[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 138 (Wednesday, September 28, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
         PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR--CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4539

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John 
Libonati, a fellow in my office be granted floor privileges during 
consideration of the conference report to H.R. 4539, the Treasury, 
Postal Service, and general government appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate 
the conference report accompanying H.R. 4539, the fiscal year 1995 
appropriations bill for the Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Postal 
Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain independent 
agencies. The bill as reported by the conference, totals $23.5 billion 
in new budget authority or approximately $136.8 million less than the 
Senate-passed bill.
  Mr. President, I will have a longer statement which outlines in 
greater detail the provisions contained in the conference report. I 
want to take a few minutes to briefly summarize the conference report.
  The conference agreement includes $39 million for Treasury law 
enforcement activities as authorized in the Violent Crime Control and 
Law Enforcement Act of 1994. These funds will be used in fiscal year 
1995 to enhance criminal investigations into the counterfeiting of U.S. 
currency; to beef up port and border enforcement activities; and to 
permit ATF to undertake compliance measures to ensure proper 
implementation of the firearms provisions of the crime bill. The bill 
also includes $9 million to expand the number of gang resistance 
education and training projects in communities throughout the country 
where gangs pose a serious threat. This is a very successful gang 
prevention program which is modeled after the DARE Program. GREAT 
projects are currently operating in eight cities nationwide as a direct 
result of the Federal funds previously appropriated to ATF. The 
additional $9 million in fiscal year 1995 will be used to expand the 
number of GREAT projects to approximately 12 high-risk communities.

  With reference to pay, the conference agreement authorizes a 2-
percent ECI, or Employment Cost Index increase, for Federal employees 
in fiscal year 1995 and a locality pay adjustment of an estimated 0.6 
percent nationwide. This provision was included in the House-passed 
bill and since the time the Senate acted, the President has announced 
that he intends to provide a 2-percent ECI raise and a portion of the 
second-phase implementation of locality pay to Federal employees. The 
provision in the conference agreement includes a prohibition on these 
pay raises for Members of Congress and Federal judges. Mr. President, 
this was a very contentious issue in the conference. While I have 
always voted against pay increases for Members of Congress, I believe 
that issue was laid to rest several years ago by only providing Members 
of Congress to receive nothing more than a cost of living increase. I 
think that was a reasonable approach. I was prepared to accept that 
approach, as I know the ranking member was. I am disappointed we got 
caught up in the hysteria, once again, that Members of Congress are not 
worth being paid an adequate salary and that they and judges should be 
singled out, for no cost of living increase.
  I do not believe we should continue to browbeat ourselves over the 
cost-of-living adjustments. That is not a pay raise. The same goes for 
the judges.
  How can we expect a quality justice system if we cannot at least give 
a cost-of-living pay raise?
  However, it was clear that there would be no conference agreement 
without a provision banning a raise for Members of Congress.
  With respect to the construction of Federal courthouses and Federal 
office buildings, in the past, this has been a controversial issue. The 
conference agreement includes $601 million for new construction of GSA 
projects. For those Federal building projects which have not been 
authorized by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee or the 
House Public Works and Transportation Committee, a provision has been 
included which prohibits the expenditure of funds by the GSA unless and 
until such authorization is approved.
  The conferees took this action to avoid the continuing jurisdictional 
disputes with the authorizing committees.
  As everyone in this body knows, this is my last year in the Senate. I 
have to say one of the most rewarding experiences of my career has been 
serving on the Appropriations Committee with the distinguished chairmen 
that we have had, particularly the current chairman, the Senator from 
West Virginia [Mr. Byrd].
  I have served on this committee for the entire 18 years I have been 
in the Senate. I have been either the ranking member or chairman of the 
Treasury Subcommittee for the past 12 years. My service on this 
subcommittee has given me an opportunity to understand and evaluate 
many diverse agencies ranging from the Department of the Treasury and 
Executive Office of the President to the General Services 
Administration, and the Office of Personnel Management.
  I have been fortunate, when I was the ranking member and when I have 
been chairman, to have a chairman or a ranking member who wanted to 
cooperate and was willing to be a participant to helping find solutions 
to difficult budgeting problems. In particular, the current ranking 
member, Mr. Bond, from Missouri, has been an excellent partner in the 
process. I thank him and his staff for their cooperation and their 
efforts to help us find solutions to many problems which are the result 
of a difficult and shrinking budget.
  We have done a lot. Working in a bipartisan fashion, we have been 
able to formulate and fund initiatives to interdict the flow of 
illegal drugs coming into the United States; upgrade and modernize 
border stations along the United States-Mexico border; redesign the 
antiquated automated tax systems of the Internal Revenue Service; 
enhance the investigative and compliance capabilities of the Treasury 
law enforcement bureaus; and ensure proper work space for the operation 
of all Government agencies. Over the years, it has been a lot of work, 
but work where the labor has been stimulating and satisfying. We have 
done a lot of positive things. The Appropriations Committee is one of 
the finest in this body. The members, from the chairman and ranking 
minority, to the staff, in my view, are the most professional in 
Government. They work under less than ideal circumstances and always 
try to put the needs of the country and the American people before 
partisan politics. I will miss this committee.

  Mr. President, in closing, I want to compliment my very fine and able 
ranking member, Senator Bond, and his staff, Chuck Parkinson and Julie 
Dammann. They have been a pleasure to work with and I wish them well in 
the coming years. They have worked so hard to see this bill is finally 
going to pass today.
  Mr. President, I also want to thank Patty Lynch, Cybele Cobb, and 
John Lebonate of my majority staff.
  To reiterate, the conference report totals $23.5 billion in new 
budget authority. This amount is $915 million above the fiscal year 
1994 enacted level, but $1.1 billion below the President's budget 
request. Of the increase above the 1994 level, $695 million is for 
mandatory programs over which the committee has little control. For 
domestic discretionary programs, the conference report totals $11.8 
billion, which is $1.1 billion below the budget request. When you take 
out the IRS compliance initiative, totaling $405 million, which was 
provided for in the budget resolution outside of the discretionary 
caps, the discretionary funding in the bill is actually $1.5 million 
below the President's requested level.
  As a result, this year the conference committee had a difficult task 
of trying to formulate an agreement which adequately funds the 
President's priorities, law enforcement, personnel management, taxpayer 
service, and returns processing, and meet Federal building 
requirements. I think we have done an excellent job, under the 
circumstances. The bill reported by the conference committee provides 
funding of: $10.5 billion for the Department of the Treasury; $92 
million for the payment to the Postal Service Fund for free mail for 
the blind and overseas voters and payment on the debt to the Postal 
Service for subsidies to certain preferred rate mailers; $148.9 million 
for funds appropriated to the President for Federal drug control 
programs; $601 million for the construction of new Federal office 
buildings and courthouses through the General Services Administration; 
$11.7 billion in various mandatory Government payments through the 
Office of Personnel Management for annuitant and employee health, 
disability, retirement, and life insurance benefits; and $338 million 
for various independent agencies.

  The bill also contains a new title, title VII, which provided funding 
to Treasury law enforcement agencies for implementation of the 
provisions of the recently enacted Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994. As authorized under title 31 of that act, $39 
million has been made available for the following Treasury enforcement 
activities: $2.4 million for the Departmental Offices for the Office of 
Enforcement to oversee the implementation of the crime bill provisions; 
$2.7 million for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to enhance 
the investigation of financial crimes; $7 million for the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for the enforcement of the firearms 
provisions of the crime bill, including the assault weapons ban; $9 
million for the implementation of additional gang resistance education 
and training [GREAT] programs nationwide; $4 million for the U.S. 
Customs Service for expanding border and port enforcement; $7 million 
for the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service 
for combating public corruption and expanding illegal tax enforcement 
activities; and $6.6 million for the U.S. Secret Service for expanding 
investigations into the counterfeiting of U.S. currency and enhancing 
forensics capabilities to aid in the investigation of missing and 
exploited children.
  For the Treasury law enforcement bureaus, the conference report 
includes an additional $12 million for the restoration of 212 full-time 
equivalent positions which were proposed for reduction in fiscal year 
1995 to comply with the President's Executive order on the reduction of 
the Federal work force. The only way that so-called war on crime can be 
effective is through the combined efforts of Federal, State, and local 
law enforcement. I believe it is a big mistake to cut the strength of 
our Federal law enforcement agencies at a time when the American public 
is telling us that crime is the No. 1 problem in the country.
  With reference to illegal drugs, the conference report bill includes 
$98 million for support of Federal, State, and local law agency 
activities in the six designated high-intensity drug trafficking areas 
[HIDTA's]. Over the past 5 years, we have witnessed the success of 
coordinated law enforcement efforts through the HIDTA Program in Miami, 
New York, Los Angeles, Houston, and on the Southwest border. These 
funds go to support multiagency law enforcement operations aimed at 
disrupting major trafficking organizations.
  In fiscal year 1995, the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area will 
receive the funding assistance of this program to reduce drug 
trafficking and distribution. Also, in fiscal year 1995, the conference 
report provided an additional $9 million for the Puerto Rico-U.S. 
Virgin Islands area. These funds can only be expended if the Director 
of the Office of National Drug Control Policy determines that this area 
meets the criteria for a HIDTA designation and so designates this area. 
I have received every indication from the drug czar's office that this 
in fact will occur.
  The conference report also includes $1.5 billion for the U.S. Customs 
Service. This includes the restoration of roughly one-half of the 
reduction proposed by the President for Customs air and marine 
interdiction activities. The President's budget proposed a $52.6 
million cut based on the revised interdiction strategy which will focus 
increased attention on the source countries and reduce interdiction in 
the transit zones, the theory being that if you build a fence around 
the area where the flights are originating from, you won't have to 
worry about interdiction through the area where the drugs would 
transit. Realistically, however, we are never going to have a solid 
wall around the source countries. In fact, the current impasse with the 
Department of Defense's legal interpretation over survillance flights 
in Colombia and Peru has left the entire area wide open.
  Mr. President, I hope the new strategy works. But, I am really 
skeptical. For this reason, the conferees restored certain funds to 
Customs to maintain an adequate level of border and transit zone 
interdiction capabilities and has provided $15 million to the drug czar 
for a contingency if in fact the threat increases as a result of the 
new policy.
  With reference to GSA building construction and repairs and 
alterations, the conference includes funding for certain projects which 
have not been authorized. However, the conference report includes a 
provision which prohibits the obligation of funds for these projects 
until the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee and the House 
Public Works and Transportation Committee authorizes funding for these 
building projects.
  The conference report contains $405 million to implement the 
President's tax compliance initiative for the IRS. Funding for this 
initiative was provided for in the budget resolution outside the 
discretionary caps. This initiative will produce additional revenues of 
between $9 and $10 billion over the next 5 years and will cost the 
Government $405 million in fiscal year 1995.
  I think this is a good and responsible conference report, Mr. 
President, and I commend the House subcommittee chairman, Mr. Hoyer, 
for working closely with the Senate to formulate a bill which is not 
only good legislation but fiscally responsible as well. I also want to 
thank the ranking member, Mr. Bond, and the other members of the Senate 
subcommittee, for working with us in a bipartisan fashion to formulate 
a bill which funds the highest priorities.
  I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. Bond, for any opening 
statement he may wish to make.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to support the conference report on 
Treasury-Postal Service and general Government appropriations that is 
now before us. I also want to extend my sincere thanks to the chairman 
for the great work he has done on this bill in the past years. I have 
some further remarks I will reserve to the end of the consideration of 
this bill. But I want my colleagues to know that I truly appreciate the 
professional and able manner in which the chairman has handled this 
matter.
  The chairman has outlined the highlights of this piece of 
legislation. It was not without some detours and a tortuous path, that 
we reached the point we are today. I do not wish to take a great deal 
of the time of the Senate, but there are a few points I think should be 
made with respect to this measure.
  As I said, the bill is not perfect. Very few pieces of legislation 
are. But this bill does a lot with very limited resources. It is $1.117 
billion, $1,117,000,000, below the President's request. It contains a 
$405 million initiative for the Internal Revenue Service collection 
initiative which was not included in the President's budget. If that 
was not included in this bill, the legislation would be $692 million in 
outlays below the President's.
  There will be those who will say that is great but you still exceed 
by almost $1 billion the 1994 budget. That is true, but when you take 
into account the mandatory increases which total $695.4 million, and 
the IRS collection initiative, this bill would be almost $220 million 
below the fiscal year 1994 level.
  I am very happy that we have been able to restore the law enforcement 
reductions the President slated for this budget. And again, I commend 
the chairman for being very strong and resolute in seeing that we did 
not make unwarranted and unwise cuts in law enforcement. The 
restorations are not large. But I strongly believe the personnel and 
assistance we are providing in this bill to Customs, ATF, and to the 
Secret Service, will have a very positive impact on the battle 
currently being waged against crime, against drugs, money laundering, 
counterfeiting and the other matters which the agencies under the 
jurisdiction of this bill deal with.
  As I indicated earlier, we did the best we could with limited 
resources, but there were a few things we were not able to accomplish. 
One very important issue, one that we will have to address next year, 
and I will serve notice on the members of this subcommittee as well as 
my colleagues, we have to do something about the IRS tax system 
modernization program. If the IRS is to perform its duties, adequate 
funding for TSM's, tax system modernization it is called, is essential.
  This bill does not include the funding necessary for the IRS to 
proceed at the pace which is the most effective. The IRS projects that 
TSM will help process returns more efficiently, and will identify taxes 
which are not being paid. Some will ask if TSM is so important, why 
have we not provided the amount requested. The answer is, the manner in 
which the President's budget was set up. This goes back to OMB, and the 
problem lies at their doorstep.
  Let me discuss for a moment the budget request. The President's 
request exceeded the budget cap by $3 billion. All of the 
appropriations subcommittees were impacted in order to accommodate the 
reductions necessary by this excessive request.
  The budget for the Treasury Department also requested over $250 
million in user fees to offset appropriations for the Department. Those 
fees fall within the jurisdiction of other committees. This is an 
appropriations committee. It is not a tax increase committee. These 
fees are not fees that we can produce in this bill. If we would have 
funded TSM at the requested level, we would have had to reduce every 
discretionary account in this bill by about 15 percent. A reduction 
some might argue for, but it is practically impossible. I would hope 
the President's next budget will be more realistic and recognize the 
realities of the budget process and the need for tax system 
modernization.
  I believe that including the IRS collection initiative will provide 
that revenue. We had significant argument on the floor over that 
measure. People were saying, well, we are trying to collect more taxes. 
My answer to that is, for the 85 percent of the American people who pay 
their taxes voluntarily and honestly, it is an outrage that some in the 
remaining 15 percent are not paying taxes that are owed, and the burden 
that they shirk falls on the backs of those who voluntarily pay. And I 
think we owe it to the people who comply with the law to see that those 
who do not are pursued and that taxes are collected.
  Mr. President, as I indicated, this bill has taken some interesting 
turns in the process. Maybe ``interesting'' is an overly-generous 
characterization. But we have the bill before us, and it contains the 
needed appropriations.
  I express my sincere thanks to the chairman, to all of the members of 
the subcommittee for the hard work necessary to get this conference 
report to the Senate. I express thanks to the majority staff members, 
Patty Lynch and Cybele Cobb, and to Chuck Parkinson on the 
appropriations staff, and to Julie Dammann on my staff.
  Mr. DeCONCINI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I urge the adoption of the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the conference report.
  So the conference report 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. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask if the gentleman would withhold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Arizona withhold?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I will withhold.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, now that this measure is passed I do want to 
take just a moment to express in more detail my thanks to the chairman. 
As has already been mentioned, this is the last regular appropriations 
bill that Senator DeConcini will bring to the Senate floor. We will 
miss working with him next year, but I have the feeling that when we 
visit some of the installations, the vital Customs installations and 
other facilities around the country which are funded by this bill, we 
may not see the good Senator, but we will certainly see the result of 
his work and his efforts to make sure that these vitally important 
agencies are well-funded.
  He has been a strong member of this subcommittee, serving the last 9 
years as chairman. I have only had the pleasure of serving as a ranking 
member with him for the past 2 years, but it has been a great learning 
experience.
  I think it is easy for me to speak for all of the members of the 
subcommittee, when I say that Senator DeConcini has been exceedingly 
fair in his dealings with members. He has worked hard to ensure the 
agencies funded in this bill get what they need to operate and, quite 
frankly, Mr. President, that is not as easy as one would think.
  When you look at what we fund in this bill, the operations of vital 
Government agencies, the Internal Revenue Service, the Postal Service, 
they are not a lot of things that warm the juices or stimulate the 
heart throbs of our colleagues, but this bill is vitally important to 
the effective operation of Government. It is not easy, when there are 
many other competing demands.
  Throughout the year, Senator DeConcini has worked hard to ensure 
these funds provided to the agencies, which are so critical in the 
operation of Government, are there. It would have been easy to make 
reductions for the sake of reductions, but all of us, as Americans 
would have suffered if the work of those vital agencies had been short-
changed.
  Of all of the legacies that Senator DeConcini leaves, Mr. President, 
none looms larger than the tremendously positive impact he has had on 
Federal law enforcement. As I talked to Federal law enforcement 
officials, I saw many sad faces when they learned of the coming 
retirement of Senator DeConcini. He has been a tireless champion of 
Federal law enforcement, especially Treasury law enforcement.
  He was on the front line when the war on drugs began. In the 1980's, 
that was easy. Drugs were nightly news. But the problem remains the 
same today and in some ways it is much greater, but the news does not 
seem to notice it as much. Senator DeConcini's fervor has not waned. He 
has been criticized, many times. He has had to take on budget requests 
from an OMB of his own party, but he has persevered.
  That continued effort is reflected in this bill. And with the 
adoption of this conference report, we are keeping up the fight.
  Mr. President, we will all miss the Senator from Arizona, but I hope 
and trust and pledge that we will continue to carry on his commitment, 
especially to law enforcement.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DeCONCINI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I thank my colleague. He is very gracious and kind. 
Everyone likes to hear those nice things about themselves.
  Law enforcement is important, not just to this Senator, but also to 
the Senator from Missouri. Sometimes law enforcement gets forgotten 
because it does not have the constituents as many other efforts do. It 
is extremely important. And coming from a law- enforcement background 
as a former prosecutor, I found this subcommittee extremely 
interesting.
  Serving on the Judiciary Committee, having wide jurisdiction over the 
Justice Department, much can be done to improve the fine law 
enforcement that we have today in the Federal Government. Much has been 
done. And much of it, I must say, has come from congressional 
initiatives. We need dramatic and positive leadership that is not 
afraid to come up here and lobby on behalf of law enforcement. So I 
thank my colleague from Missouri, and I appreciate his friendship, more 
than I can express here today, and the cooperative effort we have had 
together.


                            availability pay

  Section 633 of the conference report includes a provision which 
authorizes availability pay for criminal investigators. Availability 
pay will replace the administratively uncontrollable overtime [AUO] 
payments which are currently in effect. Because the conferees were 
concerned about the costs that would accrue to those agencies who 
currently do not pay their 1,811 agents AUO but would be required to 
pay 25-percent availability pay as a result of section 633, the 
conferees included a provision which permits the offices of inspectors 
general to forgo availability pay to their criminal investigators until 
any pay period within the last quarter of fiscal year 1995. The 
provision in the bill appears unclear and the conferees wish to express 
their intent that the head of the employing Office of Inspector 
General, and not the criminal investigators themselves, shall make the 
decision on when to make the availability compensation payments in 
fiscal year 1995.
  Criminal investigators shall receive no less than the rate previously 
provided to them, up to date of enactment of this act, under the 
provision commonly referred to as administratively uncontrollable 
overtime [AUO] until such time as the maximum rate shall be paid as 
mandated by provisions of the Availability Act of 1994.


               fort myers courthouse and federal building

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask if the distinguished chairman of the 
Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Subcommittee would be 
willing to turn his attention to the subjects of the Tampa Courthouse 
and Fort Myers Courthouse and Federal Building.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I am familiar with these issues and would be pleased 
to discuss them.
  Mr. GRAHAM. As you may be aware, in August the General Services 
Administration [GSA] received bids for a courthouse Federal building 
construction project in Fort Myers, FL. The lowest of these bids was 
approximately $7 million over the $27 million authorized by the 
Environment and Public Works Committee pursuant to GSA's cost estimate. 
I understand the GSA must now amend the building's prospectus and 
resubmit it to the Environment and Public Works Committee for approval.
  Concurrently, GSA has indicated that it will not need $7.5 million of 
funds appropriated for a Federal courthouse project in Tampa, FL. It 
seems sensible to me that the $7.5 million once intended for the Tampa 
courthouse, now idle, be made available for the purpose of covering the 
$7 million shortfall in the Fort Myers project. Does the chairman agree 
that these funds should be made available for reprogramming by GSA for 
the Fort Myers project?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Yes. It is my understanding that if GSA does not use 
the funds for the Tampa project, the agency will reprogram that excess 
to meet the unanticipated needs of the Fort Myers facility.
  Mr. GRAHAM. That is most welcome guidance, and I hope the GSA will be 
mindful of the interpretation made by the chairman of the subcommittee.
  I appreciate the chairman's indulgence and offer my thanks for his 
attention to the needs of Florida's Federal space needs.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
conference agreement on H.R. 4539, the Treasury, Postal Service, and 
general Government appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995.
  This bill provides new budget authority of $23.2 billion and new 
outlays of $20.9 billion to finance operations of the Department of the 
Treasury; including the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Customs Service, 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the Financial Management 
Service; as well as the Executive Office of the President, the Office 
of Personnel Management, and other agencies that perform central 
government functions.
  I congratulate the chairman and ranking member for producing a bill 
that is substantially within the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation. When 
outlays from prior year budget authority and adjustments for IRS 
compliance and mandatory programs are taken into account, the bill 
totals $23.6 billion in budget authority and $24.2 billion in outlays. 
The total bill is under the Senate subcommittee's 602(b) allocation by 
$0.2 billion in budget authority and $40 million in outlays.
  I would like to thank the subcommittee for including funding for a 
new Federal courthouse in Albuquerque, NM. This project has been in the 
planning stage for several years and now that it has been reviewed and 
approved in GSA's Time Out and Review, we are ready to start the long 
process of actual construction.
  I would also like to thank the conferees for retaining my amendment 
which requires OMB to report to Congress on the manner in which 
procurement savings are achieved. Procurement reform is an important 
part of the National Performance Review's recommendations to reinvent 
Government and we should make sure that these savings are achieved in a 
proper manner.
  I urge the speedy adoption of this bill.


              STATEMENT ON TREASURY-POSTAL APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, the Senate Budget Committee has examined 
H.R. 4539, the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill and has found that 
the bill is under its 602(b) general purpose allocation by $166 million 
in budget authority and by $40 million in outlays. This conference 
report is below its 602(b) crime allocation by $1 million in budget 
authority and exactly meets its allocation in outlays.
  I compliment the distinguished manager of the bill, Senator 
DeConcini, and the distinguished ranking member of the Treasury-Postal 
Subcommittee, Senator Bond, on all of their hard work.
  Mr. President, I have a table prepared by the Budget Committee which 
shows the official scoring of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill 
and I ask unanimous consent that it be inserted in the Record at the 
appropriate point.

SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE SCORING OF H.R. 4539, FISCAL YEAR 1995 TREASURY-
                 POSTAL APPROPRIATIONS--CONFERENCE BILL                 
                        [In millions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               BudgetAuthority   Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           VIOLENT CRIME TRUST FUND                                     
                                                                        
Crime total..................................             39          28
Senate 602(b) crime allocation...............             40          28
                                              --------------------------
      Difference.............................             -1        -(*)
                                              ==========================
               GENERAL PURPOSE                                          
                                                                        
Discretionary totals:                                                   
    New spending in bill.....................         11,575       9,268
    Outlays from prior years appropriations..  ...............     2,986
    Permanent/advance appropriations.........              0           0
    Supplementals............................              0         -33
                                              --------------------------
      Subtotal, discretionary spending.......         11,575      12,220
                                              ==========================
Mandatory totals.............................         11,976      11,973
                                              ==========================
General Purpose bill total...................         23,551      24,193
Senate 602(b) allocation.....................         23,717      24,233
                                              --------------------------
      Difference.............................           -166         -40
                                              ==========================
General purpose totals above (+) or below (-                            
 ):                                                                     
    President's request......................         -1,033          13
    House-passed bill........................             39         -56
    Senate-reported bill.....................           -144         -26
    Senate-passed bill.......................           -161         -38
                                              ==========================
Overall totals:                                                         
    General purpose, discretionary...........         11,575      12,220
    General purpose, mandatory...............         11,976      11,973
    Crime trust fund.........................             39          28
                                              --------------------------
Overall bill total...........................         23,589      24,221
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished 
chairman of the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government 
Appropriations Subcommittee to clarify the intent of the conferees with 
respect to a provision in this conference report.
  Since becoming chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, the committee with jurisdiction over the General Services 
Administration's public buildings program, I have worked long and hard 
to ensure that prospectus-level public buildings projects receiving 
appropriated funds are first authorized. The Senator from Arizona has 
been very cooperative in this effort and I appreciate his work.
  While I am pleased that the fiscal year 1995 Treasury, Postal Service 
appropriations conference report does require approval of unauthorized 
projects prior to expenditure of appropriated funds, I am concerned 
that there is no reference made as to whom should make such approval.
  I want to clarify that all unauthorized, prospectus-level public 
buildings projects, as defined by the Public Buildings Act of 1959, 
require authorization and approval of both the Senate Committee on 
Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on Public Works 
and Transportation. Is it the intent of the conferees that all 
unauthorized, prospectus-level projects in this fiscal year 1995 
conference report are to be authorized and approved in a positive 
manner by both authorizing committees before any appropriated funds may 
be expended for any construction, repair, alteration, and acquisition 
for which a prospectus is required?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I would be pleased to respond to the Senator's 
question. It is the intent of the conferees that all unauthorized, 
prospectus-level projects, as defined by the Public Buildings Act of 
1959--with the exception of projects funded through grants--are to be 
authorized and approved in a positive manner by both the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee and the House Public Works and 
Transportation Committee before any funds appropriated in this fiscal 
year 1995 conference report are to be available for any construction, 
repair, alteration, and acquisition activities.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the chairman. Let me also mention that I have 
enjoyed working with him on this issue and many other issues in the 
past. I thank him again for his cooperation.


                   REDUCTION OF REGIONAL IRS OFFICES

  Mr. D'AMATO. Would the chairman yield in order that I might clarify 
an issue regarding the Internal Revenue Service?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Certainly.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, the committee is 
aware that the Internal Revenue Service is contemplating, based on 
studies conducted by the Service, reducing the number of regional 
offices from seven to five. The committee has been advised about the 
potential impacts this plan may have on the regional offices throughout 
the country, particularly on the large number of women and minority 
employees.
  I believe that the potential costs associated with the Internal 
Revenue Service's reorganization plan and the impact that such a plan 
would have on the affected communities should be fully justified in 
writing by the Service prior to any action to close, move, or transfer 
functions from the current regional offices.
  I wonder if the chairman would agree that, therefore, a thorough and 
complete analysis on the cost effectiveness of closing the regional 
offices and the potential impacts on the employees should be 
undertaken, completed, and reported to the Congress before further 
action is taken on this matter.
  Mr. DeCONCINI I would agree with the Senator from New York, and urge 
the Internal Revenue Service to undertake such analysis before any 
closings occurred.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the chairman, and appreciate his consideration 
in this matter.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________