [ABC], the Associated General Contractors of America [AGC], the Chemical Manufacturers Association [CMA], the Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association [CBEMA], 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 Manufacturers, the National Association of Wholesalers and Distributors, the National Security Industrial Association [NSIA], the National Tooling and Machining Association [NTMA], the Printing Industries Association [PIA], and the Professional Service 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 more than a half century. The coalition also includes a number of professional associations and public interest groups that support strengthening the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. These include the Association of Records Managers and Administrators [ARMA] and Citizens for a Sound Economy [CSE], to name but two very active coalition members. Mr. President, given the regulatory and paperwork burdens faced by State and local governments, legislation to strengthen the Paperwork Reduction Act is high on the agenda of the associations representing elected officials. The Governor of Florida, my friend Lawton Chiles, has worked hard on this issue within the National Governors Association. During its 1994 annual meeting, the National Governors Association adopted a resolution in support of legislation to strengthen the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. As I mentioned, Chairman Roth and Senator Glenn are both cosponsors of this legislation, as is Senator Bond, the new chairman of the Small Business Committee, and the previous chairman and now ranking member, Senator Bumpers. It is my understanding that we will have a markup on this bill next week. It is my hope it can be on an accelerated schedule here on the Senate floor. It is my hope that the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 will get similar expedited treatment on the House side, so that President Clinton will have this bill on his desk in the next few weeks. So that with a strengthened Paperwork Reduction Act we can continue the difficult but very important process of cracking down on Federal agency paperwork burdens that do not meet the Act's standards. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise this morning on behalf of myself, Mr. Roth, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Bumpers, to introduce the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This bill is substantially identical to S. 560, which was unanimously approved by the Senate in the closing days of the 103d Congress. I am pleased that the bill enjoys even broader bipartisan support this Congress. It is being cosponsored by the chairman and ranking Democratic member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, Bill Roth and John Glenn, both have worked long and hard on legislation to strengthen the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and to reauthorize appropriations for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [OIRA], which has been without authorizing legislation since October of 1989. Leading cosponsors also include the chairman, Mr. Bond, and ranking Democratic member, Mr. Bumpers, of the Committee on Small Business. The Committee on Small Business, of which I am the senior member, has played a crucial supporting role on behalf of the small business community in maintaining the effort to enact legislation to strengthen the 1980 act. We are being joined by 22 of our colleagues or former members of the Committee on Small Business of the Governmental Affairs. Mr. President, as previously mentioned, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is substantively identical to S. 560 introduced in the 103d Congress. That bill represented the culmination of years of work which began in the 100th Congress. It represents a skillful blending of S. 560, as introduced by me and S. 681, a bill introduced by my friend from Ohio, Mr. Glenn, then chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee. His skill and leadership, and the tenacity of all of the those involved in both bills made possible the crafting of this text of S. 560. It garnered unanimous support within the Governmental Affairs Committee. S. 560, as reported last year, had the support of the Clinton administration and I am hopeful that the administration will also support this bill I introduce today. Senator Roth, chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee indicated to me that we will have a markup on this bill next week. It is my hope that it will be an early legislative initiative in this Congress. I have also talked to Speaker Gingrich about the bill, and it is my hope that they will make it an important part of their legislative agenda on the House side. So I am hoping, Mr. President, we will be able to get this bill to the President's desk in the next several weeks, certainly in the next several months, for actual implementation as law. It also had the support of the broad-based Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition as well as elected officials, and many in the educational and nonprofit communities. S. 560, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1994, 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, H.R. 2561, and returned to the House. Unfortunately, the House Governmental Operations Committee declined to clear either measure before the adjournment of the 103d Congress, so we start anew with our legislative effort this year. In this congress, I am hopeful that the House of Representatives will be more receptive to this legislation and that we can see it enacted into law. A modified version of S. 560 has been included in H.R. 9, the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995, which includes many of the regulatory and paperwork relief provisions of the Republican Contract With America. Representative Bill Clinger, the new chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the new name for the Committee on Government Operations, was the principal Republican cosponsor of H.R. 2995, the House companion to S. 560. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 provides a 5-year reauthorization of appropriations for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [OIRA]. Created by the 1980 Act, OIRA serves as the focal point at the Office of Management and Budget for the act's implementation. The principal purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is to reaffirm and provide additional tools by which to attain the fundamental objective of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980--to minimize the Federal paperwork burdens imposed by individuals, businesses, especially small businesses, educational and nonprofit institutions, and State and local governments. Mr. President, let me highlight some of the provisions of the bill. This legislation reemphasizes the fundamental responsibilities of each Federal agency minimize new paperwork burden by thoroughly reviewing each proposed collection of information for need and practical utility, the act's fundamental standards. The bill make explicit the responsibility of each Federal agency to conduct this review itself, before submitting the propose collection of information for public comment and clearance by OIRA. The bill before us reflects the provisions of S. 560 that further enhance public participation in the review of paperwork burdens, when such burdens are first being proposed or when an agency is seeking to obtain approval to continue to use an existing paperwork requirement. Strengthening public participation is at the core of the 1980 act. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 maintains the 1980 act's Government-wide 5-percent goal for the reduction of paperwork burdens on the public. Given past experience, some question the effectiveness of such goals in producing net reductions in Government-wide paperwork burdens. I believe that the bill should reflect individual agency goals as well, and although this provision is not in the bill introduced today, I am hopeful it will be strengthened in the future. If seriously implemented, such agency goals can become an effective restraint on the cumulative growth of Government-sponsored paperwork burdens. Mr. President, the bill includes amendments to the 1980 act which further empower members of the public to help police Federal agency compliance with the act. I would like to describe two of these provisions. One provision would enable a member of the public to obtain a written determination from the OIRA Administrator regarding whether a federally sponsored paperwork requirement is in compliance with the act. If the agency requirement is found to be noncompliant, the Administrator is charged with taking appropriate remedial action. This provision is based upon a similar process added to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act in 1988. The second provision encourages members of the public to identify paperwork requirements that have not been submitted for review and approval pursuant to the act's requirements. Although the act's public protection provisions explicitly shield the public from the imposition of any formal agency penalty for failing to comply with such an unapproved, or bootleg, paperwork requirement, individuals often feel compelled to comply. This is especially true when the individual has an on-going relationship with the agency and that relationship accords the agency substantial discretion that could be used to redefine their future dealings. Under this bill, which we are introducing today, a member of the public can blow the whistle on such a bootleg paperwork requirement and be accorded the protection of anonymity. Next, Mr. President, I would like to emphasize that 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 worthy of note that Senator Chiles, now Governor Chiles, the father of the Paperwork Reduction Act went to the trouble and expense of filing an amicus brief to the Supreme Court arguing that no such exemption for third-party paperwork burdens was intended. The Court decided otherwise. I know that Governor Chiles will be gratified that this bill makes explicit the Act's coverage of all Government-sponsored paperwork burdens. Once this bill is enacted, we can feel confident that this major loophole will be 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 smart use of information by the Government, and its potential to minimize the burdens placed on the public, is a core concept of the 1980 Act. The information resources management [IRM] provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 build upon the foundation laid more than a decade ago by our former colleague from Florida, Lawton Chiles, the father of the Paperwork Reduction Act. These provisions of the bill are the major contribution of my friend from Ohio, Senator Glenn, who has emphasized the potential of improved IRM policies to make government more effective in serving the public. Mr. President, I will not take any more of the Senate's time today to discuss the individual provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Mr. President, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 enjoys strong support from the business community, especially the small business community. It has the support of a broad Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition, representing virtually every segment of the business community. They have worked long and hard on this legislation for many years. Without them, we would not be able to have the consensus bill that we have today. 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 small business associations, like the American Subcontractors Association, that comprise the membership of the SBLC or NSBU. Other participants represent 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 other organizations that comprise the Coalition's membership: the Aerospace Industries Association [AIA], the American Consulting Engineers Council [ACEC], the Associated Builders and Contractors [ABC], the Associated General Contractors of America [AGC], the Chemical Manufacturers Association [CMA], the Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association [CBEMA], 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 Manufacturers, the National Association of Wholesalers and Distributors, the National Security Industrial Association [NSIA], the National Tooling and Machining Association [NTMA], the Printing Industries Association [PIA], and the Professional Service 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 more than a half century. The coalition also includes a number of professional associations and public interest groups that support strengthening the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. These include the Association of Records Managers and Administrators [ARMA] and Citizens for a Sound Economy [CSE], to name but two very active coalition members. Mr. President, given the regulatory and paperwork burdens faced by State and local governments, legislation to strengthen the Paperwork Reduction Act is high on the agenda of the associations representing elected officials. The Governor of Florida, my friend Lawton Chiles, has worked hard on this issue within the National Governors Association. During its 1994 annual meeting, the National Governors Association adopted a resolution in support of legislation to strengthen the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. As I mentioned, Chairman Roth and Senator Glenn are both cosponsors of this legislation, as is Senator Bond, the new chairman of the Small Business Committee, and the previous chairman and now ranking member, Senator Bumpers. It is my understanding that we will have a markup on this bill next week. It is my hope it can be on an accelerated schedule here on the Senate floor. It is my hope that the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 will get similar expedited treatment on the House side, so that President Clinton will have this bill on his desk in the next few weeks. So that with a strengthened Paperwork Reduction Act we can continue the difficult but very important process of cracking down on Federal agency paperwork burdens that do not meet the Act's standards. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.