[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 78 (Monday, June 20, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                         PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John 
Libonoti and Renee Orme, two legislative fellows and Peter Wood, an 
intern in my office be granted floor privileges during deliberation on 
H.R. 4539, the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, today, along with my ranking member, 
Mr. Bond, I bring to the full Senate the committee recommendations on 
fiscal year 1995 appropriations for the Department of the Treasury, the 
U.S. Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain 
independent agencies.
  The committee bill which we recommend contains total funding of $23.6 
billion. This amount is $1.1 billion above the fiscal year 1994 enacted 
level; $226 million above the House bill; but $996 million below the 
President's budget request. Of the increase above the 1994 level, $709 
million is for mandatory programs over which the committee has little 
control. For domestic discretionary programs, the committee bill totals 
$11.7 billion or $800 million below the budget request. When you take 
out the IRS compliance initiative, totalling $405 million, which was 
provided for in the budget resolution outside of the discretionary 
caps, the discretionary funding in the bill is actually $1.2 billion 
below the President's requested level. In addition, without the IRS 
compliance initiative, the committee bill is right at a 1994 freeze 
level, or as some may say, ``a freeze in 1994 funding.''
  As a result, this year the committee had the difficult task of trying 
to formulate a bill which would adequately fund the President's 
priorities, law enforcement, personnel management, taxpayer service and 
returns processing, and Federal building requirements. Under the 
circumstances, I think we have done an excellent job. The bill reported 
by the committee provides funding of:
  The sum of $10.5 billion for the Department of the Treasury;
  The sum of $102 million for the Payment to the Postal Service Fund 
for free mail for the blind, overseas voters, and payment on the debt 
to the Postal Service for subsidies to preferred rate mailers;
  The sum of $162.5 million for Funds Appropriated to the President for 
Federal Drug Control Programs;
  The sum of $733 million for GSA for the construction of new Federal 
office buildings and courthouses;
  The sum of $11.7 billion in various mandatory Government payments of 
the Office of Personnel Management for annuitant and employee health, 
disability, retirement, and life insurance benefits; and
  The sum of $338 million for various independent agencies.
  For the Treasury law enforcement bureaus, the committee bill includes 
an increase of $12 million above the budget request to restore 212 
full-time equivalent positions which were proposed for elimination 
under the President's executive order on work force reduction.
  Mr. President, I support the President's efforts to reduce the size 
of the Federal work force. And, I commend our distinguished committee 
chairman, Mr. Byrd, for using the savings from the 252,000 positions 
over 5 years to fund the crime legislation which is currently before 
conference committee.
  What I do not support, however, is the reduction of Federal law 
enforcement personnel. The very agencies who will be charged with 
implementing many of the new provisions in the crime bill, if there is 
one, and I believe there will be, the Brady Act, and a potential 
assault weapons ban, must have the personnel and resources required to 
ensure that these laws are properly enforced.
  This cannot be accomplished by cutting the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
and Firearms, the agency which oversees firearms compliance and 
enforcement; or the Customs Service, which enforces money laundering 
and drug smuggling statues; or the Secret Service, which enforces 
counterfeiting, entitlement, financial institution, and access device 
fraud.

  The only way this so-called war against crime can be effective is 
through the combined efforts of Federal, State and local law 
enforcement.
  I believe it is a big mistake to cut the strength of our Federal law 
enforcement agencies at a time when the American pubic is telling us 
that crime is the No. 1 problem in the country. I support placing an 
additional 100,000 police officers on the beat, which the President 
advocates. But I do not think they can properly do their job without 
the Federal agencies. Federal law enforcement agents are assigned to 
State and local anticrime task forces all across this country. Here in 
the District of Columbia several different task forces operate 
utilizing the expertise and manpower of the Federal agencies. We have a 
horrendous crime problem in the District of Columbia. I cannot imagine 
what it would be like if the local law enforcement agencies were unable 
to tap Federal law enforcement officers for investigative enforcement 
support and prosecution.
  Last year the Congress adopted a provision included in the fiscal 
year 1994 Treasury Appropriations Act exempting Treasury law 
enforcement from the Executive order reductions. For fiscal year 1995, 
we are continuing that provision.
  With reference to illegal drugs, the committee bill includes $98 
million for support of Federal, State, and local law agency activities 
in the six designated high intensity drug trafficking areas [HIDTA's]. 
Over the past 5 years, we have witnessed the success of coordinated law 
enforcement efforts through the HIDTA program in Miami, New York, Los 
Angeles, Houston, and the Southwest border. These funds go to support 
multiagency law enforcement operations aimed at disrupting major 
trafficking organizations. In 1994, the Baltimore-Washington 
metropolitan area was added to the list. As a result in fiscal year 
1995 this area will receive the funding assistance of the HIDTA program 
to reduce drug trafficking and distribution.
  Also, in fiscal year 1995, funding of $12 million will be provided to 
Puerto Rico-U.S. Virgin Islands area for HIDTA activities. This area is 
a hotbed for trafficking, distribution, and related crimes. And because 
these are U.S. territories, once illegal drugs make it into this area, 
they have a direct line into the U.S. mainland. The additional $12 
million provided in the committee bill can only be expended if the 
Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy determines that 
Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands meet the criteria for a HIDTA 
designation and takes action to designate this area. I have received 
every indication from the drug czar's office that this will occur.
  On this same subject, the committee bill also includes $1.5 billion 
for the U.S. Customs Service. This amount contains the restoration of 
roughly one-half of the funds proposed for reduction by the President 
for Customs air and marine interdiction activities or an additional $24 
million. The President's reduction for these activities was based on a 
revised drug interdiction strategy which will focus increased attention 
on the source-countries and reduce interdiction in the transit zones. 
The theory being that if you build a fence around the area where the 
flights are originating from, you will not have to worry about 
interdiction in the area where the drugs would transit. Realistically, 
however, we are never going to build a solid wall around the source 
countries. In fact, the current impasse with the Department of Defense 
from its legal interpretation that surveillance flights in Colombia and 
Peru cannot continue, has left the entire area wide open. We have 
already seen a shift so quickly when those assets have been shut down 
for drugs coming out through particular countries.
  I hope the new strategy works. But, I am skeptical. For this reason, 
the committee bill restores funds to Customs to maintain a sufficient 
level of U.S. border and transit zone interdiction capabilities and $20 
million to permit the drug czar to have funds on a contingency basis if 
in fact the threat increases as a result of the new policy.
  And here, Mr. President, I thank the ranking member, Mr. Bond, for 
his concurrence and his leadership in bringing about this restoration. 
He feels as I do, or I feel as he does, that it is not a wise strategy 
to abandon the transit zone in interdiction, and he played a major role 
in helping us find the little bits of restoration. I think he will 
agree with me that we would like to restore the full amount, but that 
was impractical.
  With reference to the GSA building construction with repairs and 
alterations programs, the committee has included funding for a handful 
of projects which have not been authorized. However, unlike in past 
years, we have included a provision on each project that is not 
authorized that the funds provided may not be obligated until the 
Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee and the House Public 
Works and Transportation Committee have approved the projects. These 
funds cannot be spent until that occurs. However, by providing the 
funds for needed projects it will eliminate delays if and when the 
authorization is approved.
  There are two initiatives in the President's budget that the 
committee could not fund. The first was $999 million for the GSA lease-
conversion program. This money would have been spent by GSA to convert 
costly leases which are due to expire into Government-owned space. This 
plan would save the Federal Government approximately $2.6 billion 
according to GSA over the long-term. Unfortunately, we did have the 
budget authority and outlays required to fund this initiative and I 
find that regrettable.
  Mr. Johnson, the administrator, has indeed taken on a thankless task 
as administrator of GSA and come up with initiatives that really are 
worthwhile and would be used in the private sector. I compliment his 
for that. I wish we could have been able to do this. I hope in the 
future that some of his ideas will be implemented. Some of them do not 
take legislation, but this one took legislative action.
  Second, we were unable to fund the President's requested increase of 
$314 million for the modernization of the Internal Revenue Service's 
antiquated tax systems. Modern communications and computer technology 
are basic tools in almost every industry in this country. For the IRS 
this is not the case and our revenue generation system and the 
taxpayers are suffering as a result. Again, I find it unfortunate that 
we could not fully fund this initiative, but the President's budget 
assumed user fees totaling $246 million that the appropriators could 
not authorize.
  I compliment Commissioner Richardson for her leadership here in 
attempting to bring about a change in the Internal Revenue Service to 
modernize it. As I discussed with her on a number of occasions, this 
agency truly needs an overhaul on internal operations and that ought to 
be the priority versus additional taxpayer services and compliance, and 
what have you, that are all very important. This system has not run 
well in the past--and it could. And she is responsible for the 
improvement so far, and I hope that in the future we can continue to 
fund some of these modern communications computer technology systems.
  Lastly, with respect to IRS, the committee bill does fund the 
President's tax compliance initiative for the IRS which was provided 
for in the budget resolution outside the discretionary caps. I support 
this, Mr. President, although I have some reservations. These kinds of 
funds ought to be dedicated to the modernization of the system and 
making it really functional and available. But notwithstanding that we 
did fund this proposal.
  This initiative will produce, we are told, additional revenues of 
between $9 and $10 billion over the next 5 years and will cost the 
Government $405 million in fiscal year 1995. I truly, truly hope that 
is accurate.
  I think this is a good and responsible bill. Mr. President, I commend 
the ranking member, Mr. Bond, and the staff on both the minority and 
majority sides for putting this together on very short notice, working 
over the weekend, both Saturday and Sunday, and last week getting from 
subcommittee to full committee. I appreciate the bipartisan fashion in 
which Mr. Bond has helped formulate and present this to the full 
Senate. We feel that we have prioritized and put forward the highest 
priorities.
  I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. Bond.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heflin). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I must begin by complimenting our chairman, 
the Senator from Arizona, Senator DeConcini, for doing an excellent job 
in a very difficult time.
  As he has already said, and I will relate further, this has been a 
year when we have not had the funds to do what we believe we must do. 
Yet he has done an excellent job in establishing priorities.
  I want to join with the Senator from Arizona in thanking our staffs 
on both the majority and the minority sides for preparing this and 
bringing this to the floor as quickly as they have, particularly in the 
difficult financial situation in which we find ourselves in the 
Treasury-Postal Committee.
  Let me take a few minutes, as we begin the deliberations on the 
fiscal year 1995 Treasury-Postal Service and general Government 
appropriations bill, to discuss some of the things we have been able to 
do in this bill and some of the things we would like to have been able 
to do but we could not do.
  Senator DeConcini has already outlined the highlights of the bill. He 
has indicated the aggregate totals and also how the bill compares to 
the President's and the House-passed bill.
  Let me reiterate the point that this bill is tight. We have had to 
make significant reductions. This bill is almost $800 million below the 
President's request. In fact, if we were not to include the tax 
collection initiative of $400 million the President requested following 
the submission of the budget, causing us a good bit of difficulty, this 
bill would be $1.2 billion--that is a billion dollars--below the 
President's budget request.
  If you were to discount the IRS initiative and the mandatory 
increases in this bill, the fiscal year 1995 bill would be about the 
same amount as we appropriated last year.
  Mr. President, as the chairman indicated, reaching this level has 
clearly not been easy. I believe that the committee has done an 
excellent job in making the numbers fit within the dollars available.
  The administration has raised some questions about the funding levels 
that were included in this bill, especially why did there is no funding 
for the IRS tax systems modernization program and the General Services 
Administration request for new construction and acquisition.
  I cannot argue with them. We should have funded both of these 
proposals at the requested level. They are both meritorious and, were 
we to fund them, they would save the taxpayers significant dollars in 
future years.
  So if this is the case, one might reasonably ask, why the committee 
not fund the programs at the President's request? The first reason is 
the President's budget exceeded the caps by over $3 billion. The Office 
of Management and Budget could not make up its mind, so the Budget 
Committee had to. The Budget Committee had to present a budget 
resolution which made the appropriate reductions to make the budget we 
are working with conform to the budget agreement and its respective 
caps.
  Second, the budget as submitted to us included a number of user fees 
which offset appropriations for the Internal Revenue Service and the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. I do not know why the 
administration thought the Appropriations Committee could enact these. 
The Finance and Ways and Means Committees have jurisdiction and, in 
fact, have rejected some of these fees in the past years. The fees 
total almost $250 million. That just adds to our problem. How do we 
offset this funding requirement?
  The President could not make up his mind as to what his priorities 
are. We have had to do this. This bill shows these priorities as it is 
presented here today. We have funded programs, especially law 
enforcement, as priorities. We have restored funding to several law 
enforcement agencies. In fact, I would like to be able to restore more, 
but the allocation is such that we were just not able to do so.
  Mr. President, let me take just a few moments to discuss law 
enforcement. And I intend to discuss this further when time permits 
later on in the consideration of this measure.
  The President's budget significantly reduced staffing and funding for 
law enforcement. He proposed to reduce the number of law enforcement 
personnel and to reduce significantly the Customs' air and marine 
programs, the latter because the administration claims it has decided 
to refocus drug interdiction efforts from the transit zones between the 
producing countries and the United States to the producing countries 
themselves.
  Mr. President, I hope this works, as do many others. But I am a 
realist, not a dreamer. The drug strategy outlines the proposal. That 
strategy, in part, states that the efforts will concentrate on getting 
producing countries to work to solve the problems.
  I have yet to see a crop substitution program that works, however. I 
have even less confidence that the Secretary of State will make drug 
eradication his No. 1 priority. We have seen the problems already, as 
Senator DeConcini has pointed out, as the administration has cut off 
real-time intelligence support to Bolivia and Peru, leading to 
significant questions about their ability and their willingness to 
continue these efforts.
  Moreover, the emptiness of this promise can be shown by the 
administration's request in foreign operations for funds to use in 
those countries, because the funds requested for fiscal year 1995 are 
below the actual fiscal year 1993 funding level.
  Mr. President, I submit you do not achieve major new initiatives by 
reducing the money available to pursue them.
  Now, on the other hand, the air and marine interdiction of drugs have 
worked. We seem to have forgotten that. Ten years ago, we read every 
day about planes and boats violating the Florida coast. That does not 
happen today. Why? Because we have met the challenge and the 
narcotraffickers have changed their operations. I know our colleagues 
from Florida have contacted us repeatedly that they fear, as I do, that 
it will not take long for the narcotraffickers to return to their old 
ways if we take down the fence that we have constructed and has been 
effective.
  That is the reason the subcommittee has restored funding for the air 
program. We do not want the administration's efforts to fail, but we 
are realists. We want to ensure that law enforcement has the tools to 
do their job.
  The bill also includes restoration of funding for law enforcement 
agents the President proposed for reduction. We have restored 212 
positions--110 at Customs, 71 at Secret Service, 22 at Alcohol, Tobacco 
and Firearms, 7 at the Law Enforcement Training Center, and 2 at the 
Financial Crimes Enforcement Center.
  Mr. President, I am very supportive of the President's efforts to 
reduce Federal employment. Some will say that this restoration 
undermines that effort. I disagree.
  I think law enforcement of Federal law, areas such as international 
and interstate drug and crime initiatives, is a top priority.
  I personally do not understand how the President can call for funding 
50,000 to 100,000 new rookie cops on the street while, at the same 
time, reducing vital Federal law enforcement. I have talked about this 
with law enforcement officials at the State and local levels throughout 
Missouri, as well as some from around the country. They agree with me.
  Federal law enforcement provides unique support to State and local 
law enforcement. All of the officials I have spoken with question the 
sense behind this move. I hope that this small restoration we have made 
will show that there is an appreciation of these efforts and that it 
will enable them to continue the vitally important battles they must 
fight.


                       tax systems modernization

  Mr. President, as the chairman stated, and I indicated earlier in my 
statement, we had to find funding somewhere in this bill to make up for 
the allocation reduction and fees proposed to offset appropriations.
  Funding for the Internal Revenue Service Comprise almost 65 percent 
of the discretionary spending in this bill. In order to make up the 
magnitude of the funding shortage caused by the request for the user 
fees, it is obvious where we have to go.
  The budget resolution that was adopted by this body says that in 
order to fund the IRS collection initiative, no funding can be reduced 
from tax collection accounts. That leaves only information systems or 
tax processing.
  Mr. President, this is not an acceptable option, but it is what we 
are faced with.
  Tax systems modernization is vital to future tax collection efforts. 
Failure to fund the request in this bill does not mean the committee 
disapproves of the TSM effort. Quite to the contrary. The committee--
the chairman and I--strongly supports TSM and would have funded it at 
the highest level possible under the circumstance.
  We would like to do more. We have been able to restore a very few 
dollars because of a scoring change, but the resources are still not 
there. We are not able to provide the assistance to the IRS in 
modernizing their tax system, the modernization of the system, and we 
feel the failure to do so will deprive us of the benefits for the 
future.
  The committee has also reduced the administration's $999 million 
program for construction and acquisition to zero. Once again, this 
proposal would allow the Federal Government to consolidate its space 
requirements and seek the most favorable housing arrangements. This 
proposal would be a major change in the way Government does business. 
It would be a change for the positive. I think it would give the 
taxpayers significant savings in future years. Unfortunately, we just 
do not have the money.
  I certainly hope we can--and I ask the President and the budget 
people in OMB to--in preparation of the fiscal year 1996 budget, 
reflect the high priority the tax systems modernization and GAO 
acquisition should have. As I said before, this is a tight bill. It 
does not include all we would like, but I believe it is responsible. I 
think the choices we have made, though difficult, have been the most 
responsible choices. I hope and trust a majority of this body will 
agree with us, and I look forward to working with the chairman and 
other colleagues as we proceed to work on and offer and act upon 
amendments to this bill.
  (At the request of Mr. Byrd, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record at this point:)


              statement on treasury/postal appropriations

 Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, the Senate Budget Committee has 
examined H.R. 4539, the Treasury/Postal appropriations bill and has 
found that the bill is under its 602(b) budget authority allocation by 
$330 million and under its 602(b) outlay allocation by $14 million.
  I compliment the distinguished manager of the bill, Senator 
DeConcini, and the distinguished ranking member of the Treasury/Postal 
Subcommittee, Senator Bond, on all of their hard work.
  Mr. President, I have a table prepared by the Budget Committee which 
shows the official scoring of the legislative branch appropriations 
bill and I ask unanimous consent that it be inserted in the Record at 
the appropriate point.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE SCORING OF H.R. 4539, FISCAL YEAR 1995 TREASURY,
               POSTAL APPROPRIATIONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL              
                          [Dollars in millions]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Budget               
                 Bill summary                    authority     Outlays  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary totals:                                                   
  New spending in bill........................       11,719        9,293
  Outlays from prior years appropriations.....  ...........        2,986
  Permanent/advance appropriations............            0            0
  Supplementals...............................            0          -33
                                               -------------------------
    Subtotal discretionary spending...........       11,719       12,246
Mandatory totals..............................       11,976       11,973
    Bill total................................       23,695       24,219
    Senate 602(b) allocation\1\...............       24,025       24,233
                                               -------------------------
      Difference..............................         -330          -14
                                               =========================
Discretionary Totals above (+) or below(-):                             
President's request...........................         -888         -396
House-passed bill.............................          184          -30
Senate-reported bill..........................  ...........  ...........
Senate-passed bill............................  ...........  ...........
  Defense.....................................            0            0
  International Affairs.......................            0            0
  Domestic Discretionary......................       11,719       12,246
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The Senate 602(b) allocation has been adjusted upward by $405 million
  in both budget authority and outlays for the Internal Revenue         
  Compliance Initiative, as provided in Section 25 of the Concurrent    
  Resolution on the Budget for 1995.                            

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the committee 
amendments to H.R. 4539 be considered and agreed to en bloc, provided 
that no points of order be waived thereon, and that the measure as 
amended be considered as original text for the purpose of further 
amendment.
  Mr. BOND. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee amendments were agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1819

  Mr. DeCONCINI. I send a series of technical amendments to the desk 
and ask for their immediate consideration en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. DeConcini] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1819.

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 63 of the bill, line 20, strike ``$199,697,000 and 
     insert in lieu thereof, ``$200,238,000''
       On page 120 of the bill, line 24, strike ``(2)'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof, ``(4)''
       On page 16 of the bill, line 10, strike ``1,372,614,000'' 
     and insert in lieu thereof, ``$1,388,000,000''
       On page 16 of the bill, line 24, strike ``$1,507,614,000'' 
     and insert in lieu thereof, ``$1,253,000,000''.

  Mr. DeCONCINI. These are purely technical amendments in nature, to 
correct inadvertent errors in the bill in the Archives, GSA, IRS, and 
law enforcement pay sections.
  I believe they have been cleared on both sides. I ask they be adopted 
en bloc.


                    THE GALLERY OF THE OPEN FRONTIER

  Mr. President, this bill includes $100,000 for the National Archives 
and Records Administration [NARA] for the Gallery of the Open Frontier 
project, a digital image library of photographs, paintings, and 
drawings pertaining to the history of the American West drawn from the 
primary collections of NARA.
  The Gallery of the Open Frontier project will begin the immense 
project of developing a descriptively and educationally enriched 
collection of images on the history of the American West including 
images, paintings, and particularly photographs related to the western 
expansion. The gallery will provide a user-friendly digital resource 
that will allow teachers, scholars, and citizens to see and understand 
the struggles and successes of Americans as the Louisiana Purchase was 
pioneered. One of the biggest frustrations for researchers and teachers 
in utilizing NARA materials is identifying particular photographs for 
just-in-time use. Rarely to distinguishing descriptions of individual 
images exist; related images in disparate NARA collections are 
difficulty to correlate; and searchable indices or descriptive data 
bases simply do not exist. The Gallery of the Open Frontier project 
will address these issues by involving scholars and specialists to 
fully identify, describe, and thereby enrich these photographs for 
future use.
  A minimum of 2,000 photographs--which will include entire collections 
from NARA--will be digitized to ascertain the cost and useage patterns 
of such image collections. The project will eventually include tens of 
thousands of images for use in a wide array of contexts.
  It is intended that this on-line resource from the National Archives 
will serve the following essential functions: First, provide the raw 
materials for the creation of teacher- and scholar-created tours, 
educational units, and teaching aids about the history of the American 
expansion into the West, both on-line and on CD-ROM; second, permit 
researchers to easily scan portions of the holdings of the National 
Archives from anywhere in the United States with an Internet 
connection, acquire the NARA identifier of the images, and then order 
copies of those images; third, establish a testbed for developing 
similar digital image libraries from the nonprofit and public sector 
image archives; fourth, provide a service to the educational community 
by making thousands of images easily accessible for historical 
analysis; fifth, establish dependable cost estimates for future 
conversion and descriptive enrichment of NARA image collections; sixth, 
establish preliminary standards for photographic captioning for 
electronic retrieval of digital images; and seventh, create a 
searchable data base of National Archives images for NARA's internal 
use.
  The Gallery of the Open Frontier promises to make NARA collections 
pertaining to western expansion--such as images from the Secretary of 
the Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Western Forts 
collections--come to life for students of American western history. 
This project promises to be a resource of unparalleled value to 
researchers, students, and teachers nationally and internationally, 
permitting them access to the rich history of the American West stored 
in the vast treasure trove of the National Archives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1819) was agreed to.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. 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. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           amendment no. 1820

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Missouri 
and myself, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. DeConcini] for himself and 
     Mr. Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 1820.

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title I, add the following new section:
       Sec.   . (a) The Director of the United States Secret 
     Service shall direct and apply appropriate agency personnel 
     and resources for the purpose of conducting a security survey 
     of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
       (b) Such security survey shall include a review of all 
     general security provisions, including:
       (1) The security and safeguarding of currency.
       (2) Personnel screening and employee background check 
     procedures.
       (3) Access control and identification procedures.
       (4) The security and safeguarding of currency materials 
     supplies and related items.
       (5) Other security areas of concern as deemed relative and 
     appropriate by the agency.
       (c) The Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the Federal 
     agencies which participated in any investigations or arrest 
     of person(s) for theft of currency from the Bureau of 
     Engraving and Printing are directed to:
       (1) provide any assistance and cooperation to the United 
     States Secret Service for the purpose of the security survey, 
     and;
       (2) provide Secretary Service personnel, in accordance with 
     all laws, with access to person(s) arrested in connection 
     with theft or removal of currency from the Bureau of 
     Engraving and Printing, and;
       (3) provide access to all relevant investigative reports 
     and materials: Provided, That (A) access to such persons is 
     approved by the appropriate U.S. Attorney.
       (d) The Director of the United States Secret Service shall 
     provide a preliminary report to the Congress no later than 30 
     days from the date of enactment of this Act, and final report 
     containing specific findings and recommendations to the 
     Congress within 90 days of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering is in 
response to recent breaches of security which resulted in large sums of 
currency being removed from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. The 
arrest, Friday, of a Bureau of Engraving and Printing employee for 
theft of currency from the BEP is cause for grave concern over the 
security procedures, or lack thereof, at the facility responsible for 
the production of our Nation's currency.
  The theft of $1.7 million in $100 bills seems inconceivable and is 
certainly unacceptable. If there is an agency that should be 
implementing the most stringent of security provisions, it should be 
the agency which manufacturers our currency.
  I was pleased to hear that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing 
provided invaluable assistance during the course of the investigation. 
From what I understand, BEP found out about the theft from reports from 
banks which were receiving large cash deposits from the suspect, Mr. 
Robert P. Schmitt, Jr. The banks contacted the IRS because it appeared 
that this individual was attempting to skirt the currency transaction 
reporting requirements by making deposits of sums which were under 
$10,000. The IRS conducted an investigation and identified a suspect, 
who I understand, has confessed to the theft of $100 bills. This 
extraordinary case certainly makes you question the security 
procedures. The Bureau should be preventing these incidents and 
properly safeguarding the currency and related materials.
  The amendment I am sponsoring today directs the U.S. Secret Service, 
which has jurisdiction over U.S. currency, to conduct a full and 
thorough inquiry into the security procedures and systems currently in 
place at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
  The survey conducted by the Secret Service should focus on all 
security procedures, personnel screening, employee background check 
procedures, safeguarding of the currency and manufacturing equipment, 
materials, supplies, and any related areas of concern.
  I applaud the efforts of the banks, the IRS, and the financial task 
force credited with investigating this recent incident. I am, however, 
disturbed at the apparent complacency and lack of security which exists 
at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. I believe this amendment will 
serve to address any deficiencies that exist and will prevent any such 
incidents in the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I share the concern and outrage the chairman 
of the committee has over this embezzlement or theft of money from the 
Bureau. It does seem to be something that should have been prevented by 
the ordinary checks and balances within the system. It is obviously a 
symptom of some major weaknesses in the procedure at the Bureau, and I 
agree with the chairman that this is an appropriate area for careful 
investigation and review by the Secret Service. I trust this will be a 
noncontroversial provision, but a strong directive to the Secret 
Service and to the Bureau that we want to make sure these measures are 
tightened up, procedures are adequate to prevent this activity in the 
future, and I join my chairman of the committee in urging the adoption 
of this amendment.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I thank my friend from Missouri and urge the adoption 
of the amendment, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1820) was agreed to.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. 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. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1821

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. DeCONCINI] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1821.

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill add the following new 
     section:
       Sec.   . Section 5704 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a)(1) Under regulations prescribed under section 5707 of 
     this title, an employee who is engaged on official business 
     for the Government is entitled to a rate per mile established 
     by the Administrator of General Services, instead of the 
     actual expenses of transportation, for the use of a privately 
     owned automobile when that mode of transportation is 
     authorized or approved as more advantageous to the 
     Government. In any year in which the Internal Revenue Service 
     establishes a single standard mileage rate for optional use 
     by taxpayers in computing the deductible costs of operating 
     their automobiles for business purposes, the rate per mile 
     established by the Administrator shall not exceed the single 
     standard mileage rate established by the Internal Revenue 
     Service.
       ``(2) Under regulations prescribed under section 5707 of 
     this title, an employee who is engaged on official business 
     for the Government is entitled to a rate per mile established 
     by the Administrator of General Services, instead of the 
     actual expenses of transportation, for the use of a privately 
     owned airplane or a privately owned motorcycle when that mode 
     of transportation is authorized or approved as more 
     advantageous to the Government.
       ``(b) A determination that travel by a privately owned 
     vehicle is more advantageous to the Government is not 
     required under subsection (a) of this section when payment on 
     a mileage basis is limited to the cost of travel by common 
     carrier including per diem.
       ``(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) and 
     (b) of this section, in any case in which an employee who is 
     engaged on official business for the Government chooses to 
     use a privately owned vehicle in lieu of a Government 
     vehicle, payment on a mileage basis is limited to the cost of 
     travel by a Government vehicle.
       ``(d) In addition to the rate per mile authorized under 
     subsection (a) of this section, the employee may be 
     reimbursed for--
       ``(1) parking fees;
       ``(2) ferry fees;
       ``(3) bridge, road, and tunnel costs; and
       ``(4) airplane landing and tie-down fees.''
       Section 5707(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) The Administrator of General Services shall prescribe 
     the mileage reimbursement rates for use on official business 
     of privately owned airplanes, privately owned automobiles, 
     and privately owned motorcycles while engaged on official 
     business as provided for in section 5704 of this title as 
     follows:
       ``(1)(A) The Administrator of General Services, 
     in consultation with the Comptroller General of the United 
     States, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of 
     Defense, and representatives of organizations of employees 
     of the Government, shall conduct periodic investigations 
     of the cost of travel and the operation of privately owned 
     vehicles to employees while engaged on official business, 
     and shall report the results of such investigations to 
     Congress at least once a year.
       ``(B) In conducting the periodic investigations, the 
     Administrator shall review and analyze among other factors--
       ``(i) depreciation of original vehicle cost;
       ``(ii) gasoline and oil (excluding taxes);
       ``(iii) maintenance, accessories, parts, and tires;
       ``(iv) insurance; and
       ``(v) State and Federal taxes.
       ``(2)(A) The Administrator shall issue regulations under 
     this section which:
       ``(i) shall prescribe a mileage reimbursement rate which 
     reflects the current costs as determined by the Administrator 
     of operating privately owned automobiles, and which shall not 
     exceed, as provided in section 5704(a)(1) of this title, the 
     single standard mileage rate established by the Internal 
     Revenue Service, and
       ``(ii) shall prescribe mileage reimbursement rates which 
     reflect the current costs as determined by the Administrator 
     of operating privately owned airplanes and motorcycles.
       ``(B) At least once each year after the issuance of the 
     regulations described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, 
     the Administrator shall determine, based upon the results of 
     the cost investigation, specific figures, each rounded to the 
     nearest half cost, of the average, actual cost per mile 
     during the period for the use of a privately owned airplane, 
     automobile, and motorcycle.
       ``(C) The Administrator shall report the specific figures 
     to Congress not later than five working days after the 
     Administrator makes the cost determination. Each such report 
     shall be printed in the Federal Register.
       ``(D) The mileage reimbursement rates contained in the 
     regulations prescribed under this section shall be adjusted 
     within thirty days following the submission of the report 
     under subparagraph (C) of this paragraph.''
       Section 5707 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking paragraph (c)(2), and redesignating (c)(1) as 
     subsection (c).

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering will 
provide a system for setting the maximum mileage allowances for 
reimbursement to a Federal employee for the use of a privately owned 
vehicle while engaged in official Government business.
  The purpose of this amendment is to provide equitable reimbursement 
for Federal employees who perform official travel using their privately 
owned vehicles and to collect necessary travel data for use in 
improving travel and relocation management.
  Under existing law, the statutory maximum mileage reimbursements are 
20, 25 and 45 cents per mile for the use of privately owned 
motorcycles, automobiles, and airplanes, respectively. These limits 
have been in effect since September 1980 and are no longer sufficient 
due to the increased cost of operating vehicles.
  The proposed amendment would eliminate the fixed statutory caps and 
require GSA to set the mileage reimbursement rates based on cost. In 
the case of privately owned automobiles, this would limit the mileage 
reimbursement rate to the Internal Revenue Service's business standard 
mileage rate, when the IRS establishes such a single rate.
  This would eliminate the need for recurring legislation as operating 
costs rise.
  The Administrator of General Services presently is required to set 
the mileage reimbursement rates, not to exceed statutory maximums. 
Thus, the law presently allows travelers on official business for the 
Federal Government to receive one level of reimbursement and those in 
the private sector a higher mileage rate for deduction purposes for 
Federal taxes.
  If this amendment is adopted and becomes law, GSA would continue to 
set the appropriate mileage reimbursement rates based on future cost 
analysis, and congressional oversight of mileage reimbursement rates 
would continue through the submission of annual reports to the 
Congress, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5707. This amendment would also have the 
effect of reinstituting GSA's collection data authority.
  Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared by the Governmental 
Affairs Committee. I believe it has been cleared on the other side of 
the aisle. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am advised the measure has been cleared on 
this side of the aisle. It does seem that we ought to be concerning 
ourselves with subjects perhaps more weighty than the mileage 
reimbursement, when other Federal agencies are able to accomplish this.
  We will, of course, maintain our oversight responsibility. The 
authorizing committee, the Governmental Affairs Committee, will watch 
this, as will the Treasury, Postal Subcommittee of Appropriations. I 
believe this is eminently reasonable and will make sure Federal 
employees using their own vehicles are not put at a significant 
disadvantage to those in the private sector.
  I join my colleague, the chairman of this committee, in urging its 
adoption.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1821) was agreed to.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________