noted. It provides a

very importan: forum for presenting point of View that we felt needed to be factored into the equation."

The couned ultimately helped to persuade FPA to propose a 70 per cent reduction. although it is also receiving public comments on the more ambitious 90 per cent Standard (which would increase the visibility range even more), according to government data.

Hubbard again referred to the council's concern as stemming from a straight Costbenefit analysis, but he pointed out that the proposal includes several options for people to comment on. "I'm certain that administrator Reilly is not uncomfortable with the proposed regulation." he added.

clear he was very disappointed." Doniger said.

Reilly, however, maintained that he "voluntarily withdrew the proposal. "Obviously I had a position that I went in and advocated. and it is not the position I agreed to when I came out." he said. "People have built a cathedral on that point. I think, and come to see many more problems in the competitiveness council than in fact we have experi enced."

END RUNS

Ironically. Paley, who was pl...sed with the result, still has some misgivings about how the President Council on Competi veness got the job done. "This is not the way you want to go. because you don't want to turn these things into politica! power battles devoid of the issue. she said. "We think there is good, sensible. substantive argument that can and should be made and be understood by the agen ey. That's the way I would preter to proceed: to have the agency understand what it is that they have done rather than go back around and obtain a result based on) who whispers in whose ca

"It's nice that we got it. but I guess that there may be times when we will be concerned about an organization like the competitiveness council. which nobody knows whole lot about and nobody knows who does what to whom there. We don't think that you should have to go around the back door to groups that are not out there in the open and who do not function in a substantive area to achieve this kind of objective."

No less controversial than the council's

involvement in the recycling issue was its work in setting back another proposal dear to Reilly: his effort to eliminate the pollution that obscures the magnificent vistas around the Grand Canyon. Invoking the clean an laws. Reilly sought a steep reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions from the Navajo Generating Station, a coal-fire power plan: S0 miles northeast of the park.

Reilly origin. goal was to gain a 90 per cent reduction in the plant's sultur dioxide emissions, but he encountered stiff opposition from within the Administration and from: the plant's operators. Another complication: The Interior Department's Bureau of Reclamation owns more than a 20 per cent stake in the plant.

D. Michael Rappoport, an associate general manager the Salt River Proj eet. which operates the generating sta tion, contended at the costs of meeting Reilly's get were astronomical. reaching into the billions of dollars.

"We came to the conclusion that there is no empirical or common-sense basis for imposing those costs on customers for minimal benefits] that might arise." Rappoport said. "We were concerned fundamentally the: FPA was not hearing our concern and was proceeding on a regulatory track that had very significant [monetary consequences. We began to look for other opportunities to share our

concern."

Those opportunes included a stop at the President's Concil on Competitiveness. "What the competitiveness council provided was an opportunity to get economic considerations into the equation. which often are overlooked." Rappoport

But Doniger said that the 70 per cent standard means there is three times as much pollution. "It's really a question of whether you'll have 10 per cent of pollution left or 30 per cent." he said.

The council is sure to draw further fire from environmentalists with its recent announcement that it would be taking. look at the government's Wetlands Deim cation Manual which specifies environmentally sensitive areas that require a permit before they can be developed. In a Max press release. the council realfirmed Bush's commament to a policy of "no net loss" or wetlands while it promot ed such legitimate land use as farming. housing development and construction of roads and airports.

Colton, for one, is pleased by the council's review of the wetlands issue. "It's very useful to have somebody say. Let's be concerned about the environment. but let's recognize that you need balance in some of these areas in order to achieve what needs to be done." he said. "Some of these fenvironmentalists] might be upset because they do have the car of the bureaucracy and have been able to work closely with the EPA. They certainly would be opposed to somebody else entering the picture and trying to facilitate a dialogue that would achieve a balance. but everybody plays the game the best they can."

Indeed. perhaps the smoothest players of all are Hubbard and McIntosh, who have adroitly used the trump cards that Quayle dealt them. to the chagrin of environmentalists.

S 17608

Al Barkan was born in Bayonne, NJ. He was a 1933 graduate of the University of Chicago, with degrees in economics and political science. After college, Al taught English for awhile in Bayonne and then began to work as a volunteer for the Textile Workers Organizing Committee. That was the beginning of his rise in the labor union movement. After his service in World War II aboard the U.S.S. Alabama, he became executive director of the New Jersey CIO Council, and was then appointed political director of the Textile Workers Union he had helped organize.

In 1955, Barkan was appointed assistant director of the newly merged AFL-CIO's political arm and was then appointed director by AFL-CIO President George Meany in 1963. Ever the innovator, an election in New Jersey in 1964, led Barkan to notice that an unusually thorough union member list had been compiled. By the end of the decade Barkan's computerized voter lists had revolutionized political volunteer work.

Barkan's career guiding lights were his beliefs that domination of the political process by elites of any persuasion was detrimental and that economic injustice was a possible consequence whenever elected officials strayed from contact with everyday folk. Everyday people who worked hard and made this country great were Al Barkan's constituents. Those are the people who will deeply feel the loss of Al Barkan. On October 18, after a long struggle with lung cancer Al Barkan passed away. He was 81. My sympathies go out to Al's wife, his two daughters, and his four grandchildren.

In 1861, President Abraham Lincoln during an address in Cincinnati, OH, expressed his view of man's duty to man. "I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but assist in ameliorating mankind. I am for those means which will give the greatest good to the greatest number."

Al Barkan spent most of his life trying to do the greatest good to the greatest number. He was a delightful man. His many friends will miss him.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the obituary from the Washington Post be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the obituary was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

ALEXANDER E. BARKAN DIES; HEADED AFLCIO COMMITTEE

(By Bart Barnes) Alexander E. Barkan, 81, who as the director of the AFL-CIO's Committee on Political Education (COPE), was one of organized labor's top political operatives during the 1960s and 1970s, died of cancer Oct. 18 at Sibley Memorial Hospital.

Mr. Barkan, a gifted orator and energetic labor evangelist, was one of the last of the Old Guard lieutenants of the late AFL-CIO President George Meany. Mr. Barkan was known in the labor community for an un

ing with people. He was also the crafty gray eminence of labor politics, who was most at home behind the scenes where strings could be pulled and agreements reached out of the public spotlight.

As director of COPE, he had a major say In the distribution of millions of dollars in campaign contributions and the allocation of countless volunteer hours to political candidates. The result was that he was a vital influence in bringing about the election of members of the House and Senate who were friendly to labor.

But he was less successful at the level of formidable power of organized labor within presidential politics, and he saw the once the Democratic Party deteriorate badly during the 1970s, when much of the party machinery was seized by people whom he had attacked as "disciples of the three A's acid, amnesty and abortion." In Mr. Bar. kan's view, the party had been taken over by the "kooks and the crazies."

To know Al was to be lifted by his great vitality and the single-mindedness with

which he pursued trade unionism in general and election victories in particular," AFLCIO President Lane Kirkland said yesterday in a statement released by the union.

A resident of Bethesda, Mr. Barkan was born in Bayonne, N.J. He graduated from the University of Chicago, then returned to Bayonne where he taught high school English at night while helping with union organizing during the day. He wrote a weekly column for union newspaper. "Through Workers' Eyes," in which he denounced capitalist oppression of the working class.

In 1937 he left teaching to work as a fulltime volunteer with the Textile Workers Organizing Committee. He served in the Navy during World War II as a radioman in the North Atlantic and later in the South

Pacific.

New Jersey, where he became a paid staff member of the Textile Workers Union, then executive director of the New Jersey CIO

After the war Mr. Barkan returned to

Council and later political director of the Textile Workers Union.

He came to Washington in 1955 as assistant director of the newly merged AFL CIO's political arm, COPE. Meany named him COPE's director in 1966.

In that role Mr. Barkan presided over an

data on voter registration and statistics, vooperation that included extensive computer luminous files on political candidates and their opponents and data on which campaigns and elections were likely to be of particular importance to organized labor.

He directed an ambitious AFL-CIO cam paign against the election of Richard Nixon

in 1968 and failed, but he was later successful in lobbying on Capitol Hill against Nixon's nominations of Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell to the U.S. Supreme Court.

When Nixon's list of "political opponents or enemies" surfaced during the Watergate hearings of 1973, Mr. Barkan's name was in

cluded, and he took pride in that distinc

tion.

Mr. Barkan was convinced that involve

ment of labor's liberal wing in such divisive social issues as abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment diluted its political effectiveness, and he argued that labor's mainstream constituency would be alienated by alliances with special interest groups.

He left the 1972 Democratic convention that nominated Sen. George McGovern

(S.D.) as its presidential candidate. He said he was convinced that the party had been taken over by "fags, feminists and far-outs." Meany and the AFL-CIO executive council

October 27, 1990

remained officially neutral in the general election.

In December 1972, Mr. Barkan played an influential role in the election of Robert S. Strauss as chairman of the Democratic Na tional Committee, but he feuded bitterly with Strauss two years later when the Democrats institutionalized reforms for se lecting national convention delegates. Mr. Barkan retired in 1981.

Survivors include his wife, Helen Barkan of Bethesda; two daughters, Carol Alt of Po tomac and Lois Wolkowitz of Chatham. N.J.; and four grandchildren.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank (Mr. GLENN] for his courtesy. the distinguished Senator from Ohio

Mr. GLENN. I thank my distinguished colleague from West Virginia and share his views with regard to Mr. Barkan. I knew him and those remarks are very well taken. I associate myself with those remarks of the distinguished Senator from West Virginla

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have to object for another Member on this side of the aisle.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

The Senator from Ohio.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to call the attention of my colleagues to a serious disservice which I believe may take place if the Senate is unable to act on this legislation to reauthorize the Paperwork Reduction Act.

That act is not too well known. It was first put in place since 1980. This legislation is titled The Federal Infor

mation Resources Management Act. This legislation would reauthorize the popular if yet to be fully realized Paperwork Reduction Act, which created the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, better known as OIRA, at the Office of Management Budget.

and

The legislation not only would have furthered the purpose of the original Paperwork Reduction Act, in cutting Government redtape, but it also would set a new electronic information policy for the Federal Government, as well as

strengthen and modernize the existing Government information infrastruc ture and statistical data base.

It may not be very well known, but OIRA is a highly important Government agency because of this: It is where all the rules and regulations written by the Departments and agencies pursuant to the laws we pass, it's where they go for review prior to being implemented. While it may be one of the least known, I would submit that that agency has to perform one

October 27, 1990

S 17609

It was making sure that everyone would know what was going on, that it was fair for all.

S. 1742, which is Calendar Order No. 901, was introduced about a year and three-quarters ago, almost 2 years, and it has been the subject of extensive hearings and exhaustive work by the Committee on Governmental Affairs and its Subcommittee on Government Information. On June 7, 1990 the legislation was ordered reported from the Governmental Affairs Committee by a unanimous vote of 14 yeas to 0 nays. This was after a controversial amendment to strike the regulatory review disclosure provisions proposed for OIRA was narrowly defeated on a tie vote.

The committee then negotiated an agreement with the administration to remove the controversial provisions in the bill and to issue an Executive order on the subject of those provisions. As a result the administration has delivered a very strong statement from the White House in support of this legislation.

That is one of the reasons I am surprised to see it objected to on the other side.

But, according to the October 24, 1990, statement of administration policy, and I quote from their letter:

The Administration strongly supports passage of S. 1742 (with Committee amendment substitute) reauthorizing the Office of In

formation and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for four full years from enactment. While S.

1742, as reported by the Committee on Governmental Affairs, contained a number of items on which Senior Advisors recommended veto, a compromise has been reached which accommodates Administration and small business concerns.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the entire statement of the administration be printed in the RECORD following my remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With out objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr. GLENN. The agreement between the Senate and the administration has been agreed to by the House managers and it is our understanding the bill would have been acted upon immediately by the full House of Representatives had we been able to carry through on the unanimous-consent agreement that we had last evening.

Mr. President, I just have to question this. The question I have is, since the administration supports this bill, and since the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee supports this bill, reported it favorably, and since the House is prepared to adopt our bill and send the bill directly to the President, why have we been unable to call it up for action in the Senate and make reauthorization of the Paperwork Reduction Act a law?

The measure is being held now by an "anonymous" hold-I find that deplorable-an anonymous hold on the Republican side, despite the strong support of the administration. I was told earlier this evening that the first person to put on that anonymous hold

Mr. President, my colleagues know I am not usually given to caustic, partisan remarks on the Senate floor, but I must point out that this is solely a Republican anonymous hold. We have it completely cleared on the Democratic side. Originally some of the strongest opposition to this legislation was on the Democratic side. But that was all cleared up with the changes we made in the agreements we worked out with the administration.

I do find it deplorable that, after having this cleared last evening, suddenly, anonymously, a Senator, or a combination of Senators on the Republican side, remaining anonymous, can stand this evening and prevent a bill, take their stand against paperwork reduction. Anonymous Senate Republicans can come out against the nomination of Mr. Blumstein to head up OIRA, which the President and OMB have lobbied, and lobbied, and lobbied for. Anonymous Senate Republicans are against the strong desire of the President and OMB for this legislation. Anonymous Senate Republicans are against regulatory reform that is covered by this. Anonymous Senate Republicans are against cutting Government red tape, against setting

new electronics information policy. and apparently against strengthing and modernizing our Gov. ernment information infrastructure, and statistical data base.

Mr. President, not long ago, just a few weeks ago, one of the major papers in this country wrote a lead editorial about this. They made an unusually personal and vitriolic castigation of me by claiming that I was trying to gut OIRA.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. President, they said that I had eliminated the objective of a 5 percent reduction a year in paperwork. Mr. President, I submit that was eliminated not because of any quarrel with the objective but because no one can measure it is 5 percent, 10 percent, 50 percent. Recently, we reached an agreement with the administration on this bill allowing, under certain circumstances, the setting of goals for paperwork reduction.

Mr. President, I was further criticized, because in this legislation we worked out with the White House and with our colleagues over in the House of Representatives, we would require OIRA to explain in writing the reason for modifying a rule or regulation sent to it. Now the purpose of that was not to have any leverage over the agency.

It was not just for the benefit of big business, not just for the benefit of anyone. It wa not just Government for those who could afford a Washington lobbyist to follow the rulemaking and regulation process of Government for them. This made it fair for every single person dealing with rules and regulations of the Federal Government, which really is every single American citizen.

As the paper said, OIRA is the cop. and I agreed with that. They have enormous power. And what this does is see that they exercise that power wisely, and in the open, and for the benefit of all Americans. This legislation would make it fair and workable.

I think too much time and energy and effort on both sides on the aisle have gone into this bill to allow it to be blocked at this time. I certainly would like to see that blind hold on

the other side of the aisle taken off. I have no illusion that that is going to occur this evening. But the delicate reached agreement between the

Senate managers and the Administration is especially important because I made it clear unless OIRA is reauthorized, I cannot, in good conscience, go ahead with the nomination of Mr. James Blumstein to be the OIRA Administrator when there is no statutory authorization for the position to begin with.

I was accused of delaying Mr. Blumstein's confirmation hearing, and that was flat not true. I took the position that without an authorized position there was no position for him to be confirmed for.

So when we finally got agreement back a week or so ago on this bill and knew we had it signed off-thought we had it signed off, on both sides of the aisle-I immediately scheduled Mr. Blumstein's hearing in the Governmental Affairs Committee. He flew in, we had his confirmation hearing, and had this bill been approved tonight, I was fully prepared to push for his confirmation on the Senate floor because we had completed the hearing.

But I refuse to do that and that is not any obstinacy on my part. It is just that Mr. Blumstein would be confirmed for a position that does not officially exist.

This is not the back room blackmail that was alleged in the editorial because we only recently have had an OIRA OK; we immediately held the Blumstein hearing; had agrement by unanimous consent; Mr. Frank Hodsoll over at OMB worked very hard on this for the last day or so and we had complete agreement. Now we seem to be thwarted in getting this legislation to the floor.

At this late date in our session, there is very little else I can do, except deplore the situation. If the legislation is not enacted obviously we cannot go