[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 102 (Thursday, July 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7664-S7669]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 927

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes 
of time in favor of Mrs. Feinstein's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator 
Feinstein's amendment. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this 
amendment.

[[Page S7665]]

  In May of this year, Senator Feinstein introduced this bill, S. 726. 
The bill creates a new stamp that costs 1 cent more than whatever the 
regular price stamp might be. The additional revenue is to be used to 
directly fund research efforts for breast cancer.
  As I am sure we all know, breast cancer is the leading cause of death 
for women between the ages of 15 and 54. There are 2.6 million women 
today in America with breast cancer and an estimated 1 million are yet 
to be diagnosed. If only 10 percent of the first-class stamps use the 
option for an additional penny--currently it would be a 33-cent stamp, 
but that might change--but, if only 10 percent use the option of an 
additional penny above, $60 million would be raised for breast cancer 
annually. This would represent a 10 percent increase in the research 
funds available for this disease that is devastating so much of our 
population.
  I frankly believe the idea will be popular and will generate even 
greater funding than we anticipate. It is used pretty much around the 
world, except in Britain and the United States, this method of raising 
money for worthwhile causes.
  In my opinion, the new stamp provides a great opportunity to increase 
the research, and the proceeds come directly from the American people 
on a voluntary basis, not from tax money. Some have questioned what 
kind of precedent we are setting. I think the answer is that it is 
none. It is going to require an act of Congress and the support of the 
American people. If the program is successful, I suppose there will be 
people attempting to emulate it, but that is a decision for Congress to 
make at the time and on the issue involved. As I said, it is not a 
novel approach; it has been used around the world before this.
  Further, I think the people who do not think this will be popular are 
absolutely wrong. This measure, I think, will be extremely popular. It 
will raise a lot of money. I have discussed it with numerous people, 
and all have told me that they felt it was a worthwhile idea and would 
be worthwhile. I thank Senator Feinstein for introducing the amendment.
  I think the Senate needs to go on record in favor of this and let the 
American people decide if it is going to succeed or not. If it does, we 
know we will have been right. If it does not succeed, we will not have 
set a precedent for other stamps. But first and foremost, it is an idea 
well worth trying, and I think we need to give it an opportunity.
  I am aware that the post office has concerns. But every day I read 
the post office wants to expand its line of business. Every day, they 
are going into new business, new things, and to these I do not object. 
But I just noticed the other day they were selling neckties in the post 
office. I don't see why, with the vast new interest and new things they 
are going into, they could possibly have a problem with printing this 
new stamp. The cost of the stamp for distribution will be taken out 
before any money becomes available for research. This idea is merely a 
logical extension of selling stamps. I strongly urge Members to support 
it and urge you to vote for the Feinstein amendment.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that I be yielded about 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is not an easy task to appear in 
opposition to this amendment. It is not easy for me personally, because 
I am a survivor of prostate cancer. I come from a family where my 
oldest brother, my father and my grandfather and my mother all died 
prematurely of cancer, and I thankfully just received word today that 
my younger brother has now survived prostate cancer.
  The question before the Senate is not cancer. The question before the 
Senate is how to raise money for cancer research. I have strongly urged 
that this amendment not come before the Senate, because we reformed the 
postal system and made it an independent entity. It has evolved from 
the old Post Office Department, where a member of the Postal Service, 
the Postmaster General, was a member of the President's Cabinet, to one 
that is run, basically, by a board of governors with a Postmaster 
General that is appointed by that board of governors, and we have not 
issued a stamp in Congress since 1978.
  There is no power in the Congress to do what this amendment asks. The 
power under existing law was given to the Board of Governors, the 
Postal Service, and the Postal Rate Commission. As a matter of fact, 
the Postal Service does not have the authority to issue a stamp and 
charge more than that established by law by the Postal Rate Commission.
  I refer the Senate to section 3622 of title 39 which specifically 
says that the cost for the stamps must be established through the 
postal rate procedure.
  This comes at a time when all I can say is this is plainly wrong, and 
I have urged the sponsors to remember what they are doing. If we have 
this stamp--and it looked nice. I saw it beside the Senator from 
California on C-SPAN. But we have AIDS problems, we have prostate 
cancer problems, we have problems raising money for the Boy Scouts and 
the Girl Scouts and the community programs to raise money for all sorts 
of problems.
  They have real trouble raising money, but, Mr. President, I started 
the concept of putting up defense money for cancer research for breast 
cancer at $25 million from the defense funds, and I have just urged the 
Senate to pass a bill from the subcommittee I chair, Defense 
Appropriations. It has in it $175 million for breast cancer research, 
specifically earmarked for breast cancer research.
  This stamp, if it is issued, if it sold as many as the famous stamp--
I think it was the Elvis stamp was the one that sold more than any 
stamp in history, a penny from each one of the Elvis stamps would bring 
in $1 million. So what we are seeing is a public relations campaign by 
people who want credit for being for cancer research, but it is really 
not an effective fundraising mechanism.
  I urge them to use a process like we did for selling savings bonds, 
to have the Postal Service sell cancer stamps that would go into 
booklets. You can have one for breast cancer, one for prostate cancer, 
one for just the general National Institute of Cancer. But you buy the 
book, put them in a booklet, and when you get $25 worth, you get a $25 
bond. If you do that, you would make $1 out of every $20 that came in. 
If this stamp becomes approved, they get 1 out of every 35 cents. In 
other words, $1 out of every $35, but the cost of raising this is 
horrendous for the Postal Service. A person who wants to buy one of 
these stamps will go to a window and say, ``We want 100 breast cancer 
stamps.''
  ``We don't have that. We have one that shows Jimmy Doolittle or one 
that shows World War II stamps, but we are out of those.'' This is not 
an effective way to sell stamps is what I am saying.
  It is true that there are stamp collectors, and on a one-time basis, 
as the Elvis stamp showed, a lot of people buy them just for 
collection, but I have to tell you, that is a one-time thing, but it is 
not a one-time thing for the Postal Service. It is plainly wrong, 
because its job is to deliver the mail. It is paid for by the 
ratepayers. The taxpayers do not support the Postal Service any longer.
  The Board of Governors is on record against this. The Postal Service 
is against it. We have seen that this has been done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator has used 7 
minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I will take 2 more minutes, if I may, and then I will 
quiet down.
  Canada issued a semipostal, that is what they call this, a semipostal 
stamp, to support literacy. It was a surcharge of 5 cent per stamp, and 
it raised $252,000 net. This is not an effective way to raise money for 
breast cancer. We have shown these people how to raise more money for 
breast cancer, how to improve breast cancer research. I want to work 
with them, but I tell the Senate that this is not the way to do it.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter that I 
received today from the Postal Service, from the Postmaster General, 
where he states that the Postal Service strongly

[[Page S7666]]

opposes this amendment and states that it would be inappropriate for 
the Postal Service to raise revenue for purposes other than maintenance 
of the delivery system.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                          U.S. Postal Service,

                                    Washington, DC, July 17, 1997.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stevens: I am writing to express concern about 
     an amendment that was offered and then withdrawn at the full 
     Committee markup of the Treasury, Postal, and General 
     Government appropriations bill on July 15. The amendment 
     would require the Postal Service to issue a special postage 
     stamp to help fund breast cancer research. This hybrid stamp, 
     called a semipostal, would sell for one-cent above the Basic 
     First-Class letter rate, with most of the one-cent 
     differential going to breast cancer research.
       The Postal Service strongly opposes this amendment. Our 
     basic function today remains the same as it has been for over 
     200 years--universal mail service throughout the nation. We 
     believe it would be inappropriate for the Postal Service to 
     raise revenue for purposes other than the maintenance of a 
     national mail delivery system.
       This proposed amendment would set a precedent which would 
     open the floodgates for all worthy social causes. In very 
     short order, the Postal Service would find itself devoting 
     considerable time and expense as a fund raiser. That is not 
     our role, and we do not think it should be.
       We understand this semipostal amendment will again be 
     offered on the Senate floor today, and would appreciate your 
     support in rejecting the idea.
           Best regards,
                                                    Marvin Runyon,
                                          Postmaster General, CEO.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I say the same thing, you cannot limit 
this process to one concept of a breast-cancer concept. It will lead to 
Congress getting back into the micromanagement of the Postal Service. 
It is plainly wrong, and it should not become law. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. What happens to the time limits?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time will be suspended.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator may proceed.


                           Amendment No. 929

(Purpose: To limit the use of funds to provide for Federal agencies to 
 furnish commercially available property or services to other Federal 
                               agencies)

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 929 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas], for himself, Mr. 
     Enzi and Mr. Brownback, proposes an amendment numbered 929.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section and renumber any following sections accordingly:

     SEC.   . LIMITATION ON THE USE OF FUNDS TO PROVIDE FOR 
                   FEDERAL AGENCIES TO FURNISH COMMERCIALLY 
                   AVAILABLE PROPERTY OR SERVICES TO OTHER FEDERAL 
                   AGENCIES.

       (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of the funds 
     appropriated by this or any other Act may be used by the 
     Office of Management and Budget, or any other agency, to 
     publish, promulgate, or enforce any policy, regulation, or 
     circular, or any rule or authority in any other form, that 
     would permit any Federal agency to provide a commercially 
     available property or service to any other department or 
     agency of government unless the policy, regulation, circular, 
     or other rule or authority meets the requirements prescribed 
     under subsection (b).
       (b)(1) Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall prescribe regulations applicable 
     to any policy regulation, circular, or other rule or 
     authority referred to in subsection (a).
       (2) The requirements prescribed under paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following:
       (A) a requirement for a comparison between the cost of 
     providing the property or service concerned through the 
     agency concerned and the cost of providing such property or 
     service through the private sector;
       (B) a requirement for cost and performance benchmarks 
     relating to the property or service provided relative to 
     comparable services provided by other government agencies and 
     contractors in order to permit effective oversight of the 
     cost and provision of such property or service by the agency 
     concerned or the Office of Management and Budget; and
       (C) the regulation would not apply to contingency 
     operations associated with national security or a national 
     emergency.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Enzi and Senator Brownback be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I bring to the floor and to this bill an 
amendment which was offered last year and adopted by a bipartisan vote 
of 59 to 39 but was trimmed out of the omnibus appropriations bill. It 
has to do with the question of the Federal Government competing 
unfairly with private firms; agencies performing commercial, rather 
than inherently governmental, activities for other agencies. My 
amendment requires Federal agencies to demonstrate that they can 
perform more efficiently and effectively than the private sector before 
providing commercially available goods and services to other agencies.
  It has been the Federal Government's policy for over 40 years that it 
should not compete with the private sector. In fact, the Government 
should rely on the private sector to supply commercially available 
goods and services. However, this policy is too often ignored.
  For example, the Defense Science Board calculates that out of 850,000 
full-time positions needed to provide commercial services for the 
military, 640,000 are held by Federal employees instead of private 
sector contractors.
  The Clinton administration has taken this situation one step further. 
Last year, OMB came out with a policy that grandfathers existing 
interservice support agreements from cost-comparison requirements. This 
change permits one Federal agency to provide goods and services to 
another agency regardless of cost or performance. This new policy gives 
Federal agencies until October 1997 to go out and recruit business from 
other agencies without performing a cost comparison and cost analysis. 
The administration implicitly argues that this entrepreneurial approach 
to Government will save the taxpayers money.
  However, if they don't do a cost comparison, how do they know it 
saves money? Some examples of existing interservice support agreements 
are aerial photography, mapping services, laboratory services, printing 
services, all of which are often provided more efficiently and more 
cost-effectively in the private sector.
  For example, in Jacksonville, FL, the Navy Public Works Division 
recently completed a state-of-the-art environmental lab to provide 
routine hazardous waste characterizations. These services are already 
available in the private sector, and the Navy intends to offer their 
services to other agencies.
  In Alaska last year, the State struggled to contain a large wildfire. 
The CIA provided needed mapping and satellite imagery. A private 
company was available to do the work, but they were never asked.
  These are just a few of the examples of direct Government competition 
with the private sector without a cost comparison.
  I want to emphasize that I am not insisting that the Federal 
Government use the private sector. It simply needs to compare public 
and private sector production to ensure the American taxpayer gets the 
best value goods and services, the most bang for their buck.
  Encouraging the Federal Government to compete with the private sector 
is philosophically wrong. Almost all of us stand up here day after day 
and talk about let's have less Government, reduce the size of 
Government, reduce the cost of Government, strengthen the private 
sector and, yet, continually allow this to go on. It is philosophically 
wrong. It hurts small business.
  In fact, the three White House Conferences on Small Business rate 
this as a top concern, the ability to compete for public contracts.
  Unfair Government competition with the private sector costs the 
taxpayers money. Numerous studies have shown that outsourcing can save 
the Government up to $30 billion annually. It also

[[Page S7667]]

circumvents the appropriations process. If an agency can do work for 
another agency, it is likely that its resources and employees are 
larger than it needs to be and needs to be cut back. On the other hand, 
if an agency's appropriation is cut, it recruits business. That also 
circumvents the appropriations' process and the idea of focusing on 
priorities.

  Most of all, the policy is contrary to current law. This policy is 
merely a rule from the OMB supplemental handbook A-76. But it violates 
the Economy Act, which specifically states that one agency can provide 
goods and services to another agency only when a commercial enterprise 
cannot provide the goods and services as conveniently or as cheaply. In 
other words, you do have to do a cost comparison.
  I think this is an unbelievable policy for a President that has said, 
``The era of big Government is over,'' and then to turn around and 
implement a policy of this kind, which does not even provide for a cost 
comparison. This policy is another example of the administration 
expanding Government, not reinventing it.
  I recently introduced a bill, S. 314, which is called the Freedom 
From Government Competition Act, which addresses Government competition 
with the private sector. It encourages outsourcing and utilizing 
private sector capability. It provides exemptions for national 
security, inherently governmental functions, situations where the 
Government can provide better value goods and services, and when 
private sector capability is inadequate. I want to stress that this 
amendment addresses functions that are commercial activities within the 
Government. We need to take some action now to implement the rules and 
the policy that has been in place for 40 years but have not been 
followed.
  My amendment is exactly the same as that which the Senate passed last 
year. It merely reaffirms existing law and prohibits one agency 
providing commercial goods and services for another unless a comparison 
is done. More oversight of this problem is needed.
  This amendment will create private sector jobs, help small business, 
save taxpayer dollars, make the Government smaller and more efficient. 
That is a great idea.
  My bottom line is, I want the Government to cost less and be more 
effective. Most people here do. My amendment will ensure that. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense, good-
Government, protaxpayer reform.
  Mr. President, I ask now for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is not a 
sufficient second.
  Mr. THOMAS. I will come back later and ask for the yeas and nays.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on amendment No. 929 
offered by the Senator from Wyoming?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. THOMAS. 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. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 927

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order concerning 
the Feinstein amendment. We yield back all remaining time and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  Mr. KOHL. On behalf of the minority and Senator Feinstein, we yield 
back our remaining time also.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question now 
occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 927. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 17, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 186 Leg.]

                                YEAS--83

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--17

     Allard
     Bingaman
     Bumpers
     Cochran
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Hagel
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Levin
     Nickles
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thompson
  The amendment (No. 927) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The question now occurs on 
amendment No. 929 offered by the Senator from Wyoming.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Is there further debate?
  Mr. BUMPERS. 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. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my detailee 
from the Justice Department, Joel Christie, have floor privileges 
during the debate on the nomination later today of Joel Klein, and for 
any other Judiciary Committee matter on the floor this Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bob Simon and 
Dan Alpert, legislative fellows in the office of Senator Bingaman, be 
granted floor privileges during the pendency of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Unanimous-Consent Request

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, we have been here 5 hours now, and we 
have encouraged our colleagues to get their amendments filed and come 
down to the floor. A number of Senators have.
  After consultations with the majority leader and minority leader and 
Senator Kohl, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be 
in order and that no others be accepted after these that I will read:
  Senator Collins, on Treasury inspector general; Senator Grassley, on 
P-3 hangar; Senator Chafee, on a relevant amendment on health benefits; 
Senator Hutchinson, on Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act; Senator 
Coverdell, on a relevant amendment; Senator Hutchison, on NAFTA; 
Senator Thomas, on Federal procurement; Senator Daschle, on IRS; 
Senator Hatch, on judges' pay; Senator Faircloth, on computer games; 
Senator Graham on HIDTAS; Senator Kohl on fire arms traffic 
initiatives; Senator Cleland, on National drug campaign; and the 
managers amendment itself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page S7668]]

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I request--temporarily, I hope --of Senator 
Campbell that we don't act on this at this time.
  Mr. HATCH. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, will the 
distinguished Senator from Colorado be willing to add a Hatch amendment 
on national media campaign?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. National media campaign?
  Mr. HATCH. Yes, in addition to the judges' compensation.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. We will add that. But at the present time, the minority 
leader has informed me there are two or three others that are just 
right on the verge of offering their amendments. So I withhold my 
unanimous-consent request at the present time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. 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. HATCH. 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 No. 930

(Purpose: To establish the procedure for adjusting future compensation 
              of justices and judges of the United States)

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment 
numbered 929 will be set aside, and the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] for himself, Mr. Leahy, 
     Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Kohl, proposes an amendment numbered 930.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.    . JUDICIAL SALARIES.

       (a) Judicial Cost-of-Living Adjustments.--Section 461(a) of 
     title 28, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Effective on the same date that the rates of basic 
     pay under the General Schedule are adjusted pursuant to 
     section 5303 of title 5, each salary rate which is subject to 
     adjustment under this section shall be adjusted by the same 
     percentage amount as provided for under section 5303 of title 
     5, rounded to the nearest multiple of $100 (or if midway 
     between multiples of $100, to the next higher multiple of 
     $100).''.
       (b) Automatic Adjustments Without Congressional Action.--
     Section 140 of the resolution entitled ``A Joint Resolution 
     making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
     1982, and for other purposes.'', approved December 15, 1981 
     (Public Law 97-92; 95 Stat. 1200; 28 U.S.C. 461 note) is 
     repealed.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, my amendment delinks judges' salaries from 
our salary problem, because it is unbelievable how terrible it is in 
many parts of this country that judges do not have an annual COLA. That 
is what this will grant them.
  Mr. President, I am offering an amendment to establish a procedure 
for future cost-of-living increases in judicial compensation. This 
legislation is a portion of a legislative proposal prepared by the 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and which I introduced by 
request as S. 394 earlier this Congress.
  Under current law, salaries for Federal judges are currently linked 
to congressional and Executive Schedule salaries, so that Federal 
judges cannot receive cost-of-living adjustments [COLA's] unless 
Members of Congress and employees on the Executive Schedule receive the 
same COLA. As a consequence, Federal judges have not received a cost-
of-living salary adjustment since January 1994. This amendment would 
amend section 461 of title 28 to end the current linkage between the 
judicial, congressional and Executive Schedule compensation. Instead, 
judicial salaries would be adjusted automatically on an annual basis, 
in the same percentage amount as the rate of pay of Federal employees 
under the General Schedule. In addition, the amendment would repeal 
section 140 of Public Law No. 97-92, thereby removing the current 
requirement that Congress affirmatively vote for cost-of-living 
increases for Federal judges.
  Not included in my amendment is language, originally proposed by the 
Administrative Office and introduced as part of S. 394 earlier this 
Congress, which would give a one-time salary increase to Federal 
judges. I do believe this separate, one-time salary increase warrants 
serious consideration by this body, although not necessarily as part of 
the second degree amendment I am presently offering.
  If we are to attract and retain the most capable lawyers to serve as 
Federal judges, it is vitally important that we ensure that those 
responsible for the effective functioning of the judicial branch 
receive fair compensation, including reasonable adjustments which allow 
judicial salaries to keep pace with increases in the cost of living. As 
Chief Justice Rehnquist stated in his ``1996 Year-End Report on the 
Federal Judiciary,'' ``We must insure that judges, who make a lifetime 
commitment to public service are able to plan their financial futures 
based on reasonable expectations.'' This amendment, which I am offering 
at the request of the Judicial Conference, proposes changes viewed by 
the Judicial Conference as advancing this objective--an objective with 
which I believe most Senators would agree.
  Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Utah.
  The amendment (No. 930) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. KOHL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. 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. THOMAS. 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 No. 929, As Modified

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification to 
amendment 929.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 929), as modified, is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section and renumber any following sections accordingly:

     SEC.  . LIMITATION ON THE USE OF FUNDS TO PROVIDE FOR FEDERAL 
                   AGENCIES TO FURNISH COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE 
                   PROPERTY OR SERVICES TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of the funds 
     appropriated by this or any other Act may be used by the 
     Office of Management and Budget, or any other agency, to 
     publish, promulgate, or enforce any policy, regulation, or 
     circular, or any rule or authority in any other form, that 
     would permit any Federal agency to provide a commercially 
     available property or service to any other department or 
     agency of government unless the policy, regulation, circular, 
     or other rule or authority meets the requirements prescribed 
     under subsection (b).
       (b)(1) Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall prescribe regulations applicable 
     to any policy regulation, circular, or other rule or 
     authority referred to in subsection (a).
       (2) The requirements prescribed under paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following:
       (A) a requirement for a comparison between the cost of 
     providing the property or service concerned through the 
     agency concerned and the cost of providing such property or 
     service through the private sector;
       (B) a requirement for cost and performance benchmarks 
     relating to the property or service provided relative to 
     comparable services provided by other government agencies and 
     contractors in order to permit effective oversight of the 
     cost and provision of such property or service by the agency 
     concerned or the Office of Management and Budget; and
       (C) the regulation would not apply to contingency 
     operations associated with national security or a national 
     emergency.
       (D) the regulation would not apply if the goods are to be 
     produced or services are to be performed by a private sector 
     source at a government owned facility that is operated by the 
     private sector source.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hagel 
be added as a sponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.

[[Page S7669]]

  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. CAMPBELL. 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. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now resume consideration of amendment No. 929 by Senator Thomas and ask 
that the yeas and nays be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there further debate on the amendment? If not, the question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 929), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KOHL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. 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. CAMPBELL. 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. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following be the only remaining first-degree amendments other than the 
pending amendments and that they be subject to relevant second-degree 
amendments. They are an amendment by Senator Faircloth, two by Senator 
Hutchison, three amendments by Senator Coverdell, one by Senator 
Abraham, one by Senator DeWine, one by Senator Chafee, one by Senator 
Collins, one by Senator Grassley, one by Senator Hatch, one by Senator 
Daschle, one by Senators Lott and Daschle, one by Senator Cleland, one 
managers' amendment, one by Senator Kohl, one by Senator Graham of 
Florida, one by Senator Bingaman, one by Senator Dodd, and two by 
Senator Feinstein.
  I further ask that following the disposition of the above-listed 
amendments, the bill be advanced to third reading and final passage 
occur, and when the Senate receives the House companion bill, all after 
the enacting clause be stricken and the text of the Senate bill be 
inserted, the bill be advanced to third reading and passed, and the 
Senate insist on its amendments and request a conference with the 
House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 931

         (Purpose: To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act)

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I now send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of the majority leader, Senator Lott, and the minority leader, 
Senator Daschle, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], for Mr. Lott, for 
     himself and Mr. Daschle, proposes an amendment numbered 931.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment not be read at length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Section 302(g)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 432(g)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' after ``Senator,''; and
       (2) by inserting after ``candidate,'' the following: ``and 
     by the Republican and Democratic Senatorial Campaign 
     Committees''.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask the Senate adopt this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 931) was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KOHL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. 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. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
House companion measure is passed by the Senate, pursuant to the 
previous order, that the passage of S. 1023 be vitiated and that S. 
1023 be indefinitely postponed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________