[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 79 (Tuesday, June 21, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is currently considering Amendment 
No. 1825.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment currently before the body be set aside and that I may be 
permitted to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
amendment currently before the Senate?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado has the floor. He 
has made the unanimous consent request that the amendment that is 
pending be set-aside. The Chair has asked if there is objection.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, at the appropriate time I will offer an 
amendment. It is one that deals with a very straightforward function. 
It deals with the expenses for travel of employees.
  The amendment simply provides that none of the funds in the bill may 
be used to pay for the expenses of travel for employees, including 
employees of the Executive Office of the President, or other 
individuals who are not directly responsible for the discharge of the 
official governmental tasks and duties for which the travel is being 
undertaken.
  It is consistent with current law, including title V of the United 
States Code which authorizes travel expenses for Federal employees and 
individuals traveling on official business. And it also is consistent 
with President Clinton's ``Memorandum on Restriction of Government 
Aircraft.'' That memorandum was issued on February 10, 1993, describing 
``The limited circumstances under which senior executive branch 
officials,'' and that includes employees of the Executive Office of the 
President, ``are authorized to use Government aircraft.''
  Earlier this year, I think Members will recall there occurred an 
unfortunate incident involving the use of military helicopters by White 
House staff for a golf outing which cost thousands of dollars. 
Ultimately, the White House official responsible for arranging that 
excursion reimbursed the Government, and I think the President is to be 
commended for seeing that that reimbursement took place, and I believe 
his action was appropriate in that follow up.
  However, last week, the Associated Press reported that the Defense 
Department had arranged for 26 flights to Europe for as many as 1,000 
individuals, including Government officials, their spouses, staff, and 
others who attended the D-day anniversary celebrations in Normandy. In 
addition, there were aircraft used for President Clinton's entourage 
and White House staff.
  Apparently, all this was done at taxpayer expense and cost literally 
millions of dollars. It is not clear from the information available 
whether all the passengers on these flights were conducting official 
business or discharging ``an agency's official responsibilities,'' 
obviously both terms of art under our law. These are outlined in the 
President's memo last year under the area of restricting use of 
Government aircraft. However, according to a statement made during 
debate on this bill in the other body last week, one of these ``staff'' 
was an unpaid White House intern.
  Imagine the irony. At the same time, many American veterans paid 
their own way aboard commercial flights to Europe to participate in the 
D-day ceremonies.
  My amendment simply makes it clear, in effect, that none of the funds 
in the bill can be used to pay the travel expenses of Federal 
employees, including White House staffers, and others, unless they are 
directly responsible for the discharge of official duties for which the 
travel is being undertaken.
  Madam President, let me emphasize here. Concern over the use of 
travel expenses and aircraft should not be thought to be confined to 
this administration. Other administrations of both parties had had 
trouble in these areas. This is a change in the statutes or 
modification, and I think properly called a clarification, that I think 
should apply to all administrations.
  One should not think that these travel problems are the province of 
only one party. My impression is that both parties have had problems in 
that regard, and this is a change in the law which will be helpful no 
matter who occupies the White House.
  Let me also emphasize that this is not meant to deal solely with the 
White House or the President's family. Clearly, family members do play 
an important role in the foreign policy of our country and travel with 
him is an appropriate and I think a necessary part of the President 
fulfilling his duties at times.
  But this is a measure I think that is needed to make it clear that 
you simply cannot use Government money for non-official functions.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the news 
articles from the Washington Post of June 17, and the Washington Times 
of June 1, and the Wall Street Journal of March 21, on this matter, and 
a copy of the February 10 memorandum on restrictions of Government 
aircraft be printed in the Record following this statement.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                Penatgon Paid the Freight for D-day Fete

       The Defense Department arranged 26 flights to Europe for 
     members of Congress, Pentagon officials, their spouses, staff 
     and others who attended the D-Day anniversary celebrations, 
     the Pentagon said.
       No cost breakdown for the flights was made available, nor 
     did the Pentagon account for aircraft devoted to President 
     Clinton's entourage and other White House support staff in 
     figures released Wednesday.
       The Pentagon flights also carried members of the Cabinet, 
     World War II veterans and high-ranking military officers to 
     the D-Day observance in Normandy, France, the Defense 
     Department said.
       Its statement called World War II ``the defining event of 
     the 20th century,'' and argued observance of the 50th 
     anniversary of the Allied invasion on June 6, 1944, which 
     broke through Hitler's Atlantic Wall, ``deserves Department 
     of Defense support.''
       Since the celebrations, Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) has hit 
     the TV talk-show circuit to complain about the size and cost 
     of the administration's D-Day delegation. He said the air 
     travel bill alone may have topped $6 million.
       On Wednesday night, the House defeated 287 to 147, a 
     proposal by Burton to trim the White House budget by $5 
     million because the White House has not provided full 
     information on Clinton's entourage to Normandy.
       The White House said over the weekend that both it and the 
     Pentagon would provide information to Congress on the eight-
     day trip to Europe.
       The Pentagon statement said there were eight flights for 
     Pentagon officials, five flights for congressional 
     delegations and 13 flights for ceremonial participants.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Times, June 1, 1994]

   United States Invades by Air This Time--30 Official Planes Go to 
                                Normandy

                            (By Paul Bedard]

       Official Washington's invasion of Normandy for the 50th 
     anniversary of D-Day is turning into a major logistical feat 
     requiring more than 30 military aircraft to transport up to 
     1,000 government guests.
       The price is at least $5 million in flying time to get the 
     guests invited by President Clinton, the Pentagon, and House 
     and Senate members to the daylong ceremonies starting at 5 
     a.m. Monday.
       And that doesn't include the costs of hotel rooms, ground 
     transportation and meals for the guests and security and 
     support staff, up to another 700 people, associated with a 
     presidential trip overseas.
       Rep. Dan Burton, Indiana Republican, said he approves of 
     the president going to Normandy for the D-Day ceremonies but 
     noted that ``the estimates are he's going to take a thousand 
     people.''
       ``I think it's the height of arrogance and extravagance'' 
     at a time when the budget is tight, Mr. Burton said.
       Unable to get exact details from the White House and 
     Pentagon about the size of the fleet flying Americans to 
     Normandy, Mr. Burton has assigned aide Kevin Long to call Air 
     Force bases to get a list of aircraft tapped by the 
     administration.
       His preliminary results show that all 89th Air Wing jets 
     based at Andrews Air Force Base that are capable of flying to 
     Europe are being used: 12 in all, including the two Boeing 
     747s assigned to the president. And nine C-141 transports 
     configured to carry cargo and passengers will be sent from 
     Scott Air Force Base in Illinois.
       Four C-9 cargo planes based at Dover Air Force Base in 
     Delaware also will be used, as will four C-141s from a base 
     in New Jersey and cargo and passenger jets from Oklahoma's 
     Tinker and Altus bases.
       White House spokeswoman Dee Dee Myers said yesterday that 
     the White House is responsible only for the two Boeing 747s 
     and aircraft used to carry staff and presidential limousines 
     and helicopters.
       ``This is certainly something that goes much beyond the 
     White House, and this is something the Department of Defense 
     has been working on, as you know, for two years. There are 
     other military aircraft going over there in conjunction with 
     that'' Miss Myers said.
       She rejected Mr. Burton's suggestion that Mr. Clinton is 
     using the flying armada to carry friends and family. She said 
     the White House has no responsibility for who is on the jets 
     other than the two 747s.
       She refused to identify those flying on the 747s other than 
     to mention staff and some Cabinet members. First lady Hillary 
     Rodman Clinton is accompanying the president.
       But the White House did release the manifests of House and 
     Senate members who will use two or three jets from the 89th 
     Air Wing to get to Normandy.
       Twenty-one senators and 35 House members are participating 
     in the ceremonies for D-Day, the June 6, 1944, landing that 
     marked the start of the Allied march to Berlin.
       The Pentagon is helping to manage the ceremonies and is 
     bringing dozens of veterans, current officers and press aides 
     to the one-day event.
       Representatives of all units involved in the assault on 
     Utah and Omaha beaches will be sent, as will service 
     secretaries and the generals and admirals of major commands, 
     especially those in Europe.
       A chartered 747 will fly reporters to Europe to cover Mr. 
     Clinton's visit, which begins tonight and lasts through next 
     week. He will tour Rome, Paris, London and Oxford, England. 
     News organizations using the jet pay for it.
       An administration official suggested that the surging costs 
     associated with U.S. participation in the D-Day anniversary 
     result in part from the need to transport troops from the 
     United States to Normandy.
       When President Reagan made a short visit to Normandy to 
     commemorate the 40th anniversary, many troops were flown from 
     European commands that have been dismantled since the end of 
     the Cold War.
       In addition to transporting American official to the 
     battlefield, the Air Force is sending six F-15 Eagles, six F-
     16 Falcons and a B-1 for ceremonial duties. Air Force 
     flyovers will take place at Utah Beach and the U.S. cemetery 
     in Normandy.
       During the Winter Olympics in Norway, Mr. Burton raised 
     questions about Mrs. Clinton's use of Air Force jets. He also 
     has criticized a White House aide's use of presidential 
     helicopters for a golf outing.
       While strongly supporting U.S. participation in the D-Day 
     ceremonies, Mr. Burton criticized the White House for not 
     inviting representatives of major veterans groups to ride on 
     Air Force One.
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 21, 1994]

           GSA Head Plans to Reimburse U.S. for Trip Expenses

                        (By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum)

       Washington.--Roger Johnson, the head of the General 
     Services Administration, intends to repay the federal 
     government $1,062.55 in expenses following the first of two 
     reviews of his travel records.
       Mr. Johnson, the former chief executive of Western Digital 
     Corp., an Irvine, Calf.-based disk-drive maker, asked for the 
     reviews after The Wall Street Journal obtained his travel 
     vouchers through a Freedom of Information Act request. The 
     vouchers showed that Mr. Johnson visited his residence in 
     California--where his wife was living during five of the nine 
     official trips he took in his first seven months on the job.
       A second probe by his agency's inspector general is 
     continuing.
       In the meantime, aides said Mr. Johnson intends to repay 
     $589 for meals and incidental expenses for four trips that 
     involved stays in his home. He plans to repay another $473.55 
     as the result of an error that reimbursed him for one of his 
     trips at the commercial rate rather than the lower, 
     government-employee rate.
       The review, conducted by Dennis Fischer, the agency's chief 
     financial officer, also discovered that Mr. Johnson was 
     underreimbursed for an air fare by $353, and will be paid by 
     the government for that flight. Mr. Johnson also personally 
     paid for some of his flights back to California, including 
     one during the recent wildfires.
       Mr. Fischer concluded that Mr. Johnson's actions were 
     ``consistent with federal travel regulations,'' as Mr. 
     Johnson asserted they were. Still, Mr. Johnson said he wanted 
     to repay the government for some of the meal and incidental 
     expense payments he accepted while he was staying at his home 
     in order to avoid the appearance of confusing personal with 
     government travel.
       The 59-year-old Mr. Johnson has spent a lot of his time in 
     Washington developing plans for--and promoting--President 
     Clinton's effort to make the federal government more 
     efficient. He also is the administration's highest-ranking 
     Republican and its only former chief executive of a major 
     industrial U.S. corporation. The GSA, a 20,000-person agency, 
     oversees the government's real estate and does much of its 
     purchasing.
                                  ____


 [From the Weekly compilation of Presidential Documents, Feb. 15, 1993]

            Memorandum on Restriction of Government Aircraft

       February 10, 1993.
       Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and 
     Agencies and Employees of the Executive Office of the 
     President.
       Subject: Restricted Use of Government Aircraft.
       The taxpayers should pay no more than absolutely necessary 
     to transport Government officials. The public should only be 
     asked to fund necessities, not luxuries, for its public-
     servants. I describe in this memorandum the limited 
     circumstances under which senior executive branch officials 
     are authorized to use government aircraft.
       In general, Government aircraft (either military or owned 
     and operated by a particularly agency) shall not be used for 
     nongovernmental purposes. Uses other than those that 
     constitute the discharge of an agency's official 
     responsibilities are nongovernmental.
       The Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Attorney 
     General, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and 
     the Director of Central Intelligence may use Government 
     aircraft for nongovernmental purposes, but only upon 
     reimbursement at ``full coach fare'' and with my 
     authorization (or that of my designated representative) on 
     the grounds that a threat exists which could endanger lives 
     or when continuous 24-hour secure communication is required.
       When travel is necessary for governmental purposes, 
     Government aircraft shall not be used if commercial airline 
     or aircraft (including charter) service is reasonably 
     available, i.e., able to meet the traveler's departure and/or 
     arrival requirements within a 24-hour period, unless highly 
     unusual circumstances present a clear and present danger, an 
     emergency exists, use of Government aircraft is more cost-
     effective than commercial air, or other compelling 
     operational considerations make commercial transportation 
     unacceptable. Such authorization must be in accordance with 
     the May 22, 1992, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-
     126, ``Improving the Management and Use of Government 
     Aircraft.'' (The provisions and definitions of this Circular 
     are to supplement but not replace the provisions in this 
     memorandum.) In addition, Government funds shall not be used 
     to pay for first-class travel, unless no other commercial 
     service is reasonably available, or such travel is necessary 
     for reasons of disability or medical condition.
       In order to assist the Administrator of General Services 
     oversight of agency aircraft, all use of Government aircraft 
     by senior executive branch officials shall be documented and 
     such documentation shall be disclosed to the public upon 
     request unless classified. Each agency and the Executive 
     Office of the President shall report semiannually to the 
     General Services Administration and the Office of Management 
     and Budget data relating to the amount of travel on 
     Government aircraft by such officials at Government expense 
     and the amount of reimbursements collected for travel for 
     nongovernmental purposes.
       In addition, all agencies are directed to report to OMB 
     within 60 days of this memorandum on their continuing need 
     for aircraft configured for passenger use in their 
     inventories. OMB, in turn, shall evaluate the sufficiency and 
     effectiveness of current policies. Such review should include 
     a public comment process.
       This memorandum shall apply solely to senior executive 
     branch officials. For purposes of this memorandum, senior 
     executive branch officials are civilian officials appointed 
     by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, 
     as well as civilian employees of the Executive Office of the 
     President.
       Thank you for your assistance in implementing these 
     restrictions.
                                               William J. Clinton.
                                  ____


                Memorandum on Use of Government Vehicles

       February 19, 1993.
       Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and 
     Agencies.
       Subject: Use of Government Vehicles.
       The use of Government vehicles for daily home-to-work 
     transportation of high-level executive branch officials is a 
     privilege designed to facilitate the efficient operation of 
     the Government and to provide security to key Government 
     employees with substantial military and national security 
     responsibilities. In the past, however, this privilege has 
     been abused by certain executive branch officials and has 
     come to exemplify a Government out of touch with the American 
     people. Using such perquisites of office outside of the scope 
     of our mission to serve the public is unacceptable. 
     Accordingly, I believe that there must be a strong 
     presumption against the general granting of this privilege 
     absent security concerns or compelling operational necessity.
       The law authorizes me to designate up to six employees in 
     the Executive Office of the President to receive daily home-
     to-work transportation in Government vehicles. In addition, 
     the law allows me to designate up to 10 additional employees 
     of Federal agencies to receive this benefit. However, for the 
     reasons stated above, in my Administration, no officer or 
     employee of the Executive office of the President or any 
     other Federal agency is authorized by me to receive use of a 
     Government vehicle for daily home-to-work transportation 
     pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1344(b)(1)(B)&(C). The only exceptions, 
     for compelling national security reasons, are the Assistant 
     to the President for National Security Affairs, the Deputy 
     Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and 
     the Chief of Staff of the White House.
       The law also allows Cabinet Secretaries and other Executive 
     Level I officials to authorize one principal deputy to use a 
     Government vehicle for daily home-to-work transportation. The 
     use of Government vehicles for this purpose is simply not 
     appropriate for Government officials at this level absent 
     security or operational requirements. Accordingly, by this 
     memorandum I am instructing you to refrain from authorizing 
     the use of Government vehicles for your deputies for daily 
     home-to-work transportation. This memorandum does not prevent 
     you from authorizing the temporary use of Government vehicles 
     in accordance with the requirements of the law.
       I further direct each executive department or agency to 
     reduce the number of executive motor vehicles (except armored 
     vehicles) that it owns or leases by at least 50 percent by 
     the end of fiscal year 1993. Each agency will report on its 
     compliance to the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget at that time. I order the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget, in consultation with the Administrator 
     of General Services, to issue any further directives 
     necessary to implement this memorandum and to monitor 
     compliance.
       Finally, I urge the head of each agency to strictly enforce 
     the Governmentwide regulations prohibiting the unauthorized 
     use of Government vehicles, including the use of corrective 
     or disciplinary action where appropriate.
                                               William J. Clinton.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, may I inquire if the distinguished 
Senator from Arizona feels it is appropriate to move ahead with an 
amendment at this point.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Let me advise my friend that I am attempting to 
formulate a suggestion to the Senator's amendment. That is the only 
reason I am hesitant to have it pending because if the Senator were 
agreeable to that then I would just ask to offer that amendment, and I 
will have that in a few short minutes.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. If the Senator wants to continue but before he lays 
the amendment down, I would like to offer to him what I think we may be 
able to accept.
  Mr. BROWN. Surely. I appreciate the Senator's willingness to review 
the matter, and I am happy to work with him.
  Madam President, let me emphasize that this does not change in any 
way I think the treatment of the President's family. It certainly would 
be my opinion that the travel by the First Lady and the President's 
family is appropriate, fits in under the current statute, and would not 
be changed by this amendment.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I would like to inquire if the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee would be willing to engage 
in a brief colloquy with me concerning the role of the Internal Revenue 
Service in the potential development of a 101-acre subdivision in 
Tiburon, CA, known as the Harroman property.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I would be happy to do so at this time.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the chairman. The Harroman property was seized by 
the Federal Government in 1965 from a delinquent taxpayer and put into 
receivership in 1984. It has been the target of IRS collection efforts 
since 1965.
  I would like to call the chairman's attention to language in the 
House Appropriations Committee report on the fiscal year 1995 Treasury/
Postal bill which expresses concern that the IRS, through its 
collection efforts with regard to the Harroman property, may 
inadvertently be causing speculative real estate activity which is not 
in the best interest of the Federal Government. The report further 
notes the IRS appears to be promoting development of the Harroman 
property over the opposition of the town of Tiburon and appears to have 
refused to consider alternatives to the subdivision development which 
have been suggested by the Tiburon city council.
  The House committee directs the IRS to fully investigate its role in 
this matter and report its findings to the committee by December 15, 
1994. Such report is directed to include a full accounting of any 
expenses that may have been incurred in the promotion of the 
development of the Harroman property. Further, the IRS is directed to 
cease all activity concerning promotion of the subdivision development 
until the report is completed, and to explore alternative proposals 
with the town of Tiburon.
  Is the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee familiar with the 
House committee report language and is he committed to requiring the 
IRS to comply with the directions contained therein?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I am familiar with the section of the House report to 
which the Senator from California is referring, and I share her concern 
that possibly the IRS has not made a strong enough effort to work with 
the people of Tiburon in reconciling its interests with theirs. I 
expect the IRS to fully comply with the instructions of the House 
Committee and I look forward to receiving the report by December 15 of 
this year.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the distinguished chairman for his cooperation in 
this matter of great importance to the people of Tiburon, CA.
  I ask unanimous consent that the section of the House Appropriations 
Committee report which we have been discussing be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Tiburon, California, Property

       It has been brought to the attention of the Committee that 
     the Internal Revenue Service may be influencing the 
     development of a 101-acre subdivision in Tiburon, California. 
     The property was seized in 1965 by the government from a 
     delinquent taxpayer and in 1984, was turned over to 
     receivership. Since 1965, the property has been the target of 
     IRS collection efforts. The Committee has been informed that 
     through its collection efforts, IRS may be inadvertently 
     causing speculative real estate activity and is concerned 
     that such activity may not be in the best interests of the 
     government. The Committee has also been informed that it 
     appears that the IRS may be promoting this development over 
     the opposition of the Town of Tiburon. The committee has also 
     been informed that IRS has been unwilling to explore City-
     advocated alternatives to the subdivision development.
       In light of this information, the Committee directs the IRS 
     to fully investigate its role in this matter and report its 
     findings to Committee by December 15, 1994. The report shall 
     include a full accounting of any expenses which may have been 
     incurred to date in promotion or furtherance of the 
     development venture. The Committee directs the IRS to cease 
     any activity in which it may be engaged concerning the 
     promotion of this development until such time as the report 
     is completed. The Committee further directs that while the 
     investigation is ongoing, that IRS explore with the City 
     alternatives to the Subdivision development.

                 Processing Tax Returns and Assistance

Appropriation, fiscal year 1994 to date..................$1,695,853,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1995.........................1,616,295,000
Recommended in the bill...................................1,616,295,000
Bill compared with:
  Appropriation, fiscal year 1994...........................-80,558,000
  Budget estimate, fiscal year 1995....................................


                             recommendation

       The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
     $1,516,295,000, the same as the fiscal year 1995 request, a 
     reduction of $80,558,000 from fiscal year 1994.


                                mission

       This appropriation provides for processing tax returns and 
     related documents, processing data for compiling statistics 
     of income and assisting taxpayers in correct filing of their 
     returns and in paying taxes that are due.

                          Tax Law Enforcement

Appropriation, fiscal year 1994 to date..................$4,507,963,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1995.........................3,986,280,000
Recommended in the bill...................................4,413,880,000
Bill compared with:
  Appropriation, fiscal year 1994..........................-404,618,000
  Budget estimate, fiscal year 1995........................-426,300,000
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I would like to take a moment to ask the 
chairman of the subcommittee. Senator DeConcini, a couple of questions. 
But first let me commend the chairman for the work he has done on this 
bill.
  This year, unlike previous years, the congressional process appears 
to have worked rather well. Last year, as chairman of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee, I made a commitment to the Senate that the 
committee would authorize projects in the fiscal year 1995 public 
buildings program prior to action by the Appropriations Committee. By 
authorizing the fiscal year 1995 program on May 26--before the markup 
of the appropriations bill--the Environment and Public Works Committee 
has met its responsibility to authorize projects in a timely manner.
  The General Services Administration's fiscal year 1995 public 
buildings program in the appropriations bill reflects the action taken 
by the Environment and Public Works Committee. However, there are 10 
new construction projects and one repair and alteration project in H.R. 
4539 that are unauthorized projects. By including language in H.R. 4539 
that explicitly requires authorization by both the House Public Works 
Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee, there is an 
assurance that no unauthorized projects receive appropriated funds. I 
commend the Senator from Arizona for recognizing that these projects 
need to be reviewed by the Environment and Public Works Committee 
before any appropriated funds are expended.
  My concern, of course, is the conference report. The House version of 
H.R. 4539 funds many of these authorized projects--without the proviso 
that they be authorized prior to expenditure of funds. This bad policy 
and as chairman of the authorizing committee, I object to this. I would 
like to ask the Senator from Arizona a question--is it his intention to 
hold firm with his House counterparts and insist upon language 
explicitly requiring authorization of all public buildings projects by 
both the House Public Works and Transportation Committee and the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee--prior to the expenditure of 
appropriated funds?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I would like to assure my friend from Montana, 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, that it is 
certainly my intention to insist upon language in the conference report 
accompanying H.R. 4539 that will require authorization of all line-item 
public buildings projects subject to the authorization requirements of 
section 7(a) of the Public Buildings Act of 1959.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my colleague. I would like to ask one more 
question of the chairman of the subcommittee. I am pleased to see that 
the bill before us proposes to rescind funds for a number of projects. 
Projects where savings have been identified by GSA's ``time-out and 
review'' and most recently by the Environment and Public Works 
Committee.
  As the Environment and Public Works Committee considers the 
authorization of the 10 unauthorized projects in H.R. 4539, savings 
could be identified and reflected in the authorized level. This would 
create a situation where the authorization is at a lower level than the 
appropriated amount. Would the chairman of the subcommittee support the 
rescission of the difference in the authorized and appropriated 
amounts?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. As the Senator from Montana has noted, the bill before 
us today does, in fact, rescind over $88 million. After receiving a 
prospectus and other information on any unauthorized project in the 
conference report, should the Environment and Public Works Committee 
identify savings, we would consider rescission or reprogramming of 
these funds to other Federal building fund priorities.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the chairman.
  Madam President, let me again commend the chairman of the 
subcommittee for his work on this bill and also specifically recognize 
him for his years of dedication to the U.S. Senate and the citizens of 
the State of Arizona.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, what is the current business before the 
body?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment No. 1825.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that I be permitted to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Is the Senator asking for recognition?
  Mr. BROWN. I am.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam President.


                           Amendment No. 1826

(Purpose: To limit use of funds for travel expenses to those employees 
  directly responsible for the discharge of the official governmental 
       tasks and duties for which the travel is being undertaken)

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

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1826.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec.   . No part of any appropriation contained in this Act 
     may be used to pay for the expenses of travel of employees, 
     including employees of the Executive Office of the President, 
     or other individuals, not directly responsible for the 
     discharge of the official Governmental tasks and duties for 
     which the travel is undertaken:
       Provided, That this restriction shall not apply to family 
     of the President, members of Congress, Heads of State of a 
     foreign country or their designee(s').

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, this amendment is much like what I 
outlined a few minutes previous to this. It has one addition; that is, 
the ``provided'' clause that makes clear that it does not apply to the 
President's family or foreign heads of State, and so on.
  It does not include all of the language which had been suggested by 
the distinguished Senator from Arizona, but it does seem to me it makes 
it clear that we are not to have the taxpayers pay for people traveling 
on Government aircraft that are not involved in official business. It 
also makes clear that this does not apply to the President's family, 
which obviously is an area that I think most Members would agree have, 
and on a regular basis have in the past, been part of trips and add to 
the value of those official trips
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DeCONCINI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                Amendment No. 1827 to Amendment No. 1826

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. DeConcini] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1827 to amendment No. 1826.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the pending amendment, add the following: 
     ``or other individuals so designated by the President''.

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I understand what the Senator from 
Colorado is attempting to do, and that is restrict the use of travel to 
official business. And that is appropriate.
  I have to say, parenthetically, I do not recall this kind of 
amendment coming up in previous administrations, but I know the Senator 
from Colorado would have offered it had there been an incident like 
there was recently, which I believe prompted this. I do not want to put 
any words in the Senator's mouth, but I just raise it for purposes of 
clarification here. I think we know what we are talking about.
  This amendment is to stop or to prevent people who work for the 
President or for the Government from using official travel--helicopters 
or whatever it may be--for business that is nonofficial business, even 
if it is connected with official business.
  Now I have to object to that. I do not know if the White House 
objects to it or not.
  I think the Senator has a good point. What does bother me about the 
amendment is--and I thank the Senator for expanding it to the 
President's family, Members of the Congress, and heads of State of a 
foreign country or their designees--is that the President himself, in 
my judgment, ought to be able to invite someone that he wants to go on 
a trip with him, even if it were not official business.
  I cannot see any reason that George Bush could not invite a veteran 
to go along with him, even if it was not official business, even if he 
was just traveling with him because he is a friend of his and he may 
want to talk to him. Maybe he is going to talk to him about veterans' 
affairs. Then we might say that is official business, but we do not 
know that it is official business.
  The President of the United States ought to be able to say, ``I want 
this person to go with me.'' I do not think that is asking too much for 
the head of State in the strongest nation and the most economically and 
militarily powerful nation in the world not to be able to say, ``I want 
this person to go with me.''
  The Senator has agreed to other Members of Congress and other things. 
But it just seems to me it is inappropriate.
  What if the President wants his dentist to go with him? Is that 
official business? I would not know. But I would not want to prevent 
the President from taking his dentist.
  President Bush liked to play golf. This President likes to play golf. 
What if he wanted to take his golf pro, so when he is out there on 
official business in California he may want to play golf? Maybe the 
taxpayers would object to that.
  It only places the responsibility on the President to make a decision 
whether or not there is an individual he would like to travel with him. 
I do not think that is unreasonable. I think this is most reasonable, 
that the President ought to be able to do that. I hope the Senator from 
Colorado would agree that this one person in the country--and even if 
he and I, the Senator from Colorado and I, might say that is a foolish 
mistake to take your pro, your golf pro--but it is the President of the 
United States. It is not like we are giving immunity from taxes or 
something like that. We say, if you want to take a friend, somebody who 
is not official business, you can take him on Air Force One with you, 
or he can drive in a limousine out to Camp David with you. If it is a 
friend of his daughter's who is going to go to Camp David to spend the 
weekend and they are going to drive out there, OK, you can come with us 
in our limousine because of our Secret Service concerns. You are my 
friend, I want you to come, whatever--the young lady or young man might 
want to be able to spend the weekend with the President and the family.

  So I think we can get too carried away with this. If the Senator from 
Colorado would accept this amendment, then I suggest to the Senator 
from Missouri that we accept his amendment as amended by me.
  I can go into a great deal of problems with the amendment. The one 
that comes to my immediate mind is veterans, who often travel with 
Presidents, people with disabilities who often travel with Presidents--
I do not know why. Maybe it is official business, but it could be the 
President is extending nothing more than friendship to a particular 
group of people. They may be not veterans. They may be, God forbid, 
lawyers. Maybe he wants to take some lawyers with him that are not for 
official business.
  If the President is going to draw a will, that is not official 
business. If he wants to talk about his legal problems on the airplane 
while he is flying to Miami or to Moscow, which is personal business, 
he ought to be able to take the lawyer with him, or the banker who 
might give him some advice on investments.
  I think this is just way too restrictive, that a President would be 
prohibited from doing that unless he could then demonstrate that it is 
official business.
  So you are asking the President to say, ``gee, I have to conjure up 
some official business here so I can take my banker, or I can take my 
veteran friend, or I can take my lawyer, or my dentist. Because while I 
am flying across the ocean I like to have the work done on my gums and 
they are willing to do it there.'' It is really going way too far.
  I am sure the Senator from Colorado did not have that in mind, but 
that is why I suggested we restrict it to the President's decision. He 
will be responsible to the public interpretation if that is 
unacceptable conduct for a President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I appreciated the summary the senior 
Senator from Arizona has given. I think he pinpoints the disagreement 
between us.
  As Members consider how they will vote on this measure, let me first 
of all note the President has broad authority simply by what he may 
designate as official business. In other words, the President has the 
ability, for example, when traveling to a Veterans Day celebration, to 
indeed make a Veterans Day effort the official business he or she may 
be involved in that day. And the President has enormous ability, under 
the existing statute, to control what is official business, and thus 
enormous authority and breadth of decisionmaking as to who legally 
qualifies, properly qualifies to travel on the airplane.
  The only people this would affect are people who are not in any way 
involved in official business and, regardless of what the President 
designates as official business, could not come under that exception. 
That is a very narrow group.
  Let me also note under title 5, the Federal law now is quite clear 
that the only way you can receive this travel, the only way money can 
be expended for travel, for Government travel, is if it is for official 
business. The difference between my amendment and existing law is this: 
Current law lays out what you can spend it for, that is for official 
business. This amendment makes it clear that you cannot spend it unless 
it is official business.
  Is it very similar? Yes. But it is also quite clear that the abuses 
that have been noted recently are not ones we can allow the taxpayer to 
pick up the bill for.
  It seems to me Members have a clear choice here. Do you want the 
President to be able to designate that the taxpayers are going to pay 
for travel for anybody he designates, or she designates, in the future, 
even though they have nothing to do with official business, or not?
  If you think people who are not on official business should have 
their travel taken care of by the taxpayers, then you will want to vote 
for the DeConcini amendment. If you think the taxpayers' money ought to 
be used only for official business, then I hope you will vote against 
the DeConcini amendment.
  Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second at the moment.
  The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Let me simply ask Members to consider what is at stake 
here. The Senator from Arizona, I think, had talked about various 
people who could be in this category; that is asked by the President to 
come on a trip even though that person may not have anything to do with 
official business. Who would that be? A golf pro? Well, is it a 
convenience to the President to have his own or her own personal golf 
pro come along? Perhaps it would be. Should the taxpayers pick up the 
tab? This Senator thinks they should not. This gives us a chance to 
vote on that. I think it is a very clear amendment in that regard.
  We are a great Nation. We are a very powerful Nation, as the Senator 
from Arizona has mentioned. I could not agree more with it.
  But it would be remiss of me not to note that we are also the most 
deeply-in-debt Nation on the face of the Earth and in the history of 
the world. We also have the biggest trade deficit of any nation in the 
world. We also have the lowest capital formation rate and savings rate 
of any major industrialized country in the world.
  We ought to be concerned about wise use of the public money. Thus I 
think the underlying amendment would satisfy the concern over the use 
of taxpayers' dollars far more than the amendment that is offered.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I commend the managers of this bill, Mr. DeConcini, 
chairman of the Treasury, Postal Service Subcommittee, and Mr. Bond, 
the ranking member of the Treasury, Postal Service Subcommittee, for 
their excellent work on this legislation throughout the hearings, in 
markup, and their management of the bill thus far on the floor.
  Senator DeConcini has been a member of the Appropriations Committee 
since 1977. He has been chairman of the subcommittee since 1987. This 
is his final year as chairman of the Treasury, Postal Subcommittee. He 
will not be here to manage this bill next year. I wish it were not so. 
His knowledge and understanding of even the most minute details of this 
legislation have been evident from the first. His work on this bill has 
demonstrated his dedication to duty and to getting the job done and 
doing so in a cooperative and cheerful manner. He is persistent, 
tenacious, dedicated, and effective.
  He should be proud of the outstanding work he has done again this 
year on this very difficult bill, and as chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, I am proud of the work that he has done. I am also proud of 
the dedicated support that he receives from his loyal staff, both in 
his office and on the Appropriations Committee.
  And the work of Senator Bond, whose expertise in these matters is 
considerable and growing, is also appreciated.
  I urge all Members to support the bill upon its final passage.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. DeCONCINI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I am indebted to the Senator from 
West Virginia for his friendship and his kindnesses that he has 
extended to this Senator over the years. He had gone out of his way on 
a number of occasions to assist this young, new, budding Senator some 
18 years ago, that I will never forget, and for his taking the time 
tonight to express his friendship and compliments.
  I will try to get out of the body tonight with my head intact. I 
appreciate it very much.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments be the only first-degree floor amendments in order 
to H.R. 4539, the Treasury, Postal Service appropriations bill; that 
they be subject to second-degree amendments provided they are relevant 
to the first-degree amendments to which they are offered; that no other 
motion to recommit be in order during the pendency of this agreement; 
that these first-degree amendments must be offered by close of business 
today, June 21, except as noted below; provided further that in the 
case where there is a time limit on the first-degree amendment, that 
any second-degree amendment be subject to the same time limit, with the 
time equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
  Those amendments are: an amendment by Senator DeConcini regarding 
Customs inspectors' pay; an amendment by Senator DeConcini regarding 
revenue foregone, and that is amendment No. 1822; an amendment by 
Senator Faircloth regarding drug testing, and that is amendment No. 
1825; an amendment by Senator DeConcini that is relevant; an amendment 
by Senator Brown regarding travel expenses, and that is amendment No. 
1826, and a second-degree amendment to that amendment by Senator 
DeConcini, that is amendment No. 1827; an amendment by Senator 
DeConcini that is relevant; an amendment by Senator Bond that is 
relevant; an amendment by Senator DeConcini that is relevant; an 
amendment by Senator Bond that is relevant; an amendment by Senator 
DeConcini that is a managers' amendment; an amendment by Senator Ford 
that is relevant; an amendment by Senator DeConcini for Senators 
Mitchell and Dole regarding congressional awards.
  Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that when the Senate 
resumes consideration of H.R. 4539 on Wednesday, June 22, that the 
following be the only first-degree amendments remaining in order and 
that they must be offered by 1 p.m. on Wednesday, June 22; that they be 
subject to second-degree amendments provided they are relevant to the 
first degree to which they are offered; further, that in the case where 
there is a time limit on the first-degree amendment, that any second-
degree amendment be subject to the same time limit with the time 
equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
  Those amendments are: an amendment by Senator Levin to restore 
funding for ASUC, 20 minutes; an amendment by Senator Reid regarding 
land border crossing fee, 50 minutes; an amendment by Senator Gorton 
regarding diesel fuel boaters, 50 minutes; an amendment by Senator Bond 
that is relevant, 50 minutes; an amendment by Senator DeConcini that is 
relevant, 50 minutes; an amendment by Senator Domenici regarding review 
of procurement reform, 20 minutes; an amendment by Senator McCain 
regarding GSA approval courthouse, 10 minutes; an amendment by Senator 
McCain to delete FTE requirements from the bill, 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BROWN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, the Senator from Arizona and I are very 
close to an agreement on working out the amendment and his amendment to 
my amendment. I ask that the unanimous-consent request include a 
provision allowing me to modify my amendment with the agreement of the 
Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I so modify my request, and I renew my 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I say to Members of the Senate, in 
view of our having obtained this agreement, there will be no further 
rollcall votes this evening. The amendments which must be offered today 
as listed will either be accepted or if one or more votes are required, 
those votes will be set to occur tomorrow morning. Then there will be 
tomorrow morning, up through 1 p.m. tomorrow, the potential of eight 
other amendments.
  I do not know at this time how many, if any, of those will require 
votes. But those Senators on that list should be aware that they must 
offer the amendments prior to 1 p.m. tomorrow or the amendments will no 
longer be in order. That means that we expect to complete action on 
this bill, I hope, shortly after 1 p.m., and then we will be proceeding 
to the Department of Defense authorization bill.
  So I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. I thank Senator Bond 
and Senator DeConcini for their cooperation.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I share the sentiments expressed by 
Senator Byrd about the leadership and skill which Senator DeConcini has 
demonstrated as a manager of legislation, particularly, and as a 
Senator generally.
  It has been a great pleasure, indeed an honor, to have served with 
him, and I can say that having been majority leader now for nearly 6 
years and having observed a large number of Senators managing 
legislation, it is a very difficult art and there is no one who exceeds 
Senator DeConcini in skill, persistence, tenacity, and the perseverance 
needed to gain enactment of complex legislation.
  So I merely wanted to make that comment, and I thank him for his work 
on this bill. We will now finish this bill early tomorrow afternoon, 
thanks in large part to his leadership.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, if the Senator will withhold, I thank 
the majority leader for his kindness and his compliments. I appreciate 
the leadership that he has brought to this body. He is always there to 
help when you need a leader to help get something through and passed. 
Senator Mitchell is always willing to forgo many of his own positions 
and what have you to come out and get involved. That is why some of us 
are able to pass some things, or anybody is able to pass some things, 
because of his leadership. And I thank him for his friendship probably 
more than anything else over the years in being in the Senate with him.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me.
  Madam President, in the past hour, hour and a half there has been 
extensive discussion relative to a speech on the floor of the Senate 
made by our friend from North Carolina, the junior Senator, Senator 
Faircloth.
  Upon hearing that speech on the monitor, Madam President, I 
immediately, I guess, took umbrage at what I thought at that time and 
heard at that time, or thought I heard at that time, which was in my 
earliest recollection of my earliest understanding of what Senator 
Faircloth I thought was saying, I thought was stating that Patsy 
Thomasson of the White House staff had admitted to cocaine use.
  Madam President, I went to Senator Faircloth. We met in the middle of 
the Chamber. We discussed this at some length. And I had urged him to 
make an apology not only to Patsy Thomasson at the White House but also 
to the United States Senate.
  I also stated, if I had misrepresented what he had said, that I would 
apologize to him. So, Madam President, I am in the Chamber tonight to 
state that I may have read into what he was saying a comma or maybe an 
inflection and certainly an innuendo about this fine person, Patsy 
Thomasson; that upon listening once again to the videotape actually two 
times--we went to Senator Dole's office--I must say, Madam President, 
that on this particular point I owe an apology to my friend from North 
Carolina, and I do so apologize.
  I also state that in addition to the apology I make to him, I think 
in two or three instances or places in his remarks our friend from 
North Carolina, in my opinion, came very close to indicating that Patsy 
Thomasson had been or was, or perhaps even is--I should say, or has 
been a drug user. For example, he states that Patsy Thomasson refuses 
to disclose to Congress whether the people monitoring the White House 
drug testing program including herself are among the specially tested 
group of people with histories of drug abuse.
  Now, to a lot of reasonable people, this would imply, or we would 
infer that Patsy Thomasson in the White House has a history of drug 
abuse.
  There are two or three other instances in Senator Faircloth's speech, 
but once again, Madam President, I want to say that I am going to live 
up to my end of the bargain, and I am going to apologize to my friend. 
But I do hope that we will use the Senate --in this great body of 
debate and certainly of decorum, I hope we will be all cautious to 
realize that sometimes by innuendo we can certainly tarnish and perhaps 
ruin permanently someone's very good character.
  I know that last week the Senator from North Carolina discussed in 
the Chamber in a very negative way another very fine person in our 
State, Beverly Bassett Schaffer, a splendid individual, fine public 
servant of our people, wonderful lawyer. Tonight it is Patsy Thomasson. 
Tomorrow, tomorrow night, who else?
  But I do say I wish to live up to my end of the bargain, Madam 
President. I do apologize to the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I accept the apology of the Senator from Arkansas. I 
appreciate the spirit in which he offered it, and I accept it in the 
same manner.
  I did not say that Patsy Thomasson used cocaine. I did say very 
clearly that she had a close business relationship with a man who used 
cocaine extensively.
  I said that she would not assure Members of the House that the people 
monitoring the White House drug testing including herself were not 
among the specially tested group of White House employees with a 
history of drug use. And I repeat, she would not assure Members of the 
House of this fact.
  Given that fact and given her past relationship with Mr. Lasater, I 
still believe the President should certify that no one in charge of 
that drug testing program has a history of drug problems themselves. 
And that is very simply what my amendment will do.
  If President Clinton makes that certification, that is good enough 
for me. But the American people have the right to know.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DeCONCINI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, the pending business is the amendment 
by the Senator from Colorado, am I correct, or the second-degree 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the second-degree 
amendment of the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I have been working with the Senator from Colorado, 
and he and I have agreed to a slight alteration. And under the UC, if I 
am not mistaken, his amendment or my second-degree amendment can be 
modified with consent of both of us. I hereby send to the desk such a 
modification and ask unanimous consent that the second-degree amendment 
be modified as so submitted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There being no objection, 
it is so ordered.
  The modification is as follows:

       At the end of the pending amendment, add the following: 
     ``The name and expense of travel of anyone so designated by 
     the President shall be disclosed to the Congress.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for 
making this accommodation. I understand where he is coming from, and 
indeed I think this will permit the President flexibility but also put 
the responsibility clearly with the President for whomever he may 
decide he wants to travel with him. I for one think that he should have 
that flexibility, and I have no objections at all to him making that 
public. I think the President in this case and probably other 
Presidents as well are not hiding with whom they travel. Everybody 
finds out. The press sees them come and go and they count the people 
who get on and off. Manifests are available, I understand. So I can see 
no particular problem with it.
  I thank the Senator. I am prepared to accept the amendment if my 
friend from Missouri is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Colorado seek 
recognition?
  Mr. BOND. We are prepared to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the Chair. I am prepared to accept the amendment.
  I would say that my preference would be that the amendment as 
originally put forth be adopted, that is, someone who is not on 
official business who would be allowed to travel with a President not 
be paid for. But frankly, I am convinced that the discipline of 
disclosing anyone not involved in official business is a very strong 
discipline, and my sense is that every President who may choose to 
exercise this discretionary power will use great care, and I suspect if 
they do not use great care they will find a very strong reaction by the 
American public.
  So, the discipline of having to publicly report and file this 
information along with the name and the cost, I think, will accomplish 
the purpose.
  I agree to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Arizona.
  The amendment (No. 1827), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by 
which the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Colorado, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 1826), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by 
which the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1828

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I have technical amendments that have 
been cleared with the ranking member. I send several of these 
amendments to the desk and ask that they be considered en bloc.
  These amendments make technical corrections to the Federal wage scale 
language in the bill. Several paragraphs were inadvertently omitted in 
the bill.
  Also, I have an amendment here which increases the funding for the 
Historical Publication on Records Commission by $250,000; technical 
language to White House security; technical change to a provision in 
the bill which relates to the COLA savings in Alaska and Hawaii.
  I ask unanimous consent that these amendments all be considered en 
bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Without objection, the pending amendment is set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. DeConcini] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1828.

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam 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, line 20, strike ``$5,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,250,000''.
       On page 98, line 12, strike the words ``one-fifth''.
       On page 99, add the following between lines 11 and 12:
       (D) The applicable amount under this paragraph shall be 
     zero if neither subparagraph (A), subparagraph (B), nor 
     subparagraph (C) applies.
       (3) The Office of Personnel Management shall discuss with 
     and consider the views of the Federal Prevailing Rate 
     Advisory Committee in carrying out the Offices's 
     responsibilities with respect to this paragraph.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     prevailing rate employee described in subparagraph (B) or (C) 
     of section 5342(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code, and no 
     employee covered by section 5348 of such title, may be paid 
     during the periods for which subsection (e) is in effect at a 
     rate that exceeds the rates that would be payable under 
     subsection (a) were subsection (a) applicable to such 
     employee.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the rates payable to 
     an employee who is covered by this section and who is paid 
     from a schedule that was not in existence on September 30, 
     1994, shall be determined under regulations prescribed by the 
     Office of Personnel Management.
       (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rates of 
     premium pay for employees subject to this section may not be 
     changed from the rates in effect on September 30, 1994, 
     except to the extent determined by the Office of Personnel 
     Management to be consistent with the purpose of this section.
       (e) The provisions of this section shall apply with respect 
     to pay for services performed by any affected employee on or 
     after October 1, 1994.
       (f) For the purpose of administering any provision of law 
     (including section S431 of title 5, United States Code, and 
     any rule or regulation, that provides premium pay, 
     retirement, life insurance, or any other employee benefit) 
     that requires any deduction or contribution, or that imposes 
     any requirement or limitation, on the basis of a rate of 
     salary or basic pay, the rate of salary or basic pay payable 
     after the application of this section shall be treated as the 
     rate of salary or basic pay.
       (g) Nothing in this section shall be considered to permit 
     or require the payment in any employee covered by this 
     section at a rate in excess of the rate that would be payable 
     were this section not in effect.
       (h) The Office of Personnel Management may provide for 
     exceptions to the limitations imposed by this section if the 
     Office determines that such exceptions are necessary to 
     ensure the recruitment and retention of qualified employees.
       (i) The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe any 
     regulations which may be necessary to carry out this section.
       On page 113, line 5, strike ``in'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``on'';
       On page 113, line 10, insert after ``SF-86'' the words ``or 
     equivalent form'';
       On page 113, line 11, insert after ``not,'' the word 
     ``within'';
       On page 113, line 16, strike ``White House'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``access''.
       On page 84, line 19, strike all through page 85, line 13, 
     and insert the following:
       Section 1. The allowances provided to employees at rates 
     set under section 5941 of title 5, United States Code, and 
     Executive Order Numbered 10000 as in effect on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act may not be reduced during the 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     through December 31, 1996: Provided, That no later than March 
     1, 1996, the Office of Personnel Management shall conduct a 
     study and submit a report to the Congress proposing 
     appropriate changes in the method of fixing compensation for 
     affected employees, including any necessary legislative 
     changes. Such study shall include--
       (1) an examination of the pay practices of other employers 
     in the affected areas;
       (2) a consideration of alternative approaches to dealing 
     with the unusual and unique circumstances of the affected 
     areas, including modifications to the current methodology for 
     calculating allowances to take into account all costs of 
     living in the geographic areas of the affected employees; and
       (3) an evaluation of the likely impact of the different 
     approaches on the Government's ability to recruit and retain 
     a well-qualified workforce.

     For the purpose of conducting such study and preparing such 
     report, the Office may accept and utilize funds made 
     available to the Office pursuant to court approval.

  Mr. DeCONCINI. These are technical amendments with the exception of 
the one for Historical Publications on Records Commission for $250,000.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendments.
  The amendment (No. 1828) was agreed to.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by 
which the amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                         house committee report

  Mr. HATFIELD. I would like to make the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee aware of a provision in the House committee's report that 
is of particular interest to me and the electric ratepayers in the 
Pacific Northwest.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I would be pleased to hear the Senator from Oregon's 
concerns.
  Mr. HATFIELD. On pages 7 and 8 of its report, the House included a 
provision dealing with the Bonneville Power Administration's request to 
the Department of the Treasury to develop a revised methodology under 
section 9(f) of Public Law 96-501. The House report requests that the 
Secretary of the Treasury provide a report on this issue by January 1, 
1995.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I am aware of that particular provision.
  Mr. HATFIELD. This is a rather complicated issue dealing with the 
financing of electric generating resources by public entities in the 
Pacific Northwest, and it is extremely important to regional energy 
planning and development in my region. While I consider the House 
provision to be a positive action, I believe that further clarification 
may be necessary during conference.
  Without going further into the details of the issue at this time, I 
am asking whether the distinguished subcommittee chairman would be 
willing to work with me in conference to secure further clarification 
and direction, to the extent that it is needed, to the Secretary of the 
Treasury to assist in the resolution of this matter.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I would be pleased to work with the Senator from 
Oregon on this issue in our conference.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona.


                           amendment no. 1829

  (Purpose: To amend the Congressional Award Act to provide that the 
 Secretary of the Treasury shall strike the medals awarded under such 
                      Act, and for other purposes)

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. DeConcini] for Mr. Mitchell 
     (for himself and Mr. Dole) proposes an amendment numbered 
     1829.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.     . CONGRESSIONAL AWARD PROGRAM MEDALS.

       Section 3 of the Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 802) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``gold, silver, and bronze''; and
       (B) by striking the last sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``Each medal shall consist of gold-plate over 
     bronze, rhodium over bronze, or bronze and shall be struck in 
     accordance with subsection (f).''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Congressional Award Program Medals.--
       ``(1) Design and striking.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall strike the medals described in subsection (a) and 
     awarded by the Board under this Act. Subject to subsection 
     (a), the medals shall be of such quantity, design, and 
     specifications as the Secretary of the Treasury may 
     determine, after consultation with the Board.
       ``(2) National medals.--The medals struck pursuant to this 
     Act are national medals for purposes of chapter 51 of title 
     31, United States Code.
       ``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be charged against the Numismatic Public 
     Enterprise Fund such amounts as may be necessary to pay for 
     the cost of the medals struck pursuant to this Act.''.

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, this is a noncontroversial amendment 
which has been cleared on both sides and is being offered at the 
request of the joint leadership of both Houses of Congress on behalf of 
Senators Mitchell and Dole.
  The purpose of this amendment is to direct the U.S. Mint to strike 
medals awarded by the Congressional Award Program. The Congressional 
Award Act, Public Law 96-114, was enacted in 1979 ``to promote 
initiative, achievement, and excellence among youths in the areas of 
public service, personal development, and physical and expedition 
fitness.'' Under this program, gold, silver, and bronze medals are 
awarded to young Americans, aged 14 to 23, who satisfy the standards of 
achievement established by the Congressional Award Board.
  To date, more than 5,000 recipients have contributed more than 1 
million hours of volunteer community service in earning this award. 
Since the inception of this program, the Congressional Award Board has 
privately contracted to supply the medals awarded to the recipients. 
Given the nature of this program and its record of success, however, 
the joint bipartisan leadership of Congress and other sponsors of the 
Congressional Award believe that the U.S. Mint should strike national 
medals symbolizing genuine congressional recognition of each 
recipient's achievements.
  As this legislation was drafted, representatives of the joint 
leadership, and the Congressional Award Board worked closely with the 
U.S. Mint to develop a successful, yet cost-effective, approach to this 
proposal. To this end, each medal will consist of less expensive 
materials without compromising the high quality appearance of the 
current medals. Also, the Secretary of the Treasury will determine the 
quantity, design, and specifications of the medals, after consultation 
with the Congressional Award Board. Finally, the Mint's production of 
these medals will not require an appropriations, as necessary amounts 
will be charged against the Mint's revolving fund for numismatic 
programs and operations, the numismatic public enterprise fund.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The amendment (No. 1829) was agreed to.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam 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. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. 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. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, what is the present order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering amendment No. 1825.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. That is the Faircloth amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

                          ____________________