[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 130 (Saturday, August 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11521-S11556]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


            Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Amendment No. 2153

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur 
on or in relation to the Nickles amendment No. 2153 at 2:30 p.m. today, 
and that the time between now and the vote be equally divided in the 
usual form, and that no amendments be in order during the pendency of 
the Nickles amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, 
what we have just agreed to is that we will have a vote on or in 
relation to the Nickles amendment soon, which several of our colleagues 
have requested, which deals with prohibiting funds for the use of 
abortion in Federal employees' health care plans unless it is necessary 
to save the life of a mother, and in the case of rape or incest.
  I hope we can vote much sooner. We have an hour and 10 minutes, 
equally divided. This Senator will be happy to yield back a significant 
amount of time. A lot of people would like to do something else on 
Saturday afternoon. It happens to be a very important vote. I think 
everybody knows how they are going to vote.
  I ask my colleagues to speak briefly, and maybe we can yield back 
time and actually vote prior to 2:30.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Does the Senator from Oklahoma wish to comment on his 
amendment or on why he felt it met a compelling human need?
  Mr. NICKLES. To respond, I have spoken more on the floor than I ever 
cared to on this particular Saturday. I think it is very well known 
what this amendment is. It is Hyde language. It says we are not going 
to use Federal funds to subsidize abortions for Federal employees 
unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother, or in the case 
of rape and incest. It is pretty self-explanatory.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Under the previous agreement, the 
time is controlled by the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from 
Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. I ask unanimous consent that the time on our side be 
controlled by the Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Now, where we are on the Nickles amendment is that, essentially, this 
is yet another version of a restriction. We just defeated an amendment 
that was a restriction, and each side articulated that position, I 
think, in a very clear way.
  I do not want any restrictions on Federal employees health benefits. 
Therefore, I oppose the Nickles amendment.
  Under the legislation pending, the committee amendment, if someone is 
a victim of rape, they can have an abortion. If someone is a victim of 
the most horrendous assault on a person, incest, they can have an 
abortion. This is not about allowing rape or incest; this amendment 
limits it only to the life of the mother, rape, and incest.
  So, we will be clear, this is not about being a knight in shining 
armor that says we will provide at least some flexibility in harsh, 
punitive, restrictive, and repressive legislation. No. The legislation 
that is pending before the Senate through the committee amendment has 
no restrictions on Federal health employee benefits. That is the 
current law.
  Now, the issue is not what is decided. The issue is, who decides? I 
believe the U.S. Congress should not interject itself into the 
physician's office. I believe the Congress should stay out of that and 
focus on what it is supposed to be doing, which is broad policy 
objectives for the Nation. It is not to intervene, interject, detour, 
derail, or micromanage what goes on in a physician's office when a 
Federal employee or a dependent in a Federal employee's family seeks 
medical help. That is why we oppose it.
  We did not want restrictions. We believe in doctors' autonomy, in 
doctors' judgment. That is why we say the issue is not what is decided, 
but who decides.
  Now, we also believe that there is a war going on against American 
women; that there is a war going on in the home; that there is a war 
going on through the terrible violence of domestic violence. We believe 
there is a war against women in terms of street crime, particularly 
rape. We believe there is a war against women going on in the workplace 
through sexual harassment. That there is even a war against women going 
on in the U.S. Senate, and we cannot even get a public hearing on this.
  We also believe that there should be no cutting of health care. What 
we see is that there is a war against women. It is not only about 
abortion and Federal employees; we are also cutting medically necessary 
services in other areas of health care. 

[[Page S11522]]

  Look what we are doing to the elderly on Medicare. Look what we are 
doing to children on Medicaid, under the guise of welfare reform, when 
children will lose their health benefits. Look what we are doing to the 
elderly, in terms of long-term care, by cutting Medicaid. That is why 
we say there is a war against women going on in the United States of 
America.
  We want our colleagues to defeat the Nickles amendment, restricting 
women's options in health care, to only be able to have an abortion if 
their life was at stake or if it is rape or incest.
  Now, every single Member of the U.S. Senate will view rape and incest 
as the most repugnant, the most horrible, the most atrocious thing that 
can be done to a human being. Of course, if you are a victim of rape 
and incest, we would want you to be able to have that abortion. We want 
you to have an abortion if it is medically necessary and medically 
appropriate.
  We believe in freedom of choice, self-determination. We believe in 
the United States of America, we believe it in foreign policy, and we 
believe it in the physician's offices where Federal employees or their 
dependents seek advice, counsel, and clinical judgment.
  This is why we oppose this restriction. This is why we want to defeat 
the Nickles amendment.
  Later on, we want to defeat the cuts in Medicare. Later on, we want 
to defeat the cuts in Medicaid that take away medical services for the 
elderly and for children. We will also want to defeat the other 
horrendous cuts that are going on where women are victims of violence 
and abuse, whether it is in the home, whether it is in the streets, or 
in the neighborhoods.
  I hope that we would defeat the Nickles amendment, support the 
committee amendment, currently, which leaves the decisionmaking to the 
pregnant woman and to the physician.
  How much time did I consume?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland consumed 6 minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, I say to my friend from Maryland.
  I thought when we initiated this discussion we would have one vote, 
let the chips fall where they may. But I respect the fact that the 
Senator from Oklahoma wishes to raise this issue again, and we will 
see, now, where this leads.
  What does this current amendment do? It reverses every single thing 
we just did, except that it adds two exceptions to the House 
restrictions.
  I want to make that clear. It reverses everything that we did. It 
says that no Federal employee female can use her private insurance to 
get an abortion unless her life is at stake or in cases of rape and 
incest.
  In essence, it is treating Federal employee women unlike every other 
woman in this country. They cannot use their private insurance to 
obtain an abortion unless their life is at stake or they are a victim 
of rape or incest.
  I have a question to ask rhetorically to my friend from Oklahoma. 
What if her health is at risk if she carries the fetus to term? Can she 
get that abortion? No, not under the Nickles amendment. If her health 
is at stake, she cannot use her private insurance to get an abortion.
  What if she runs the risk of severe paralysis if she carries the 
fetus to term? No, under the Nickles amendment she could not use her 
private insurance to obtain an abortion.
  What if the doctor believes an abortion is necessary to preserve her 
future fertility? No, she cannot use her private insurance, unlike 
every other woman in America, to exercise her right to choose.
  What if the doctor believes there would be untold pain and suffering 
throughout her entire life if the fetus is carried to term? No. No, 
under the Nickles amendment, she would not be able to use her private 
insurance to obtain an abortion, unlike every other woman in America 
who has insurance.
  The answer is, that woman would be in deep, deep, trouble
   because she would be left alone, she would face a life, perhaps, of 
untold pain and suffering, if she carried the fetus to term.

  I hope the women and men in America are watching this debate, 
although it is not too likely. I applaud those who are here watching us 
today. Why do I want them to watch this? Because this is not some 
ideological dispute. It affects their lives. I want them to think of a 
daughter, of a niece, of an aunt or a cousin. I want them to think of 
their favorite female person that they know who might find herself in a 
very troubled pregnancy, with terrible, terrible possibilities to that 
woman's health, unable to use her insurance. Perhaps this favorite 
relative is not wealthy. She is frightened. She is forced, because of 
the Nickles amendment, to carry a fetus to term, even though it 
threatens her long-term health.
  I say the question comes down to this. Who do you trust? Who do you 
trust to make this difficult, personal, agonizing, troubling decision? 
Do you trust the U.S. Senator who does not even know your family? I do 
not. I do not put the health of my children in political hands. I keep 
it in my family, with my God, with my doctor, with my husband, with my 
loving family, with my loving rabbi, if you will. And I do not want to 
put it in the hands of the Senator from Oklahoma. I want to put it in 
the hands of the people who love--who love, personally--the people who 
are impacted by this ill-advised amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 5 minutes for the Senator from California 
has elapsed.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 30 seconds.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the Senator 30 additional seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. In summing up my argument, let me say to the people of 
America who are watching this debate, this is a difficult choice and we 
all make it inside our hearts, inside our minds, in our prayers. And we 
come at it a little differently.
  So should the politicians of America now decide, if you happen to be 
a woman who works for the Federal Government, we are going to tell 
you--even if you face long-term risk to your health, to your person, to 
your body, to your future--what to do about a personal, religious 
decision? I say no. Let us stand firm for the individual to make that 
choice and let us support the Senator from Maryland and vote down the 
amendment that is before us.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland controls 22 minutes 
and 30 seconds.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am going to yield 5 minutes to the 
Senator from Illinois, and then, after that, I will yield 10 minutes to 
the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, there is a lot of emotional 
discussion in this debate regarding the issue of abortion and that, 
after all, is what it is about. But let me suggest to the Members and 
the people in the gallery and the people who are listening, there 
really is another issue here and that is an issue of liberty and an 
issue of the appropriate role of the Federal Government in 
micromanaging specific details having to do with women's health.
  Whatever side of the abortion issue you come out on, it seems to me 
one thing can certainly be said and that is that it is unusual--it has 
been unusual for the Federal Government, for the Congress of the United 
States, for the Senate, to begin to detail, in specific detail, exactly 
what should and should not be covered by Federal employees' health 
plans.
  Think about it. What would be the reaction on this floor if some 
Senator stood up and said: ``I think the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program should only prescribe this procedure for the prostate 
and not that procedure for the prostate.'' Everyone on this floor would 
say, ``This is absurd. We have an entire group of people to make 
decisions about health coverage so Federal employees can enjoy the same 
kind of health coverage as is enjoyed in the private sector.''
  Yet, what is happening here is, because it is women's health, and 
because it is the volatile issue of abortion, there is an exception 
being made here, an exception that, frankly, goes back to overturning 
longstanding precedents regarding the Congress not micromanaging 
employee benefits in a way that exceeds our traditional role.
  We have, traditionally, in the Congress, involved ourselves in issues 
of Federal pay. But, frankly, until the 

[[Page S11523]]
Reagan administration we, the Congress, have consistently left details 
relating to the administration of employee benefits, employee benefits, 
to the Office of Personnel Management. This is as it should be.
  It is the law that women are able to privately choose whether or not 
an abortion is appropriate for their personal circumstances and 
situation without interference from the Government. So 2 years ago, in 
1993, we removed the intrusion of politicians from employee 
compensation issues and we should, I think, continue to keep the 
involvement of politicians out of issues going to benefit coverage on 
Federal health insurance.
  I would like to make another point. This represents yet another 
special carving out in the area of women's health that I believe is 
inappropriate. This Congress has already moved to restrict the rights 
of poor women to exercise their right under the law to choose whether 
or not to have an abortion. Now we are trying to take another step. We 
are going to restrict the right of women who work for the Federal 
Government to choose whether or not to exercise their rights to have an 
abortion.
  In any event, this would isolate Federal employees, as a group, with 
health insurance plans that were like no one else's. That is to say, an 
employee who worked for a major corporation in this country would have 
reproductive rights covered under her health insurance. An employee who 
worked for the Federal Government, if the Senator from Oklahoma is 
successful, would not. And that is really the crux of this debate. Not 
just the issue of abortion because, frankly, between Supreme Court 
decisions and decisions that have been in place for at least 20 years 
now, the issue of abortion--in the law, at least--has been settled. It 
is legal. It is a matter of personal choice by an individual woman with 
regard to what it is she does with her own body.
  I believe that personal choice ought to remain that way. It is no 
one's business what somebody does in regard to a decision as private as 
this. It should be between a woman and her God and her conscience and 
her family. It certainly should be removed from interference by 
politicians who, frankly, I do not think should get that much into 
anybody's private business.
  But that issue having been in the forefront of our public debate, we 
understand that right now there continue to be efforts here in the 
Congress to poke away at the issue, and to really repeal, by 
indirection, the decision of the courts and what has been the law in 
this country for easily 20 years.
  I believe this repeal by indirection is inappropriate. I believe it 
is a mistaken approach for us to suggest to the world that we believe 
in liberty when it comes to all these hosts of issues having to do with 
personal freedom and individuals being treated fairly in terms of 
health coverage, and in terms of their decisions about their personal 
circumstances, on the one hand, and yet carve out exceptions, exception 
after exception after exception, when it comes to reproductive choice 
and reproductive rights.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will heed the warnings from the 
Senator from Maryland and will defeat the effort to make this incursion 
into women's rights that I believe is certainly inappropriate and 
should be defeated with this next vote.
  With that, I say to the Senator from Maryland, I know I have no 
additional time but I will yield back whatever time may be remaining to 
the Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Illinois. She has been a 
marvelously strong advocate. It is a blessing to have her here.
  I yield a maximum of 10 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Maryland for yielding me the time.
  Mr. President, the major considerations on the pending amendment 
involve the underlying question of abortion and whether the U.S. Senate 
is going to continue at great length to debate this issue while 
relegating other very important subjects to lesser status.
  I agree with my colleagues who have emphasized the point that it is a 
very important matter. And while I am personally opposed to abortion, I 
do not think it is a matter for the Federal Government to regulate 
them.
  I think in the broadest context, the issue has been decided by the 
Supreme Court of the United States not just in Roe versus Wade in 1973 
but in the 1992 decision of Casey versus Planned Parenthood in a 
decision written by three Justices who had been Republicans, all of 
whom were appointed by conservative Republican Presidents.
  So that is the law of the land, and that is the dominant question. 
When you take a look at what has occurred in the course of the recent 
days and recent weeks you see a really concerted effort to dismantle 
the constitutional right of a woman to choose.
  On July 21, within the past 2 weeks, there was an amendment passed in 
the House of Representatives overturning the option of the States, the 
requirements of the States really, to provide abortion in the cases of 
rape or incest for poor women. On July 20, there was an amendment 
adopted in the House of Representatives which prohibited human embryo 
research. On August 3, there was an amendment adopted eliminating the 
funding for the Office of Surgeon General which was a reaction of the 
debate on Dr. Henry Foster whose only wrongdoing, only alleged 
wrongdoing, was that he performed medical procedures permitted under 
the U.S. Constitution. This is a man who was practically ridden out of 
town on a railroad without being allowed a vote in the U.S. Senate on 
the confirmation process.
  On July 21 of this year, the House adopted a provision which intruded 
upon the ability of medical schools to accredit hospitals and training 
institutions on the basis of requiring works in obstetrics and 
gynecology related to abortions. The House of Representatives, after 
very extensive debate, very narrowly defeated a provision to eliminate 
funding for Planned Parenthood.
  We have seen legislation passed by the House of Representatives which 
would prohibit Federal funding for a woman in a prison. If a woman is 
in a prison and she is raped, she has no access to funds of her own, 
and according to the standard of the House of Representatives, the 
Federal Government may not pay for her abortion. The House has also 
passed legislation which would prohibit the abortion on military 
installations around the world when there are servicewomen and 
dependents of servicemen who would be denied the opportunity to have an 
abortion performed on U.S. military installations.
  So what has in effect happened is that there has been a concerted 
attack to dismantle the woman's constitutional right to choose because 
those who have favored a constitutional amendment to ban abortions, to 
criminalize abortions, have been unsuccessful in doing so.
  That led one of my ingenious staff members to prepare this chart 
which I displayed briefly this morning, and on a separate amendment it 
is worth just another look. It is a chart entitled ``Dismantling a 
Woman's Right to Choose'' from A to Z. And the A is, Amend the 
Constitution to abolish a woman's right to choose; B, Ban Federal 
funding for abortions of women in Federal prisons; C, Cut off family 
planning funds. And when you come down to M--I am not going to read 
them all--you have M, Mandate that Federal employees' insurance exclude 
abortion coverage. That is a matter on the floor today.
  Mr. President, when the arguments have been made that there is a 
Federal subsidy, I submit, realistically viewed, it is not a Federal 
subsidy, for two reasons. One is that the employees pay a substantial 
part of the funding--about 28 percent. So it would be fair and 
reasonable to allocate that 28 percent to this particular kind of 
health coverage.
  Second, the Federal employees give services for their compensation, 
and part of their compensation is this health care plan, which does 
have some Federal employer support as well as their own personal 
contribution.
  So what we really have here is marking for consideration the doctrine 
of the law which says the employee is bargaining for his salary, and 
part of the consideration is his health coverage, part of which the 
employee pays 

[[Page S11524]]
for and part of which the employer pays for.
  An argument was made earlier today that you have the deductibility 
for the private health care plans where the employer can deduct it and 
the employee does not count it as income, which is a procedure under 
the Internal Revenue Code to encourage employers to have allocations 
for health care.
  So when you take a really close analytical look, there really is not 
a Federal subsidy involved here, but it is a health care plan like 
many, many other health care plans available in the United States which 
gives this coverage for this kind of a medical procedure.
  Mr. President, how much time remains on my 10 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, as we move through the debate--it is now 1:47; the 
debate started shortly after 9 o'clock this morning--on this one issue 
on coverage in Federal employee health plans, it is obvious that unless 
we make a change in the approach of the U.S. Senate, this issue is 
going to occupy a tremendous amount of our time, which I suggest could 
be spent better on other matters of the public interest.
  We are awaiting argument this afternoon on whether the office of drug 
czar ought to be defunded or not. The drug czar is an office which was 
created to coordinate and oversee all of our activities in the war on 
drugs. This is a very important matter to analyze what the drug czar 
has been doing--whether it has been an effective use of taxpayer 
dollars or whether it ought to be continued. That matter is being put 
off. And who knows whether we will reach it this afternoon or not?
  Shortly before the debate started on this matter, the Senator from 
New York, Senator D'Amato, was about to offer an amendment relating to 
the Federal payments on the Mexican debt issue, a matter of enormous 
importance. We have the issue of welfare reform, which is in the wings 
awaiting to come to the Senate floor. There is another appropriations 
bill on the Department of the Interior, which is awaiting consideration 
by the U.S. Senate.
  This issue about the Federal employee insurance coverage is just one 
of many that we are going to be taking up. We are going to be taking up 
human embryo research. We will be taking up funding for women's 
abortions in prisons and abortion access in military hospitals for 
women in the armed services stationed overseas.
  Mr. President, when we had the loud mandate in 1994 electing a 
Republican Congress, I would suggest to you that the item of the 
Contract With America was a dominant philosophical ground. It is 
important to note that there is nothing in the Contract With America 
about abortion, not a single word. That mandate in 1994 was instructing 
the Congress to work on reducing the size of Government, reducing 
Federal expenditures, having a tax cut, having strong national defense, 
and having effective crime control. And the issue of a balanced budget 
in the glidepath to the year 2002 was an item which involves a 
tremendous number of very, very important considerations.
  If we are going to spend the better part of a day, if not the entire 
day, on this one item, a Saturday session at that, I would suggest to 
you, Mr. President, that we are not going to be fulfilling the mandate 
for which the voters elected a Republican Congress and sent a message 
to Washington to take care of a balanced budget to reduce spending, to 
focus on problems like the drug problem, like the problem of the issue 
of the drug czar, like national defense--where we had that bill taken 
from the calendar so we can proceed to the debate on this issue 
involving abortion.
  So, Mr. President, I think essentially stated as to the particulars 
of this bill, there is bargain for consideration by the employees. The 
employees pay a portion of it themselves, 28 percent. But this, 
realistically viewed, is not a Federal subsidy. And on the broader 
picture, the issue of the constitutional right of a woman to choose has 
been established by the Supreme Court of the United States. That is the 
law of the land, and we ought to accept it as such.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 5 minutes and 20 seconds remaining 
under the Senator's control.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. That is it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is it. Now it is 5 minutes 10 seconds.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from the State of 
Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Nickles 
amendment. This amendment discriminates against women in Government by 
severely limiting their access to abortion services through the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Program.
  The Senate just went on record saying that women who are Federal 
employees have a right to use their medical services in their own way. 
We should not change that decision now by going back on our word and 
saying only in very limited cases. I think it is extremely important 
that we understand this amendment significantly, and I go back to my 
friend, who I talked about earlier today, who I knew in college some 
years ago who was date raped and because abortion was illegal in this 
country was forced to go to a back-alley abortion and because of that 
procedure, today cannot have children.
  Under the Nickles language, I have to ask, what would happen to my 
friend? Would she have to prove that she was raped? Would she have to 
go through a court process? I think we walk a very slippery slope in 
this determination, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I have listened carefully to their arguments today, and I have heard 
some say that we are using taxpayer dollars, taxpayer dollars which are 
essentially paid to our Federal employees, and we are saying because it 
is our money, we are going to tell them how their pay is going to have 
to be used.
  I suggest to my colleagues that is a very slippery slope to go down. 
If we begin by saying, because it is our taxpayer dollars we pay you 
with, you cannot have abortion services, can we then use our 
prerogative here to determine how else they can use their pay, our 
taxpayer dollars? Can we tell them they cannot use their pay to buy 
tobacco products or they have to buy American cars?
  Are we going to go through our Federal employees' budgets, home 
budgets line by line to determine how their money is used simply 
because taxpayers' dollars pay Federal employees?
  I say to my colleagues this is a very slippery slope, and I urge us 
to proceed cautiously. I urge us to vote no on the Nickles amendment 
and retain the language this Senate very thoughtfully voted on just a 
few moments ago.
  I yield back the time to my colleague from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I know Senator Feinstein wishes to 
speak. I yield myself 1 minute.
  I wish to make very clear that this legislation is, No. 1, a 
restriction. No matter how it is improved, it is still a restriction.
  Also, many people continue to bring out the issue of taxpayers' 
funds. Federal employees contribute to the health insurance plan. This 
is their contribution. They have a right as Federal employees to be 
able to seek medically necessary services. This is not like Medicaid 
funding on abortion which is 100 percent taxpayers' funds. I am sure we 
are going to be debating it extensively later on in the year.
  I also want to bring to everyone's attention that right now no 
Federal plan restricts any type of medical procedure. The Federal 
Employees Benefit Program generally does not dictate what benefits are 
offered. Therefore, it goes counter to everything to then single out 
one medical procedure--abortion--for restriction.
  We hope that the Nickles amendment is defeated.
  Excuse me. Was the Presiding Officer tapping me down?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I know we are waiting for Senator Feinstein. Did 
Senator Murray have any other remarks that she wished to amplify?
  I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, I note that the other Senator 
from Oklahoma wished to speak. I will reserve what time I have 
remaining. 

[[Page S11525]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A reminder, the Senator from Maryland has 30 
seconds remaining under her control.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, before I yield to my friend and colleague 
from Oklahoma, I will just tell my colleagues it is my intention to 
yield back the remainder of our time very shortly so there should be a 
rollcall vote probably in the next 10 minutes.
  I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma such time as he desires.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the senior Senator from Oklahoma for yielding the 
time. I thank him for all of his efforts in behalf of the unborn.
  I think the senior Senator from Oklahoma is correct when he says that 
there are not any votes that are going to be changed by this discussion 
we are having today. We know when we walk in here how we were going to 
vote on this. We have debated this. There is not a person in this 
Chamber who has not debated and has not voted on this issue more than 
once. And so the benefit of this discussion we are having today is not 
for each other, not to change votes. It is for whoever might be 
watching, for maybe those rainy regions of America where people are 
stuck inside and a couple million people may be watching this. So I 
think that it is worth at least responding to a couple of things that 
have been said.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is a very eloquent attorney. He made 
some comments about Henry Foster. He said that his only wrongdoing and 
the thing that caused him not to be confirmed was his position on 
abortion.
  That is not the case at all. It was his positions--plural--on 
abortion where he started out saying he had not performed abortions. 
Then it was 12, then 30, then 300. That has nothing to do with the 
subject today, but I thought I would just mention it.
  The Senator from Illinois talked several times about the fact that 
this is a private matter; that Government should not be involved in the 
issue of abortion. I suggest to the Senator from Illinois that 
Government was not involved in this until abortion became a reality 
with Roe versus Wade. We seem to forget in this body that there are 
three branches of Government. It is not just the legislative branch. 
And the judicial branch of Government did all of a sudden make this an 
issue, so Government is the reason that we have an issue.
  While I was serving in the other body, I kept track one time. Over an 
8-year period, five out of six votes having to do with abortion had to 
do with the Federal funding of abortion. That is the Federal Government 
being involved in our lives.
  Then the Senator from California, the junior Senator from California, 
made the comment that any decision having to do with abortion should be 
in consultation and concern with--those were her words, I believe--her 
husband, consultation and concern with her own body, consultation and 
concern with the doctor, consultation and concern with the rabbi. I 
suggest she is overlooking one very important part, and that is the 
most helpless of all, that little human being. That little human being 
cannot take care of himself or herself. I suggest the husband can; I 
suggest that the doctor can; certainly the junior Senator from 
California can; and certainly the rabbi can. But the one person not 
represented on that list is the little human being, the tiny baby. If 
somebody wants to explore that a little bit further and determine in 
his mind or her mind whether or not that is a little baby, I suggest 
you walk up to the President there and he will hand you a Bible and you 
might look for and read the 139th Psalm.
  I yield back the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield whatever time I have remaining to the Senator 
from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 30 seconds.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I have a hard time, Mr. President, saying my name now 
in 30 seconds, but I will try.
  I basically believe that this is a bad amendment, and the reason I 
believe it is a bad amendment is because it makes women in the Federal 
work force second-class citizens. The amount of taxpayer money in this 
is minimal,
 maybe $1 per $1,000. The fact is that most private health care plans 
afford a woman this opportunity.

  The arguments on abortion on demand, I think, are ridiculous. That is 
not real life, that is not the way women are. So I believe the 
amendment that passed earlier this morning is the amendment that we 
should abide by. And in that respect, I am very hopeful there will be a 
very strong vote.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time under the control of the Senator from 
Maryland has now expired.
  The Senator from Oklahoma controls the remaining time of the debate.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Indiana such 
time as he desires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I think everybody in the Chamber knows just 
exactly what we are doing here. Earlier we debated at length and voted 
on the issue of whether or not the taxpayer should fund abortions 
provided to Federal employees. The debate switched to an issue that 
included a definition of what exceptions would be allowed to that 
prohibition.
  I stated then, and a number of others have stated, what we believe to 
be a clear consensus among the American people relative to the issue of 
funding for abortion, use of taxpayers' dollars. We are not debating 
here today--although it is part of the debate and I believe it should 
be the central focus of debate in the Senate--the question of human 
life, when it begins, what protections it deserves under our 
Constitution, what protections it deserves in terms of the statutes 
that we may pass. That is probably the most fundamental issue this 
Senate could ever debate. And I hope we will have an opportunity to 
debate those central issues.
  That, however, is not the issue today. The issue today is whether or 
not we will force taxpayers to send their money to the Government to be 
used to provide a medical procedure which violates--for many, not all--
but for many some of their most deeply held religious beliefs, some of 
their most deeply held moral convictions. This Senator, and others, 
have stated they did not believe that is proper.
  Polls that have been repeatedly taken throughout this country have 
indicated that a very substantial majority of Americans do not believe 
it is proper to utilize tax dollars for Government provision of 
abortions for women. That is the central issue here today.
  Now, in the earlier debate, we debated whether or not there should be 
exceptions to that rule. And the exception provided for in the earlier 
debate was simply the life of the mother. The Senator from Oklahoma had 
concluded, in discussion with a number of us, had concluded some time 
before, up to 48 hours before, that the exceptions that he would 
provide in his amendment or against the amendment in his language were 
not only abortion provision in the exception of the life of the mother 
but also in the cases of rape and incest. Because of a procedural 
problem, he was not able to do that. That issue was presented to 
Members of the Senate and raised because many came down and spoke on 
this floor saying they could not support a provision which did not 
allow exceptions for rape and incest. The Senator from Oklahoma said, 
``I tried to do that. I was not able to do that for procedural 
reasons.''
  So we moved to a vote. The vote failed--the Senator's position 
failed, which I supported. I was disappointed that it failed. But, 
nevertheless, it failed. The Senator from Oklahoma now comes back with 
the identical underlying premise, that is, taxpayers should not fund 
abortions, the Government ought to get out of the abortion business, 
but provides exceptions in cases where the life of the mother or in 
cases of rape and incest occur. A number of Senators spoke publicly on 
this floor saying that the reason they opposed the earlier amendment 
that did not include rape and incest is because it did not include rape 
and incest. They could not vote for a provision that allowed only for 
the exception of the life of the mother.
  By statement or strong implication, they left the conclusion or the 
belief, at least in my understanding, that if an amendment were 
presented that did allow exceptions for rape and incest, 

[[Page S11526]]
they would vote for it. They will have the opportunity to do that. A 
number of others with whom I talked privately expressed that same 
sentiment to me. ``I cannot vote for something that does not allow an 
additional exception for the life of the mother and rape and incest.'' 
That is what is before us. Let us keep the focus on what this issue is. 
Let us keep a focus on what this vote is. If, as many have said, you do 
support an amendment that allows life of the mother, rape and incest, 
then support the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma.
  That is the issue that is before us. And I hope Members understand 
that and the vote will clearly state where individuals stand on that 
issue.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. For the information of my colleagues, I misspoke 
earlier. It was my intention to yield back time. I understand the 
unanimous-consent agreement says that the vote will be at 2:30. I would 
be happy to yield back the time. It would require unanimous consent to 
do that. And I have been informed that the minority does not want us to 
yield back the time. So, I will not make that effort at this point.
  But let me touch a little bit on this amendment.
  First, I wish to compliment my colleagues, Senator Inhofe for his 
statement and also Senator Coats for his statement.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senators Inhofe and Kempthorne be added 
as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, a couple of our colleagues----
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Thurmond and Senator Thomas be 
added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Also Senator Craig and Senator Coats be added as 
cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I heard a couple of things that kind of 
intrigued me during the course of this debate. Now, I think everybody 
knows how they are going to vote. I wish we could vote in just a couple 
minutes. Evidently that is not going to happen. The language that we 
now have is Hyde language. We have had restrictions on public funding 
of abortion going back to the 1970's. Actually going back to Roe versus 
Wade, there have been some restrictions on public funds used to pay for 
abortions because it bothers a lot of people. Abortion bothers them for 
what it is. It is destroying the life of an unborn child. And to think 
that the Government would be paying for it bothers a lot of people. It 
is kind of a double hit. One is abortion is bad, it is wrong, it is 
terrible, it is destroying the life of an innocent child. And then, 
two, to have the Federal Government pay for it or subsidize paying for 
it really bothers a lot of people. It bothers this Senator. And 
evidently it has bothered the country, because Congress has had 
restrictions on abortion funding in different elements, either for 
Federal employees or for Medicaid recipients, for a long time, and some 
restrictions on how funds are spent overseas in military hospitals. We 
have had all kinds of different restrictions because it bothers people 
to have taxpayers' funds used to destroy innocent human lives.
  So that is what we are trying to do now, is to save human lives. We 
are trying to make sure that taxpayer funds are not used to subsidize 
abortion for Federal employees. The Federal Government subsidizes 
health care, rather generously, 72 percent. We do have a right to 
control funds. We do have a right to say how the money is spent. We do 
it every year. We have done it every year. That is the reason why most 
of us, probably, voted on this in Congress. The majority of Congress 
has supported the Hyde language for the last many, many years.
  Some people said, well, that is unconstitutional. It is taking away a 
woman's constitutional right to choose. I disagree. There is nothing in 
the Constitution that says, ``Taxpayers, you must pay for abortions,'' 
nothing. As a matter of fact, there is a Supreme Court case that says 
``Abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures, 
because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a 
potential life.'' That is Harris versus McRae on June 30, 1980. The 
Supreme Court says, as we know, we have the power of the purse. We can 
withhold funds. And abortion is a different type of medical procedure. 
A lot of our colleagues seem to think it is a fringe benefit and it 
should be available just like any other medical procedure.
  Most of us disagree, or a lot of us disagree. That is the reason why 
we are here. I wish we were not debating this all morning. I would have 
been happy to have 30 minutes on the initial amendment. I really did 
not want the initial amendment. I wanted to vote on this. I was denied 
that opportunity. We had a vote on it 2 years ago. We lost by a couple 
votes. This vote is going to be close.
  I do not know if some additional colleagues have left or not. But I 
will tell all my colleagues, this is very important.
  One of our colleagues during the debate said in 1980, before we had 
the Hyde restriction on Federal employees, that OMB calculated--or 
maybe it was not OMB, but some Federal agency--had calculated that 
there were 17,000 abortions paid for under the Federal employees plan.
  It was illegal to do that from 1984 to 1993. We had similar 
restrictions to the one we voted on before. The restriction we have now 
is more broad.
  Let me rephrase that. The restriction that we had from 1984 to 1993 
only allowed abortion to save the life of the mother. The language we 
have now allows abortion or moneys to be used for abortion to save the 
life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest. The Senator from 
North Dakota made an excellent statement. He talked about his wife. He 
made it very passionately. You can tell he believed in what he is 
saying. I do not disagree. It is hard to argue with the statement that 
he made.
  Mr. KERREY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NICKLES. Withhold for a moment and I will be happy to yield.
  If we do not have some restrictions, then you can have Federal 
Government taxpayers' funding of abortion for any reason--any reason. 
You would have abortion on demand paid for by the Federal employees 
health care plan, and it can be for sex selection. If you find out the 
fetus is a different sex than you desire, you can have it aborted, and 
it will be paid for by your health care plan, or you can have a late-
term abortion and have that terminated. Or maybe you find out that your 
fetus has a health problem of some kind, you can have the baby 
destroyed. Any reason, no restriction, no restriction whatsoever, and 
all you have to do is say, ``Here's my health card.''
  Some people in the private sector have that option. Lots of people in 
the private sector do not have that option. We should not use taxpayer 
funds to make that so readily available.
  I heard some people say they want abortion to be safe, they want it 
legal and want it to be rare. If you make this a common fringe benefit 
in health care plans, three-fourths paid by the Federal Government, it 
does not cost very much, it is pretty easy and oh, yes, it is paid for 
by the Government, it must be OK, it has the sanction of the 
Government.
  This is a fringe benefit provided for by the Federal Government, so 
your out-of-pocket costs are going to be what? If an abortion costs 
$200 or $300 and you had to pay 20 percent or 10 percent, maybe it cost 
$20, $30, or $40. The majority of abortions that are done in the 
District of Columbia are repeat abortions, and the majority of those 
are done because of convenience. As a matter of fact, one of the 
statements made earlier in the debate by Senator Smith said 90-some odd 
percent. I believe the figure is 98 percent of the abortions performed 
are done because it is inconvenient, not because of rape, not because 
of incest, not because the mother's life is in danger, but because it 
is inconvenient. Maybe the pregnancy was not planned. I will admit, I 
was not a planned pregnancy, but I am thankful my mother decided to go 
ahead to term. She debates it right now.
  Mr. President, we are here because our mothers made decisions to 
bring us to term. I hate to think that we are 

[[Page S11527]]
going to make a fringe benefit so available, so commonplace, so 
ordinary and minimize the cost for anyone to have abortions so 
routine--``Oh, yes it is covered by health care insurance, let's just 
go do it.'' Oh, incidentally, your health care insurance is paid 72 
percent by Uncle Sam. That is Uncle Sam encouraging the policy.
  For a couple of our colleagues who stated we want to get the 
Government out, we do not want the Government in our bedroom--and we do 
not want the Government in our wallets, we are trying to say Government 
taxpayers should not subsidize abortion. If they still want to have an 
abortion, they can get it and pay for it with their own money, but we 
should not have Uncle Sam saying, ``We will pay it for you.''
  That is the whole issue of what we are talking about, should we have 
Federal subsidies; do we want the Federal Government to subsidize. On 
Medicaid, we said no. On Medicaid, we have the Hyde language. We do not 
provide abortions for Medicaid-eligible people unless it is necessary 
to save their life or in cases of rape or incest. That is what this 
language is. We are saying the same thing should apply for Federal 
employees. I will be happy to yield to my colleague.
  Mr. KERREY. Let me say, first of all, I know my friend from Oklahoma 
has very strong feelings about this, and we have a different, I think, 
core belief. I presume earlier discussions that I had with the Senator 
from New Hampshire is not going to be repeated in this case. We have a 
different core belief, and it leads in a different direction.
  But the question I have is, let us presume that we go into conference 
and we come back out and the House language holds and health insurance 
is not going to be used to pay for abortions, except to save the life 
of the mother. I have a woman who is making $45,000 a year working for 
the Federal Government. She decides to take that $250 of her pay to get 
an abortion. What is the difference between her taking $250 of taxpayer 
money and using it to get an abortion and an insurance company? Are we 
not still subsidizing? If a military employee who is not covered by 
this legislation, this insurance, uses their salary, are they not 
subsidized as well?
  If you really want to eliminate all the subsidization, would we not 
have to go out and make sure that no Federal employee used any of their 
Federal salary to pay for a legal abortion?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, responding to my friend and colleague 
from Nebraska, the answer is no. We do not have anything in this 
language saying we are going to control how anybody spends their 
disposable income. What we do say is on health care plans that we 
subsidize--health care plans the Federal Government writes, health care 
plans the Federal Government pays 72 percent of the cost of--we do not 
think abortion should be a fringe benefit. Abortion is entirely 
different than other medical procedures. It destroys a human life. We 
are saying that should not be a fringe benefit. What somebody does with 
their own money is entirely their own business. We are not trying to 
change that. What we are trying to say is, as far as Federal policy is 
concerned, we should not be subsidizing abortion, we should not have 
that included as a fringe benefit.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. 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. NICKLES. Mr. President, within a moment, we will be voting on the 
amendment I offered that basically is the Hyde language. It says that 
no funds will be used for abortion unless necessary to save the life of 
a mother, or in the case of rape or incest.
  If this amendment prevails, the Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, 
will offer an amendment with time not to exceed 30 minutes. Hopefully, 
maybe we can reduce that time, as well. I know some of our colleagues 
wanted to know the schedule. This vote will begin at 2:30, and if this 
amendment wins--and I hope it will; I hope our colleagues will support 
it--we will be voting on the amendment of the Senator from Maryland 
within 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. 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 clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], 
the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. 
Murkowski] and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], 
and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 370 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Packwood
     Pell
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bumpers
     Gregg
     Lugar
     Murkowski
     Pryor
     Stevens
  So the amendment (No. 2153) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment that has been agreed to, 
and I ask unanimous consent that Senator Mikulski now be recognized to 
offer an amendment to the committee amendment, as amended, regarding 
``medically necessary'' and that there be 30 minutes of debate equally 
divided in the usual form and that following the conclusion or yielding 
back of the time, the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the 
Mikulski amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.


 Amendment No. 2227 to the Committee Amendment on Page 2, Line 14, as 
                                Amended

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its consideration, and while the clerk is reporting the amendment, 
I would like the courtesy of the Senate to be in order.
  Mr. President, the Senate is not in order, and I would really ask as 
a courtesy to me that all Senators take their seats.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senate will 
be in order. Take all conversations to the Cloakrooms, please.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the Senate is still not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order so we can proceed, 
please.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1227.
       At the end of the amendment add the following:
       Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding two 
     sections, no funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
     available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative 
     expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal 
     employees health benefit program which provides any benefits 
     or coverage for abortions.

[[Page S11528]]

       The provision of section   shall not apply where the life 
     of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried 
     to term, or that the pregnancy is the result of an act of 
     rape or incest, or where the abortion is determined to be 
     medically necessary.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering will 
guarantee that there will be coverage for women. This is a serious 
issue, and I do not want to raise it and I do not want to shout. I 
understand the desire to come to a closure.
  Mr. President, the amendment I am offering will guarantee that there 
will be coverage for women under the Federal employees health benefit 
plan for abortion services that are medically necessary.
  What is ``medically necessary''? When a doctor decides using his or 
her trained professional judgment, in consultation with the patient, 
what will best protect the woman's health, this judgment is made based 
on the totality of the circumstances presented by the patient's 
situation.
  We, the Senate, are not doctors. It is not our role to substitute our 
judgment for the judgment of trained medical professionals. With one 
exception, we do not have medical degrees. We do not have medical 
training. The Senate cannot write prescriptions. The Senate cannot 
elaborate on lab results. The Senate cannot conduct physical exams. The 
Senate cannot perform surgery. This body should allow doctors to do 
what they are trained to do. We should not second guess these 
judgments.
  There are medical conditions which, when presented, increase risk to 
a woman's health during pregnancy. Cancer, diabetes, high blood 
pressure, kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, AIDS--these and other 
conditions are known to increase a woman's health risk. If she carries 
her pregnancy to term and her doctor concludes that an abortion is 
medically necessary to protect her health, should we, the Senate, make 
these judgments? Should we then substitute our judgment for that of a 
physician? Abortion is a complex, personal decision. It must be made by 
a woman in consultation with her physician.
  This amendment will ensure that Congress does not intrude into that 
personal decision of what the woman and her physician believe to be 
medically necessary for her.
  Reproductive health care, including abortion, is essential for 
women's health and well-being. Providing access to safe, legal 
abortions protects women's health.
  The American Medical Association concluded that as access to safe, 
early, legal abortions becomes increasingly restricted, there is a 
likelihood there will be a small but measurable increase in mortality 
and morbidity among women in the United States.
  That is what the AMA said. They are the doctors. That is what the 
doctors say. They say to deny access to abortion will harm the health 
of American women.
  With the last vote the Senate already carved out exceptions to an 
absolute prohibition on abortion. We should, therefore, allow one more 
exemption, and that is where it is medically necessary.
  That is what I am proposing. Congress should not substitute its 
political judgment for the judgment of health professionals.
  Just keep this in mind. Unless the Mikulski amendment passes, if a 
woman is told by her doctor that she will be paralyzed for life if she 
carries the fetus to term, she will be unable to obtain an abortion.
  Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I submit that the pending amendment is 
one which is very reasonable. Even those who stand very determined 
against a constitutional right of a woman to choose should have little 
trouble in accepting medical necessity as determined by the attending 
physician.
  In earlier speeches today, I outlined my own view that what is 
happening in Congress today is an assault on the constitutional right 
of a woman to choose, and that we have had a veritable meltdown of 
women's rights as there have been limitations on abortions in military 
hospitals overseas, limitations on research, limitations on 
accreditation of medical schools where doctors in training should be 
given instruction on ob-gyn, and abortion. But in the example given by 
the distinguished Senator from Maryland, a woman who is about to be 
paralyzed certainly is in an extreme situation.
  The Constitution of the United States has been interpreted by the 
Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter on the constitutional right 
of a woman to choose, and in a series of increments there has been a 
virtual meltdown of that right.
  If this amendment is rejected, it will be also attacking the basic 
doctor-patient relationship and the determination of the doctor as to 
what ought to be done.
  If there is not insurance coverage for a woman's health, what is the 
purpose of insurance coverage? And when Federal employees have this 
coverage, it is something that is bargained for.
  It escapes me as to why anyone would think that it is really a 
subsidy when you have part of payment made by the individual employee 
and where you have the totality of the benefit as part of the 
bargained-for consideration for employment.
  I think this is a minimal amendment and ought to be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I should really ask my colleagues, for 
any person who has a sense of honor and decency, please support this 
amendment. Let us leave the decision to the doctors and not to the 
Senate.
  Mr. President, I do not expect any more speakers. I look forward to 
hearing the comments of the Senator from Oklahoma, and perhaps after he 
has concluded we might be able to yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of my friend 
and colleague from Maryland and I just inform my colleagues that it is 
my intention to yield back some time very quickly. So hopefully we will 
be voting in the next 5 minutes or so.
  I might ask my friend and colleague from Maryland what ``medically 
necessary'' means. I will just ask the question. If a woman wanted to 
have an abortion and the doctor wanted to perform the abortion, is 
there any circumstance in which the Senator from Maryland would see 
that it is not medically necessary?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. For a social reason, possibly an economic reason.
  What I use, and what I believe the physicians also use, is the 
dictionary definition of ``necessary'':

       that which is essential, indispensable, or requisite in 
     order to save the health of the mother.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's explanation, 
but let me just give you an example. The National Abortion Rights 
League defines ``medically necessary'' as ``a term which generally 
includes the broadest range of situations for which a state will fund 
abortion.''
  In testimony against implementation of the Hyde language, Dr. Jane 
Hodgson said, ``In my medical judgment every one that is not wanted by 
the patient, I feel there is a medical indication to abort a pregnancy 
where it is not wanted * * * I think they are all medically 
necessary.''
  I am afraid that if we adopted the Senator's language, we would have 
no restriction whatsoever, none whatsoever. Someone could say: You have 
a headache. Therefore, yes, it is medically necessary.
  There would be no restriction. It would greatly undermine the 
language which we just agreed to, the so-called Hyde language, which 
does allow abortion in those cases necessary to save the life of the 
mother or in cases of rape and incest.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment of the Senator from 
Maryland.
  Mr. President, I am ready to yield the remainder of my time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am ready to yield the time as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I would just comment that one example I can give that 
is not medically necessary is where someone would want an abortion for 
the purpose of sex selection. 

[[Page S11529]]

  So, Mr. President, having said that, I am prepared to again affirm 
medically necessary and yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back the remainder of her 
time.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and 
ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], 
the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Lugar], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. 
Murkowski], and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and 
the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 49, as follows:
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 371 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Packwood
     Pell
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--49

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bumpers
     Gregg
     Lugar
     Murkowski
     Pryor
     Stevens
  So the amendment (No. 2227) was rejected.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was rejected.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if I could have my colleagues' attention. I 
am informed by the managers they have done an outstanding job. They did 
not tell me they have done an outstanding job, but I am informed----
  [Laughter.]
  But they have. They have worked out a number of amendments, and they 
may be in a position to take any additional amendments to this bill and 
have a voice vote on final passage. We will have a rollcall vote then 
on the conference report. There is a standing request that we have a 
vote on the bill and, if not on the bill, on the conference report.
  Also, as we speak, there are negotiations going on with Senator Nunn, 
Senator Warner, Senator Levin, and Senator Cohen on an issue relating 
to the DOD authorization bill. We should have some information on that 
between now and a quarter of 4. If there is some resolution of that 
matter, plus I guess another one the Democratic leader mentioned, it 
might be possible to get an agreement on the remainder of the work on 
the DOD authorization bill.
  If we are able to do that--we will not do that today--we will get the 
agreement today and finish the work on Monday or sometime when we have 
a little spare time next week during the welfare reform debate.
  So if my colleagues can give us a little bit of time, we will be able 
to make an announcement about whether or not there will be additional 
votes today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have an amendment on behalf of myself, 
Senator McCain, and others at the desk. I understand it will be 
accepted by the managers, and I ask that it be in order for me to call 
up the amendment.


Vote on Committee Amendment on Page 2, Beginning on Line 14, As Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from Wisconsin will suspend. Is 
there further debate on the first committee amendment, as amended?
  If not, the question occurs on agreeing to the first committee 
amendment, on page 2, beginning on line 14, as amended.
  So the committee amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
committee amendment be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2228

     (Purpose: To reduce the number of executive branch political 
                              appointees)

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. 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 Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, Mr. 
     McCain, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Grams, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2228.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 93, below line 13, insert the following:
       (c)(1) None of the funds appropriated by this or any other 
     Act may be obligated or expended by any Federal department, 
     agency, or other instrumentality to employ, on or after 
     January 1, 1996, in excess of a total of 2000 employees in 
     the Executive Branch who are (i) employed in a position on 
     the executive schedule under sections 5312 through 5316 of 
     title 5, United States Code, (ii) a limited term appointee, 
     limited emergency appointee, or noncareer appointee in the 
     senior executive service as defined under section 3132(a)(5), 
     (6), and (7) of title 5, United States Code, respectively, or 
     (iii) employed in a position in the executive branch of the 
     Government of a confidential or policy-determining character 
     under Schedule C of subpart C of part 213 of title 5 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations.
       (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (c)(1) of 
     this section, any actions required by such section shall be 
     consistent with reduction in force procedures established 
     under section 3502 of title 5, United States Code.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my good 
friend, the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], along with the Senator 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Grams], in offering an amendment to reduce the number of political 
employees who are appointed by the President.
  I understand the amendment will be accepted by the manager.
  Specifically, the amendment caps the number of political appointees 
at 2,000, down from an estimated average of 2,800.
  CBO estimates that this measure will save $363 million over the next 
5 years.
  Mr. President, as the cosponsorship of this amendment attests, this 
is a bipartisan proposal.
  It has been endorsed by Citizens Against Government Waste, and it is 
similar to one of the assumptions the Budget Committee of the other 
body made in developing their concurrent budget resolution. It is also 
consistent with the recommendations of the Vice President's National 
Performance Review, which called for reductions in the number of 
Federal managers and supervisors, arguing that ``over-control and 
micromanagement'' not only ``stifle the creativity of line managers and 
workers, they consume billions per year in salary, benefits, and 
administrative costs.''
   Mr. President, that assessment is especially appropriate with 
respect to political appointees.
  Between 1980 and 1992, the number of political appointees grew by 
more than 17 percent, over three times as fast as the total number of 
executive branch 

[[Page S11530]]
employees. And since 1960, political appointees have grown by a 
startling 430 percent.
   Mr. President, the exploding number of political appointees was a 
target of the 1989 National Commission on the Public Service, chaired 
by former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker.
  As the Commission noted, Presidents must have the flexibility to 
appoint staff that are ideologically compatible. Political appointees 
can be important sources of fresh ideas, and can bring important 
experience from the private sector into an administration.
  Equally as important, political appointees help ensure that 
Government responds to the policy priorities mandated by the electorate 
at the ballot box.
  But, as the Volcker Commission found, far from enhancing 
responsiveness, the growing number of Presidential appointees 
``actually undermine effective presidential control of the executive 
branch.''
  The Commission noted that the large number of Presidential appointees 
simply cannot be managed effectively by any President or White House.
  Altogether, the Volcker Commission argued that this lack of control 
and political focus ``may actually dilute the President's ability to 
develop and enforce a coherent, coordinated program and to hold cabinet 
secretaries accountable.''
  The Commission found that the excessive number of appointees are a 
barrier to critical expertise, distancing the President and his 
principal assistants both from the most experienced career officials 
and the front line workers, often the best positioned to make critical 
assessments of Government policies.
  Mr. President, the problem of distancing that was raised by the 
Volcker Commission has been chronicled by Paul Light in his book, 
``Thickening Government.''
  Light found that the increasing number of political appointees are 
arrayed in layer upon layer of management, layers that did not exist 30 
years ago. He found that in 1960 there were 17 layers of management at 
the very top of Government, but by 1992, there were 32 layers.
  Compounding the problem, Mr. President, Light notes that these 32 
layers do not stack neatly one on top of the other in a unified chain 
of command. Some layers come into play on some issues but not on 
others.
  Light asserts that ``* * * As this sediment has thickened over the 
decades, presidents have grown increasingly distant from the lines of 
government, and the front lines from them.''
  He adds that ``Presidential leadership, therefore, may reside in 
stripping government of the barriers to doing its job effectively * * 
*''
  Mr. President, many will recall the difficulties the current 
administration has had in filling even some of the more visible 
political appointments.
  A story in the National Journal in November 1993, focusing upon the 
delays in the Clinton administration in filling political positions, 
noted that in Great Britain, the transition to a new government if 
finished a week after it begins.
  A speedy transition is possible because British Government runs on a 
handful of political appointees.
  According to Paul Light, they have about one-tenth as many career 
executives and only five layers of management between the Minister and 
the British equivalent of the Deputy Assistant Secretary, compared to 
more than 16 layers here.
  By contrast, the transition of U.S. administrations over the past 35 
years has seen increasing delays and logjams, and perfectly illustrate 
another reason why the number of positions should be cut back.
  The average length of time from inauguration to confirmation of top 
level executive positions has steadily risen from 2.4 months under 
President Kennedy, to 5.3 months under President Reagan, to 8.1 months 
under President Bush, to 8.5 months under President Clinton.
  The consequences of having so many critical positions unfilled when 
an administration changes can be serious.
  In the first 2 years of the Clinton administration, there were a 
number of stories of problems created by delays in making these 
appointments.
  From strained relationships with foreign allies over failures to make 
ambassadorship appointments to the 2-year vacancy at the top of the 
National Archives, the record is replete with examples of agencies left 
drifting while a political appointment was delayed.
  Obviously, there are a number of situations were the delays were 
caused by circumstances beyond control of the administration.
  The case involving the position of Surgeon General of the United 
States is a clear example.
  Nonetheless, it is clear that with a reduced number of political 
appointments to fill, the process of selecting and appointing 
individuals to key positions in a new administration is likely to be 
enhanced.
  Mr. President, let me also stress that the problem is not simply the 
initial filling of a political appointment, but keeping someone in that 
position over time. Between 1970 and 1986, the tenure of a political 
appointee was 20 months, even shorter for schedule C employees.
  And in a report released last year, the General Accounting Office 
reviewed a portion of these positions for the period of 1981 to 1991, 
and found high levels of turnover--seven appointees in 10 years for one 
position--as well as delays, usually of months but sometimes years, in 
filling vacancies.
  Mr. President, as I have noted before on this floor, this legislative 
proposal may not be popular with many people, both within this 
Administration and perhaps among member of the other party who hope to 
win back the White House in the next election.
  I want to stress that I do not view efforts to reduce the number of 
political appointees to be a partisan issue. In making its 
recommendations, the nonpartisan Volcker Commission included the very 
proposal embodied in this amendment--capping political appointees at 
2,000.
  And, as I noted earlier, I am pleased that this amendment has 
bipartisan sponsorship.
  Indeed, I think it adds to the credibility and merits of this 
proposal that a Democratic Senator is proposing to cut back these 
appointments at a time when there is a Democratic administration in 
place.
  The amendment requires this President to reduce the number of 
political appointees, and would obviously apply to any further 
administration as well.
  Mr. President, the sacrifices that deficit reduction efforts require 
must be spread among all of us. This measure requires us to bite the 
bullet and impose limitations upon political appointments that both 
parties may well wish to retain.
  The test of commitment to deficit reduction, however, is not simply 
to propose measure that impact someone else.
  Mr. President, as we move forward to implement the NPR 
recommendations to reduce the number of Government employees, 
streamline agencies, and make government more responsive, we should 
also right size the number of political appointees, ensuring a 
sufficient number to implement the policies of any administration 
without burdening the Federal budget with unnecessary, possibly 
counterproductive political jobs.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Feingold and 
Grams in supporting this amendment.
  The amendment would reduce the number of Presidential appointees from 
around 2,800 to 2,000.
  The number of political appointees has been constantly increasing. 
Today there are between 2,800 and 3,000. There are approximately 570 to 
580 Presidential appointees subject to Senate confirmation, 670 
noncareer members of the Senior Executive Service, 100 Presidential 
appointees not subject to Senate confirmation, and over 1,700 personal 
and confidential assistants--also known as ``schedule Cs.''
  Fifty years ago, President Roosevelt, ran the country for four terms, 
dealt with the Great Depression, and orchestrated a war with some 200 
political appointees.
  According to the Volker Report:

       From 1933 to 1965, during a period of profound expansion in 
     government responsibilities, the number of cabinet and sub-
     cabinet officers appointed by the President and confirmed by 
     the Senate doubled from 73 to 152. From 965 to the present, 
     span when the total 

[[Page S11531]]
     employment and programs were more stable, that number more than tripled 
     to 573.

  The Commission continues:

       Typically, the increase in presidential appointments has 
     been justified as a way to prod or control reluctant 
     bureaucrats, and to speed implementation of the President's 
     agenda. Thus the operative question is not whether the 
     current number of appointees is large or small, in absolute 
     terms or in compared to the number of civilian employees. The 
     real question is whether the proliferation has in fact made 
     government more effective and more responsible to 
     presidential leadership. The Commission concludes that the 
     answer is NO.

  Mr. President, I think that point is worth repeating. When this issue 
was studies by a distinguished, bipartisan group of experts, they 
concluded that the increased number of political appointees had not 
resulted in more effective and more responsive leadership.
  The public believes that our Government is too large and that it is 
too politicized. This amendment begins to address that situation. It is 
clearly not the solution. It is only a small step, but an important 
step.
  I also want to point out that this is not an amendment conceived by a 
Republican Congress to punish or hurt a Democratic Presidency. This 
amendment has bipartisan support. My friend from Wisconsin who 
introduced the amendment is from the same party as the President. And I 
hope to be in the same party of the President in 2 years. This 
amendment is about creating a better Government. It has nothing to do 
with politics.
  Additionally, Mr. President, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office, adoption of this amendment would save approximately $363 
million over the next 5 years. The savings for fiscal year 1996 alone 
would be $45 million.
  These savings could be used for a much greater good than giving third 
and fourth tier campaign workers superfluous Federal jobs.
  Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. It will save money and 
result in a more streamlined executive branch. It should be adopted.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the McCain 
amendment to the Treasury Postal appropriations bill. This amendment 
would cap the number of Presidential political appointees, or schedule 
C's, at 2,000, down from the current average of 2,800.
  Overall, the Treasury Postal appropriations bill goes a long way 
toward fulfilling our promise of deficit reduction to the American 
people. Senator Shelby should be commended for weeding out excessive 
and duplicative layers of bureaucracy from the Treasury Department, 
Postal Service, Executive Office of the Presidency, and several 
independent agencies. The result is an appropriations bill that is $42 
million below the House appropriation for 1996, $367 million below the 
level enacted for 1995, and $1.8 billion below Clinton's budget 
request.
  But the McCain amendment would make this bill even better for at 
least two reasons.
  In terms of deficit reduction, CBO estimates that limiting the number 
of political appointees to 2,000 would save $363 million over the next 
5 years. This degree of deficit reduction will contribute to greater 
economic benefits for all Americans, with lower interest rates 
stimulating investment, economic growth, and jobs.
  In addition to the monetary savings this amendment would generate, 
capping the number of political appointees in the executive branch 
would help make Government run more efficiently and productively. In 
fact, back in 1989, the Commission on Public Service, led by former 
Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker, recommended limiting the 
number of political appointees to 2,000.
  Even more recently, Vice President Gore's National Performance Review 
recommends a reduction in the number of political appointees, arguing 
that ``overcontrol and micromanagement * * * stifle the creativity of 
line managers and workers * * * [and] consume billions [of dollars] per 
year in salary, benefits, and administrative costs.'' As a bipartisan 
solution, the McCain amendment fits in with reform strategies advocated 
at both ends of the political spectrum.
  I urge my colleagues to support the McCain amendment. Your vote will 
be a vote for greater Government efficiency, deficit reduction, and 
good economic sense.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, we have conferred with the Senator from 
Wisconsin and the ranking Democrat, Senator Kerrey. We accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2228) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2229

  (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to take certain actions with 
              respect to the exchange stabilization fund)

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

       The Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], for himself, Mr. 
     Dole, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Grams, Mr. Helms, Mr. 
     Murkowski, and Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2229.

  Mr. D'AMATO. 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, insert the following new section:

     Sec.   . LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR THE PROVISION OF 
                   CERTAIN FOREIGN ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, none of the funds made available by this Act for the 
     Department of the Treasury shall be available for any 
     activity or for paying the salary of any Government employee 
     where funding an activity or paying a salary to a Government 
     employee would result in a decision, determination, rule, 
     regulation, or policy that would permit the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to make any loan or extension of credit under 
     section 5302 of title 31, United States Code, with respect to 
     a single foreign entity or government of a foreign country 
     (including agencies or other entities of that government)--
       (1) unless the President first certifies to the Committee 
     on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Banking and Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives that--
       (A) there is no projected cost (as that term is defined in 
     section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990) to the 
     United States from the proposed loan or extension of credit; 
     and
       (B) any proposed obligation or expenditure of United States 
     funds to or on behalf of the foreign government is adequately 
     backed by an assured source of repayment to ensure that all 
     United States funds will be repaid; and
       (2) other than as provided by an Act of Congress, if that 
     loan or extension of credit would result in expenditures and 
     obligations, including contingent
      obligations, aggregating more than $1,000,000,000 with 
     respect to that foreign country for more than 180 days 
     during the 12 month period beginning on the date on which 
     the first action is taken.
       (b) Waiver of Limitations.--The President may exceed the 
     dollar and time limitations in subsection (a)(2) if he 
     certifies in writing to the Congress that a financial crisis 
     in that foreign country poses a threat to vital United States 
     economic interests or to the stability of the international 
     financial system.
       (c) Expedited Procedures for a Resolution of Disapproval.--
     A presidential certification pursuant to subsection (b) with 
     respect to exceeding dollar or time limitations in subsection 
     (a)(2) shall be considered as follows:
       (1) Reference to committees--All joint resolutions 
     introduced in the Senate to disapprove the certification 
     shall be referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing and 
     Urban Affairs, and in the House of Representatives, to the 
     appropriate committees.
       (2) Discharge of committees.--(A) If the committee of 
     either House to which a resolution has been referred has not 
     reported it at the end of 30 days after its introduction, it 
     is in order to move either to discharge the committee from 
     further consideration of the joint resolution or to discharge 
     the committee from further consideration of any other 
     resolution introduced with respect to the same matter, except 
     no motion to discharge shall be in order after the committee 
     has reported a joint resolution with respect to the same 
     matter.
       (B) A motion to discharge may be made only by an individual 
     favoring the resolution, and is privileged in the Senate; and 
     debate thereon shall be limited to not more than 1 hour, the 
     time to be divided in the Senate equally between, and 
     controlled by, the majority leader and the minority leader or 
     their designees.
       (3) Floor consideration in the senate.--(A) A motion in the 
     Senate to proceed to the consideration of a resolution shall 
     be privileged.
       (B) Debate in the Senate on a resolution, and all debatable 
     motions and appeals in 

[[Page S11532]]
     connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than 4 hours, to be 
     equally divided between, and controlled by, the majority 
     leader and the minority leader or their designees.
       (C) Debate in the Senate on any debatable motion or appeal 
     in connection with a resolution shall be limited to not more 
     than 20 minutes, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the mover and the manager of the resolution, 
     except that in the event the manager of the resolution is in 
     favor of any such motion or appeal, the time in opposition 
     thereto, shall be controlled by the minority leader or his 
     designee. Such leaders, or either of them, may, from time 
     under their control on the passage of a resolution, allot 
     additional time to any Senator during the consideration of 
     any debatable motion or appeal.
       (D) A motion in the Senate to further limit debate on a 
     resolution, debatable motion, or appeal is not debatable. No 
     amendment to, or motion to recommit, a resolution is in order 
     in the Senate.
       (4) In the case of a resolution, if prior to the passage by 
     one House of a resolution of that House, that House receives 
     a resolution with respect to the same matter from the other 
     House, then--
       (A) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if no 
     resolution had been received from the other House; but
       (B) the vote on final passage shall be on the resolution of 
     the other House.
       (5) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``joint 
     resolution'' means only a joint resolution of the 2 Houses of 
     Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of which is 
     as follows: ``That the Congress disapproves the action of the 
     President under section  (b) of the Treasury and Post Office 
     Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996, notice of which was 
     submitted to the Congress on   .'', with the first blank 
     space being filled with the appropriate section, and the 
     second blank space being filled with the appropriate date.
       (d) Applicability.--This section--
       (1) shall not apply to any action taken as part of the 
     program of assistance to Mexico announced by the President on 
     January 31, 1995; and
       (2) shall remain in effect through fiscal year 1996.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, this amendment deals with the utilization 
of the Exchange Stabilization Fund. This amendment does not deal with 
Mexico specifically. It is the result of what we have learned from the 
Mexican crisis and the manner in which those funds have been used. This 
amendment attempts to deal with what I believe is Congress' absolute 
responsibility. That is to say, if we are going to make American 
taxpayers' funds available, there should be a process which gives to 
the Congress the ability to be involved in that decision.
  Let me give you the four main provisions. First, before using ESF, 
the President must certify that there was no cost to the U.S. taxpayers 
and that repayment of the ESF funds is guaranteed.
  Second, congressional approval is required before using more than $1 
billion of ESF funds for more than 6 months in any 1 year to a single 
foreign country.
  Third, in extreme circumstances, the President may exceed these 
limits if he certifies that there is a threat to vital U.S. economic 
interests or the stability of the international financial system.
  Fourth, Congress may disapprove of the emergency certification on an 
expedited basis.
  Mr. President, I have conferred with Senator Dodd and others and we 
are all in agreement with this amendment.
  Mr. President, since February, I have repeatedly expressed my concern 
about the President's decision to circumvent Congress to bail out 
Mexico. Billions of taxpayer dollars were wasted, put in jeopardy, and 
may ultimately be lost, because the President used the Exchange 
Stabilization Fund--the ESF--in an unprecedented action to bail out 
global speculators.
  We must make sure that this never happens again. This amendment is 
designed to protect the American taxpayers and reassert congressional 
control and responsibility over the ESF. I am very pleased that 
Majority Leader Dole, and Senators Helms, Hollings, Faircloth, 
Murkowski, Domenici, and Grams, are cosponsors of this amendment.
  Mr. President, let me briefly explain my amendment. First, when using 
ESF funds, the President would be required to certify that there is no 
cost to the U.S. taxpayers from the proposed transaction and that 
repayment of the ESF funds is guaranteed. Earlier this year, Congress 
approved this same certification requirement for ESF funds sent to 
Mexico.
  Second, this amendment would impose a $1 billion 6-month cap on the 
Secretary's unrestricted ability to use ESF funds. When the Secretary 
wants to provide more than $1 billion to a single foreign country for 
longer than 6 months, Congress will be forced to take action.
  Mr. President, I want to make clear that this amendment does not 
overturn the President's bailout of Mexico. Instead, this amendment 
restores the proper role of Congress in future economic crises in 
foreign countries.
  We must learn from the Mexican crisis. Although reasonable people may 
disagree about the wisdom of the President's Mexican bailout, there can 
be no doubt that the ESF should not be used to provide foreign aid.
  Mr. President, the time has come to make sure that Presidents cannot 
circumvent Congress through the ESF to provide foreign aid. This 
amendment is the first step. The Constitution expressly provides that 
Congress must approve appropriations, including foreign aid. It is 
spelled out in article 1, section 9: ``No money shall be drawn from the 
Treasury, but in consequence of Appropriations made by Law.''
  The Treasury Department has acknowledged that the ESF can't be used 
for foreign aid. I quote from a recent opinion to Treasury Secretary 
Robert Rubin, from the Treasury Department's general counsel: 
``Although loans and credits are clearly permitted under the ESF, their 
purpose must be to maintain orderly exchange arrangements and a stable 
system of exchange rates, and not to serve as foreign aid.'' This is 
clear. The ESF can't be used by the administration as a foreign aid 
piggy bank.
  Mr. President, the administration's use of the ESF to bail out Mexico 
was completely unprecedented and went well beyond any previous use of 
the ESF. The ESF was established over 60 years ago, and until this 
bailout, it operated without controversy and in compliance with its 
original purpose--supporting the dollar and maintaining orderly 
exchange arrangements. But this small fund, which was rarely mentioned 
and relatively unknown, quietly grew into a $40 billion slush fund that 
is beyond congressional control.
  Mr. President, in the Mexican bailout, the administration ignored all 
precedent and recognized use of the ESF. Prior to the Mexican bailout, 
the largest loan to a foreign country from the ESF was $1 billion to 
Mexico in 1982--and that loan was for just 10 days. Another loan to 
Mexico in 1982, for 6 months, was the longest loan in the history of 
the ESF.
  But this year, the administration committed $20 billion of American 
taxpayer dollars to Mexico for loans and securities guarantees 
extending up to 10 years. And the administration took this 
unprecedented action without a single vote of Congress. I want to 
emphasize again: $20 billion to a foreign country for 10 years without 
a single vote of Congress. That was not the purpose of the ESF--that 
was foreign aid, pure and simple.
  Mr. President, my amendment would reassert Congress' rights and 
responsibilities over the ESF. And this amendment would restore the ESF 
to its original purpose--short-term stabilization of the dollar. 
American taxpayers' money in the ESF should not, and must not, be used 
as foreign aid.
  I would also like to address the apparent lack of cooperation by the 
administration with the House leadership. I refer my colleagues to the 
abundant correspondence between Speaker Gingrich and the White House 
that details the problems with, and the potential violations of, the 
Mexican Debt Disclosure Act. This correspondence is available from my 
office. The recent vote in the House on Congressman Sanders' ESF 
amendment clearly illustrates the frustration and outrage felt by 
Congress and the American people toward the Mexican bailout and the 
President's use of the ESF.
  Mr. President, I fully recognize that the ESF is an important tool in 
these times of rapidly changing and turbulent financial markets. This 
amendment would not limit, in any way, the Secretary's ability to use 
the ESF to stabilize the dollar. The ESF was designed to protect the 
dollar, not the Mexican peso or any other foreign currency. This 
amendment will simply reassert Congress' control over the ESF while 
restraining the Secretary's 

[[Page S11533]]
unchecked ability to spend taxpayer dollars.
  We must not allow ESF to be used to circumvent Congress' 
constitutional authority to appropriate funds and provide foreign aid. 
Congress is the peoples' voice and the administration must not turn its 
back on the people ever again.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, Senator Kerrey and I have reviewed the 
amendment and statement by Senator D'Amato. We will agree to the 
amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the 
proposal that our colleague from New York has fashioned. I think this 
provision strikes a good balance between the prerogative of the 
Congress and the responsibilities of the executive branch.
  I believe a little background on the issue we are dealing with might 
be useful for our colleagues. This amendment relates to the Exchange 
Stabilization Fund which was created by the Congress more than 60 years 
ago--in 1934. Throughout that 60-year period, it has been used 
prudently in dealing with currency-related matters.
  I know that the recent use of this fund for Mexico has brought it to 
the attention of our colleagues. Without question the $20 billion 
assistance effort extended to Mexico is without precedent in the 
history of the Exchange Stabilization Fund. Prior to that instance, the 
largest single use of the fund occurred in 1982 when Mexico was 
confronted with another currency crisis. On that occasion the fund 
extended a very brief extension of credit totaling $1 billion.
  Much has changed in world financial markets since 1982. There has 
been an explosion of growth of these markets. In 1982, for example, the 
world equity market totalled $ 2.73 trillion. By 1993 that market had 
grown more than 500 percent to $14 trillion. This is just one indicator 
of the magnitude of capital flows that can occur in crisis situations--
virtually overwhelming most domestic exchange markets. I believe that 
these factors should be taken into account in making a judgment about 
the recent use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund.
  The Senator from New York has felt very strongly that the Exchange 
Stabilization Fund should not be a secret foreign aid spigot. Our 
colleague from New York is correct about that. This was not its 
intended purpose. I am not suggesting, or is our colleague from New 
York, that has been the case.
  The President made no secret of his intention to assist Mexico in its 
effort to address its financial crisis. To the President's credit, he 
came to the Congress first, and asked us to be involved. For reasons we 
do not need to go into today, that did not work out. The President 
recognized that Congress was not going to be able to respond in a 
timely fashion. Senator Dole, the majority leader, and the Speaker of 
the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, recognized that as well. 
They joined with the President and endorsed his decision to utilize the 
authorities of the Exchange Stabilization Fund to assist Mexico.
  Senator D'Amato's amendment will enable the Congress to respond more 
effectively to any future crises of this nature, if it so decides to 
involve itself.
  For these reasons, I support the amendment of the Senator from New 
York. I think this is a good proposal.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator D'Amato on this 
amendment. I really believe it came as a great surprise to many 
Senators--perhaps all but him--that this fund was around there and 
could be used. I think the time has come for us to set some legislative 
limitations on its use, because it is a very vital fund for its 
originally intended purposes.
  Therefore, as in years past, we will be grateful that it will start 
to accumulate again. And clearly we will not use it without Congress 
understanding its use, unless it be in a minor amount of dollars. I 
think that is good for the future of the strength of our dollar, and 
that we stabilize other currencies around the country, which has become 
a vital part of our dollar valuation.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I want to join in congratulating the 
chairman of the Banking Committee for the way in which he handled this 
issue. He was courteous enough to talk with me about it some days--even 
weeks--ago. We have been negotiating back and forth on this as to what 
we thought would be the best way to do this. The way he has ultimately 
decided to do this, I think, demonstrates his willingness to be open to 
suggestion--his willingness to accept changes that are suggested.
  I not only congratulate him on this amendment, I look forward to 
hearings on this issue before the Banking Committee, because we 
recognize that this particular amendment will run out after one fiscal 
year. And we probably need to have hearings to discuss the underlying 
issue. Is $1 billion the right number for the long term? Should it be 
5, 10, 2, or 6? Is 6 months the right number of months? I think for the 
time limit, set in this amendment, the Senator has made the right 
choice. I encourage him to look for a long-term solution to this issue 
and to schedule hearings. I look forward to participating in those.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend our colleague from Utah, as well. 
He has been very involved in this from the very beginning and has 
offered very good, sound advice on how to proceed. I know our colleague 
from New York agrees with that, as well. Also, I make the point that I 
happen to believe--and I think most of our colleagues agree here--that 
the Secretary of the Treasury has done a good job. He had a very 
difficult problem to grapple with and he handled it very well.
  As I pointed out earlier, we were faced with the difficult situation 
of the Congress being unable to act quickly and with very few other 
alternatives for responding to the Mexican problem.
  I think we have gone through a good process over the spring. Treasury 
officials, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, 
and other experts have come up to talk about this. I think all of these 
discussions have had a beneficial affect on the conduct of this entire 
process.
  We do not want to discourage this administration or future ones from 
responding decisively to crises like that which confronted us with 
respect to Mexico. I don't believe this provision does that. Rather, it 
makes the Congress more a part of that process. Heretofore, We did not 
have the mechanism for being a part of the process. Now we will during 
fiscal year 1996.
  I thank my colleague for yielding and congratulate him on his 
efforts.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank Senator Dodd. I thank my colleagues from Utah 
and New Mexico for their kind words, also. I do believe that Congress, 
by not becoming part of the process, shares the responsibility and onus 
in not doing so. Congressional involvement is part of our oversight, 
and it should be. Hopefully, this legislation will lead to a permanent 
manner in which to bring us into the process, and if we choose not to, 
so be it. But I think we should be part of that process.
  I thank all of my colleagues for the suggestion and their help in 
bringing us to this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2229) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2230

      (Purpose: To provide funding for the Advisory Commission on 
          Intergovernmental Relations, and for other purposes)

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I want to thank the managers of this bill for the 
hard work they have undertaken. I want to acknowledge that this 
Congress, Members of this Senate, and Members of the House of 
Representatives this year established something that is quite 
remarkable. This Congress will be known for establishing the mechanism 
to stop unfunded Federal mandates, something talked about for years. It 
has been accomplished. It was accomplished with the passage of Senate 
bill 1 which received 90 percent positive vote in the Senate and 90 
percent positive vote in the House of Representatives.
  Most of the legislation is prospective, dealing with future mandates. 
That does not mean that our job is finished. What about the existing 
mandates that have been burdening local and State governments for 
years?
  A key provision in the Senate bill was title 3 which said we are 
going to 

[[Page S11534]]
take a look at all of the existing mandates and determine which of 
those may be duplicating the cost, which of those are obsolete, which 
of those do not make sense and ought to be taken off the books 
entirely. That report is to be accomplished by April 1 of next year, 
not a great deal of time to get that accomplished.
  We designated in that legislation that the Advisory Commission on 
Intergovernmental Relations would be charged with that task. They have 
been working on it ever since Senate bill 1 became law.
  What is the result of that? A letter from the Advisory Commission 
stated on August 3 they are making progress on the mandate study, they 
have already met the first two deadlines and expect to meet the 
remainder as well. They have already approved criteria published in the 
Federal Register July 6 of this year and a report on court rulings 
involving State and local government which was officially transmitted 
to the President and the Congress, and a copy of which is attached.
  I raise this, Mr. President, because the House of Representatives in 
their companion legislation to this took an unusual action, in my 
estimation. The House determined that while we have already launched 
this effort, while we have already asked a Commission comprised of 
Members of the U.S. Senate, Members of the U.S. House of 
Representatives, Governors, mayors, members of State legislatures, 
county officials, the executive branch and private citizens, they now 
say, ``Stop, we do not think this group ought to do this task.''
  They say, ``We would like to provide funds of $334,000 to the Office 
of Management and Budget to carry out this task.'' I do not understand 
that, Mr. President. I do not understand the wisdom of saying that this 
group, which is the exact group that helped us pass the efforts to stop 
unfunded mandates, should not be the one tasked with coming up with the 
review of existing mandates, but instead we would like to have the 
Office of Management and Budget take on this task.
  Now, we discussed this again in Senate bill 1. The House set up a 
different commission now. Again, we have looked at the same type of 
commission when we discussed in Senate bill 1. An amendment was offered 
by the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, which said that this 
is the group that ought to do the job, and in a vote of 88-0 this 
Senate said that is correct, this is the group.
  Yet now we have the committee that has come forward with their 
legislation, and they say we concur with the House. We believe that the 
funds that were dedicated to this group for that cause ought to be 
given to the Office of Management and Budget. Again, I totally disagree 
with that.
  This amendment, Mr. President, says that this group, the Advisory 
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, will be allowed to finish 
the job, and it provides the funds up through April 1 to complete that 
task. At that point, no further funds would be made available to this 
group.
  The idea of telling the very people that are impacted most by 
unfunded mandates that for some reason we do not want the report from 
them, we would rather have it from the Federal Government that has been 
imposing unfunded mandates for years, does not make sense to me.
  That is the essence of the amendment, Mr. President. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Kempthorne-
Dorgan amendment. If we do not pass this, I think we could be looked at 
as once again doing something half-baked and ill-considered in the 
Congress that just leaves people sick when they look at it.
  What we are doing is giving a job and at the same time we are cutting 
off the money to do the job, if we do not pass this amendment. It just 
makes us look silly. I compliment my friend from Idaho for picking this 
up and doing something about it.
  As he said, earlier this year we enacted the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act. This is historic legislation. We desired to bring balance to our 
system of Federalism. It was a bipartisan effort. As we all know, we 
worked many long hours here on the floor of the Senate for almost 2 
weeks full time, morning to night, and we ultimately passed the Senate 
by a vote of 91 to 9. Huge support, both sides of the aisle.
  It deals primarily with future mandates on both the public and 
private sectors. It sets up a process of consideration and analysis 
whereby we would have a better understanding of the cost and impact of 
Federal mandates in both the legislative and regulatory process.
  S. 1 requires cost estimates to be made. Cost estimates of 
legislation by the Congressional Budget Office, and cost benefit 
analysis of regulations by the agencies.
  Now, title 3 of S. 1 sets up a series of studies on the impact of 
existing--big difference--existing regulatory and legislative mandates 
on State and local governments, and to make recommendations on how to 
reduce the burdening and improve the flexibility of these mandates.
  Title 3 tasks this responsibility, as the Senator from Idaho said, to 
the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. We authorized 
$500,000 each year for fiscal year 1995 and 1996 for them to carry out 
their responsibilities under the act. We expect to get back far more 
than that $500,000 for each year in the increased efficiencies that we 
will have result from the studies they will do.
  Unfortunately, the question is zeroed out of the ACIR, provided no 
appropriation to complete the studies required under S. 1. We gave them 
a job and cut their budget to do it, which is just a bit idiotic. Once 
again, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. It 
just makes us look foolish because it is foolish. What the Senator from 
Idaho is doing is correcting that situation.
  I understand about half of ACIR's budget comes from Federal 
appropriations. The rest comes from State and local governments and 
from the sale of publications and services.
  I also realize by fiscal year 1997, ACIR is hoping to become fully 
self-sustained, no longer reliant on Federal funds. That is good. I am 
glad they are moving in that direction.
  ACIR tells us they do need $334,000 in order to complete the studies 
that we in Congress required of them to carry out S. 1. If we do not 
provide these funds, what we are doing is saying we have set up here 
another unfunded mandate with the group that was supposed to be looking 
into unfunded mandates. We will not even have the people out there to 
do that. Ultimately, they will not be able to do the studies and make 
the needed recommendations.
  I believe we should live up to the commitments we made when we 
enacted S. 1. I do not think there is objection to this. I hope we have 
full support for it and can do it unanimously. I urge my colleagues 
strongly to support the Kempthorne-Dorgan amendment. I thank my 
colleague from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, may I acknowledge and thank the 
Senator from Ohio, Senator Glenn, who is a strong partner in bringing 
about Senate bill 1. It was a bipartisan effort. The same 
bipartisanship is alive and well. We should keep it going.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, Senator Kerrey and I have conferred with 
Senator Kempthorne, Senator Glenn, and others, and we are willing to 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, our side is willing to accept the 
amendment as well. The ACIR will have the same happy ending and 
continue the same work started by Senator Glenn and Senator Kempthorne. 
I appreciate their hard work and effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne] for himself, Mr. 
     Glenn, and Mr. Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 2230.
       On page 29, line 12, strike out ``$55,907,000,'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$55,573,000,''.
       On page 33, insert between lines 1 and 2 the following:

           Advisory Comission on Intergovernmental Relations


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Advisory Commission on 
     Intergovernmental Relations to carry out the provisions of 
     title III of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public 
     Law 104-4), $334,000; provided, that upon the completion of 
     the Final Report required by such title, no further Federal 
     funds shall be available for the Advisory Commission on 
     Intergovernmental Relations.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment. 

[[Page S11535]]

  The amendment (No. 2230) was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                           Amendment No. 2231

 (Purpose: To provide that no increase in the rates of pay for Members 
 of Congress shall be made in fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes)

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senator Domenici, the Senator from New Mexico, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the committee 
amendments are set aside.
  It is so ordered, and the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Thompson], for himself, Mr. 
     Domenici, Mr. Pressler, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. 
     Abraham, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Ashcroft, Ms. Snowe, Mr. McCain, and 
     Mr. Grassley proposes an amendment numbered 2231.
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the 
     Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) 
     (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of 
     Congress) during fiscal year 1996.

  Mr. THOMPSON. I also ask unanimous consent the following Senators be 
listed as cosponsors to this amendment. In addition to Senator Domenici 
and myself, Senator Pressler, Senator Hutchison, Senator D'Amato, 
Senator Abraham, Senator DeWine, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Snowe, 
Senator McCain, and Senator Grassley.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMPSON. For several months now this body has debated many 
fundamental issues facing this country. While we still disagree on many 
of these issues, there are certain truths that are becoming readily 
apparent. One is that we must get our fiscal house in order in this 
country if we are to avoid national bankruptcy and preserve the country 
that we have known.
  It is true, it has been said often--and it cannot be said too often--
that our national debt and interest on that debt are strangling us. We 
cannot sustain deficits endlessly in the future at the rate we have. It 
will have its effects on savings, a detrimental effect on interest 
rates, and ultimately the long-term growth of this country. We will be 
leaving a legacy of higher interest rates and a lower standard of 
living to future generations.
  We are coming to agree on this basic general principle during these 
debates, and I think we are in the beginning stages, finally, of facing 
up to these problems. We have now passed a balanced budget resolution--
which will lead us to a balanced budget in the year 2002--for the first 
time in decades in this country. The President has now acknowledged the 
seriousness of this problem. We have a great opportunity, I think, to 
work together to solve this problem. Although we may differ on the 
means by which we solve it, I think we can certainly agree on the end 
that we must all work toward.
  I think we are also becoming more honest with the American people. I 
think it is clearer every day. People are beginning to realize if we 
are to solve this problem, we cannot have everything exactly as we have 
had it in years past. Sooner or later, we are going to all have to make 
some sacrifices for the sake of our country.
  We have seen this in nondiscretionary spending items, where we have 
come to realize we cannot continue to have growth in some of these 
programs at multiples of 10 percent a year. We have begun to address 
the question of cost-of-living increases. Some of our citizens have now 
had delays in those. Others, such as Federal workers, will be having to 
face up to this.
  Many of us who are concerned about our national defense and the fact 
that seemingly every time we have a major engagement in this country we 
become complacent, we do not keep our appropriations up. And we are 
faced with that situation, perhaps, again.
  But the point is that all of us are suddenly realizing everybody is 
going to have to pitch in. Nobody is going to get all of what they 
want. We are going to have to make sacrifices across the board. I feel 
there are very few Americans who are not willing to help, as long as 
they feel they are being treated fairly and there is an across-the-
board addressing of the problem.
  The amendment Senator Domenici and I offer today is based upon the 
simple proposition that while we are asking the American people and 
leading the American people toward addressing these problems and making 
these adjustments, we do the same thing with regard to ourselves. We 
certainly should not be having automatic cost-of-living increases for 
this body during this particular period of time. Automatic pay 
increases, where we do not even have to vote on them, stick in the craw 
of the American people, and it is destructive to what we are ultimately 
trying to do here in this body.
  Some people will say we are not going to save all that much money by 
freezing the automatic cost-of-living increase for the year 1996, that 
it is largely symbolic. Our response to that is that symbolism is 
important. It is somewhat ironic that we are the body that has to lead 
the American people, the Congress. We have to lead the American people 
toward these difficult choices, but we are a body not held in high 
regard by the American people. So we must do what we need to do to put 
ourselves in a position of leadership. In order for us to be able to 
deliver a message to the American people and have it be credible, the 
messenger is going to have to have more credibility.
  Mr. President, I think we have begun to demonstrate to the American 
people that this body is willing to do its part. We have seen we have 
faced up to the problems of gifts and the problems of free trips we 
have had in this body in the past. We have seen one of the first thing 
we did in this session of Congress was to apply the laws to ourselves 
that have, for so many years, been applied to the American people. We 
are going to be facing up to the pension issues which will bring us 
more into line with other Federal employees and other people in the 
private sector.
  So turning down an automatic cost-of-living increase this year, I 
think, is a part of that overall, very important picture. We are going 
down the right road now, and I am delighted to see this amendment is 
going to be, apparently, agreed to, and we are not turning back at this 
stage.
  With that, I yield to the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to assure the majority leader, 
from everything I understand, we are not going to speak very long--very 
long in addition to what has already been said. He need not worry about 
filing a cloture motion or anything like that. The only speakers I 
think are Senator Hutchison and myself.
  I ask unanimous consent Senator Dole be added as a cosponsor of this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be open 
until the Senate close today for additional cosponsors who might want 
to join it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I join with Senator Thompson in a very 
simple amendment. I think it is very basic, it is very fair. It is the 
thing we ought to do.
  We are in the midst of a great change. Part of that change is to get 
the Federal deficit under control and make Government smaller. In doing 
that, we are asking a lot of people to sacrifice and we are asking that 
a lot of programs be restrained, some cut, some eliminated. I think we 
must send the right signal to the American people. We must say to them 
we are also willing to restrain ourselves in a way that reminds us that 
we are in an era of restraining the budget.
  I think the best way to do that is to say we are not going to have 
any pay raises for Members of Congress in 1996.
  The budget resolution said we would not do that for 7 years. We 
cannot do that today for 7 years. I am not sure that we should. But we 
take it 1 year at a time, and for now we are saying, 

[[Page S11536]]
consistent with the budget resolution and our affirmations as we all 
voted with that--that we want to get the deficit under control and be 
fair--wherein we said let us not have any pay raises, we are saying 
that is what we want to do. No pay raises for 1996 for Members of 
Congress.
  I thank the Senator from Tennessee for offering this amendment. It is 
a privilege to be his cosponsor. I think the managers are doing the 
right thing in accepting it. It probably will become law, thanks to 
Senator Thompson's efforts, and I think the public deserves that this 
year.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership of the 
Senator from Tennessee, Senator Thompson, and the Senator from New 
Mexico, Senator Domenici.
  Senator Domenici, in the budget resolution, provided that there would 
be no increases in salaries of Members of Congress until this budget is 
balanced. I think that is a fair contract with the American people.
  Senator Thompson today is implementing that decision and we must do 
it in every appropriations bill that comes forward. That is necessary 
for us to show that we are going to do what every American is doing 
when times are hard.
  By freezing the salaries, we can contribute to this ending of the 
budget deficit so that our children and grandchildren will have a 
chance to grow up with the kinds of childhoods we have been able to 
grow up in and love in America.
  So I thank the Senator from Tennessee. I thank the Senator from New 
Mexico and our leader for making sure that we are going to do the right 
thing.
  You have seen, the American people have seen, Mr. President, you have 
seen in the last few weeks and days and hours how hard it is for us to 
make the necessary cuts to do what is right for America. But we are 
going to do it. We are showing that we are going to do it, that we have 
the commitment, that we have the tenacity, that we have the will to do 
what is right, no matter how hard it is, so that our children will be 
able to inherit an America that is free from debt at some point in 
their future so that they will not have to pay taxes so onerous that 
they will not have the quality of life that we enjoy today.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Thurmond be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, Senator Kerrey, the ranking Democrat on 
the subcommittee, and I have agreed to take this amendment.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, while it is true that we have already 
spent the money, I accept the amendment.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my name be 
added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, an essential element of leadership is to 
lead by example. I think this does that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Tennessee.
  The amendment (No. 2231) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wanted to indicate that there will be no 
more rollcall votes today. We have already notified the cloakrooms in 
case somebody was not notified. We will complete action on this bill.
  I wanted to congratulate the managers. Getting it done in one day is, 
I think, an outstanding accomplishment.
  Then we will go back to the DOD authorization bill with the managers 
dealing with about 20 to 30 amendments that have been cleared. So 
following disposition of this bill, we will go back to the DOD 
authorization bill. It will probably take about 30 or 40 minutes to do 
that.


                     Authority for Enrolling Clerk

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the enrolling 
clerk be authorized to insert the Nickles amendment No. 2153 at the 
appropriate place in the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Committee Amendments Agreed to En Bloc

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the 
committee amendments to H.R. 2020 be considered and agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the committee amendments were agreed to en bloc.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no points of 
order be waived thereon and that the measure, as amended, be considered 
as original text for the purpose of further amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Amendments Nos. 2232 through 2251

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I send a group of amendments which have 
been cleared to the desk.
  Mr. President, these amendments are as follows:
  An amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Kerrey to increase the 
limitation of funds the Secret Service can spend to secure 
nongovernmental properties; an amendment on behalf of Senator Stevens 
pertaining to mail delivery in Alaska; an amendment on behalf of 
Senators D'Amato and Moynihan transferring a forfeited aircraft to a 
war museum; an amendment on behalf of Senators Ford and McConnell 
prohibiting implementation of an ATF ruling on citrus contents in 
alcohol; an amendment on behalf of Senator Pryor striking the committee 
amendment on page 15, line 5 through line 9; an amendment on behalf of 
Senators Simpson and Craig restricting IRS funds to certain tax-exempt 
organizations; an amendment for myself and Senator Kerrey allowing for 
the Department of Treasury to reimburse the District of Columbia for 
costs incurred as a result of the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue.
  Further, an amendment on behalf of Senator Coverdell providing $5 
million for payments to States to partially cover costs of the National 
Voter Registration Act of 1993; an amendment on behalf of Senator 
Bingaman prohibiting the sale of tobacco products in vending machines 
in Federal buildings; a sense-of-the-Senate amendment on behalf of 
Senator Brown on GSA supply depots; two amendments on behalf of Senator 
Kerrey and myself on an IRS commission and on a Secret Service 
protection matter; an amendment on behalf of Senator Hutchison on 
border stations; an amendment on behalf of Senator Bingaman requiring 
energy costs in Federal facilities; a sense of the Senate on behalf of 
Senator Brown regarding an airport issue in Colorado; an amendment on 
behalf of Senators Hatch and Biden restoring--I have a modification on 
the Hatch-Biden amendment--funds to ONDCP; an amendment on behalf of 
Senator Brown regarding SES leave; an amendment on behalf of Senator 
Lautenberg regarding transfer of a building in Hoboken, NJ; an 
amendment on behalf of Senator Grassley restoring funding for ACUS; an 
amendment on behalf of Senator Mikulski regarding pay for Uniformed 
Service officers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) proposes amendment 
     Nos. 2232 through 2251, en bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:
                           amendment no. 2232

  Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2232) for himself and Mr. 
Kerrey.


[[Page S11537]]

       At the end of Title V, add the following new section:
       Sec.   . Section 4 of the Presidential Protection 
     Assistance Act of 1976, Public Law 94-524, is amended by 
     striking ``$75,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``$200,000''.


                           amendment no. 2233

  Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2233) for Mr. Stevens.

       On page 104, insert between lines 19 and 20 the following 
     new section:
       Sec. 635. (a) Section 5402 of title 39, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (f) by striking out ``During the period 
     beginning January 1, 1995, and ending January 1, 1999, the'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``The''; and
       (2) in subsection (g)(1) by amending subparagraph (D) to 
     read as follows:
       ``(D) have provided scheduled service within the State of 
     Alaska for at least 12 consecutive months with aircraft--
       ``(i) under 7,500 pounds payload before being selected as a 
     carrier of nonpriority bypass mail at an applicable intra-
     Alaska bush service mail rate; and
       ``(ii) equal to or over 7,500 pounds before being selected 
     as a carrier of nonpriority bypass mail at the intra-Alaska 
     mainline service mail rate.''.
       (b)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the amendment made by 
     subsection (a) shall be effective on and after August 1, 
     1995.
       (2) Subparagraph (D) of section 5402(g)(1) of title 39, 
     United States Code (as in effect before the amendment made 
     under subsection (a)) shall apply to a carrier, if such 
     carrier--
       (A) has an application pending before the Department of 
     Transportation for approval under Section 41102 or 41110(e) 
     of title 39, United States Code, before August 1, 1995; and
       (B) would meet the requirements of such subparagraph if 
     such application were approved and such certificate were 
     purchased.


                           amendment no. 2234

  Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2234) for Mr. D'Amato, for 
himself and Mr. Moynihan.

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     United States Customs Service shall transfer, without 
     consideration, to the National Warplane Museum in Geneseo, 
     New York, 2 seized and forfeited A-37 Dragonfly jets for 
     display and museum purposes.
                           amendment no. 2235

  Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2235) for Mr. Ford, for himself 
and Mr. McConnell.

       Add the following new Section to Title V:
       Sec.   . No part of any appropriation made available in 
     this Act shall be used to implement Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco and Firearms Ruling TD ATF-360; Re: Notice Nos. 782, 
     780, 91F009P.


                           amendment no. 2236

  Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2236) for Mr. Pryor.

(Purpose: To eliminate funding requiring an initiation of a program to 
   use private law firms and debt collection agencies in collection 
  activities of the Internal Revenue Service, and for other purposes)

       On page 15, line 5, strike out all after ``research'' 
     through line 9 and insert in lieu thereof a period.

 Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the 
managers of the bill, Senators Shelby and Kerry, have accepted my 
amendment, and I want to thank them for their support. However, a 
similar provision was included in the House Treasury, Postal Service 
appropriations bill, and I want to make my comments on this matter part 
of the Record in anticipation of the conference between the House and 
Senate.
   Mr. President, the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government 
appropriations bill provides $13 million to ``initiate a program to 
utilize private counsel law firms and debt collection agencies in the 
collection activities of the Internal Revenue Service.''
  In short, this provision requires the IRS to spend $13 million to 
hire private law firms and private bill collectors to collect the debts 
of the American taxpayer. My amendment is very simple--It strikes this 
provision from the Treasury, Postal Service appropriations bill.
   Mr. President, in over 200 years of our Federal Government, we have 
never turned over the business of collecting taxes to the private 
sector--But I must point out that this dubious practice is as old as 
the hills and dates back to at least ancient Greece.
  The practice of private tax collection even has a name. It is called 
``tax farming'', and its modern history is chronicled in a book 
authored by Charles Adams, a tax lawyer and history teacher. The book 
is named ``For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of 
Civilization.''
  In this book, Mr. Adams recounts many tales of how the world has 
suffered under the oppression of the tax farmers. He specifically 
describes the tax farmers sent by the Greek kings to the island of Cos 
as ``thugs, and even the privacy of a person's home was not secure from 
them.'' He further notes that a respected lady of Cos around 200 B.C. 
wrote ``Every door trembles at the tax-farmers.''
   Mr. President, in the later Greek and Roman world, no social class 
was hated more than the tax farmer. The leading historian of the 
period, Rostovtzeff, described tax farmers with these words: ``The 
publican (keepers of the public house) certainly were ruthless tax 
collectors, and dangerous and unscrupulous rivals in business. They 
were often dishonest and probably always cruel.''
  Tax farming flourished, as a monster of oppression in many forms, in 
Western civilization, for over 2,500 years until its demise after World 
War I.
  Tax farming brutalized prerevolutionary France. The French court paid 
the price during the Reign of Terror when the people were so incensed 
that they rounded up the tax farmers, tried them in the people's 
courts, and condemned them to death. Accounts of the time tell of the 
taxpayers cheering while the heads of the tax farmers tumbled from the 
guillotine.
  In 17th-century England, Charles II imposed a ``Hearth Tax'', 
assessing 2 shillings per chimney in each house. To collect it, the 
king contracted out with private parties--named by the people, 
``Chimney Men''. These Chimney Men were ruthless and hated by the 
people of England. Hatred of the privately collected tax helped depose 
Charles' brother, James II. As soon as the new monarchs, William and 
Mary, were installed, the House of Commons abolished the tax, ending a 
``badge of slavery upon the whole people that allowed every man's house 
to be entered and searched at the pleasure of persons unknown to him.''
  Now, I am not suggesting that providing $13,000,000 to the IRS in 
order to contract out with private law firms and collection agencies 
will cause anyone to actually lose their head. But, for well-reasoned 
decisionmakers, history should be utilized as a guide as to--what is, 
and what is not--a good idea. Clearly, Mr. President, history tells us 
that contracting out the tax collection responsibilities of government 
is not a good idea.
  Mr. President, some very notable economists and philosophers have 
also warned against tax farming. In his book, ``The Wealth of 
Nations,'' Adam Smith states, ``The best and most frugal way of levying 
a tax can never be by farm.''
  Smith goes on to observe that ``The farmers of the public revenue 
never find the laws too severe, which punish any attempt to evade the 
payment of tax. They have no bowels for the contributors, who are not 
their subjects, and whose universal bankruptcy, if it should happen the 
day after their farm is expired, would not much affect their 
interest.''
  Mr. President, I know there are those in this Chamber who revere Adam 
Smith, so I hope they will heed his message in ``The Wealth of 
Nations.''
  Mr. President, just as relevant to the discussion is how this 
practice may be employed in our time and by our Federal Government?
  First, Who will these people be?
  Second, How will they be hired?
  Third, Who will train them?
  Fourth, Who will oversee them?
  Fifth, Which taxpayer's cases will they work on?
  Sixth, What type of taxpayer information will be made available to 
them? And,
  Seventh, How will these private bill collectors be paid?
  Mr. President, this legislation provides no answer to these important 
questions--it simply provides taxpayer dollars, $13 million of them, to 
nameless, faceless, untrained, and unaccountable bill collectors with 
no guidance as to how they will be paid.
  Let us just briefly explore two of the questions that I just 
mentioned.
  First, what type of taxpayer information will these private bill 
collectors have access to? The American people demand that their tax 
return information will be kept confidential; that it will only be 
shared with the appropriate personnel within the Government. It is an 
essential element which lends confidence in our tax system and 

[[Page S11538]]
leads to a high percentage of voluntary compliance.
  If taxpayer information is shared outside of the Government 
confidence, how many taxpayer will decide to no longer comply? I fear 
in an effort to collect more revenues, we will collect less.
  Second, how will these bill collectors be paid? The bill does not 
specify the manner in which these private law firms and private 
collection agencies will be compensated. But Mr. President, most bill 
collectors are paid on a contingency basis--that is, they are 
compensated on some percentage of what they collect.
  If this is to be the case--and it is certainly a possibility under 
this bill--this is a blatant violation of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. 
In the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, passed in 1988, there is included a 
strict prohibition against the IRS from using enforcement goals or 
quotas.
  Mr. President, a contingency fee to an outside contractor is a quota, 
and if applied to the compensation of an IRS agent would be strictly 
prohibited under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. However, there is a fatal 
problem the drafters of this legislation have not recognized. And that 
is--the Taxpayer Bill of Rights only applies to the IRS--not outside 
contractors. Given this loophole, I must register my strongest 
objection to any possibility that a modern day tax farmer might be paid 
on a contingency basis.
  But this certainly will not be the only protection afforded by the 
Taxpayer Bill of Rights which does not apply to these private bill 
collectors. For example, a reckless IRS agent can be sued under the 
Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Mr. President, no such right exists for the 
taxpayer against a private bill collector. We must take the time to 
analyze what other rights the taxpayer may be losing under this 
provision.
  Mr. President, I might also point out that we have had no hearings in 
the Senate on this proposed practice. And, as a member of the Finance 
Committee, I must say I am shocked that an issue so fundamental to the 
relationship between the Government and the taxpayer has not been the 
topic of any discussion before the members of the Finance Committee.
  Mr. President, the IRS Commissioner raises serious questions about 
this provision. In a letter I received today, Commissioner Richardson 
outlines her concerns. Mr. President, I ask that a copy of the 
Commissioner's statement be printed in the Record.
  Mr. President, I believe the IRS Commissioner's concerns are 
warranted and we should not act until we have the answer to these 
questions.
  The statement follows:

                                       Department of the Treasury,


                                     Internal Revenue Service,

                                   Washington, DC, August 4, 1995.
     Hon. David Pryor,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pryor: I am writing to express my concern 
     regarding statutory language in the FY 1996 Appropriations 
     Committee Bill (H.R. 2020) for Treasury, Postal Service and 
     General Government that would mandate the Internal Revenue 
     Service (IRS) spend $13 million ``to initiate a program to 
     utilize private counsel law firms and debt collection 
     activities . . .'' I have grave reservations about starting 
     down the path of using private contractors to contact 
     taxpayers regarding their delinquent tax debts without 
     Congress having a thorough understanding of the costs, 
     benefits and risks of embarking on such a course.
       There are some administrative and support functions in the 
     collection activity that do lend themselves to performance by 
     private sector enterprises under contract to the IRS. For 
     example, in FY 1994, the IRS spent nearly $5 million for 
     contracts to acquire addresses and telephone numbers for 
     taxpayers with delinquent accounts. In addition, we are 
     taking many steps to emulate the best collection practices of 
     the private sector to the extent they are compatible with 
     safeguarding taxpayer rights. However, to this point, the IRS 
     has not engaged contractors to make direct contact with 
     taxpayers regarding delinquent taxes as is envisioned in H.R. 
     2020. Before taking this step, I strongly recommend that all 
     parties with an interest obtain solid information on the 
     following key issues:
       (1) What impact would private debt collectors have on the 
     public's perception of the fairness of tax administration and 
     of the security of the financial information provided to the 
     IRS? A recent survey conducted by Anderson Consulting 
     revealed that 59% of Americans oppose state tax agencies 
     contracting with private companies to administer and collect 
     taxes while only 35% favor such a proposal. In all 
     likelihood, the proportion of those opposed would be even 
     higher for Federal taxes. Addressing potential public 
     misgivings should be a priority concern.
       (2) How would taxpayers rights be protected and privacy be 
     guaranteed once tax information was released to private debt 
     collectors? Would the financial incentives common to private 
     debt collection (keeping a percentage of the amount 
     collected) result in reduced rights for certain taxpayers 
     whose accounts had been privatized? Using private collectors 
     to contact taxpayers on collection matters would pose unique 
     oversight problems for the IRS to assure that Taxpayers Bill 
     of Rights and privacy rights are protected for all taxpayers. 
     Commingling of tax and non-tax data by contractors is a risk 
     as is the use of tax information for purposes other than 
     intended.
       (3) Is privatizing collection of tax debt a good business 
     decision for the Federal Government? Private contractors have 
     none of the collection powers the Congress has given to the 
     IRS. Therefore, their success in collection may not yield the 
     same return as a similar amount invested in IRS telephone or 
     field collection activities where the capability to contact 
     taxpayers is linked with the ability to institute liens and 
     levy on property if need be. Currently, the IRS telephone 
     collection efforts yield about $26 collected for every dollar 
     expended. More complex and difficult cases dealt with in the 
     field yield about $10 for every dollar spent.
       I strongly believe a more extensive dialogue is needed on 
     the matter of contracting out collection activity before the 
     IRS proceeds to implement such a provision. Please let me 
     know if I can provide any additional information that would 
     be of value to you as Congress considers this matter.
           Sincerely,
                               Margaret Milner-Richardson.


                           amendment no. 2237

  Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2237) for Mr. Simpson, for 
himself and Mr. Craig.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--An organization described in section 
     501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which engages 
     in lobbying activities shall not be eligible for the receipt 
     of Federal funds constituting an award, grant, or loan.
       (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Client.--The term ``client'' means any person or entity 
     that employs or retains another person for financial or other 
     compensation to conduct lobbying activities on behalf of that 
     person or entity. A person or entity whose employees act as 
     lobbyists on its own behalf is both a client and an employer 
     of such employees. In the case of a coalition or association 
     that employs or retains other persons to conduct lobbying 
     activities, the client is the coalition or association and 
     not its individual members.
       (3) Covered executive branch official.--The term ``covered 
     executive branch official'' means--
       (A) the President;
       (B) the Vice President;
       (C) any officer or employee, or any other individual 
     functioning in the capacity of such an officer or employee, 
     in the Executive Office of the President;
       (D) any officer or employee serving in a position in level 
     I, II, III, IV, or V of the Executive Schedule, as designated 
     by statute or Executive order;
       (E) any member of the uniformed services whose pay grade is 
     at or above O-7 under section 201 of title 37, United States 
     Code; and
       (F) any officer or employee serving in a position of a 
     confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-
     advocating character described in section 7511(b)(2) of title 
     5, United States Code.
       (4) Covered legislative branch official.--The term 
     ``covered legislative branch official'' means--
       (A) a Member of Congress;
       (B) an elected officer of either House of Congress;
       (C) any employee of, or any other individual functioning in 
     the capacity of an employee of--
       (i) a Member of Congress;
       (ii) a committee of either House of Congress;
       (iii) the leadership staff of the House of Representatives 
     or the leadership staff of the Senate;
       (iv) a joint committee of Congress; and
       (v) a working group or caucus organized to provide 
     legislative services or other assistance to Members of 
     Congress; and
       (D) any other legislative branch employee serving in a 
     position described under section 109(13) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).
       (5) Employee.--The term ``employee'' means any individual 
     who is an officer, employee, partner, director, or proprietor 
     of a person or entity, but does not include--
       (A) independent contractors; or
       (B) volunteers who receive no financial or other 
     compensation from the person or entity for their services.

[[Page S11539]]

       (6) Foreign entity.--The term ``foreign entity'' means a 
     foreign principal (as defined in section 1(b) of the Foreign 
     Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611(b)).
       (7) Lobbying activities.--The term ``lobbying activities'' 
     means lobbying contacts and efforts in support of such 
     contacts, including preparation and planning activities, 
     research and other background work that is intended, at the 
     time it is performed, for use in contacts, and coordination 
     with the lobbying activities of others.
       (8) Lobbying contact.--
       (A) Definition.--The term ``lobbying contact'' means any 
     oral or written communication (including an electronic 
     communication) to a covered executive branch official or a 
     covered legislative branch official that is made on behalf of 
     a client with regard to--
       (i) the formulation, modification, or adoption of Federal 
     legislation (including legislative proposals);
       (ii) the formulation, modification, or adoption of a 
     Federal rule, regulation, Executive order, or any other 
     program, policy, or position of the United States Government;
       (iii) the administration or execution of a Federal program 
     or policy (including the negotiation, award, or 
     administration of a Federal contract, grant, loan, permit, or 
     license); or
       (iv) the nomination or confirmation of a person for a 
     position subject to confirmation by the Senate.
       (B) Exceptions.--The term ``lobbying contact'' does not 
     include a communication that is--
       (i) made by a public official acting in the public 
     official's official capacity;
       (ii) made by a representative of a media organization if 
     the purpose of the communication is gathering and 
     disseminating news and information to the public;
       (iii) made in a speech, article, publication or other 
     material that is distributed and made available to the 
     public, or through radio, television, cable television, or 
     other medium of mass communication;
       (iv) made on behalf of a government of a foreign country or 
     a foreign political party and disclosed under the Foreign 
     Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.);
       (v) a request for a meeting, a request for the status of an 
     action, or any other similar administrative request, if the 
     request does not include an attempt to influence a covered 
     executive branch official or a covered legislative branch 
     official;
       (vi) made in the course of participation in an advisory 
     committee subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act;
       (vii) testimony given before a committee, subcommittee, or 
     task force of the Congress, or submitted for inclusion in the 
     public record of a hearing conducted by such committee, 
     subcommittee, or task force;
       (viii) information provided in writing in response to an 
     oral or written request by a covered executive branch 
     official or a covered legislative branch official for 
     specific information;
       (ix) required by subpoena, civil investigative demand, or 
     otherwise compelled by statute, regulation, or other action 
     of the Congress or an agency;
       (x) made in response to a notice in the Federal Register, 
     Commerce Business Daily, or other similar publication 
     soliciting communications from the public and directed to the 
     agency official specifically designated in the notice to 
     receive such communications;
       (xi) not possible to report without disclosing information, 
     the unauthorized disclosure of which is prohibited by law;
       (xii) made to an official in an agency with regard to--

       (I) a judicial proceeding or a criminal or civil law 
     enforcement inquiry, investigation, or proceeding; or
       (II) a filing or proceeding that the Government is 
     specifically required by statute or regulation to maintain or 
     conduct on a confidential basis,

     if that agency is charged with responsibility for such 
     proceeding, inquiry, investigation, or filing;
       (xiii) made in compliance with written agency procedures 
     regarding an adjudication conducted by the agency under 
     section 554 of title 5, United States Code, or substantially 
     similar provisions;
       (xiv) a written comment filed in the course of a public 
     proceeding or any other communication that is made on the 
     record in a public proceeding;
       (xv) a petition for agency action made in writing and 
     required to be a matter of public record pursuant to 
     established agency procedures;
       (xvi) made on behalf of an individual with regard to that 
     individual's benefits, employment, or other personal matters 
     involving only that individual, except that this clause does 
     not apply to any communication with--

       (I) a covered executive branch official, or
       (II) a covered legislative branch official (other than the 
     individual's elected Members of Congress or employees who 
     work under such Members' direct supervision),

     with respect to the formulation, modification, or adoption of 
     private legislation for the relief of that individual;
       (xvii) a disclosure by an individual that is protected 
     under the amendments made by the Whistleblower Protection Act 
     of 1989, under the Inspector General Act of 1978, or under 
     another provision of law;
       (xviii) made by--

       (I) a church, its integrated auxiliary, or a convention or 
     association of churches that is exempt from filing a Federal 
     income tax return under paragraph 2(A)(i) of section 6033(a) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or
       (II) a religious order that is exempt from filing a Federal 
     income tax return under paragraph (2)(A)(iii) of such section 
     6033(a); and

       (xix) between--

       (I) officials of a self-regulatory organization (as defined 
     in section 3(a)(26) of the Securities Exchange Act) that is 
     registered with or established by the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission as required by that Act or a similar organization 
     that is designated by or registered with the Commodities 
     Future Trading Commission as provided under the Commodity 
     Exchange Act; and
       (II) the Securities and Exchange Commission or the 
     Commodities Future Trading Commission, respectively;

     relating to the regulatory responsibilities of such 
     organization under that Act.
       (9) Lobbying firm.--The term ``lobbying firm'' means a 
     person or entity that has 1 or more employees who are 
     lobbyists on behalf of a client other than that person or 
     entity. The term also includes a self-employed individual who 
     is a lobbyist.
       (10) Lobbyist.--The term ``lobbyist'' means any individual 
     who is employed or retained by a client for financial or 
     other compensation for services that include more than one 
     lobbying contact, other than an individual whose lobbying 
     activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time 
     engaged in the services provided by such individual to that 
     client over a six month period.
       (11) Media organization.--The term ``media organization'' 
     means a person or entity engaged in disseminating information 
     to the general public through a newspaper, magazine, other 
     publication, radio, television, cable television, or other 
     medium of mass communication.
       (12) Member of congress.--The term ``Member of Congress'' 
     means a Senator or a Representative in, or Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.
       (13) Organization.--The term ``organization'' means a 
     person or entity other than an individual.
       (14) Person or entity.--The term ``person or entity'' means 
     any individual, corporation, company, foundation, 
     association, labor organization, firm, partnership, society, 
     joint stock company, group of organizations, or State or 
     local government.
       (15) Public official.--The term ``public official'' means 
     any elected official, appointed official, or employee of--
       (A) a Federal, State, or local unit of government in the 
     United States other than--
       (i) a college or university;
       (ii) a government-sponsored enterprise (as defined in 
     section 3(8) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974);
       (iii) a public utility that provides gas, electricity, 
     water, or communications;
       (iv) a guaranty agency (as defined in section 435(j) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1085(j))), including 
     any affiliate of such an agency; or
       (v) an agency of any State functioning as a student loan 
     secondary market pursuant to section 435(d)(1)(F) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1085(d)(1)(F));
       (B) a Government corporation (as defined in section 9101 of 
     title 31, United States Code);
       (C) an organization of State or local elected or appointed 
     officials other than officials of an entity described in 
     clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of subparagraph (A);
       (D) an Indian tribe (as defined in section 4(e) of the 
     Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 
     U.S.C. 450b(e));
       (E) a national or State political party or any 
     organizational unit thereof; or
       (F) a national, regional, or local unit of any foreign 
     government.
       (16) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, 
     territory, or possession of the United States.
       (c) Construction and Effect.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to affect the application of the Internal 
     Revenue laws of the United States.
       (d) Exceptions.--This section shall not apply to 
     organizations described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code with gross annual revenues of less than 
     $10,000,000, including the amounts of Federal funds received 
     as grants, awards, or loans.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall become effective on 
     January 1, 1997.
                           amendment no. 2238

  Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2238) for himself and Mr. 
Kerrey.

       Section   .
       (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the 
     funds made available to the Department of the Treasury by 
     this or any other act for obligation at any time during the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1995 or the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1996, not to exceed $500,000 shall be 
     available to the Secretary of the Treasury during the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1996 to reimburse the District of 
     Columbia Metropolitan Police Department for personnel costs 
     incurred by the Metropolitan Police Department between May 
     19, 1995 and September 30, 1995 as a result of the closing to 
     vehicular traffic of Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest and other 
     streets in vicinity of the White House.
       (b) The amount of reimbursement shall be determined by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury 

[[Page S11540]]
     and shall be final and not subject to review in any forum.


                           amendment no. 2239

  Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2239) for Mr. Bingaman.

 (Purpose: To limit access by minors to cigarettes through prohibiting 
 the sale of tobacco products in vending machines and the distribution 
 of free samples of tobacco products in Federal buildings and property 
                         accessible by minors)

       At the appropriate place in the bill add the following new 
     section:
       Sec.   . (a) This section may be cited as the ``Prohibition 
     of Cigarette Sales to Minors in Federal Buildings and Lands 
     Act''.
       (b) The Congress finds that--
       (1) cigarette smoking and the use of smokeless tobacco 
     products continue to represent major health hazards to the 
     Nation, causing more than 420,000 deaths each year;
       (2) cigarette smoking continues to be the single most 
     preventable cause of death and disability in the United 
     States;
       (3) tobacco products contain hazardous additives, gases, 
     and other chemical constituents dangerous to health;
       (4) the use of tobacco products costs the United States 
     more than $50,000,000,000 in direct health care costs, with 
     more than $21,000,000,000 of these costs being paid by 
     government funds;
       (5) tobacco products contain nicotine, a poisonous, 
     addictive drug;
       (6) all States prohibit the sale of tobacco products to 
     minors, but enforcement has been ineffective or nonexistent 
     and tobacco products remain one of the least regulated 
     consumer products in the United States;
       (7) over the past decade, little or no progress has been 
     made in reducing tobacco use among teenagers and recently, 
     teenage smoking rates appear to be rising;
       (8) more than two-thirds of smokers smoke their first 
     cigarette before the age of 14, and 90 percent of adult 
     smokers did so by age 18;
       (9) 516,000,000 packs of cigarettes are consumed by minors 
     annually, at least half of which are illegally sold to 
     minors;
       (10) reliable studies indicate that tobacco use is a 
     gateway to illicit drug use; and
       (11) the Federal Government has a major policy setting role 
     in ensuring that the use of tobacco products among minors is 
     discouraged to the maximum extent possible.
       (c) As used in this section--
       (1) the term ``Federal agency'' means--
       (A) an Executive agency as defined in section 105 of title 
     5, United States Code; and
       (B) each entity specified in subparagraphs (B) through (H) 
     of section 5721(1) of title 5, United States Code;
       (2) the term ``Federal building'' means--
       (A) any building or other structure owned in whole or in 
     part by the United States or any Federal agency, including 
     any such structure occupied by a Federal agency under a lease 
     agreement; and
       (B) includes the real property on which such building is 
     located;
       (3) the term ``minor'' means an individual under the age of 
     18 years; and
       (4) the term ``tobacco product'' means cigarettes, cigars, 
     little cigars, pipe tobacco, smokeless tobacco, snuff, and 
     chewing tobacco.
       (d)(1) No later than 45 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of General Services 
     and the head of each Federal agency shall promulgate 
     regulations that prohibit--
       (A) the sale of tobacco products in vending machines 
     located in or around any Federal building under the 
     jurisdiction of the Administrator or such agency head; and
       (B) the distribution of free samples of tobacco products in 
     or around any Federal building under the jurisdiction of the 
     Administrator or such agency head.
       (2) The Administrator of General Services or the head of an 
     agency, as appropriate, may designate areas not subject to 
     the provisions of paragraph (1), if such area also prohibits 
     the presence of minors.
       (3) The provisions of this subsection shall be carried 
     out--
       (A) by the Administrator of General Services for any 
     Federal building which is maintained, leased, or has title of 
     ownership vested in the General Services Administration; or
       (B) by the head of a Federal agency for any Federal 
     building which is maintained, leased, or has title of 
     ownership vested in such agency.
       (e) No later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator of General Services and each head 
     of an agency shall prepare and submit, to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress, a report that shall contain--
       (1) verification that the Administrator or such head of an 
     agency is in compliance with this section; and
       (2) a detailed list of the location of all tobacco product 
     vending machines located in Federal buildings under the 
     administration of the Administrator or such head of an 
     agency.
       (f)(1) No later than 45 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Senate Committee on Rules and 
     Administration and the House of Representatives Committee on 
     House Administration, after consultation with the Architect 
     of the Capitol, shall promulgate regulations under the Senate 
     and House of Representatives rulemaking authority that 
     prohibit the sale of tobacco products in vending machines in 
     the Capitol Buildings.
       (2) Such committees may designate areas where such 
     prohibition shall not apply, if such area also prohibits the 
     presence of minors.
       (3) For the purpose of this section the term ``Capitol 
     Buildings'' shall have the same meaning as such term is 
     defined under section 16(a)(1) of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     to define the area of the United States Capitol Grounds, to 
     regulate the use thereof, and for other purposes'', approved 
     July 31, 1946 (40 U.S.C. 193m(1)).
       (g) Nothing in this section shall be construed as 
     restricting the authority of the Administrator of General 
     Services or the head of an agency to limit tobacco product 
     use in or around any Federal building, except as provided 
     under subsection (d)(1).

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
H.R. 2020. My amendment is a modest one, and it is identical to one 
accepted by the Senate 2 years ago as an amendment to the fiscal year 
1994 appropriations bill for the Treasury Department, Postal Service 
and General Government. This amendment would ban tobacco vending 
machines in Federal buildings and on Federal property accessible to 
children. I am reoffering my amendment for three simple reasons:
  First, in 1993, after the Senate passed my amendment to ban tobacco 
vending machines on Federal property, the conferees failed to retain 
the legislative language, opting instead for the following statement in 
the fiscal year 1994 Treasury-Postal Appropriations Conference Report:

       ``* * * [elimination of the provision] does not signal a 
     lack of concern for the health and safety of minors. The 
     conferees agree that locating cigarette sales vending 
     machines in areas accessible to minors poses a serious 
     problem as their presence increases the availability of 
     products which otherwise may be prohibited from sale to 
     minors. Therefore, the conferees direct the Administrator to 
     eliminate vending machines in areas which are accessible to 
     minors.''

  Despite this directive, tobacco vending machines remain on Federal 
property and many are fully accessible to children.
  Second, more substantively, vending machines are extremely difficult 
to monitor. Not surprisingly, they are one of the chief sources of 
cigarette purchases among children and teenagers.
  Third, finally, every State in the country has enacted a law to 
prohibit the sale or distribution of cigarettes to minors.
  Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to talk about each 
of the points I have listed.
  As I mentioned, the congressional directive contained in the fiscal 
year 1994 Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill was issued almost 
2 years ago. In those 2 years, more than 2 million children and teens 
in this country took up smoking. One-third of them--more than 600,000 
children--will later die of tobacco-related causes.
  Let me repeat that: More than 600,000 children will die because 
sometime over the past 2 years, they started to smoke. And we cannot 
even get a few cigarette vending machines out of some Federal 
buildings.
  Mr. President, these statistics are not exaggerations. The facts are 
well known and widely acknowledged:
  First, more than 420,000 people died each year from tobacco-related 
causes, making cigarette smoking the single most preventable cause of 
death and disability in the United States.
  Second, every day, more than 3,000 children and teenagers start to 
smoke. More than two-thirds of all adult smokers had their first 
cigarette before the age of 14, and 90 percent began smoking by age 18.
  Third, every year, minors consume 516 million packs of cigarettes, at 
least half of which are sold illegally to children and teens.
  Five hundred-sixteen million packs of cigarettes consumed by minors 
annually. Three thousand children starting to smoke every day. And 
every State in this country has a law prohibiting the sale of tobacco 
products to minors.
  Clearly, something is not working. It is time for a new course of 
action. Some experts argue that the wisest, most effective course of 
action would be to take the tobacco industry up on its voluntary plan 
for reducing underage smoking and try to hold the industry to its 
commitment.
  Others argue that we should use this opportunity to give the Food and 
Drug Administration broader regulatory authority of tobacco products. 
The President is currently grappling with these tough issues, and we 
expect an announcement of his decision at any time.

[[Page S11541]]

  For several years, I have sponsored legislation that would 
specifically give the FDA the authority to regulate nicotine-containing 
tobacco products. For a number of years, the Department of Health and 
Human Services has urged States and localities to take greater 
responsibility by, among other things, banning cigarette vending 
machines.
  In recent years, other Federal officials, including President Clinton 
and former President Bush, have joined the Department's appeal to 
States and localities. In its Healthy People 2000 Report, the Public 
Health Service encourages Indian Tribal Councils to ``similarly enforce 
prohibitions of tobacco sales to Indian youth living on reservations'' 
because Indian nations are sovereign and exempted from State laws.
  I agree with the Department's previous advice. I sincerely hope that 
over the next few days or weeks the President will take a tough stand 
on the issue of Federal regulation of tobacco products. I hope he will 
go much farther than this modest bill. At the same time, I would 
caution the President and my colleagues in the Senate not to forget the 
powerful message that ``leading by example'' can convey.
  Mr. President, over the past several years, while the Federal 
Government has been urging every political body in the country to ban 
cigarette vending machines, pack after pack are loaded into--and 
purchased out of--vending machines every day in Federal buildings. 
Those buildings include the Senate and House Office Buildings and the 
Old Executive Office Building, next door to the White House.
  It is long past time for the vending machines to go. It is time for 
the Federal Government to lead by example. I believe that if we expect 
States, localities, Indian Tribal leaders, schools, parents, and even 
the tobacco industry itself, to take steps to protect our children from 
tobacco, then we in the Federal Government should join the effort. We 
should lead the effort. We can begin with passage of this amendment.
  Thank you.
                           amendment no. 2240

  Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2240) for Mr. Brown:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec.   . It is the sense of the Senate that the General 
     Services Administration should increase use of direct 
     delivery for high-dollar value supplies and only stock items 
     that are profitable, that after these changes are 
     implemented, the General Services Administration should phase 
     out the supply depots that are no longer economically 
     justifiable or needed.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, there is included in this bill a request to 
look at the policies of the General Services Administration in 
supplying some 18,000 commonly used products and supplies that are 
resold to the agencies and various depots of the Federal Government. 
Here are the numbers.
  When the GSA delivers products directly, their markup is 10 percent. 
When they go through one of the depots though, that is, simply 
processing through a depot, their markup is 29 percent.
  What we urge is that they reexamine their policy and deliver directly 
where possible. There is a 19 percent net savings to the taxpayer if 
they follow that procedure.
  I yield back, Mr. President.
                           amendment no. 2241

  Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2241) for himself and Mr. 
Kerrey:

  (Purpose: To establish the National Commission on Restructuring the 
                       Internal Revenue Service)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.  . NATIONAL COMMISSION ON RESTRUCTURING THE INTERNAL 
                   REVENUE SERVICE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) While the budget for the Internal Revenue Service 
     (hereafter referred to as the ``IRS'') has risen from $2.5 
     billion in fiscal year 1979 to $7.5 billion in fiscal year 
     1996, tax returns processing has not become significantly 
     faster, tax collection rates have not significantly 
     increased, and the accuracy and timeliness of taxpayer 
     assistance has not significantly improved.
       (2) To date, the Tax Systems Modernization (TSM) program 
     has cost the taxpayers $2.5 billion, with an estimated cost 
     of $8 billion. Despite this investment, modernization efforts 
     were recently described by the GAO as ``chaotic'' and ``ad 
     hoc''.
       (3) While the IRS maintains the TSM will increase 
     efficiency and thus revenues, Congress has had to appropriate 
     additional funds in recent years for compliance initiative in 
     order to increase tax revenues.
       (4) Because TSM has not been implemented, the IRS continues 
     to rely on paper returns, processing a total of 14 billion 
     pieces of paper every tax season. This results in an 
     extremely inefficient system.
       (5) This lack of efficiency reduces the level of customer 
     service and impedes the ability of the IRS to collect 
     revenue.
       (6) The present status of the IRS shows the need for the 
     establishment of a Commission which will examine the 
     organization of IRS and recommend actions to expedite the 
     implementation of TSM and improve service to taxpayers.
       (b) Composition of the Commission.--
       (1) Establishment.--To carry out the purposes of this 
     section, there is established a National Commission on 
     Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service (in this section 
     referred to as the ``Commission'').
       (2) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 
     twelve members, as follows:
       (A) Four members appointed by the President, two from the 
     executive branch of the Government and two from private life.
       (B) Two members appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate, one from Members of the Senate and one from private 
     life.
       (C) Two members appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     Senate, one from Members of the Senate and one from private 
     life.
       (D) Two members appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Represtatives, one from Members of the House of 
     Representatives and one from private life.
       (E) Two members appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives, one from Members of the House of 
     Representatives and one from private life.
     The Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service shall be an 
     ex officio member of the Commission.
       (3) Chairman.--The Commission shall elect a Chairman from 
     among its members.
       (4) Meeting; quorum, vacancies.--After its initial meeting, 
     the Commission shall meet upon the call of the Chairman or a 
     majority of its members. Seven members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum. Any vacancy in the Commission 
     shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same 
     manner in which the original appointment was made.
       (5) Appointment; initial meeting.--
       (A) Appointment.--It is the sense of the Congress that 
     members of the Committee should be appointed not more than 60 
     days after the date of the enactment of this section.
       (B) Initial meeting.--If, after 60 days from the date of 
     the enactment of this section, seven or more members of the 
     Commission have been appointed, members who have been 
     appointed may meet and select a Chairman who thereafter shall 
     have the authority to begin the operations of the Commission, 
     including the hiring of staff.
       (c) Functions of Commission.--
       (1) In general.--The functions of the Commission shall be--
       (A) to conduct, for a period of one year from the date of 
     its first meeting, the review described in paragraph (2), and
       (B) to submit to the Congress a final report of the results 
     of the review, including recommendations for restructuring 
     the IRS.
       (2) Review.--The Commission shall review--
       (A) the present practices of the IRS, especially with 
     respect to--
       (i) its organizational structure;
       (ii) its paper processing and return processing activities;
       (iii) its infrastructure; and
       (iv) the collection process;
       (B) requirements for improvement in the following areas:
       (i) making returns processing ``paperless'';
       (ii) modernizing IRS operations;
       (iii) improving the collections process without major 
     personnel increases or increased funding;
       (iv) improving taxpayer accounts management;
       (v) improving the accuracy of information requested by 
     taxpayers in order to file their returns; and
       (vi) changing the culture of the IRS to make the 
     organization more efficient, productive, and customer-
     oriented;
       (C) whether the IRS could be replaced with a quasi-
     governmental agency with tangible incentives for internally 
     managing its programs and activities and for modernizing its 
     activities, and
       (D) whether the IRS could perform other collection, 
     information, and financial service functions of the Federal 
     Government.
       (d) Powers of the Commissioner.--
       (1) In general.--(A) The Commission or, on the 
     authorization of the Commission, any subcommittee or member 
     thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions 
     of this section--
       (i) hold such hearings and sit and act at such times and 
     places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, 
     administer such oaths, and
       (ii) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and 
     testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 
     records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents.

     as the Commission or such designated subcommittee or 
     designated member may deem advisable.
       (b) Subpoenas issued under subparagraph (A)(ii) may be 
     issued under the signature of the Chairman of the Commission, 
     the chairman of any designated subcommittee, or any 
     designated member, and may be served by 

[[Page S11542]]
     any person designated by such Chairman, subcommittee chairman, or 
     member. The provisions of sections 102 through 104 of the 
     Revised Statutes of the United States (2 U.S.C. 192-194) 
     shall apply in the case of any failure of any witness to 
     comply with any subpoena or to testify when summoned under 
     authority of this section.
       (2) Contracting.--The Commission may, to such extent and in 
     such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter 
     into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its 
     duties under this section.
       (3) Information from federal agencies.--The Commission is 
     authorized to secure directly from any executive department, 
     bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent 
     establishment, or instrumentality of the Government 
     information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the 
     purposes of this section. Each such department, bureau, 
     agency, board, commission, office, establishment, or 
     instrumentality shall, to the extent authorized by law, 
     furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and 
     statistics directly to the Commission, upon request made by 
     the Chairman.
       (4) Assistance from federal agencies.--(A) The Secretary of 
     State is authorized on a reimbursable or nonreimbursable 
     basis to provided the Commission with administrative 
     services, funds, facilities, staff, and other support 
     services for the performance of the Commission's functions.
       (B) The Administrator of General Services shall provide to 
     the Commission on a reimbursable basis such administrative 
     support services as the Commission may request.
       (C) In addition to the assistance set forth in subparagraph 
     (A) and (B), departments and agencies of the United States 
     are authorized to provide to the Commission such services, 
     funds, facilities, staff, and other support services as they 
     may deem advisable and as may be authorized by law.
       (5) Postal services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as departments and agencies of the United States.
       (e) Staff of the Commission.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairman, in accordance with rules 
     agreed upon by the Commission, may appoint and fix the 
     compensation of a staff director and such other personnel as 
     may be necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its 
     functions, without regard to the provisions of title 5, 
     United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive 
     service, and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 
     and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to 
     classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that no 
     rate of pay fixed under this subsection may exceed the 
     equivalent of that payable
      to person occupying a position at level V of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United States 
     Code. Any Federal Government employee may be detailed to 
     the Commission without reimbursement from the Commission, 
     and such detailee shall retain the rights, status, and 
     privileges of his or her regular employment without 
     interruption.
       (2) Consultant services.--The Commission is authorized to 
     procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance 
     with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at 
     rates not to exceed the daily rate paid a person occupying a 
     position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5315 of title 5, United States Code.
       (f) Compensation and Travel Expenses.--
       (1) Compensation.--(A) Except as provided in subparagraph 
     (B), each member of the Commission may be compensated at not 
     to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic 
     pay in effect for a position at level IV of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, 
     for each day during which that member is engaged in the 
     actual performance of the duties of the Commission.
       (B) Members of the Commission who are officers or employees 
     of the United States or Members of Congress shall receive no 
     additional pay on account of their service on the Commission.
       (2) Travel expenses.--While way from their homes or regular 
     places of business in the performance of services for the 
     Commission, members of the Commission shall be allowed travel 
     expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the 
     same manner as persons employed intermittently in the 
     Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703(b) 
     of title 5, United States Code.
       (g) Final Report of Commission; Termination.--
       (1) Final report.--Not later than one year after the date 
     of the first meeting of the Commission, the Commission shall 
     submit to the Congress its final report, as described in 
     subsection (c)(2).
       (2) Termination.--(A) The Commission, and all the 
     authorities of this section, shall terminate on the date 
     which is 60 days after the date on which a final report is 
     required to be transmitted under paragraph (1).
       (B) The Commission may use the 60-day period referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) for the purpose of concluding its 
     activities, including providing testimony to committees of 
     Congress concerning its final report and disseminating that 
     report.

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment today to 
restructure the IRS. Senator Shelby and I closely examined the IRS 
during creation of the Treasury-Postal Service fiscal year 1996 budget, 
and during this examination, I made the following observations.
  IRS funding has increased from $2 billion in 1979 to $7.5 billion in 
fiscal year 1995, and fiscal year 1996 funding for the IRS is projected 
to increase by $800 million.
  Because of growing entitlement spending, discretionary spending will 
become increasingly limited. The IRS budget comprises 70 percent of the 
Treasury-Postal Service Appropriations Subcommittee allocation, and the 
committee has expressed its concern that both the IRS and other 
important accounts will be substantially cut because of future 
budgetary constraints. Due to increasing entitlement spending, Congress 
simply will not have the funds in fiscal year 1997 and beyond to 
increase the budget of the IRS.
  Despite an increase of $5 billion in the IRS' budget since 1979, tax 
returns processing has not become significantly faster, tax collection 
rates have not significantly increased, and taxpayer assistance 
activities have not significantly improved.
  The IRS, aware of inefficient computer systems that impede their 
ability to collect revenue, has asked for almost $2.5 billion since 
1979 for tax systems modernization [TSM]. This funding was intended to 
update the IRS computer systems so that the IRS could achieve its 
vision of a highly efficient, virtually paper-free work environment.
  The desired outcomes of TSM have not been achieved, and IRS' ability 
to properly plan and manage this $7.5 billion tax systems modernization 
program has been repeatedly questioned by the General Accounting Office 
and the Congress. GAO recently described TSM as ``ad hoc'' and 
``chaotic.''
  The failure to successfully implement TSM has occurred for a number 
of reasons. The GAO attributes this failure to ``pervasive management 
and technical weaknesses'' in the IRS. Two specific possibilities that 
explain the failure of TSM:
  First, the IRS employs some 115,000 personnel and the current 
organizational structure seems to breed a culture which is averse to 
change, and the IRS has not made efforts to provide incentives to 
change this culture;
  Second, the IRS does not have a comprehensive business strategy to 
plan, build, and operate its information systems. Notably absent is a 
cost-benefit
 analysis and performance measure of systems.

  A key element of a successful TSM is taxpayer conversion to 
electronic filing. Because the IRS has not sufficiently encouraged the 
use of electronic returns, the IRS remains overwhelmed with paper 
returns. It processes 200 million paper returns per year, or 14 billion 
pieces of paper, and this number continues to grow. The dependence on 
paper returns contributes substantially to the IRS' inefficiency in 
processing returns, and the IRS often cannot retrieve documents from 
the over 1.2 billion tax returns in storage.
  According to GAO, because the IRS lacks a comprehensive business 
strategy to encourage electronic submissions, only 17 million 
electronic returns are expected in fiscal year 1995, a far cry from the 
goal of 80 million electronic returns by fiscal year 2001. Electronic 
returns are a crucial part of the conversion to a modern systems.
  Originally, the IRS claimed that investing in TSM would increase 
revenues because the increased efficiency would allow resources to be 
diverted to compliance initiatives. But in order to continue increasing 
revenue, Congress has provided additional increases for the IRS 
totaling $1.3 billion since 1990 for enhanced revenue compliance 
initiatives. Increases in revenue collection have resulted from hiring 
of additional call collectors, revenue officers, agents, and 
examination audit personnel rather that redistributed resources due to 
modernization. Additionally, despite these revenue compliance 
initiatives, audit coverage rates have declined.
  The failure of the IRS to implement TSM and their increased attention 
to compliance initiatives results in an agency that pays very little 
attention to taxpayer service. If people have the facts, they will pay 
the tax. Consequently, taxpayer confidence in the IRS's ability to 
provide accurate and timely information in response to their requests 
has continued to decline over the past 10 years. 

[[Page S11543]]

  Fully modernized systems would substantially increase revenues 
through compliance initiatives because IRS workers could instantly 
access taxpayer information and identify accounts receivable, and in 
addition, information for audits and fraud identification would be 
readily accessible, Further, the Congress believes that voluntary 
compliance would increase if IRS employees could assist taxpayers with 
accurate and timely information on their accounts. A 7-percent increase 
in voluntary compliance is estimated to increase revenues by as much as 
$40 billion a year.
  With the successful completion of modernization, the IRS could expand 
its functions and perform other services that would benefit the public, 
in areas such as the collection of delinquent child support payments 
and student loans. The IRS should soon have the capability to fulfill 
other financial services functions besides revenue collection for the 
Federal Government.
  IRS brings in $1.2 trillion per year in tax revenue. It is an 
important Federal agency with the potential to be a quasi-Government 
agency with profit incentives while still protecting taxpayer privacy.
  Many changes come with modernization efforts and increased 
technological capability. While the Congress acknowledges the efforts 
the IRS has made to correct the problems identified, both the IRS and 
the taxpayers would benefit if restructuring of the IRS took place for 
the sake of expediently implementing TSM and better serving the 
taxpayer.
                           amendment no. 2242

  Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2242) for himself and Mr. 
Kerrey.

       At the end of Title V, add the following new section:
       Sec. 2. Section 5542 of title 5, United States Code is 
     amended by adding the following new subsection at the end:
       ``(e) Notwithstanding subsection (d)(1) of this section, 
     all hours of overtime work scheduled in advance of the 
     administrative workweek shall be compensated under subsection 
     (a) if that work involves duties as authorized by section 
     3056(a) of title 18 United States Code and if the 
     investigator performs, on that same day, at least 2 hours of 
     overtime work not scheduled in advance of the administrative 
     workweek.''
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this amendment makes a technical 
correction to the 1995 Law Enforcement Availability Pay Act. The Pay 
Act, which was included as a separate section in the Fiscal Year 1995 
Treasury Appropriations Act, commonly referred to as LEAP, contained a 
provision which amended section 5542 of title 5. This provision 
requires that the first 2 hours of scheduled overtime work by criminal 
investigators be calculated against availability pay hours, authorized 
under the act.
  The issue relating to the calculation of work hours for scheduled 
overtime compensation has been an issue of contention for certain 
agencies and criminal investigators alike. The current section, as 
written, is overly restrictive and inflexible and, thus, increases the 
potential for litigation.
  The provision, as stated in a letter received from the Federal Law 
Enforcement Officers Association, is unfair and does not adequately 
reflect the intent of Congress. The author of this legislation, Senator 
Dennis DeConcini, attempted to clarify congressional intent in a 
December 1994 floor statement.
  Despite this clarification by the amendment's sponsor, personnel 
regulations have gone unchanged.
  Flexibility is needed for the unusual circumstances surrounding 
Secret Service specific physical security assignments which will become 
extraordinarily demanding during the upcoming Presidential campagin and 
the United Nations General Assembly's 50th anniversary. In light of 
these upcoming demands it is imperative that flexibility to agency 
management and fairness to the agents be provided, as was originally 
intended by Congress. This amendment only applies to the unique 
circumstances surrounding Secret Service physical protection 
activities.
  The Pay Act, resulted in over $40 million in savings in fiscal year 
1995 to Federal law enforcement agencies. It also prevented hundreds of 
millions of dollars from being spent on litigation by the Federal 
Government.
  It was endorsed by Federal law enforcement agencies, the Office of 
Management and Budget, and respected law enforcement associations.
  In order to ensure that this legislation does what it was intended to 
do, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
                           amendment no. 2243

  Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2243) for Mrs. Hutchison.

    (Purpose: To require the Administrator of the General Services 
    Administration to report to Congress on border station leasing 
                             arrangements)
     ``SEC. --. REPORT ON FEASIBILITY OF LEASING OF BORDER 
                   STATIONS.

       ``(a) The Administrator of the General Services 
     Administration shall, within six months of enactment of this 
     legislation, report to Congress on the feasibility of leasing 
     agreements with State and local governments and private 
     sponsors for the construction of border stations on the 
     borders of the United States with Canada and Mexico whereby:
       ``(1) lease payments shall not exceed 30 years for payment 
     of the purchase price and interest;
       ``(2) the obligation of the United States under such an 
     agreement shall be limited to the current fiscal year for 
     which payments are due without regard to section 
     3328(a)(1)(B) of title 31, United States Code;
       ``(3) an agreement entered into under such provisions shall 
     provide for the title to the property and facilities to vest 
     in the United States on or before the expiration of the 
     contract term, on fulfillment of the terms and conditions of 
     the agreement.''

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, with the passage of NAFTA, cities and 
towns along the border are increasingly interested in expanding the 
opportunities for trade and economic growth. An essential factor in 
this growth is the presence of new or expanded border stations at new 
river or land border crossings. These stations house agents of the U.S. 
Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the 
Department of Agriculture. New or expanded facilities are essential in 
encouraging trade and in meeting the objectives and dreams of NAFTA.
  The normal procedure for the construction of border stations is for 
the General Services Administration to build and own them. The 
rationale is that these buildings are long-term investments of the 
Federal Government and Federal ownership is the most cost-effective 
form of ownership. Up to now the funding for these projects has come 
through two channels. One is the congressionally authorized Southwest 
Border Station Capital Improvement Program started in 1988. It has 
funded improvements along the southern border. The other is for the 
U.S. Customs Service, the INS, the Department of Agriculture to provide 
GSA with a list annually of desired border station projects. They are 
then included in GSA's capital budget. Both methods were successful 
prior to the passage of NAFTA in meeting the need for border station 
facilities in a manner that, if not always as timely as desired by 
State and local governments and private sponsors, did provide funding.
  Three events have changed the situation: First, increased demand for 
new border crossings. The passage of NAFTA has increased the importance 
of trade with Mexico and Canada as a source of jobs and income. This 
has caused towns and cities on both sides for the border to seek 
additional border crossings in order to accommodate expected future 
traffic.
  Second, reduced Federal funding for construction. Budget cuts are 
reducing the funds available for new construction, including border 
stations. GSA is under pressure to reduce construction projects by 
hundreds of millions of dollars.
  Third, reduced Federal flexibility to meet the demand for new 
stations. Because of budget scoring rules introduced under the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, GSA cannot economically lease a 
border station. If a local government or sponsor is willing to build 
and lease the facility to GSA for 20 years, GSA under the new scoring 
rules must provide all the money up front for the stream of payments 
over the 20-year period. This makes the leasing alternative as 
expensive as new construction in a time of reduced budgets. GSA cannot 
spread the cost over 20 years, even though they can lease the border 
station. No homeowner would be able to afford a mortgage if these rules 
applied. This is particularly frustrating to local sponsors since many 
are willing to lease the stations and then give them to GSA after the 
lease term.

[[Page S11544]]



                         realities and remedies

  NAFTA is a reality--the demand for new crossing will not diminish, 
but increase.
  Federal budget reduction is a reality--the availability of Federal 
funds for border stations is not increasing, but diminishing.
  The budget scoring of leasing transactions for border stations is the 
consequence of much broader issues that Congress and the administration 
were dealing with that had nothing to do with border stations.
  Changing the scoring rules for border stations resolves the problem.
  Under this language, the Administrator of General Services will 
report on leasing arrangements whereby the GSA can enter into lease 
with State and local governments, as well as private sponsors, for the 
construction of border stations for a period of up to 30 years. The 
language provides that such a report will acknowledge that at the end 
of the lease term the Federal Government owns the border stations.
                           amendment no. 2244

  Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2244) for Mr. Bingaman.

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . ENERGY SAVINGS AT FEDERAL FACILITIES.

       (a) Reduction in Facilities Energy Costs.--
       (1) In general.--The head of each agency for which funds 
     are made available under this Act shall take all actions 
     necessary to achieve during fiscal year 1996 a 5 percent 
     reduction, from fiscal year 1995 levels, in the energy costs 
     of the facilities used by the agency.
       (2) Cooperation by general services administration.--In the 
     case of facilities under the administrative jurisdiction of 
     the General Services Administration and occupied by another 
     agency and for which the Administrator of General Services 
     delegates operation and maintenance to the head of the 
     agency, the Administrator shall assist the head of the agency 
     in achieving the reduction in the energy costs of the 
     facilities required by paragraph (1) by entering into 
     contracts to promote energy savings and by other means.
       (b) Use of Cost Savings--An amount equal to the amount of 
     cost savings realized by an agency under subsection (a) shall 
     remain available for obligation through the end of fiscal 
     year 1997, without further authorization or appropriation, as 
     follows:
       (1) Conservation measures.--Fifty percent of the amount 
     shall remain available for the implementation of additional 
     energy conservation measures and for water conservation 
     measures at such facilities used by the agency as are 
     designated by the head of the agency.
       (2) Other purposes.--Fifty percent of the amount shall 
     remain available for use by the agency for such purposes as 
     are designated by the head of the agency, consistent with 
     applicable law.
       (c) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 1996, the head 
     of each agency described in subsection (a) shall submit a 
     report to Congress specifying the results of the actions 
     taken under subsection (a) and providing any recommendations 
     concerning how to further reduce energy costs and energy 
     consumption in the future.
       (2) Contents.--Each report shall--
       (A) specify the total energy costs of the facilities used 
     by the agency;
       (B) identify the reductions achieved; and
       (C) specify the actions that resulted in the reductions.
                           amendment no. 2245

  Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2245) for Mr. Hatch, for 
himself, and Mr. Biden.

       On page 3, strike lines 1 through 24.
       On page 31, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:

                 Office of National Drug Control Policy


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy; for research activities pursuant to title I 
     of Public law 100-690; not to exceed $8,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; $28,500,000, of which 
     $20,500,000, to remain available until expended, shall be 
     available to the Counter-Drug Technology Assessment Center 
     for counternarcotics research and development projects and 
     shall be available for transfer to other Federal departments 
     or agencies: Provided, That the Office is authorized to 
     accept, hold, administer, and utilize gifts, both real and 
     personal, for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the work 
     of the Office: Provided further, That not later than 60 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the 
     Office of National Drug Control Policy shall report to the 
     Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives on the results of an independent audit of the 
     security and travel expenses of the Office during the period 
     beginning on January 21, 1993, and ending on June 30, 1995: 
     Provided further, That the Director of the Office of National 
     Drug Control Policy shall, at the direction of the President, 
     convene a Cabinet Council on Drug Strategy Implementation to 
     be chaired by the Director of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy: Provided further, That the Cabinet Council on 
     Drug Strategy Implementation shall include, but is not 
     limited to, the Attorney General, the Secretary of the 
     Department of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Department 
     of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of the Department 
     of Defense, the Secretary of the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development, the Secretary of the Department of 
     Education, the Secretary of the Department of State, and the 
     Secretary of the Department of Transportation: Provided 
     further, That the Cabinet Council on Drug Strategy 
     Implementation shall convene on no less than a quarterly 
     basis and provide reports on no less than a quarterly basis 
     to the Appropriations Committees and the Judiciary Committees 
     of the House of Representatives and the Senate on the 
     progress of the implementation of the elements of the 
     national drug control strategy within the jurisdiction of 
     each member of the Counsel, including a particular emphasis 
     on the implementation of strategies to combat drug abuse 
     among children: Provided further, That the funds appropriated 
     for the necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy may not be obligated until the President 
     reports to the Appropriations Committees of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that the President has 
     directed the Office of National Drug Control Policy to 
     convene the Cabinet Council on Drug Strategy Implementation: 
     Provided further, That, on a quarterly basis beginning ninety 
     days after enactment of this Act, the funds appropriated for 
     the necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug Control 
     Policy may not be obligated unless the Cabinet Council on 
     Drug Strategy Implementation has provided the quarterly 
     reports specified herein to the Appropriations Committees and 
     the Judiciary Committees of the House of Representatives and 
     the Senate.
       On page 32, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:

                     Federal Drug Control Programs


             high intensity drug trafficking areas program

       For necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 
     Program, $110,000,000 for drug control activities consistent 
     with the approved strategy for each of the designated High 
     Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, of which no less than 
     $55,000,000 shall be transferred to State and local entities 
     for drug control activities; and of which up to $55,000,000 
     may be transferred to Federal agencies and departments at a 
     rate to be determined by the Director: Provided, That the 
     funds made available under this head shall be obligated 
     within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act.
       On page 50, line 14, strike ``$118,449,000'' and insert 
     ``$113,827,000''.
       On page 57, line 9, strike ``$96,384,000'' and insert 
     ``$93,106,000''.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to propose an amendment, on 
behalf of myself and Senator Biden, which will restore funding for the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy, better known as the ``drug 
czar's office.''
  The amendment funds the drug czar's modest budget--$9.3 million--
without cutting a single dollar from law enforcement.
  The issue this amendment presents to the Senate is whether, in the 
absence of any Presidential leadership in the drug war, can our Nation 
afford to eliminate the drug czar's office? Certainly not.
  The success of the war against drugs rests with the Command in Chief. 
Sadly, we have not had strong Presidential leadership in this anti-drug 
fight from President Clinton.
  Through the 1980's and into the 1990's we saw dramatic reductions in 
casual drug use brought about through increased penalties, strong 
Presidential leadership, and a clear national anti-drug message. Casual 
drug use dropped by more than half between 1977 and 1992.
  Under President Clinton's leadership, however, we are losing ground. 
Over the past 2 years, almost every available indicator shows that 
these gains have either stopped or been reversed.
  The most recent edition of the National High School Survey reported a 
second year of sizable increases in drug use among our Nation's 8th, 
10th, and 12th graders. Use of marijuana, LSD, and other drugs is on 
the rise, and young people are less worried about the dangers of drug 
use.
  Last year's National Household Survey on Drug Abuse showed an 
increase in drug use after consistent declines--in many cases dating as 
far back as 1979.
  More than 2 years ago, one well-known columnist described President 
Clinton's leadership role in developing and promoting a strong anti-
drug policy as: ``No leadership. No role. No 

[[Page S11545]]
alerting. No policy.'' [A.M. Rosenthal, N.Y. Times, March 26, 1993]. 
Sadly, what was true in 1993 is still true today.
  President Clinton has abandoned many of the drug control efforts 
undertaken by his immediate predecessors. He has abandoned the bully 
pulpit to divisive voices.
  President Clinton himself rarely speaks out against drug abuse--he 
has not given a major speech on the subject in more than a year and a 
half--and he offers little, if any, moral support or leadership to 
those fighting the drug war in America or abroad. His former Surgeon 
General, for example, repeatedly called for consideration of drug 
legalization.
  President Clinton has also cut Federal efforts to keep drugs from 
flowing into our cities and States.
  Last year, President Clinton ordered a massive reduction in Defense 
Department support for interdiction efforts that have been preventing 
bulk shipments of drugs from reaching American streets.
  The administration proposed deep cuts to the drug control budgets of 
the Defense Department, Customs, and the Coast Guard. Cocaine seizures 
plummeted. U.S. Customs cocaine seizures in the transit zone dropped 70 
percent; and Coast Guard cocaine seizures are off by more than 70 
percent.
  The administration also accepted a one-third cut in resources to 
attack the cocaine trade in the source and transit countries of South 
America.
  Domestic marijuana eradication efforts led by the Federal Government 
have been substantially reduced. And finally, the Clinton 
administration has injured cooperative efforts with source country 
governments, such as when it ordered the United States military to stop 
providing radar tracking of drug-trafficking aircraft to Columbia and 
Peru.
  Having gutted our Federal efforts to stop drugs from arriving here, 
President Clinton has hamstrung efforts to deal effectively with them 
once they hit our streets. Upon taking office, President Clinton 
promoted the drug czar to Cabinet level, but then slashed the drug 
czar's staff by 80 percent.
  The President allowed the DEA to lose 198 drug agents over 2 years. 
The President also proposed a fiscal year 1994 budget that would have 
cut 621 further drug enforcement positions from the FBI, the DEA, the 
INS, Customs, and the Coast Guard.
  The Clinton administration claimed it was implementing a so-called 
controlled shift in Federal drug policy. Instead, President Clinton 
appears to have adopted a reckless abdication drug policy.
  This lack of leadership surrendered for a time much of our previous 
international intelligence capability to the drug cartels; it
 retreats on tough law enforcement efforts; subjects Federal law 
enforcement to unprecedented personnel reductions; and weakens Federal 
prosecution of drug offenders.

  Mr. President, this failed Presidential record is why we need to 
preserve the drug czar's office. Congress needs to be able to hold this 
President accountable for being invisible on the drug issue.
  Some may wonder why a fiscal conservative like myself would be 
advocating more money for any Federal office. I am not known as one who 
believes in preserving bureaucracy.
  So, then, why am I sponsoring this amendment?
  Because, Mr. President, we must not give the American people the 
impression that this Congress condones President Clinton's abdication 
of responsibility.
  Perhaps A.M. Rosenthal put it best when he wrote in yesterday's New 
York Times that:

       Mr. Clinton's leadership has sometimes seemed to us anti-
     drug types as ranging from absent to lackadaisical. But for 
     Congress to hobble the war by wiping out its coordinator 
     seems a strange way of inspiring the President or the 
     country, [New York Times, August 4, 1995].

  Mr. President, drugs are killing our country. They are contributing 
to a wide range of devastating effects on all Americans, particularly 
our children and youth. Drugs contribute to crime, the break-up of 
marriages and families, lower productivity in the workplace, and many 
other societal problems.
  If President Clinton does not take the drug issue seriously, someone 
has to. Today, Mr. President, that someone is, I hope, each one of us.
  If the drug office is dismantled, and responsibility is diluted among 
the 50-plus departments and agencies involved in drug control, then the 
President will be able to evade accountability.
  No one will be in charge, no one will be responsible, and instead of 
the current lack of aggressiveness--which by the way can be fixed if 
the White House wants to fix it--we will have institutionalized drift.
  Even William Bennett, hardly a friend of government spending or close 
ally of the Clinton administration, has conveyed to me that he supports 
keeping the office open.
  Obviously, Lee Brown and I have a major differences about what is and 
what isn't an effective drug strategy. At the same time, I want to 
emphasize that those differences are differences of policy and 
approach. Notwithstanding our differences, at least Director Brown is 
the one person in this White House who seems to care about the drug 
issue. I don't believe we should punish the administration's poor 
policies by eliminating the office of its only Presidential 
coordinator.
  Let me draw an analogy. Last week, an overwhelming majority of the 
Senate went on record as being opposed to the Clinton administration's 
failed policy of lack of leadership in Bosnia.
  Yet, although the Senate differed with the President's policy, no one 
seriously suggested eliminating the National Security Council, which 
has been formulating administration policy. A move to cut the NSC would 
have been called shortsighted.
  Why then is such a proposal to eliminate the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy and less shortsighted when it comes to our Nation's drug 
policy?
  To those who think the drug czar's office needs to be reorganized, 
and who are concerned at reports of excessive travel spending, I share 
your concerns.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee will be looking at changes to the drug 
czar's staffing and mission, and the pending Hatch-Biden amendment will 
require an independent audit of the drug czar's travel spending and 
security budget.
  If we are to succeed in the drug war, we need Presidential 
leadership. In the absence of such leadership, we need a drug czar all 
the more.
  President Clinton has failed to stand behind his drug czar. Congress 
should not reward him for doing so by eliminating this office.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr President, the drug office provides the accountability 
and single point of contact necessary for Congress to exercise 
oversight of Federal drug strategy.
  The drug strategy and the drug budget provides the only single 
document that details our national drug strategy.
  When he was Director, William Bennett testified before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee in February 1990:

       [A] year ago [before drug office was law], if you had asked 
     for a comprehensive picture of national drug policy, you had 
     to go to over 30 different agencies. Not anymore. William 
     Bennett, testimony, February 2, 1990.

  Also, this is not a debate about the drug strategy. This is a debate 
about whether we have a drug strategy.
  I disagreed with elements of the strategy proposed by Director 
Bennett, Director Martinez, and Acting Director Walters. But, if we did 
not have a drug strategy, we could never have had a drug policy debate.
  To illustrate this point, I would point out that there are 85 
departments, agencies, offices, and bureaus that make up the Federal 
antidrug effort. The drug director is the only person who is dedicated 
full time to bringing any order to this effort.
  This year the Federal Government will spend $13.3 billion fighting 
against drugs. The President proposes that we spend $14.6 billion next 
year. I do not want to debate the specifics of the drug strategy.
  My point is that with so much money being spent, we ought to be able 
to debate how we are going to spend these dollars. And, we can only 
debate if there is a policy for us to discuss. And there is only a drug 
policy if we have a drug strategy.
  This amendment serves one central purpose: To make sure that we have 
a full-time general in command of our war on drugs.

[[Page S11546]]

  Although drugs have dropped off of the media's radar screen for the 
moment, we cannot be lulled into a sense of complacency on this issue. 
Drug-related violence still shatters the night in cities, towns, and 
rural hamlets all across the country; hard-core addicts roam the 
streets in as great numbers as ever; and the recent surveys by the 
National Institute on Drug Abuse tell us that teenagers may be 
forgetting the lessons we have taught them over the past few years: Use 
of marijuana, LSD, and inhalants is on the rise among our young people.
  This is no time to eliminate the drug office--we must redouble our 
efforts. We must bolster, not obstruct our Nation's ability to develop 
and mount an all-out attack on the drug scourge.
  I am gratified that the Senate has worked in a bipartisan fashion to 
continue--and bolster--the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
         to preserve the office of national drug control policy

  Mr. KENNEDY. I strongly oppose the provision in this bill that would 
eliminate the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and in support of 
the Hatch-Biden amendment to restore most of the funding for this 
office.
  I am pleased that the managers have agreed to accept this important 
improvement in the bill.
  Despite considerable progress over the past decade, drug abuse is 
still rampant in the United States, and continues to have catastrophic 
social consequences. Drug abuse hurts worker productivity, increases 
health care costs, and has burdened the Nation's criminal justice 
system to the breaking point. It remains a major concern of parents and 
community leaders throughout the country.
  Let's remember why we authorized appointment of a drug czar in the 
fist place. In 1988, we passed comprehensive antidrug legislation. We 
enacted tougher sentences for drug crimes, broadened drug interdiction 
efforts, and increased funding for treatment and prevention.
  We also recognized that throwing money at the drug problem was not 
the answer. Instead, we needed a coordinated national strategy to wage 
the drug war. We wanted to be tough on drugs, but we also wanted to be 
smart on drugs. That's why the 1988 bill created the Office of National 
Drug Control Policy, known as the drug czar's Office.
  The drug czar has not been able to close every open-air drug market. 
He has not eliminated every waiting list for drug treatment. He has not 
cut off the flow of drugs from South America. But he has helped to 
focus the attention of the country, and his fellow Cabinet members, on 
the impact of drug abuse.
 And he has helped to marshal and prioritize Federal resources to wage 
a more effective battle against drugs.

  The pending bill would turn back the clock and eliminate the drug 
czar's office. I disagree with that decision, and I am especially 
disturbed at the lack of consideration accompanying it.
  There have been no hearings in the Judiciary Committee. Indeed the 
committee is united in support of the Hatch-Biden amendment to preserve 
the Office.
  The report accompanying this bill contains a bare two paragraphs of 
explanation: the appropriations subcommittee says that ``[d]rugs and 
drug-related violence remain the scourge of our Nation. The committee 
is very concerned that the administration has moved the war on drugs 
from a top priority, and that is reflected by this Office's 
invisibility. The committee believes that the funding provided to 
operate this Office can be far better utilized on the front lines and 
has taken action accordingly.''
  The logic of that argument escapes me. If the subcommittee believes 
that the drug czar has been insufficiently visible, why eliminate his 
office? If drugs are the scourge of the Nation, why eliminate the 
Office that coordinates the Federal antidrug effort? The $9 million 
used to fund the Office is less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the 
antidrug budget, and adding that sum to the front-line effort won't 
make a bit of difference.
  But eliminating the Office would gravely undermine the goal of 
coordination and send precisely the wrong message to parents and 
teenagers. Our allies around the world who argue that the United States 
needs to do more, not less, to reduce its demand for drugs would be 
shocked if we took such action.
  In contrast to the sketchy treatment of this subject in the Senate 
report, the report of the House subcommittee contains substantial 
criticism of the current drug czar, Lee Brown, for focusing too much 
attention on prevention and treatment efforts. That, of course, has 
been the real strength of the current drug czar. Dr. Brown has emerged 
as a skilled advocate for demand-reduction efforts both within and 
outside the administration.
  This drug czar doesn't travel around the country holding press 
conferences every day, like some earlier occupants of his office. But 
Dr. Brown has spent every single day in office fighting for the 
proposition that we need more drug treatment and antidrug education in 
this country, not less. He has justifiably taken Congress to task when 
we have failed to meet the targets in the administration's antidrug 
budget. I, for one, respect him for that.
  Under the stewardship of Dr. Brown, the Federal antidrug effort has 
enjoyed notable successes in recent years. In New York, Los Angeles, 
Houston, Baltimore, and other cities, several drug trafficking and 
money laundering organizations have been exposed and dismantled. The 
Southwest border has been strengthened.
  The drug czar's office has been instrumental in persuading Colombia--
the source of 80 percent of the cocaine that reaches our shores--to 
take a more aggressive stand against the cocaine cartels. The Office 
deserves neither the credit for every success, nor the blame for every 
failure. But it has worked well, and it is accomplishing the central 
task of reducing duplication and overlapping Federal antidrug programs.
  This is no time to abandon our effort. The Federal Government must 
send a clear message to families and communities that it is strongly 
committed to a national drug control policy.
  As the most recent high school senior survey demonstrates, the war on 
drugs is far from won: In 1994, 45 percent of all high school seniors 
reported having used an illegal drug at least once; the percentage of 
high school seniors who reported using an illegal drug within the past 
year rose to 35 percent, up nearly 5 percent from 1993; 3.6 percent of 
eighth graders had used cocaine at least once; 20 percent of eighth 
graders had used inhalants at least once.
  In my view, these statistics make the case for a more balanced drug 
strategy that emphasizes drug abuse prevention. They argue for 
expanding the mandate and authority of the drug czar, in order to help 
wage a more effective battle against illegal drugs. But surely these 
statistics provide no support at all for those who seek to eliminate 
the drug czar's office. That route is nothing short of a surrender in 
the war on drugs, an admission of failure that all of us should reject.
  I welcome adoption of the Hatch-Biden amendment.
        the elimination of the office of national control policy

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, why are we here today considering the 
elimination of the Office of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP]? It 
is not that they have worked themselves out of a job. Indeed, all 
indications suggest that drug usage and availability have reversed 
their course and are now on the rise.
  Frankly, the performance of this office--or rather lack thereof--has 
led us to this point. Their silence on the scourge of drugs, coupled 
with their diminished support of interdiction activities, has sent a 
clear message to the drug cartels and to the American people. That 
message is that this administration is apathetic with respect to the 
issue of drug trafficking and drug use.
  Under this administration, every passing year has witnessed 
additional cuts in overall interdiction funding. According to numbers 
provided by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, interdiction 
funding has been cut by approximately $700 million since 1991. This 
amounts to more than a 25-percent reduction.
  Moreover, the administration's source country strategy has diverted 
scarce assets and diminished our capabilities in transit and border 
interdiction activities. While the strategy of source country 
interdiction is conceptually sound, the reality is that it 

[[Page S11547]]
leaves us susceptible to the decisions of sovereign nations on whether 
or not to cooperate with the United States.
  In a letter sent to President Clinton in January of this year I, 
along with Senators Dole and Hatch, expressed our concern over this 
source country emphasis at the expense of our transit and border 
interdiction capabilities. Shortly thereafter the President delivered 
to the Congress his budget which once again contained less funding for 
drug interdiction activities. It appears the President missed the 
message.
  I am unconvinced that the Office of National Drug Control Strategy is 
doing all it can to support the agencies involved in interdiction 
activities. Based on the statistics I've seen and on the information 
I've acquired from various law enforcement officials, I would suggest 
ONDCP has not done enough. Not enough in budgetary support and not 
enough in verbal advocacy.
  Reliable groups who gather drug-related data have independently 
verified that drug usage is rising. Indeed, a variety of variables that 
these groups analyze indicate the United States is failing in its 
interdiction efforts. For instance, cocaine and heroin emergency room 
admissions have been rising since 1992--Drug Abuse Warning Network 
[DAWN]. Drug usage among high school students, 8th to 12th grade, has 
also been rising over this same period--monitoring the future study. 
Finally, the data also shows that as interdiction funding has dropped, 
so to has the price of cocaine. Cocaine is now more affordable that it 
has been at any time over the last 6 years--DAWN.
  Last year, the Commandant of the Coast Guard was tasked with 
coordinating and representing all law enforcement agencies involved in 
drug interdiction to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The 
Commandant informed Lee Brown, Director of ONDCP, of the various 
agencies' dissatisfaction over their interdiction budgets. It would 
appear that the concerns of the people in the field and the mission 
they are asked to perform are just not a priority for this 
administration.
  While created with the laudable goal of coordinating the many 
agencies involved throughout the Government in fighting the scourge of 
drugs through interdiction, education, and treatment, ONDCP has fallen 
short of its responsibilities--especially in the interdiction effort.
  The elimination of this office should not be viewed as a signal that 
the Congress has given up on drug interdiction, indeed just the 
opposite is the case. The elimination of this office should, in no 
uncertain terms, signal the administration that not enough is being 
done and that their support of interdiction activities has been 
inadequate.
  I believe President Clinton would send a strong signal to the 
American people by increasing his support of interdiction activities.
                    amendment no. 2245, as modified

  Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2245) as modified, for Mr. 
Hatch, for himself and Mr. Biden.


                           amendment no. 2246

  Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2246) for Mr. Coverdell.

       On page 2, line 21, strike ``$105,929,000'' and insert 
     ``$110,929,000, of which $5,000,000 shall be transferred to 
     States covered by the National Voter Registration Act of 
     1993, to be expended by such States for costs associated with 
     the implementation of the National Voter Registration Act of 
     1993, with such funds disbursed to such States on the basis 
     of the number of registered voters in each State on July 1, 
     1995, in relation to the number of registered voters in all 
     States on such date'': Provided that no further funds in 
     addition to the $5,000,000 so transferred, may be transferred 
     by the Secretary to the States for costs associated with the 
     implementation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 
     during Fiscal Year 1996.
       On page 46, line 12, strike ``$2,329,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,324,000,000''.


                           Amendment No. 2247

  Mr. SHELBY (for Mr. Brown, for himself and Mr. Kerrey) offered an 
amendment (No. 2247) as follows:

 (Purpose: To limit the amount of leave that Senior Executive Service 
                  employees may accumulate to 60 days)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.   . (a) Section 6304(f) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``described in paragraph 
     (1)'' and inserting ``for an individual described 
     subparagraphs (B) through (E) of paragraph (1)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) For purposes of applying any limitation on 
     accumulation under this section with respect to any annual 
     leave for an individual described in paragraph (1)(A)--
       ``(A) `30 days' in subsection (a) shall be deemed to read 
     `60 days'; and
       ``(B) `45 days' in subsection (b) shall be deemed to read 
     `60 days'.''.
       (b)(1) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take 
     effect January 1, 1996.
       (2) Any individual serving in a position in the Senior 
     Executive Service on December 31, 1995 may retain any annual 
     leave accrued as of that date until the leave is used by that 
     individual.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the amendment that Senator Kerrey and I 
have sponsored on the executive service leave changes the amount of 
leave one can accrue and in effect be paid for at a later date.
  Most Federal employees right now fall under a circumstance where they 
can accrue 30 days. That is, you can accrue up to 30 days, but after 30 
days, if you accrue more than that, you do not get it. You do not get 
paid for it. But currently Senior Executive Service people get special 
treatment. Instead of being limited to the 30 days that everybody else 
gets, they get 90 days. Thus, the reason for the amendment that we have 
sponsored and will adopt. It moves it down to 60 days.
  Mr. President, my own feeling is that they ought to be treated like 
everyone else. They ought to be limited to 30-days. But movement from 
90 days to 60 days is movement in the right direction. I do intend, 
though, in future pieces of legislation to address this issue again, 
and my hope is we will eventually move this down to the same treatment 
everyone else gets--30 days.
  I should be quite clear; the overtime already accumulated by 
personnel would remain with the employee until used. In other words, it 
is not retroactive and the amendment would not affect overtime accrued 
by Senior Foreign Service personnel, Defense Intelligence Senior 
Management Executive Service, the Senior Cryptological Executive 
Service, and the FBI and the DEA Senior Executive Service.
  Mr. President, we ought to be thinking about consistent rules for 
everyone in this area, and it is an area I think is worth pursuing.
                           amendment no. 2248

  Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2248) for Mr. Lautenberg.

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . TRANSFER OF CERTAIN FEDERAL PROPERTY IN NEW JERSEY.

       The first section of the Act entitled ``An Act transferring 
     certain Federal property to the city of Hoboken, New 
     Jersey'', approved September 27, 1982 (Public Law 97-268; 96 
     Stat. 1140), is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (2) by striking ``Stat. 220), and'' in subsection (b) and 
     all that follows through ``New Jersey; concurrent with'' and 
     inserting the following: ``Stat. 220);

     concurrent with''.


                           amendment no. 2249

  Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2249) for Mr. Grassley, for 
himself, and Mr. Heflin, Mr. Roth, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Thurmond, 
and Mr. Glenn.

       On page 33, insert between lines 1 and 2 the following:

             Administrative Conference of the United States


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Administrative Conference of 
     the United States, established under subchapter V of chapter 
     5 of title 5, United States Code, including not to exceed 
     $1,000 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $1,800,000.
       On page 35, line 22, strike out ``$5,087,819,000,'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$5,086,019,000,''.
       On page 46, line 12, strike out ``$2,329,000,000,'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$2,327,200,000,''.
       On page 48, line 12, strike out ``$5,087,819,000,'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$5,086,019,000,''.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the Administrative 
Conference of the United States has been zeroed out by the House and 
Senate Appropriations Committee. In the absence of this amendment, 
there would be no funding at all for the Conference. The Administrative 
Conference is the only permanent, independent watchdog over the 
excesses and waste in regard to agency rules and rulemaking. It is a 
very small agency with a very important role in the Government. It is 
charged with the responsibility of identifying and recommending 
improvements to the administrative procedures 

[[Page S11548]]
of Federal agencies, a function that has only become more important.
  Administrative process and procedure is the central function of the 
Federal Government. The Conference's sole purpose is to objectively and 
fairly develop improvements to this administrative process.
  There are some that argue that the valuable work that ACUS does can 
be done equally as well by other agencies. This is not true, however, 
as ACUS is unique in its ability to provide objective, fair, 
nonpartisan,, nonideological improvements to the efficiency of 
government.
  The Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, which I 
chair, recently held a hearing on the reauthorization of ACUS. In a 
letter to the subcommittee, Supreme Court Justice Scalia, a former 
Conference Chairman and present member, noted the benefits of ACUS: 
``The Conference seeks to combine the efforts of scholars, 
practitioners, and agency officials to improve the efficiency and 
fairness of the thousands of varieties of Federal agency procedures. In 
my judgment, it is an effective mechanism for achieving that goal, 
which demands change and improvement in obscure areas where 
bureaucratic inertia and closed-mindedness often prevail.'' By the way, 
Supreme Court Justice Breyer is also a member.
  To delegate ACUS' important responsibilities to the Department of 
Justice, as some have suggested, would be to have the fox guarding the 
hen house. We have seen in the recent regulatory reform debate how 
partisan and nonobjective the Justice Department can be. ACUS is an 
agency that is not likely to make a lot of friends because many of its 
recommendations force agencies to be more efficient and more 
accountable. This is all the more reason for it to continue.
  ACUS is not an ideological or a partisan agency. In testimony before 
the Administrative Oversight and the Courts Subcommittee, Judge Loren 
Smith, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims said: ``With a 
government as large and complex as ours has become; there must be a 
place where the administrative process can be analyzed from a 
relatively policy neutral perspective.'' To entrust the responsibility 
of oversight to a partisan agency would be foolish.
  Mr. President, it is wise to invest a small amount of money to 
maintain a permanent, independent watchdog over the fairness, 
efficiency, and effectiveness of the detailed workings of the 
administrative process. The return on the money invested here justifies 
its small budget. In a hearing before the Subcommittee on 
Administrative Oversight and the Courts, Jim Miller, the former head of 
the Office of Management and Budget under President Reagan, said: ``As 
you know I am a fierce advocate of downsizing the Federal Government 
and reducing the number of agencies and programs. The way to do this is 
to pare back those operations that generate the least bang for the 
taxpayers' buck. I submit that ACUS is not one of these.'' Mr. 
President, the
 Conference's value lies in its ability to streamline and save money. 
Its value far, far exceeds its costs.

  And, Mr. President, our amendment is budget neutral since the small 
amount of funding for ACUS will be taken from the General Services 
Administration account. Therefore, this amendment will not add to the 
Federal deficit.
  Some have mistakenly argued that ACUS doesn't do anything 
meaningfull. Well, these arguments come from those who do not have to 
deal with the complexity and burdens of the regulatory process.
  Just a few of the major accomplishments of ACUS include the 
following:
  First, regulatory reform: In the comprehensive regulatory reform 
legislation S. 343, that the Senate has been considering, the 
Conference was relied upon for their expertise in this area, and a 
number of ACUS' recommendations were made part of the bill. And when 
the legislation was before the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight 
and the Courts, which I chair, ACUS recommendations were relied upon.
  Second, alternative dispute resolution: ACUS has explored 
alternatives to costly litigation such as mediation and alternative 
dispute resolution. By adopting the Conference's recommendations, 
agencies have saved millions of dollars of taxpayer's money. I will 
soon be introducing a permanent extension of the Agency Dispute 
Resolution Act which is based on ACUS' recommendations.
  Third, simplying Government contracting: Through a number of 
recommendations, ACUS has succeeded in streamlining the Federal 
contracting process, a procurement system which accounts for $200 
billion in expenditures each year. This was accomplished through 
amending the jurisdictional requirement in certification of Federal 
contracts. The potential for further savings here are enormous.
  Fourth, negotiated rulemaking: OMB has utilized ACUS as a reg neg 
resource center for agencies undertaking negotiated rulemaking, a 
cutting edge reform which allows for enormous improvement in 
Government. This is accomplished by revolutionizing the way which 
agencies come up with rules. Under this reform, parties who would be 
affected sit down with the agency and discuss the ramifications of 
proposed regulations, and hopefully, come up with a negotiated 
agreement.
  Fifth, equal access to justice: The Conference played a key role in 
enacting the Equal Access to Justice Act. ACUS was assigned by Congress 
the responsibility to ensure executive branch compliance. While there 
was some institutional hostility to the changes, the model rules that 
ACUS had drawn up, were eventually adopted by all agencies. The 
Conference continues its
 work on this issue, most notably in its recent recommendation for 
streamlining attorney's fee litigation.

  Sixth, Contract Disputes Act: The Conference recommended changes to 
the Contract Dispute Act. This legislation has worked well over these 
last 3 years, eliminating an enormous amount of needless litigation.
  The Administrative Conference is not your typical agency. It is 
small, it has no natural constituency, and it is vital to the success 
of any governmental reform efforts. Its budget is small, and it saves 
much more than it costs. I must repeat the words of Chief Judge Smith 
from his testimony:

       I argue for the reauthorization of the Administrative 
     Conference not because it is good for the Conference, or its 
     able chair, but rather because it is good for America. It 
     will help make this huge Federal Government a little more 
     fair for our citizens, be they small business people, 
     farmers, workers, children, property owners, 
     conservationists, or taxpayers.

  Mr. President, we in the Congress need all the help we can get in 
keeping an eye on what many view as an out-of-control Federal 
bureaucracy. Overall, the manager of the bill, Senator Shelby has done 
an excellent job in crafting a responsible bill that helps put us on 
the road to a balanced budget. I support his efforts on many tough 
decisions he had to make regarding this bill.
  But, on this one very small item, I just think that we are literally 
being penny wise and pound foolish. So, I urge my colleagues to join in 
support of this effort for a more efficient and more accountable 
Government.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of an 
amendment offered by my friend and colleague Senator Grassley to 
restore funding for the Administrative Conference of the United States.
  The Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and Courts, 
which is chaired by Senator Grassley, and upon which I serve as ranking 
member has just concluded a hearing on Wednesday, August 2, 1995, 
relative to the Conference's reauthorization. At that hearing a panel 
of distinguished witnesses testified on behalf of the continued 
authorization for this small, but vital independent agency whose 
purpose is to promote the efficiency, adequacy, and fairness by which 
Federal agencies conduct regulatory programs, administer grants and 
benefits, and perform related government functions.
  The witnesses who testified before our subcommittee were the Hon. 
Thomasina Rogers, chairwoman of the Conference, the Hon. Loren Smith, 
chief judge of the Court of Federal Claims and a former chairman of the 
Conference, Thomas Susman, a prominent Washington lawyer and former 
staff member of the Judiciary Committee, and James Miller III, former 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald 
Reagan. That is quite a cross-section of 

[[Page S11549]]
individuals and reflect the broadbased, non-ideological support that 
the Conference enjoys by the legal and academic community across the 
nation.
  We are living in a time of retrenchment, when the Federal Government 
is cutting back and trying to do more with less. The question we must 
ask ourselves as policy makers is ``does eliminating the Conference 
make good common sense''? I believe the answer is ``no'' and will 
elaborate today on why it is good policy to continue the valuable work 
this agency performs on behalf of the American taxpayer.
  Former OMB Director Jim Miller put it succinctly at the hearing when 
he asked: ``Does the Conference produce value for money''? That is 
``putting the hay down where the goats can eat it,'' as we say back in 
Alabama.
  First let me share some background with my colleagues who may not be 
familiar with the work that the Conference does. As I have mentioned, 
the Conference seeks to improve the fairness, adequacy, and efficiency 
of the regulatory process with a unique combination of public and 
private cooperation between government officials and private citizens 
who volunteer their time and expertise. The Conference has leveraged 
its rather modest $1.8 million appropriation with hundreds of thousands 
of dollars of estimated donated time from private citizens to conduct 
the necessary work to advise the executive, legislative, and judicial 
branches of the Federal Government.
  The Conference was established by law in 1964 to make recommendations 
on needed improvements to the regulatory process and to serve as sort 
of a clearinghouse for all of the Federal agencies in this regard. We 
in Congress have given the agency additional statutory duties over the 
years under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, the Negotiated 
Rulemaking Act, and the recently enacted Congressional Accountability 
Act, and the proposed Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act.
  Let me give you a concrete example. Under the Administrative Dispute 
Resolution Act, the Conference has assisted in carrying out the act's 
goals of cutting down on unnecessary Government litigation when cheaper 
and quicker alternatives could be used to the benefit of the Government 
and the taxpayer. The Conference instituted a computerized roster that 
now contains the names of hundreds of neutral mediators who are 
available to assist agencies in resolving their problems.
  The Conference has also sponsored an initiative which allows agencies 
to use each other's employees as an alternate source of low cost, high 
quality mediators. And importantly, the Conference organized a series 
of interagency working groups bringing together people from dozens of 
agencies to work cooperatively on projects no one agency would likely 
undertake on its own.
 This is the point I am trying to make--the Conference is a 
clearinghouse for all of our Federal agencies with regard to improving 
the administrative process of the Federal Government.

  Let us look at another concrete example of how the Conference works 
on behalf of the taxpayer to say him time and money. The Conference 
recently cosponsored with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy a 
program in which agencies agreed to work toward a partnership with 
private sector companies to reduce the number of contract claims filed 
under the Contract Disputes Act. This was achieved by using alternative 
dispute resolution techniques, and 24 agencies signed a pledge 
committing them to enhanced use of ADR techniques.
  Other savings to the taxpayer were presented at the subcommittee 
hearing. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, relying on a 
Conference recommendation, began a pilot mediation program that saved 
more than $9 million in legal fees in the first 18 months. The U.S. 
Information Agency used ADR techniques to settle its largest contract 
claim--$1 million in interest charges alone were saved. A pilot project 
by the Department of Labor, which worked closely with the Conference, 
reduced the cost of litigation in enforcement cases resolved by 
mediation by up to 17 percent and expedited the resolution of those 
disputes by 6 months. Finally, the Army Corps of Engineers reports that 
its use of ADR techniques has reduced its contract claims from more 
than 1,000 in 1988 to slightly more than 300 in 1992.
  I have perhaps gone on too long for my colleagues in outlining some 
of the concrete results, but just these alone answer former OMB 
director Jim Miller's question: ``Does the Conference give value for 
money''? The short answer is ``yes'' it does.
  In closing I would like to enter into the Congressional Record a copy 
of a letter written to the Hon. Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General 
Government and to the Hon. Robert Kerrey, ranking member of that 
subcommittee, which supports continued funding for the Conference. The 
letter is signed by numerous private sector members of the Conference 
including private practitioners, public interest groups, law 
professors, and a State Supreme court justice.
  Let me read from it a brief excerpt.

       The Administrative Conference may be one of the most 
     economically efficient uses of taxpayer dollars in the 
     government. Its present budget is $1.8 million. Its work in 
     ADR alone has been the catalyst for tens of millions of 
     dollars of savings by government agencies and the private 
     sector. It should be allowed to continue this important cost-
     saving work.

  Mr. President, that succinctly states why I am cosponsoring this 
amendment to restore the modest funding to this small, but vital 
nonpartisan independent agency. It does deliver value for money. It 
should continue its service to the American people.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                    July 20, 1995.
     Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and 
         General Government, Senate Committee on Appropriations, 
         Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. J. Robert Kerrey,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and 
         General Government, Senate Committee on Appropriations, 
         Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman and Senator Kerrey: We, the undersigned 
     private-sector members of the Administrative Conference, are 
     writing to urge you to continue to support funding for the 
     Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS).
       Created in 1964, ACUS is uniquely bipartisan and a special 
     blend of public and private input. By teaming government 
     officials with private citizens who volunteer their time and 
     expertise, ACUS leverages its small appropriation into 
     hundreds of thousands of dollars of donated time to conduct 
     basic research and give advice and assistance to the 
     Congress, the President, federal agencies, and the federal 
     judiciary on difficult issues of administrative law, 
     regulation and rulemaking, and fairness and efficiency in 
     government procedures. In recent years ACUS has been a major 
     architect and proponent of government use of alternative 
     dispute resolution (ADR), which replaces costly and time-
     consuming litigation with various consensual techniques that 
     save money for both the government and private sector and 
     enhance the public's participation in the governmental 
     process. Indeed, ACUS is now the most important repository of 
     expertise and information about ADR. Because ACUS' sole goal 
     is the improvement of the regulatory process, and its 
     approach is nonpartisan and nonideological, its 
     recommendations have an exceptionally high rate of 
     acceptance.'
       Congress uses ACUS as a recognized source of impartial 
     expertise. In enacting its very first piece of legislation 
     this session, the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, 
     Public Law 1054-1. Congress gave the Administrative 
     Conference the statutory responsibility for examining and 
     making recommendations regarding the implementation of the 
     numerous health, safety and labor statutes that will now 
     apply to three congressional agencies--the Library of 
     Congress, the General Accounting Office, and the Government 
     Printing Office.
       The Dole regulatory reform bill currently under Senate 
     consideration, S.343, as well as the bill unanimously 
     reported out of the Government Affairs Committee, S. 291, and 
     the recently introduced Glenn bill, S. 1001, include 
     important new oversight responsibilities for ACUS. In 
     selecting ACUS to undertake these new responsibilities, the 
     Governmental Affairs Committee observed:
       Because ACUS is comprised of respected experts and 
     practitioners representing a wide range of perspectives and 
     interests, and has a record of developing unbiased, practical 
     solutions to regulatory problems, the Committee believes that 
     this agency is well suited to producing the studies and 
     recommendations needed to fulfill the intent of section 5 [of 
     the bill.]. Report of the Senate Committee on Governmental 
     Affairs, S. Rep. No. 104-88, p. 57 (May 25, 1995).
       The Administrative Conference may be one of the most 
     economically efficient users of taxpayers dollars in the 
     government. Its present budget is $1.8 million. Its work in 
     ADR alone has been the catalyst for tens of millions of 
     dollars of savings by government agencies and the private 
     sector. It should be 

[[Page S11550]]
     allowed to continue this important cost-saving work. It has developed a 
     program to complement current Administration and 
     Congressional initiatives and address the details that must 
     be resolved if regulatory reform and reinvention efforts are 
     to be implemented successfully. Even if its job were solely 
     to monitor and improve regulatory changes that may emerge 
     from this Congress, that would be reason enough to retain it.
       In short, we urge you to support continuous funding for 
     ACUS.
           Sincerely,
       Joseph A. Morris, Esquire, Morris, Rathman & De La Rosa, 
     Chicago, IL.
       Richard E. Wiley, Esquire, Wiley, Rein & Fielding, 
     Washington, DC.
       David C. Vladeck, Esquire, Director, Public Citizen 
     Litigation Group, Washington, DC.
       Dr. James C. Miller, III, Counsellor, Citizens for a Sound 
     Economy, Washington, DC.
       Justice Marian P. Opala, Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 
     Oklahoma City, OK.
       Warren Belmar, Esquire, Partner, Fullbright & Jaworski, 
     Washington, DC.
       Thomas M. Susman, Esquire, Ropes & Gray, Washington, DC.
       Paul D. Kamenar, Esq., Executive Legal Director, Washington 
     Legal Foundation, Washington, DC.
       Edward F. Benavidez, Esquire, Benavidez Law Firm, 
     Albuquerque, NM.
       Arthur E. Bonfield, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for 
     Research, College of Law, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, 
     IA.
       Marshall J. Breger, Visiting Professor, Catholic University 
     of America, School of law, Washington, DC.
       Dr. Thomas D. Hopkins, Arthur J. Gosnell Professor, 
     Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY.
       Robert A. Anthony, Professor, George Mason University 
     School of Law, Arlington, VA.
       Caryl S. Bernstein, Esquire, Senior Counsel, Shaw, Pittman, 
     Potts & Trowbridge, Washington, DC.
       Elliot Bredhoff, Esquire, Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, 
     DC.
       Clark Byse, Professor Emeritus, Harvard Law School, 
     Cambridge, MA.
       Ronald A. Cass, Dean, Boston University School of Law, 
     Boston, MA.
       Ernest Gellhorn, Professor of Law, George Mason University, 
     Arlington, VA.
       Sandra J. Hale, Esquire, President, Enterprise Management 
     International, Minneapolis, MN.
       Robert M. Kaufman, Esquire, Partner, Proskaner, Rose, Goetz 
     & Mendelsohn, New York, NY.
       Randolph J. May, Esquire, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, 
     Washington, DC.
       William R. Neale, Esquire, King, DeVanlt, Alexander & 
     Capehart, Indianapolis, IN.
       Philip A. Fleming, Esquire, Partner, Crowell & Moring, 
     Washington, DC.
       Walter Gellhorn, Professor Emertius, Columbia University 
     School of Law, New York, NY.
       Robert A. Katzmann, Walsh Professor American Government and 
     Professor of Law, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
       Richard J. Leighton, Esquire, Keller & Heckman, Washington, 
     DC.
       Alan B. Morrison, Esquire, Public Citizen Litigation Group, 
     Washington, DC.
       Owen Olpin, Esquire, Senior Partner, O'Melveny & Myewrs, 
     Los Angeles, CA.
       Max D. Paglin, Esquire, Golden-Jubilee Commission on 
     Telecommunications, Washington, DC.
       Reuben B. Robertson III. Esquire, Ingersoll & Bloch, 
     Chartered, Washington, DC.
       Harold L. Russell, Esquire, Smith, Gambrell & Russell, 
     Atlanta, GA.
       Peter L. Strauss, Professor, Columbia University School of 
     Law, New York, NY.
       Steven G. Gallagher, Esquire, Senior Vice President, 
     American Arbitration Association, Washington, DC.
       Lawrence B. Hagel, Esquire, Deputy General Counsel, 
     Paralyzed Veterans of America, Washington, DC.
       Jaime Ramon, McKenna & Cimeo, L.L.P., Dallas, TX.
       Victor G. Rosenblum, Professor, Northwestern University 
     School of Law, Chicago, IL.
       Girandeau A. Spam, Professor, Georgetown University Law 
     Center, Washington, DC.
       James E. Wesner, Esquire, University General Counsel, 
     University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
       Edward L. Weidenfeld, Esquire, Weidenfeld & Rooney, P.C., 
     Washington, DC.
       David G. Hawkins, Esquire, National Resources Defense 
     Council, Washington, DC.
       Betty Jo Christian, Esquire, Steptoe & Johnson, Washington, 
     DC.
       Janet E. Belkin, Esquire, Chair, Section on Administrative 
     Law & Regulatory Practice, American Bar Association.
       Brian C. Griffin, Esquire, Griffin & Griffin, Oklahoma, OK.
       Jonathan Rose, Esquire, Professor, Arizona State 
     University, Tempe, AZ.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
restore funding to the Administrative Conference of the United States.
  The Administrative Conference, or ACUS, is a small agency in the 
executive branch with an important mission and a very broad scope. It 
is charged with the responsibility of identifying and recommending 
improvements to the administrative procedures of our Federal agencies, 
and for more than 25 years ACUS has commendably carried out that 
responsibility.
  The backbone of our Federal agencies is the administrative process. 
The administrative process includes the issuance of regulations, the 
adjudication of individual claims for benefits, the award of licenses, 
and the debarment of fraudulent and nonperforming contractors. There's 
not much that a Federal agency does that doesn't involve administrative 
process.
  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 focused in on the administrative 
process. When he did so, he saw the work of ACUS as an important asset 
to achieving real progress. Streamlining the administrative process is 
the main goal of the National Performance Review, and ACUS is the key 
vehicle the administration intends to use to reach that goal. The bill 
we are now considering would undermine the cause of regulatory reform, 
because it fails to provide any funding for ACUS.
  Let us look quickly at some of the specific tasks that we in Congress 
have directed ACUS to take on. The Regulatory Negotiation Act, which I 
authored, 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 earlier and attempts to achieve by consensus what we 
may never be able to achieve through the normal, often adversarial, 
rulemaking process. It may not be the right approach in every case, but 
where it fits it has proven to be very beneficial: cutting costs, 
improving enforcement, and producing more cost-effective regulations. 
Were ACUS to be eliminated, we would risk losing the progress we have 
made over the last few years to get agencies to rely more on regulatory 
negotiation.
  Similarly, ACUS has been assigned a key role in the implementation of 
the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act. When used appropriately, ADR 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. Were we to allow ACUS to 
go unfunded, the center would fall out of the ADR effort, and much of 
the progress we have tried to achieve would be lost.
  ACUS is presently evaluating conflict management in the Fish and 
wildlife Service's implementation of the Endangered Species Act; agency 
practices regarding sale and distribution of Government assets such as 
broadcast frequency licenses, oil and gas leases; Department of Justice 
control over agency litigation; the use of audited industry self-
regulation; techniques for expedited rulemaking; and many more. Each of 
these has the potential to greatly improve the operations of Federal 
agencies.
  Here in the Senate, we are still finding important roles for ACUS 
even while we are talking about eliminating it. Section 8 of the Dole-
Johnston substitute to S. 343, the regulatory reform bill would direct 
ACUS to evaluate the agencies' compliance with that bill's risk-
assessment requirements. Congress relies on ACUS for crosscutting 
projects such as these because of its unparalleled expertise regarding 
the administrative process.
  While these tasks could be performed by someone other than ACUS, this 
points out the most valuable aspect of ACUS. ACUS is a small, free-
standing agency that is free of partisan wrangling. Its research and 
recommendations are supposed to be without political favoritism, an so 
they have been. But because of ACUS's expertise and prestige, it is 
able to bring together many of the best minds in the fields of 
administrative law and Government operations from the private sector, 
academia, and Government to work together in the public interest. Law 
professors, the private bar, judges, and agency officials serve 
together on ACUS panels, providing their services free of charge. 
ACUS's ability to leverage its small amount of money into such a 
sizable substantive gain makes it unique. The Nation could not expect 
to find a more economical source of the 

[[Page S11551]]
services ACUS provides, and allowing ACUS to go unfunded for even 1 
year would erode its stature and severely damage this unique 
arrangement.
  Administrative process is not glamorous stuff, but if you think back 
on the major issues debated here this session, its importance is clear. 
Many of us have drawn on ACUS's expertise when considering the issues 
of unfunded mandates, the regulatory moratorium, regulatory reform, 
lobbying disclosure, telecommunications. The ability of ACUS's staff to 
quickly and accurately answer an extraordinary range of questions about 
how the Federal administrative agencies operate is extraordinary. This, 
combined with the many important roles ACUS plays in improving the 
operation of those Federal administrative agencies, offers compelling 
justification for restoring adequate funding to ACUS.
  Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Iowa for offering this 
amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment to 
restore funding for the Administrative Conference of the United States.
  The Administrative Conference is a small agency that provides 
independent, nonpartisan advice and assistance to Congress and Federal 
agencies on how to make Government procedures more efficient, flexible, 
and open.
  ACUS, as the Conference is sometimes called, is a unique public-
private partnership. It consists of members from Government, the 
academic community, and the private sector, who develop consensus-based 
recommendations for improved agency procedures. It also has a small 
career staff that works with agencies on implementing recommended 
reforms, and that assists congressional offices and agencies on issues 
of administrative law and practice.
  In this era of budget reduction and smaller government, the 
Administrative Conference is especially valuable. There are several 
compelling reasons for this.
  First, ACUS studies problems and makes recommendations that save the 
Government lots of money. For example, the Conference has testified 
that the Social Security Administration adopted an ACUS recommendation 
to simplify the Social Security appeals process. From following just 
this one ACUS recommendation, the Social Security Administration 
reports that it will save $85 million annually.
  A second example is the use of alternative dispute resolution 
techniques, or ADR, which means mediation and other methods of settling 
cases and avoiding costly litigation. The Administrative Conference is 
the Government's central resource on the use of alternative dispute 
resolution. Data from five agencies show that their use of these ADR 
methods, which ACUS has been promoting for a decade, saved $13.8 
million in 1994.
  James C. Miller, who was budget director under President Reagan and 
is a staunch budget-cutter, has testified that it would be a mistake 
for Congress to zero out the Administrative Conference, because ``ACUS 
generates far more value to the American people'' than its yearly 
budget. On this point, Jim Miller and I agree completely. The 
Conference's budget is only $1.8 million dollars--an amount that is 
repaid many times over in reduced litigation costs and improved 
Government efficiency.
  A second reason why the Conference is especially valuable now, is 
that we are in the midst of revamping the Government's administrative 
and regulatory procedures for the first time in 50 years. Such a time 
is when we most need the expert, impartial advice and assistance of the 
Conference. For example, there are now two leading regulatory reform 
bills in the Senate--S. 343, which is sponsored by the distinguished 
majority leader, and S. 1001, which I introduced. Both of these bills 
incorporate key recommendations of the Administrative Conference. I 
know that, on both sides of the aisle, Senate staff working on these 
bills have turned for advice repeatedly to the Conference staff. Both 
of these bills also include explicit requirements for the 
Administrative Conference to review how the legislative reforms work 
out in practice, and to recommend any needed corrections.
  Third, over the past year the Conference has focused and marshaled 
its energies to support the current transition to a smaller, more 
efficient, more responsible Government. ACUS continues its very 
valuable support for Government use of negotiation, mediation, and 
other alternatives to costly litigation. These ADR techniques foster 
flexible and open decisionmaking, encourage results that are acceptable 
to the parties, reduce the amount of litigation clogging our courts--as 
well as saving the Government and the private sector money.
  The Conference is also concentrating its research-and-development 
efforts on such regulatory techniques as audited self-regulation and 
enhanced waiver authority. These innovative techniques are designed to 
be more flexible and responsive than the traditional regulatory 
approach of one-size-fits-all.
  Finally, I want to dispel any misperception that the Administrative 
Conference is redundant--that other organizations in the Government or 
in the private sector could do the same job. No other entity is 
designed to do what the Administrative Conference does.
  Certainly, we in Congress get plenty of advice on how to reform 
agency processes and procedures--maybe too much advice. But most of 
this advice comes from industries, or regulatory agencies, or advocacy 
groups, or ``thinks tanks,'' or party caucuses--which have vested 
interests or political agendas.
  Unlike all of these groups, the Administrative Conference's only 
agenda is to foster greater efficiency and fairness in Government. Its 
recommendations must be practical and unbiased, in order to pass muster 
with a membership drawn from both practitioners and academics from both 
political parties and from all points on the political spectrum. 
Furthermore, only ACUS has a mandate to follow through and help 
agencies to implement recommendations that are adopted.
  This is one agency that actually saves the Government more money than 
it costs. Based on the Administrative Conference's track record of 
success, this unique institution should be preserved.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and 
to reinstate funding for the Administrative Conference.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment of Senator 
Grassley to restore funding for the Administrative Conference of the 
United States. Because I am, and have been, a strong proponent of 
reducing the size of government, let me take a moment to explain why I 
think we should restore life to this tiny agency.
  We have reached the point where, now more than ever, there is 
widespread consensus that the administrative process must be reformed 
and streamlined. The Administrative Conference is the only Government 
agency whose sole mission and expertise is directed to improving 
administrative procedure. And the Administrator Conference is a unique 
source of nonpartisan advice and assistance to Congress and the 
agencies on how to make the regulatory process more efficient, more 
flexible, and more rational. The supporters of ACUS comprise a virtual 
``Who's Who'' of administrative law from across the political spectrum. 
Indeed, ACUS is especially effective in carrying out its mission 
because it achieves a unique synergy of expertise from government, the 
private sector, academia, and the public interest community.
  As we all know, results matter, and ACUS has had notable success in 
reducing the inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and delay in the regulatory 
process. These successes repay ACUS' small budget--$1.8 million--many 
times over. To paraphrase S. 343, the benefits clearly justify the 
costs. For example, ACUS has produced massive savings in money, time, 
and agency resources by implementing alternative dispute resolution.
  Data from five agencies show that the use of alternative dispute 
resolution has saved $13.8 million for just these few agencies in 1994. 
With ACUS' help, the use of alternative dispute resolution is expanding 
rapidly. It has been estimated that a recently adopted ACUS proposal to 
change the appeals 

[[Page S11552]]
process saves the Social Security administrative process $85 each year. 
It would be penny-wise and pound-foolish to let the Administrative 
Conference expire.
  Furthermore, it is now--when we are proposing the most comprehensive 
changes to the Administrative Procedure Act since it was written 50 
years ago--that we need the advice and assistance of the Administrative 
Conference more than ever.
  As small as ACUS is, it has provided important support for the 
movement toward regulatory reform and for alternatives to the 
litigation morass that burdens our Nation. Many ACUS recommendations 
have been incorporated into the regulatory reform proposals we are 
considering, including S. 343. Indeed, section 8 of S. 343 provides for 
ACUS to study and advise Congress on the operation of the risk 
assessment requirements and the operation of the Administrative 
Procedure Act. My regulatory reform bill, S. 291, contained a similar 
provision. So did the Glenn bill. As complex and far reaching as the 
current regulatory reform proposals are, we will need the kind of 
independent expertise that ACUS provides if we want to carry out 
regulatory reform.
  Because I want to reform the regulatory process and to make 
government more efficient, I support Senator Grassley's amendment to 
fund the Administrative Conference. I urge my colleagues to support 
this worthy effort.


                           amendment no. 2250

  Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2250) for Ms. Mikulski:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec.   . Service performed during the period January 1, 
     1984, through December 31, 1986, which would, if performed 
     after that period, be considered service as a law enforcement 
     officer, as defined in section 8401(17)(A)(i)(II) and (B) of 
     title 5, United States Code, shall be deemed service as a law 
     enforcement officer for the purposes of chapter 84 of such 
     title.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I rise today in support of my amendment to chapter 84 
of title 5, United States Code, which corrects a technical error in 
existing law. The error which I refer to results in some Federal law 
enforcement personnel who began duty during an interim period when the 
Federal employee retirement system was being changed being denied the 
benefits they deserve.
  From January 1, 1984, to December 31, 1986, certain Federal law 
enforcement personnel were hired and placed under an interim retirement 
system. The Civil Service Retirement System [CSRS] was not open to 
newly hired employees and the new retirement system, the Federal 
Employees Retirement System [FERS], was not yet in effect. When the 
Federal Employee Retirement System went into effect, this group of law 
enforcement personnel became covered under the FERS law enforcement 
provisions.
  However, during this transitional period, these law enforcement 
officers were denied law enforcement credit because they were never 
classified as law enforcement personnel. This amendment corrects the 
existing language so this group of law enforcement personnel will not 
be required to unfairly work up to an additional 3 years to meet 
eligibility requirements under the FERS law enforcement provision. Our 
Federal law enforcement personnel work long, hard, and dangerous duty 
in service of this country. It is only fair that we ensure that each 
and every Federal law enforcement employee receives the retirement 
benefits they deserve.


                           amendment no. 2251

  Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2251) for Mr. Brown:

       The General Services Administration and the Federal 
     Aviation Administration should review and reform current 
     personnel rules and labor agreements regarding federal 
     assistance when relocating because of a change of duty 
     station.
       The Senate is concerned about reports that, under FAA and 
     GSA rules, employees at the Denver, Colorado, ATCT and TRACON 
     were permitted to claim personal housing relocation 
     allowances in connection with their transfer from FAA 
     facilities at Stapleton Field to the new Denver International 
     Airport, even in some cases where an employee's new home was 
     farther from the new job site than the employee's former 
     home.
       The FAA should immediately investigate this misuse of 
     public funds at Denver International Airport and reform their 
     personnel rules to end this kind of abuse.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, with reference to this amendment on the 
Denver International Airport, under a previous policy memorandum--to be 
specific, between the FAA and the NATCA--there was an agreement to 
waive regulations that apply to the payment for the movement of 
workers. The old rules indicated there would be payment for employees' 
movement if, indeed, an airport was moved over 10 miles. The new Denver 
airport is 17 miles from the old site. So it came under the old 
regulations. However, the new regulations make it clear that 
compensation is not to be given unless the airport is relocated 35 
miles or more and if a controller moves 30 minutes closer to the new 
duty station.
  Thus, the Denver International Airport employees would have received 
compensation--or at least some of them could have--under the old 
regulations. But they did not qualify for the compensation under the 
new regulations. Nevertheless, on April 8, 1993, there was a memo of 
understanding reached where they waived the application of these new 
regulations. In other words, they waived the current regulations and 
made employees eligible for moving expenses even though the airport was 
only moved 17 miles.
  The impact has been enormous. Four workers received a total of 
dollars $85,000 for this small move, even though they moved further 
away from their workplace. In other words, they moved, but their new 
home was further away from the new airport than their old home had been 
from the old airport. In other words, we paid them when they actually 
chose to move further away.
  A total of 38 FAA workers have been paid now $528,000 in moving 
costs, an average of $14,000, even though under the new regulations 
they would not qualify for anything. The FAA has set aside another 
$2.07 million to reimburse over 100 workers still eligible to submit 
expenses before February 1997. The largest single reimbursement was for 
$61,281 to an air traffic controller who moved from one address in 
Englewood, CO, to another address in Englewood, CO.
  It is quite clear that the taxpayers have been ripped off and with 
the complicity of the people who signed the new memo waiving the 
regulation, thus the amendment calling for the study and review.
  Mr. President, I hope the people responsible for this kind of 
treatment of the taxpayers will receive appropriate discipline from 
their superiors.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments.
  The amendments (Nos. 2232 through 2251) were agreed to, en bloc.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
conference agreement on H.R. 2020, the Treasury, Postal Service, and 
General Government appropriations bill for 1996.
  This bill provides new budget authority of $23.0 billion and new 
outlays of $20.6 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 within the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation. When outlays from 
prior-year budget authority and other adjustments are taken into 
account, the bill totals $22.8 billion in budget authority and $23.1 
billion in outlays. The total bill is at the Senate subcommittee's 
602(b) nondefense allocation for budget authority and under its 
allocation for outlays by $32 million. The subcommittee is also under 
its Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund allocation by $2 million in 
budget authority and $1 million in outlays.
  I would also like to thank that subcommittee for including funding to 
complete construction of the Federal courthouse in Albuquerque, NM.
  I ask Members of the Senate to refrain from offering amendments which 
would cause the subcommittee to exceed its budget allocation and urge 
the speedy adoption of this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the spending totals for the Senate 
reported bill be printed in the Record.
 
[[Page S11553]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      TREASURY-POSTAL SUBCOMMITTEE                      
[Spending totals--Senate-reported bill; fiscal year 1996, in millions of
                                dollars]                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Budget          
                                                      authority  Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nondefense discretionary:                                               
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed......................................  .........    2,778
    H.R. 2020, as reported to the Senate............    11,187     8,747
    Scorekeeping adjustment.........................  .........  .......
                                                     -------------------
      Subtotal nondefense discretionary.............    11,187    11,525
                                                     ===================
Violent crime reduction trust fund:                                     
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed......................................  .........        8
    H.R. 2020, as reported to the Senate............        76        61
    Scorekeeping adjustment.........................  .........  .......
                                                     -------------------
      Subtotal violent crime reduction trust fund...        76        69
                                                     ===================
Mandatory:                                                              
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed......................................       127       130
    H.R. 2020, as reported to the Senate............    11,763    11,756
    Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with                       
     Budget Resolution assumptions..................      -334      -333
                                                     -------------------
      Subtotal mandatory............................    11,555    11,553
                                                     ===================
      Adjusted bill total...........................    22,818    23,147
                                                     ===================
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                  
    Defense discretionary...........................  .........  .......
    Nondefense discretionary........................    11,187    11,557
    Violent crime reduction trust fund..............        78        70
    Mandatory.......................................    11,555    11,553
                                                     -------------------
      Total allocation..............................    22,820    23,180
                                                     ===================
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate Subcommittee                     
 602(b) allocation:                                                     
    Defense discretionary...........................  .........  .......
    Nondefense discretionary........................  .........      -32
    Violent crime reduction trust fund..............        -3        -1
    Mandatory.......................................  .........  .......
                                                     -------------------
      Total allocation..............................        -3       -33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Total adjusted for 
  consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                    

  Mr. SIMON. In December 1994, as part of the National Performance 
Review, the administration announced that the Office of Personnel 
Management [OPM] would privatize its investigative branch, the Office 
of Federal Investigations [OFI]. OPM intends to complete the transition 
by January 1996.
  For over 40 years, the OFI has been responsible for conducting 
background investigations for potential employees of various agencies 
within the Federal Government, including the Department of Energy, the 
Department of Justice, and the Treasury Department. Overall, OFI 
conducts about 40 percent of all Federal background investigations for 
positions ranging from bureaucratic jobs to high ranking positions 
requiring substantial security clearances. In my view, shifting this 
responsibility to the private sector raises a host of extremely 
important questions which need to be addressed before we proceed.
  First, we must ensure that our national security is not in any way 
jeopardized by a move to privatization. Currently, OFI does background 
checks on individuals that will ultimately have access to top secret 
information, such as nuclear weapons systems. We need to ask ourselves 
if this is the type of matter that we want a private sector employee to 
have access to. If the answer is yes, certainly we need to carefully 
review the safeguards needed to ensure that our national interests 
remain secure.
  The ability of private firms to maintain the privacy of sensitive 
records is another area that needs to be closely addressed. A private 
contractor would potentially have the ability to amass large quantities 
of personal information on Government employees. Although OPM has 
suggested that they would have the ability to keep records private, I 
have not heard specific measures that could be taken to guarantee this. 
Serious study must be given to what measures can and should be taken to 
protect privacy.
  We must also ensure that quality investigations will continue to be 
conducted. The Federal Government currently uses private
 investigators for a very small fraction of background checks. The only 
experience with private investigators on a large scale produced 
numerous investigations that were not up to standard, or, even in a 
fraction of cases, were falsified. This must not happen again. What 
safeguards can and should OPM put in place to ensure that quality is 
maintained?

  It is also important to ask ourselves if private investigators will 
be able to provide the best available information to Government 
agencies. Will they have difficulty obtaining vital information from 
law enforcement agencies? In a preliminary study, the General 
Accounting Office [GAO] has determined that law enforcement officials 
may be reluctant to give out sensitive information to private 
investigators. This issue deserves further study.
  My comments are not meant to imply that private contractors cannot 
perform top quality investigations while also ensuring privacy and 
protecting out national security. It is certainly conceivable that they 
could. However, before a decision of this magnitude is made, it is 
crucial that we all have the best possible information. If further 
study shows that private investigators can successfully take over this 
important function, then I might support the transition. However, until 
these questions are answered, I believe the best course of action is a 
cautious one.
  I understand that the Senate Treasury and Postal Appropriations 
report requires that a cost-benefit analysis be conducted to determine 
the feasibility of moving to privatization, and that the House report 
mandates a similar study. In addition, Congressman Mica has requested 
that the GAO conduct an ongoing study into potential problems with the 
privatization effort. I would ask that my questions and concerns be 
raised as part of these studies.
  Mr. SHELBY. While I appreciate the concerns of the Senator from 
Illinois, I think the move to privatization is a good one. The 
administration and the subcommittee have carefully reviewed the 
privatization issue. In February, OPM conducted a feasibility study and 
recently contracted out with another firm to present a business plan. 
That plan should address the steps OMP will take to ensure continued 
oversight of this important function.
  However, my colleague from Illinois has raised several important 
points that I believe should be addressed. I will work to include 
language in the conference report that would require the GAO to study 
the questions raised by Senator Simon, including the potential impact 
on the quality of investigations, privacy issues, and national security 
concerns. I believe that before OPM moves to privatization, Congress 
should have the opportunity to review both the OPM and GAO reports on 
these issues.
  Mr. KERREY. I share the views of the chairman, and will work to 
ensure that the concerns of the Senator from Illinois are addressed in 
the conference report as well. They are indeed important issues that 
deserve further study.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank both of my colleagues for their leadership on this 
issue. I appreciate their willingness to ensure that my concerns are 
addressed, and look forward the results of further study.
                        breckenridge post office

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Would the Senator from Alabama yield a few moments at 
this time to enter into a brief colloquy?
  Mr. SHELBY. I would be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator 
from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Senator.
  As the Senator may recall, the House report on the Treasury/Postal 
appropriations bill notes that committee's concerns about the failure 
of the Postal Service to complete the planning and the construction on 
the new post office in Breckenridge, CO.
  The planning stage was originally to be finished in fiscal year 1995 
so that the new post office could be completed in fiscal year 1996. 
This issue was not addressed in the Senate report.
  Breckenridge, CO, is not being adequately served by the Postal 
Service at this time because of the need for better facilities. I would 
ask the Senator from Alabama, then, if he would work with me to 
encourage the conferees to adopt the House's comments on the building 
of the Breckenridge Post Office in the conference committee report.
  Mr. SHELBY. I look forward to working with the Senator on this 
matter. I know how important efficient postal service is to rural 
communities.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama for his 
consideration and I yield the floor.
                          ``guns for felons''

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am very pleased that this 
legislation includes a provision that Senator Simon and I requested 
that would block funding for a program that allows convicted felons to 
regain their ability to possess firearms. 

[[Page S11554]]

  As a general matter, Mr. President, Federal law prohibits any person 
convicted of a felony from possessing firearms. However, under what I 
call a guns for felons loophole, convicted felons can apply to the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to get a waiver.
  After receiving an application, ATF performs a broad-based field 
investigation and background check. If the Bureau believes that the 
applicant does not pose a threat to public safety, it can grant an 
exemption from the Federal ban.
  Mr. President, Senator Simon and I have been able to block funding 
for this program for the past few years. However, between 1981 and 
1991, ATF granted 5,600 waivers. Many of these required a substantial 
amount of scarce time and resources. ATF investigations often lasted 
weeks, and included interviews with family, friends, and the police.
  In the late 1980's, the cost of processing and investigating these 
petitions worked out to about $10,000 for each waiver granted.
  What happened when convicted felons got their firearms rights back? 
Well, some apparently went back to their violent ways. Those granted 
relief subsequently were rearrested for crimes ranging from attempted 
murder to rape, kidnaping, and child molestation.
  Mr. President, the ATF guns for felons loophole is an outrageous 
waste of taxpayer dollars. It also is a poor use of scarce ATF 
resources. ATF agents have better things to do than conduct background 
investigations so that felons can get a gun.
  Mr. President, we ought to eliminate this ridiculous program 
permanently. Senator Simon and I have introduced legislation to do so. 
Meanwhile, though, we at least should block funding for the program in 
appropriations bills. I am very pleased that the Appropriations 
Committee agreed with us this year.
  Mr. President, there is broad support for closing the guns for felons 
loophole. The Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of 
Police Organizations, and the International Brotherhood of Police 
Officers all have testified in favor of terminating the ATF program.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, firearm violence has reached epidemic 
proportions. We have a responsibility to the victims and prospective 
victims to take all reasonable steps to keep this violence to a 
minimum. Keeping firearms away from convicted felons is the least these 
innocent Americans should be able to expect.
                      federal property management

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, my efforts to correct longstanding problems 
related to Federal property management, particularly in the courthouse 
construction program, are already well documented in the public record. 
During the last few years, I have supported a number of amendments to 
eliminate wasteful spending for construction projects that were not 
needed or not cost-effective and I've introduced legislation to reform 
the way the Federal Government manages its office space.
  Over the years, the General Accounting Office [GAO] and General 
Services Administration [GSA] Inspector General reports have 
highlighted recurring problems at GSA in managing the Federal 
Government's real estate portfolio and have shown a pattern of wasteful 
spending. Long standing problems have significantly impaired GSA's 
ability to meet the Federal Government's property needs in a cost-
effective and businesslike manner.
  Despite GSA Administrator Roger Johnson's efforts to reform GSA and 
reorganize the Public Buildings Service [PBS], I remain convinced that 
PBS fails to adequately meet Federal space needs in a cost-effective 
manner and continues to construct buildings that are not needed and 
that we can ill afford. Earlier this month, GAO testified before the 
Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure that the Federal Government continues to spend billions 
of dollars more than is necessary to acquire and manage Federal office 
space. Congress has also contributed to the problem as it has too often 
funded construction projects which have not gone through the normal 
authorization process.
  In today's climate of downsizing Government and budgetary cuts, 
funding for any Federal building project must be carefully assessed to 
ensure the best and maximum use of scarce Federal resources. Last 
month, I wrote to my colleagues on the Treasury, Postal Appropriations 
and General Government Subcommittee urging them not to obligate funds 
for any unauthorized Federal buildings or unauthorized courthouse 
construction projects; to reassess the need to spend $1 billion, as the 
President requested, on new construction; to closely scrutinize whether 
planned funding levels for projects already in the pipeline are 
economical and realistic in view of current budget constraints; and to 
assess repair and alteration funding levels.
  I am pleased with the language in the fiscal year 1996 Treasury 
Postal appropriations bill which is currently before the Senate. The 
bill reduces Federal construction funding and notes that no funds 
available in the bill will be used for unauthorized
 projects. I commend Senators Shelby and Kerrey for their leadership in 
this important area.

  I am also pleased with the language in the bill that prohibits the 
submission of a fiscal year 1997 budget for the construction of U.S. 
courthouse, unless the facilities meet the construction standards 
developed by the GSA, the Office of Management and Budget, and the 
Judicial Conference and reflect the priorities established in the 
Judicial Conference's 5-year construction plan.
  Mr. President, the current courthouse construction program lacks a 
strategic plan and fails to prioritize projects to ensure that scarce 
Federal resources are spent where they are most needed. As a result, 
Congress must make the tough funding decisions to protect the 
taxpayer's interests and prevent wasteful spending. The Appropriations 
Committee report notes that the committee has been frustrated by the 
courts unwillingness to establish a priority list for construction and 
continued insistence that all projects are of an equal priority.
  I share the committee's frustration over the courthouse construction 
program. GAO has testified that the Federal judiciary overestimated 
courthouse construction space needs for the next decade by more than 3 
million square feet which, if authorized, could waste up to $1.1 
billion. Last year, a Governmental Affairs Committee hearing showed 
that, in addition to continuing to build unneeded Federal courthouses, 
we are wasting additional millions on extravagant courthouse features 
such as top of the line marble, custom lighting, and private 
kitchenettes. As a result of the hearing, I, along with a number of my 
colleagues, wrote GAO requesting an audit of the courthouse 
construction program. The audit is still ongoing and is expected to be 
completed later this year.
  As Congress looks for ways to address the Federal budget deficit, we 
must ensure that Government programs and agencies are operating in the 
most cost-effective manner possible. Again, I commend Senators Shelby 
and Kerrey for their leadership in putting an end to funding 
unauthorized construction projects.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I want to record my considerable 
concerns about this appropriations bill. The amount appropriated for 
Treasury is inadequate, specifically as it regards IRS enforcement 
efforts. The amount appropriated by the Senate for enforcement 
represents a decrease of $705 million from the amount appropriated last 
year. This is even lower than the amount appropriated for enforcement 
by our colleagues in the House.
  Over half of the decrease in enforcement funds is attributable to the 
IRS Taxpayer Compliance Initiative that was first established last 
year. The Compliance Initiative funds should be made available now, to 
enable the IRS to realize the full benefits of its recent technological 
improvements. Specific enforcement efforts that will be jeopardized if 
these funds are not forthcoming include the collection of $30 billion 
in delinquent accounts; increased audit coverage; improved information 
reporting by Federal employees; and improved enforcement of 
international tax provisions including the transfer pricing laws.
  Thanks to prior appropriations for the Tax Systems Modernization 
Program, the IRS has improved its technology to the point that it is 
within reach of benefiting from that significant investment of taxpayer 
dollars. 

[[Page S11555]]
Denying funds for the Compliance Initiative means turning our backs on 
what the IRS estimates is $9.2 billion, over 5 years, that would come, 
not from any tax increase, but from collecting taxes that are owed but 
are presently going unpaid.
  Very simply, providing the IRS with adequate funding for their 
Compliance Initiative would reduce the deficit, without a tax increase. 
We know that these expenditures would yield increased revenues in 
excess of the amount spent. The IRS estimates that the return on these 
expenditures would approach $5 for every $1 spent. Viewing the 
appropriation of funds for this purpose as the same as all other 
spending is shortsighted.
   Commending the providence atf and urging adequate staffing levels

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Treasury, 
Postal, and General Government appropriations bill today, I wish to 
bring to the Senate's attention the often-overlooked good work that the 
local offices of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms [BATF] 
provide to our country. I do so partly because of the recent scrutiny 
directed at the BATF here in the Congress and partly in response to a 
letter I recently received from the U.S. attorney for Rhode Island, 
Sheldon Whitehouse, who wrote to me to indicate his concern over the 
need for adequately staffing the Providence, RI office of the BATF.
  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is charged with 
enforcing and administering Federal firearms and explosives laws, as 
well as those laws covering the production, use, and distribution of 
alcohol and tobacco products. Over the years, the Bureau has been an 
essential partner in our crime fighting efforts in these areas and, in 
particular, the BATF office in Providence, RI has distinguished itself 
in its work even given its small size.
  Indeed, to quote from the letter I received from U.S. Attorney 
Whitehouse, the Providence office--

       Has been extremely effective for its size, particularly at 
     fighting the kind of crime that presents the most violent 
     threat to Rhode Islanders; guns, drugs, and gangs. Recent ATF 
     investigations have led to the Federal arrests and 
     convictions of some of the largest dealers of assault weapons 
     and crack cocaine in Newport, and numerous Providence area 
     armed career criminals.

  The problem, Mr. President, is that adequate staffing of the 
Providence office of the BATF is being seriously threatened. Only a 
year ago, the Providence operated with a small, tight crew of just six 
agents. Today, there are currently four agents and by the end of the 
year there will be just three agents. The danger is that without 
adequate appropriations, the office will not be able to replace the 
full complement of six agents. This would be a tragic loss to Federal 
law enforcement in Rhode Island and one that in our zeal to squeeze 
savings out of the Federal budget would be unwise and potentially 
dangerous. I highlight three recent cases handled by the Providence 
BATF to illustrate my point.
  Just recently, Tonomy Hill was a troubled housing project in Newport, 
RI. Following an undercover investigation by the BATF, an illicit drug 
trafficking and illegal firearms operation based at Tonomy Hill and 
involving two drug kingpins and 33 associates from as far away as 
Philadelphia and New York was exposed. In the end, the ring leaders and 
33 associates were prosecuted and convicted on both State and Federal 
charges.
  In another case, in July 1993, Michael Sadd of Wakefield,
   RI was robbed at gunpoint and then murdered. Through joint 
cooperation with local law enforcement, ATF agents successfully 
completed an undercover operation whereby the suspected murderer was 
found, taken into custody, and currently is awaiting trial.

  Finally, in 1991, it was becoming increasingly apparent that Rhode 
Island's gun laws were being thwarted by the proliferation of illegal 
firearms on the streets. The ATF conducted an investigation and it was 
discovered that a local Rhode Islander was working with a purchaser in 
Arizona to provide a supply of illegal firearms to the local black 
market, smuggled into the State and registered under bogus serial 
numbers. The case ended with the Arizona purchaser in prison and 
pending charges against his accomplice in Rhode Island.
  These examples show that the ATF presence is much-needed in Rhode 
Island, especially as our State and local law enforcement agencies face 
cutbacks and budget shortfalls. In the troubled times facing our 
streets and neighborhoods, we must commit adequate resources at all 
levels to address the ever increasing menace of violent crime. I 
realize the difficult times our country faces in finding a way to solve 
our budget deficit. Nevertheless, in the establishment of priorities, I 
hope that adequate attention will be given to maintaining law 
enforcement.
  With regard to the legislation at hand, I hope that given the Bureau 
of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms good work in Rhode Island that a 
requisite level of funding will be appropriated and insisted upon 
during a conference with the House of Representatives to assure that 
adequate field office staffing is maintained not only in Rhode Island 
but throughout the country. I welcome the opportunity to work with my 
colleagues to help achieve this result.
                         Customs Port of Entry

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I intended to offer an amendment that 
reflects my growing frustration with the Treasury Department's 
unwarranted unwillingness to grant the State of South Dakota's 
application to obtain official designation as a U.S. Customs port of 
entry. Specifically, the amendment would have required the U.S. Customs 
Service to state for the record to the Congress that the State of South 
Dakota in fact qualifies for the designation as a port of entry under 
existing laws and regulations.
  Mr. President, South Dakota is the only State without a Customs port 
of entry. The State has been working with Customs and Treasury 
officials for more than a year on this matter. There is no disputing 
the fact that South Dakota has met all the necessary criteria set forth 
by the U.S. Customs Service for port of entry designation:
  The Greater Sioux Falls area has a population in excess of 300,000 
within the immediate service area.
  The Greater Sioux Falls area is serviced by three major modes of 
transportation--air, rail, and highway.
  The potential Customs workload will exceed the requirement of 2,500 
consumption entries per year with no more than half of this number 
derived from any one business.
  The State of South Dakota and the city of Sioux Falls have committed 
to optimal use of electronic data input.
  Facilities for Customs--provided without cost to the Federal 
Government--will be provided and meet the specifications of the U.S. 
Customs Service.
  Unfortunately, even though South Dakota has met all the baseline 
requirements needed to be designated full port status, Customs 
initially proposed that the State accept a lesser user fee status. This 
recommendation is unacceptable. First, as I have just stated, South 
Dakota more than meets all necessary requirements for port of entry 
designation. In fact, our population base and number of potential 
customs entries actually exceeds the standards set by the U.S. Customs 
Bureau. Therefore, I am convinced anything short of full port 
designation would unnecessarily and unfairly hinder international trade 
opportunities for South Dakota businesses.
  Second, the Customs Service has been inconsistent in applying its own 
criteria when making port designation determinations. The U.S. Customs 
Commissioner admitted that 35 to 40 percent of the existing 301 ports 
of entry do not meet the workload measurement criteria that Customs 
requires for a new port of entry applicant. The amendment I intended to 
offer would have required the Customs Service to report the exact 
number of existing ports which do not meet minimal designation 
requirements. I also have learned that because of budgetary 
constraints, Customs will not approve any new port applications this 
year, regardless of the merits of the applicant, and the fact that the 
added costs for the new port are minimal.
  Mr. President, we have more than 100 ports that have a status that 
they could not qualify for if they applied today. Allowing these ports 
to retain their status while denying South Dakota its rightful 
designation defies common sense. It is a wasteful use of taxpayer 
dollars. It is wrong, plain and simple. 

[[Page S11556]]

  Not only is it highly inefficient for the Federal Government to 
continue funding over 100 inefficient ports, but it is also highly 
unfair and counterproductive to a State's plans for economic 
development if the Federal Government denies a port of entry 
designation even if the State qualifies for it.
  Clearly this issue is one of fairness--fairness to the taxpayers and 
business men and women of South Dakota. The administration advocated 
the passage of GATT and NAFTA as a way to increase international trade 
opportunities. South Dakota, the only State in the country without a 
Customs presence, is precluded from capitalizing on new trade 
opportunities because a port designation is required before the State 
can become a Foreign Trade Zone [FTZ]. South Dakota businesses are 
moving out of the State because of a lack of an FTZ.
  The refusal to grant South Dakota's port of entry application denies 
a major agricultural exporter and burgeoning economy the opportunity to 
compete on a level playing field with the rest of the Nation.
  Mr. President, the State of South Dakota is right now working with me 
and my colleagues of the South Dakota delegation to try to convince the 
Customs Service and the Treasury Department to grant the status our 
State rightly deserves. It is my understanding a positive resolution is 
imminent. I certainly hope so because my patience is being put to the 
test. In the hope of reaching a renegotiated solution soon, I will not 
offer this amendment--an amendment that is more a reflection of my 
clear and growing frustration with this blatant unfairness being dealt 
to the people of South Dakota. I certainly hope I will not have to 
pursue this option in the near future. South Dakota deserves its 
rightful place on the world economic stage. South Dakota deserves a 
port of entry. We qualify for it. We have earned it. It is long 
overdue.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I know of no other amendments. Does the 
Senator from Nebraska?
  Mr. KERREY. No other amendments.
  Mr. President, just one final statement. Earlier, I had praised all 
my staff except for the staff person who wrote up my document asking me 
to thank the staff, and I would like to now thank Patty Lynch, chief 
staff person for myself and the Appropriations Committee, for her fine 
work on this bill.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I would also like to take this opportunity 
to thank Senator Kerrey for working with me on this bill. We have a 
good relationship. We have worked hard on the bill, and I think we have 
accomplished much.
  I also wish to thank Patty Lynch, who has worked with our staff day 
in, day out. I thank Chuck Parkinson who has put in hours and hours of 
work, and also my legislative director, Stewart Hall.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment. If 
there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on the 
engrossment of the amendments and the third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass?
  So the bill (H.R. 2020), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
insist on its amendments to H.R. 2020, request a conference with the 
House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the Chair be 
authorized to appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.
  There being no objection, the Presiding Officer (Mr. Inhofe) 
appointed Mr. Shelby, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Kerrey, Ms. 
Mikulski, Mr. Hatfield, and Mr. Byrd conferees on the part of the 
Senate.

                          ____________________