[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 13 (Thursday, February 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
     EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] 
has introduced an amendment dealing with a reduction in the urgent 
supplemental that is before us. It is incumbent upon me to not only 
oppose this amendment but also to offer an explanation of the funding 
request.
  The Senate Appropriations Committee bill includes $12.4 million for 
funds to pay the cost of converting thousands of computer tapes to a 
readable format. This expense is in response to numerous Federal court 
orders and appellate decisions in Armstrong versus Executive Office of 
the President.
  The funds are paid for by transfers from the Air Force and a 
reduction in the IRS tax system modernization programs. These funds 
have not been designated as emergency.
  The Armstrong case originated back in 1989 when private citizens 
requested, through the Freedom of Information Act, access to National 
Security Council E-Mail, including Oliver North's E-Mail and other 
information that he had on the computers and the mail system then, as 
well as other agencies of the Executive Office of the President.
  The court determined that the Executive Office of the President had 
to maintain, preserve, and make accessible in a reasonable form such 
mail, or so-called E-Mail backup tapes. The U.S. district court has 
held the Executive Office of the President in contempt including a fine 
of $50,000 a day if they do not comply with that order. Currently, the 
fines are stayed during negotiation with the plaintiff and the 
Government.
  This supplemental provides the resources to make the tape conversions 
mandated by the Court. The Armstrong case focused on E-Mail 
communication during the Reagan and Bush administrations, particularly 
the National Security Council system, that were the subject of the 
Iran-Contra investigations.
  The Bush administration was held in contempt for failing to issue 
recordkeeping guidelines and failing to adequately preserve backup 
tapes.
  So if the Brown amendment carries and we eliminate this money, that 
means the Executive Office of the President will continue to be in 
contempt of court. And talk about the rule of law. That is what is 
before us, to comply with the court order even if we do not like it.
  The Clinton administration has been saddled with this tremendous 
resource burden. It has the burden of coming up with the funds and also 
of providing those backup tapes for the E-Mail for the year that they 
have been in office. To preserve and restore these backup tapes from 
the Reagan-Bush administration through this administration. And that 
costs some money.
  I will include for the record a breakdown of how the money will be 
spent. It covers $4.9 million for conversion of existing tapes. It 
covers $50,000 for purchase of various supplies, $700,000 for a VAX 
mini-computor to process these, and $1.7 million for various hardware, 
software and labor costs. It is all set out in this document which I 
ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Office of Administration Fiscal Year 1994 Supplemental Appropriation 
                  Request Related to Armstrong v. EOP

       For FY 1994, OA is requesting $7.4 million in no-year funds 
     for expenses associated with Armstrong v. Executive Branch of 
     the President. Of that amount, $4.95 million will be used to 
     process backup tapes containing E-Mail messages 
     generated during the Bush Administration and the first year 
     of the Clinton Administration. The remaining $2.45 million 
     will be used to acquire, install and test an Automated Record 
     System, which will be used to process and categorize e-mail 
     currently being generated on the OA system. Further 
     delineation is as follows:


                            conversion costs

       $4.9 million for conversion of existing Bush-era and 
     Clinton backup tapes to ASCII format.
       $50,000 for purchases of various supplies necessary for the 
     conversion process.


                     record management system costs

       $700,000 for the purchase of a VAX mini-computer cluster to 
     provide necessary capability for processing e-mail messages 
     under a rudimentary records management system;
       $1,750,000 for various hardware, software and labor costs 
     associated with installing and upgrading an Automated Records 
     Management System as follows: $225,000 for Data Center 
     Hardware and software; $150,000 for Enhanced Storage Media; 
     $375,000 for Integration/Installation costs; $900,000 for 
     Desktop Integration; and $100,000 for Network Configuration.
                                  ____


National Security Council FY 1994 Supplemental Appropriation Related to 
                            Armstrong v. EOP

       The NSC is seeking a FY 94 supplemental appropriation of 
     $5.65 million for expenses associated with Armstrong v. EOP. 
     The full amount will be used for the preservation, 
     restoration, and processing of tapes containing E-Mail 
     messages from both the Reagan and Bush administrations. 
     Associated costs include software, supplies and labor. NSC, 
     at this time, is not seeking funds for the development and 
     enhancement of an Automated Records Management System, as its 
     current system already possesses sufficient capability to 
     meet its minimal needs.
                                  ____


    USTR 1994 Supplemental Appropriation Related to Armstrong v. EOP

       The Office of the United States Trade Representative is 
     seeking a supplemental FY 94 appropriation of $75,000 for 
     costs associated with Armstrong v. EOP. The funds will be 
     used both for conversion of existing tapes to readable format 
     and for the development of an Automated Records Management 
     system. Costs include hardware, software, and contract 
     support.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. So, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will vote to 
table or in opposition to the amendment of the distinguished Senator 
from Colorado, [Mr. Brown].
  Now, Mr. President, on another amendment that I believe is pending, 
the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], I wish to 
take a few minutes to discuss his amendment which would place a 
moratorium on public building construction and acquisition.
  The Vice President's National Performance Review made a 
recommendation that there be a moratorium placed on the net increase in 
GSA's acquisition of Federal office space with an estimated savings of 
$2 billion. Beginning in July of last year, GSA began what is known as 
a ``Time-Out and Review'' of all new Federal construction and building 
acquisition projects.
  From that review, GSA recommended savings of $127.7 million, the 
amount included by the committee by specific projects for rescission in 
title III of this bill. That is what is in this bill right here, 
exactly what the GSA has recommended.
  The GSA review proposed an elimination of only two Federal building 
projects but savings from many due to reduced scope and value 
engineering. The committee adopted these recommendations.
  It does make sense that if there will be a downsizing in the Federal 
work force, as proposed by the President in his budget last year and 
this year, that the need for increased Federal office space may not be 
totally justified. We have taken that into consideration. So has the 
GSA.
  However, the amendment proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts 
would propose a moratorium on all public building construction and 
acquisition. I believe this goes much too far for many reasons. And it 
may just have the unintended, I am sure, effect of increasing the cost 
to the Federal Government.
  For example, in President Clinton's fiscal year 1995 budget, he is 
requesting $999 million in new budget authority for the acquisition of 
new Federal office space for 48 leases which are due to expire in 
fiscal year 1995. Studies conducted by the GSA just last fall concluded 
that the Federal Government would spend three times--let me repeat 
that. The Federal Government would spend three times as much if they 
renewed these existing leases than if it went out and constructed new 
space or purchased existing buildings. So the amendment of the Senator 
from Massachusetts would prohibit the GSA, as I read it, from taking 
advantage of the most economic housing alternative for the 
Government, based on the market conditions, which just may be direct 
construction or purchase of new buildings owned now by the private 
sector, but converted for Government use.

  I think the Senator from Massachusetts would agree that where our 
courts are concerned the Congress is constantly adding more judges. We 
are constantly federalizing more crimes. Study after study demonstrates 
that prisoners have too far to travel, and this creates a security 
risk. Jurors have to commute long distances, and that creates 
additional costs.
  This dramatically impacts the court and its ability to deliver the 
justice system that we are so proud of in this country.
  Court design changes can save money. There is no question about it. 
We have seen some of that. The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], 
involved himself in reducing the cost of the new Portland courthouse in 
Oregon by over $25 million. And we have included over $100 million in 
savings in the rescission package from value engineering which will 
reduce the cost of many, many courthouses. However, we have no way at 
this time to assess the savings from long-term design changes.
  I want to talk about the Boston, MA, courthouse. This is a $218 
million project that was funded in 3 fiscal years by the Appropriations 
subcommittee that I chair; $184 million in fiscal year 1991 as 
requested by the administration and requested by the Senators from 
Massachusetts, and rightfully which was a commitment by our Government 
to proceed to the construction of this project. Let me repeat that; we 
appropriated $184 million in 1991; another $20 million in 1993; and 
another $14.5 million in fiscal year 1994.
  Approximately $48 million has actually been obligated to date on this 
project. That means that it has been committed and will be spent 
timely.
  I point this out because the Senator's amendment would exempt 
projects already under construction or under contract for acquisition. 
It is very handy because it protects the Boston courthouse. I do not 
blame the Senator. I do think we should protect that courthouse. But I 
think we have other courthouses that are just as important as the 
courthouse in Boston.
  This amendment would terminate most of the other courthouse projects 
where sites have already been purchased and design is already underway. 
And anyone who is familiar with building construction realizes that a 
lot of time and a lot of money and effort go into the design and site 
acquisition activities before you actually see the bricks and mortar.
  So I would hope the Senator from Massachusetts has an idea about what 
the cost to the Government would be for funds already sunk in site 
acquisition and design.
  I would further point out that just because the Boston courthouse 
project was funded in fiscal year 1991 that does not make it any more 
of a priority or necessity than other courthouses planned in 
California, in Arizona, West Virginia, Nevada, New Jersey, or in any 
other State.
  So I urge the defeat of the Kerry amendment on this subject matter.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 6 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________