Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Absolutely not, I say to my colleague from Massachusetts. That is hogwash. In a nonunion shop, the employer can talk to his employees about anything. He can call them together as a group or talk to them individually. Nothing in the law prevents a nonunion employer from talking to his employees. In fact, section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act specifically protects his right.

Mr. SIMON. Senator Kennedy, that is absolutely not true. When you talk about distortions, you are absolutely correct. This thing has been so distorted. If this bill passes, we will have a huge imbalance. In a union shop, the employees bargain with the employer to have personal leave days. In a nonunion shop, under current law, any employee can bargain individually or ask the employer as an individual for time off.

Mr. SIMON. Absolutely. This is taking place in thousands and thousands of plants in your State, in my State, in every State here. The law has permitted explosive growth in cooperative programs and employee involvement plans. The committee report claims that 75 percent, as you pointed out, of all employers use employee involvement; 96 percent of large employers do so. That has occurred without this so-called TEAM Act. I agree, it is misnamed. The law has not changed one iota with respect to company unions in 61 years. The TEAM Act is completely unnecessary.

Mr. SIMON. The Senator is absolutely correct. One of the things that is wrong in our society today and wrong in this body is those who are heavy contributors have an inordinate access and inordinate power. We have to struggle to get millions of people who are getting the minimum wage--they are not big contributors; 41 million Americans do not have health care, and they are not big contributors. But a few, a very few employers would be affected here; they are contributing. It is interesting, you mention the Electromation case. A unanimous Labor Relation Board made up of Republican appointees held that the Electromation case was a typical garden variety case of a company union. It held that no new principles were involved in finding the company union unlawful. The court of appeals again unanimously found that the case had nothing to do with quality circles or productivity teams. The case was about an employer who was trying to control disgruntled employees by imposing on them a representative that they did not ask for or choose. I would add, when you mentioned the Dunlop Commission headed by former Secretary of Labor John Dunlop, he was the Secretary of Labor under a Republican administration. He says this kind of thing does not make any sense.

Mr. SIMON. That is correct.

Mr. SIMON. I think that is well stated. It is a good summary of what this is all about.

Mr. SIMON. That is not the case. Ever since the General Foods case in 1977, it has been clear that employees can be given decisionmaking authority without violating section 8(a)(2). If management wants to set up work teams and allow them to schedule their own hours, investigate plant safety, or redesign job procedures, the law permits it.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if I may ask the Senator from Massachusetts a question. We talked about the fact that quality teams are legal, as long as they do not strain the questions concerning wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment. But what if they do, or what if an employer wants to appoint a safety team to figure out why so many employees had back injuries, for example? Can the employer do that?

Mr. SIMON. Finally, the Republicans have said in their official position that it is illegal for an employer to provide paper and pencils or a place to meet for a team or a committee; is that true?

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague from New York. Let me mention one other thing that is, apparently, part of this tripod we are going to be voting on one of these days, and that is the TEAM Act. This is the euphemism for what is basically an antilabor bill that emerged from the committee on which I serve. I think we need balance in this field. We cannot go too far in the direction of labor. We cannot go too far in the direction of management. But just as we have moved away from self-restraint in this body in terms of politics, we have become excessively partisan. So the same thing has happened in labor-management relations. It used to be that when you had a Democratic President, you had a slight shift in the National Labor Relations Board in the direction of labor; and when you had Republicans, a slight shift in the direction of management, but a pretty good balance. Then during the Reagan years, it went way out of balance. I think we did a great disservice to the process. I am pleased, incidentally, to see things like employee ownership of United Airlines. I think that, plus profit sharing, are a wave of the future in terms of avoiding some of the labor-management problems that we have had. But it is interesting that someone like George Shultz--and we think of him as the former Secretary of State, but he also served as Secretary of Labor--said that we have an imbalance in this country that is not good for labor or management and not good for productivity in this country. And so we ought to view any changes in labor-management relations with great caution. What the TEAM Act does--an acronym that inaccurately describes things--is basically permit a company to establish a company union. That is not in anyone's best interests. It is going in under the hidden cloak that this is a way to have teams, quality teams set up to work on safety and other problems in industrial production. There is no problem in that field. In fact, between 1972 and 1994, there were only two employee committees that were rejected by the National Labor Relations Board where there were not other factors of unfair labor practices involved. In terms of employee committees, it is dealing with a nonproblem. But it is dealing with it in a way that I think creates what appears to be good things, but they are really company unions moving away from traditional unions. I think that is not a good thing. Some people have said, ``I can't understand why we have this growing disparity between working men and women and those who are more fortunate.'' One of the ways you can judge that is to look at union membership. Why is that disparity not so great in Canada, Germany, Great Britain, France, Japan, and other countries? Are these not free market countries? Yes, they are free market countries. But in those countries, you have 33 percent, 40 percent, sometimes 90 percent union membership among the working men and women. In the United States, because of the barriers we have put up to organizing, it is 16 percent among our total work force, and if you exclude governmental unions it is down to 11.8 percent. That is not a healthy thing for this Nation. That is one of the reasons, frankly, we have not made progress in some issues like other countries have. We are the only Western industrialized nation to have people without health insurance--41 million of them. We are the only Western industrialized nation to have 24 percent of our children living in poverty. That is not an act of God. There is no divine intervention that says children in the United States have to live in poverty while children in Italy and Denmark and France and Great Britain and other countries have a much smaller percentage. It is the result of flawed policy. And I think if we pass this legislation, we will compound the flawed policy. I trust, Mr. President, that we will not pass this particular portion of the bill that we may be voting on, and I assume it will be tomorrow. If it should be passed, I trust that the President of the United States would veto it. I think we have to maintain balance. This bill moves away from that balance. Mr. President, I note the presence of the distinguished junior Senator from Missouri, and I know he is going to get up and agree with everything I have just said. It may be that he will differ on a point or two. But I do at this point want to yield the floor and again urge my colleagues to keep in mind what we need is balance in labor- management relations. This bill moves away from that balance and does not serve the Nation well.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, let me just comment on two things very briefly that, apparently, are going to be joined in the vote tomorrow. Let me say that if they are joined, I, if no one else, am going to ask for division on the question, so we can vote separately on these issues. One of the issues is whether to repeal the 4.3-cent gasoline tax. I know it was very controversial as we argued about it here. But it was very interesting that after it passed, I went back to the State of Illinois and, up until a few days ago when it was raised again as an issue, of the 12 million people in Illinois, do you know how many people talked to me and complained about the gasoline tax increase? Not a single one. My guess is--and I see my friend Senator Moynihan on the floor--that not a single citizen of New York complained to Senator Moynihan about the 4.3-cent tax.

Mr. SIMON. If I may ask the Senator from New York, would it be somewhat inconsistent for people to complain about the high price of gasoline and vote for this drop in the 4.3 cents and having voted for an increase in the mileage from 55 to 65?

Mr. SIMON. My guess is that in the State of Tennessee people were not complaining. I talked to one of our colleagues from a western State, and they were not complaining. One of the advantages, Mr. President, of not running for reelection is, a year ago, just about this time, my wife and I took off for Spain and Portugal, flew to Madrid--at our expense, I hasten to add, not at the taxpayers' expense. And we rented a car and drove around Spain and Portugal. The highways were better than our interstate highways. But I paid $4.50 a gallon. People talk about being overtaxed in the United States. In some areas, our taxes are excessive. But we have, next to Saudi Arabia, the lowest gasoline tax of any country in the world. If you were to ask, ``What can we do to improve the environment?'' one of the things we could do, frankly, is not to lower the gasoline tax, but to increase it. We ought to be increasing it to spend money to build our highways and use it on mass transit and that sort of thing. So I think any move to lower that tax is shortsighted. And then the distinguished Congressman from Texas has suggested that we take the money from education. I cannot imagine anything more shortsighted. We need to invest more in education, not less. That just absolutely does not make sense. I hope we will reject this thing that emerged in this political season, the season that is frequently called the ``silly season'' by observers, and rightfully so.

Mr. SIMON. I am pleased to yield to my distinguished colleague.

Mr. SIMON. I have not seen it. I think it is an excellent suggestion. I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street article be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if I can add one other thing to my friend from New York, and that is this: I, candidly, do not know how he voted on increasing the mileage from 55 to 65 miles an hour. But when we vote to increase the mileage from 55 to 65 miles an hour----

Mr. SIMON. Precisely.

Mr. SIMON

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

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the tragedy of Liberia should be of concern to all Americans. I have twice visited that battle-scarred country which has more ties to the United States historically than any other nation of Africa. And the United States bears a partial responsibility for what is happening there. I'm pleased that the latest reports show that there is relative stability temporarily, but I am confident that this relative stability will be broken once again unless the nations move together effectively under U.S. leadership. The ECOMOG forces have brought some stability but there needs to be a stronger indication of interest outside of Africa also. Bishop John H. Ricard, chairman of the board for Catholic Relief Services, had an op- ed piece in the Washington Post, which I ask to be printed in the Record after my remarks. I hope his article will stir policymakers a little more. He eloquently pleads for help to this needy, desperate country. The article follows: Why No Help to Liberia? (By John H. Richard) When the leaders of Liberia's warring factions signed a peace agreement in Abuja, Nigeria, last August, they did not ask for American troops to back it up. They did not ask us to broker the peace or shed our blood. What they did ask for was a credible force of properly equipped peacekeepers to persuade combatants to give up their weapons. They knew that this relatively modest assistance would provide stability and give the country an opportunity to rejoin the rest of the world. The signatories to the agreement had hoped that Liberia-like Bosnia, Haiti, Kuwait and Somalia--might qualify for the type of aid necessary to give the nation a chance. Rejected by the international community, Liberians were left to face the formidable tasks of nation-building without the assistance that might have seen them through those tasks. Perhaps the violence we witnessed last week would have happened anyway. The sad truth is we won't ever know whether a stronger American and International commitment might have helped Liberia avoid this bloodshed. Liberian warlords cannot be excused for the terror inflicted in Monrovia over the past week, but neither can we place the blame entirely on Africa's doorstep. Liberia's West African neighbors, committed to bringing peace to the region, brought the warring parties to the negotiating table more than a dozen times since fighting broke out in the fall of 1990, and scores of African peacekeepers have given their lives to end the war. When the accord was signed, the fueding leaders established a functioning government that all parties upheld for nearly five months. As skirmishes flared up-country, one or another of the Liberian leaders traveled to the point of conflict to settle it. It was not exactly a constitutional system, but the Liberian Council of State represented the resolve of a critical mass of Liberians to achieve peace. They were willing to continue, and they need our help. It is impossible to say whether there would be peace in Liberia today if the United Nations Security Council had made the sort of commitment there that it has made in other parts of the world. But the international community never gave the African peace agreement a chance. A week ago, international donors meeting in Brussels agreed that it would take $1.2 billion to begin the reconstruction of Bosnia. Last September, the same international donors rejected a $110 million U.N. appeal to finance demilitarization, resettlement and economic rehabilitation in Liberia, demanding that African nations shoulder more of the burden. The achievement of peace in the region is not a question of cash. But the vast disparity between monetary commitments in Eastern Europe and West Africa is telling; reflective perhaps of a basic unwillingness on the part of wealthier nations to meet Africans halfway in their efforts to build peace. Last fall, Catholic Relief Services and other humanitarian organizations in Liberia warned the United States and European governments that if the peace process in Liberia was not supported, it would unravel. U.N. Secretary General Boutros-Boutros Ghali and Ghanaian President Jerry Rawlings noted at the time that the annual U.N. budget for Liberia would last only five days in the former Yugoslavia. Without the support needed to foster a peaceful transition, war returned quickly. Disagreements that a well-established democracy would weather easily turned into life-and-death struggles. The resulting horror is an example of a fledgling government's inability to solve its problems. But tragically, it is also an example of our vacillation, of our reluctance to provide the sort of support and companionship that could have seen Liberians through the dark but hopeful days of an early peace. In Liberia, thousands of teenage fighters have not only been denied formal education during the years of mayhem, but in fact have never learned how to be members of society; they know only how to kill. These boy soldiers, having grown up killing, realized as the Abuja agreement dissolved that there would be no alternative to war; there would be no chance to learn a way to make a living without a gun, or even to develop into normal human beings. Already robbed of the luxury of human emotion, they would also be denied the opportunity to leave behind the violent life they had always known. By January, the peace was undone, and today Monrovia burns. The people of the United States and the members of the Security Council must ready themselves to pacify Liberia and reconstruct the country from the ground up, again. As Americans, we cannot throw up our hands and walk away. Why not? Because Liberians are not all warlords. They are farmers and merchants, women and children; they are our brothers and sisters. And they need our support.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, on Thursday of last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported favorably, by a 13 to 5 vote, the resolution of ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC]. I applaud the committee's action and the leadership of Senators Lugar, Pell, Kassebaum, Kerry, and Biden, not to mention the hard work of the committee staff, to advance this major arms control treaty. I hope that floor consideration can be scheduled as early as possible. While I realize that there may be difficulties on the floor, this treaty is of such importance that it would be an abrogation of our responsibility, when it is out of committee and ready to go, not to provide advice and consent before the end of this Congress. I note that Majority Leader Dole stated on December 7 of last year that it was his intention that the Senate would consider the Convention in a reasonable time period once the Convention is on the Executive Calendar. Well, the Chemical Weapons Convention is now on the calendar, and the reasonable time clock is ticking. As all major arms control treaties must be, the CWC is a bipartisan measure. It was negotiated during the Reagan administration, signed by President Bush, and submitted to the Senate by President Clinton. It was approved by a strong bipartisan majority of the Foreign Relations Committee. It is endorsed by arms control advocates and the Chemical Manufacturers Association. Some critics of the CWC have sought to blame the Democrats for failing to ratify the Convention when they controlled the Senate. Yes, the Senate should have acted on the CWC in 1994, but that fact does not provide a reason not to act in 1996. The sooner we can ratify the Convention, the sooner we can eliminate these horrible weapons. While U.S. accession to the treaty is not a legal requirement for the treaty to enter into force, it has become a practical requirement. The case of the CWC is yet another example of the continued primacy of U.S. leadership in international politics. Ratification by 65 countries is necessary for the CWC to enter into force. Currently, only 49 have done so, and it has become clear that many are waiting for U.S. ratification. Why? For one, because the United States maintains one of the two largest stockpiles of chemical weapons. But more fundamentally, because nations continue to look to the United States for leadership in matters of great international import. President George Bush wrote in 1994: ``United States leadership is required once again to bring this historic agreement into force.'' This remains true today. Prompt action is our responsibility. Critics of the CWC, and there appear to be few, argue that U.S. security is harmed by our approval of a treaty that binds us to destroy a class of weapons we currently possess, while citing that certain ``rogue'' states have not signed the treaty and raising questions over Russian compliance. They argue that, by proceeding to eliminate its chemical weapons stockpile under the CWC, the United States is depriving itself of a deterrent capability against any state that maintains some CW capacity. However, deterrence is based on the ability to respond in kind, and that assumes that chemical weapons are a legitimate instrument of warfare for the U.S. military. The fundamental basis behind the CWC, however, is that chemical weapons are not legitimate for war-fighting. This consensus goes back to World War I, where the invidious use of mustard gas prompted the 1925 Geneva Protocol to prohibit the use of chemical warfare agents. More recently, the Iraqi attacks on the Kurds in 1988 and the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway last year have reminded the international community of the terror of chemical weapons. Try as we might to stigmatize chemical weapons through other means, there can be no substitute for, in the words of President Bush's National Security Advisor Gen. Brent Scowcroft, ``the clear international norms against chemical weapons, the legal framework, and the challenge inspections embodied in the Chemical Weapons Convention.'' A chemical weapons deterrent capability for the United States is not only unnecessary, it is inconceivable. If U.S. troops or territory were subject to a chemical attack, our military has ample means to respond in conventional ways, if a military response were deemed appropriate. Defense Secretary William Perry testified last month to the Foreign Relations Committee that ``we have an effective range of capabilities to protect against, to deter, or to retaliate against the use of chemical weapons * * *'' JCS Chairman Gen. John Shalikashvili testified in 1994 that ``while forgoing the ability to retaliate in kind, the U.S. military retains the wherewithal to deter and defend against a chemical attack.'' Additionally, I doubt that many Americans would feel comfortable with having a military that is prepared to wage gas attacks on foreign populations. In essence, how could we ask the world to make illegal these weapons, if we reserve the right to their legitimate use? There are a number of other criticisms of the CWC to address, and I hope to do so at a later time. Simply put, the CWC will improve our national security by establishing the legal basis, the timetable and the verification regime necessary to ban chemical weapons. I am pleased that the Foreign Relations Committee has finally reported out the Convention, and I hope that we can proceed to give our advice and consent as soon as possible.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee--Senators Simpson and Kennedy-- for their dedication and commitment to the issue of illegal immigration. They have steered the Senate through a difficult process, and we are all appreciative of their efforts this time, as we have been on numerous occasions past. I will vote against final passage of this bill. The bill contains much that I support. I am gratified that the Senate has voted to retain the verification pilot programs that were adopted as a compromise in committee. These pilot programs are essential to combating the job magnet that lures illegal immigrants to the United States, and will also make immigration-related job discrimination less likely. I am also gratified that the Senate passed the Leahy asylum amendment yesterday. This amendment, by preserving our Nation's commitment to providing safe haven for victims of persecution abroad, was a substantial improvement in this legislation, and one that corrected one of the major problems with this legislation as it came out of the Judiciary Committee. Finally, unlike the House immigration bill, the Senate bill does not contain any provision allowing States to deny undocumented alien children primary or secondary education. Adoption of such an amendment would have been an imprudent response to the problem of illegal immigration, and would have cost the Nation far more than it would have saved it. Despite the virtues of this legislation, I am compelled to vote against it because it still suffers from some serious problems--in particular, the provisions of the bill that serve to deny legal immigrants Government assistance. While I support the idea of tightening current deeming requirements, the bill will deny legal immigrants assistance that will prevent, not encourage, legal immigrants from receiving welfare, such as higher education and job training assistance. The bill makes a sieve out of the safety net that is essential for the most vulnerable of our society--children, pregnant women, and the disabled. Finally, this bill retroactively expands deeming requirements for those immigrants who are in the country today, without the benefit of a legally binding affidavit of support. There is no question that sponsors should be primarily liable for the well-being of the immigrants they bring in. At the same time, this bill lacks the flexibility that is necessary if we are to ensure a balanced and fair approach to the issue of immigrants and public assistance. I am concerned about much of the rhetoric about immigrants and public assistance that has accompanied this debate. While we have heard much about the pressures immigrants place on our system of public assistance, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of immigrants-- over 93 percent--do not receive welfare, and that working-age nonrefugee immigrants use Government assistance at the same levels as native-born Americans. While specific programs--in particular, SSI-- receive disproportionate use by immigrants, we should address such problems specifically, without cutting off access to resources that will help immigrants avoid the welfare dependency that concerns us all. Having set out my objections to the bill, I hope that I will be able to support a conference agreement on illegal immigration. The House immigration bill has several provisions in the public assistance area preferable to the Senate bill--in particular, the exemption from deeming for higher education, and the limitation on programs that can give rise to deportation as a public charge. Adoption of these provisions in the conference will substantially improve this legislation. On the other hand, any illegal immigration conference agreement should not include any provision allowing States to deny primary or secondary educational assistance to undocumented aliens. Such a provision, while not in the Senate bill, is in the House bill. Inclusion of such a provision in the conference agreement would cause many of those who support the Senate bill to oppose the conference report. We are close to having an illegal immigration bill we can all be proud of, but we are not there yet.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I have not made the motion to table because we have not had the final 2 minutes. I move to table, Mr. President, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SIMON. We have dealt with them. Amendment No. 3764

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the New York Times has again hit the mark in a recent editorial supporting a national study of the economic and social impacts of gambling. The Gambling Impact Study Commission Act has received considerable attention as it makes its way through the committee process. Although the road has at times been bumpy, we are well on the way to creating a commission with the powers it needs to produce a balanced and fair analysis of legalized gambling. In response to constructive criticism of the original bill, we have been hard at work crafting a substitute. Developed with bipartisan support, the substitute will take into account the legitimate interests of those whose livelihoods are invested in the industry as well as the concerns of those who would prefer to limit the expansion of gambling. However, we are quickly running out of time. The American public deserves to know the advantages and disadvantages of legalized gambling. The Commission's report will be an important national resource for policymakers at all levels of government. In order to make this happen, we need to move quickly to make room on the Senate calendar and to insure the passage of the Gambling Impact Study Commission Act. I urge my colleagues to read the editorial and to work with me to pass this act before it is too late. I ask that the New York Times editorial be printed in the Record. The editorial follows: [From the New York Times, Apr. 27, 1996] Gambling in the Sunlight Just a few weeks ago, Representative Frank Wolf's proposal to create a commission on the social and economic impact of the nation's gambling explosion seemed just the sort of virtuous idea that everyone in this partisan Congress could support. In early March the House approved the nine-member study panel without dissent. But the Virginia Republican's proposal is in trouble in the Senate and may die there unless the majority leader, Bob Dole, exerts leadership to rescue it. A special interest group known for its generous campaign contributions--the Nevada-based gaming industry--has teamed up with prominent and well-compensated Republican lobbyists to try to stop the bill. With help from Nevada's Democratic Senator, Richard Bryan, and Alaska's Ted Stevens, the Republican chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, the effort seems to be succeeding. Mr. Bryan blocked Senate action. Mr. Stevens, meanwhile, has produced a weak revision that would deny the commission the powers it needs to subpoena documents, convene investigative hearings and make recommendations that go beyond such obvious issues as native-American casinos and gambling on the Internet. Angered by criticism, Mr. Stevens last week decided, for now, against reporting any bill out of his committee. The delay increases the chance that the commission will die in the usual close-of-session legislative logjam. The social and economic consequences of the rapid proliferation of casinos and state-run lotteries have received too little attention. There is room for a comprehensive look at the true costs and benefits for local economies and at the relationship between gambling and crime. There is also a need to look at the industry's role in creating gambling addicts and the extent to which earnings derive from problem gamblers. Even staunch supporters of legalized gambling cannot object to a fair effort to give localities the information they need to make informed decisions before turning to gambling as a source of new or increased revenue. Although Mr. Dole has received hefty campaign contributions from the gambling industry, he has indicated his support for a national gambling study. To make it happen, though, he needs to move quickly to make room for the bill on the Senate calendar and to insure its passage with the commission's full investigative powers intact. Among other things the commission would study the gambling industry's ability to influence public policy. The Senate's timidity is a case in point.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, we are quick to criticize those who work for our Government but rarely recognize the people who have dedicated long careers to making Government work better and more cost effectively for all of us. For that reason, I want to pay tribute today to Paul D. Barnes. Mr. Barnes is currently the Regional Commissioner for the Social Security Administration's Chicago region. His fine service in Chicago will end in late May, when he assumes his new position as Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Operations in Baltimore, MD. I am confident that Chicago's loss will be Baltimore's gain as Mr. Barnes brings his strong work ethic and demonstrated leadership to his new job. Paul Barnes has served as Regional Commissioner for the Social Security Administration's Chicago region, which includes all six Midwestern States, since November 1990. As regional commissioner, he has been responsible for providing executive direction and leadership to the region's 7,500 Federal employees and the 2,200 State employees with whom they contract for disability determinations. These employees provide Social Security services as well as administer the Supplemental Security Income Program for the 45 million people who reside in the region. Mr. Barnes began his career with the Social Security Administration in Columbia, TN in 1968. He has held a number of management positions since joining the agency, including serving as director of the southeastern Program Service Center in Birmingham, AL from July 1987 through May 1989. Before taking the top post in the Chicago region, he was serving as the deputy regional commissioner for the Atlanta region in Georgia. He was a magna cum laude graduate of Lane College in 1968, and earned a master's degree in public administration from the University of Southern California. He currently serves as a member of the Executive Committee of Chicago's Federal Executive Board. He has served as the federal executive board's executive vice-president and in 1993, he led the metro-Chicago Combined Federal Campaign to the city's first ever $3 million charity drive. In 1995, Mr. Barnes received a Presidential Distinguished Executive Award from President Clinton in recognition of his efforts to meet the national performance review objectives of producing a Government that works better and costs less. In 1992, he received a Meritorious Executive Award from President Bush and the Social Security Administration's National Leadership Award. Mr. Barnes has touched many lives in Illinois and he will be missed. I wish him the best of luck in the future and thank him for his support and dedication to the people of Illinois and our entire region.