[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 80 (Wednesday, June 22, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           Amendment No. 1833

  (Purpose: To provide that funds may not be used in certain cases to 
    enforce the prohibition on selling dyed diesel fuel for use in 
                          recreational boats)

  Mr. GORTON. Madam 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 Washington [Mr. Gorton] for himself, Mr. 
     Johnston, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Kohl 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1833.

  Mr. GORTON. 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:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
       Sec.   . (a) None of the funds made available by this or 
     any other Act for fiscal year 1994 or 1995 may be used by the 
     Internal Revenue Service after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act to enforce the prohibition under the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 on selling dyed diesel fuel for any 
     taxable use in a boat in cases where the person selling the 
     fuel collects the tax on the fuel. The person shall collect 
     such tax under the system described in subsection (b) when it 
     is implemented.
       (b) Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Internal Revenue Service shall, from the 
     funds made available to it by this Act, establish and 
     implement a collection system which allows the sale of dyed 
     diesel fuel for use in boats used for recreational purposes.

  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, before 1994, marine diesel fuel was not 
taxed. Last year the tax and budget bill imposed a 24.4 cent per gallon 
tax on diesel fuel used by recreational boats, leaving commercial fuel 
for commercial vessels tax free.
  The reason last year's bill made this distinction was the repeal of 
the luxury tax on expensive yachts, with the feeling that to make up 
for that loss of revenue those yachts and other recreational yachts 
that use diesel fuel--not gasoline--ought to be subjected to a fuel 
tax. Most of the boating community agreed with that exchange.
  That law, however, in order to make the distinction, mandated two 
different types of diesel fuel: Clear fuel, the way it had been 
historically used in recreational boats and subject to the tax, and 
dyed fuel for commercial vessels, which was not subject to the tax.
  The unforeseen problem in connection with this answer is that many 
marinas, perhaps a majority of marinas that sell diesel, are not 
equipped with two separate diesel fuel tanks to store the two different 
types of fuel. Each such marina under those circumstances must make a 
choice. Will it sell only dyed fuel, tax free to commercial vessels, or 
will it sell only clear fuel with the tax to recreational vessels? 
Either way the marina loses because it loses one set of its customers. 
Moreover, because dyed nontaxable commercial fuel cannot be sold, under 
the law, to recreational boaters, there are severe shortages, 
particularly in that field. Most of the marinas that sell diesel fuel 
sell the bulk of it to commercial vessels and have therefore simply cut 
off their recreational customers. Let me give a specific example from 
my State and the State of the Presiding Officer.
  The owner and operator of Port Angeles Marine, on the Olympic 
Peninsula, told me his marina is not set up to dispense two types of 
diesel fuel, but he is the only marine diesel dealer in Port Angeles. 
Because he sells most of his diesel fuel to commercial vessels like 
ferry boats, tug boats, and fishing vessels, he has chosen to sell that 
type of fuel and to abandon the clear fuel for recreational boats. As a 
result, he has to turn away all of these recreational boaters who must 
then travel miles and miles and miles to the nearest facility because 
there is no other such facility in their community. The Boat Owners 
Association of the United States has cited to my office other examples 
from Maine, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, Georgia, Florida, 
Mississippi, Texas, California, Minnesota, and Alaska, and since a 
cosponsor of this amendment is the distinguished senior Senator from 
Louisiana, it is obvious this is a problem in that State and along the 
gulf coast as well.
  This is a huge inconvenience to recreational boaters. It may also be 
a safety hazard as well because they have to go so far to find fuel and 
have to carry so much fuel on board their pleasure boats.
  It is also an inhibitor to the business of these marine terminals 
because for many of them it will cost upward of $100,000 to put in a 
new tank and the investment is simply not worth it. Certainly we should 
not be reducing the ability of these small businesses to engage in 
their normal course of business simply for the convenience of the 
Internal Revenue Service and the way in which it collects the tax. The 
regulations, when we get right down to it, are ludicrous. Hundreds of 
recreational boaters and marine fuel facilities in Washington and 
across the country have asked us to help find a solution to the 
problem.
  The permanent solution to the problem is found in S. 2029, a bill 
before the Finance Committee which will amend the Internal Revenue Code 
specifically to allow recreational boaters to buy the dyed commercial 
fuel if they pay the tax. There are at least a dozen cosponsors to that 
bill. It looks, however, as though that bill is unlikely to pass in 
this Congress, due, obviously, to the tremendous burden of legislation 
before that committee with respect to welfare, health care, and a 
number of other major issues. And even if it does, we will have lost 
this summer season. So I am offering this amendment as a temporary, 
immediate, and short-term fix. It really is meant to solve the problem 
during fiscal year 1995, so Congress can have a better opportunity to 
look at S. 2029, modify it as it deems necessary, and pass it in an 
orderly fashion.
  My amendment would mean that recreational boaters do not have to wait 
until Congress gets around to looking at this situation in all of its 
ramifications, but will give relief as soon as the bill becomes law.
  Specifically, the amendment says that none of the funds in this or 
any other act for fiscal years 1994 and 1995 may be used by the 
Internal Revenue Service after the date of enactment to enforce the 
prohibition on selling dyed commercial fuel to recreational users who 
pay the tax that is actually due, that 24.4 cent per gallon tax. It 
also requires the Internal Revenue Service within 30 days after the 
bill becomes law to establish and implement a system to collect the tax 
from the sale of dyed commercial fuel to recreational boaters.
  As I have said, it is purely a temporary fix. It begins working on 
the day the President signs the bill and runs out on the last day of 
fiscal year 1995, or, I presume, earlier than that date if Congress has 
passed and the President has signed a permanent solution to the 
problem.
  It simply says, in effect, that dyed commercial diesel fuel can be 
sold to recreational boaters who pay the tax. It is that simple. The 
major boating season has now begun. More and more recreational boaters 
are out on the waters and those who, unfortunately, have diesel engines 
are often going to find that no fuel is available or available in a 
convenient place.
  This seems to be the appropriate vehicle because, of course, this is 
the appropriations bill for the appropriate agency.
  This amendment by the Senator from Louisiana and myself is very 
strongly supported by the Boat Owners Association of the United States, 
the National Boating Federation, the Marine Retailers Association of 
America, the Marine Operators Association of America, the Petroleum 
Manufacturers Association of America and the Northwestern Marine Trade 
Association.
  I have letters of endorsement for this proposal that I ask unanimous 
consent be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                           Boat Owners Association


                                         of the United States,

                                    Alexandria, VA, June 21, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: On behalf of the 500,000 members of 
     this association, we applaud your efforts to seek a temporary 
     solution to the problem facing recreational boat owners who 
     own diesel-powered boats.
       Ill-considered regulations issued by the Internal Revenue 
     Service have forced many boaters with diesel-powered engines 
     to put their boats in drydock or travel for hours, if not 
     days, to find clear taxed diesel fuel, the only type the IRS 
     now allows them to purchase.
       As you can well imagine, this has incensed many hard-
     working Americans who, because of a government edict, can no 
     longer use their boats.
       We do not believe that this regulatory scheme was 
     anticipated by Congress nor that the Congress intended for 
     the IRS to wreak such havoc in the distribution of marine 
     diesel fuel.
       Please make it plain to your colleagues that diesel boat 
     owners will not be able to pay the required federal fuel tax 
     if they can't find the fuel--which is currently the case.
       The solution you propose would require the IRS to go back 
     to the drawing board and devise a less onerous system of 
     collecting these taxes, such as allowing boaters to purchase 
     any color fuel and simply pay the necessary tax at the pump. 
     In the end, this should result in higher federal revenues and 
     a considerably less burdensome enforcement system.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Michael Sciulla,
                                                   Vice President.
                                  ____

                                           Boat Owners Association


                                         of the United States,

                                    Alexandria, VA, June 17, 1994.

   Urgent: Floor Vote Imminent--Support the Gorton Amendment to the 
                  Treasury/Postal Appropriations Bill

     To: Members, U.S. Senate.
     From: Michael Sciulla.
       You can't get it in Bar Harbor, Maine and all the way to 
     the Canadian Coast.
       You will also have some problems from Connecticut to 
     Massachusetts.
       You would be out of luck from Crisfield, Maryland to Ocean 
     City.
       You would have to travel miles inland to find it in 
     Savannah, Georgia, and
       You also can't get it in Key West and Crystal River, 
     Florida.
       You would be in dire straits from Gulfport, Mississippi to 
     Galveston, Texas.
       You could have serious problems along California's coast to 
     Washington state.
       You would be up a creek without a paddle in Grand Portage, 
     Minnesota; and
       You might as well forget it in Valdez, Cordova, and 
     Whittier, Alaska
       In all of these places and points in between, thousands of 
     recreational boaters with diesel-powered engines might as 
     well have their boats in drydocks thanks to regulations 
     issued by the IRS which make it next to impossible for 
     citizens to purchase diesel fuel to power their boats.
       Implemented last January 1 to collect a 20.1 cents per 
     gallon federal tax, these IRS regulations prohibit 
     recreational boaters from purchasing anything but clear taxed 
     fuel. Since commercial boaters are allowed to purchase blue-
     dyed untaxed fuel, many marine fuel retailers with only one 
     diesel tank and pump have been forced to choose between 
     fueling either recreational or commercial vessels.
       This has led to major shortages around the country and a 
     loss of business to marine fuel retailers. We have received 
     numerous reports that some diesel boat owners have had to 
     travel for hours and as much as two days to find clear taxed 
     fuel.
       Since none of this havoc was intended by Congress and since 
     the Treasury Department is maintaining that they have no 
     regulatory flexibility to resolve the problem, Sen. Slade 
     Gorton will be offering an amendment to the Treasury/Postal 
     Appropriations bill, H.R. 4539, to temporarily fix the 
     problem.
       Action is urgently needed now. Otherwise, thousands of 
     boaters will simply not be able to use their boats this 
     summer. As you can well imagine, those who can't purchase 
     fuel now are quite upset.
       On behalf of the 500,000 members of this association, I 
     urge you to support the Gorton amendment when it reaches the 
     Senate floor.
                                  ____

                                               Petroleum Marketers


                                       Association of America,

                                     Arlington, VA, June 20, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     Hart Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: On behalf of the Petroleum Marketers 
     Association of America (PMAA), I would like to offer our 
     support to you in enacting an amendment to the Treasury 
     Appropriations bill to rectify the tax collection system for 
     diesel fuel sold to non-commercial or recreational boats. 
     PMAA is a federation of 43 state and regional trade 
     associations representing more than 11,000 independent 
     petroleum marketers throughout the United States. These 
     marketers sell in excess of forty percent of the gasoline, 75 
     percent of the home heating oil and 60 percent of the diesel 
     fuel consumed in this country. Eighty-nine percent of PMAA's 
     membership is classified as small business under size 
     categories established by the Small Business Administration.
       As you know the tax laws prevent marinas from selling dyed 
     diesel fuel to recreational boaters. However, a marina 
     generally can only sell one type of fuel to vessels, either 
     dyed tax free or undyed tax paid. For a marina to sell both 
     fuels would require the installation of additional tanks at 
     the marina and pumps. This may be impossible at many ports 
     because of strict environmental requirements, and at many 
     other ports the costs may be prohibitive, since installing 
     another tank will require insurance and approval by the port 
     authority. As a result, marinas in many cases have chosen to 
     sell only dyed diesel fuel and only make that fuel available 
     to commercial vessels.
       This limitation on the fuels that are supplied has in many 
     cases prevented recreational boats from receiving fuel. This 
     may result in these boats transiting waters with inadequate 
     fuel, or in exposing our members to liability for stiff 
     penalties if they sell the dyed fuel, even though they 
     collect and remit the necessary taxes.
       The amendment that you intend to offer strikes a sensible 
     balance between the need for IRS to enforce the law and if 
     incorporated into IRS regulations or procedures will provide 
     the industry the ability to sell fuel to recreational boaters 
     and collect the appropriate taxes. It will also allow marinas 
     to sell fuel to pleasure boats at all marina locations 
     without adding additional tanks, and increasing the 
     environmental risks at the waterfront.
       We sincerely appreciate the efforts you are making.
           Sincerely,
                                                    John J. Huber,
                                       Government Affairs Counsel.
                                  ____

                                                  Marine Retailers


                                       Association of America,

                                     Annapolis, MD, June 20, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: The 3,500 members of the Marine 
     Retailers Association of America support your proposed 
     amendment to the Treasury Appropriations Bill which will help 
     resolve a terrible problem facing marinas and recreational 
     boaters.
       As a result of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1993, boaters must now pay 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel 
     fuel. To help regulate the non-taxed fuel sold to commercial 
     boaters and the taxed fuel sold to recreational boaters, 
     Congress mandated that a color-coded system be established 
     and regulated by the IRS. This system requires recreational 
     boaters to use clear diesel fuel and commercial operators 
     must use red-dyed fuel. Both of these fuels are low-sulfur. 
     However, to complicate the problem, the vast majority of 
     boats built prior to 1994 must use a high sulfur diesel fuel.
       Low sulfur fuels have caused safety problems with engines 
     stopping due to injector clogging. In addition, in many parts 
     of the country, clear diesel fuel is not available to 
     recreational boaters, because a marina has opted to sell only 
     red-dyed fuels.
       We need your help. We prefer to see these provisions 
     repealed outright. However, due to the lack of a legislative 
     vehicle this year, your approach may be the best available.
       MRAA endorses your amendment and thanks you for your 
     support of the recreational boating industry.
       MRAA is the national trade association of small businesses 
     which sell and service new and used recreational boats and 
     operate marine accessory stores.
           Sincerely,
     Phil Keeter,
       President.
     Larry Innis,
                                        Washington Representative.
                                  ____

                                                  Marina Operators


                                       Association of America,

                                     Annapolis, MD, June 20, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: The Marina Operators Association of 
     America greatly appreciates your support of recreational 
     boating and endorses your amendment to H.R. 4539, the 
     Treasury Appropriations Bill, which would prohibit the 
     Internal Revenue Service from using fiscal year 1995 funds to 
     enforce the prohibition under the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 on selling dyed diesel fuels to recreational boaters.
       MOAA is the national trade association of marina operators. 
     Our members own and operate the gasoline/diesel fuel docks 
     regulated under this provision of the Tax Code.
       As you know, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 
     imposed a 24.4 cents per gallon excise tax on diesel fuel 
     used by recreational boaters. The Act also set up a system 
     where recreational boaters could use only clear-dyed, low 
     sulfur diesel fuel and commercial operators could only use 
     red-dyed, low sulfur diesel fuel. This outrageous system has 
     resulted in mass confusion and severe fuel shortages for 
     commercial and recreational boaters. To complicate this 
     problem even more, low-sulfur fuel may be harmful to the 
     seals on fuel pumps at marinas and to diesel engine fuel 
     injectors.
       Our industry needs the flexibility to pump all types of 
     diesel fuels. Many marina operators have opted to pump only 
     clear diesel fuel while other marinas are pumping only red-
     dyed fuels. Few marina operators can afford to install 
     separate tanks and pumps for the two kinds of fuel. As a 
     result, vast areas of the country are now offering only clear 
     fuel, significantly affecting the economies of commercial 
     boating/fishing, or red-dyed fuel, adversely affecting 
     recreational boating.
       MOAA supports outright repeal of the provisions of the Tax 
     Code prohibiting red- or blue-dyed diesel usage by 
     recreational boaters. However, without repeal, MOAA endorses 
     your amendment and appreciates your efforts to help our 
     industry. Thanks.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bob Giesler,
                                                        President.
                                  ____



                                  National Boating Federation,

                                       Alameda, CA, June 20, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: The National Boating Federation is the 
     only nation-wide group of totally volunteer recreational 
     boating organizations, numbering among them about two million 
     boaters. Incidentally, we count among our member 
     organizations both the Northwestern Boating Council and the 
     Recreational Boaters Association of Washington.
       As you are well aware, as a result of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1993, the recreational boater has not 
     only been burdened by a discriminatory 24.4 cents tax on 
     diesel fuel; we are also suffering from the ill-conceived 
     color coded fuel system mandated by the Internal Revenue 
     Service. Being permitted to purchase only low sulfur, red-
     dyed fuel has resulted in life-threatening engine failures, 
     and considerable waste of precious time (and fuel) trying to 
     find the marine fuel dock devoted to recreational, versus 
     commercial (and clear-colored, untaxed fuel) users.
       Obviously, an outright reversal of this decision is in the 
     recreational boaters' best interests. Failing the likelyhood 
     of such a bill, we are very grateful for, and support 
     strongly, your amendment to H.R. 4539, the Treasury 
     Appropriations bill, which would prohibit the IRS from using 
     1995 funds for enforcement of the ``dyed fuel rules''.
       Thank you from all of us for your regard for both the 
     safety of the recreational boater, and our continued 
     enjoyment of our wonderful family-oriented pastime.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                  Margot J. Brown,
                                                        President.
                                  ____

                                                  Northwest Marine


                                            Trade Association,

                                       Seattle, WA, June 17, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: Our office has just been informed of 
     your efforts to amend the Treasury Appropriations Bill to 
     allow marinas to sell dyed diesel fuel to boaters allowing 
     them to pay the tax.
       I have written to you previously because of the regulations 
     enacted by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that have had a 
     deleterious effect on the recreational boating industry in 
     the Pacific Northwest. The fuel shortages caused by the 
     regulations is forcing boaters . . . not only in our region 
     of the country, but throughout the United States . . . to 
     travel lengthy distances to find fuel. By amending the 
     Treasury Appropriations Bill, you are providing our industry 
     with a solution.
       We appreciate your efforts, and we wish you continued 
     success.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Hank Sitko,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                              Recreational Boating


                                    Association of Washington,

                                       Seattle, WA, June 20, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: The Recreational Boaters Association 
     of Washington strongly supports your amendment to H.R. 4539, 
     the Fiscal Year 1995 Treasury/Postal Appropriations bill.
       As you know, boaters and marinas in Washington state, and 
     across the country, have faced severe hardship since 
     enactment of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. 
     That Act imposed 24.4 cents per gallon tax on diesel fuel 
     used in recreational boats. It also instituted a system 
     whereby recreational boaters can only buy ``clear'' fuel 
     while commercial boaters usually buy ``dyed'' fuel.
       Many marinas throughout Washington do not currently have 
     the capacity to store and sell two types of diesel fuel. 
     Consequently, they must choose. Whatever choice they make, 
     both boaters and the marinas lose. Many recreational boaters 
     cannot find diesel fuel, and marinas lose business.
       A number of Washington recreational boaters cruised to 
     Alaska. They were unable to buy fuel at many marinas during 
     their trip as the marinas were unable to store the two types 
     of diesel fuel. The marinas could only sell fuel to 
     commercial vessels. Without adequate access to fuel, the 
     safety of the recreational boaters may be in jeopardy.
       Your amendment will allow marinas to sell dyed diesel fuel 
     to recreational boaters who pay the tax. We believe that this 
     common-sense amendment is critical to both recreational 
     boaters and marinas and heartily support your efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                                Paul D. McTaggart,
                                                        President.

  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, we will end up, in all probability, in 
the initial stages at least, not voting directly on the merits of this 
amendment but on a point of order. That point of order will be raised 
because the Congressional Budget Office has scored this amendment as 
having a cost of some $6 million in this fiscal year and $25 million in 
the next fiscal year.
  In anticipation, I want to speak to those proposed costs. They seem 
to be wildly out of line, first, even given the assumptions of the 
Congressional Budget Office itself.
  According to a March 1992 national recreational boating survey 
prepared by Price Waterhouse for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
approximately 46.7 million gallons of diesel fuel were being used by 
recreational boaters. Let us round that up to 50 million per year. That 
means at a tax rate of 24 cents per gallon, we would collect about 
$12.5 million in tax revenues from recreational boaters who use diesel 
fuel. How that can result in a loss of $25 million a year is beyond the 
understanding of this Senator. If no one paid the tax, if it were 100 
percent evaded, it would not cost that amount of money.
  A more important consideration, however, Madam President, is the fact 
that from the perspective of this Senator, and I think from the 
perspective of common sense, this will increase tax revenues rather 
than decrease them. At this point, it is so difficult for recreational 
boaters with diesel engines to find that diesel in many parts of this 
country that it is obvious that the use of their boats is lessened. 
They are not going out as frequently.
  If we allow them to buy their fuel in the places that they have 
always bought their fuel in the past, logic would indicate that they 
will, in fact, buy more than they will under present circumstances, and 
logic will indicate that a great majority of them, as well as the great 
majority of the marinas themselves, will, in fact, collect the tax.
  So I think that the point of order that is going to be raised is an 
artificial one. I believe, if anything, it will slightly increase 
rather than lose as a result of the passage of this amendment. But in 
any event--in any event, Madam President--I do not think the laws of 
the United States are passed for the benefit and the convenience of the 
Internal Revenue Service.
  Recreational boaters, most of whom own their boats already, have 
agreed to pay a tax in order to end a luxury tax on large boats. They 
did not agree to put themselves at a tremendous disadvantage to be in a 
position in which they could not find the fuel they need for their 
boats. I believe that we owe the people of the United States who have 
boats like this at least the proposition that they should find their 
fuel supplies as conveniently located after the passage of this law as 
they did before the passage of this law, assuming that they are 
willing, as they are, to pay the tax.
  That is what this amendment does. It does nothing more; it does 
nothing less. I hope that the Finance Committee will be able to pass 
its own law relatively quickly. But until it does, it seems that this 
temporary relief is very much in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, 
and I ask unanimous consent that the time not be charged against either 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I yield such time to the Senator from 
Louisiana as he may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Washington and join with him in his amendment.
  Every now and then, the Congress and the IRS does something that is 
so outrageous, so unfair, so beyond the pale of what Americans have a 
right to expect that we in Congress must act and must act now. Today is 
such a time, Madam President.
  What we have is a situation that recreational boaters are put in an 
unsafe and unwise position with respect to obtaining fuel simply to 
make life easy on the IRS.
  As my colleague from Washington has pointed out, the Congress last 
year passed a tax of 24.4 cents per gallon on recreational diesel fuel 
for boats which does not pertain to commercial fuel. In order to carry 
out the collection of this tax, the IRS came up with a rule that says 
commercial boats must use a dyed diesel fuel and recreational boats 
must use a clear diesel fuel. Sounds simple, sounds like a way to 
collect the tax on one kind of boat and be able to enforce it.
  But what has actually happened, Madam President, is that marinas are 
forced to decide whether they are going to serve the commercial market 
or whether they are going to serve the recreational boater market, 
because they do not have sufficient tanks to serve both markets, and 
most of these marinas have decided that they are going to serve the 
commercial market creating a situation where no fuel is available for 
recreational boaters.

  Madam President, I had one boatowner in Gretna, LA, call me and say 
that this has created a monopoly in a place called Venice because it is 
the only place where clear diesel is available for recreational boaters 
within 50 miles. The marina owner can charge what he wants to at 
Venice, and he is overcharging all the recreational boaters.
  Another recreational boatowner in Morgan City, LA called to say that 
he cannot get any clear diesel within 3 days' travel time from Morgan 
City. Now, Morgan City is really a maritime area, so you can imagine 
how frustrated and angry recreational boatowners must be when they have 
to go all the way to New Orleans--as a matter of fact, beyond New 
Orleans--and into Lake Pontchartrain in order to get clear diesel.
  It is outrageous, Madam President. Of course, the IRS says, well, 
marinas can build some more tanks, but in reality that's no solution. 
It costs tens of thousands of dollars to build these additional tanks, 
and most of them in my State are in the wetlands. To start with, a 
marina owner would have to get a 404 permit from the Corps of 
Engineers. Madam President, what we are trying to do as a nation is 
protect the wetlands, not build additional tanks with thousands of 
gallons of additional fuel in the middle of our fragile wetlands at a 
cost of tens of thousands of dollars in order to serve recreational 
boaters.
  So, Madam President, what we have here is a rule that affects the 
availability of fuel for recreational boatowners, which is a very big, 
very important business in my State. It affects the expense to the 
boatowners because they must pay in some cases extortionate prices for 
this fuel, and it clearly affects the environment and sometimes affects 
the safety because if you cannot get fuel, you are marooned out in the 
gulf or some other area without fuel, and nothing is more unsafe than 
that.
  So, Madam President, what Senator Gorton and I have done is put 
together an amendment that says the IRS must come up with an 
alternative way of collecting the tax. And there are various ways to do 
that. There are various ways that we have suggested to the IRS by which 
they can collect this tax.
  Madam President, it will really alleviate an outrageous situation, an 
unsafe situation, an environmentally degrading situation that is 
currently being inflicted on recreational boatowners and marinas.
  I wish to congratulate my distinguished colleague from Washington for 
his leadership on this amendment. There are many other Senators here 
who represent States which have a lot of recreational boatowners, and I 
hope this amendment passes overwhelmingly so that we can make fuel 
available to recreational boatowners in America.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor an amendment 
that has been offered this morning by the distinguished senior Senator 
from Washington [Mr. Gorton] concerning enforcement of the diesel fuel 
dyeing rules that are applicable at oil facilities in my State of 
Alaska.
  This amendment attempts to resolve one of the many problems 
associated with the Internal Revenue Service rules requiring diesel 
fuel dyeing. These rules require that taxable diesel fuel sold for 
highway use and recreational boating be sold in the clear, undyed form 
and that nontaxable diesel be dyed artificially.
  As a result of these new rules, retail sellers of diesel fuel are now 
required to build a second storage facility or choose to serve only one 
type of customer; that is, a taxable customer, trucks on the highway, 
or a tax-exempt customer such as a commercial fishing vessel.
  For the past 8 months, we have been trying to convince the Treasury 
Department and the Internal Revenue Service to reconsider the dyeing 
regulations that went into effect the first of this year. These 
provisions have caused a host of problems in my State of Alaska.
  Air carriers in the State expressed safety concerns about dyeing fuel 
because the IRS initially chose to require dye colors that were nearly 
identical to the dye colors for aviation gasoline. As a consequence, 
the potential for disaster, if one simply looks at the color and puts 
it into the tank of an aircraft, is obvious. This problem has since 
been resolved, I am pleased to say, but, nevertheless, points out some 
of the difficulties we have.
  Just last month, we saw problems with diesel dyeing as it affected 
the market for recreational boaters in Valdez, Cordova, and other areas 
where they simply do not have sufficient capacity in their tanks to 
store both taxable and nontaxable fuel, and they are facing a 
substantial dilemma.
  The question is should they construct a second set of diesel storage 
tanks to handle the small amounts of taxable diesel fuel that they need 
to provide for summer recreational use--that is a very small amount--or 
should they turn down such businesses because the overwhelming majority 
of their sales throughout the year are tax-free sales to commercial 
fishing activities.
  Mr. President, in my State of Alaska the diesel dyeing rules have 
placed a severe burden on fuel distribution systems throughout the 
State geared to one type of fuel. The vast majority of the storage 
tanks are located in remote rural villages that have no access to 
regular supplies of diesel fuel. Visualize that in much of the interior 
part of Alaska diesel fuel is delivered by barges that move up the 
rivers during high water and that can only occur once a year. As a 
consequence, the storage of heating oil occurs in a short period of 
time and you do not have it again until next year. We saw on Kodiak 
Island people were faced with a complete shutdown of the island's fuel 
distributors because they had run out of clear taxable fuel and a barge 
delivery was delayed by storms at sea.
  Mr. President, the dyed diesel fuel regulations, as far as they are 
applicable in my State, make absolutely no sense at all. We have been 
exempted from an Environmental Protection Agency diesel dyeing rule 
because of the extremely high cost of converting our two refinery 
operations to produce low sulfur diesel fuel. Nearly all of our fuel 
dealers in Alaska find that the cost of complying with the IRS dyeing 
rules is simply prohibitive.
  More than 95 percent of all diesel fuel used in Alaska is exempt from 
the tax, and that is the real issue. Nearly all of it is used for 
heating or commercial fishing purposes. Yet, under the IRS rules, every 
village in my State of Alaska, no matter how remote, would have to 
construct a second storage facility to hold taxable diesel fuel for one 
or two vehicles in the village that would use taxable fuel.
  Who pays that cost, Mr. President?
  It is currently projected the State would spend some $200 to $300, 
possibly $400 million to provide fuel tanks in the hundreds of rural 
villages throughout the State of Alaska. Under these IRS regulations, 
not only would the State have to repair existing facilities but the 
State and local communities would have to come up with these dollars to 
build additional storage tanks.
  So, Mr. President, the amendment I am cosponsoring with Senator 
Gorton today would provide a temporary solution to the diesel fuel 
dyeing problems that have been plaguing us in Alaska. I would prefer 
that we could develop a comprehensive solution to all the diesel dyeing 
rules and include such a measure in a revenue bill.
  I do want to express my concern about adding this additional 
legislative amendment on an appropriations bill. However, this is an 
emergency amendment that will have an immediate and direct effect on 
all recreational boaters and marinas operating throughout the United 
States this summer. Many boaters just will not be able to get fuel this 
summer unless we adopt this amendment. That is why I am supporting it.
  Mr. President, I have been working with the chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, and the Treasury Department to 
find a workable solution to all of the problems that the diesel fuel 
rules have created in my State of Alaska. I believe such a solution is 
reachable this year. I look forward to continuing to work with the 
chairman of the Finance Committee to achieve that end. I do want to say 
that he has been most cooperative and understanding.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the amendment 
offered by the distinguished Senators from Washington and Louisiana. 
Their amendment restores common sense to a regulation which has done 
nothing but create headaches and anxiety.
  As my colleagues know, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 
increased the excise tax on fuel used in recreational boats. The 
regulations implementing this change require the sale of two types of 
fuels to boaters: clear, taxable fuel for recreational boaters, and 
dyed, nontaxable fuel for commercial boaters. Unfortunately, at marinas 
where fuel is sold, these regulations have created a logistical 
nightmare. In attempting to comply with these regulations, many marinas 
have been forced to choose between purchasing a second storage tank and 
selling only one type of fuel. Since many marinas cannot afford to 
purchase a second tank, they have been left with no choice at all. To 
the dismay of many recreational boaters, most of those marinas have 
concluded that it is most profitable to store the dyed, untaxed fuel 
rather than the clear, taxed fuel. As a result, recreational boaters 
are finding it more and more difficult to find any fuel for their 
boats. In some cases, recreational boaters have been required to travel 
long distances to purchase fuel. Needless-to-say this was not the 
intention of the legislation we approved last year.
  In the hope of restoring some common sense of these regulations, 
Senators Gorton and Johnston have offered a simple and straightforward 
amendment. Their amendment will allow recreational boaters to purchase 
dyed commercial fuel if they pay the excise tax. As my colleagues 
evaluate this amendment please keep in mind that this is not about 
evading taxes or creating a loophole. This amendment is about 
correcting an ill-conceived and impractical regulation--a regulation 
which has been nothing short of disastrous. Please join me in 
supporting the Gorton-Johnston amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not control time. The Senator 
who does control time is the Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum with the time to be 
divided equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. 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. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending Gorton amendment be temporarily laid aside in order that we may 
proceed with Senator Levin's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, first let me thank the Senator from 
Arizona and the Senator from Missouri for their work with me on this 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 1834

(Purpose: To provide for the continuing existence of the Administrative 
Conference of the United States and maintain funding for the Conference 
                      at fiscal year 1994 levels)

  Mr. LEVIN. 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 Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself, Mr. 
     Cohen, Mr. Glenn, and Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1834.

  Mr. LEVIN. 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 32, insert between lines 11 and 12 the following:

             Administrative Conference of the United States


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Administrative Conference of 
     the United States, established by the Administrative 
     Conference Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 571 et seq.), including 
     not to exceed $1,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses, $1,800,000.
       On page 48, line 7, strike ``$259,351,000,'' and insert 
     ``$257,151,000''.

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the amendment which I am offering today 
in behalf of Senators Cohen, Glenn, and Grassley would maintain the 
funding of the Administrative Conference of the United States at last 
year's level of $1.8 million.
  In the absence of this amendment, there would be no funding at all 
for the Administrative Conference of the United States. So that if it 
is going to remain in existence, as I hope and feel it should, it would 
require appropriations.
  This appropriations is less than the amount requested by the 
administration, which was I believe $2.6 million. But it is sufficient 
that it will allow the Administrative Conference to continue in 
existence and do the important work which it has been doing for 
Congress and for the executive branch.
  The Administrative Conference of the United States plays an important 
role in harnessing some important resources for our youth. It helps us 
as we look at the administrative process. When we want to reform that 
process, when we look for ways in that process, it helps us. When we 
try to encourage alternative dispute resolutions, such as arbitration, 
which we have done by law, we look to the Administrative Conference of 
the United States to help us promote alternative dispute resolutions. 
When we utilize regulatory negotiation, which we do, which helps 
parties to a dispute over regulation to try to reach a consensus, we 
look to the Administrative Conference of the United States to assist in 
the advancement of the regulatory negotiation process. We look to them 
for reports for recommendations, and they perform an important and 
useful role.
  This amendment would permit them to remain in existence at the same 
funding level as last year.
  This is not an issue of an increase or a decrease in the amount of 
funding for ACUS, as the Administrative Conference is called; it is a 
do or die amendment, because without this amendment, there is literally 
no money in this bill for ACUS. The amount of the appropriation would 
be $1.8 million which would hold this agency to the same level of 
funding it received this fiscal year.
  The Administrative Conference is a small agency in the executive 
branch with a very long reach and very important mission. It is charged 
with the responsibility of identifying and recommending improvements to 
the administrative procedures of our Federal agencies, and for 25 years 
ACUS has commendably carried out its responsibilities.
  The backbone of the work of our Federal agencies is the 
administrative process. The administrative process is at work when 
agencies issue and implement regulations; it is at work when agencies 
adjudicate individual claims for benefits; it is at work when agencies 
award licenses; it is at work when agencies debar fraudulent or 
nonperforming contractors. There is not much that a Federal agency does 
that does not involve administrative procedure.
  It is understandable, then, that when Vice President Gore went 
looking for key elements to reform the way our Federal agencies carry 
out their responsibilities he looked at the administrative process and 
saw the work of ACUS as an important asset to achieve real progress. 
Streamlining the administrative process is a primary goal of the 
National Performance Review, and ACUS is one vehicle the administration 
wants to use to reach that goal. For example, ACUS was selected as to 
be the lead implementing agency by the National Performance Review 
``Streamlining Management Control'' team to increase the effectiveness 
of the offices of general counsel. The bill we are now considering 
would eliminate ACUS' role in carrying out the NPR. It would eliminate 
ACUS altogether. It provides no funds at all for ACUS for fiscal year 
1995.
  There are other important reasons, Mr. President, to restore funding 
for ACUS, and that is so ACUS can carry out the tasks it has been given 
in specific statutes. For example, I authored the Regulatory 
Negotiation Act in 1990. That law gives ACUS a key role in encouraging 
and facilitating agency use of regulatory negotiation. Regulatory 
negotiation is a fairly new approach to developing regulations that 
brings the affected parties into the process early and attempts to 
achieve by consensus what may never be able to be achieved through the 
normal rulemaking process. It is not for use in every rulemaking, but 
where it fits, it is proven to be very beneficial--cutting costs, 
improving enforcement, and in many case, accomplishing more 
substantively. Were ACUS to be eliminated, the center of the regulatory 
negotiation effort would evaporate, and we would risk the progress we 
have made over the last few years to get agencies to be more aggressive 
about using this process.
  Similarly, ACUS has been assigned a key role in the execution of the 
Alternative Dispute Resolution Act. ADR, as it is called is a proven 
time and money saver. The ADR act encourages agencies to avoid costly 
and protracted litigation by using arbitration, mediation, and other 
alternative dispute resolution techniques. ACUS is responsible under 
the ADR act for facilitating the use of ADR in the Federal agencies, 
and they have been quite successful with their efforts. Were we to 
allow ACUS to go unfunded for fiscal year 1995, just as with regulatory 
negotiation, the center would be gone from the ADR effort, and much of 
the progress we have tried to achieve over the last few years would be 
lost.
  Mr. President, let me describe another valuable feature to ACUS' 
work. ACUS is a small, freestanding agency that operates free of 
partisan wrangling. It is research and recommendations are supposed to 
be without political favoritism, and so they have been. But more 
importantly, because of the way this agency operates, it is able to 
bring together some of the best minds in the area of administrative law 
from both the private and public sectors and combine their work for the 
benefit of the public. Law professors, the private bar, judges, and 
agency officials serve together on various ACUS panels and studies. 
Those serving on the panels from the private sector provide their 
services free of charge. It is this ability of ACUS to leverage its 
small amount of money into such a sizeable substantive gain that makes 
this agency particularly unique. Were we to fail to fund the work of 
ACUS for next year, we would lose the valuable contributions of this 
unique arrangement.
  Mr. President, another important task that ACUS preforms is to give 
Congress advice in drafting legislation that contains administrative 
procedures. I know the staff of the Governmental Affairs Committee and 
its subcommittees routinely use the expertise of ACUS to develop the 
best approach to establishing a particular administrative procedure. 
When my subcommittee needed to draft a new enforcement program for 
lobbying disclosure, it quickly and successfully turned to the 
expertise of ACUS to tell us what approach to take and what the 
pitfalls may be with various alternatives. We view this expertise as 
invaluable in formulating administrative processes.
  Finally, Mr. President, let me say that this is not the glamorous 
stuff of Government. Administrative procedure can appear to be dry and 
not all that important. But that is only a superficial analysis. 
Administrative procedure, as I said earlier, is the backbone of the way 
our agencies operate. And because administrative procedure is so 
pervasive in our Government, its failings rapidly multiply in effect. 
At the same time, because it is procedure and not substance, its 
strengths routinely go unnoticed.
  It would be a shame for us not to continue the work of ACUS, Mr. 
President. We would be cheating ourselves and our constituents.
  I understand that the matter has now been cleared. Again, I thank my 
good friends from Arizona and Missouri for working with me on this.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I yield myself whatever time I may 
take.
  Madam President, the House Appropriations Committee took this up and, 
as a matter of fact, they had a floor vote. It was struck, the $1.8 
million, by a vote 223-210, to eliminate the funding for the 
conference. When we marked up in our subcommittee, the ranking member 
and I and the committee agreed that we just did not need this any 
longer.
  My desire to eliminate this goes back to 1988. It has an 
administrative procedure role, no question about it. But I think it has 
outlived its usefulness. The point here is that--and I can put the 
Senator from Michigan at ease, as I am going to accept the amendment. 
But I think it is important to point out that we took our lead from the 
President.
  On February 10, the President issued an Executive order cutting perks 
and excesses of Government offices. Specifically, he called on each 
executive department and agency to terminate not less than one-third of 
the advisory committees and substitute Federal advisory committees. So 
we took that very seriously. I took it seriously under other Presidents 
who said it, too, and it seems like this particular conference just 
will not die. I have great respect for the Senator from Michigan. He 
assures me that it is on a new track, has a new executive director, and 
that it is going to move in a manner in which it has not before.
  I have looked at many of the reports in the past that this conference 
has given, and they range from, I think, health care to administrative 
judges, to--this is what my conclusion was 2 years ago--``about 
whatever was on the front page of the Washington Post.'' This 
conference did a study and came out with a report. That may be a little 
exaggeration but, quite frankly, I just could not see the extension of 
this.
  Having said all that, I am prepared to accept the amendment because 
the administration assures me, as does the Senator from Michigan, that 
this is a warning shot and signal that they should get their act 
together or we will not be funding this again. I will not be here to 
oppose it next year. If offered, I would not take an appointment on it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bryan). Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. I was going to yield the remainder of my time, but the 
Senator from Missouri is going to seek recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senate that the time 
allocated to the Senator from Arizona has expired. Seven minutes forty-
four seconds remain under the control of the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield my friend from Missouri whatever 
time I have left.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Michigan. We 
have discussed this matter previously, and I know of no objections to 
this amendment on this side. I think that from what we have heard, it 
is worth accepting. I do note that we need to have specific information 
on the value of this body. And for future administration requests, I 
will ask that they provide those to us in future years so that we will 
have full knowledge as we go into our Appropriations Subcommittee of 
the benefits of the ACUS. But at this time, I thank the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan, and I am willing to accept his amendment on our 
side.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1834 offered by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  The amendment (No. 1834) 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, we have several amendments operational 
here. I see that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee is 
here. I know my colleague from Arizona is anxious to offer his 
amendment. If I could inquire of the Senator from New York if he is 
prepared to go forward?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am, sir, if the Senator from Washington is. He has 
been patiently waiting. I apologize for the fact that we had a 
committee meeting which just broke up.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I will defer to the Senator from Washington because it 
is the pending amendment.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Washington and the Senator from 
Louisiana have already spoken. So the floor is available.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The chair informs the Senate that there is a 
time agreement. Mr. Gorton controls 1\1/2\ minutes. The Senator from 
Arizona controls 19.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I yield whatever time I have to the Senator from New 
York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. May I respectfully ask the Chair how much time is 
available?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 19 minutes remaining.
  The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I will not require 19 minutes of the 
Senate's time to make the point that is relevant from the point of view 
of the Committee on Finance, and from the point of view of the Senate 
as regards constitutional requirements and our behavior with respect to 
taxation.
  The first thing to say to my friend from the State of Washington--and 
I say it also to Senator Breaux from the State of Louisiana, with whom 
I just spoke--is that you have a real problem which needs to be fixed. 
I certainly would undertake to attempt just that, and I think the 
Treasury recognizes that there is such a problem. In the 1993 Budget 
Reconciliation Act, we removed the luxury tax on pleasure boats, which 
had made its way into the Tax Code with large unanticipated and wholly 
unwelcomed consequences, which is that the manufacture and sale of such 
boats fell off precipitously. Under our rules, if we were to repeal 
that luxury tax, as it was called, we had to pay for it, and we did so 
by imposing a tax on diesel fuel, used in this particular type of 
boating. We required that the fuel thus used be undyed--that being the 
case with all diesel fuels that are taxed, principally diesel fuel used 
in trucks. Now we are happy to get rid of this. I should be happy, 
personally, to see this changed, because there are so many marinas, as 
I understand it, where really only one tank is available, and the fuel 
is going to be used for both taxable and nontaxable purposes, and what 
is the marina proprietor to do?
  The Senator from Washington very properly suggests that the tax 
should be paid even though the fuel is dyed, which typically means it 
is destined for an exempt use. That is a fair point but not one 
persuasive to those persons whose lamentable works have been over the 
centuries to collect taxes. It just does not work. The law requires 
that the fuel remain undyed and the sale of it be taxed.
  We cannot change the law on this bill. This would make this bill a 
revenue bill under article 1, section 7 of the Constitution, what we 
call the origination clause. And the distinguished Senator from the 
State of Washington will know this with much greater clarity than I 
could bring to it given his legal background. But there can be nothing 
unclear about the origination clause, as it is called.
  It says:

       All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House 
     of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with 
     Amendments as on other Bills.

  In effect, Mr. President, this requires that we have a revenue bill 
before us which has originated in the House. That is the practice of 
two centuries and more. It is the rule of the Constitution. It is never 
breached.
  If this were to go to the House it would be given a blue slip, as our 
usage has it, and the Parliamentarian would simply send it back. The 
House is properly vigilant with regard to its prerogative under article 
1, section 7. There can be no question of what would happen.
  That being the case, I believe it is the intention of the 
distinguished manager to move a point of order that simply says that 
enactment into law of the pending Gorton amendment would reduce 
revenues below the fiscal year 1995 revenue floor in violation of 
section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act. A constitutional point of 
order could be made as well.
  I do not want to extend the debate. I want to extend a hand of 
friendship and help to the Senator from Washington to say that there is 
a problem and we have to deal with it and we will seek to do so. But we 
have to do so on an appropriate measure in a time in the future when 
one will come before us.
  I predict that in this vale of tears there will be another revenue 
act before the Senate before too long, and I will undertake to try to 
work to resolve this matter. In the meantime I will say to my 
colleagues we cannot accept this amendment. To do so would put the 
entire bill in jeopardy and strain an already seriously 
overstrained Senate calendar.
  Mr. President, seeing my friend from Washington having arisen, I 
yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Do I understand the Chair to say I have 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is correct.
  Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent to have another minute to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am delighted with the agreement in 
principle as to the goal we would like to achieve on the part of the 
Senator from New York. I knew those were his views already, but it is 
particularly welcome that he lays them out for us here.
  We have an absurd situation here. We have a situation in which the 
convenience of the tax collector is all and the convenience of the 
taxpayer is as nothing. We have a situation which has made it 
impossible for many boat owners to purchase fuel if they use diesel 
fuel pleasure boats, for their vessels.
  We have here an opportunity to solve that problem in the short term.
  The distinguished Senator from New York says that we cannot 
constitutionally change the Tax Code in the Senate. The Senator from 
New York is, of course, entirely correct. It is for exactly that reason 
that this amendment does not purport to change the Tax Code at all. It 
simply limits the enforcement authority of the Internal Revenue 
Service, which is not a tax bill.
  Even more importantly, however, I am convinced that we could in fact 
do so. All appropriations bills originate in the House. This is an 
appropriations bill. It has been passed by the House of 
Representatives. Almost every appropriations bill includes revenue 
provisions in it of some sort or another. I suspect that this one does. 
It has started in the House.
  The Constitution does not say the Ways and Means Committee of the 
House must act first. It says the House must act first.
  The House has in a bill which deals with revenues as well as with 
expenditures. The House in the past has accepted provisions like this 
one in part.
  If the House wishes to object to it, we can deal with that objection 
at that point. The House is not going to reject dealing with an 
appropriations bill which it itself has passed on the grounds of this 
provision. It may not like the provision. It may insist that the 
provision come out. Under those circumstances, a conference committee 
will have to make that decision.
  But to say that somehow or another this is without precedent is 
absurd. Almost every appropriation bill we deal with in this place 
deals with revenue in some respect or another.
  The provision is not unconstitutional and the House would not be 
justified in rejecting it on that ground.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the President and I respond on the 
constitutional points made by my friend from Washington by saying 
clearly the bill before us originated in the House. But it is an 
appropriations bill. It is a bill for spending moneys.
  The Constitution constrains us with respect to revenue. All bills for 
raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. This 
is not a bill for raising revenue. The provision that follows, which is 
that the Senate my propose or concur with amendments, simply does not 
apply here because this is not a revenue bill.
  I say to my friends on both sides here that we can solve this problem 
but not in this manner. If you do it, if we proceed we will simply put 
at jeopardy all the work that has been done on the appropriations bill.
  This is the Treasury, Postal Service, and general Government 
appropriations bill. A great deal of effort has gone into it. We are 
about to conclude it.
  The managers have done superb job. I particularly thank the Senator 
from Arizona and I simply have to say that I hope that the 
distinguished manager will make a point of order, if he wishes to do 
that. That is, of course, the proper means of proceeding. Otherwise, I 
would feel obliged to do so on behalf of the Committee of Finance.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would say I am willing to yield back the 
remainder of my time if the other side is so the distinguished Senator 
from Arizona can make his point.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, before I yield back the time I just 
want to say that I am very sympathetic to what the Senator from 
Washington wants to do here. Though the Senator from Arizona does not 
have many rivers and lakes as these States do, we do have a very high 
per capita rate of boats.
  I am pleased that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee 
indicates that he is going to address this matter. Because of that I am 
going to support the Senator on the point of order which I will make.
  Mr. President, I make a point of order that the Gorton amendment 
violates section 311(A) of the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant sections of 
the Budget Act in order to permit the consideration of the Gorton 
amendment.
  And I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
on Senator Gorton's motion to waive the Budget Act occur, without 
intervening action or debate, upon the disposition of the Reid 
amendment No. 1832.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, the pending amendment is the Customs 
inspector amendment, I think. I ask unanimous consent that that be 
temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1835

  (Purpose: To establish procedural requirements for certain projects)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I send to the 
desk and I ask for its immediate consideration. It is on behalf of 
myself and Senator Cohen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] for himself and Mr. 
     Cohen, proposes an amendment numbered 1835.

  Mr. McCAIN. 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 appropriate place in the Act, insert the following:
       Sec.   . No part of any appropriation contained in this Act 
     shall be made available for leases, line-item construction, 
     repairs, or alterations projects in this Act that are subject 
     to section 7(a) of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (40 
     U.S.C. 606(a)) unless the Administrator of the General 
     Services Administration certifies to the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Public Works of the House of Representatives that such 
     expenditures are prudent, reasonable, and necessary.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, just to make sure I am in sync with the 
managers of the bill here, I believe under a previous order I am 
allowed to offer two amendments. This one, it is my understanding, the 
managers of the bill are ready to accept, so we will be able to 
dispense with it very shortly.
  Then the second amendment, I believe, the time allotted is 30 
minutes, equally divided. As I have informed the managers of the bill, 
I am sure that it would not be necessary to use that amount of time.
  I ask the manager, my friend from Arizona, is that a correct 
assessment of the parliamentary situation?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. That is accurate.
  I just want to advise the Senator from Arizona that Senator Ford 
wishes to speak on this amendment, the GSA amendment. So I may have to 
put in a quorum call. But the Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend, if necessary, we can set it aside and 
move to the second one while we are waiting for the presence of the 
Senator from Kentucky, because, it is my understanding, under the 
previous order, at 1:30 votes are in order. Let us see what happens.
  Mr. President, this amendment would restrict the ability of the 
Federal Government to spend any funds to construct, lease, improve, or 
repair Federal buildings unless the Administrator of the General 
Services Administration certifies to the appropriate congressional 
committees that such expenditures are prudent, reasonable, and 
necessary.
  The Treasury-Postal appropriations bill contains $733,229,000 for 
construction and acquisition of facilities in fiscal year 1995. This 
sum is lower than last year's amount, and I applaud the committee for 
its attention to this issue.
  However, we must continue to be vigilant in our efforts to curb waste 
and abuse in the Federal construction and acquisition process. This 
amendment is a step in that direction.
  The Administrator of the GSA has the ultimate authority over the 
Federal building process. And simply put, Mr. President, if the 
Administrator cannot certify to the Congress that expenditures made by 
GSA are not prudent, reasonable, and necessary, then they should not be 
made.
  Let me make clear, this amendment would not kill any Federal 
construction project. If a courthouse is needed, it will still be 
built. If a Federal facility is required somewhere, it will still be 
built. Every building the Congress believes is needed will be built.
  What this amendment does do however, is to ensure that when we build 
these courthouses and buildings, we are not wasting money on frivolous, 
unnecessary, or extravagant items. In other words, that we are spending 
money in a prudent and reasonable fashion on items that are necessary.
  Mr. President, I do not believe this is an extreme standard. It is a 
commonsense standard. When the average family chooses, for example, to 
add on to their house, or redesign their kitchen, they normally do so 
in a prudent and reasonable fashion, spending money on items that are 
necessary. The Federal Government should operate by the standard.
  But, unfortunately, in many cases, the Federal Government does not.
  Another egregious example is the 218-million-dollar Boston 
Courthouse--which I might add was approved by the President's Supreme 
Court nominee Judge Breyer--contains: A 6-story atrium; 63 private 
bathrooms; 37 different law libraries; 33 private kitchens; custom 
designed private staircases; and a 1.5-million-dollar floating marina 
with custom-made park benches.
  The 300-million-dollar Foley Square, New York Courthouse original 
design included: 100 percent deluxe wool carpet; operable windows, not 
normally included in any Federal building; marble lined elevators; 
mahogany, instead of regular hardwood paneling; custom brass fixtures; 
and custom designed lighting.
  Are these extravagances necessary? I do not think the public believes 
so.
  Mr. President, under the Federal Property and Administrative Services 
Act and the Public Buildings Act, the GSA has the authority to oversee 
the construction, alteration, and renovation of all public buildings, 
including Federal courthouses. The law allows the GSA to limit, 
restrict, or expand the scope of construction proposals of all public 
buildings, including Federal courthouses to ensure that such projects 
are appropriate.
  The law gives the GSA the authority to renegotiate the scope of all 
projects and proposals. GSA may also require the proposers to justify 
their requests and design.
  While these authorities are currently in law, continued problems with 
extravagant and wasteful courthouse construction, demands that we take 
more aggressive action. This amendment will do so by requiring the 
Administrator to certify to the Congress that construction plans and 
the spending to execute them are reasonable, prudent, and necessary. I 
have no doubt that this requirement will make the GSA more vigilant and 
more accountable about project plans and costs. Judging from the 
revelation of marbled halls, mahogany walls, and palatial suites, 
accountability seems like a very good idea.
  Mr. President, this is a commonsense, fiscally sound amendment. I 
urge its adoption.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several articles on this 
issue be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, May 19, 1994]

                   Judge Breyer and the ``Taj Mahal''

                (By Jack Anderson and Michael Binstein)

       Donald Trump may never have met Supreme Court nominee 
     Stephen G. Breyer, but they share a fondness for perks and 
     palaces.
       This summer, construction bids will go out for a waterfront 
     project that Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.) calls the 
     ``Taj Mahal'' of federal courthouses. Breyer was a key player 
     in approving the site and design of the planned federal 
     courthouse at Fan Pier which sits just a short distance from 
     downtown Boston. Breyer currently serves on the 1st U.S. 
     Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, which would use the new 
     courthouse.
       According to soon to be released figures compiled by 
     Duncan, the $218 million courthouse project is slated to 
     include amenities that would make The Donald blush: a six-
     story atrium, 63 private restrooms, 37 different law 
     libraries and 33 ``galleys,'' commonly known as private 
     kitchens. The U.S. government also is spending $100,000 to 
     provide judges and their staffs with exclusive use of custom 
     spiral staircases between floors, even though an additional 
     $370,000 is being spent for private elevators connecting the 
     same floors.
       The plans for the new courthouse suggest that a lot more 
     than justice will be carried out there. More than half of the 
     land will be used to build, among other things, a waterfront 
     park, a $1.5 million floating marina and custom-made park 
     benches, all at federal taxpayer expense. More than $789,000 
     is budgeted just for original works of art.
       ``If we need a new courthouse, let's build it, but let's do 
     it in a way that's fair to the taxpayers as well as the 
     judges. And I think there is a happy medium there,'' Duncan 
     told our associate Jan Moller. ``But I think they have far 
     exceeded this with regard to the Boston courthouse.''
       A letter is currently circulating in Congress calling for a 
     General Accounting Office audit of this and other courthouse 
     projects.
       Plans for a new courthouse in Boston have been in the works 
     since the late 1980s, when a study conducted by the Boston 
     Redevelopment Authority found that erecting a new building 
     would be more cost-effective than renovating the existing 
     one. This study, which also ranked potential sites for a new 
     courthouse, found that the best location would have been 
     downtown Boston. The Fan Pier site was far down the list 
     mainly because of a lack of public transportation.
       At roughly the same time, the owner of the Fan Pier site, 
     Boston restauranteur Anthony Athanas, was embroiled in a 
     legal battle with the Pritzker family of Chicago--owners 
     of the Hyatt hotel chain--over the demise of a planned 
     development at the vacant Fan Pier. With the help of the 
     Pritzkers, Athanas had hoped to build a waterfront complex 
     of hotels and restaurants, but the deal collapsed and the 
     Pritzkers sued Athanas. When the dust cleared, the court 
     ordered Athanas to pay the Pritzkers $59 million.
       The loss was felt not just by Athanas, but by the Boston 
     political establishment. The 81-year-old Athanas, who owns 
     the famed Boston restaurant Anthony's Pier 4, is a longtime 
     patron of every major political figure in the city, his 
     restaurant having played host to countless political fund-
     raisers.
       According to published reports, one of the major patrons at 
     Anthony's was Rep. Joe Moakley (D-Mass.), the powerful 
     chairman of the House Rules Committee, whose campaign spent 
     almost $8,000 at Athanas-owned restaurants in 1989 and 1990. 
     Moakley, who grew up in the South Boston district he now 
     represents, even rented a summer home on Cape Cod from 
     Athanas until recently, and his brother once worked as a 
     maitre d' at Anthony's for eight years.
       The relationship apparently paid off for Athanas, whose Fan 
     Pier parcel moved rapidly up the list once bids were 
     submitted for potential sites. After the bids were received, 
     a committee made up of government officials and a team of 
     judges, led by Breyer and U.S. District Judge Douglas P. 
     Woodlock, sat down to evaluate them. They chose Fan Pier, 
     which moved up in consideration after Moakley had helped find 
     $278 million in federal funds to build a transitway from 
     downtown to the new courthouse site. The government paid $34 
     million for the 4.6-acre parcel, money that helped Athanas 
     defray the cost of his court battle.
       A top aide to Moakley said that once the site was selected, 
     Moakley and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) worked the 
     Appropriations committees for the money to build the 
     courthouse. Moakley told us he never lobbied for the Fan Pier 
     site and that the selection had nothing to do with Athanas's 
     legal problems.
       ``After I got the money [for the project], I sat down with 
     the judges and I said, `I think Fan Pier is a great area' and 
     I just played it out like that,'' Moakley told us. ``Athanas 
     did run into some problems, but that had nothing to do with 
     it.''
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, June 20, 1994]

                      Taxpayers Turn Up in the Red

                (By Jack Anderson and Michael Binstein)

       When the Justice Department's bankruptcy attorneys recently 
     moved into their new Washington offices, the taxpayers wound 
     up in the red.
       During a walk-through of their brand-new headquarters, 
     lawyers at the Justice Department's Executive Office for U.S. 
     Trustees decided the new offices were too small. They were 30 
     square feet smaller than the department's standard of 150 
     square feet--and the government attorneys threw a fit.
       The never-used offices were ripped out at a cost to the 
     taxpayers of $10,203. Agency officials explained to 
     government investigators they were afraid the smaller offices 
     would create ``tremendous personnel problems.'' Renovations 
     for the larger offices plus the extra rent paid for the 
     unoccupied space while the reconstruction was taking place 
     totaled another $237,292.
       ``Rather than incurring over $247,000 for remodeling and 
     rent on vacant space,'' Justice Department inspectors wrote 
     in an internal report obtained by our associate Andrew Conte, 
     ``EOUST should have tried other options including `living 
     with' the space as it was originally constructed.''
       In a letter to the inspectors, then-director John Logan 
     wrote, ``The attorneys on staff believed that they were being 
     treated unfairly because they were being assigned offices 
     smaller than the standard size attorney office in the 
     department.'' Creating a corporate environment for government 
     attorneys didn't stop there. To have an entrance to the 
     offices that ``evidences the stature and professionalism of 
     the government agency,'' officials billed a $5,000 mahogany-
     stained planter to the taxpayers. Planning and construction 
     for the planter alone took eight months and ``numerous phone 
     calls, faxes and meetings,'' according to the report.
       Inside, agency officials highlighted the director's office 
     suite with top-of-the-line laminated glass interior windows 
     and high-end ceramic tile counter tops and floors for his 
     personal kitchen--complete with a sink, refrigerator and 
     microwave. The more expensive laminated windows were 
     installed only after first frosted windows and then safety 
     glass windows had been installed and replaced. The safety 
     glass had to be removed since the officials objected to 
     having tiny industry seals in the corner of each pane of 
     glass. Total cost to the taxpayers: $2,397. When the hot 
     water heater in the director's personal bathroom stopped 
     working, agency officials opted for replacing it rather 
     than fixing it. The original hot water heater had been 
     installed behind a sealed tile wall, but the plumbers who 
     installed it agreed to make a hole in the tile, install an 
     access door, and fix the hot water heater for free. Agency 
     officials declined, telling the inspectors that the access 
     door would have looked ``chintzy.'' To install a second 
     brand-new heater in a nearby closet, the taxpayers paid 
     out an additional $1,680.
       ``The expenditures for a second hot water heater for the 
     director's bathroom and changes to the interior glass were 
     wasteful and unnecessary,'' the Justice Department 
     investigators wrote in the audit report. ``Likewise, spending 
     almost $5,000 for a custom-built planter may not be a prudent 
     use of government funds.'' Agency Director Logan responded: 
     ``We are committed to ensuring the wise use of taxpayers' 
     money.''
       The General Accounting Office has a well-earned reputation 
     as the government's top watchdog for fraud, waste and abuse. 
     Yet sometimes the government ends up shelling out big bucks 
     in an effort to save nickels and dimes.
       In March 1993, Agriculture Department employee Cynthia K. 
     Bernardini asked the government to pay for shipping a 
     portable garage along with her double-wide mobile home when 
     she was transferred to a new station. The request was kicked 
     over to GAO, which has the authority to make decisions on 
     such expenditures.
       By the time the GAO had finished processing the request, it 
     probably would have been cheaper for the government to have 
     shipped the garage. After a year, GAO finally issued case B-
     252774, which said the government could not reimburse 
     shipment of the garage ``even though the employee considered 
     the garage to be a major part of her lifestyle in the mobile 
     home and she had it wired for electricity and decorated to 
     match the mobile home.''
       ``A lot of times as soon as we open the envelope that has 
     an employee's complaint the taxpayers have already spent more 
     money on our salaries than the claim is worth,'' one GAO 
     official told us. ``This big bureaucracy has to deal with a 
     lot of little things that don't justify the big 
     bureaucracy.''
                                  ____


                 [From the New York Newsday, May 1994]

High Cost of Justice: Lush Decor Upgrades Send Courthouse Costs Soaring

                           (By Kathleen Kerr)

       Spacious corner suites with views of New York Harbor. 
     Private bathrooms--42 of them--complete with showers. Plush 
     wool capeting. And 42 kitchenettes.
       Requests by the courts for lush upgrades to the planned 
     decor for the granite-clad Federal courthouse under 
     construction in Manhattan's Foley Square have boosted the 
     project's cost by tens of millions of dollars, a New York 
     Newsday investigation has found.
       One government document estimated the extras would cost 
     more than $30 million, but federal officials have cloaked the 
     project's costs in secrecy.
       One GSA official estimated the original $241 million 
     courthouse price will exceed $300 million when construction 
     is completed later this year.
       The 27-story downtown courthouse--the largest and most 
     expensive in the country--will feature halls of justice lined 
     with white Vermont marble.
       Amenities for federal judges will include cherrywood-lined 
     elevators, thick wool carpeting instead of less expensive 
     synthetic floor covering and chambers as large as 860 square 
     feet.
       Then there are the windows--at least 300 will open.
       Most new skyscapers have stationary windows that help keep 
     air-conditioning costs down. But the courts demanded windows 
     that open in judges chambers, despite the Federal design 
     guide's recommendations for stationary windows in 
     courthouses.
       Original estimates placed the extra cost for the requested 
     windows at $1.7 million. A compromise on the type and number 
     of operable windows eventually was reached, but General 
     Services Administration officials would not disclose the 
     actual price.
       ``What Lola wants, Lola gets,'' former GSA Public Buildings 
     Service Commissioner William Coleman said when asked about 
     the judiciary's success in fighting for courthouse design 
     changes.
       GSA officials and the judge who headed the court during the 
     planning stages defended the trappings as needed for such 
     reasons as durability and improving acoustics.
       But New York Newsday found that in some instances changes 
     exceeded court design guidelines or were merely decorative.
       And not all courthouses built in recent years have the 
     amenities of Foley Square. For instance, the new Newark 
     federal courthouse, which opened last year, doesn't have 
     private showers or kitchenettes and has steel door knobs 
     instead of brass. In Newark, a standard judge's chamber is 
     500 square feet in area and doesn't have operable windows, 
     while courtrooms have no windows at all.
       The 350,000-square-foot Newark courthouse cost $60 million. 
     One official estimated the 630,000-square-foot Foley Square 
     courthouse will cost more than $300 million when completed.
       Judge Charles Brieant, chief judge for the Southern 
     District of New York while plans for the new courthouse were 
     in progress, defended some of the courts' requests for design 
     changes and thought it unfair to compare Foley Square to 
     Newark.
       Brieant, who oversaw the project with input from other 
     judges and court administrators, said that brass takes on ``a 
     vice putina'' and won't rust like steel. As for the showers, 
     Brieant said judges will need to use them after they use the 
     exercise room in the new courthouse.
       ``Showers are very important when you have judges who 
     commute and spend a lot of time in the courthouse. Showers 
     are important for you if you're trying to finish out a trial 
     and you have a cold or the flu.''
       But when asked how his counterparts in Newark can get along 
     without those amenities, Brieant said: ``I don't think you 
     can compare courthouses. They're all different.''
       Officials at the GSA, which is overseeing the project, 
     refused to reveal costs for the courthouse--under 
     construction at taxpayers' expense--because, they said, that 
     would jeopardize future negotiations on the project.
       Officials said they expected some cost increases because 
     they did not initially require developers to submit prices 
     for certain expensive items, such as an underground tunnel 
     between the courthouse and the Metropolitan Correctional 
     Center across the street.
       But GSA records--obtained by New York Newsday under the 
     Freedom of Information Act--show the installation of such 
     extras as rich mahogany veneers, expensive marble walls, 
     brass hardware and elaborate moldings in the courthouse 
     contributed significantly to soaring costs.
       The courthouse is expected to house all of the 57 judges 
     and magistrates of the Southern District of New York. In 
     addition, the courts will continue to use the old 1936 
     landmark courthouse already in Foley Square.
       Documents obtained by New York Newsday show that as far 
     back as 1991 some officials feared costs were soaring out of 
     control. Still, GSA acquiesced when the judiciary pushed for 
     costly upgrade to courthouse building plans.
       The Foley Square courthouse is just one of almost 200 
     federal projects valued at about $7.4 billion and approved by 
     Congress in a construction spending marathon that began in 
     the late 1980s.
       Critics have assailed many of the projects--including a 
     number of courthouses--complaining of government waste, pork-
     barrel politics and luxuries recommended by the courts.
       Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), a critic of federal 
     construction projects, said many courthouses are ``buildings 
     that are . . . extravagant, radically overpriced and 
     substantially overbuilt.''
       Roger Johnson, the new GSA administrator, has announced 
     plans to slash some projects and cut back others for more 
     than $500 million in savings. But the critics say that's just 
     a drop in the bucket.
       Johnson said an agency task force recently examined the 
     problems of the courts and construction. ``We're trying to 
     come within closure on this staff, Johnson said in an 
     interview.
       Because the Foley Square project is nearing completion, it 
     escaped the budget ax.
       Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) championed the Foley 
     Square courthouse and won Congressional approval by including 
     it in an appropriations bill. There were no congressional 
     hearings for the project.
       In pushing for the courthouse, Moynihan wrote in a Dec. 30, 
     1988, letter to then-Mayor Edward I. Koch: ``The judiciary 
     needs this space desperately. The war on drugs has literally 
     clogged the courts . . . And there is GLORY! Remember, we 
     agreed to recreate Foley Square as a true urban park.''
       Over the years, the Foley Square courthouse grew to more 
     than twice the original size requested by the courts in the 
     early 1980s.
       A GSA pre-construction document shows the agency estimated 
     that design changes requested by judges would add more than 
     $90 million to the cost of the courthouse. GSA officials 
     refused to discuss those estimates, but the document shows 
     that:
       Upgrades in courtroom furnishings requested by the 
     courthouse including carpeting, woodwork, custom lighting, 
     doors, hardware and ceilings--were expected to add $14.5 
     million to the price of the courthouse.
       A preliminary estimate for approved upgrades in carpeting, 
     woodwork, ceilings, doors and bathrooms in judges' chambers 
     was more than $2 million.
       When the courts requested upgrades to plan for elevator 
     lobbies and public corridors, GSA arranged for marble walls. 
     A preliminary estimate showed the cost to be $10 million.
       Upgrades in dining areas, work spaces . . . including those 
     used for secretaries, law clerks and libraries--and offices 
     adjacent to courtrooms were expected to boost costs by more 
     than $1 million.
       Alan Greenberg, the GSA project executive for the Foley 
     Square courthouse, would not confirm or deny cost estimates 
     in the pre-construction document. ``They're based on someone 
     looking up in the sky . . . They're not based on the real 
     world,'' he said.
       GSA awarded the courthouse contract to BPT Properties of 
     New York City, a limited partnership formed by Bechtel 
     Investments Realty Inc. of San Francisco--an arm of the 
     international engineering Goliath--and Park Tower Development 
     Corp. of Manhattan on March 29, 1991. BPT recently won 
     another GSA contract to build a Minneapolis courthouse.
       GSA memos obtained by New York Newsday show that from the 
     beginning Coleman, then a GSA official, expressed concerns 
     about the cost of courthouse design changes.
       In a memo dated Aug. 8, 1991, Coleman wrote to Clarence 
     Lee, an administrator in the Washington, DC Administrative 
     Office of the U.S. Court, about, increasing the courthouse 
     price by more than $50 million--including about $30 million 
     in design upgrades.
       ``As the result of our meetings with the developers and the 
     judges, the original offering price will be substantially 
     exceeded,'' Coleman wrote.
       The prospect of skyrocketing costs led Coleman to suggest, 
     ``If there is a probability of a significant number of 
     courtrooms and chambers initially unassigned, it would be 
     beneficial to leave them unfinished.''
       GSA officials told New York Newsday the agency never 
     consider leaving courtrooms unfinished to save money.
       Coleman also estimated that ``enhancements and 
     modifications suggested during design development sessions 
     with the developer, GSA and the courts'' would cost between 
     $25 million and $35 million.
       In an interview with New York Newsday, Coleman said he told 
     other GSA officials: ``If we don't stop this change-order 
     thing, the government is going to go down the tubes. This is 
     a contractor's dream.''
       But Greenberg, the GSA Foley Square manager, defended the 
     design changes. Greenberg said in an interview that GSA had 
     only required minimum standards for interior finishes when it 
     requested proposals. Later, the government decided to upgrade 
     to improve the appearance of the courthouse interior.
       Before the upgrades, Greenberg said, ``We were providing 
     Pergament paneling in an Ethan Allen room.''
       Greenberg said GSA also made additional changes to the 
     building to conform to federal design standards not in effect 
     at the time bids were submitted.
       But there was also the question of the windows.
       In his August, 1991, memo, Coleman had noted that if 
     operable windows were installed in the courthouse, ``the 
     initial construction cost and future energy costs will be 
     substantially increased and the air conditioning system will 
     become unbalanced.''
       A federal design guide--compiled by the Judicial Conference 
     of the U.S.--recommends materials and furnishings for 
     courthouses and calls for stationary windows. But the courts 
     have insisted they need not adhere in the guide.
       While the court design guide calls for the interior 
     location of courthrooms--without windows--to solve security 
     and design problems, the courts insisted that the new Foley 
     Square courtrooms have windows. GSA officials said they did 
     not estimate whether that affected costs.
       On Sept. 11, 1991, Coleman repeated his concerns in a memo 
     to William Jenkins, a GSA assistant regional director, A GSA 
     review team had recommended against operable windows.
       ``Operable windows should not be installed in the 
     buildings,'' Coleman wrote. ``They would violate our life-
     safety standards, compromise our HVAC (heating and air 
     conditioning) system, negate the Energy Management System and 
     adversely affect GSA's meeting energy conservation goals.''
       GSA recently told New York Newsday the partially opening 
     windows ultimately selected for the courthouse will not pose 
     air-conditioning problems.
       In defending the design changes, Brieant said the courts 
     asked GSA to substitute more intricate, raised ceilings for 
     plain ceilings in certain courtrooms. The reason Brieant 
     said, was to improve acoustics.
       GSA complied. But Greenberg said the ceiling changes were 
     decorative in nature.
       The courts also requested, and got, thick wool carpeting--
     in shades of green, navy, taupe, beige, camel and gray--
     instead of less costly synthetic carpeting suggested in the 
     federal design guide, GSA estimated the additional cost of 
     the wool carpeting in judges' chambers alone would be 
     $772,000.
       Brieant said the reason was that wool ``wears better than 
     synthetic.'' Industry experts contacted by New York Newsday 
     differ on the issue of wearability.
       GSA would not discuss the cost of carpets. But a marketing 
     manager for Karastan, a major carpeting manufacturer, 
     estimated the retail cost of 40-ounce wool carpeting--the 
     kind installed in judges' chambers--at $40 per square yard.
       GSA could have saved money by buying 40-ounce synthetic 
     carpeting--specified in the court design guide--which 
     Karastan estimated at $20 per square yard.
       Karastan estimated the retail cost of the 60-ounce wool 
     carpeting selected for courtrooms at $55 per square foot. 
     Retail prices, however, are generally higher than wholesale.
       Brieant acknowledged that private bathrooms, including 
     showers, for all judges ``have been a source of consternation 
     in some places.'' The court design guide allows private 
     showers at the discretion of judges.
       However, New York Newsday has learned that private showers 
     for judges were recently deleted from the court design guide.

                          Judicious Upgrades?

       The figures below are estimates drawn from a pre-
     construction GSA document. GSA would not reveal the actual 
     cost of the upgrades. In cases where the courts requested 
     upgrades, GSA in some instances selected the actual material 
     used to make the changes.

                       CHANGES REQUESTED BY COURTS                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Estimated  
          Original                      Change              extra cost  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtrooms:                                                             
    40 oz. synthetic         60 oz. wool carpeting......  ..............
     carpeting.                                                         
    Hardwood base..........  Hardwood base..............  ..............
    Wood paneling..........  Wood Veneer, walls.........  ..............
    Fluorescent lights.....  Custom lighting............  ..............
    Suspended tile ceilings  Coffered ceilings..........     $14,480,000
    Stationary windows.....  Operable windows...........       1,700,000
    Hardwood veneer doors..  Raised panel doors with             492,000
                              bronze hardware.                          
Judges chambers:                                                        
    42 oz. synthetic         40 oz. wool carpeting......         772,000
     carpeting.                                                         
    Hardwood paneling......  Mahogany, cherry veneers...         389,000
    Standard wood base.....  Base with molding..........          12,000
    Upgrades to secretaries  ...........................         211,000
     offices.                                                           
Elevator lobbies,                                                       
 corridors:                                                             
    Accoustical tile         Sheetrock ceiling..........  ..............
     ceilings.                                                          
    Lighting...............  Custom lighting............       2,243,000
    Walls, wallboard with    Marble.....................      10,141,000
     vinyl fabric.                                                      
This change agreed to by                                                
 GSA and courts, with BPT                                               
 suggesting the material:                                               
    Floors, marble.........  Terrazzo w/brass inlays....         696,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  ____


                        [From New York Newsday]

                        Judges Make Do in Newark

                           (By Kathleen Kerr)

       In the brand-new federal courthouse in Newark, judges 
     manage to hear cases without the benefit of private showers, 
     kitchenettes, thick wool carpeting and windows that open.
       The Newark courthouse, which has 13 judges' chambers with 
     room for expansion to 20, echoes some of the architectural 
     flourishes in the old non-classical courthouse across the 
     street. But unlike Manhattan's Foley Square courthouse, there 
     is no floor-to-ceiling marble and no brass metalwork.
       Judges' chambers are serviceable but not palatial. The 
     chambers are about 560 square feet in size, compared to those 
     at Foley Square, which are as large as 860 square feet. And 
     in Newark, the judges make do with synthetic carpeting.
       What do marble, brass and wool carpeting have to do with 
     the workings of the courts? Nothing, says Judge Nicholas 
     Politan, a six-year veteran of new Jersey's federal bench.
       ``It's pomposity . . . grandiose,'' Politan says when asked 
     if he can think of a reason for the elaborate furnishings in 
     the Foley Square courthouse.
       Politan admits he would have liked a larger office, a 
     conference room for meetings and windows that open to let in 
     fresh air.
       But Politan says that while he prefers wool carpeting, he 
     hasn't given much thought to the synthetic carpeting in his 
     office. ``Does it affect my performance?'' he shrugs as if to 
     answer his own question.
       Politan's office is lined with cherry wainscoting and 
     cream-striped wallpaper. His private bathroom has no shower, 
     and the refrigerator in his closet is one he brought from 
     home.
       But he says those things are secondary to the real needs of 
     the courts.
       ``I can't too strenuously urge that the question of space 
     in chambers and in the courtrooms is important for 
     functionality,'' Politan says.
       All the courtrooms in Newark's new courthouse are located 
     in the building's interior and have no windows. A federal 
     court design guide specifies windowless courtrooms for 
     security reasons.
       ``It's probably very good to have interior courtrooms from 
     a security standpoint,'' says Politan. But in New York, the 
     judges insisted on windows in every courtroom. And Politan 
     can't fathom why the courts in Manhattan would insist on 
     brass hardware instead of steel for the Foley Square 
     courthouse.
       He is concerned, however, because the General Services 
     Administration constructed a jury box in his courtroom that 
     crowds jurors smack up against each other for hours on end. 
     And he wants to know why GSA positioned the witness box in a 
     way that makes it hard for lawyers to see the witness.
       But as for marble and brass, Politan says: ``That's a 
     matter of taste. It's not a matter of function.''

                     [From New York Newsday, 1994]

  Bidding Laws Get Short Shrift: Deal Sweetened After Builders Chosen

                           (By Kathleen Kerr)

       Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan promised ``GLORY'' for New 
     York when he pushed in 1988 for the construction of a federal 
     office tower and the nation's largest and costliest 
     courthouse in lower Manhattan.
       But mounting costs and design problems have plagued the $1 
     billion federal project in downtown Foley Square to the point 
     that some industry insiders have dubbed it ``Folly Square.''
       A New York Newsday investigation has found that federal 
     officials circumvented bidding laws designed to hold down 
     prices and avoid favoritism. Officials discouraged 
     competition for contracts and then approved design changes 
     that added tens of millions of dollars to the project's price 
     tag, the investigation has found.
       As a result, contractors and 2,500 union workers have 
     reaped a bonanza from the project.
       ``This is the pot of gold for contractors and developers,'' 
     said William Coleman, a former commissioner with the U.S. 
     General Services Administration. GSA records show the 
     courthouse is the most expensive one of its kind to date.
       The 27-story courthouse and 34-story tower, which will 
     house a number of federal agencies, including the Internal 
     Revenue Service and the Environmental Protection Agency, are 
     nearing completion and are expected to open early next year.
       The huge public investment in the project came at a time 
     when vacant office space downtown was going begging. The 
     courthouse itself will be more than twice the original 
     250,000 square feet requested by the courts.


                            emergency cited

       GSA first required developers to bankroll the construction 
     with private loans. After accepting bids for Foley Square, 
     however, GSA reversed itself and arrange low-cost federal 
     financing instead. But GSA did not seek new bids--required by 
     laws designed to prevent favoritism--when the financing terms 
     changed.
       Instead, then-GSA head Richard Austin told Congress that 
     cramped federal quarters in Manhattan had created an 
     emergency need for the skyscrapers. Austin said seeking new 
     bids would take too long and cost too much.
       When told of the newspaper's findings, Sen. Howard 
     Metzenbaum (D-Ohio), a critic of federal construction, said 
     he would ask GSA and the Justice Department to probe federal 
     bidding procedures for Foley Square.
       ``How do you say that building a 27-story courthouse and a 
     34-story office building is an emergency?'' Metzenbaum asked.
       The cost of land acquisition, interest on 
     construction financing and cost overruns are expected to 
     push the Foley Square project over the $1 billion mark--an 
     amount approved by Congress.
       Danielle Brian, director of the nonprofit Project on 
     Government Oversight in Washington, D.C., said GSA's bidding 
     process for Foley Square shows the government ``often has in 
     mind who the government wants and they set up specifications 
     so only one company can get the job--not because they are 
     necessarily better . . . It's a lousy way to conduct 
     government contracting. It circumvents the whole point of . . 
     . competition.''
       Roger Johnson, President Bill Clinton's new GSA chief, said 
     in an interview he has found no problems with the Foley 
     Square contracting procedure.
       Moynihan (D-N.Y.), who championed the Foley Square project, 
     exhorted former Mayor Edward I. Koch in a 1988 letter to help 
     GSA bring it to fruition because of the ``GLORY!'' it would 
     bring to the city.
       In an interview, Moynihan disclaimed any involvement in the 
     management of the huge project.
       ``I had nothing to do with it once the design had been 
     chosen . . . ,'' Moynihan said, ``We purchase public 
     architecture the way we purchase paper clips . . . by sealed 
     bid which nobody is allowed to know about.''
       But in fact, New York Newsday's investigation has shown, 
     the bidding was handled in a way that served to discourage 
     bidders and gave an edge to the chosen contractors. The 
     investigation found:
       GSA told Congress there was a ``dire and immediate'' need 
     for Foley Square, but initial plans called for filling only 
     half the office tower with federal agencies.
       GSA skirted laws that guard against favoritism by not 
     offering all bidders the same financing arrangement.
       Former GSA regional administrator William Diamond destroyed 
     his records when he left office--making it difficult to 
     review his role in the project. Diamond now heads the city 
     Department of General Services.


                       Federal Spending Marathon

       Foley Square is one of almost 200 federal building projects 
     valued at about $7.4 billion and approved by Congress during 
     a construction spending marathon that began in the late 
     1980s.
       Critics have assailed many projects, complaining of 
     government waste and, in the case of courthouses, lavish 
     furnishings for judges.
       Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), another critic of federal 
     projects, says Congress approves government construction 
     ``basically in a port barrel fashion.''
       Johnson recently announced plans to slush more than $500 
     million from the various projects. But Foley Square--well on 
     the road to completion--escaped the budget ax.
       Following the 1987 stock market crash, downtown real estate 
     prices tumbled as the vacancy rate rose to between 15 and 20 
     percent.
       Today, said Raymond O'Keefe, executive director of the 
     Edward S. Gordon real estate brokerage, more than 20 million 
     square feet remain available from $16 to $30 per square foot.
       But GSA argues that leasing and outfitting existing space 
     to fit government needs can be as costly as construction.


                       THE FOLEY SQUARE BUILDERS

       BPT of New York City won a $241,112,643 contract to build 
     the courthouse on the side of a former Pearl Street parking 
     lot. And Linpro, based in Berwyn, Pa., won a $276,438,000 
     contract for the office building at the corner of Roade 
     Street and Broadway, just off Foley Square.
       BPT is a limited partnership formed by Park Tower 
     Development Corp. of Manhattan and Bechiel Investments Realty 
     Inc., of San Francisco.
       Both BPT and Linpro--formerly affiliated with Dallas-based 
     Lincoln Properties and now called LCOR--have won hundreds of 
     millions of dollars in federal contracts. LCOR is development 
     manager for the Penn Station redesign, another pet project of 
     Moynihan's. GSA has hired EPT to build a federal courthouse 
     in Minneapolis.
       Bechtel alumni include Reagan cabinet members Casper 
     Weinberger and George Schultz. And Park Tower President 
     George Klein belongs to the Republican National Committee's 
     elite Team 100, whose members each contributed $100,000 or 
     more to Republican Party offers during the 1988 election 
     campaign.
       Just north of City Hall and west of Chinatown, Foley Square 
     was once a marshland where pre-Revolutionary New Yorkers ice 
     skated on the adjacent Collect Pond.
       The City Board of Aldermen named it in 1926 after Thomas F. 
     (Big Tom) Foley, a saloon-keeper, one-term sheriff and 
     Tammany district leader in the early 1900s. Over the years, 
     Foley Square became home to several courthouses and a drab 
     federal office building.


                         it started as an annex

       In the early 1980s, the federal courts requested a 250,000-
     square-foot annex to the existing 1936 landmark courthouse. 
     GSA and the courts settled on a 700,000-square-foot 
     courthouse--allowing room for growth. GSA also decided to 
     build an office tower for federal agencies.
       On Dec. 11, 1987, Congress passed its annual appropriations 
     bill containing a Moynihan amendment authorizing GSA to 
     develop plans for Foley Square.
       But there was a problem; Congress provided no money for 
     construction. The GSA overcame that by requiring developers 
     to obtain private construction financing.
       That left developers who couldn't find construction loans 
     out in the cold. Only five companies submitted bids.
       On Feb. 3, 1989, then-New York GSA chief Diamond told 
     Moynihan's Senate Public Works subcommittee about the 
     financing arrangement. The GSA was to pay off project costs 
     over 30 years.
       With five bids in hand, two GSA committees considered 
     design proposals.
       By July 26, 1989, the committees had selected three 
     finalists--BPT, Linpro and The Galbreath Company of 
     Manhattan--and eliminated Collins Tuttle and Company Inc. and 
     DWDA, both of New York City.
       But GSA still had not acquired the city-owned lots it 
     wanted as construction sites.


                            problems develop

       The city had backed out of an arrangement that allowed it 
     to transfer the lots to the GSA at no cost in exchange for 
     cheap rental space in the office building--one of the 
     project's main selling points.
       But Moynihan and Sen. Alfonso D'Amato (R-N.Y.) stepped into 
     the breach and co-sponsored a bill allowing GSA to condemn 
     the city lots and buy them for $104 million. The developers 
     would finance the purchase and GSA would pay off the debt. 
     Congress passed the bill on Nov. 16, 1989.
       The project faced little public scrutiny except at two 
     hearings where the anger of Lower East Side residents 
     surfaced. At a Sept. 5, 1990, hearing. Kathryn Freed, a 
     Democratic district leader, characterized the construction 
     project as a ``tremendous monster'' that would harm the 
     neighborhood.
       Residents of the Chatham Towers apartments--who feared 
     construction vibrations might damage older buildings--
     complained that GSA condemned the city lots to avoid a more 
     public approval process.
       And in a Sept. 14, 1990, letter to the GSA, State Sen. 
     Manfred Ohrenstein (D-Manhattan) wrote: ``In essence, there 
     was no public process and notification.''
       Federal officials admitted the condemnations allowed them 
     to avoid cumbersome hearings but insisted their motive was 
     solely to expedite construction.
       Bombarded by complaints that the courthouse would crowd the 
     neighborhood and cast giant shadows, GSA reduced its original 
     proposed size from 700,000 square feet to 630,000 square 
     feet.


                           Changing the Rules

       Suddenly, in October, 1990, to reduce project costs, GSA 
     decided to lift its requirement that developers find private 
     financing for Foley Square. Instead, GSA arranged $797 
     million in low-interest financing through the Federal 
     Financing Bank, an arm of the Treasury Department.
       ``Smoke and mirrors'' is how U.S. District Judge Charles 
     Brieant, the former chief judge of the Southern District of 
     New York who pushed for the courthouse, describes FFB 
     financing.
       Diamond, the former GSA regional administrator, refused 
     requests for an interview through a spokesman who said he had 
     ``nothing to add.''
       When New York Newsday requested Diamond's federal office 
     diaries and calendars, Barbara Gerwin, GSA's regional 
     counsel, said they were shredded the day he left office.
       ``They were just ripped into pieces and thrown out,'' 
     Gerwin said.
       Federal law forbids destruction of certain government 
     records, including work-related personal papers regarded as 
     agency documents.
       GSA's switch to FFB financing meant a glaring departure 
     from the original project terms. When terms change 
     significantly, bidding laws require agencies to seek new bids 
     to provide equal opportunities for all bidders.
       But GSA chief Austin cited a Federal Property Act clause 
     that permits agency heads to avoid competitive bidding for 
     the public good.
       On Oct. 25, 1990, Austin wrote to then-Vice President Dan 
     Quayle, who served as President of the Senate, and House 
     Speaker Thomas Foley and said seeking new bids would cost too 
     much.
       There is no indication either Quayle or Foley objected to 
     Austin's decision.


                          bidding discouraged

       In a separate ``determination and finding'' obtained by New 
     York Newsday, Austin acknowledged GSA discouraged bidding for 
     Foley Square.
       Austin wrote in part: ``The change from contractor 
     financing to FFB financing arguably constitutes a substantial 
     change in the Government's requirements which could 
     necessitate cancellation of the SFO [solicitation for offers] 
     and issuance of a new solicitation. This is based on the 
     reasonable probability that but for the SFO requirement to 
     obtain long-term private financing there would have been 
     additional offerors capable of performing large design and 
     construction projects, who would have entered the Foley 
     Square project competition.''
       Limiting competition can drive up costs because contractors 
     may increase prices, knowing the government must choose from 
     a small pool. Conversely, contractors facing stiff 
     competition may reduce prices to win contracts.
       Robert Martin, GSA deputy regional administrator, said in a 
     recent interview Austin's memo was a formality.
       Martin said the need for office space was expected to 
     become ``dire'' over time because the Environmental 
     Protection Agency was growing.
       On March 29, 1991, Linpro and BPT won the coveted Foley 
     Square contracts--then valued at more than half a billion 
     dollars.
       Two losing bidders didn't completely buy GSA's reasons for 
     not offering FFB financing to all bidders.
       Wylie Tuttle, president of Collins Tuttle, said: ``I was 
     not offered any government financing . . . I'd like to know 
     why.''
       Tuttle's bid was submitted before GSA arranged FFB 
     financing.
       Al Iudicello, who helped put DWDA's losing proposal 
     together, refused to comment. BPT spokeswoman Michele deMilly 
     said: ``As far as they're concerned, the bidding process was 
     fair.''
       Christopher McGratty, Linpro vice president when the 
     company won the office building contract, said bidding was 
     ``more than fair and open.''
       The controversy surrounding the massive project didn't stop 
     with the contract awards.
       GSA awarded BPT the $241 million courthouse contract based 
     on its price and exterior design, but Alan Greenberg, the GSA 
     project executive, said the agency later borrowed from two 
     losing proposals to improve BPT's interior plans.
       ``The original [BPT] offer--which we accepted knowing full 
     well it was not top of the line on the inside--we ended up 
     spending more money,'' said Greenberg, the project executive.
       Linpro--which won the office building contract--proposed a 
     courthouse price of $321,405,000 and lost. Another losing 
     bidder, The Galbreath Company, submitted a $327,276,000 bid.
       Johnson, the new GSA chief, said he was not aware that GSA 
     changed BPT's courthouse design. ``I think it's much more 
     likely that the specs [specifications] changed from the 
     courts,'' Johnson said.
       Courthouse costs spiraled upward as plans changed. 
     Greenberg said he now expects the courthouse price tag to top 
     $300 million.
       Coleman, the former GSA commissioner, told New York Newsday 
     that low bids often did not remain low at GSA.
       ``One of the big things that always concerned me is low-
     bidding contractors wouldn't care because they always get you 
     to change orders,'' he said.
       More problems arose in 1992, when GSA drew criticism for 
     failing to halt work when crews disturbed an 18th century 
     African Burial Ground at the office building site.
       The plans for Foley Square will not stop with the ribbon-
     cutting for the two skyscrapers. Moynihan has obtained $5.25 
     million through the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act. The money will help redesign Foley Square 
     plaza--a collection of tiny parks, traffic islands and 
     interesting streets--to the tune of $13.6 million.
                                  ____


                   [From the Washington Times, 1994]

 Hill Panel Asks Why it Cost $218 Million for Courthouse: Boston Deal 
                   May Embarrass Court Nominee Breyer

                          (By Michael Hedges)

       A bipartisan group of congressmen is calling for a probe of 
     spending on federal courthouses, including a review of a $218 
     million taxpayer-funded project in Boston that could prove 
     embarrassing for Supreme Court nominee Stephen G. Breyer.
       ``We are concerned that we may be constructing courthouses 
     we do not need and that we are adding unnecessary and 
     extravagant extras onto some federal courthouses that 
     increase the cost,'' said a letter to the General Accounting 
     Office (GAO) signed by four Democratic senators, three 
     Republican senators and a Republican House member.
       While calling for the GAO to probe acquisition and 
     construction of several federal courthouse sites, it is the 
     Boston project that has the most potential to prove 
     embarrassing to the Clinton administration.
       ``We are paying a high price for federal judges to have 
     offices with a harbor-front view,'' Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., 
     Tennessee Republican, said of the Boston courthouse project.
       ``In addition to a six-story atrium and lavish entrance, . 
     . . this courthouse contains approximately 63 private 
     bathrooms, 37 libraries and 33 private kitchens,'' Mr. Duncan 
     said. It also will include a $450,000 boat dock and more than 
     $750,000 in artwork.
       The others signing the letter were Democratic Sens. Robert 
     J. Kerrey of Nebraska, John Glenn of Ohio, Byron L. Dorgan of 
     North Dakota and Jim Sasser of Tennessee, and Republican 
     Sens. John McCain of Arizona, William S. Cohen of Maine and 
     William V. Roth of Delaware.
       Judge Breyer, of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, 
     played a pivotal role in planning the controversial 
     courthouse and selecting its waterfront site. He co-
     chaired a judicial commission that chose the Fan Pier 
     site, owned by a patron of Boston politicians, even though 
     an earlier study had found it unacceptable and rated 10 
     different locations more appropriate.
       Judge Breyer would not comment on the matter because he 
     ``has not been giving any interviews or commenting while his 
     confirmation process is ongoing,'' a White House spokesman 
     said.
       But in interviews two years ago when the project was 
     evolving, Judge Breyer told the Boston Globe, ``We looked for 
     the best architect in the world.'' The architect they got was 
     I.M. Pei, acknowledged as one of the world's best, and most 
     expensive.
       The evolution of the Boston federal courthouse also 
     involved the efforts of Massachusetts politicians, especially 
     Rep. Joe Moakley, a Democrat, who helped find federal funds 
     to get public transportation to the site and who is 
     reportedly a close friend of the man who owned the property 
     purchased to build the courthouse.
       Mr. Moakley said through an aide that while he helped 
     obtain the federal financing for the courthouse and the 
     transportation system that will serve it, the selection of a 
     site did not involve him.
       ``The site was chosen by a panel of judges and government 
     officials,'' said Fred Clark, Mr. Moakley's campaign manager. 
     ``Their view, and our view, is that it is the best site in 
     Boston.''
       In 1989 the Boston Redevelopment Authority finished a study 
     saying the city's crowded federal courthouse would be cheaper 
     to replace than to expand. That study listed four acceptable 
     sites for a new courthouse, and ranked them by feasibility. 
     One site rejected by the group was Fan Pier, a collection of 
     lots along the Boston waterfront.
       Of 12 sites considered, Fan Pier was rated 11th by the 
     initial review panel. It was ``rejected for transportation 
     access and litigation reasons,'' the report said. ``Both the 
     city and the Commonwealth are reviewing means to improve 
     public transportation access to the area. However, such 
     transportation improvements will not be available for a 
     number of years.''
       At that time the 20-acre Fan Pier site was owned by Boston 
     restaurant owner Anthony Athanas, a patron to many Boston 
     politicians, including Mr. Moakley, whose brother had been an 
     Athanas employee for eight years.
       The property was an abandoned railroad yard that had been 
     sold for less than $100,000 in 1960. One reason the property 
     had been valued so low was that government officials had 
     shown little interest in extending a subway line to the area.
       As Boston officials pondered a new courthouse, Mr. Athanas 
     was locked in a legal battle with the Pritzker family of 
     Chicago, owners of the Hyatt hotel chain. Because of a failed 
     business deal between the two, Mr. Athanas was ordered by a 
     court to pay the Pritzkers $59 million.
       As part of the settlement, Mr. Athanas gave the Pritzkers' 
     HBC Associates most of the Fan Pier site. He later made up 
     part of this loss by selling the remaining 4.6 acres of Fan 
     Pier to the federal government for $34 million as the 
     courthouse site.
       In the early 1990s, bids for the building of the courthouse 
     were solicited. A committee made up of city officials and 
     federal judges, and headed by Judge Breyer and a colleague, 
     was picked to scrutinize the various bids and sites.
       During the same period, Mr. Moakley helped to secure for 
     Boston $278 million in federal funds to build a spur of the 
     Boston transit system to the Fan Pier site.
       Mr. Clark, Mr. Moakley's aide, said the congressman's 
     effort to secure funding of the spur ``was tied to the 
     development of that section of Boston, not to the 
     courthouse.''
       ``The fact that Anthony Athanas owned the cheapest site in 
     Boston is irrelevant to any personal friendship between he 
     and Mr. Moakley,'' Mr. Clark said.
       With the problem of transportation solved, Fan Pier jumped 
     to the top of the list of sites reviewed by the panel co-
     chaired by Judge Breyer.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the managers of the bill for 
accepting this amendment.
  I have no further use for time. I ask my friend from Arizona if he 
chooses to go into a quorum call waiting for Senator Ford or ask 
unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and move to the 
second amendment. Whichever he desires is perfectly fine with me.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, let me assure my colleague that we will 
be sure that his second amendment is in before 1 o'clock.
  So I will put in a quorum call and ask unanimous consent that the 
time not be charged to either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator has suggested the absence of a quorum. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The 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.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, in relating to the present amendment 
offered by my colleague from Arizona, the standard that he sets forth 
here is prudent, reasonable and necessary. I have no objections to 
that. GSA says they do that. I guess someone could question that. We 
have a new GSA Administrator that has brought all kinds of new 
procedures to us.
  So this Senator will be prepared, at the appropriate time, to accept 
the amendment.
  The Senator from Kentucky is on his way over here, but, due to the 
fact that he is not here, I will ask at this time that we temporarily 
lay aside the pending amendment of the Senator from Arizona so he may 
proceed with another amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Thank you, Mr. President.


                        Privileges of the Floor

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two interns 
from my office, John DiCaro and Pete Garuccio, be allowed privileges of 
the floor during the consideration of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1836

    (Purpose: To eliminate full-time employment floors from the Act)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I send 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. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1836.

  Mr. McCAIN. 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 appropriate place in the bill, add the following:
       Sec.  . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     any ``full time equivalent'' employment minimum staffing 
     requirements contained in this Act shall be null, void, and 
     of no effect.

                           Amendment No. 1835

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I note the presence of the distinguished 
Senator from Kentucky, Senator Ford, who had wished to speak on the 
previous amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Ford be 
recognized at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. President, all I want to do is ask the Senator a question or two 
as it relates to his amendment.
  What does the Senator propose to do with the construction, to have 
them in a 5-year plan or a 6-year plan or a 3-year plan? What is the 
Senator's proposal as it relates to this amendment?
  Mr. McCAIN. My amendment would apply no matter how many years were 
involved and that the Administrator of GSA stated that it be prudent 
and reasonable.
  Mr. FORD. Now is that the prospectus that we use, or the 11(b)?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
  Mr. FORD. And, if you have either one of those, it would meet the 
criterion? So, if the prospectus comes to the appropriate committee, 
that would satisfy the Senator's amendment? Or 11(b), that we have 
used, which is basically the same? The final page which approves the 
project is identical so it would not alter anything that is now in the 
pipeline subject to the 11(b) or the prospectus?
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. FORD. That is all I need to know and I thank the Senator for his 
courtesy allowing me to get that in the Record. It not only satisfies 
me, but it satisfies some of the others. They were concerned about, 
having gone through all this work, something may then jeopardize the 
ability to use 11(b), or prospectus.
  I thank the Senator and I thank the Chair.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Will the Senator from Arizona yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to yield.


                           Amendment No. 1835

  Mr. DeCONCINI. If the Senator from Arizona is agreeable why do we not 
go ahead and agree to the previous amendment?
  I ask unanimous consent we return to the previous amendment offered 
by the Senator from Arizona. I yield the remainder of my time and urge 
the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back the remainder of 
his time?
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1835) was agreed to.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1836

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question now is amendment 1836 
offered by the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain].
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is a rather straightforward 
issue. I do not believe it will require a great deal of debate.
  By the way, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the time agreement the Senator from 
Arizona [Mr. McCain] has 15 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Department of Treasury and Postal 
Services appropriations bill before the Senate mandates minimum 
staffing levels for these agencies. I strongly object to this kind of 
micromanagement and believe it fosters inefficiency in Federal agencies 
and wastes taxpayer dollars.
  This amendment would declare any provisions in the bill mandating a 
full-time employment floor to be null, void, and of no effect. In other 
words, the agencies funded in this bill will not have to implement FTE 
floors.
  The Vice President in ``Creating a Government That Works Better and 
Costs Less,'' the Report of the National Performance Review, stated:

       Congress should also minimize the restrictions and earmarks 
     that it imposes on agencies. With virtually all federal 
     spending under scrutiny for future cuts, Congress is 
     increasingly applying earmarks to ensure that funding flows 
     to favored programs and hometown projects.
       Imagine the surprise of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, 
     who a few months after taking office discovers that he was 
     under orders from Congress to maintain 23 positions in 
     Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, field office of his department's 
     anthracite reclamation program. Or that his department was 
     required to spend $100,000 to train beagles in Hawaii to 
     sniff out brown tree snakes. Edward Derwinski, former 
     secretary of Veterans Affairs, was once summoned before the 
     Texas congressional delegation to explain his plan to 
     eliminate 38 jobs in that state.

  Mr. President, if we want Federal agencies to operate in an efficient 
fashion we cannot congressionally micromanage those 
agencies.
  Mr. President, could you imagine any company in America mandating 
that on no condition could that company employ less than a certain 
number of employees? This kind of congressional restriction defies both 
logic and good business sense.
  By preventing these FTE floors from being adopted in this bill, we 
are in no way jeopardizing the jobs of Federal employees. Let me make 
that point clear. No Federal employee will necessarily lose his or her 
job by this action.

  The President, with the support of Federal employee unions has 
proposed a plan to reduce the number of Federal employees. It is the 
President's plan that will dictate if any Federal job is eliminated.
  I believe we should support the President in his efforts to curb the 
size of the Federal work force. I am attempting to give the President 
and the Department Secretaries that freedom. The FTE floors in the bill 
do the opposite by unduly tying the President's hands.
  FTE floors are not needed to ensure the public's best interest. Each 
agency in this bill when FTE floors are applied, has an important 
mission and does much good work. I applaud these agencies. But I 
believe that these agencies can and will perform their jobs without the 
Congress mandating how many individuals--at minimum--they must employ 
to get the job done.
  Allow me to quote the Vice President again:

       In Washington, we must work together to untangle the knots 
     of red tape that prevent government from serving the American 
     people well. We must give cabinet secretaries, program 
     directors and line manages much greater authority to pursue 
     their real purposes.

  The Vice President has called for 252,000 positions to be eliminated 
in the Federal civilian work force, a reduction of almost 12 percent, 
bringing it below 2 million for the first time since 1966.
  Yet in this bill, we are frustrating these efforts by mandating 
minimum staffing levels, stripping the President and the Cabinet 
Secretaries of their constitutional role of administering Government.
  Mr. President, this is wrong. It is wasteful. And it is unnecessary 
micromanagement. The Vice President is correct when he stated: 
``eliminate FTE floors.''
  Last year the Senate saw fit to heed the Vice President's advice. The 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee and ranking member Hatfield 
took action to eliminate FTE minimum floors from all the appropriations 
bills. I applaud them for their efforts last year. This year we should 
continue their work.
  Mr. President, we also have from the Office of Management and Budget, 
a statement of administration policy of June 20, 1994 concerning this 
appropriations bill. This comes from the Office of Management and 
Budget. It states:

       In addition, the committee bill has added language setting 
     FTE floors for the United States Customs Service, the Bureau 
     of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Departmental Offices and 
     parts of the Internal Revenue Service. Taken together, these 
     provisions seriously undermine executive branch capability to 
     execute its management responsibilities. The administration 
     urges the Senate to eliminate these provisions.

  Mr. President, the Vice President of the United States, generally has 
asked for elimination of these FTE floors. The Office of Management and 
Budget, in relation to this specific appropriations bill, has asked to 
eliminate this language. I hope we could comply with the request of the 
administration.
  I really have no more discussion or debate on the issue. I reserve 
the remainder of my time, Mr. President, and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona [Mr. DeConcini].
  Mr. DeCONCINI.  Mr. President, I have to oppose this amendment by my 
colleague from Arizona for a lot of reasons.
  First of all, in the bill we have complied with the Executive order 
of whatever cuts are going to be made with the exception of law 
enforcement. That amounts to roughly 25,000 employees; 4,200 in the 
ATF, Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms--this includes people that enforce 
the Armed Career Criminal Program; Customs, responsible for major drug 
interdiction, of 17,524; and the IRS criminal division that does the 
fraud and also money laundering of some 5,000 FTE's.
  The reason we did this is because--I think everybody in this body is 
supporting President Clinton's effort to add 100,000 police to the 
streets of this great country to get at the crime problem. In the crime 
bill the Senate adopted a sense-of-the-Senate resolution offered by 
myself that said that law enforcement should be exempt from this 
particular Executive order of not putting any floors in the number of 
FTE's. So that is the position the Senate has already taken.
  Now this bill preserves that in the law enforcement positions only. 
To vote for the amendment of the Senator, the junior Senator from 
Arizona, would in fact be stripping away the capability of law 
enforcement to keep the number of people that they have. We restored 
only 50 positions in the interdiction program for the Customs Air and 
Marine Service out of 110--that were cut. We restored $12 million and 
210 positions in Treasury law enforcement for the training of Federal 
law enforcement, for FinCEN, for the Secret Service as well as the 
Customs Service. In my judgment we will have to continue to maintain 
it.
  How can we ask local law enforcement to understand that here we are 
going to add 100,000 police but we are going to cut our own? That makes 
no sense. It makes no sense at all. I do not know how we can justify 
spending $22 billion--which is what we are talking about in the crime 
bill, to add over 100,000 cops on the beat--and then turn around and 
reduce these Federal law enforcement people.
  In Arizona, it would be devastating for our border, which is 
inundated with drugs. Without the restorations, this would mean that we 
would have less law enforcement people stopping people from bringing 
drugs across the border.
  So I hope that the Senate will not accept and approve the amendment 
of the Senator from Arizona.
  I yield to my friend from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond].
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Arizona in opposing 
this amendment. Quite simply, the reason we included floors is that we 
have added money back to restore full-time employees who would have 
been cut under the President's budget under an Executive order. These 
full-time employees essentially are law enforcement individuals. If we 
do not include the floors, the Office of Management and Budget will not 
permit the agencies where we have restored positions to hire up and 
maintain additional levels.
  This is a scenario where we need to exercise our responsibility in 
this body and in Congress to assure that law enforcement positions are 
not cut unacceptably. If we do not have floors, the administration has 
clearly indicated that it intends to cut vitally important law 
enforcement resources in personnel.
  My good friend, the junior Senator from Arizona, has said this 
seriously undermines executive responsibility. I think a better way to 
say that is that it forces the policy to be adopted by Congress to be 
carried out by the administration.
  Yesterday, I had an opportunity, to discuss why I opposed the motion 
to recommit by the Senator from New Hampshire, why it is so important 
that we have adequate law enforcement. Frankly, the law enforcement 
professionals at the State and local level in my State are not too 
excited about having 100,000 rookie cops added for 3 years. They do not 
think that will make much difference.
  What they are worried about is that we will reduce the very important 
Federal law enforcement agencies, which play a vital role in making 
sure that local law enforcement can come back, keep up with, and pursue 
effectively the interstate and international criminal operations that 
are drug- and sometimes weapons-related, but they are multi-State and 
international conspiracies which have resources far beyond the ability 
of a local law enforcement agency to cope.
  I believe that the policy the administration has proposed, to take 
more and more money out of law enforcement at the Federal level and out 
of drug interdiction, is just plain wrong. As I said before, and I will 
not go into my comments again, the administration's view is not shared 
by the people who are law enforcers and prosecutors at the State and 
local level in my State. They recognize the importance of the Federal 
efforts. Frankly, I have seen enough to be convinced that they are 
correct.
  The President's budget would provide 100,000 rookie cops on the beat 
and yet reduce the very law enforcement agencies that are supposed to 
carry out the additional get-tough provisions in the crime bill. We 
have to have the Federal law enforcement resources available.
  We have done things that we think will help bring Federal employment 
down. We included a general provision, section 505, which permits GSA 
to contract out guard, messenger, elevator operator, and custodial 
services, something which they have been prohibited from doing in the 
past. That will cut full-time employees.
  We cut substantial funding in GSA and IRS--in addition, we even cut 
the Secretary of the Treasury to show we meant business--the Tax Court, 
OPM, and even the executive office of the President. It was very tough 
for us to do those, but we did it. We even cut 15 positions from OMB. 
That one was a little easier.
  Mr. President, I think this committee ought to decide and this body 
ought to decide where we place our priorities, because when you make 
cuts as have been proposed by OMB, you are changing the policy; you are 
saying we are no longer going to rely on the Federal law enforcement 
agencies with their abilities to interdict and combat drug trafficking 
and trade and major multi-State and international criminal enterprises. 
I think that is a wrong policy.
  We have the opportunity in this bill to change that policy by saying 
not only are we going to provide the full-time employees for these 
vital law enforcement resources, we are going to say to the OMB, ``You 
can't tell the agencies, well, they gave you some more people for law 
enforcement but don't hire them.''
  That is the reason the floors are in. If this were a private 
business, would you tie the hands of the chief executive officer? The 
board of directors could fire the chief executive officer if he did not 
carry out the policies. It works differently in Government. In 
Government, the Executive Officer has great powers and can propose 
policies. We in Congress have the responsibility for passing 
appropriations and making the legislative determinations on what we 
expect the policy to be.
  While this does not fit within the traditional private sector mold of 
executive responsibility, it is very clearly a responsibility of this 
body and the entire Congress to decide that law enforcement is, in 
fact, a very important activity of the Federal Government. Having law 
enforcement officials able to deal with and to interdict drugs and to 
provide assistance to local law enforcement agencies is a vital 
function.
  I urge my colleagues not to support the amendment of Senator McCain 
and to say that law enforcement at the Federal level is a high priority 
that we must pursue. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, stripping all the FTE requirements in the 
bill will in no way means less Federal law enforcement. First, there is 
no assurance that officers and other crucial personnel will be hired 
under the FTE floors contained in the bill.
  Second, each agency will be able to hire as many employees as they 
need. The FTE floor is not needed to ensure fully staffed agencies.
  Third, the funding for increased Customs and Border Patrol Agencies 
is still in the bill. The McCain amendment does not change the bill's 
increased funding levels in any way.
  Fourth, we should not tie the hands of the agency heads. What we must 
instead do is pass authorizing bills for these agencies, establishing 
policy goals and standards, and then allow the agency chiefs to use 
their resources in a manner that will best meet the goals the Congress 
establishes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
permitted to speak not with time charged against the amendment but with 
respect to another matter in the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the committee in the Senate has chosen to 
strike the language requested by the President and included by the 
House pertaining to the mandatory use of FTS 2000. That is the contract 
for long distance telephone service that has been in effect for several 
years. We have had to deal with this in the Treasury, Postal bill. The 
provision has been included in the Treasury bill since the contract for 
FTS 2000 was awarded in 1988. It is now estimated that the Government 
will save an estimated $3 billion over the life of the 10-year 
contract. The way we do that, however, is making sure that the 
Government agencies covered by the contract continue to use the FTS 
2000 services. If they do not use them, then the bargain of the 
contract is broken and, frankly, the Federal Government is not living 
up to its responsibility.
  The chairman has chosen not to include the language this year in the 
committee mark as he did last year. The exclusion, as he noted several 
times, does not indicate his opposition to mandatory use, only that he 
feels the administration has the authority to mandate use of the 
system, and therefore the need for this language is not necessary on an 
annual basis.
  Mr. President, I had the opportunity to question the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget when he came before our committee to 
determine why he had not issued the order requiring agencies to use the 
FTS 2000 telephone system. He told me that it seemed to make sense and 
he would have to get back to me. We still have not had any action by 
OMB or the President issuing an Executive order. This whole problem 
could be resolved if the administration would take positive action in 
the form of an Executive order or use any other means available to 
direct mandatory use. It is quite simple. The Government has gotten a 
good deal. They set up a long-term contract. They have 3 billion 
dollars' worth of savings. The only way that those savings work and the 
contract carried out is if everybody uses the services for which they 
contracted.
  Now, Mr. President, I know there are other sellers who want to get in 
on the business but, frankly, the savings came about because of the 
broad nature and the length of time included in the contract.
  The administration has chosen not to act affirmatively to require 
that the terms of the contract be met. I therefore will continue to 
support the inclusion of the mandatory use language in this 
legislation. I want my colleagues to know that we will look forward to 
working with the House in the conference committee on this measure.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DeCONCINI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona [Mr. DeConcini].
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, on the same subject matter, not on the 
pending amendment--if it is required to ask unanimous consent, I so 
ask--I wish to assure the Senator that the reason I did not advocate 
putting it in is exactly as the Senator points out. I believe that the 
executive branch has the authority; they admit they have the authority. 
As a matter of fact, they have had under consideration for at least 2 
years an Executive order to implement this, which would mean it would 
take an Executive order or act of Congress to change it, and that is 
the reason it is not in here. I have some resentment toward the 
executive branch of Government and OMB to expect us to carry out their 
obvious responsibility here, and that is the reason it is not here.
  I thank the Senator from Missouri. I understand his deep interest in 
it. I can assure him that my purpose is just to have the executive 
branch do what I believe they are supposed to do, which they are doing 
but they will not execute the order mandating that this occur because 
the decision has already been made.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for 
his kind statement.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain, I yield back 
Senator McCain's remaining time under Senator McCain's control on the 
FTE floor limit amendment.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, the bill includes FTE floors for only 
three agencies: ATF, 4,215 FTE's for the total agency and 1,140 FTE's 
for the Armed Career Criminal Program; Customs, 17,524 FTE's; and IRS 
Criminal Investigations Division, 5,002 FTE's.
  These floors represent the total number of FTE's funded by the 
committee actions for these agencies.
  In the case of ATF, we restored 22 FTE's which were proposed to be 
cut by the President's Executive order; and 24 FTE's to support the 
continuation of 6 GREAT projects from fiscal year 1994 which were not 
funded in the President's budget.
  For Customs, we restored 50 positions in marine interdiction and 25 
positions in air interdiction that were proposed to be cut as a result 
of the President's revised air and marine interdiction strategy. In 
addition, we restored 110 positions which were proposed for reduction 
due to the President's Executive order.
  All total we are talking about 26,741 FTE's--231 FTE's which were not 
funded in the President's budget.
  The bill restores $12 million and 212 FTE's for all of the Treasury 
law enforcement agencies--FLETC, FinCEN, Secret Service, ATF, and 
Customs--that would have taken cuts as a result of the President's 
Executive order. IRS-CI, under the President's budget was not proposed 
for personnel cuts as a result of the Executive order.
  The reason we have included floors in the bill is that we have added 
money back for restoring FTE's that would have been cut in the 
President's budget. If we don't include the floors, OMB will not permit 
the agencies, where we have restored positions, to hire up and maintain 
those levels.
  These are law enforcement and positions that support law 
enforcement--we happen to think this is a priority and the American 
public thinks it is a priority.
  I do not know how we can justify spending $22 billion for enhanced 
crime initiatives, add 100,000 cops on the beat, and then turn around 
and reduce the very law enforcement agencies that are supposed to carry 
out the enhanced crime bill provisions.
  Arizona would be one of the States most affected if the FTE floors 
are not included, as would all other border States. The 
administration's budget proposes to cut 40 inspectors and 3 inspection 
support positions in fiscal year 1995.

  This is at a time when the administration is trying to enforce NAFTA 
and the new drug interdiction strategy.
  I have had repeated briefings from Customs on the number of illegal 
drug flights that are landing just short of the United States border in 
Mexico. Customs is convinced that the landings are occurring in Mexico 
because of the effectiveness of the air interdiction program. What is 
happening, is the narcotraffickers are bringing the drugs into the 
United States by ground.
  I fear that less staff on the border will only exacerbate this 
problem in illegal drug smuggling because there will not be sufficient 
inspectors to search for drugs or enforcement agents to conduct the 
investigations.
  I think the Congress ought to decide where we want to place the 
staffing priorities--not OMB. If we take out the floors and provide the 
funding, there is no guarantee the money will be used for the purpose 
it was provided. And who will suffer, the American public who feels 
crime is the No. 1 problem in this country.
  I support the President's efforts to reduce the Federal workforce by 
252,000 FTE's over 5 years. However, it should not be accomplished at 
the expense of law enforcement.
  I included a sense of the Senate resolution in the Senate crime bill 
stating that law enforcement positions should be exempt from the 
President's Executive order. It is foolish and expensive to be cutting 
on the one hand, then giving back on the other through the crime bill.
  In fiscal year 1994, we included a provision in the Treasury 
appropriations act exempting Treasury law enforcement positions from 
the Executive order. OMB waived reduction in law enforcement for the 
Department of Justice, which had no such provision, but not for 
Treasury.
  As a result, we provided the funding for restoration of the 
positions, and guess what, the positions were not restored.
  The President's budget included substantial cuts for Customs and IRS 
that were not associated with the Executive order. For example, in 
Customs the President proposed a reduction of 217 FTE's not associated 
with the Executive order then proposed enhancements of 198 positions. 
We restored 75 of the 217; and did not fund 186 of the 198 which were 
associated with the trade fraud initiative.

  For the IRS, the President proposed reductions totaling 3,169 FTE's, 
636 of which are associated with the Executive order.
  In addition, we included a general provision, section 505, which 
permits GSA to contract out guard, messenger, elevator operator, and 
custodial services--something they have been prohibited from doing in 
the past. This will result in decreased FTE's.
  We cut substantial funding in GSA and IRS--in addition, we cut the 
Secretary of the Treasury, the Tax Court, OPM, and even the Executive 
Office of President. As a matter of fact, we cut 15 positions from OMB.
  There is nothing in the bill which prohibits the administration from 
making cuts in other agencies to reach their total FTE reduction goals.
  They just cannot take them in Customs, IRS' criminal investigations 
unit, or ATF. These are the agencies, that over the years, have been 
constantly undermanned in FTE's because of OMB interference with these 
agencies, despite congressional actions.
  In conclusion, I think the congress ought to decide where positions 
are funded--that is our job. If we take out these floors, we relinquish 
that control to the executive branch.
  Does the junior Senator from Arizona want to see a reduction in 
Customs agents and inspectors in Arizona or air interdiction personnel? 
Does he want to see more drugs coming through the border between 
Arizona and Mexico because Customs does not have the staff? That is 
exactly what will occur if the Senator's amendment in adopted.
  Mr. President, I just want to make sure that everybody understands 
that the amendment offered by the junior Senator sets in place the 
inability for law enforcement, that is primarily dealing not only with 
drugs, but also criminal fraud, and the IRS criminal investigations, 
from being restored to the levels that this committee could come up 
with. Even with that, we are at a reduced overall rate of employment in 
this bill.
  So that it is in total compliance with what the President has asked 
us to do. But I think it is up to the Congress, and I suspect and I 
hope that the Senate will not support the junior Senator's amendment 
because what we have done is restored those positions. It is vital--and 
it is really vital to the State of Arizona--that we do not reduce 
Customs personnel on our border. That is what this amendment would do 
if it were to carry. It does not tie the hands of the Government. In 
fact, it unties the hands so that we can continue the war on the drug 
traffickers who bring the drugs into this country.
  So it is absolutely necessary that we defeat this. I hope the Senate 
will do so.
  Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the junior Senator 
from Arizona, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ford). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
on the motion to table the amendment of the Senator from Arizona occur 
immediately following the budget waiver vote, and that no amendments to 
the amendment offered by Senator McCain be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time 
on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the 
question is on the motion.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes 
set to occur at 1:30 p.m. be moved to begin at 2 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. BRYAN. With the agreement of the floor leadership, I ask 
unanimous consent that he be able to speak as if in morning business 
for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. I thank the floor leadership.

                          ____________________