William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would like to ask my colleague on the Governmental Affairs Committee, the chairman of the subcommittee with jursidiction over District affairs, about one aspect of this legislation in particular. I have been concerned that the bill does not make clear our intent that the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority will have sufficient authority to ensure that its recommendations are adopted. I have thought that such authority should be expressly stated in the statute, in order to leave no ambiguity about our purpose in enacting section 207. This authority is too important to the underlying purpose of the legislation to leave at all in doubt, which I am concerned it may be. Is it the Senator's belief that the intention of Congress is sufficiently clear, nonetheless, that the Authority may implement any recommendations it has made to the Mayor or Council, but which were rejected?

Mr. ROTH. I thank my friend for his support as I know the has a strong interest in making this legislation work. I know that we all have a great concern for our Nation's Capital, and especially for the citizens who live and work here, and that we look forward to the day when the actions taken under legislation are no longer necessary.

Mr. ROTH. I thank my two colleagues for their explanations and for clarifying this important matter. I have one other point. We are today adopting several useful modifications to this legislation, but I have other improvements that I would have liked to have seen added. I know that my colleagues are aware of these provisions that I think are important, and I hope that in the near future we will be able to make those improvements to this law.

Mr. ROTH. Is this also the understanding in the other body?

Mr. ROTH. The language of this section provides that in such a case, ``the authority may by a majority vote of its members take such action concerning the recommendations as it deems appropriate''. From reading the House report, I believe it is clear that this is very broad power, including the ability to enact local laws and ordinances, provided there is a period of congressional review of such legislation, as in the case of an act of the D.C. Council. Is this your understanding of that section's intent?

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am pleased to state that our bipartisan efforts to strengthen the Paperwork Reduction Act, which began in the last Congress, has now in this Congress become bicameral. The conferees were able to resolve the differences between the Houses so that before the week is over the Congress will have concluded its work on a bill that significantly improves upon current law. As my colleagues know, the 1980 Act established within OMB the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [OIRA]. That offices was directed to review the paperwork burdens created by the Federal Government. All collections of information from 10 or more persons must, with very few exceptions, be reviewed by OIRA for their need and practical utility and must receive a clearance number before they can become effective. The fundamental purpose of this review process is to reduce the paperwork burden on the American public. Hence, the name given to this legislation. However, before this legislation now pending, because of the Supreme Court decision in Dole versus Steelworkers, not all paperwork burdens caused by the Federal Government had to be reviewed and cleared. The Court said that the act applied to paperwork that flowed from a private party to the Federal Government and not to instances where the Federal Government required a person to provide information to another person. As a policy matter, I have never favored the distinction made in the Dole case. The conference report makes clear that neither House of Congress accepts this distinction. The Dole case is overturned, and the scope of OIRA's review authority is, as a consequence, enlarged by 50 percent. This change marks a major breakthrough in our paperwork reduction efforts. In noting the major effect of this legislation, I do not mean to imply that it was a major issue with the House. It was not. In fact, in view of the breadth of this legislation, the issues in disagreement were relatively few. Perhaps the most significant disagreement concerned the duration of the authorization of appropriations for OIRA. The Senate bill provided $8 million for each of the next 5 years, while the House had an indefinite and permanent authorization. The conferees compromised on the Senate version for an additional year. This 6-year authorization will prompt us to review the legislation at some future time, which was the underlying rationale of the Senate provision. The House argued that OIRA has clearly been established as a matter of policy, if not in law, as a central organ of the Federal Government and a key instrument of current regulatory reform efforts. The Senate responded that it was not its position to sunset either the Paperwork Reduction Act or OIRA. The lack of a permanent authorization of appropriations for OIRA has never before, even when it has expired, caused OIRA to terminate. I agree that OIRA has become a necessary and permanent policeman of paperwork and regulation. But I also continue to hold my longstanding commitment to limited authorizations. Six years is a substantial period of time. A lot can change in 6 years. In 2001, it is entirely appropriate that Congress review the status of our paperwork reduction efforts and the role of OIRA. A second major issue of disagreement between the Houses concerned the annual percentage goals for Governmentwide reductions in paperwork burdens. The Senate set a 5 percent goal for each of the next 5 years. The House set a 10 percent annual goal forever. Of course, all the conferees would like to see substantial reductions. The question was a practical one: what goal was realistically achievable? Once we had decided on a 6-year timeframe, the issue became more focused. While the House conferees made clear that their 10 percent goal was to be set annually with respect to a new paperwork baseline that would include new congressional paperwork mandates, Senate conferees were still concerned that 10 percent a year for 6 years was unrealistic. After some discussion, it was agreed that the paperwork reduction goals of the Federal Government should be set at 10 percent for each of the first 2 years and 5 percent for each of the other 4 years. A third major issue of disagreement concerned the House provision which permitted OIRA to charge the users of Government information more than the cost of disseminating such information. While there might be some instances where such an authority would be appropriate, the House provision was not crafted in any such limited manner. The Senate conferees thought it was a little late in the legislative process to start isolating circumstances where charges in addition to dissemination costs might be appropriate. Not having addressed this issue at all in the Senate bill, the Senate conferees asked that the House recede. And the House agreed. Mr. President, the topic that captured more time in conference discussion than any other was that of redrafting section 3512, which provides public protection against agency noncompliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Since 1980, the act has provided a fundamental protection to every citizen that he or she need not comply with, or respond to, a collection of information if such collection does not display a valid control number given by OMB as evidence that the collection was reviewed and approved by OIRA. And if the collection does not display a valid control number, the agency may not impose any penalty on the citizen who fails to comply or respond. In order to strengthen and underscore congressional desire to protect the public, the conferees included a definition of penalty at the end of section 3502 to make clear that the term not only applies to the payment of a fine but also to the denial of a benefit. What this means is that if an agency does not comply with this act, it is in serious trouble. If an agency does not act on a citizen's request for a Government benefit because the citizen did not complete a form that fails to display a valid OMB clearance number, it is the agency--not the citizen--that stands in violation of law. Once this is determined, the agency would not only owe the citizen the benefits due but also perhaps interest as well. Now there are some who may grumble that this provision is too weak. Since 1980, section 3512 has included an alternative clause of public protection requiring the collection of information to state that if it did not display a valid OMB control number, it was not subject to the act. Some may view that second clause as a tautology. That is how agencies have interpreted it. But some others have believed that it requires: First, that every effort by the Government to collect information, even those not covered by the act, be accompanied by a statement advising that such collection is not required to have a clearance number; and second, that consequently a failure to provide such advice would subject the collection of information to the public protection sanctions of section 3512, even though the collection was not subject to the act. Now the act specifies in section 3518 certain exceptions from the act. A subpoena is one example. Also, by definition, a collection of information falls under the act only if 10 or more persons are involved. My view is that since a subpoena is not covered by the act's clearance requirements and since a request for information made to nine or fewer individuals is likewise not covered, then in such cases the sanctions of section 3512 have no application. It is simply foolish, in my opinion, to require an agency to inform a person it is So with the concurrence of all the Senate conferees, this second clause was rewritten to be both feasible and useful. It now requires the agency to inform the person who is to respond to collections of information governed by the act that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number from OMB. This statement of how section 3512 operates to protect the public technically need not appear on the collection of information itself. That is because the term collection of information includes more than Government requests for information. An example of an additional item included within the definition might be a recordkeeping requirement. In such case, the collection of information might not be a Government form but instead a legal requirement about which the agency provides instructions. While the conferees provided some flexibility regarding the second clause of section 3512(a), it is their intention that the agency inform those who are to respond in a manner reasonably calculated to bring the matter to their attention. If the collection is a Government form to be completed and submitted by a person, then that form should bear the necessary statement to fulfill the requirements of section 3512(a)(2). If the collection concerns something else, such as recordkeeping, then the agency should make it section 3512(a)(2) statement as clearly as possible in some document, such as instructions regarding such recordkeeping. Moreover, in section 3512(b) the conferees made clear that the protections of section 3512 may be raised at any time during the life of the matter. The protections cannot be waived. Failure to raise them at any early stage does not preclude later assertion of rights under this section, regardless of any agency or judicial rules to the contrary. I believe that as a result of our changes to section 3512 we have substantially strengthened that section and, in turn, the entire act. Any agency that fails to comply with the clearance provisions of this act does so at its peril. Any collection of information, unless excepted by this act, must be cleared by OMB. And this applies to all agencies, including independent agencies. Neither the House nor the Senate sought to change the policy of the 1980 Act that all agencies, including independent agencies, have their information collections, even those by regulation, subjected to OMB review and approval. So while exceptions are made for certain law enforcement and intelligence activities, none is made for duck hunting or the safety and soundness regulations of banking agencies, Apparently, no difficulties have arisen in the last 15 years under the 1980 Act. So no change is made from current law. The final major item of disagreement concerned the standard by which regulations which include information collections are judged. Under current law, OMB reviews such agency rules and comments thereon applying the standard of section 3508--whether the collection is unnecessary) and thereafter approves or disapproves after receiving the agency's response to OMB's comments. By what standard does OMB decide? Current law allows OMB to disapprove if the agency's response was unreasonable. The House sought to tidy up by cross-referencing section 3508 rather than using the current law's formulation of unreasonable. As a practical matter, there is no real difference between whether the agency's response to OMB's comments are unreasonable in light of OMB's views on whether the agency's collection is unnecessary under section 3508 and whether the collection is unnecessary under that section. Since both standards--unreasonable and unnecessary--lack precision, there is nothing in current law to stop OMB, unless persuaded by the agency's response, from disapproving a regulatory collection because it would be unnecessary under section 3508. Some of my Senate colleagues believe that the House position undermined an important difference--a zone of deference to be accorded agency rulemaking. The argument is that OMB may disapprove a regulation only if the agency's response is unreasonable even if OMB believes that collection is unnecessary. While the argument tracks the words of current law, I am not persuaded that the zone of deference has any dimension to it at all. Nor do I see what benefit would derive from making a distinction between collections undertaken as part of a regulation and those outside of a regulation, which are covered only by section 3508. Either way, if the collections are unnecessary, they should be disapproved. What is the compelling argument for allowing unnecessary collections to burden the American public simply because the agency's response was not unreasonable? Ultimately, the conferees decided to keep current law because it satisfied more conferees then did the House version's unambiguous language. Current law satisfies the majority of conferees who believe that nothing stops OMB from disapproving a regulatory collection found to be unnecessary while it allows others to argue that some metaphysical zone of deference is preserved for regulatory collections. Mr. President, when we last came to the floor on S. 244, the Senate adopted several amendments that did not directly bear upon the Paperwork Reduction Act. Only one of those amendments survived the conference. That amendment by Senator Coverdell sought to reduce small business compliance burdens with the Quarterly Financial Report Program at the Bureau of the Census. With some minor modifications, this provision has been transformed in conference from a pilot project to a permanent program change. The provision, as modified, has the support of its original sponsor and of the Census Bureau. Two amendments dealing with the elimination of unnecessary reports to Congress--one by Senator McCain and one by Senator Levin--were dropped at the insistence of the House. Conferees had received correspondence from various congressional committees and agencies raising technical and other concerns about these provisions. Representative Clinger, who chaired the conference, indicated that he favored the purpose of the reports-elimination provisions but could not hold up the Paperwork Reduction Act while various concerns with these nongermane amendments were addressed. He said he would introduce a companion bill in the House and would seek to move the legislation there. Finally, an amendment that expressed the sense of the Senate regarding the Oregon option was also dropped in conference at the insistence of the House conferees. Mr. President, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 passed both Houses on rollcall votes with not a single dissenting voice. I am pleased to report that the conferees have resolved all differences between the two bodies with the result that we have even a stronger bill than before. It should be noted that we could not have moved so swiftly to passage and through conference without the bipartisan cooperation of Senator Nunn, the chief sponsor of S. 244, and Senator Glenn, the ranking minority member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs. I commend them for their hard work on this legislation not only in this Congress but in the last. Their effort set a mark not only in the Senate but in the House and made enactment of this legislation possible within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress. I urge my colleagues to approve this conference report.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is about to pass legislation establishing an expedited procedure for congressional consideration and, where necessary, disapproval of regulations. I believe this is the right choice. The original legislation, which provided for a moratorium on regulations, was fraught with difficulty. It was legislation which could not pass this body and which, if it did, would probably have been vetoed. The approach we take today holds far greater promise for responsible review of regulations. And I applaud the efforts made by Senator Nickles, Senator Reid, and Senator Glenn who floor managed and perfected this legislation. However, there was one provision inserted in the legislation yesterday that deserves further scrutiny. That provision would require the General Accounting Office to provide a report to Congress on each and every significant regulation promulgated by an agency informing Congress whether the agency has performed its job. Among other things, GAO's functions would include checking out whether the agency consulted with State, local, and tribal governments under the unfunded mandates legislation recently signed into law as well as checking on the agency's compliance with cost-benefit and risk analyses requirements under Executive Order 12866 and under legislation the Committee on Governmental Affairs last week ordered reported. We are now in conference on the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In neither body was a single vote cast against that legislation. We all agree the Government generates too much paperwork. While the central complaint concerns burdens on the public, there is also the recognition that Government imposes needless paperwork requirements on itself. In fact, Senators McCain and Levin added important provisions to the paperwork legislation that would reduce unnecessary reports to Congress. Now before those provisions even have a chance to get enacted, the Senate contradicts itself, mandating the creation of about four GAO reports every working day of the year, the vast majority of which will be unnecessary and unread. These reports will cover functions already assigned to OIRA and in some cases duplicate the mission of independent peer review provisions in legislation ordered reported by the Committee on Governmental Affairs. Moreover, we all need to be reminded that serious discussions are underway to cut the budget of GAO by 25 percent. By its own admission, GAO lacks expertise in the area of regulatory review. This would be a new mission for that agency coming at a time when we need to see how the present core mission of GAO can be preserved on a smaller budget.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, last year, we joined with the administration in taking a step toward improving the Federal Government's massive buying system. This is an issue that I have been working on for over a decade and the payoff from a comprehensive reform is significant. Last year's bill, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, attempted to improve the Government's access to commercial items. It also laid the groundwork for more comprehensive reforms. However, it did not remedy the core problems of the Federal buying system. Today, Congressman Kasich and I are introducing legislation to dramatically reshape the Defense Department buying system. Recent reports from both the Defense Department and the General Accounting Office highlight the need for reform. In short, the Defense Department has become increasingly unable to produce the best technology in an affordable manner, when it is needed. The vast majority of weapon acquisition programs are experiencing serious cost and schedule problems. Last December, two of the Defense Department's own reports found that, on average, 33 percent of its programs are experiencing overruns. A Defense Systems Management College study, published last month in the College's journal, reported average cost overruns of 45 percent with schedule delays of 63 percent. For example, the C-17 transport's cost and schedule overruns have seriously delayed its availability. After spending $10.4 billion and over 20 years in developing the C-17, the Air Force is considering buying commercial aircraft in its place. We can point to such horror stories in all the services. Acquisition costs for Navy major weapon systems are over budget by as much as 179 percent; Air Force systems by as much as 158 percent, and Army systems by as much as 220 percent, even after accounting for the effects of inflation and quantity. A July 1993 Defense Science Board study found that: ``without fundamental reform, DOD will be unable to afford the weapons, equipment, and services it needs to provide for our national security.'' The defense buying bureaucracy is plagued by multi-billion-dollar cost overruns, programs that are years or even a decade behind schedule, incentives that encourage spending rather than cost-cutting, and topheavy bureaucratic agencies that rely on detailed regulations rather than good judgment. Defense Department studies find that it takes 16 to 25 years and more than 840 steps to bring a technology to the battlefield. By then the technologies are out of date. Until the buying system is changed, the results would not improve. Mr. President, I have long maintained that Congress must be bold if it is to make significant improvements in the Government's buying system--a system I have worked for more than a decade to reform. It was my legislation that led to the creation of the Packard Commission. I have sponsored and fought for many reforms, including the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, which I and my colleagues on the Governmental Affairs Committee successfully enacted into law. While last year's legislation made a good step forward more significant changes are required to fix the core problems. Without major cultural and structural change, cost and schedule overruns will continue, the Pentagon will pay more than it should for goods and services; and the taxpayer will pick up the inflated tab. Moreover, our brave young men and women in uniform will continue to wait for decades to get weapons that may not meet their needs. Mr. President, there are three root causes to this situation which must be addressed today: One, the defense acquisition process is too cumbersome, takes too long, and does not produce desired results. The DOD 5000 and 8000 Series of documents and its consensus based management process must be abandoned in favor of a results oriented process. Two, incentives are wrong. They reward program managers and contractors for increasing the size of their program and their budget. There are no incentives for a job well done. Three, the organization is too large. It is a bureaucracy with layer upon layer of management and dozens of buying commands and subcommands spread across the four military services. Many of the bureaucratic layers exist solely for the purpose of satisfying the needs of the bureaucracy and add no value. The dozens of defense acquisition schools that were originally intended to ensure the excellence of the work force have now become a barrier to reform. And, dozens of military depots have become a hindrance to efficiently downsizing the defense industrial base. Mr. President, my proposal contains eight parts and incorporates the principles of unity of command, lean management structure, fast processes, and pay for performance for both Government workers and contractors. First, with respect to program performance, programs must be managed within 90 percent of their budget, schedule, and performance goals. If they overrun by 50 percent or more, programs must be terminated. Second, my legislation would require the Secretary of Defense to streamline the acquisition management process so that program managers focus on achieving results. It also integrates the operational testing reforms that I have been working on with Senator Pryor to prevent circumvention of operational tests and force early operational assessments to reduce the risk of major flaws being found after production has started. Third, my proposal streamlines the defense acquisition organization and its interface with operational users. The bill reorganizes the Defense Department research, development, and acquisition bureaucracies into a single DOD-wide agency, using the three layer organization endorsed by the Packard commission. Fourth, the bill re-emphasizes the commitment of Congress to a professional acquisition work force and establishes an incentive structure focused on program performance. Fifth, the legislation emphasizes the necessity for an efficient contracting process by establishing a policy goal of cutting in-half the time it takes to get an item to someone with a need. It also allows the Defense Department to limit the final selection process to the top two or three bidders, as recommended by the GAO. Sixth, the Defense Department will be able to manage its contractors on the basis of performance, rather than relying on continuous audit oversight and the threat of penalties. Under the tried to achievement of quantifiable performance measures. Seventh, the bill addresses major financial management problems that afflict the defense buying system. It reduces the major source of program instability by enabling full-funding of a program for each phase of the development process. Additionally, those who use weapons will regain authority for determining what is bought to support them. The bill also applies pay for performance to responsible officials, requiring them to bring financial management up to commercial standards. Eighth, the bill consolidates duplicative military and industry maintenance and repair depots. The bill prohibits the Defense Department from performing depot and intermediate level maintenance and repair work, unless industry is unwilling to perform the work. Therefore existing repair depots must be either privatized or shut down. Mr. President, large savings can be realized from the comprehensive reforms I am proposing. I anticipate that my approach will reduce acquisition management personnel by as much as 25 to 30 percent through reduction in duplicative headquarters staffs. The Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense Acquisition Reform reported in July 1993 that a comprehensive reform along the lines I am proposing would save $20 billion per year. The House Budget Committee has included $3.5 billion in its budget reduction proposal, and the Congressional Budget Office conservatively estimates the savings at about $1.7 billion per year. In summary, there is both a need and an opportunity for reforming Defense acquisition. But, Mr. President, I must point out that bureaucracies are inherently unable to reform themselves. The time has come for us to make some very hard and difficult decisions which have far-reaching impact on the future of our country. Change must be brought about by those of us who are concerned about maintaining a strong defense within today's budget constraints. Mr. President, I ask that the full text of the bill and a letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. Mr. President, what we are doing today is a most important step, one I have worked for for quite some time. I would like to thank the majority leader and the Finance Committee chairman for moving so quickly to pass this legislation--legislation that is extremely important for our hard-working farmers, as well as our job-creating small business men and women. Few people understand how very difficult it is to get a tax bill passed through both Houses of Congress within about 2 months' time. I believe we have been successful not only because of the efforts of Senators Dole, Grassley, Pryor, and me, but because our esteemed colleagues understand how important, how fair, this measure is. It has been my objective, along with Senators Dole, Pryor, Grassley, and others, to get the self-employed health insurance deduction passed retroactively for 1994; to have it passed before the filing deadline next month. Personally, I will continue to do everything I can to get this bill passed and out of conference with the House before April 17, the deadline this year for filing our taxes. This is so important to me that at the conclusion of the Senate session last year, I held up a vital Securities and Exchange Commission funding bill as long as I could because it was the last tax bill leaving the Congress. Since it was our last chance, as well, to get the 25-percent deduction extended, I wanted to attach this legislation to that bill so that there would not be this administrative nightmare facing small businesses and farmers, because they might have to file amended tax returns. The Finance Committee chairman at that time, Senator Moynihan, joined in a colloquy agreeing we would take up the legislation early this year if I would let the SEC bill go forward. I reluctantly agreed. The new Finance Committee chairman, Senator Packwood, has kept that promise to move quickly, and we have. In fact, to pay for this bill, we have used some of the ways I suggested last year. In particular, I am pleased that we have enacted some of the changes I have been recommending on the earned-income tax credit. Earlier this year, in an effort to encourage the House to pass the 25-percent health insurance deduction, I circulated a letter with my good friend and colleague, Senator Pryor, which was signed by 75 Senators. That letter, sent to both leaders, stated that in order to move quickly, we would all agree not to support or offer any amendments to the legislation to extend the 25-percent deduction for health insurance for the self-employed when it reached the floor of the Senate. I believe this letter was instrumental in helping get this bill passed quickly. Finally, I want to mention that we are not done with the deduction for self-employed, even though this bill will enact the legislation on a permanent basis for the first time. I believe it must still go forward. I believe we need to increase the 30-percent deduction to a full 100 percent, just like major corporations get for that health insurance. In fact, it was my amendment in the Finance Committee that increased the 25-percent deduction to 30-percent beginning in 1995 and forever after that. Although my amendment made progress, we have to go a lot further. I will continue to do everything I can to increase the deduction to 100 percent. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Hatch-Roth amendment. This amendment would exempt portions of the budget used to support the Federal judiciary from the line-item veto by directing that the entire appropriation for the judicial branch be enrolled in a single bill. From the outset, I want to make it clear that I support the idea of the line-item veto. I believe that it is important to give the President the authority to selectively eliminate expenditures of taxpayer funds which are not in the public interest. I believe the legislation we are considering will do that, and that this legislation is a big step toward fiscal responsibility. But when it comes to the funding of the Federal judiciary, we are dealing with very sensitive constitutional issues. An independent Federal judiciary was so important to the Founders that the Constitution itself not only gives Federal judges lifetime tenure, it specifically prohibits any reduction of salary during a Federal judge's term of office. Our amendment would exempt the Federal judiciary from the line-item veto. Unless this amendment is adopted, the vast majority of the judiciary's appropriations would be subject to a line-item veto by the President. Only the salaries of article II and bankruptcy judges and retirement-related programs would be excluded. If the Founders were concerned enough about the independence of the Federal judiciary to prohibit reductions in salary during a judge's tenure, we ought now to be extremely cautious about giving the executive branch the power to exert pressure on the judicial branch by the withholding funds for necessary judicial staff salaries, equipment or communications, for example. Of course, I am not asserting that this President, or any President, would use the line-item veto authority granted by this bill to exert such improper pressure, but the fact is that the power to do so would exist under this bill. We should keep in mind that the Executive branch always has more lawsuits pending in the Federal courts than any other litigant. Since 1939 the Budget and Accounting Act has provided that requests for appropriations for the judicial branch shall be submitted to the President and transmitted by him to Congress ``without change'' [31 USC 1105 (b)]. This legislation was adopted because of the inevitable conflicts that arose in having the Department of Justice cut funds requested by the judiciary before the judicial budget was submitted to Congress. That legislation is still in effect. It seems anomalous to prohibit the executive branch from changing the judiciary's budget prior to submission to Congress, but then to give the President unilateral authority to revise an enacted budget. Does this mean that if our amendment is adopted the Judiciary gets a free ride to spend as much as it likes? Of course not. The judicial budget would still be subject to congressional approval and Presidential veto, just as it is now. Moreover, it should be noted that the judiciary's budget does not include funding for courthouse construction. Budget requests and appropriations for building construction are within the province of the executive branch and the Congress, and are not affected by our amendment since the judiciary has no role in the funding of such construction. For all these reasons, this amendment makes a great deal of sense. It is the prudent and responsible thing to do, and I urge its adoption. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROTH

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, yesterday President Clinton announced his acceptance of Russian President Boris Yeltsin's invitation to participate in Moscow's anniversary of the 50th anniversary of V-E Day. He has accepted this invitation, despite the fact that I--and many of my colleagues concerned about the foreign policy implications--urged him to seek another time for a summit. I continue to believe that his participation in this commemoration does not further American interests in Europe and in our relationship with Russia. First, this commemorative event is morally ambiguous. I recognize the valor and sacrifices of the Russian people in their defense against Nazi aggression. However, it is equally important to remember that the Soviet leaders, through the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact laid the foundation not only for World War II, but also for Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe during the cold war. Joseph Stalin unleashed Soviet forces against Poland in collusion with the Nazis, and during the first 2 years of World War II the Soviet Union provided the Nazi Reich with strategic war materials as well as with political and propaganda support. Moreover, the Soviet Union committed war crimes as brutal as those of the Nazis. One need only to recall the Soviet's massacre of thousands of Polish officers at Katyn; the deportation to concentration camps and murder of thousands of civilians, including Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, Tatars, Chechyns, and others. After World War II, the survivors in Eastern Europe did not benefit from freedom and liberty, but were subjected to the brutal hegemony of the Soviet Union. If the President persists in going to celebrate the end of World War II in Europe with the Russians, I believe he should at least make some reference to the fact that the United States, as a whole, has not forgotten these, or any, crimes committed during the war. The second reason why we encouraged the President not to accept this invitation is because the commemoration in Moscow will reinforce the growing nostalgia among some Russians for the Soviet past and its imperial ambitions, not to mention the leader who epitomized all this, Joseph Stalin. The presence of the President of the United States risks further legitimizing such nostalgia, thereby encouraging Russians to concentrate on reacquiring great power status at a time when Moscow should be directing its efforts and energy inward, toward democratic and market reform. Third, this invitation arrives in the midst of the war in Chechnya. President Clinton's participation in this celebration will convey American indifference to the atrocities committed against the Chechyn peoples. Indeed, Moscow's management of the Chechyn autonomy movement is depressingly reminiscent of the policies that Stalin, himself, used to terrorize the peoples incorporated into the former Soviet Union. Mr. President, I strongly support efforts to deepen American-Russian relations. Indeed, this is especially important today as both nations adjust to the post-cold-war era. However, the symbolism associated with the Moscow celebration makes it a poor forum through which to pursue the type of relationship the United States must have with Russia. But since President Clinton has made his decision, I hope he will emphasize the following themes in the course of his Moscow meetings: The President should speak forthrightly to the Russian people, not hiding the fact that America condemns the brutal use of military force against Chechnya. Human rights is an international issue. If Russia avows to be a member of the community of democracies founded upon respect for inalienable human rights, it must live up to those standards. The President should make clear that America is more interested in the future of Russian democracy than in the fate of a single leader. I hope that President Clinton will spend his time not only with government officials and the leadership of the Russian Duma, but also with Russia's leading supporters of democracy. This must include members of Russia's beleaguered press and those democratically minded legislators--particularly Sergei Kovalyov, the former Human Rights Commissioner who was most recently relieved of his duties because of his courageous criticism of the Russian Government's Chechnyn policy. In order for a true strategic partnership to evolve between the United States and Russia, Moscow must abandon hegemonic aspirations, particularly those toward the non-Russian nations of the former Soviet Union. In this regard, I applaud the President's decision to visit Ukraine. A Kiev summit will be an important signal of America's commitment to assist the consolidation of Ukraine's newly attained independence. In light of Ukraine's intertwined history with Russia, the success of Ukrainian independence and integration into the Western community of nations will be a critical determinant of Russia's evolution into a post-imperial state. Finally, I hope that the President will emphasize that NATO enlargement will contribute to greater peace and stability in post- cold-war Europe. By further ensuring stability in Central and Eastern Europe, NATO enlargement should allow Moscow to spend more of its energy on the internal challenges of political and economic reform. I hope that our President will underscore the fact that Moscow cannot and will not have any veto over the future membership of NATO. Mr. President, although I regret President Clinton's pilgrimage to Moscow, I believe that if these three empire--prevail, they will help ensure that the Moscow summit is not an exercise in propitiation, but a realistically constructive undertaking. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to propose an amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Glenn, Helms, Levin, McCain, and Nunn, which calls for the indefinite and unconditional extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In only 4 weeks, the parties to the NPT will gather in New York to decide the future of this critical agreement. This resolution sends an unequivocal message to all the countries of the world that this body regards making the NPT permanent as absolutely essential. It also sends a clear signal to any country opposing indefinite and unconditional extension of the treaty that that nation is acting against not only against its own interest, but also against the interest of the United States and indeed of the people of the entire world, because their position places the nuclear non-proliferation regime and global security at risk. March 5 marked the 25th anniversary of the entry into force of the NPT. That treaty is universally regarded as the the single most important component of the international effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Indeed, it is the very foundation upon which the entire global nuclear non-proliferation regime was constructed. When the five declared nuclear weapons states ratified the NPT, they pledged to end the nuclear arms race, to undertake measures toward nuclear disarmament and not in any way to assist nonnuclear weapon states in gaining nuclear weapons. For their part, the nonnuclear parties to the treaty pledged not to acquire nuclear weapons and to accept a system of safeguards to verify their compliance. Thus, in joining the NPT, these countries transformed the acquisition of nuclear weapons from an act of national pride to a violation of international law. Those who negotiated the NPT never expected that the treaty alone would end the global nuclear proliferation threat. Yet, I think even they could be surprised by its successes toward that end. Today, there remain only 5 declared nuclear weapons states--not the 20 or 30, many experts had once projected. There are also only three so-called ``threshold'' states. The NPT has provided the overarching structure to end the nuclear arms race. With the ratification of START I, and the ongoing work of my able and distinguished colleagues in the Foreign Relations Committee on START II, the race now is to bring down the number of nuclear weapons as quickly, safely and securely as possible. Another indicator of treaty's success has been the steady increase of its membership. Today, with more than 170 parties, the NPT has the widest adherence of any arms control agreement in history. When backed by strong nonproliferation policies and verification measures including international safeguards, the NPT curbs inclinations countries may have in believing they need the bomb for safety. Thus, it advances the security of all the world's nations. Unfortunately, the NPT was established with a limited life-span. The treaty provides that 25 years after its entrance into force, a conference of the parties will be convened to decide whether the NPT will remain in force indefinitely, for one fixed period of time or for a series of fixed periods. The treaty further provides that the decision on extension will be made by majority of parties to the treaty. The result will be legally binding for all parties, whatever vote they cast. I believe it is beyond question that indefinite extension is essential. The NPT must be made permanent if we are to contain the terrible threat posed to all nations by the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Anything short of indefinite extension would deal a major blow to the global nuclear nonproliferation regime because at the end of any specified extension period, the treaty could be undermined. The global norm prohibiting the further acquisition of nuclear weapons would thus be destroyed. We must never allow such an outcome that would jeopardize the entire nuclear nonproliferation regime--so In the aftermath of the cold war, the decisions we make today about global security will dramatically affect the lives of generations to come. No decision is more important than the one the world faces next month on the future of the NPT. Despite the critical need for making the NPT permanent, a number of countries are actively opposing indefinite extension. Most troubling to me are the strongly negative positions taken by Mexico and Egypt--two nations which have received so much support from the United States over the years. Some of the countries opposing the U.S. position say that indefinite and unconditional extension of the NPT should be made contingent on the ratification of a comprehensive test ban treaty or an agreement to cap the amount of material available for nuclear explosives. Others seek universal membership in the NPT or a timetable for complete nuclear disarmament. By holding the NPT's future hostage to such goals, these countries undermine the likelihood of the treaty's indefinite extension. What they do not seem to realize, ironically, is that in doing so they also jeopardize the very framework critical to the achievement of their own goals. Indefinite extension of the NPT does not preclude adjustments to the nuclear nonproliferation regime. In fact, it would make permanent the climate of trust conducive to more restrictive controls over weapons- grade nuclear materials and related technologies and activities. Given the narrow focus of the NPT conference next month, the only question treaty parties should ask is whether the world is a safer place with the treaty in force. I believe that the answer to that question is unambiguously ``yes''. Indefinite and unconditional extension is thus the only choice that makes sense. I yield the floor. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I am pleased to join with the Senator from Idaho in bringing to the floor this conference agreement on the unfunded mandates legislation. In chairing the conference on S. 1, Senator Kempthorne did an excellent job of preserving the strong bipartisan support for this important reform that was the hallmark of its passage in both Houses. This bill, as it now appears before us, is a careful balance of the demands for strong, effective reform, with the necessity for reasonable procedures and practical requirements. For example, we have provided for judicial review of agency compliance with requirements for certain types of analysis of regulatory impacts but without allowing such review to become a device that grinds the regulatory process to a halt. We require agencies to seek the least costly or least burdensome option when developing regulations but we only require that they do so for a reasonable number of alternatives. We have also struck fair compromises where the two versions of the legislation imposed differing requirements. For example, we now require a Congressional Budget Office analysis of any mandate on the private sector that exceeds $100, million per year in costs while the original Senate bill had set the threshold at $200, million and the House threshold had been $50, million. We have also tailored the point of order provisions to the unique procedural needs of each of the two Houses. And while the legislation aims primarily at future Federal mandates in its point of order and regulatory procedures provisions, it also acknowledges that existing mandates may need to be rethought. It does this by charging the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations with studying and reporting to us on effects of the current burdens imposed by such mandates. It asks ACIR to recommend how best to end mandates that are obsolete or duplicative. It also asks for recommendations on how we might grant State and local governments more flexibility in complying with those mandates that ought to be retained. In doing all of this, the conferees have developed a final version of this much-needed reform that I can strongly commend to my colleagues. This is due in large measure, as I have already mentioned, to the diligent work of Senator Kempthorne, who has long championed this reform. He and his staff are to be commended for bringing us this far. I also want to acknowledge the active role of Senator Glenn in shaping this final product. Senator Glenn and his staff have worked very hard over the past year and a half, to ensure that this legislation was able to have solid bipartisan support. I am pleased to have worked with my two colleagues, and with the other conferees, to get us to this point. I know that my own staff has spent many long hours over the past several months to help in this effort, working closely with the staffs of the other conferees. The bill now before us represents a landmark reform in the relationship between the Federal Government, and State and local governments. I urge all Senators to give it their strong support.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the managers' amendment I have sent to the desk contains four parts. The first part is a series of committee amendments. The second consists of a few technical amendments requested by the intelligence community. The third is an amendment authored by Senator Coverdell which eases compliance with the Census Bureau's Quarterly Financial Reports requirements. The fourth is a provision authored by Senator Hatfield relating to the Oregon option. The first part, amendments reported by the committee, was developed by Senators Cohen, Glenn, Nunn, and myself. It modifies several provisions of the bill regarding procurement of information technology. In the time since the language of this legislation was drafted last year, the Congress passed the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act and the President signed it into law. That act and other events have created the opportunity to revise portions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. In summary, the amendment will better focus the information technology provisions on achieving results. This amendment was the result of a collaborative effort by Senators Cohen, Glenn, Nunn, and myself. Senators Nunn, Glenn, and I developed the bill now before the Senate. With Senator Cohen, we also had primary responsibility for the drafting and passage of last year's acquisition reform bill. So, there is broad agreement by the key sponsors of both efforts on the value of the Cohen-Roth-Glenn-Nunn amendment for the Paperwork Reduction Act. More work is needed to fix the Government's problems in using information technology. We have had hearings at the Governmental Affairs Committee, and the General Accounting Office is doing a major audit of the situation. Beyond that, Senator Cohen and I are working on legislation to follow up on the committee's acquisition reform efforts. The language in the committee's version of the Paperwork Reduction Act also will remove potential areas of conflict between this bill and the acquisition reform efforts the committee is currently pursuing. The second part consists of technical amendments intended to assure that the responsibilities given to OMB in the bill concerning the oversight of information technology activities within the Department of Defense and the intelligence community are the same as the authorities in the current Paperwork Reduction Act. I understand that, during the development of these amendments, concern was expressed about computer security within the executive branch. In the previous Congress Senator Glenn and I asked the Office of Technology Assessment to study security and privacy in the electronic age. In its report, entitled ``Information Security and Privacy in Network Environments,'' OTA outlined important legal and policy issues involved in the security of such environments and recommended substantial congressional involvement in addressing those issues. The report also describes the organizational relationships concerning these matters and the delicacy with which they were crafted in enacting the Computer Security Act of 1987. These are complex issues which the committee intends to address in depth later this session. In the meantime, however, the bill we are considering today leaves existing authorities unchanged. The third portion of the amendment is the Coverdell provision to establish a demonstration program within the Census Bureau to reduce the paperwork burden on small business resulting from the Quarterly Financial Report Program. The demonstration program expires on September 30, 1998, the date on which the Quarterly Financial Report Program itself expires, or if such program is itself further extended, then the demonstration expires in such later year. During such time the Census Bureau is required to assist first-time respondents in fulfilling the information collection under the Quarterly Report Program, or if the program is reauthorized for a subsequent period, the demonstration would expire on that later date. Particularly, the Bureau is mandated to establish a toll-free telephone number for those seeking such assistance. Perhaps more important than the assistance for first-time respondents is the Coverdell provision's protection against a firm's repeated requirement of participation. No firm with assets of $50 million or less may be required to participate twice if it has participated since October 1, 1989. And no firm of $100 million or less may be required to participate if it has participated within the last eight quarters. I support the provision authored by Senator Coverdell and commend him for his initiative. The fourth provision is a sense of the Senate resolution expressing support for an innovative statewide effort to delivery. Authored by Senator Hatfield, the resolution recognizes that the State and local governments of Oregon have begun a comprehensive project to coordinate their use of Federal funds to address social needs. Joined by the Federal Government in this effort, they are attempting to trade more flexibility in the use of those funds for more accountability for measurable performance. This provision expresses a recognition that this approach has the potential to improve intergovernmental service delivery and ought to be encouraged. I support all four parts of the amendment and urge its adoption. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, for the information of all of my colleagues, under the previous order there are four remaining amendments in order to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Therefore, rollcall votes are expected throughout the day on Tuesday, although no votes will occur prior to 2:15 p.m. Senators should also be aware that following the paperwork reduction bill, the Senate will begin consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 10:30 a.m., on Tuesday, March 7, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, the Senate then immediately begin consideration of S. 244, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and, further, that no rollcall votes occur prior to 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday.

Mr. ROTH

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished friend from Michigan that that is my intent. I, first of all, wish to congratulate the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his amendment, because I do think it is a valuable one. We look forward to seeing it adopted. I believe the proposal of the distinguished Senator from Michigan adds a positive factor. We are trying to work out a unanimous-consent that would allow him to bring it up the first thing tomorrow morning at 10:30. I very much appreciate that. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, if there is no further debate, I urge acceptance of the amendment.