[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 125 (Thursday, September 12, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10349-S10365]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1997

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3756, which the 
clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3756) making appropriations for the Treasury 
     Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive 
     Office of the President and certain Independent Agencies, for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Kassebaum amendment No. 5235 (to committee amendment on 
     page 16, line 16, through page 17, line 2), to express the 
     sense of the Senate regarding communications between 
     physicians and their patients.
       Reid-Levin-Biden modified amendment No. 5256, to refer the 
     White House Travel Office matter to the Court of Federal 
     Claims.
       Hatch amendment No. 5257, as modified (to amendment No. 
     5256), to reimburse the victims of the White House Travel 
     Office firing and investigation.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 15 minutes debate, equally 
divided, on the pending amendments, No. 5257 and No. 5256, with a vote 
on amendment 5257 to follow immediately thereafter.
  The Senator from Utah is recognized.


               Amendment No. 5257, as Modified, Withdrawn

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as we have it set up, there will be two 
votes, one on the Hatch amendment and one on the Reid-Levin amendment. 
I do not see any reason for two votes. I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the Hatch amendment and the total vote be on the Levin 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 5257), as modified, was withdrawn.
  Mr. HATCH. I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 5256, as Modified

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, would you advise the Senator from Nevada 
when I have consumed 3 minutes?

[[Page S10350]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. How many minutes?
  Mr. REID. Three. Our side has 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. President, Members of the U.S. Senate should understand the 
amendment before this body has nothing to do with the Travel Office. 
The issue is whether the U.S. Senate is going to create a new precedent 
by reimbursing a legally indicted official who admitted, in addition to 
having been indicted, admitted to having done wrong.
  There is a great deal of dispute about the facts in the Billy Dale 
matter, but there are certain undisputed facts which have already been 
stipulated to, agreed to, and spread across this Record.
  First of all, Billy Dale admitted to putting 55 checks for Travel 
Office funds totaling some $54,000 into his personal account; and
  Second, that he stole $14,000 in petty cash, and there would have 
been more but the fact is the records were destroyed.
  Dale admitted he told no one in the Travel Office about his unique 
practice of depositing U.S. Government moneys, checks, into his 
personal account. Dale admitted he did not even tell his coworkers of 
30 years about this practice. No one in his office knew about it. Of 
course, they did not know about it, because he was stealing the money.
  After thorough investigation by the FBI, it was determined there was 
probable cause to prosecute Dale. Dale, thereafter, was legally 
indicted. Dale agreed to plead guilty to a serious criminal offense, a 
felony. Dale was lawfully prosecuted but Dale, like O.J. Simpson, was 
acquitted. Dale now appears at many Republican fundraisers. Dale was 
offered employment by the Dole campaign.
  This body has never, never in its 200-plus-year history, reimbursed 
someone for attorney's fees after they have been legally, lawfully 
indicted.
  The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled not once but twice that Billy 
Dale's reimbursement to be a private relief claim. There is a procedure 
for private relief claims to be heard by the Court of Claims. That is 
what we are asking be done. These facts are uncontested.
  There are many new facts that we are just now learning because we 
recently received the prosecution's memorandum prior to indictment. 
They explain the reasons why we have offered this amendment today.
  The issue is a patent attempt to embarrass the President in an 
election year. Reimbursing an admitted, indicted wrongdoer with 
taxpayer dollars is not something this body should be especially proud 
of, especially those who cry out about the need to balance the budget. 
Half a million dollars, $500,000, is a lot of money to throw away.
  If Mr. Dale's supporters are so confident of his innocence, they 
should have no fear whatsoever of having this matter referred to an 
independent Court of Claims review. That is why we have the Court of 
Claims. Is it not the least we can do, before we spend half a million 
dollars of taxpayers money?
  Mr. President, this is a good bill. This provision in the bill should 
be eliminated. If this is a partisan vote and this passes, I hope the 
conference would have the ability and, in fact, the integrity to take 
this out of this legislation. I hope this will be done.
  I believe what has been talked about here the last couple of days 
gives the President every reason to veto the bill. I hope that will not 
be necessary. I like this legislation. I think the chairman of the 
subcommittee and the ranking member worked very hard to come up with a 
bill. This provision should not be in the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 3 minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, few people had ever heard of the White 
House Travel Office before the Clinton administration took office. Now 
the White House Travel Office is a household name and its former 
employees have been falsely accused, they have been fired, they have 
been investigated by the IRS and the FBI, they have been defamed, and 
in one case indicted and finally, after a trial, they were fairly 
acquitted.
  These employees served at the pleasure of the President. He could 
have replaced them any time he wanted. There is no argument about that. 
But it is the manner in which these employees were fired, the manner in 
which they were treated, and the web of improprieties uncovered as a 
result of the investigation into these firings that I find most 
troubling.
  The White House, which promised what Newsweek magazine called, ``the 
most stringent ethical requirements of any administration ever,'' has 
been the White House that has been entangled in one ethical 
misadventure after another.
  Instead of informing the Travel Office employees that their services 
were no longer required, services which they could perfectly well do 
when they came into office, instead, they install one Katherine 
Cornelius, a cousin of the President. Her duty was to monitor 
activities in the office, and what did she come up with? She came up 
with a scheme to replace all those employees with TRM, a travel agency 
owned by Harry Thomasson, a Hollywood friend and close adviser of the 
Clintons. It was on so-called evidence of wrongdoing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded to the Senator from Rhode 
Island has expired.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I do hope this individual will be 
reimbursed, and that is what this is all about here today.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Clinton administration has set new 
standards for protecting wrongdoers at the expense of victims.
  We have seen the administration advance this culture in the criminal 
justice system. I've spoken to this point in the past on this floor.
  But we have also seen the White House practice it in its own 
backyard. I am talking about the issue of Travelgate. An issue in which 
the victims of wrongdoing in the White House were charged by the 
wrongdoers with a crime.
  Billy Dale and the other fired Travel Office workers were dedicated 
public servants. They had served in the Armed Forces prior to serving 
at the pleasure of numerous Presidents, dating back to John F. Kennedy. 
Their entire careers were dedicated to serving the American people, 
with honor and dignity.
  One day, without the slightest heads-up, the seven were summarily 
fired. Without a reason. Certainly not a justifiable one. Those who 
were there were carted off in the back of an empty van. They were 
treated like vermin. Others heard they were fired by listening on the 
news.
  It was certainly not the kindest and gentlest moment in the tradition 
of the White House.
  At the time, these seven workers had no clue what was going on or 
why. It was only later that we discovered all the reasons.
  The first was cronyism. A rich, Hollywood buddy of the President 
wanted the business. That would be Hollywood producer Harry Thomasson. 
To get the business, he had to give Billy Dale the business. And that 
he did. He spread unproven and false rumors about those running the 
Travel Office.
  The second issue was White House paranoia. They must have thought 
there was a conspiracy of all the dedicated career public servants. 
They were all out to get the White House. The paranoids needed a 
pretext to get these workers out, and get their own teamplayers in.
  That let to a marriage of convenience. The paranoids could get rid of 
the career workers. They could bring in their own teamplayers to 
replace them. And, the cronies would get the business. What a 
convenient confluence of interests.
  And so, the Hollywood producer, Mr. Thomasson, held the gun; the 
First Lady, according to available documentation, said ``ready, aim, 
fire!''; and the White House staff pulled the trigger.
  Having thought this was the perfect crime, the perpetrators didn't 
expect to get caught. At first, they denied wrongdoing--just like the 
proverbial kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
  Public and press criticism mounted. So the White House tried 
justifying its actions.
  First, they said the Travel Office workers were replaced as part of a

[[Page S10351]]

downsizing effort under the National Performance Review. But it became 
clear the NPR review came after the decision was made to fire them.
  So the White House spinmeisters changed gears. They turned the 
victims into criminals. They did so by publicly charging the seven with 
the very same unfounded rumors that Harry Thomasson used to get them 
fired.
  So not only did Billy Dale and his coworkers lose their jobs. They 
and their families were subjected to a public smear campaign by White 
House zealots trying to save face.
  In trying to save face, these zealots co-opted the FBI, the IRS, and 
the Justice Department into pursuing Billy Dale. They pursued him with 
more vengeance than the Dallas Cowboys' doomsday defense.
  But a jury would have none of it. Following his trial, a jury took 
only 2 hours to return an acquittal. It recognized the trumped-up 
charges brought by the Justice Department.
  The net effect of all this harassment took a real toll--not only on 
the seven employees, but their families as well.
  Their reputations, their dignity, and their psychological well-
being--all have suffered at the hands of irresponsible zealots in the 
White House.
  This is a White House that, to this day, refuses to accept 
responsibility for its wrongdoing.
  No one takes responsibility for their firing.
  There is only finger pointing.
  Passing the buck.
  And the harassment continues. Now, it is legislative harassment.
  We have before us a provision in this bill to make Billy Dale 
economically whole, at least for his legal expenses.
  But the White House has fanned out its lieutenants to sabotage this 
provision.
  Their objective: Kill the provision to spare the President the 
embarrassment of signing it.
  That is what this is all about. It's politics, getting in the way of 
a right-and-wrong issue.
  Political barriers to correcting a wrong will not stand, Mr. 
President.
  Ultimately, public opinion will weight in against the Democrats and 
the White House on this issue.
  All the harassment strategies to save the President from 
embarrassment will only make the embarrassment worse.
  It is inevitable.
  There is a moral to this story, Mr. President.
  Nothing is politically right which is morally wrong.
  That's the issue here, Mr. President.
  The Travelgate bill we're considering is all about Congress taking 
the initiative to right a wrong.
  And those trying to block it are conspiring against the President 
taking responsibility for his mistakes.
  I would urge my colleagues on the other side to save the President 
any more embarrassment.
  Stop the legislative shenanigans.
  Work with us to do what little we can to repair what was unjustly 
done to Billy Dale and the other dedicated servants of the people.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment to strike 
the reimbursement for Mr. Dale.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for 3 minutes. How much time does the 
Senator from Nevada have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 4 minutes?
  Mr. REID. The Senator can have 4 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the issue here is not these individuals. 
The issue here is one individual who was properly indicted, properly 
prosecuted, properly tried. There is no evidence that the FBI 
investigation was improper. There is no evidence here that the 
prosecution by the Department of Justice was improper. There is no 
evidence here that the trial was defective. The judge at this trial, a 
distinguished Federal judge, ruled that the evidence was significant 
and substantial enough to convict this defendant.
  As far as the other people who were fired, their legal fees have been 
paid and should be paid. That is not the issue. The issue is not errors 
by the White House in the firing of those employees. Those errors were 
made. They were conceded years ago. The legal fees relative to those 
employees have been paid, should be paid, and $50,000 of the amount of 
money in this appropriations bill completes that payment.
  The issue here is whether or not Billy Dale should get $450,000 for 
his legal fees when it wasn't the White House who investigated him, it 
was the FBI. And that investigation has been ruled proper by four 
different entities. It wasn't the White House which prosecuted Billy 
Dale. It was the Department of Justice, and their prosecution was 
perfectly appropriate based on what Billy Dale did, not on what the 
White House did.
  The prosecution of Billy Dale was based on the fact that he deposited 
$54,000 in checks meant for the Travel Office in his own personal 
account that he had with his wife back in Clinton, MD, that he 
intermingled those funds belonging to the Travel Office without notice 
to anybody. No one at the Travel Office knew that that is what he was 
doing.
  The prosecution of Billy Dale wasn't based on White House actions, it 
was based on the fact that he cashed $14,000 that was supposed to go 
into the petty cash fund but which didn't and which is unaccounted. It 
was his actions for which he was being tried.
  There is a hypothesis here that somehow or another the prosecution 
was improper. Test that hypothesis. Let the Court of Claims make the 
determination that there was something inequitable, in which case not 
only will they be paid those legal fees, but he should be paid.
  But the proponents of this, what looks to be a complete gratuity, 
keep talking about some inequity perhaps in the prosecution. There has 
been none, no suggestion of any in the investigation or the prosecution 
of Billy Dale in a criminal proceeding.
  We have never paid legal fees for somebody who was legally indicted. 
Never. This Senate would be setting a precedent which is unwise in the 
absence of any record, and in order to test what we are doing, what we 
are saying is, refer it to the Court of Claims. That has been done with 
regularity on claims against the Government.
  The Court of Claims has been given that jurisdiction by us. Let the 
Court of Claims test this hypothesis that there was something 
inequitable in the prosecution of Billy Dale, not the firing of these 
seven people. We already know there was inappropriate behavior by White 
House staff in that area. We are talking about the prosecution by the 
Department of Justice of Billy Dale for depositing $54,000 of Travel 
Office checks in his own personal account and telling nobody about it.

  Test that hypothesis to see if there was something wrong with that. 
Let the Court of Claims approve this before taxpayers' moneys are paid.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from Utah 
have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HATCH. And on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-seven seconds.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am appalled by this debate. Relying on 
confidential documents, some of my colleagues have continued, in my 
opinion, the public smearing of Billy Dale. I am astonished that they 
would use such a tactic in the U.S. Senate, one that I think they have 
historically reserved for Presidential nominees and accused Communists.
  I have little doubt that some of my colleagues would have been 
tempted to read Billy Dale's tax returns and medical files into the 
Record if they thought it would advance their objective to win at any 
cost.
  I believe there is substantial evidence to suggest the decision of 
the Justice Department to indict Mr. Dale was tainted by a political 
context in which the case was referred to the Clinton Justice 
Department. I don't think anybody doubts that.
  No. 1, when the case first came to the Justice Department, 
prosecutors ignored information that there was insufficient evidence to 
prove that Mr. Dale had committed the crimes for which they were 
seeking to charge him.

[[Page S10352]]

  No. 2, my Democratic colleagues spoke of an FBI financial analysis 
that showed Mr. Dale was improperly moving Travel Office funds. This 
was directly refuted by an accountant that even the FBI used to train 
its agents. This important information was not reflected in the 
prosecution memo and was, therefore, not considered by the grand jury.
  No. 3, the audit my colleagues have referred to conducted by Peat 
Marwick after the Travel Office firings found no evidence of 
wrongdoing. Despite a White House directive to find wrongdoing, Peat 
Marwick found no improper action. In fact, one of them commented the 
conclusion was reached before they even did their work.
  No. 4, critical evidence was ignored, again, when prosecutors failed 
to interview Mr. Dale's children until after the prosecution memo was 
written and the indictment returned.
  No. 5, also overlooked was the outstanding record that Billy Dale had 
established in his years working in the White House Travel Office. His 
colleagues and members of the media he served characterized him as a 
professional and an honest man.
  Again, this evidence was left out of the prosecution memo and not 
presented to the grand jury.
  I mentioned that Sam Donaldson testified in his behalf. The moneys 
that were involved were the media's moneys, and they had no complaints 
over the way he handled it.
  In closing, I want to point out that at the same time my Democratic 
colleagues are on the floor besmirching Mr. Dale and accusing him of 
being guilty after he was acquitted by 12 jurors who were peers of his 
in a formal trial, the White House has maneuvered a way in which its 
own people, those loyal first and foremost to the Clinton 
administration, will be reimbursed for legal expenses: Bruce Lindsey, 
Mack McLarty, and George Stephanopolous.

  I personally don't have any problem with that, but I think it 
hypocritical for them seeking reimbursement of their own but not 
seeking reimbursement for a person they pretty well admit they smeared 
and they took apart from a reputation standpoint.
  I am not here today to comment on the propriety of that reimbursement 
to those 23, other than what I said. In fact, if the law allows it, 
fine with me. My point in raising the issue is to show the sheer 
hypocrisy of the Clinton administration. The Clinton White House 
victimized Billy Dale and the other members of the Travel Office 
leading to an unprecedented political prosecution costing Mr. Dale 
upward of $500,000 in legal fees. Even the White House admitted that it 
lacked proper judgment in the handling of the Travel Office employees.
  I would like to quote again from a document produced to the Judiciary 
Committee by the White House. This is a document advocating a certain 
position. This was produced by the White House:

       You may all dimly remember the Travel Office affair in 
     which a number of White House staff--many immature and self-
     promoting--took impulsive and foolhardy actions to root out 
     problems at the beginning of the Clinton administration and 
     to gallantly recommend that they take over its operation. The 
     White House has the nerve to request the payment of legal 
     fees to its own people but not to those that they victimized.

  Mr. President, that is the height of hypocrisy. I urge all of my 
colleagues to defeat the Reid-Levin amendment and do justice here. I 
hope some on the other side feel the same way. No American deserves the 
treatment Billy Dale has gotten and received from the White House, nor 
did he deserve the treatment he received from some of my colleagues 
last night on this floor. We should right this wrong which has been 
lingering for the last 3 years and lift the cloud above Mr. Dale's head 
and allow him to get on with his life.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters, dated August 
13, 1996, from Jack Quinn to Helene M. Goldberg, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                  Washington, DC, August 13, 1996.
     Helene M. Goldberg,
     Director, Torts Branch, U.S. Department of Justice, 
         Washington, DC.
     Re: Investigations by Congress and the independent counsel 
         into the Travel Office and related matters.
       Dear Ms. Goldberg: This letter supplements my letter to you 
     of July 5, 1996, concerning reimbursement of White House 
     officials for legal fees and expenses incurred in connection 
     with the Travel Office and related matters. A copy of the 
     July 5, 1996 letter, together with attachments, is enclosed. 
     I understand that you need some further information with 
     respect to the duties of each individual requesting 
     reimbursement. That information is provided here. We have 
     developed this information essentially based upon the letters 
     sent to the White House requesting reimbursement; White House 
     records describing the responsibilities and job titles of the 
     witnesses; and deposition transcripts that are now publicly 
     available. We have enclosed those transcripts where we 
     believe it might be helpful in understanding the role of the 
     witness in the Travel Office matter.
       1. Nelson Cunningham is the General Counsel in the Office 
     of Administration. As such, he has been asked to testify 
     about the chain of custody of the David Watkins memorandum 
     concerning the Travel Office matter, which was located in the 
     archives of the Office of Administration in December 1995.
       2. Bruce Overton is the Deputy General Counsel of the 
     Office of Administration. He also was asked to testify about 
     the chain of custody of the David Watkins memorandum.
       3. Douglass Matties is the Special Assistant to the 
     Director of the Office of Administration. He was also asked 
     to testify about the chain of custody of the David Watkins 
     memorandum.
       4. Nell Doering is a Supervisory Management Analyst in the 
     Office of Administration. She is responsible for maintaining 
     documents in the archives. She also was asked to testify 
     about the chain of custody of the David Watkins memorandum.
       5. Charles Easley is the Security Office for the Executive 
     Office of the President. He was recently been given 
     responsibility for personnel security for White House staff. 
     He has been asked to testify about the matters relating to 
     personnel security in connection with the Congressional 
     inquiry into the obtaining of FBI background investigation 
     files of former White House employees, an inquiry that grew 
     out of the Travel Office matter. A copy of his disposition 
     testimony is enclosed.
       6. Carolyn Huber is a Special Assistant to the President 
     and Director of Personal Correspondence. Her office is 
     responsibility for personal correspondence of the First Lady. 
     In response to the House Committee's subpoena for documents 
     related to the Travel Office and other matters, Ms. Huber 
     identified a letter from David Watkins to the First Lady that 
     was located in her office and that was potentially responsive 
     to the subpoena. She was asked to testify about the 
     identification and chain of custody of this document. A copy 
     of her deposition testimony is enclosed.
       7. Ed Hughes was the Executive Assistant in the Office of 
     Personnel Security. He served as the Executive Assistant to 
     Craig Livingstone. As a result of this position, he has been 
     asked to testify about the operation of the Office of 
     Personnel Security in connection with the FBI files matter.
       8. Jonathan Denbo was the Security Assistant in the Office 
     of Personnel Security. He served as an assistant to Craig 
     Livingstone. As a result of his position, he has been asked 
     to testify about the operation of the Office of Personnel 
     Security in connection with the FBI files matter.
       9. Dee Dee Myers was the White House Press Secretary. As a 
     result of her responsibility as press secretary, Ms. Myers 
     participated in press briefings and responded to press 
     inquiries about the Travel Office matter. She has been asked 
     to produce documents to the House Committee, including her 
     notes, and has been asked to testify about her knowledge of 
     the Travel Office matter. A copy of her deposition testimony 
     is enclosed.
       10. Ashley Raines is the Customer Service Program Director 
     of the Office of Administration. She was the custodian of 
     certain documents and lists requested by Congress in 
     connection with the FBI files matter and has been asked to 
     testify about those documents and lists.
       11. Ricki Seidman was the Assistant to the President for 
     Scheduling and Advance. Prior to holding that position, she 
     served as Deputy Communications Director and Counselor to the 
     Chief of Staff. She has been asked to respond to the subpoena 
     from the House Committee and, according to her counsel, has 
     been asked to testify concerning her knowledge of the Travel 
     Office matter as a result of her (1) editing the Management 
     Review; (2) attendance at any meetings where the matter was 
     discussed; and (3) in connection with any discussions she may 
     have had with other White House officials at the time. A copy 
     of her deposition testimony is enclosed.
       12. Clifford Sloan was an Associate Counsel to the 
     President. As such, he participated in various investigations 
     of the Travel Office matter and has been asked to produce 
     documents and testify about these investigations.
       I have no reason to believe that the conduct of any of the 
     above individuals, all of which was performed in the course 
     of their official duties, was not performed in good faith. 
     Accordingly, it is in the interest of the United States to 
     reimburse these officials for their legal fees and expenses.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Jack Quinn,
                                         Counsel to the President.

[[Page S10353]]

     
                                                                    ____
                                              The White House,

                                  Washington, DC, August 13, 1996.
     Helene M. Goldberg,
     Director, Torts Branch, U.S. Department of Justice, 
         Washington, DC.
     Re: Investigations by Congress and the independent counsel 
         into the Travel Office and related matters.
       Dear Ms. Goldberg: I am writing pursuant to Frank W. 
     Hunger's letter to me of May 22, 1996, concerning the payment 
     or reimbursement of fees and expenses incurred by current and 
     former White House officials in conjunction with the House 
     Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's investigation 
     of the Travel Office matter.\1\ In addition, I am forwarding 
     for consideration a request for reimbursement for fees and 
     expenses incurred by a current White House staff member in 
     connection with the investigation by the Independent Counsel 
     into the Travel Office matter. We understand that this 
     request will be considered separately by the Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Since Mr. Hunger's letter of May 22, 1996, the ``Travel 
     Office Matter'' has grown to include investigations by 
     Congress into requests by the White House Office of Personnel 
     Security for FBI files related to former White House 
     employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The information provided below has been developed 
     essentially based upon the letters sent to the White House 
     requesting reimbursement; White House records describing the 
     responsibilities and job titles of the witnesses; and 
     deposition transcripts that are now publicly available. We 
     have enclosed those transcripts where we believe it might be 
     helpful in understanding the role of the witness in the 
     Travel Office matter.
       Enclosed are requests for reimbursement submitted on behalf 
     of the following officials:
       1. Kelli McClure. Ms. McClure is the White House Personnel 
     Liaison in the Office of Management & Administration. She has 
     been asked to testify before the grand jury empaneled by the 
     Independent Counsel in connection with Travel Office related 
     matters as a result of her official responsibilities with 
     respect to personnel issues and maintenance of personnel 
     records.
       2. Lisa Caputo. Ms. Caputo was the Deputy Assistant to the 
     President and Press Secretary to the First Lady. She has been 
     asked to produce documents and to provide deposition 
     testimony to the House Committee in connection with her 
     responsibilities as the First Lady's Press Secretary. As 
     such, she was involved in press briefings and discussions 
     related to Travel Office matters. A copy of her deposition 
     testimony is enclosed.
       3. Thomas F. McLarty, III. Mr. McLarty was the Chief of 
     Staff and now serves as Counsel to the President. As Chief of 
     Staff, Mr. McLarty has been asked to produce documents and to 
     provide deposition testimony to the House Committee 
     concerning his knowledge and participation in the events 
     leading up to the firing of the Travel Office employees and 
     his role in the White House investigation of the matter. A 
     copy of his deposition testimony is enclosed.
       4. Kathleen Whalen. Ms. Whalen is an Associate Counsel to 
     the President. As a member of the Counsel's Office, she has 
     responsibilities for Presidential Appointments. She has been 
     asked to provide deposition testimony to the House Committee 
     in connection with her knowledge of procedures relating to 
     the use of FBI background files for Presidential 
     Appointments.
       Each of these officials has described in the enclosed 
     correspondence the requests that have been made and the 
     responses required by the Congressional Committee or 
     Independent Counsel. In each case, the Committee and/or the 
     Independent Counsel has requested documents and testimony 
     from these individuals about conduct performed in the course 
     of their official duties. I have no reason to believe that 
     the conduct of any of the above individuals was not performed 
     in good faith.
       I recommend that each of these requests be approved and 
     that reimbursement be provided. I believe that reimbursement 
     is in the interest of the United States since these 
     individuals should be not be compelled to pay private 
     counsel, out of their own resources, to represent them in 
     connection with activities performed as part of their 
     government service.
       I have advised these individuals that you will communicate 
     directly with them, or their counsel, in responding to their 
     requests.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Jack Quinn,
                                         Counsel to the President.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Maybe there are those who wish that there were impropriety. 
There was not any. The people referred to by my friend from Utah were 
not indicted. There has never been any hint of any in this case, in the 
prosecution, of impropriety. He agreed to plead to a felony. This 
matter should be referred to the Court of Claims, an independent 
tribunal, if they believe their case is so just. We believe it is not. 
The Court of Claims would handle the case properly.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, do I have any time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 3 seconds remaining. 
The Senator from Nevada has 12 seconds remaining.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let us do justice here. Let us reimburse 
this man and give him his reputation back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on amendment No. 5256, as modified. The yeas and nays 
have not been ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas about nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as modified. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. 
Smith] is necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is 
absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 286 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Pryor
     Smith
       
  The amendment (No. 5256), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COHEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the Kassebaum 
amendment.
  The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, was the motion to reconsider laid on the 
table?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could have the Senators' attention, 
maybe I can outline where we are and begin to think about where we hope 
to go today and the balance of the week.
  The Senate began consideration of this Treasury-Postal appropriations 
bill at 4 p.m. on Tuesday of this week and has spent approximately 15 
hours considering the legislation. This is not a bill that really is 
that controversial. I was a little bit taken aback when Senators on 
both sides of the aisle came up with, I guess, about 97 amendments last 
night. Most of the 97 amendments are nongermane to this bill. And 15 
hours has already been spent on it. We need to get serious now and 
narrow this list down to the ones we really do feel are important, 
hopefully germane, and deal with them in a quick, reasonable period of 
time.
  Most of the time in this 15 hours has been spent considering 
nongermane issues. As it stands now, on the majority side of the aisle, 
we have not more than 12 amendments that have to be

[[Page S10354]]

considered in some way or other before passage, and I think less than a 
half dozen of those actually would require any time and the possibility 
of a recorded vote. I think we can get it down below that. Frankly, 
where we ought to be is a couple of amendments on each side and then 
move to final passage of the bill.
  I understand that on the Democratic side of the aisle they still have 
35 amendments that remain to be offered. Again, many, or most of those, 
are nongermane. I know that the minority leader has been working with 
his leadership team, and they have had some amendments removed from the 
list. But right now we are still looking at somewhere, I guess, between 
35 and 40 amendments. I really have to say that I think that is 
ridiculous.
  I hope all Members will exercise restraint with regard to offering 
amendments in an effort to reach final passage early this afternoon. 
The Senate must also consider the chemical weapons today, which has a 
time limitation of up to 12 hours. And, needless to say, the Senate 
begins that this afternoon. The earlier the Senate concludes this 
business, the better.
  All Senators should be aware that we must continue to make progress 
on appropriations bills. That is our job. We should do it in regular 
order, with cooperation. But I am getting very concerned about what we 
are going to be able to do on these final four appropriations bills.
  I would like to see the Senate do something that has not been done 
more than once or twice in 25 years: complete all the appropriations 
bills before the beginning of the fiscal year. I can only do so much. 
There are a lot of other bills that Members on both sides would like to 
have considered. Some would only take a couple hours. We have to focus 
on the appropriations bills. Members who insist on offering nongermane 
amendments to the appropriations bills are delaying enactment of very 
important spending measures that will have an impact on us being able 
to complete our work by the first of the month.

  So, with that in mind, and in order for the managers to assess what 
truly remains to be considered, I ask unanimous consent that all 
remaining amendments in order to H.R. 3756 must be filed at the desk by 
12 noon today.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, let me just say, for the 
Record, that in the last Congress all the appropriations bills were 
finished on time. We would like to see if we can do that 2 years in a 
row. I have indicated my desire to work with the majority leader to see 
if we can get that done.
  We have gone through our list and find about 18 amendments that may 
require action. So we have our work cut out for us in order to get this 
bill done. I think this is a good suggestion. I would like to see if we 
can't work through the next couple of hours to have the amendments 
filed, so we can look with some serious understanding of what it is we 
have left to do. And if we require amendments to be filed, we will have 
a much better understanding of that. So I hope that both sides can 
agree.
  Mr. LOTT. I think that is a fair thing to do. Everyone knew this bill 
was coming. If you have an amendment that you are serious about, 
surely, you have it developed. So file it, and we can see who is 
serious. At 12 o'clock we can assess what we can do with regard to this 
bill, how we can wrap it up, and when.
  But it would be my intent, probably around noon, to go to the 
Chemical Weapons Convention. We all knew this has been coming. I made a 
commitment to bring it up by the 14th. The administration wants it. Of 
course, it is ready to go. So we are going to have to do that. I am 
going to do my very best to request a number of Senators to finish it 
today and have the vote tonight, so we won't have to go over to 
tomorrow. Again, it takes cooperation. So let's go forward now for the 
next hour and a half, or so, and assess where we are, and we will 
announce at that time exactly when we are going to go to the chemical 
weapons treaty. Was there objection to that request?
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KERREY. Reserving the right to object, I would like to ask the 
majority leader. One of the biggest problems that we have stuck in our 
throat on this bill right now is the Kassebaum sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution followed by a second Wyden amendment. If we could wrap those 
two up, if we could get unanimous consent to vote on those right away, 
we could move on.
  There are a lot of these amendments that have been offered with 
Senator Shelby and I working with Republican and Democratic Members 
trying to see if we can reach some accommodation so that we get this 
thing done. We have been on the bill 2 days. We have, as I said, the 
Kassebaum sense-of-the-Senate resolution and the Wyden amendment. If we 
could add those to the unanimous consent and vote on those right away, 
we think we have a pretty good chance of resolving most of this.
  Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield, I would like to ask the managers 
to get with the Senators involved--Senators Kassebaum and Wyden, and 
the assistant majority leader, Senator Nickles, and those who are 
interested in this issue. We debated this yesterday. I would like to 
see if we can come to a conclusion on that. But I am not prepared to 
propound a unanimous consent on that right now because I do not know 
where everybody is. I believe, if we could go ahead and get started to 
move forward on the bill and any other amendments, we can work on that, 
and maybe we can come to an agreement to get a vote on that at 11:30. 
We will work on that with you.
  Mr. KERREY. Unless we propound a unanimous consent to agree on those 
two amendments, I think it is going to be difficult to proceed. We just 
won't be realistic about it. If leadership will help us get that done--
I don't know why--I personally don't understand. We are prepared to 
accept both amendments, by the way, to be cleared on this side. I would 
be prepared to accept both of the amendments. We are going to 
conference, for God's sake. Everybody knows what that means.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, again, if the Senator will yield, I know the 
managers of this legislation can come up with a good recommendation to 
the leadership.
  Mr. KERREY. I am making a recommendation. I recommend that we modify 
the unanimous-consent request to include these two amendments for 
rollcall votes immediately. That is what we have to do to get these 
votes up and out and get our business done. We have been talking about 
it for a couple of days. I say let us start voting.
  Mr. LOTT. I feel a need at least to have a chance to talk with the 
Senators involved in this issue. I do not see Senator Kassebaum on the 
floor.
  Mr. KERREY. If we can go into a quorum call for about 5 minutes and 
get it resolved. We have work to do. We know what needs to be done. Let 
us get the votes. For gosh sakes, one is a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution. It is hardly what I would call Earth shattering.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Nebraska makes a 
very good point. It might be in our interest just to check. I would be 
compelled to object at this point to the request, even though I have 
already expressed myself with regard to how I feel about the request, 
just to accommodate our ranking member in this regard. So I will not 
object if we go into a quorum call to clarify whether or not we can do 
what the Senator from Nebraska has suggested. That would be my hope so 
we can resolve at least that matter. Otherwise, I will be compelled to 
object, and we can just continue to work.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, that is why we should have asked for this 
request yesterday. We should have had all the amendments that are 
serious filed yesterday. We had the hotline even on the request to ask 
you to file your amendments.
  So we are going to go into a quorum call, and we are going to have a 
time out, instead of doing business while their conversations are going 
back and forth. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask the people 
involved to get together and let us talk about how we can work it out. 
At the same time we are again extending the time, or I guess we would 
have to extend the time for Senators to file their amendments. The 
intent is that all amendments be filed by 12 o'clock. I hope that 
Senators will proceed on that assumption. I have

[[Page S10355]]

no problem with our getting together to see if we can work out this 
problem, and I cannot make a commitment because I have not followed the 
issue enough to be able to say right now that we ought to do this or 
that. I have to consult with people who are familiar with the subject 
on both sides.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, with respect, I think the unanimous 
consent request is good. I would love to get it approved. I do not 
object to the unanimous consent. But the next pending business is the 
Kassebaum sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me renew my unanimous consent request 
and get an agreement on that so the Senate is on notice. We can take 
the quorum call, and we will right now and try to come to a conclusion 
of the issue.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Let me respond, if I could, to the majority leader, and 
then I will be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from New 
Jersey. I think that we have to resolve the matter the Senator from 
Nebraska has presented to us prior to the time we enter into a 
unanimous-consent agreement. If we can do that, I think that is a good-
faith indication that we are able to resolve at least that part of it, 
and then we can go on to the next step. Let us do that.
  Mr. LOTT. If we can go into a quorum call--but during that quorum 
call I will also consider putting this bill down right now and proceed 
to the Chemical Weapons Convention. This is the kind of thing that 
makes it impossible for us to do our work in a reasonable and 
cooperative way. I am saying that we should meet and discuss how we can 
solve this problem. But 15 hours on the Treasury-postal appropriations 
bill with all of the work we have pending, it is time that we get 
serious. To have 40 amendments pending on this bill now is not serious.
  I observe the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the 
pending committee amendments be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the UC 
agreement earlier propounded by Senator Lott, the majority leader, be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


           Amendments Nos. 5261, 5262, 5263, and 5264 En Bloc

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I send a number of amendments to the desk 
which have been cleared on each side of aisle.
  I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered and 
approved, en bloc, and that accompanying statements be placed at the 
appropriate place in the Record.
  Mr. President, the amendments are as follows: for Senator Grams, to 
improve the IRS 1-800 help line service; for Senator Faircloth, 
regarding color printing of tax information; for Senator Levin, a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution in support of the U.S. negotiators' 
position on autos and auto parts with Japan; for Senator Thompson, for 
the GSA to create a pilot program for States to participate in the FTS 
2000 program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request for the 
amendments to be considered en bloc?
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendments. There is 
no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendments by number.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) proposes amendments 
     numbered, en bloc, 5261 through 5264.

  The amendments (Nos. 5261 through 5264), en bloc, are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 5261

    (Purpose: To require the Internal Revenue Services to allocate 
 sufficient funds and staff for providing improved IRS 1-800 help line 
                         service to taxpayers)

       At appropriate place insert the following section:

     ``SEC.   . IMPROVEMENT OF THE IRS 1-800 HELP LINE SERVICE

       ``(a) Funds made available by this or any other Act to the 
     Internal Revenue Services shall be available for improved 
     facilities and increased manpower to provide sufficient and 
     effective 1-800 help line for taxpayers.
       ``(b) The Commissioner shall make the improvement of the 
     IRS 1-800 help line service a priority and allocate resources 
     necessary to ensure the increase in phone lines and staff to 
     improve the IRS 1-800 help line service.''

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, this is a simple and straightforward 
amendment. All it does is ask the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue 
Service to make improvement of the IRS 1-800 help line service a 
priority, and allocate the necessary resources to ensure the American 
taxpayers receive the assistance they need from the IRS.
  Mr. President, although IRS spending increased from $2.5 billion in 
fiscal year 1979 to $7.5 billion in fiscal year 1996, the level of 
service provided to the taxpayers has not grown proportionally. In 
recent years, the IRS has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in its 
efforts to modernize its operations, including its information 
systems--but the results have been described by the GAO as ``chaotic.'' 
As an ironic consequence, the Nation's tax collector remains perhaps 
the least taxpayer-friendly agency in the entire Federal Government.
  Meanwhile, the Federal tax system has grown more complicated than 
ever before. In the mid-1950's, the Federal Income Tax Code was 
comprised of 103 sections and 400,000 words. Today, it has ballooned to 
698 sections--a 578-percent increase--and nearly 1.4 million words. 
Adding to the aggravation of the Nation's taxpayers, tax regulations 
have multiplied just as rapidly. Between 1955 and 1994, the number of 
words in the regulations of the Internal Revenue Code increased more 
than 550 percent, from just over 1 million words to 5.7 million. Even 
if you are a trained speed reader who can read 1,000 words a minute, 
and you did not do anything else but devote every hour of every 
business day to reading these regulations, it would take you almost 3 
years to complete them.
  The rapid growth of the Federal Tax Code and its regulations has 
dramatically increased the complexity of our tax system, to the point 
where no one but a very few tax specialists can understand it. Even IRS 
agents are often confused by their own tax laws. The complexity of the 
Federal tax system means that tax assistance for ordinary American 
taxpayers is even more urgent now than ever before.
  But this desperately needed assistance has not been adequately and 
effectively provided. For example, my State office receives complaints 
daily from constituents frustrated they cannot get through to a human 
being at the toll-free lines established by the IRS: the lines are 
constantly busy. In some cases, my constituents have tried for 3 or 4 
days before they finally got through.
  Mr. President, we enact laws and require the people to obey them. But 
in this case, the IRS has failed to provide sufficient assistance to 
enable average Americans to understand and comply with the laws. And 
when innocent noncompliance occurs due to the complexity of the tax 
system, we punish the taxpayers by imposing all sorts of penalties. 
This is simply not fair.
  Mr. President, this amendment is a small but important step to 
improve our service to the American taxpayers. All it does is urge the 
IRS to use existing funds to provide more IRS 1-800 help line servive. 
I urge my colleagues to support it.


                           amendment no. 5262

  (Purpose: To prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from using color 
 printing for purposes other than to call attention to changes in tax 
                law or to make tax forms easier to use)

       On page 26, after line 9, insert the following:
       Sec.   . No funds made available by this Act, or any other 
     Act, to the Internal Revenue Service may be used to pay for 
     the design and printing of more than two ink colors on the 
     covers of income tax packages, and such ink colors must be 
     the same colors as used to print the balance of the material 
     in each package.

[[Page S10356]]

     
                                                                    ____
                           amendment no. 5263

      (Purpose: Sense-of-the-Senate resolution in support of U.S. 
 negotiators' position in Framework Agreement on Autos and Auto Parts 
                       with Japan consultations)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       That the Senate finds: on June 28, 1995, the United States 
     and Japan finalized the text of the U.S.-Japan Framework 
     Agreement on Autos and Auto Parts in Geneva.
       That the 30 page text spells out a wide-ranging set of 
     commitments by the Government of Japan to meet the Framework 
     objective of ``achieving significantly expanded sales 
     opportunities to result in a significant expansion of 
     purchases of foreign parts by Japanese firms in Japan and 
     through their transplants, as well as removing problems which 
     affect market access, and encouraging imports of foreign 
     autos and auto parts in Japan.''
       That the commitments to action by the Government of Japan 
     and statements by the Japanese private sector address the 
     major barriers to access that have frustrated U.S. producers 
     of competitive autos and auto parts in their efforts to sell 
     in Japan and to the Japanese transplants, and
       That the Framework Agreement represents an unprecedented, 
     enforceable set of commitments to open the Japanese market to 
     foreign competitive autos and auto parts and to increase the 
     opportunities for competitive parts suppliers to sell to the 
     Japanese transplant manufacturers.
       Therefore, it is the Sense of the United States Senate to 
     fully support the goals set out in the Framework Agreement 
     and support the U.S. negotiators in their first annual 
     consultations with Japan on September 18 and 19 in San 
     Francisco in their efforts to obtain full compliance with the 
     letter and spirit of the Framework Agreement.
                                                                    ____



              framework agreement on autos and auto parts

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as co-chairman of the Senate auto parts 
task force, I offer, with my colleague Senator Specter, the other 
cochairman of the Senate auto parts task force, a bipartisan resolution 
in support of obtaining full compliance with the letter and spirit of 
the Framework Agreement on Autos and Auto Parts.
  Last summer, the United States and Japan signed an historic trade 
agreement that promises to open Japan's closed markets to United States 
autos and auto parts and deregulate Japan's convoluted and 
discriminatory auto parts safety inspection process.
  However, the success of this agreement pivots on its strict 
monitoring and enforcement. An important part of that process is the 
annual consultations with Japan that are built into the terms of the 
agreement. The first annual review of the agreement between United 
States and Japanese negotiators takes place on September 18 and 19 in 
San Francisco.
  With September 18 quickly approaching, Senator Specter and I, as 
cochairs of the Senate auto parts task force, offer this resolution 
today in strong support of the goals set out in the framework agreement 
and in support of our U.S. negotiators.
  With this resolution, we want to make it clear that there continues 
to be strong bipartisan congressional support for achievement of the 
commitments made in the agreement. We want Japan to know that Congress 
will be watching the September 18 and 19 consultations and we expect to 
see compliance with the letter and spirit of the framework agreement.
  The success of this United States-Japan agreement lies in the level 
to which it is complied with. We know all too well from past experience 
that Japan will not open its markets without strong pressure from the 
United States.
  The September consultations offer United States negotiators the 
chance to review Japan's progress and insist that the agreement be 
lived up to. With this resolution we stand firmly behind our 
negotiators in insisting that we see true progress and concrete 
results.


                           amendment no. 5264

(Purpose: To authorize the Administrator of General Services to conduct 
 a pilot program involving States participation in the FTS2000 program)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.   . (a) The Administrator of the General Services 
     Administration is authorized to conduct a pilot program 
     involving up to 10 States to provide FTS 2000 service to a 
     State government, if:
       (1) the appropriate authority of such State government 
     makes application to the Administrator to receive FTS 2000 
     service and, as part of the application, agrees to pay all 
     costs associated with access; and
       (2) the Administrator finds that it would be advantageous 
     for the federal government to provide FTS 2000 service to 
     such State government.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize 
     the Administrator of the General Services Administration to 
     implement cooperative purchasing under 40 U.S.C. 481(b)(2).
       (c) The authority provided in this section shall expire on 
     September 30, 1998.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendments are 
agreed to, en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 5261 through 5264) en bloc were agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is noon on Thursday. We have work to do. 
The managers of the bill are doing very constructive work here 
unofficially, but we need to get back to business.
  We are discussing with the minority leader and, through him, with the 
administration on how to proceed, if at all, on the Chemical Weapons 
Convention. There is some indication perhaps agreement may be reached 
to not do that at this time, but I have to have that request from the 
administration. We have to have an understanding about what that means.
  In the meantime, we ought to be working on the Treasury-Postal 
appropriations bill. I am not asking much here. I am just asking that 
the Senate move forward. I think the Members would like to move 
forward, if we could get the staff to agree.
  So I feel that I must ask for these consents--and I believe Senator 
Daschle wants to cooperate with this--but as the time goes by today, we 
have to consider other options.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, then, that there be 20 
minutes remaining for debate on the Kassebaum amendment No. 5235, to be 
equally divided in the usual form, and following the debate, the 
amendment be laid aside and Senator Wyden be recognized to offer an 
amendment on the same subject, the text of which Senator Wyden will now 
send to the desk.
  I further ask that there be 20 minutes for debate on the amendment, 
to be equally divided in the usual form and no further amendments be in 
order during the pendency of the Kassebaum and Wyden amendments.
  I further ask that a vote then occur on the Kassebaum amendment, 
without further action or debate, to be followed immediately by a vote 
on the Wyden amendment.
  I think this is a fair way to proceed. This is what the Senator from 
Oregon indicated he wanted to happen. I think this is a way to get a 
vote on both of these issues and other issues.
  I further ask unanimous consent that this agreement be implemented at 
the call of the majority leader, after notification of the Democratic 
leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I object.
  Mr. LOTT. I regret this objection. The agreement seemed to be the 
best course of action involving this impasse.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kassebaum amendment 
be laid aside for consideration of one amendment, and following the 
disposition of that amendment, the Kassebaum amendment become the 
pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. This allows us to proceed then, Mr. President, to the next 
amendment in order. The managers have some things they have been 
working on. They can do that. This makes good sense. I appreciate at 
least this cooperation. We will take them one teeny step at a time. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S10357]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, I renew my earlier request, with a change of 
time, that all amendments must be filed by Senators by 2 p.m. this 
afternoon on the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I should clarify that these have to be the 
amendments that were on the list that we agreed to. Of course, the 
whole world was on the list. But this would have to be amendments on 
the list. And they need now to be filed by 2 o'clock in order to be 
considered at all. I thank the Senator from Nebraska for his help in 
getting that agreement. I hope now that he and the chairman can make 
some progress on maybe some agreed-to amendments and take up some 
amendment that is pending.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY. Mr. President, I, along with my colleague, Senator 
Kerrey, encourage all Senators now who have amendments that we might be 
able to clear and agree on between us, that they come down here and 
discuss them with Senator Kerrey and me, because we are working off of 
a list. We have already worked four or five off in the last 30 minutes. 
Perhaps we can, if they will come on over--it is just a few minutes 
after 12--in the next hour or two we can perhaps work 8 or 10 off this 
list. I think it would be helpful and constructive, and we would be 
moving forward on this bill.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, as the distinguished Senator from Alabama, the 
chairman of the subcommittee, said, we are trying to--and we are 
alerting both Senators and staff--we are trying right now to identify 
those amendments that we can agree to accept.
  We also are trying to identify those amendments where we are going to 
agree together that we will both oppose or move to table. Senators need 
to be alerted to that, that there will be amendments offered on both 
sides of the aisle--Democrats will offer amendments that I may move to 
table; and, likewise, Republicans may offer amendments that Senator 
Shelby agrees to table--and we are going to be aggressive in tabling 
amendments that we regard in some cases as nongermane or to be 
incorrectly offered, to just let people have a heads-up on that.
  Third, we will look for opportunities, if we can, to talk to Members 
that have open--that is to say, they filed a place mark in here to 
identify whether or not their concerns have been taken care of in other 
areas, so that we can begin to winnow this list of amendments down.
  There is a very good chance, as we now understand it, we will be on 
this bill all night long and until we get it passed.
  Mr. SHELBY. That is right.
  I thank the Senator. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Amendment Nos. 5271 through 5278, En Bloc

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I send a number of amendments to the desk 
which have been cleared on each side.
  Mr. President, the amendments are as follows: Senator Gramm, a sense-
of-the-Senate resolution regarding the border States in Laredo, TX; for 
Senators Bingaman and Jeffords regarding energy savings; for Senator 
Daschle regarding explosives and arson information; for Mr. D'Amato 
regarding the commemorative coin programs; for Senator McCain regarding 
the Udall Scholarship Foundation; for Senator Dorgan, Mr. Conrad, Mr. 
Daschle, and Mr. Pressler regarding the transfer of excess properties 
to Indian tribes; for Senator Byrd regarding telecommuting; and for 
Senator Hatfield to provide care funds for the Pioneer Courthouse in 
Portland, OR.
  I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered and 
approved, en bloc, and that accompanying statements be placed at the 
appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. SHELBY] proposes amendments 
     numbered 5271 through 5278, en bloc.

  The amendments (Nos. 5271 through 5278), en bloc, are as follows:


                           amendment no. 5271

       Insert at the appropriate place in the bill:
       (a) Reduction in Facilities Energy Costs.
       (1) In general.--The head of each agency for which funds 
     are made available under this Act shall--
       (A) take all actions necessary to achieve during fiscal 
     year 1998 a 5 percent reduction, from fiscal year 1996 
     levels, in the energy costs of the facilities used by the 
     agency; or
       (B) enter into a sufficient number of energy savings 
     performance contracts with private sector energy service 
     companies under title VIII of the National Energy 
     Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287 et seq.) to achieve 
     during fiscal year 1998 at least a 5 percent reduction, from 
     fiscal year 1996 levels, in the energy use of the facilities 
     used by the agency.
       (2) Goal.--The activities described in paragraph (1) should 
     be a key component of agency programs that will by the year 
     2000 result in a 20 percent reduction, from fiscal year 1985 
     levels, in the energy use of the facilities used by the 
     agency, as required by section 543 of the National Energy 
     Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8253).
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 5272

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL REPOSITORY FOR ARSON AND EXPLOSIVES INFORMATION

     SEC.   . NATIONAL REPOSITORY FOR INFORMATION ON EXPLOSIVES 
                   INCIDENTS AND ARSON.

       (a) Section 846 of Title 18. United States Code, is amended 
     by--
       (1) designating the existing section as subsection (a): and
       (2) by adding the following new subsection (b) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(b) The Secretary is authorized to establish a national 
     repository of information on incidents involving arson and 
     the suspected criminal misuse of explosives. All Federal 
     agencies having information concerning such incidents shall 
     report the information to the Secretary pursuant to such 
     regulations as deemed necessary to carry out the provisions 
     of this subsection. The repository shall also contain 
     information on incidents voluntarily reported to the 
     Secretary by State and local authorities.''
       (b) There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may 
     be necessary to carry out the provisions of this subsection.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 5273

   (Purpose: To reform the commemorative coin programs of the United 
  States Mint in order to protect the integrity of such programs and 
      prevent losses of Government funds, and for other purposes)

       On page ____, strike lines ____ and ____, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(l) Mint Facility for Gold and Platinum Coins.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law,''.
       At the end of title V of the bill, insert the following new 
     sections:

     SEC. 5____. COMMEMORATIVE COIN PROGRAM REFORM.

       (a) Commemorative Coin Program Restrictions.--Section 5112 
     of title 31, United States Code, as amended by sections 524 
     and 530 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(m) Commemorative Coin Program Restrictions.--
       ``(1) Maximum number.--Beginning January 1, 1999, the 
     Secretary may mint and issue commemorative coins under this 
     section during any calendar year with respect to not more 
     than 2 commemorative coin programs.
       ``(2) Mintage levels.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     in carrying out any commemorative coin program, the Secretary 
     shall mint--
       ``(i) not more than 750,000 clad half-dollar coins;
       ``(ii) not more than 500,000 silver one-dollar coins; and
       ``(iii) not more than 100,000 gold five-dollar or ten-
     dollar coins.
       ``(B) Exception.--If the Secretary determines, based on 
     independent, market-based

[[Page S10358]]

     research conducted by a designated recipient organization of 
     a commemorative coin program, that the mintage levels 
     described in subparagraph (A) are not adequate to meet public 
     demand for that commemorative coin, the Secretary may waive 
     one or more of the requirements of subparagraph (A) with 
     respect to that commemorative coin program.
       ``(C) Designated recipient organization defined.--For 
     purposes of this paragraph, the term `designated recipient 
     organization' means any organization designated, under any 
     provision of law, as the recipient of any surcharge imposed 
     on the sale of any numismatic item.''.
       (b) Recovery of Mint Expenses Required Before Payment of 
     Surcharges to any Recipient Organization.--
       (1) Clarification of law relating to deposit of surcharges 
     in the numismatic public enterprise fund.--Section 5134(c)(2) 
     of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, 
     including amounts attributable to any surcharge imposed with 
     respect to the sale of any numismatic item'' before the 
     period.
       (2) Conditions on payment of surcharges to recipient 
     organizations.--Section 5134 of title 31, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Conditions on Payment of Surcharges to Recipient 
     Organizations.--
       ``(1) Payment of surcharges.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, no amount derived from the proceeds of any 
     surcharge imposed on the sale of any numismatic item shall be 
     paid from the fund to any designated recipient organization 
     unless--
       ``(A) all numismatic operation and program costs allocable 
     to the program under which such numismatic item is produced 
     and sold have been recovered; and
       ``(B) the designated recipient organization submits an 
     audited financial statement that demonstrates to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary of the Treasury that, with 
     respect to all projects or purposes for which the proceeds of 
     such surcharge may be used, the organization has raised funds 
     from private sources for such projects and purposes in an 
     amount that is equal to or greater than the maximum amount 
     the organization may receive from the proceeds of such 
     surcharge.
       ``(2) Annual audits.--
       ``(A) Annual audits of recipients required.--Each 
     designated recipient organization that receives any payment 
     from the fund of any amount derived from the proceeds of any 
     surcharge imposed on the sale of any numismatic item shall 
     provide, as a condition for receiving any such amount, for an 
     annual audit, in accordance with generally accepted 
     government auditing standards by an independent public 
     accountant selected by the organization, of all such payments 
     to the organization beginning in the first fiscal year of the 
     organization in which any such amount is received and 
     continuing until all amounts received by such organization 
     from the fund with respect to such surcharges are fully 
     expended or placed in trust.
       ``(B) Minimum requirements for annual audits.--At a 
     minimum, each audit of a designated recipient organization 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall report--
       ``(i) the amount of payments received by the designated 
     recipient organization from the fund during the fiscal year 
     of the organization for which the audit is conducted that are 
     derived from the proceeds of any surcharge imposed on the 
     sale of any numismatic item;
       ``(ii) the amount expended by the designated recipient 
     organization from the proceeds of such surcharges during the 
     fiscal year of the organization for which the audit is 
     conducted; and
       ``(iii) whether all expenditures by the designated 
     recipient organization during the fiscal year of the 
     organization for which the audit is conducted from the 
     proceeds of such surcharges were for authorized purposes.
       ``(C) Responsibility of organization to account for 
     expenditures of surcharges.--Each designated recipient 
     organization that receives any payment from the fund of any 
     amount derived from the proceeds of any surcharge imposed on 
     the sale of any numismatic item shall take appropriate steps, 
     as a condition for receiving any such payment, to ensure that 
     the receipt of the payment and the expenditure of the 
     proceeds of such surcharge by the organization in each fiscal 
     year of the organization can be accounted for separately from 
     all other revenues and expenditures of the organization.
       ``(D) Submission of audit report.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the end of any fiscal year of a designated recipient 
     organization for which an audit is required under 
     subparagraph (A), the organization shall--
       ``(i) submit a copy of the report to the Secretary of the 
     Treasury; and
       ``(ii) make a copy of the report available to the public.
       ``(E) Use of surcharges for audits.--Any designated 
     recipient organization that receives any payment from the 
     fund of any amount derived from the proceeds of any surcharge 
     imposed on the sale of any numismatic item may use the amount 
     received to pay the cost of an audit required under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(F) Waiver of paragraph.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     may waive the application of any subparagraph of this 
     paragraph to any designated recipient organization for any 
     fiscal year after taking into account the amount of 
     surcharges that such organization received or expended during 
     such year.
       ``(G) Nonapplicability to federal entities.--This paragraph 
     shall not apply to any Federal agency or department or any 
     independent establishment in the executive branch that 
     receives any payment from the fund of any amount derived from 
     the proceeds of any surcharge imposed on the sale of any 
     numismatic item.
       ``(H) Availability of books and records.--An organization 
     that receives any payment from the fund of any amount derived 
     from the proceeds of any surcharge imposed on the sale of any 
     numismatic item shall provide, as a condition for receiving 
     any such payment, to the Inspector General of the Department 
     of the Treasury or the Comptroller General of the United 
     States, upon the request of such Inspector General or the 
     Comptroller General, all books, records, and work papers 
     belonging to or used by the organization, or by any 
     independent public accountant who audited the organization in 
     accordance with subparagraph (A), which may relate to the 
     receipt or expenditure of any such amount by the 
     organization.
       ``(3) Use of agents or attorneys to influence commemorative 
     coin legislation.--No portion of any payment from the fund to 
     any designated recipient organization of any amount derived 
     from the proceeds of any surcharge imposed on the sale of any 
     numismatic item may be used, directly or indirectly, by the 
     organization to compensate any agent or attorney for services 
     rendered to support or influence in any way legislative 
     action of the Congress relating to such numismatic item.
       ``(4) Designated recipient organization defined.--For 
     purposes of this subsection, the term `designated recipient 
     organization' means any organization designated, under any 
     provision of law, as the recipient of any surcharge imposed 
     on the sale of any numismatic item.''.
       (3) Scope of application.--The amendments made by this 
     section shall apply with respect to the proceeds of any 
     surcharge imposed on the sale of any numismatic item that are 
     deposited in the Numismatic Public Enterprise Fund after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (4) Repeal of existing recipient report requirement.--
     Section 302 of Public Law 103-186 (31 U.S.C. 5112 note) is 
     repealed.
       (c) Quarterly Financial Reports.--Section 5134 of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(g) Quarterly Financial Reports.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than the 30th day of each 
     month following each calendar quarter through and including 
     the final period of sales with respect to any commemorative 
     coin program authorized on or after the date of enactment of 
     the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government 
     Appropriations Act, 1997, the Mint shall submit to the 
     Congress a quarterly financial report in accordance with this 
     subsection.
       ``(2) Requirements.--Each report submitted under paragraph 
     (1) shall include, with respect to the calendar quarter at 
     issue--
       ``(A) a detailed financial statement, prepared in 
     accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, 
     that includes financial information specific to that quarter, 
     as well as cumulative financial information relating to the 
     entire program;
       ``(B) a detailed accounting of--
       ``(i) all costs relating to marketing efforts;
       ``(ii) all funds projected for marketing use;
       ``(iii) all costs for employee travel relating to the 
     promotion of commemorative coin programs;
       ``(iv) all numismatic items minted, sold, not sold, and 
     rejected during the production process; and
       ``(v) the costs of melting down all rejected and unsold 
     products;
       ``(C) adequate market-based research for all commemorative 
     coin programs; and
       ``(D) a description of the efforts of the Mint in keeping 
     the sale price of numismatic items as low as practicable.''.
       (d) Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee.--
       (1) Fixed terms for members.--Section 5135(a)(4) of title 
     31, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) Terms.--Each member appointed under clause (i) or 
     (iii) of paragraph (3)(A) shall be appointed for a term of 4 
     years.''.
       (2) Chairperson.--Section 5135(a) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(7) Chairperson.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     Chairperson of the Advisory Committee shall be elected by the 
     members of the Advisory Committee from among such members.
       ``(B) Exception.--The member appointed pursuant to 
     paragraph (3)(A)(ii) (or the alternate to that member) may 
     not serve as the Chairperson of the Advisory Committee, 
     beginning on June 1, 1999.''.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 5____. MINT MANAGERIAL STAFFING REFORM.

       Section 5131 of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (c); and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c).

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, this amendment will begin the necessary

[[Page S10359]]

reform of the commemorative coin programs authorized by Congress and 
carried out by the U.S. Mint. The amendment, supported fully by the 
Mint, includes many programs of H.R. 2614 passed by the House as well 
as recommendations for reform from the GAO. The amendment is a 
comprehensive substitute that enjoys widespread support.
  Commemorative coins are collectibles. The coins issued for each 
program satisfy a number of objectives.
  First, they raise awareness. Coin themes are meant to recognize 
significant national, and sometimes international, events, heroes and 
heroines, and historic sites vital to our American experience. They are 
expressions of our tremendous pride in all that molded this great 
country.
  Second, they allow the Treasury a means of decreasing the national 
deficit through profitable programs.
  Third, the sale of these coins enables worthy causes to raise money. 
For example, the restoration of our Nation's Capitol, the construction 
of memorials to our fallen heroes, and equally important for upkeep and 
maintenance of great homes such as Mount Vernon and the White House, 
and even the notable open-air home to four of our most prestigious 
Presidents, Mount Rushmore have been funded through commemorative coin 
programs.
  As wonderful as these programs seem, serious problems exists--as 
underscored by the recent General Accounting Office report I requested 
last year. The commemorative coin market has been flooded with far too 
many coins. Overzealous programs trying to generate as many products as 
possible only reduce the value of coins for collecting. When mintage 
levels go through the roof, the value of these commemorative coins 
drops considerably.
  More importantly and much to my dismay, taxpayers end up carrying the 
burden of coin programs that are not received well by the collectors. 
And while the sponsoring organizations may satisfy its goal of raising 
funds, the U.S. Mint incurs a loss which is passed on to the taxpayers.
  The amendment I am offering has been crafted to augment the valuable 
work on commemorative coin program reforms sponsored by Representative 
Michael Castle, chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic and 
International Monetary Policy of the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services. Congressman Castle's bill, H.R. 2614, which was supported 
overwhelmingly in the House, serves as a clear foundation for the 
reforms embodied in this bill. I commend him on his guidance and 
perseverance as it relates to this issue.
  Mr. President, the reforms contained in this amendment will 
accomplish three major goals: Protect the taxpayer from losses incurred 
by the Mint, keep the number of coins in the market at a collectible 
level for collectors, and keep the total number of yearly programs at a 
manageable level for the Mint. Fulfillment of these goals will not only 
protect the American taxpayer, but will ensure the preservation and 
success of future commemorative coin programs produced by the U.S. 
Mint.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the 
amendment be printed in the Record.
  Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Shelby, 
for his work in this area. As a member of the Banking Committee he is 
keenly aware of the necessity for these reforms.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

       Section 1. Contains a technical correction to a previous 
     amendment to H.R. 3756 concerning exclusive use of the Mint 
     facility at West Point to produce all gold and all platinum 
     numismatic items and bullion products.
       Section 2. Commemorative Coin Program Reform. Section (a) 
     addresses commemorative coin program restrictions. Section 
     ``(m)'' to be added to Section 5112 of title 31, USC, 
     requires that the Secretary of the Treasury may mint and 
     issue no more than two commemorative coin programs per 
     calendar year beginning on January 1, 1999. It also sets 
     guidelines of maximum mintage levels for each denomination of 
     numismatic product as prescribed by the Citizens 
     Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee. This section includes 
     an exception for the Secretary to increase the mintage levels 
     as he determines appropriate from results of adequate, market 
     based research.
       Subsection (c) defines designated recipient organization.
       Section (b)(1) addresses the recovery of mint expenses 
     required before payment of surcharges to any recipient 
     organization. Section 5134(C)(2) of title 31, USC is amended 
     by inserting ``, including amounts attributable to any 
     surcharge imposed with respect to the sale of any numismatic 
     item'' before the period.
       Section (b)(2) amends Section 5134(C) of title 31, USC by 
     adding subsection (f), Conditions of payment of surcharges to 
     recipient organizations. Subsection (f)(1) states no amount 
     of any surcharge imposed shall be paid from the fund to the 
     recipient organization unless the program costs have been 
     recovered. Subsection (f)(1)(B) requires submission of an 
     audited financial statement, which demonstrates to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary of the Treasury that the 
     organization has raised funds from private sources in an 
     amount equal to or greater than the maximum amount of 
     surcharges that organization may receive from the sale of 
     numismatic items.
       Subsection (f)(2) requires annual audits beginning after 
     the commencement of the surcharge payments. Subsection 
     (f)(2)(A) requires these audits to begin with the first 
     fiscal year in which the payments are received. The audit 
     shall be in accordance with generally accepted government 
     auditing standards and performed by an independent public 
     accountant selected by the entity. The annual audits shall be 
     conducted until the surcharges are fully expended. Each audit 
     shall report the amount of surcharges received, the amount of 
     surcharges expended, and whether the expenditures were for 
     authorized purposes.
       Subsection (f)(2)(B) sets minimum requirements for the 
     annual audits. Required to be included in the audit shall be 
     the amount of payments received, expenditures from the 
     proceeds, and verification that expenditures were for 
     authorized purposes.
       Subsection (f)(2)(C) requires an accounting of surcharge 
     monies separate from all other revenues and expenditures of 
     the recipient organization. Subsection (f)(2)(D) calls for 
     the submission of the annual audit no later than 90 days 
     after the end of any fiscal year of the recipient 
     organization. This report shall be submitted to the Secretary 
     of the Treasury and made available to the public. Subsection 
     (f)(2)(E) allows the recipient organization to pay the cost 
     of the audit with surcharge funds. Subsection (f)(2)(F) 
     allows the Secretary of the Treasury to waive the annual 
     audit requirements, and Subsection (f)(2)(G) states that 
     Federal entities are exempt from this paragraph.
       Subsection (f)(2)(H) requires recipient organizations to 
     provide, at the request of the Treasury Department's 
     Inspector General or the Comptroller General of the United 
     States, books, records and workpapers relating to receipts 
     and/or expenditures of surcharge monies.
       Subsection (f)(3) prohibits surcharge monies from being 
     used, in any form or fashion, to attempt to influence or 
     support Congressional numismatic legislative action. 
     Subsection (f)(4) defines designated recipient organizations 
     as ``the recipient of any surcharge imposed on the sale of 
     any numismatic item.''
       Section (b)(3) applies to the scope of the amendment which 
     will involve all proceeds of any surcharge imposed on the 
     sale of any numismatic item that are deposited in the 
     Numismatic Public Enterprise Fund after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       Section (b)(4) repeals the existing recipient report 
     requirement as mandated by Section 302 of Public Law 103-186 
     (31 U.S.C. 5112 note).
       Section (c) amends section 5134 of title 31, USC, by adding 
     the new section ``(g) Quarterly Financial Reports.'' 
     Subsection (g)(1) requires that the U.S. Mint shall provide a 
     quarterly financial report to Congress for all authorized 
     commemorative coin programs to be due no later than the 15th 
     day of the month following each calendar quarter.
       Subsection (g)(2) outlines the minimal requirements of 
     these quarterly reports. Subsection (g)(2)(A) calls for a 
     financial statement prepared in accordance with generally 
     accepted accounting principles with information specific to 
     action for each quarter as well as cumulative financial 
     information relating to the entire program.
       Subsection (g)(2)(B) states further requirements for all 
     quarterly reports such as all costs relating to marketing 
     efforts, all funds projected for marketing use, all costs for 
     employee travel relating to the promotion of the programs, 
     all numismatic items minted, sold, not sold, and rejected 
     during the production process, and the costs of melting down 
     all rejected and unsold products.
       Subsection (g)(2)(B) requires the Mint to include 
     information showing adequate market-based research for all 
     non-circulating commemorative coin programs. Subsection 
     (g)(2)(D) requires a description of the efforts of the Mint 
     doing what it can to keep the price of numismatic items as 
     low as practicable.
       Section (d), the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory 
     Committee amends Section 5135(a)(4) of title 31, USC, to 
     shorten the length of service for members appointed to the 
     Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee (CCCAC) to a 
     term of 4 years and Subsection (d)(2)(A) allows for the 
     Chairperson of the CCCAC to be elected by and from the 
     Committee members by amending Section 5135(a)(6). Subsection 
     (d)(2)(B) further states that the representative of the

[[Page S10360]]

     Mint, or the alternate to that member, appointed to serve in 
     the CCCAC may not serve as Chairperson effective June 1, 
     1999.
       Section (e) defines the effective date of all sections in 
     this amendment to take effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       Section 5, the Mint Managerial Staffing Reform provision, 
     no longer requires a presidential appointment of the 
     following positions at each Mint facility: superintendent, 
     assayer and engraver at the Philadelphia Mint.


                           amendment no. 5274

 (Purpose: To provide for the continuation of the term of a member of 
   the Morris K. Udall Scholarship Board after the member's term has 
                  expired until a successor is chosen)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
       Sec.   . Section 5(c)(1) of Public Law 102-259 (20 U.S.C. 
     5603(c)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(iii), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) a Trustee may serve after the expiration of the 
     Trustee's term until a successor has been chosen.''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It ensures 
that trustees of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in 
National Environmental Policy Foundation be able to serve after the 
expiration of their term until a successor is chosen.
  Under the act which established the Morris K. Udall scholarships and 
foundation, trustees are nominated by the President and confirmed by 
the U.S. Senate. We all know that the nomination and confirmation 
process can be time consuming, and the work is not always completed in 
time for an efficient transition between new trustees and those whose 
term has expired. The resulting vacancies are disruptive to the 
organization and do not serve the purposes for which Congress created 
the foundation.
  The Goldwater Foundation, also chartered by Congress, has an 
identical provision as this amendment, and the modification is worthy 
of the Senate's approval.


                           amendment no. 5275

 (Purpose: To allow the Department of Interior, through the Bureau of 
  Indian Affairs, to transfer directly to Indian tribes in North and 
 South Dakota portable housing units at the Grand Forks Air Force Base 
   which have been declared excess by the Department of Defense and 
         requested for transfer by the Department of Interior)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following:
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     of the Interior, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, may 
     directly transfer to Indian tribes in North and South Dakota 
     portable housing units at the Grand Forks Air Force base in 
     North Dakota which have been declared excess by the 
     Department of Defense and requested for transfer by the 
     Department of the Interior.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment to resolve a 
bureaucratic nightmare which has arisen in conjunction with the 
transfer of excess Department of Defense property from the Grand Forks 
Air Force Base in North Dakota to Indian reservations in North and 
South Dakota. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators 
Conrad, Daschle, and Pressler.
  As a result of the realignment of the 321st Missile Group at the 
Grand Forks Air Force Base, housing needs were reduced and 486 existing 
homes were declared excess property by the Department of Defense. The 
Department of Interior requested these housing units with the intent of 
transferring them through its Bureau of Indian Affairs to certain 
reservations in North and South Dakota under Operation Walking Shield. 
When the first house was on a truck bed and ready to be transferred 
from the Grand Forks Air Force Base to the Oglala Sioux Reservation in 
Pine Ridge, SD, it hit a road block. At the last minute, we were 
informed that the Bureau of Indian Affairs had no authority to transfer 
title to these homes directly to the Indian tribes. My amendment is 
intended to resolve this problem.
  As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the housing conditions faced by 
many native American communities are shocking. A recent Urban Institute 
study revealed that approximately 27 percent of all Indian households 
reside in substandard dwellings that are overcrowded and/or lack 
kitchen or plumbing facilities, electricity, and/or central heating.
  In August, I had the opportunity to view the housing conditions on 
the Standing Rock Sioux and Fort Berthold reservations in North Dakota. 
What I saw was deplorable. Many homes fail to meet even basic safety 
and health standards. They lack roofs, windows, plumbing, and they 
smell of gas. And many Indian families have to wait for years for 
critical home repairs. It is truly a national disgrace.
  The Senators from North and South Dakota were most hopeful that some 
of the critical housing shortages on the reservations in our respective 
States could be addressed with the transfer of this excess DOD housing 
to the tribes. In order to ensure that these desperately needed homes 
can be transferred, we must first pass this amendment.
  The Department of Interior and the General Services Administration as 
well as the Governmental Affairs and Indian Affairs Committees have 
reviewed and cleared this narrowly targeted amendment, and I want to 
thank everyone involved for their efforts in helping to resolve this 
problem.
  With adoption of the amendment, we have an opportunity to prevent 
Government waste and stretch Federal resources to meet the urgent and 
real housing needs of Indian families. In short, this amendment 
represents an example of how Government should work, and I urge its 
adoption.


                           amendment no. 5276

(Purpose: To provide funding for the acquisition, lease, construction, 
    and equipment of certain flexiplace work telecommuting centers)

       On page 49, line 18, insert before the colon ``: Provided, 
     That of such amount provided for non-prospectus construction 
     projects $250,000 may be available until expended for the 
     acquisition, lease, construction, and equipping of flexiplace 
     work telecommuting centers in the State of West Virginia''.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering would make 
available an amount of $250,000 out of non-prospectus construction 
projects, for the establishment of a flexiplace work telecommuting 
center in West Virginia.
  Mr. President, both Jefferson and Berkeley Counties of West Virginia 
are now considered to be part of the Washington Metropolitan 
Statistical Area. I am advised that officials of the Jefferson County 
Development Authority have been working with the staff of the General 
Services Administration to develop a telecommuting center in the 
Charles Town area. The purpose of the center is to establish a job site 
that could easily be linked through computer and telecommunication 
technologies to federal agencies in the central Washington, DC area, 
thus diminishing commuting time and helping to alleviate severe traffic 
congestion. The parties negotiated in good faith and were under the 
impression that funds were available for the establishment of the 
center. Unfortunately, the funds to establish such telecommuting 
centers are only available to establish such centers in Maryland and 
Virginia.
  The purpose of this amendment is to make an amount of $250,000 
available for the establishment of a telecommuting center in the 
Charles Town area. The amendment would not diminish the funds already 
available for centers in Maryland and Virginia. Rather, the funds would 
be derived from monies set aside in the bill for non-prospectus 
construction projects, that is, projects costing less than $1.5 
million, including such minor projects as periodic painting and repair 
of mechanical, electrical, and other building components.
  In summary, the amendment I am proposing would allow for the 
establishment of a flexiplace work telecommuting center in Jefferson 
County, West Virginia, which is now considered by the Department of 
Labor to be part of the Washington Metropolitan Statistical Area.


                           amendment no. 5277

       On page 55, line 11 after ``Missouri'' insert: ``: Provided 
     further, That $1,450,000 may be available for the renovation 
     of the Pioneer Courthouse located at 520 SW Morrison in 
     Portland, Oregon''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 5278

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate in support of new border 
                 station construction in Laredo, Texas)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

[[Page S10361]]

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE IN SUPPORT OF NEW BORDER STATION 
                   CONSTRUCTION IN LAREDO, TEXAS.

       (a) The Senate finds that:
       (1) In 1995, over one-third (35%) of all U.S. exports to 
     Mexico were processed through the Port of Laredo;
       (2) Nearly two-thirds of all U.S. exports to Mexico that 
     went through a south Texas port of entry went through the 
     Port of Laredo in 1995;
       (3) The value of imports processed through the Port of 
     Laredo in 1995 exceeded $15 billion, and the value of all 
     exports was $14.7 billion for that year;
       (4) The number of loaded, cross-border shipments, both 
     northbound and southbound, through the Port of Laredo is 
     projected to double from 1995 to the year 2000, from 851,745 
     shipments to 1,703,490;
       (5) The City of Laredo received on October 3, 1994 a 
     Presidential Permit from the U.S. State Department to 
     construct a third bridge in the city, and in February 1996 
     the U.S. Coast Guard issued a permit for the bridge's 
     construction;
       (6) Financing of the new bridge has been secured from both 
     sponsors, the cities of Laredo and Nuevo Laredo, and in 
     February 1997 the City of Nuevo Laredo is scheduled to begin 
     construction of an access road connecting the bridge with the 
     loop around Nuevo Laredo;
       (7) U.S. Customs revenue generated at the Port of Laredo 
     totaled $216 million in 1995, an increase of $13 million from 
     the previous year, while the U.S. Government's estimated cost 
     for operating border station facilities in Laredo is $10 
     million, so that the Port generated over $200 million for the 
     U.S. Treasury in 1995; and
       (8) The new bridge will greatly enhance safety in the 
     downtown area because it will allow the diversion of 
     commercial traffic from the two existing downtown bridges to 
     the new bridge, since the two downtown bridges will be 
     strictly passenger bridges, with the new bridge and the 
     Colombia Bridge (22 miles from Laredo) devoted to commercial 
     traffic.
       (b) It is the sense of the Senate that:
       (1) The construction of a third bridge in Laredo is vitally 
     needed to accommodate increased trade with Mexico and to 
     relieve traffic congestion, road damage, and pollution in 
     downtown Laredo caused by commercial traffic; and
       (2) The Administrator of the General Services 
     Administration should accelerate the timetable for design and 
     construction of a border station for the new Laredo bridge to 
     ensure that the bridge can be opened to international traffic 
     as soon as possible.

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, we have reviewed these amendments, and we 
concur. They are all worthy amendments and we support their adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendments are 
agreed to.
  The amendments (Nos. 5271 through 5278), en bloc, were agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendments were agreed to.
  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 suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I understand the pending business is the 
amendment of the Senator from the State of Oregon. Is that correct?
  Mr. KERREY. Kansas.
  Mr. SHELBY. Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Kassebaum 
amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. I move that the pending business be temporarily laid 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 5279

  (Purpose: To make funds available for a study of tagging explosive 
                   materials, and for other purposes)

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

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself, 
     Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5279.

  Mr. KERRY. 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 14, line 6, strike ``$395,597,000'' and insert 
     ``$416,897,000, of which $21,300,000, to remain available 
     until expended, shall be available to conduct the study under 
     section 732(a) of Public Law 104-132 (relating to marking, 
     rendering inert, and licensing of explosive materials) and to 
     conduct a study of threats to law enforcement officers from 
     the criminal use of firearms and ammunition; and''.
       On page 22, line 14, strike $4,085,355,000'' and insert 
     ``$4,064,055,000''.
       On page 25, between lines 21 and 22, insert:
       Sec.   . (a) Section 732(a)(2) of the Antiterrorism and 
     Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132) is 
     hereby repealed.
       (b) It is the sense of the Senate that the $21,300,000 
     reduction in funds available for tax law enforcement to fund 
     the explosive materials and law enforcement officers safety 
     study be achieved as follows:
       (1) $9,700,000 from the delay required by this Act in 
     implementing field restructuring of the Internal Revenue 
     Service.
       (2) $11,600,000 from administrative and other savings in 
     tax law enforcement activities.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is an amendment which attempts to deal 
with a problem that has long been identified within the law enforcement 
community and which many within the law enforcement community feel is 
an essential ingredient in our ability to be able to improve our 
antiterrorist activities and our ability to be able to bring people to 
prosecution for terrorist acts.
  Earlier this year, Congress took a very important and long overdue 
step toward making it easier to track the origin of explosives that are 
used by terrorists and other criminals when we passed the antiterrorism 
bill. That legislation, which was signed by the President in April, 
directed the Secretary of the Treasury to study the feasibility of 
tagging explosives for the purposes of detection and identification. We 
passed the provision asking for a study that would identify how we can 
possibly put taggants into explosives so that if there is----
  Mr. SHELBY. Will the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts yield 
for an inquiry as to a possible time agreement?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am delighted to yield.
  Mr. SHELBY. What about an hour equally divided?
  Mr. KERRY. I want to inquire of my colleagues for a moment. I know 
the Senator from California wants to speak, and I want to see who else 
might like to speak. I know Senator Kennedy may.
  If the Senator will allow me, I will continue my opening comments.
  Mr. SHELBY. Sure. We will come back to it.
  Mr. KERRY. I will be happy to enter into an agreement if we can 
determine who wishes to speak.
  Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. KERRY. We will touch base with a couple of offices and ascertain 
their intentions.
  Mr. President, again, I want to emphasize that we passed and the 
President signed legislation that begins to deal with this question of 
taggants and the feasibility of using taggants as a means of tracking 
explosives in the aftermath of a bombing.
  As I think most of our colleagues know, a taggant is a plastic 
tracing device--or metal--which can be placed in the explosive material 
and, after an explosion, these taggants can actually be scooped up 
either by magnetic or other means so that you can gain enough of them 
to be able to determine from the taggant code precisely where it was 
sold, when it was sold, and where it was manufactured, and begin to be 
able to track the person who committed the crime.
  There are millions of different codes that are capable of being 
created, so you have this enormous ability to be able to determine when 
and where a particular explosive might have been made. If the study 
results that we have ordered already are positive, then the Secretary 
of the Treasury is authorized to begin to issue additional regulations 
that will enable us to use these taggants in explosives manufactured or 
imported into the United States.
  Unfortunately, this provision in the anti-terrorism bill did not 
include all dangerous materials in the study. It explicitly excluded 
black and smokeless powder. One can ask why we chose to leave out these 
substances when they are used in 90 percent of the pipe

[[Page S10362]]

bomb attacks in the United States. I regret we did not include these.
  I think the public has been, all too often, denied, for various 
reasons, its ability to try to maximize law enforcement's ability to 
move forward. I am not suggesting that we ought to do anything that 
says we are going to absolutely mandate the use of taggants, but we 
would like to have the study to at least analyze whether or not adding 
taggants to black and smokeless powder will provide us the ability to 
fight terrorism and safely--and I emphasize ``safely''--deal with the 
problem of black and smokeless powder in bombs.
  All we are asking for is a study. Let us study whether or not that 
can be done in a safe way. Why anyone would want to object to law 
enforcement being able to study something that they say they definitely 
want and need, and that they know works, is beyond me. My hope is that 
we will not have objection to it, that we will be able to proceed 
forward with the Congress unanimously saying: In the United States of 
America, common sense will rule. It is appropriate to have a study, an 
analysis independently done, of whether or not it is safe to have 
taggants in black and smokeless powder.
  I have heard opponents suggest that taggants might not be safe 
because they might destabilize the powder. I personally believe this is 
a red herring. Taggants have been used in black powder previously 
without a stability problem. But that is the purpose of the study. If, 
in fact, it is unsafe, let the study come back and tell us it is 
unsafe. The purpose of the study is to determine the safety, the 
feasibility, and the effectiveness of adding the taggants.
  Why should we do this? I was a prosecutor, and I gained great respect 
for the forensic laboratory during that experience. Today, it is even 
more extraordinary what forensic experts are able to tell us about the 
things which just escape the naked eye or which escape all of us who 
are not experts. But the experts tell us they want this technology to 
enable them to determine the origin of explosives and to help them work 
their way back to the perpetrator of a bombing.
  When Pam Am 103 crashed over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1989, the 
authorities determined almost immediately that the cause was a bomb, 
but it took them a year to find the tiny clue that led to the Libyan 
suspects. If the explosives in that bomb had been marked with taggants, 
the source of the material would have been immediately known, and the 
investigators would have gained a tremendous advantage.
  We have recently witnessed again the horrific spectacle of a massive 
explosion in the air of a still as yet undetermined source, as a 747 
went down. We know there was some kind of explosion of undetermined 
origin. We have watched the painstaking process of an effort to try to 
rebuild the airplane itself, recouped from the floor of the ocean, and 
that makes it even more difficult. But if investigators do determine 
that a bomb triggered the crash of TWA 800, they will then have an even 
more difficult investigation to find the bomber. This time the problem 
is exponentially more difficult because the wreckage is under water. 
But it does not take a forensic scientist to understand that a 
mechanism to determine the origin of explosive material would be a 
tremendous value in this explosion, too.

  This investigation has already indicated evidence of holes blown 
through the back of seats that show the direction of that explosion. 
But they do not have taggants. They do not have the ability to quickly 
draw a conclusion of its type or origin or, even yet, whether that came 
from a bomb.
  Attacks of the magnitude of Pan Am 103 obviously cause devastating 
impact. They grab our attention. So did the TWA flight. But attacks 
using pipe bombs are actually a much more common experience in the 
United States, and these devices also cause death and destruction. This 
was demonstrated all too vividly in July when just such a bomb exploded 
at the Olympic Centennial Park, causing two deaths and spreading terror 
through an event that was supposed to celebrate the triumph of the 
peaceful human spirit.
  Unfortunately, the Olympic bombing was not an isolated incident. From 
1990 through 1994, there were 4,095 pipe bomb attacks in the United 
States. Let me repeat that. From 1990 through 1994, there were 4,095 
pipe bomb attacks in our country. These bombs killed 44 people, injured 
384, and they caused property damage of almost $10 million. In 1994 
alone, there were 862 incidents. Of these, 86 percent used smokeless 
and black powder.
  Taggants have already proved to be a useful tool for law enforcement. 
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms conducted a pilot project 
in the late 1970's. They added taggants to dynamite and other blasting-
cap-sensitive explosives. In 1979, Nathan Allen, of Baltimore, was 
killed by a bomb hooked to his car ignition. The subsequent 
investigation found that the explosive used in that bomb contained 
taggants. The investigators identified the specific batch from which 
the explosives came. The police then used the sales records to track 
down and convict Mr. Allen's killer.
  That should have become a routine investigative practice, post-1979, 
but 17 years later, here we are still talking about it. Here we are, 17 
years later, and law enforcement, which managed to convict a killer by 
the use of taggants, is still asking us: Let us have taggants.
  All we are asking today is, let us analyze and study the benefit of 
adding taggants to explosives so we can make an informed decision. If 
the study finds them to be safe, then it seems the benefits are 
obvious. The ability to track the origin of explosive materials is an 
invaluable tool for criminal investigations, and I hope my colleagues 
will join me in adding black and smokeless powder to the study and 
providing the necessary funding.
  It seems to me, despite any group's opposition for reasons that they 
understand but which, frankly, do not bear up to scrutiny when measured 
against where most people in this Senate or Congress are prepared to 
go, we ought not delay further this analysis.
  So I hope that colleagues will join with Senator Feinstein, Senator 
Kennedy, myself, and others in an effort to provide law enforcement 
with the tools that they need to combat terrorism and to track down 
those cowardly individuals who see bombs as a way to achieve their 
misguided goals.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The Senator from California, 
Mrs. Feinstein, is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I commend the 
Senator from Massachusetts for what was a strong, accurate and, I 
think, eloquent statement, something that has become very controversial 
and really should not be controversial.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, can I ask my colleague to yield for a 
moment? The manager asked if we were able to enter into a time 
agreement. I know he wants to do that. How much time does my colleague 
expect to consume?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Give me 10 minutes, maybe a little more.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, can we suggest an hour equally divided?
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 
hour of debate, equally divided in the usual form, on the Kerry 
amendment pending a motion to table. I further ask that no second-
degree amendment be in order prior to the motion to table, and no vote 
occur before the hour of 2:15 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I inquire, 
can we have an up-or-down vote?
  Mr. SHELBY. It is going to be a motion to table.
  Mr. KERRY. I heard that, which is why, Mr. President, I was wondering 
whether we could have an up-or-down vote.
  Mr. SHELBY. We would, over here, rather have a motion to table. That 
is what we talked about.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object. I think it is really 
time for us to go on record. Senator Kerry and I participated, as did 
the distinguished Senator from Idaho sitting in the back of the room, 
in a special effort where we tried to negotiate something and were not 
able to do so.
  I think what we hope to do is lay out the case, and I am sure the 
case in opposition to studying black and smokeless powder will be laid 
out. We would

[[Page S10363]]

really appreciate an up-or-down vote, I say to my colleague.
  Mr. SHELBY. If I may respond, I have talked to Senator Kerrey from 
Nebraska. He is not on the floor. We had agreed earlier to move to 
table this, along with other amendments that came up that we thought we 
could not fund at this point. With an hour of debate--if I can just 
proceed a second--if we can agree on this, there will be an hour of 
debate. Of course, everybody knows the rules. Once we get recognized, 
we can move to table and there will be no debate. Whereas, we get an 
hour on this equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object. Mr. President, do I 
understand, according to the unanimous-consent request, the motion to 
table then would be on the Kerry amendment as submitted?
  Mr. SHELBY. That is right, but no second degrees.
  Mr. KERRY. And no second degrees. I understand, prior to the motion 
to table, no second degrees.
  Mr. SHELBY. Correct, and no vote before 2:15 p.m., which is an hour.
  Mr. KERRY. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], 
is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this amendment, which I strongly support, would repeal 
the prohibition of requiring or even studying the use of taggants in 
black and smokeless powder. What we are saying is, let's take a look, 
in a comprehensive, well-done, study of using taggants in black and 
smokeless powder. It provides the funding, $21 million, for the 
examination of the safety and the effectiveness of taggants, which is 
required before they can be used.

  Why do we want black and smokeless powder? Senator Kerry was 
eloquent. Ninety percent of all of the pipe bombs have black and 
smokeless powder. Therefore, not to be even able to study it renders us 
impotent in ever using taggants in a meaningful way to trace those who 
practice terrorist incidents.
  Why is this important? It is important because today--today--the 
United States of America is in the top 20 nations with the highest 
level of terrorism in the world. We have more incidents than Lebanon.
  The Senator has indicated the number of incidents: well over 4,000 
now since 1990. We all know of the Unabomber. We all know a pipe bomb 
was used at the Atlanta Olympics. We all have seen what happened in the 
World Trade Center. We are all deeply concerned about TWA Flight 800.
  What is a taggant? A taggant is a small sandwich-shape microchip. It 
is color coded in different codes. When it is broken down, it looks 
like the smallest little flecks of sand, different colors, so small you 
can barely see them at all. These are put in the powder. And then 
depending on the color coding of the taggant, you can trace where this 
was purchased.
  So it becomes like a fingerprint that enables somebody to go back to 
the source and trace a perpetrator. It is not a solution, but it is an 
aid to law enforcement to be able to ferret out and arrest, I think, 
the biggest cowards of all time--the people who use bombs on innocent 
people. That is why it is important.
  We have heard a lot about the fact that this information to make pipe 
bombs is so easily available. Youngsters are making these bombs from 
information available on the Internet--pipe bombs, 80 percent of all of 
the bombings according to one study have become all too common.
  Let me go back to some of the concerns. Some of the concerns are 
safety: There was an explosion in 1979 at a firm called GOEX 
Manufacturing Co. in Arkansas. I have here an affidavit, which I would 
like to submit for the Record, from a gentleman by the name of James P. 
Palmquist, who was the senior attorney with the office of the general 
counsel of 3M, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. He handled for 3M 
a lawsuit against 3M involving this explosion at GOEX in Arkansas in 
1979.
  I want to read three parts of his affidavit, and I quote:

       4. That in the course of discovery concerning the 
     allegations made in this lawsuit, records were discovered 
     which identified the exact location at the time of the 
     accidental explosion of all MICROTAGGANT materials which were 
     then being evaluated, which records proved that there was no 
     MICROTAGGANT materials in the booster materials that were 
     being reworked at the time of the accidental explosion;

  The point is Taggants were not in the materials that were exploded in 
1979, which is the incident that the National Rifle Association most 
uses to discredit taggants.

       5. That further information was discovered indicating other 
     reasons for the increased instability of the booster 
     materials which were being reworked at the time of the 
     accidental explosion;
       6. That based upon such facts it became clear to all 
     involved in the lawsuit that there was no evidence whatsoever 
     that 3M's MICROTAGGANTs could have contributed in any way to 
     subject explosion, said lawsuit was dismissed.

  It is signed by James P. Palmquist. It is notarized.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Affidavit

     State of Minnesota
     County of Ramsey

       Known all men by these presents:
       That, before me, the undersigned authority, on this day 
     personally appeared James P. Palmquist, who, after having 
     been duly sworn by me, upon his oath deposed and said the 
     following:
       1. That he is a Senior Attorney with the Office of General 
     Counsel, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (``3M'') 
     with offices located at Building 220-11E-03, 3M Center, St. 
     Paul, MN 55144-1000;
       2. That he has been employed by 3M since 1963 and has been 
     an attorney within 3M's Office of General Counsel from 1973 
     to present;
       3. That in such capacity he handled for 3M a lawsuit filed 
     against 3M involving a July 25, 1979 explosion at GOEX, 
     specifically the GOEX manufacturing plant in East Camden, 
     Arkansas, which lawsuit alleged, among other things, that 
     3M's MICROTAGGANTs which were then being evaluated 
     as possible identification taggant materials for explosives, 
     was a contaminet in certain booster materials that were being 
     reworked and that the MICROTAGGANTs contributed or 
     caused the GOEX accidental explosion;
       4. That in the course of discovery concerning the 
     allegations made in this lawsuit, records were discovered 
     which identified the exact location at the time of the 
     accidental explosion of all MICROTAGGANT materials 
     which were then being evaluated, which records proved that 
     there was no MICROTAGGANT materials in the booster 
     materials that were being reworked at the time of the 
     accidental explosion;
       5. That further information was discovered indicating other 
     reasons for the increased instability of the booster 
     materials which were being reworked at the time of the 
     accidental explosion;
       6. That based upon such facts it became clear to all 
     involved in the lawsuit that there was no evidence whatsoever 
     that 3M's MICROTAGGANTs could have contributed in 
     any way to subject explosion, said lawsuit was dismissed.
       Further affiant sayeth not.
                                               James P. Palmquist.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Additionally, there was a study performed by the 
Aerospace Corp. and contracted out by ATF. This was done about 15 years 
ago. And I would like to read from a letter of Dr. Carl Boyars who is 
the manager of the Explosives and Materials Control Directorate of the 
Aerospace Corp. He was in charge of this study. And he says in a letter 
to me, dated July 31, 1996:

       The only firearms for which black powder is now used as a 
     propellant explosive are antiques and antique replicas, both 
     commonly referred to as ``muzzle loaders''. Black powder is 
     sold in cans for use by hobbyists who reenact battles of 
     prior centuries and carry out similar activities. It is also 
     used, illegally, by some makers of pipe bombs because of its 
     ready availability and ease of ignition. Addition of 
     identification taggants in the final step of black powder 
     manufacture was easily performed, involved no hazard, and 
     performance of the tagged product in muzzle loading firearms 
     was no different from the performance of untagged black 
     powder in tests carried out by a muzzle loading firearms 
     expert selected by the black powder manufacturer.

  So the black powder manufacturer selected a specific expert, and that 
expert carried out these tests and found no difference between muzzles 
loaded with tagged black powder and muzzles loaded with untagged black 
powder.
  He continues:

       Smokeless powder is also sold in cans for use by reloaders. 
     These are individuals who

[[Page S10364]]

     prefer to load cartridge ammunition by hand rather than use 
     factory manufactured ammunition in their own firearms. 
     Advantages cited by reloaders are cost (e.g., in shotgun 
     ammunition) or greater accuracy because of more precise 
     control of the load in each cartridge. The smokeless powder 
     intended for reloaders is also used, illegally, by some 
     makers of pipe bombs because of its ready availability, ease 
     of ignition, and much higher energy content than black 
     powder.
       Unlike black powder, smokeless powder can come in a wide 
     range of chemical compositions and physical shapes and sizes, 
     depending on the manufacturer. The individual particles of 
     smokeless powder may be cylindrical, flat, or spherical, 
     although all particles within any can of smokeless powder for 
     reloaders will have the same chemical composition and shape. 
     This makes the development of an identification taggant for 
     smokeless powders a more complex problem.
       A test program was set up to examine the feasibility of 
     identification tagging of spherical smokeless powder. However 
     the manufacturer of the spherical powder biased the test 
     conditions so greatly that failure was guaranteed.

  This is from the definitive person who did the study by the Aerospace 
Corp., as contracted by ATF back in 1980.
  The Swiss also took this study, and the Government of Switzerland 
began requiring their use--taggants--in all commercial explosives. The 
success has been outstanding. In over 10 years, they have solved 565 
crimes based on taggants.
  The report compiled by the Swiss Scientific Research Council stated 
the following:

       After more than a 10 year experience in the field of 
     marking explosives, safety fuses and detonating cords, we 
     feel that our methods and procedures have proven highly 
     practical and efficient. In summary, it is safe to say that 
     Switzerland with its marking methods is on the right lines. 
     Fears that adding marker substances might negatively 
     influence the safety of explosives for civil use has proven 
     unsubstantiated.

  Here is my point. I have, I think, adequately debunked this incident 
where opponents say powder with taggants exploded. No taggants were in 
the powder that exploded in 1979 in that Arkansas plant.
  Two, the head person of the Aerospace study found that taggants were 
safe for use with one exception that needs further study.
  Three, Switzerland has used taggants for 10 years, made 565 arrests 
successfully.
  Four, we are now No. 20 in terrorist incidents in the world. And 90 
percent of pipe bombs use this kind of black and smokeless powder. 
Therefore, should not this body exercise its responsibility and do a 
study of black and smokeless powder? The Senator from Massachusetts and 
I both say, yes, let us do that study, let us spend the money. We can 
save lives, and we will arrest perpetrators. I thank the Chair. I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am concerned at the moment, as one of 
the managers of the bill, not about the study that the Senator from 
Massachusetts and the Senator from California discussed, because in a 
lot of ways that makes a lot of sense. I am concerned about the 
offsets--how are we going to pay for it? I understand the Senator is 
proposing to pay for this study.
  Because of that, as I indicated, Senator Kerrey and I at the 
appropriate time would move to table the amendment. Mr. President, this 
amendment proposes to appropriate $21.3 million for this study, and it 
is probably going to cost a lot of money to do a proper study of this 
kind. The offset, Mr. President, I remind my colleagues, would come 
from reductions in the IRS.
  Now, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of the IRS 
are already calling and imploring us to try to put some more money in 
the IRS. Senator Kerrey and I believe we are properly funding the IRS, 
but to take an additional $21.3 million out, I think, would not be the 
proper time to do it, and it would not be the proper thing to do. I do 
not believe it is the appropriate thing to do on this bill.
  I was wondering if the Senator from Massachusetts and California 
could find some other way to fund the study?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am very happy to respond through the Chair to the 
distinguished Senator.
  It is my understanding that the Treasury Department supports this 
appropriation. In other words, the Treasury Department has agreed to 
the offset.

  Mr. SHELBY. I am not aware of that at all. I talked with the 
Secretary of the Treasury until 11 o'clock this morning and he 
certainly did not mention this to me. I do not know if he mentioned it 
to Senator Kerrey.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, as I understand it, half the funding would 
come from savings that would occur only if the reorganization proposed 
by the IRS would not occur, but the reorganization is supported by 
Treasury. The IRS actually has objected to the reorganization delay 
that is contained in another amendment that is on this bill. It is not 
clear whether or not that reorganization amendment is going to be 
sustained. I had one conversation with Secretary of Treasury Rubin 
about that.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If the Senator will yield, we are verifying this at 
this moment. I was informed by my staff that the Treasury Department is 
in support of this offset. We will be happy to verify it.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I have the amendment now in front of me. I 
did not earlier. The $9.7 million comes from the delay required by the 
act in implementing field restructuring of the Internal Revenue 
Service. We have not passed that delay yet. That delay was added as an 
amendment. It has not been enacted yet.
  I did receive notification from Secretary Rubin that he is concerned 
about a delay in reorganization. I do not know, perhaps they are not 
going to support it. It was in the IRS recommendations that they wanted 
to do this reorganization.
  To be clear on this, or attempt to be clear on this, the 
reorganization effort itself has not been fully justified to me. A 
reason we put the amendment on, asking for delay, was for the purpose 
of provoking a full justification from the standpoint of the mission of 
the IRS, as well as customer service of the IRS. We have some problems 
already with their 800 numbers and we want to make sure that this 
reorganization was both cost justified and was not going to produce a 
deterioration in service.
  The second area is one that I must say, if the administration 
supports this, really flies in the face with things they have been 
talking to our committee about every single time they have come up. Mr. 
President, $11.6 million from administration and other savings in tax 
law enforcement activities--we cut back tax law enforcement activities 
from the levels that they requested. Tax law enforcement activities are 
a tool we use to try to get compliance from about, I believe, 83 or 84 
percent today, and hopefully up to the 90 percent goal, which is the 
administration's objective.
  The more, of course, we collect in taxes, the less pressure you have 
on people who are voluntarily complying and saying, ``I will send my 
taxes in; I know I owe them.'' Tax enforcement is for the purpose of 
relieving the burden on law-abiding citizens willing to pay their taxes 
without having to be jostled by the IRS.
  I am interested to see what the administration says, if they are 
willing to make a statement on both of those things. First, I do not 
know how they will be able to work out the objection they raised to 
reorganization. Even if they do, it is not clear that will be in the 
law.
  Second, as I said, with great respect to the Senator from California 
and the Senator from Massachusetts, I think they have a good proposal 
on that. It does, as I said, fly in the face of the recommendations. I 
am prepared to make an argument anyway that we are dangerously close to 
underfunding what we need to be able to fund on tax enforcement so that 
we can say to our taxpayers that 83 percent to 84 percent of American 
taxpayers file voluntarily the correct amount. They do not make any 
mistake at all. Mr. President, 85 out of 100 or 83 out of 100 
Americans--Coloradans, Idahoans, Nebraskans,

[[Page S10365]]

Californians--are filing taxes and they are all right.

  The enforcement division and the enforcement effort is to try to 
reduce the burden on them. Once we have decided how much money needs to 
be collected to pay the bills, the more compliance; the higher 
compliance rates we get, the lower the burden is going to be on 
everyone.
  This is a very important effort. Again, I have great respect for the 
intent of the amendment but until and unless the administration or 
someone is able to persuade me that this would not be a good offset, I 
continue to oppose the amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________