[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 102 (Thursday, July 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7689-S7702]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  The Senate continued the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to commend the chairman of the 
Treasury, Postal Service Subcommittee, the distinguished Senator from 
Colorado, for the good work he has done today on this legislation and 
the cooperation he has received from the ranking member, Senator Kohl. 
I want to thank the Senate for the work that has been done this week.
  We have completed four appropriations bills and we are down to an 
identifiable, finite list of amendments on the Treasury, Postal Service 
bill. It has taken cooperation from all the Senators and a lot of 
support from the leader on the Democratic side of the aisle. I think we 
should commend each other when we do good work like this. I appreciate 
the support we have had.
  In recognition of that, I think rather than trying to drive on to 
conclusion tonight and perhaps having votes later on tonight, we will 
go forward tonight with debate on all remaining amendments, and then we 
will ask unanimous consent to stack the votes beginning at 5:15 on 
Monday.
  Also, on Monday, we will begin the HUD-VA appropriations bill. For 
those that are interested, on two other subjects, at the request of a 
number of Senators on both sides, so that we can try to continue to see 
if we can work out an agreement, we have moved the tuna-dolphin issue 
off until next week. We hope an agreement can be worked out, or a 
compromise. If it cannot be, we will probably have a cloture vote on 
that on Friday of next week.
  With regard to FDA reform, we have a very good bill that was reported 
from the education-labor committee. Senator Jeffords has been working 
with

[[Page S7690]]

other interested Senators on both sides of the aisle and on both sides 
of the issue. We are hoping that a time agreement can be worked out on 
that. If we get a time agreement, we will try to take that bill up, 
perhaps, Tuesday or Wednesday.
  If we get the unanimous-consent request, there would be no further 
votes tonight or Friday. The next recorded votes would be at 5:15 on 
Monday. We will resume consideration of the treasury, postal 
appropriations bill. Earlier today, the managers were able to reach an 
agreement to limit amendments to that bill--first-degree amendments, I 
believe. Therefore, the Senate will remain in session this evening 
until the amendments have been debated. The votes, then, will be 
postponed to occur until 5:15 on Monday.
  Mr. President, I believe that is all we need to announce at this 
point, Mr. President. So we can go back to the Treasury, Postal Service 
bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for one comment?
  Mr. LOTT. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Although we will not be in session tomorrow, we will 
have a markup of a series of bills for the Appropriations Committee 
starting at 9:45.
  Mr. LOTT. And there will also be considerable work done tomorrow in 
the two conferences that are pending, as we communicate between the 
Congress and administration on that. I don't believe a unanimous-
consent request is required on this issue, announcing when the next 
votes would occur.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is it the majority leader's intention to get the tuna-
dolphin bill resolved in one fashion or another?
  Mr. LOTT. The Senator may not have heard. I announced that in 
deference to the request of a number of Senators who are trying to work 
out a reasonable compromise, we have pushed that issue off. But it is 
our intent that if we don't get a compromise worked out, we would have 
a cloture vote on that on Friday of next week. I want it understood by 
Senators that we should expect to be in session next Friday. So please 
don't be planning on leaving Thursday night.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the majority leader will yield, I have one further 
question. If that cloture vote does not succeed, do we intend to 
continue to debate the tuna-dolphin issue until its conclusion?
  Mr. LOTT. That would be my preference.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I yield to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator very much for yielding to me.
  I would like to inform the leader that I think there is a real great 
opportunity to resolve this problem. Senator John Kerry has great 
interest in it. I have been working with Senator Smith and Senator 
Biden, and many other Senators. We have some really good support for 
real compromise. We feel that it can be compromised. I am very hopeful 
we can work together to resolve this. But, if not, we are prepared to 
have a showdown on the matter, if we have to.
  Mr. LOTT. If I could just say, Mr. President, that I appreciate the 
suggestion that a good compromise could be worked out. And that is why 
I have not forced the issue this week. I originally planned to have a 
cloture vote on Friday, probably. But there were requests that we not 
do that both from the Senator from California and others.
  I am not interested in trying to make an issue here. This is not an 
issue I am directly involved in, although it came out of the Commerce 
Committee, which I serve on. I think it is an important issue, an 
important conservation issue. It is an issue that affects jobs and 
fishing areas. Senator Daschle and I both have been receiving calls 
from the President of the United States saying, please get this 
legislation up and get it to a conclusion.
  So my desire is to try to be helpful on this one. At the request of 
the administration, I am looking for a compromise that will allow us to 
get it completed in a reasonable period of time. But, if we can't do 
that, then we will just go with the alternative.
  I yield to the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. If I could just add to that, I say to the majority 
leader, the fact is that the administration wants this bill. The fact 
is, this is an 11-nation agreement. The fact is, the majority of the 
environmental community in the United States of America and throughout 
the world, including Green Peace, want this bill. That is why I asked 
the majority leader, and, because of its importance, we were willing to 
debate this issue through until it is done.
  I believe that it is also important to point out that the majority 
leader had planned on having a cloture vote and debate today. It was at 
the request of the ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee, Senator 
Hollings, that he delay this for an another entire week after many 
weeks of negotiations--fruitless, I might add. And if the Senator from 
California feels that the way to pursue any issue is through filibuster 
and debate rather than bringing up her amendments and having them voted 
on and the issue disposed of, that is fine with me. But I strongly 
support the majority leader in saying that we will debate this issue 
until it is resolved. It is too important, Mr. President.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think probably at this point I would be 
well-advised to yield the floor and let the Senators talk directly to 
each other.
  Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. President, I just didn't want the Record to go by without stating 
my disagreement with my friend from Arizona. We have 85 environmental 
groups, including the Sierra Club and the Humane Society, on the side 
of reasonable compromise. This is an area where I don't have to agree 
with the administration. Sometimes those occasions do occur.
  Senator Biden and I teamed up in 1990. We passed the Dolphin 
Protection Act. This bill overturns it. Frankly, it was done in a way 
that should have brought the parties together in the first place. So I 
think we are doing this a little bit backwards in the sense that the 
compromise, I think, is going to come.
  By the way, I have no problem with bringing up the bill at any point. 
We are prepared to do that. So, if you want to bring up the cloture 
vote on the motion to proceed to the bill, we are prepared to do that. 
But we think we can compromise this. We see Senator John Kerry now 
playing a lead role--Senator Biden, I, Senator Smith, and others on 
both sides of the aisle, in a bipartisan way, are ready to put forward 
an excellent compromise. If we get that, this bill can go through in 
moments.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. Yes. I yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the leader.
  I would like to comment on this issue because I think it is 
critically important, as chair of the Ocean and Fisheries Subcommittee. 
The fact is, the administration has requested that this issue be 
addressed expeditiously because of the agreement that we have entered 
into with 11 other countries.
  Second, we attempted to work with Senator Kerry and others on the 
committee for a compromise on this issue. To no avail, I might add. But 
irrespective of that, we incorporated a number of changes in the 
legislation that were recommended by Senator Kerry and others that I 
think makes substantial progress on the issues that have been raised by 
the Senator from California and others. But there is a point at which 
it contravenes the agreement that had been reached between the United 
States and these other countries.

  I hope we will have a chance to resolve these issues and to work on 
it, but we have to have good-faith efforts on the other side in order 
to resolve these issues without compromising the agreement.
  I should also mention there are a number of environmental 
conservation groups that are endorsing this agreement because they 
think this is the best way to protect not only dolphin and tuna but 
other species that have been affected because of the status quo and 
because of the current law.

[[Page S7691]]

  I should add other methods have affected the byproduct of other 
species to the detriment of a significant number of different fish that 
otherwise will continue to go on in this effort if we do not change it 
with this agreement.
  So I hope that the Senator from California will work in a good-faith 
effort to reach an agreement on this issue. Otherwise, it will be lost.
  I would also ask the President to work very vigorously. If he wants 
this legislation to come through, I think he certainly has to work to 
make sure that it does.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are going to have this debate next week, 
I presume.
  I thank everyone for all of their good efforts.
  Please allow me to complete my unanimous-consent request, and then we 
will complete the debate on the Treasury, Postal Service appropriations 
bill.
  I want to emphasize this again. The Senate will next consider after 
this bill the VA-HUD appropriations bill on Monday, and votes will 
occur on amendments and passage of the treasury, postal bill at 5:15.
  I ask unanimous consent that all amendments must be offered and 
debated with respect to the Treasury, Postal Service tonight, and those 
votes then would occur on a case-by-case basis at 5:15 on Monday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object.
  Mr. LOTT. Good.
  Mr. COATS. I do not want to be oversolicitous here, but I think 
anybody watching understands the difficulty of the majority leader in 
trying to schedule issues for the Senate to debate. But I just want to 
say that the majority leader has gone out of his way to give us a 
family-friendly schedule and some certainty in our schedule by the way 
he has scheduled issues, by the way he has scheduled votes with a 
certainty of votes and provided Members an opportunity to go home and 
have dinner with their families, albeit a somewhat late dinner, but we 
are used to late dinners.
  I just think this is an example of the difficulty of doing what he is 
doing. But he is doing a terrific job of it. I appreciate that. I might 
have considered staying in the Senate if I had known it was going to be 
this family-friendly.
  Mr. LOTT. I tried to tell you.
  I would be glad to yield to the Senator from Indiana any time. I 
appreciate his comments.
  Mr. President, I have a unanimous-consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank Senator Coats very much.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, before he leaves, I do want to thank the 
majority leader and the minority leader for their cooperation with our 
committee.
  This has been a historic week for the Appropriations Committee. With 
the cooperation of my good friend from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, and 
the chairman of the subcommittees and the ranking members, we will now 
complete debate on five separate bills in 4 days. They have all passed 
by sheer weight of bipartisanship and cooperation and willingness to 
work together to work out problems.
  I am hopeful that we will see the same thing next week when we again 
want to bring before the Senate at least five bills. We will have them 
ready to go before the Senate next week, and we will try to work them 
in according with the schedule.
  But it is imperative, if we are going to avoid the problem of an 
enormous continuing resolution that we passed in the last Congress, 
that we get these bills to conference before we go off on the August 
recess so that the work can be done. Not all of the staff will have to 
stay here for the whole month. But we will have them at least ready to 
go to conference when we come back. They will be preconferenced during 
the period of August, and I think we will avoid any continuing 
resolution.
  So I am, again, grateful to everyone here. But I hope the Senate 
itself is making history, and it is doing so in really the best spirit 
I have seen in the Senate for many years.

  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, for the benefit of our colleagues, could 
you state the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment 921 to the bill, S. 1023.


                           Amendment No. 921

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment 921.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is pending.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, the underlying first-degree amendment to 
No. 921 has been cleared on both sides, and I urge its immediate 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, it has been cleared on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 921) was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. 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.


                           Amendment No. 933

  (Purpose: To clarify the limitation on undertaking a field support 
                    reorganization in Aberdeen, SD)

  Mr. KOHL. I send an amendment to the desk
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for Mr. Daschle, 
     proposes an amendment 933.

  Mr. KOHL. 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 22, lines 15 and 16, strike ``Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law,'' and insert ``Hereafter,''.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Treasury, General Government, and Civil Service, Mr. 
Campbell, and the ranking member, Mr. Kohl, for their assistance with 
this important clarifying amendment to the fiscal year 1998 Treasury 
and general government appropriations bill. They and their staffs have 
done excellent work in putting this bill together, and they are to be 
commended for their leadership.
  The purpose of this amendment should be clarified for the Record. 
Section 107 of the bill, as approved by the Committee on 
Appropriations, states, ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
no field support reorganization of the Internal Revenue Service shall 
be undertaken in Aberdeen, South Dakota, until the Internal Revenue 
Service toll-free help phone line assistance program reaches at least 
an 80 percent service level. The Commissioner shall submit to Congress 
a report and the GAO shall certify to Congress that the 80 percent 
service level has been met.'' Identical language was included in 
appropriations legislation approved last year for fiscal year 1997.
  It has always been my intention that this language be considered 
permanent unless specifically changed by an act of Congress. The 
obvious intention of Congress in approving this provision is that 
reductions in force should not take place in Aberdeen until South 
Dakotans can be assured of being able to access assistance from IRS 
through the national telephone lines. It has not been the intention of 
Congress that this provision should expire at the end of the fiscal 
year for which the funds of this act are being appropriated. To make 
this crystal clear and explicit in the statute itself, my amendment 
replaces the phrase ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' with 
the word ``hereafter.'' As the General Accounting Office states in its 
publication, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Second Edition, 
Volume I, ``A provision contained in an annual appropriation act is not 
to be construed to be permanent legislation unless the language used 
therein or the nature of the provision makes it clear that Congress 
intended it to be permanent. The presumption can be overcome if the 
provision uses language indicating futurity, such as `hereafter.' ''

[[Page S7692]]

  Mr. President, this legislation ensures that no reorganization of the 
Aberdeen, South Dakota, IRS office shall take place until the IRS is 
capable of providing service on a national level that equates to the 
high quality service currently provided in Aberdeen.
  Again, I wish to thank my colleagues for their help and consideration 
on this issue.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides. I ask for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. The amendment has been cleared by the majority side, 
Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from North Dakota.
  The amendment (No. 933) was agreed to.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 934

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], for Ms. Collins, 
     for herself, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. Grassley, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 934.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. 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 5, line 5, strike ``$30,719,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof, ``$29,719,000''.
       On page 39 after line 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 121. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Inspector General to contract for advisory and 
     assistance services that has the meaning given such term in 
     section 1105(g) of Title 31, United States Code.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared by our 
side. We ask for its immediate adoption.
  Mr. KOHL. The amendment has been cleared on our side also.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 934) was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. 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. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, at this time I would like to yield some 
time to Senator Collins, who would like to speak on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first I express my appreciation to the 
very able managers of this legislation, Senator Campbell and Senator 
Kohl, for their willingness to accept the amendment which has been 
proposed by myself, Senator Shelby and Senator Grassley.
  Let me just briefly explain the amendment and its purpose.
  This amendment would prohibit the inspector general of the Department 
of Treasury from spending any money on consulting contracts, and it 
would make a corresponding reduction in the inspector general's budget 
by cutting it by $1 million.
  Let me first make clear that this amendment is not intended to affect 
in any way any audit, inspection, investigation or law enforcement 
function of the Inspector General's Office. The reduction proposed in 
my amendment is intended to be taken from administrative expenses, 
specifically the budget classification called ``Other services,'' which 
is funded in the President's budget at $2.4 million. My amendment would 
leave $1.4 million available for that classification.
  I am offering this amendment today because there is clear, disturbing 
and credible evidence that the incumbent inspector general has abused 
her contracting authority by spending taxpayer dollars on management 
studies of questionable value and of excessive cost.
  For example, in April of this year, press accounts revealed that the 
inspector general had let a soul-source contract for a management study 
of her office. This $90,000 contract was awarded without the benefit of 
fair and open competition, and it was awarded to a friend of hers, 
someone who had in fact recommended her for the position of inspector 
general.
  Mr. President, I have personally reviewed the final product of this 
contract. It is a 20-page report costing taxpayers $4,500 per page.
  Another example of questionable activity occurred in September of 
1995 when the inspector general awarded another contract, again without 
full and open competition, for $85,000 that subsequently ballooned to 
cost more than $300,000. My amendment would curtail these kinds of 
abuses in contracting by limiting the amount of funds available for 
this purpose and by prohibiting the inspector general from spending 
money on consulting services. In the meantime, without prejudging the 
ultimate outcome, the permanent subcommittee on investigations, of 
which I am the Chair, will continue its in-depth investigation into the 
contracting practices of this office.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record several 
newspaper reports documenting these contracting abuses.
  There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Treasury Ethics Watchdog Gave No-Bid Contract to Associate

                           (By John Solomon)

       Washington.--Shortly after becoming the Treasury 
     Department's ethics watchdog, Valerie Lau arranged a no-bid 
     contract for a longtime acquaintance who had written the 
     White House recommending her for her job.
       Lau's involvement has prompted a rare congressional inquiry 
     into a department's inspector general, an official whose 
     normal duties are policing the conduct of others and guarding 
     against waste, fraud and abuse.
       Documents obtained by The Associated Press show that Lau 
     wrote a Treasury contracting office on Dec. 11, 1994, to 
     select auditor Frank Sato to conduct a management review 
     study of her office. Sato had proposed the study only the day 
     before.
       Lau asked that the contract be a ``sole source 
     procurement,'' not to be competitively bid because of an 
     ``unusual and compelling urgency'' for the review, the 
     documents state.
       Treasury quickly approved a $113,000 contract for Sato & 
     Associates. The firm ultimately was paid $90,776, the 
     documents show.
       A year earlier, Sato had written the White House personnel 
     office to recommend Lau ``very highly'' for an inspector 
     general's job, saying he had known her since 1980 and found 
     her to be ``a uniquely qualified person with high integrity 
     and character.''
       Treasury officials say Sato was chosen for the contract 
     because he was a former federal inspector general ``uniquely 
     qualified'' to review Lau's office and make recommendations 
     to make it more efficient.
       The disclosure marks the second time in a week that Lau's 
     conduct has come under scrutiny. Last Thursday, she admitted 
     she gave inaccurate testimony to Congress but blamed the 
     error on bad information from her staff.
       Congressional investigators are reviewing the Sato 
     contract.
       ``At best, in this case, there is an appearance of 
     impropriety that undermines the public confidence in this IG. 
     This watchdog needs to be watched,'' said Sen. Charles 
     Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of one the Senate's investigative 
     subcommittees.
       Lau refused to be interviewed. But in written answers to 
     Congress, she acknowledged she developed ``professional 
     acquaintances'' with Sato and another partner in his firm 
     over the years as they served as government auditors.
       She did not mention Sato's letter of recommendation to the 
     White House. Treasury spokesman Howard Schloss said Lau was 
     aware of the letter but had not solicited it.
       Federal ethics regulations advise employees to avoid 
     actions that ``give rise to an appearance of * * * giving 
     preferential treatment'' to someone with whom they have an 
     outside relationship.
       The regulations advise that ``an employee whose duties 
     would affect the financial interests of a friend, relative or 
     person with whom he is affiliated with in a nongovernmental 
     capacity'' should consult with a third party to avoid the 
     appearance of a conflict that would make a ``reasonable 
     person'' question their impartiality.
       Lau told Congress she chose Sato's firm because she knew he 
     and his associated had ``unique qualifications'' as former 
     inspectors general to provide ``expertise in the area of 
     audit, investigations and managing'' her office.
       Treasury officials could not immediately answer whether Lau 
     consulted a third party, disclosed her outside relationship 
     with Sato or reviewed the ethics rules before proceeding with 
     the contract.
       Sato worked for almost a decade as an inspector general at 
     two different federal departments, then as an auditor at the

[[Page S7693]]

     Deloitte & Touche accounting firm before starting his own 
     business. He did not return a message left at his home 
     Friday.
       In his May 1993 letter recommending Lau, he told the White 
     House he had known Lau since 1980 and worked with her ``on 
     both professional accounting/financial management and Asian 
     American issues.''
       ``I have found her to not only be a top professional, but a 
     kind of person you enjoy working with,'' he wrote.
       Lau, a former congressional auditor, was appointed the 
     following year to Treasury inspector general, among positions 
     Sato recommended to presidential personnel.
       She began the job in late 1994. Documents show she began 
     inquiring in early December about the possibility of a 
     management review study, and on Dec. 10 received a formal 
     proposal from Sato.
       The next day she wrote the contracting office recommending 
     Sato for the contract. ``Please let me know what I need to 
     provide next,'' Lau scribbled in the handwritten note.
       On Dec. 12, Lau submitted a formal contract proposal. 
     Documents show it borrowed much of the language from the plan 
     Sato had sent her just two days earlier.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 24, 1997]

 Senator Seeks Probe of Treasury Official--At Issue Is No-Bid Contract 
                    Awarded to Longtime Acquaintance

                  (By Stephen Barr and Clay Chandler)

       The chairman of a Senate panel on government oversight 
     yesterday requested an inquiry into allegations that Treasury 
     Department Inspector General Valerie Lau arranged to award a 
     no-bid contract to a longtime acquaintance who had 
     recommended that she be hired for her job.
       Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), Chairman of the 
     Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on administrative 
     oversight and the courts, made the request, saying that if 
     the allegations were true, ``the IG's action raises 
     appearance questions of preferential treatment and a quid pro 
     quo.''
       A Treasury official, who asked not to be identified said 
     the contract was awarded on merit, Lau was seeking a speedy 
     review of her office to improve its ability to conduct a 
     department-wide audit, a crucial part of a government-wide 
     financial audit mandated by Congress, the official said.
       Within weeks after her 1994 Senate confirmation, Lau 
     selected Frank S. Sato, an auditor and former inspector 
     general, to conduct a management study of her office and its 
     operations, Treasury Department documents released by 
     Grassley's office show, Lau's office is responsible for 
     preventing waste, fraud and abuse in the department.
       Lau told Treasury procurement officials on Dec. 7, 1994, 
     that she had ``identified an immediate need'' for a 
     management study. Three days later, in a letter to Lau, Sato 
     outlined his proposal for the study.
       The next day, Dec. 11, Lau recommended Sato for the job in 
     a handwritten note. In documents attached to the note and in 
     a subsequent memo to procurement officials, Lau indicated 
     that the contract would be awarded without competitive bids 
     and for a fixed price.
       Treasury officials approved $113,000 for the contract and 
     eventually paid $90,776 to Sato & Associates, a Treasury 
     spokesman said.
       In his contract proposal, Sato listed his qualifications, 
     including experience as inspector general at the Veterans 
     Administration (now the Department of Veterans Affairs) and 
     Transportation Department during the 1980s. Sato said his 
     ``project team'' would include at least one other former 
     inspector general, Charles L. Dempsey, who investigated the 
     Reagan-era scandals at the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development.
       The year before Sato received the contract, he wrote a 
     letter to a White House personnel official urging that Lau be 
     considered for inspector general jobs at Treasury, the 
     Transportation Department or the Office of Personnel 
     Management.
       Sato said he had known Lau since 1980, when she worked for 
     the General Accounting Office, the congressional watchdog 
     agency, in San Francisco, Sato described Lau as a ``top 
     professional'' with ``high integrity and character.''
       In Lau's prepared testimony submitted for her Senate 
     confirmation hearing, she praised Sato as one of the 
     government's first inspector generals who set high standards 
     for the watch-dog positions created Congress in 1978.
       Grassley made his request for a review of the Sato contract 
     in a letter to Robert M. Bryant, who heads the FBI's Criminal 
     Investigative Division.
       The letter was addressed to Bryant in his role as chairman 
     of the Integrity Committee, the arm of the President's 
     Council on Integrity and Efficiency that handles allegations 
     of misconduct against inspector generals. If the Integrity 
     Committee decides an allegation warrants investigation, it 
     turns the probe over to the Justice Department.
       Grassely said no-bid contracts ``are usually reserved for 
     matters of `unusual and compelling urgency.' This contract 
     clearly was neither unusual nor urgent.'' He asked Bryant to 
     determine whether the awarding of the contract violated any 
     laws regulations or ethics codes.
       Sato did not return telephone calls seeking comment. The 
     Treasury official said Lau had already referred the contract 
     issue to the Integrity Committee for review.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Washington Times, Apr. 28, 1997]

            Treasury Memo Cautioned Rubin on Lau's Problems

                            (By Ruth Larson)

       Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and the FBI were 
     notified more than three months ago about serious ethics 
     problems involving Treasury Department Inspector General 
     Valerie Lau, Treasury sources say.
       Treasury Department spokesman Howard Schloss said he 
     believed the Jan. 15 internal memo, a copy of which was 
     obtained last week by The Washington Times, was referred to 
     the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, which 
     oversees performance of inspectors general from various 
     Cabinet departments.
       ``It's my understanding that nothing's been done on this 
     matter,'' said Mr. Schloss, who declined further comment on 
     the pace of the inquiry or the allegations against Miss Lau. 
     Questions for Miss Lau were directed to Mr. Schloss.
       Titled ``Mismanagement and Abuse of Power,'' the four-page 
     memorandum delivered to Mr. Rubin's office detailed 
     questionable travel, contracting and administrative expenses 
     in the inspector general's office under Miss Lau's 
     management.
       ``We are supposed to be independent and detect waste, fraud 
     and abuse,'' the memo reads. ``We are not supposed to be 
     practicing waste, fraud, and abuse.''
       The memo also questioned the inspector general's 
     willingness to tackle difficult or sensitive audits and 
     investigations of some of the government's most critical 
     agencies. Miss Lau's jurisdiction includes the Internal 
     Revenue Service, the U.S. Secret Service, and the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
       The inspector general's office ``avoids at all costs 
     conducting hard-hitting, meaningful audits and 
     investigations,'' according to the memo. ``It is widely 
     perceived that we avoid controversial areas and political 
     issues that would require the IG to take a strong stand on 
     certain issues.''
       The document was also given to an FBI investigator 
     associated with the Council on Integrity and Efficiency. That 
     agent declined to comment on the memo or disclose whether an 
     inquiry is under way.
       The apparent lack of action at the agency in the wake of 
     the memo has caught the attention of Sen. Charles E. 
     Grassley, Iowa Republican and a member of the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee.
       Mr. Grassley plans to prod the FBI for an update on the Lau 
     memo, his office said on Friday.
       The Jan. 15 memo said Miss Lau:
       Used more than $200,000 worth of employee time and travel 
     resources to develop a ``mission vision, value statement'' 
     for her office.
       The value statement ultimately said the mission of the 
     inspector general's office is to ``conduct independent 
     audits, investigations and reviews'' that help ``promote 
     economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and prevent and detect 
     fraud and abuse.''
       Hired an outside consulting firm called KLS to address 
     problems with diversity and employee morale.
       A Treasury official said Friday that $292,076 had been 
     spent to date on the two-year contract, out of a possible 
     $343,650. The contract runs through September.
       Steered a sole-source management contract worth $90,776 to 
     a firm owned by Frank Sato, a former inspector general and 
     long-time acquaintance of Miss Lau's who wrote the White 
     House to recommend her for her current post.
       Made frequent trips to the West Coast, purportedly for 
     business, but widely perceived by employees as chances to 
     visit her family in the San Francisco area, ``at a time when 
     the agency was strapped for travel funds.''
       Since the Jan. 15 memo, subsequent memos provided to the 
     FBI reported that * * * questionable behavior.
       At a February 1996 meeting, for example, an employee 
     complained that morale was suffering and there was ``not 
     enough warmth'' in the agency.
       ``Ms. Lau then responded by saying she would show him some 
     `warmth,' and she proceeded to physically sit in [the 
     employee's] lap, placed her arms round him, and gave him a 
     big hug,'' one memo said.
       Employees said one incident where Miss Lau failed to 
     investigate forcefully came when she refused to allow her IRS 
     Oversight Audit staff to investigate problems with the IRS' 
     computer upgrade and reports of widespread employee browsing 
     through celebrity tax returns.
       In fact, since Miss Lau took over the office in October 
     1994, funds recovered have dropped from $201 million in 
     fiscal 1994 to $25.9 million in fiscal 1996.
       The number of audit reports issued has dropped as well, 
     from 158 reports in 1994 to 106 in 1996.
       Miss Lau has told Congress that the lower numbers are due 
     to auditors' efforts to comply with new federal guidelines.
       Meanwhile, in an effort to boost employee morale, Miss Lau 
     hired the consulting firm KLS in September 1995.
       In a written response to a House panel's questions, Miss 
     Lau said: ``The sensitivity of identified diversity issues 
     and perceived internal problems was such that an objective, 
     outside source was desirable.''
       The KLS contract was awarded using ``other than full and 
     open competition'' because ``the agency's need is of such 
     unusual and compelling urgency that it precludes 
     competition,'' she wrote.

[[Page S7694]]

       Employees say the scope of $344,000 contract has been 
     amended since the original award and now includes revamping 
     the office's employee performance.
                                                                    ____


                     [From U.S. News, July 2, 1997]

                    Treasury IG Worked for Democrats

                           (By John Solomon)

       Washington.--The Treasury Department's ethics watchdog, 
     already under scrutiny for a no-bid contract to an associate, 
     authorized skipping normal competitive bidding procedures for 
     a second consulting contract, official say.
       With Congress beginning to investigate contracting by the 
     office of Treasury Inspector General Valerie Lau, documents 
     and interviews also shed new light on Lau's background and 
     her office's work. For instance, Lau:
       Was given an opportunity to apply for a Clinton 
     administration job in 1993 while working as a consultant for 
     the Democratic Party. Inspectors general, though appointed by 
     the president, by law are designed to be politically 
     independent.
       Was instructed by the No. 2 Treasury Department official to 
     rewrite one of the most high-profile reports of her tenure--
     the investigation into law enforcement's attendance at 
     racist, drunken Good Ol' Boys Roundups--because it lacked 
     basic investigatory information.
       The scrutiny of Lau's office is an unusual twist for a 
     watchdog normally charged with policing against waste, fraud 
     and abuse throughout the Treasury Department.
       Lau declined to be interviewed, but her office provided 
     written answers to questions posed by The Associated Press.
       The AP reported last month that shortly after taking over 
     as IG in late 1994, Lau approved a $90,000 no-bid, sole-
     source management review contract to an associate who has 
     written the White House recommending her for the job.
       Documents show Lau approved the sole-source contract to 
     Sato & Associates on the grounds that the government would be 
     ``seriously injured'' if the contract was put up for bidding.
       Officials say that in 1995, Lau's office again approved 
     skipping competitive bidding procedures to hire a consultant 
     to boost morale among workers.
       Lau's office says it approved the $271,000 contract to the 
     consulting firm KLS under a legal provision that permits 
     ``other than full and open competition when the agency's need 
     is such unusual and compelling urgency.''
       The IG office said it skipped the bidding ``to prevent 
     deterioration in workforce effectiveness' and because a 
     survey it conducted ``suggested a prompt response was 
     necessary'' to low worker morale.
       The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is 
     investigating a variety of issues surrounding Lau's office, 
     including the noncompetitive contracts and the performance of 
     her office.
       ``I consider the allegations surrounding the Treasury 
     Department's inspector general to be very troubling,'' Sen. 
     Susan M. Collins, R-Maine, said.
       In a January 1996 memo, Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence 
     Summers wrote Lau that her original report into Treasury 
     agents' participation in the controversial Good Ol'Boys 
     Roundups was lacking key information.
       ``I am very concerned that the report be maximally credible 
     in all respects,'' Summers wrote.
       ``Specifically it should be evident on the face of the 
     report that your investigation was thorough and 
     uncompromising.
       ``While those of us who know you well have no question 
     concerning your effort and intentions, it would be helpful 
     for your report to lay out exactly how your investigation was 
     conducted,'' Summers wrote.
       Among the basic information he cited as missing: 
     identifying which witnesses were interviewed describing 
     efforts made to collect documents, photographs and other 
     evidence.
       ``In sum, it would seem advisable to describe all of the 
     investigative techniques your office used or elected not to 
     use in conducting this information,'' Summers wrote.
       Assistant Treasury Secretary Howard Schloss said Summers' 
     letter was simply designed to reinforce that ``the report be 
     as clear as possible.''
       Schloss also confirmed that just before she was hired by 
     the Clinton administration, Lau volunteered in 1993 to work 
     as a ``career consultant'' at the Democratic National 
     Committee in Washington.
       Schloss said Lau a professional auditor who also has a 
     master's degree in career development, produced a series of 
     jobs search strategy workshops for the DNC.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is particularly troubling to uncover 
these apparent contracting abuses in the Office of the Inspector 
General, the very official who is supposed to be the watchdog against 
waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal departments.
  Again, I thank the floor managers of this bill for their cooperation, 
and I appreciate their support of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                           Amendment No. 935

  Mr. KOHL. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 935.

  Mr. KOHL. 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 12, line 2, strike $472,490,000 and insert in lieu 
     thereof $473,490,000, of which $1,000,000 may be used for the 
     youth gun crime initiative.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. The amendment has been cleared by our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 935) was agreed to.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, Senator Durbin wants to go on as a cosponsor 
of this amendment, the youth gun crime initiative amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 936

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to pay for an abortion or to pay 
for the administrative expenses in connection with certain health plans 
                  that provide coverage for abortions)

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator DeWine 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. DeWine, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 936.

  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 end of title VI, insert the following:
       Sec.   . No funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
     available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative 
     expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal 
     employees health benefit program which provides any benefits 
     or coverage for abortions.
       Sec.   . The provision of section ______ shall not apply 
     where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus 
     were carried to term, or the pregnancy is the result of an 
     act of rape or incest.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. This amendment has been cleared by both sides, but 
there will be a rollcall vote. And I ask for the yeas and nays on 
behalf of Senator DeWine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 932

     (Purpose: To remove computer games from government computers)

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, at this time I would like to yield the 
floor for Senator Faircloth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I thank the Chair. I call up amendment No. 932 which 
is cosponsored by Senator Shelby, Senator Hagel, and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth], for 
     himself, Mr. Shelby and Mr. Hagel, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 932.

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. 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:

       Insert at the appropriate section.

     SEC.    PROHIBITION OF COMPUTER GAME PROGRAMS.--

       (1) Definitions.--In this section, ``agency'' means agency 
     as defined under section 105 of title 5, United States Code;

[[Page S7695]]

       (2) Removal of Existing Computer Game Programs.--Not later 
     than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     head of each agency shall take such actions as necessary to 
     remove any computer program not required for the official of 
     the agency from any agency computer equipment.
       (3) Prohibition of Installation of Computer Game 
     Programs.--The head of each agency shall prohibit the 
     installation of any computer game program not required for 
     the official business of the agency into any agency computer 
     equipment.
       (4) Prohibition of Agency Acceptance of Computer Equipment 
     with Computer Game Programs.--
       (a) Title III of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 317. RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.

       ``(a) Definition.--In this section the term `information 
     technology' has the meaning given such term under section 
     5002(3) of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401).
       ``(b) In General.--The head of an executive agency may not 
     accept delivery of information technology that is loaded with 
     game programs not required for an official purpose under the 
     terms of the contract under which information technology is 
     delivered.
       ``(c) Waiver.--The head of an executive agency may waive 
     the application of this section with respect to any 
     particular procurement of information technology, if the head 
     of the agency----
       ``(1) conducts a cost-benefit analysis and determines that 
     the costs of compliance with this section outweighs the 
     benefits of compliance; and
       ``(2) submits a certification of such determination, with 
     supporting documentation to the Congress.''.
       (b) The table of contents in section 2(b) of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 is amended 
     by inserting after the item relating to section 316 the 
     following: ``Sec. 317. Restrictions on certain information 
     technology.''.
       (c) The amendments made by this section shall take effect 
     180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that 
requires all Federal agencies to remove computer games from Government 
computers.
  On June 9 of this year, I introduced S. 885, the Responsive 
Government Act, together with Senators Hagel, Shelby, Stevens, and 
Hutchinson of Arkansas. The Responsive Government Act includes several 
provisions to help restore the confidence of the American people in the 
Federal Government. One of its provisions concerns the use of computer 
games on Government computers. I am again offering it today.
  It is absolutely ludicrous that the taxpayers are paying people to 
play computer games. The computers are bought and paid for by the 
American taxpayers for work and not for fun, and they are footing the 
bill for the job, the office and everything. To be using it for 
pleasure is simply not in keeping with the way we should be running the 
Government.
  The Federal Government did spend close to $20 billion last year on 
computers, equipment and support services. These systems are designed 
and purchased to increase productivity, not to provide games and 
ability to pass time while Federal employees are drawing wages. 
However, many of these computers are delivered already equipped with 
so-called games which reduce workers' efficiency and productivity. This 
legislation would prohibit the Federal Government from purchasing 
computers with preloaded game programs. These games, of course, do 
nothing but decrease productivity.
  In fact, a private sector survey found that workers spent an average 
of 5\1/2\ hours per week playing computer games and other nonrelated 
tasks related to computer games. This translates into an annual loss of 
$10 billion in productivity.
  Clearly, these games do not stay on the computers and go unused. In 
fact, many of the games now come equipped with a ``boss key'' which is 
a device that lets a worker strike a single key and transform the 
computer scene from a game to a spread sheet, a false spread sheet but 
a spread sheet. The soul purpose of the device is to hide unproductive 
behavior from supervisors. If you are playing the game and you suspect 
that anybody is coming, you just hit a key and it looks like you are 
working.
  There is no reason for the Federal Government to buy computers with 
programs designed to divert employees' attention from their jobs. This 
is just simply common sense.
  My amendment does provide a waiver in cases where a cost-benefit 
analysis finds it is more costly to purchase new computer equipment 
without games than with them. But these cost-benefit reports must be 
transmitted to the Congress. I think it is a reasonable safeguard for 
the unusual cases that cannot be anticipated by the Congress.
  This is something that has already been done in selected Government 
agencies. Governor George Allen of Virginia and former Labor Secretary 
Robert Reich ordered workers to delete these game programs from their 
computers. I commend them for the action. It is time to implement such 
a policy throughout the Federal Government.
  I thank the chairman for accepting this amendment. I understand it 
has been accepted by the managers of the bill on both sides, and I very 
much appreciate the support and help of Senator Campbell and Senator 
Kohl.
  Mr. President, I yield any remaining time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, the majority has no objection to this 
amendment.
  Mr. KOHL. The minority accepts it also.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 932) 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 assistant 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.


                           Amendment No. 937

   (Purpose: To strike restrictions on current authorities under the 
                National Energy Conservation Policy Act)

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bingaman, I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for Mr. Bingaman, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 937.

  Mr. KOHL. 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 92, strike lines 6 through 16.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment from the 
Senator from New Mexico to strike section 630 of this legislation. The 
provision that would be stricken by the amendment addresses substantive 
issues regarding the energy efficiency requirements that apply to 
Federal agencies under the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The requirements 
addressed by this provision are complex and, along with many, if not 
all, of the energy efficiency provisions of EPAct, have resulted in 
quite a bit of controversy during their implementation. As chairman of 
the Energy Committee, I intend to investigate these issues thoroughly 
and address them legislatively, as appropriate.
  I believe that the supporters of section 630 have raised a legitimate 
concern that will probably require a legislative resolution. However, 
as I noted, these issues are very complex, and within the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The scope of this 
section is very broad and its full impact is unknown at this time. Its 
impact on existing contracts is unclear, and it may, in fact, prohibit 
some activities that are appropriate and beneficial to the American 
taxpayer. We simply have not had the opportunity for the Energy 
Committee to evaluate this language and assess all of its implications, 
as it should. As such, I must object to their resolution in this piece 
of legislation on procedural grounds and would ask that my name be 
added as co-sponsor of the Bingaman amendment.
  Mr. KOHL. I ask to have the amendment laid aside until Monday.
  Mr. STEVENS. I object. I wish to discuss the amendment tonight.

[[Page S7696]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. The amendment of the Senator from New Mexico would 
eliminate from the bill a provision that I requested be inserted 
because of a conference I had with a former staff member of the 
Commerce Committee, as a matter of fact. He pointed out to me that the 
basic law, the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, requires the 
competitive process.
  According to the Office of Technology Assessment, Federal agencies 
spent about $4 billion annually on power, light, water and other 
utility bills, and that that could be cut by 25 percent, about $1 
billion a year, if we required agencies to improve energy efficiency. 
That led to this new law.
  Our provision does not call for new funding. It does not change 
existing law. It restricts the use of appropriated funds unless 
procurements are made through the competitive process. The language in 
the bill that I requested effects no change in that law, the existing 
law. The existing law does require a full competitive procurement to be 
used by Federal agencies to obtain energy-efficient goods and services. 
It is within the jurisdiction of our Appropriations Committee. It is 
primarily because it limits the expenditure of funds. Our language 
really does no more than direct Federal agencies to abide by the law, 
to follow the law which requires specific procurement procedures. It 
will not disrupt any existing contracts. It will not prohibit any 
utility or nonutility provider of energy-efficient services from 
competing for Federal contracts. It simply directs the Federal agencies 
to use the competitive process for procuring services for all energy 
efficiency providers as current law directs.
  Mr. President, my problem with striking it is it will mean that we 
will continue to not receive the savings that we are supposed to 
receive as a result of the basic law of the land which is the Energy 
Conservation Policy Act. I do believe that this is a law which ought to 
be pursued. I call the Senate's attention to that act, which is 
basically the 1978 act. It has been improved on several times since 
that time.
  I might say, the person who talked to me was part of the staff at the 
time that basic law was devised, and pointed out to me how it has not 
been enforced. What we are talking about is basically the provision 
that is required under Section 551(4) of Title I of the National Energy 
Conservation Policy Act which basically says this:

       The term ``energy conservation measures'' means measures 
     that are applied to a Federal building that improve energy 
     efficiency or are life cycle cost effective and that involve 
     energy conservation, cogeneration facilities, renewable 
     energy sources, improvements in operation and maintenance 
     efficiencies, or retrofit activities.

  That is the law, Mr. President. Senator Bingaman's amendment would 
strike from this bill my amendment which requires and--prevents the use 
of funds under this bill for those activities unless they follow the 
law regarding competitive procurement practices. I know Senator 
Bingaman will have a minute when he comes on Monday. I wanted to take 
this time now to explain it.
  I ask unanimous consent we have printed in the Record at this point 
the relevant provisions of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, 
Section 201 of the Federal Property Administrative Services Act, which 
is what we require.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Excerpts From the National Energy Conservation Policy Act

       Sec. 8259. Definitions.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       (4) the term ``energy conservation measures'' means 
     measures that are applied to a Federal building that improve 
     energy efficiency and are life cycle cost effective and that 
     involve energy conservation, cogeneration facilities, 
     renewable energy sources, improvements in operations and 
     maintenance efficiencies, or retrofit activities;

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Sec. 8251. Findings.
       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Federal Government is the largest single energy 
     consumer in the Nation;
       (2) the cost of meeting the Federal Government's energy 
     requirement is substantial;
       (3) there are significant opportunities in the Federal 
     Government to conserve and make more efficient use of energy 
     through improved operations and maintenance, the use of new 
     energy efficient technologies, and the application and 
     achievement of energy efficient design and construction;
       (4) Federal energy conservation measures can be financed at 
     little or no cost to the Federal Government by using private 
     investment capital made available through contracts 
     authorized by subchapter VII of this chapter; and
       (5) an increase in energy efficiency by the Federal 
     Government would benefit the Nation by reducing the cost of 
     government, reducing national dependence on foreign energy 
     resources, and demonstrating the benefits of greater energy 
     efficiency to the Nation.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Sec. 8287. Authority to enter into contracts.
       (a) In general.
       (1) The head of a Federal agency may enter into contracts 
     under this subchapter solely for the purpose of achieving 
     energy savings and benefits ancillary to that purpose. Each 
     such contract may, notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, be for a period not to exceed 25 years. Such contract 
     shall provide that the contractor shall incur costs of 
     implementing energy savings measures, including at least the 
     costs (if any) incurred in making energy audits, acquiring 
     and installing equipment, and training personnel, in exchange 
     for a share of any energy savings directly resulting from 
     implementation of such measures during the term of the 
     contract.
       (2)(A) Contracts under this subchapter shall be energy 
     savings performance contracts and shall require an annual 
     energy audit and specify the terms and conditions of any 
     Government payments and performance guarantees. Any such 
     performance guarantee shall provide that the contractor is 
     responsible for maintenance and repair services for any 
     energy related equipment, including computer software 
     systems.
       (B) Aggregate annual payments by an agency to both 
     utilities and energy savings performance contractors, under 
     an energy savings performance contract, may not exceed the 
     amount that the agency would have paid for utilities without 
     an energy savings performance contract (as estimated through 
     the procedures developed pursuant to this section) during 
     contract years. The contract shall provide for a guarantee of 
     savings to the agency, and shall establish payment schedules 
     reflecting such guarantee, taking into account any capital 
     costs under the contract.
       (C) Federal agencies may incur obligations pursuant to such 
     contracts to finance energy conservation measures provided 
     guaranteed savings exceed the debt service requirements.
       (D) A Federal agency may enter into a multiyear contract 
     under this subchapter for a period not to exceed 25 years, 
     without funding of cancellation charges before cancellation, 
     if--
       (i) such contract was awarded in a competitive manner 
     pursuant to subsection (b(2) of this section, using 
     procedures and methods established under this subchapter;
       (ii) funds are available and adequate for payment of the 
     costs of such contract for the first fiscal year;
       (iii) 30 days before the award of any such contract that 
     contains a clause setting forth a cancellation ceiling in 
     excess of $750,000, the head of such agency gives written 
     notification of such proposed contract and of the proposed 
     cancellation ceiling for such contract to the appropriate 
     authorizing and appropriating committees of the Congress; and
       (iv) such contract is governed by part 17.1 of the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation promulgated under section 421 of Title 
     41 or the applicable rules promulgated under this subchapter.
       (b) Implementation.
       (1)(A) The Secretary, with the concurrence of the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulatory Council established under section 
     421(a) of Title 41, not later than 180 days after October 24, 
     1992, shall, by rule, establish appropriate procedures and 
     methods for use by Federal agencies to select, monitor, and 
     terminate contracts with energy service contractors in 
     accordance with laws governing Federal procurement that will 
     achieve the intent of this section in a cost-effective 
     manner. In developing such procedures and methods, the 
     Secretary, with the concurrence of the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulatory Council, shall determine which existing 
     regulations are inconsistent with the intent of this section 
     and shall formulate substitute regulations consistent with 
     laws governing Federal procurement.
       (B) The procedures and methods established pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) shall be the procedures and contracting 
     methods for selection, by an agency, of a contractor to 
     provide energy savings performance services. Such procedures 
     and methods shall provide for the calculation of energy 
     savings based on sound engineering and financial practices.
       (2) The procedures and methods established pursuant to 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall--
       (A) allow the Secretary to--
       (i) request statements of qualifications, which shall, at a 
     minimum, include prior experience and capabilities of 
     contractors to perform the proposed types of energy savings 
     services and financial and performance information, from 
     firms engaged in providing energy savings services; and
       (ii) from the statements received, designate and prepare a 
     list, with an update at

[[Page S7697]]

     least annually, of those firms that are qualified to provide 
     energy savings services;
       (B) require each agency to use the list prepared by the 
     Secretary pursuant to subparagraph (A)(ii) unless the agency 
     elects to develop an agency list of firms qualified to 
     provide energy savings performance services using the same 
     selection procedures and methods as are required of the 
     Secretary in preparing such lists; and
       (C) allow the head of each agency to--
       (i) select firms from the list prepared pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) or the list prepared by the agency 
     pursuant to subparagraph (B) to conduct discussions 
     concerning a particular proposed energy savings project, 
     including requesting a technical and price proposal from such 
     selected firms for such project;
       (ii) select from such firms the most qualified firm to 
     provide energy savings services based on technical and price 
     proposals and any other relevant information;
       (iii) permit receipt of unsolicited proposals for energy 
     savings performance contracting services from a firm that 
     such agency has determined is qualified to provide such 
     services under the procedures established pursuant 
     to paragraph (1)(A), and require agency facility managers 
     to place a notice in the Commerce Business Daily 
     announcing they have received such a proposal and invite 
     other similarly qualified firms to submit competing 
     proposals; and
       (iv) enter into an energy savings performance contract with 
     a firm qualified under clause (iii), consistent with the 
     procedures and methods established pursuant to paragraph 
     (1)(A).
       (3) A firm not designated as qualified to provide energy 
     savings services under paragraph (2)(A)(i) or paragraph 
     (2)(B) may request a review of such decision to be conducted 
     in accordance with procedures to be developed by the board of 
     contract appeals of the General Services Administration. 
     Procedures developed by the board of contract appeals under 
     this paragraph shall be substantially equivalent to 
     procedures established under section 759(f) of Title 40.
       (c) Sunset and reporting requirements
       (1) The authority to enter into new contracts under this 
     section shall cease to be effective five years after the date 
     procedures and methods are established under subsection (b) 
     of this section.
       (2) Beginning one year after the date procedures and 
     methods are established under subsection (b) of this section, 
     and annually thereafter, for a period of five years after 
     such date, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     report on the implementation of this section. Such reports 
     shall include, but not be limited to, an assessment of the 
     following issues:
       (A) The quality of the energy audits conducted for the 
     agencies.
       (B) The Government's ability to maximize energy savings.
       (C) The total energy cost savings accrued by the agencies 
     that have entered into such contracts.
       (D) The total costs associated with entering into and 
     performing such contracts.
       (E) A comparison of the total costs incurred by agencies 
     under such contracts and the total costs incurred under 
     similar contracts performed in the private sector.
       (F) The number of firms selected as qualified firms under 
     this section and their respective shares of awarded 
     contracts.
       (G) The number of firms engaged in similar activity in the 
     private sector and their respective market shares.
       (H) The number of applicant firms not selected as qualified 
     firms under this section and the reason for their 
     nonselection.
       (I) The frequency with which agencies have utilized the 
     services of Government labs to perform any of the functions 
     specified in this section.
       (J) With the respect to the final report submitted pursuant 
     to this paragraph, an assessment of whether the contracting 
     procedures developed pursuant to this section and utilized by 
     agencies have been effective and whether continued use of 
     such procedures, as opposed to the procedures provided by 
     existing public contract law, is necessary for implementation 
     of successful energy savings performance contracts.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Sec. 8287a. Payment of costs.
       Any amount paid by a Federal agency pursuant to any 
     contract entered into under this subchapter may be paid only 
     from funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the 
     agency for fiscal year 1986 or any fiscal year thereafter for 
     the payment of energy expenses (and related operation and 
     maintenance expenses).

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Sec. 8287b. Reports.
       Each Federal agency shall periodically furnish the 
     Secretary of Energy with full and complete information on its 
     activities under this subchapter, and the Secretary shall 
     include in the report submitted to Congress under section 
     8260 of this title a description of the progress made by each 
     Federal agency in--
       (1) including the authority provided by this subchapter in 
     its contracting practices; and
       (2) achieving energy savings under contracts entered into 
     under this subchapter.
                                                                    ____


         Excerpts From the Property Administrative Services Act

                   SUBCHAPTER II--PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

       Sec. 481. Procurement, warehousing, and related activities.
       (a) Policies and methods of procurement and supply; 
     operation of warehouses
       The Administrator shall, in respect of executive agencies, 
     and to the extent that he determines that so doing is 
     advantageous to the Government in terms of economy, 
     efficiency, or service, and with due regard to the program 
     activities of the agencies concerned--
       (1) subject to regulations prescribed by the Administrator 
     for Federal Procurement Policy pursuant to the Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy Act [41 U.S.C.A. Sec. 401 et 
     seq.], prescribe policies and methods of procurement and 
     supply of personal property and nonpersonal services, 
     including related functions such as contracting, inspection, 
     storage, issue, property identification and classification, 
     transportation and traffic management, management of public 
     utility services, and repairing and converting; and
       (2) operate, and, after consultation with the executive 
     agencies affected, consolidate, take over, or arrange for the 
     operation by any executive agency of warehouses, supply 
     centers, repair shops, fuel yards, and other similar 
     facilities; and
       (3) procure and supply personal property and nonpersonal 
     services for the use of executive agencies in the proper 
     discharge of their responsibilities, and perform functions 
     related to procurement and supply such as those mentioned 
     above in subparagraph (1) at this subsection: Provided, That 
     contacts for public utility services may be made for periods 
     not exceeding ten years; and
       (4) with respect to transportation and other public utility 
     services for the use of executive agencies, represent such 
     agencies in negotiations with carriers and other public 
     utilities and in proceedings involving carriers or other 
     public utilities before Federal and State regulatory bodies;
       Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may from time to 
     time, and unless the President shall otherwise direct, exempt 
     the Department of Defense from action taken or which may be 
     taken by the Administrator under clauses (1) to (4) of this 
     subsection whenever he determines such exemption to be in the 
     best interests of national security.
       (b) Extension of services to Federal agencies and mixed 
     ownership corporations and the District of Columbia.
       The Administrator shall as far as practicable provide any 
     of the services specified in subsection (a) of this section 
     to any other Federal agency, mixed ownership corporation (as 
     defined in chapter 91 of Title 31), or the District of 
     Columbia, upon its request.
       (c) Exchange or sale of similar items
       In acquiring personal property, any executive agency, under 
     regulations to be prescribed by the Administrator, subject to 
     regulations prescribed by the Administrator for Federal 
     Procurement Policy pursuant to the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act [41 U.S.C.A. Sec. 401 et seq.], may 
     exchange or sell similar items and may apply the exchange 
     allowance or proceeds of sale in such cases in whole or in 
     part payment for the property acquired: Provided, That any 
     transaction carried out under the authority of this 
     subsection shall be evidenced in writing.
       (d) Utilization of services by executive agencies without 
     reimbursement or transfer of funds
       In conformity with policies prescribed by the Administrator 
     under subsection (a) of this section, any executive agency 
     may utilize the services, work, materials, and equipment of 
     any other executive agency, with the consent of such other 
     executive agency, for the inspection of personal property 
     incident to the procurement thereof, and notwithstanding 
     section 1301(a) of Title 31 or any other provision of law 
     such other executive agency may furnish such services, work, 
     materials, and equipment for that purpose without 
     reimbursement or transfer of funds.
       (e) Exchange or transfer of excess property
       Whenever the head of any executive agency determines that 
     the remaining storage or shelf life of any medical materials 
     or medical supplies held by such agency for national 
     emergency purposes is of too short duration to justify their 
     continued retention for such purposes and that their transfer 
     or disposal would be in the interest of the United States, 
     such materials or supplies shall be considered for the 
     purposes of section 483 of this title to be excess property. 
     In accordance with the regulations of the Administrator, such 
     excess materials or supplies may thereupon be transferred to 
     or exchanged with any other Federal agency for other medical 
     materials or supplies. Any proceeds derived from such 
     transfers may be credited to the current applicable 
     appropriation or fund of the transferor agency and shall be 
     available only for the purchase of medical materials or 
     supplies to be held for national emergency purposes. If such 
     materials or supplies are not transferred to or exchanged 
     with any other Federal agency, they shall be disposed of as 
     surplus property. To the greatest extent practicable, the 
     head of the executive agency holding such medical materials 
     or supplies shall make the determination provided for in the 
     first sentence of this subsection at such times as to insure 
     that such medical materials or medical supplies can be 
     transferred or otherwise disposed of in sufficient time to 
     permit their use before their shelf life expires and they are 
     rendered unfit for human use.

                           *   *   *   *   *


                   SUBCHAPTER II--PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

       Sec. 481. Procurement, warehousing, and related activities.

[[Page S7698]]

       (a) Policies and methods of procurement and supply; 
     operation of warehouses.
       The Administrator shall, in respect of executive agencies, 
     and to the extent that he determines that so doing is 
     advantageous to the Government in terms of economy, 
     efficiency, or service, and with due regard to the program 
     activities of the agencies concerned--
       (1) subject to regulations prescribed by the Administrator 
     for Federal Procurement Policy pursuant to the Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy Act [41 U.S.C.A. Sec. 401 et 
     seq.], prescribe policies and methods of procurement and 
     supply of personal property and nonpersonal services, 
     including related functions such as contracting, inspection, 
     storage, issue, property identification and classification, 
     transportation and traffic management, management of public 
     utility services, and repairing and converting; and
       (2) operate, and, after consultation with the executive 
     agencies affected, consolidate, take over, or arrange for the 
     operation by any executive agency of warehouses, supply 
     centers, repair shops, fuel yards, and other similar 
     facilities; and
       (3) procure and supply personal property and nonpersonal 
     services for the use of executive agencies in the proper 
     discharge of their responsibilities, and perform functions 
     related to procurement and supply such as those mentioned 
     above in subparagraph (1) of this subsection: Provided, That 
     contracts for public utility services may be made for periods 
     not exceeding ten years; and
       (4) with respect to transportation and other public utility 
     services for the use of executive agencies, represent such 
     agencies in negotiations with carriers and other public 
     utilities and in proceedings involving carriers or other 
     public utilities before Federal and State regulatory bodies;
       Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may from time to 
     time, and unless the President shall otherwise direct, exempt 
     the Department of Defense from action taken or which may be 
     taken by the Administrator under clauses (1) to (4) of this 
     subsection whenever he determines such exemption to be in the 
     best interests of national security.
       (b) Extension of services to Federal agencies and mixed 
     ownership corporations and the District of Columbia.
       The Administrator shall as far as practicable provide any 
     of the services specified in subsection (a) of this section 
     to any other Federal agency, mixed ownership corporation (as 
     defined in chapter 91 of Title 31), or the District of 
     Columbia, upon its request.
       (c) Exchange or sale of similar items.
       In acquiring personal property, any executive agency, under 
     regulations to be prescribed by the Administrator, subject to 
     regulations prescribed by the Administrator for Federal 
     Procurement Policy pursuant to the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act [41 U.S.C.A. Sec. 401 et seq.], may 
     exchange or sell similar items and may apply the exchange 
     allowance or proceeds of sale in such cases in whole or in 
     part payment for the property acquired: Provided, That any 
     transaction carried out under the authority of this 
     subsection shall be evidenced in writing.
       (d) Utilization of services by executive agencies without 
     reimbursement or transfer of funds.
       In conformity with policies prescribed by the Administrator 
     under subsection (a) of this section, and executive agency 
     may utilize the services, work, materials, and equipment of 
     any other executive agency, with the consent of such other 
     executive agency, for the inspection of personal property 
     incident to the procurement thereof, and notwithstanding 
     section 1301(a) of Title 31 or any other provision of law 
     such other executive agency may furnish such services, work, 
     materials, and equipment for that purpose without 
     reimbursement or transfer of funds.
       (e) Exchange or transfer of excess property.
       Whenever the head of any executive agency determines that 
     the remaining storage or shelf life of any medical materials 
     or medical supplies held by such agency for national 
     emergency purposes is of too short duration to justify their 
     continued retention for such purposes and that their transfer 
     or disposal would be in the interest of the United States, 
     such materials or supplies shall be considered for the 
     purposes of section 483 of this title to be excess property. 
     In accordance with the regulations of the Administrator, such 
     excess materials or supplies may thereupon be transferred to 
     or exchanged with any other Federal agency for other medical 
     materials or supplies. Any proceeds derived from such 
     transfers may be credited to the current applicable 
     appropriation or fund of the transferor agency and shall be 
     available only for the purchase of medical materials or 
     supplies to be held for national emergency purposes. If such 
     materials or supplies are not transferred to or exchanged 
     with any other Federal agency, they shall be disposed of as 
     surplus property. To the greatest extent practicable, the 
     head of the executive agency holding such medical materials 
     or supplies shall make the determination provided for in the 
     first sentence of this subsection at such times as to insure 
     that such medical materials or medical supplies can be 
     transferred or otherwise disposed of in sufficient time to 
     permit their use before their shelf life expires and they are 
     rendered unfit for human use.

  Mr. STEVENS. We say that no funds can be used for the purpose of 
these measures unless they comply with the law. That is entirely within 
the jurisdiction of our committee, and I hope the Senate will not 
pursue the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico. I have not decided 
whether to make a motion to table that amendment. As I understand the 
procedure, the motions to table were not waived and therefore I reserve 
my right to make a motion to table this amendment should the Senator 
from New Mexico seek to pursue it further on Monday.
  Mr. KOHL. We will lay the amendment aside until Monday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado.


                           Amendment No. 938

 (Purpose: To provide for Members of Congress to voluntarily disclose 
  participation in Federal retirement systems in the annual financial 
                           disclosure forms)

  Mr. CAMPBELL. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator 
Abraham 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. Abraham, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 938.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec.   . (a) The congressional ethics committees shall 
     provide for voluntary reporting by Members of Congress on the 
     financial disclosure reports filed under title I of the 
     Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) on such 
     Members' participation in--
       (1) the Civil Service Retirement System under chapter 83 of 
     title 5, United States Code; and
       (2) the Federal Employees Retirement System under chapter 
     84 of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) In this section, the terms ``congressional ethics 
     committees'' and ``Members of Congress'' have the meanings 
     given such terms under section 109 of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).
       (c) This section shall apply to fiscal year 1998 and each 
     fiscal year, thereafter.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides of the aisle. I urge its immediate adoption.
  Mr. KOHL. We have no objection.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 938) 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 assistant 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 (Mr. Allard). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 939

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

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 939.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. 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 3, line 2, insert the following after 
     ``$6,745,000'' Provided further, That Chapter 9 of the Fiscal 
     Year 1997 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from 
     Natural Disasters, and for Overseas Peacekeeping Efforts, 
     including those in Bosnia, Public Law 105-18 (111 Stat. 195-
     96) is amended by inserting after the ``County of Denver'' in 
     each instance ``the County of Arapahoe''.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. This amendment has been cleared by both sides. I urge 
its immediate adoption.
  Mr. KOHL. We have no objection on our side.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.

[[Page S7699]]

  The amendment (No. 939) 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 assistant 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.


                      Amendments Nos. 940 and 941

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Coverdell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], for Mr. 
     Coverdell, for himself and Mrs. Feinstein, proposes amendment 
     numbered 940 and, for Mr. Coverdell, amendment numbered 941.

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


                           AMENDMENT NO. 940

   (Purpose: To provide that Federal employees convicted of certain 
    bribery and drug-related crimes shall be separated from service)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec.  . (a) A Federal employee shall be separated from 
     service and barred from reemployment in the Federal service, 
     if--
       (1) the employee is convicted of a violation or attempted 
     violation of section 201 of title 18, United States Code; and
       (2) such violation or attempted violation related to 
     conduct prohibited under section 1010(a) of the Controlled 
     Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(a)).
       (b) This section shall apply during fiscal year 1998 and 
     each fiscal year thereafter.


                           amendment no. 941

 (Purpose: To require a plan for the coordination and consolidation of 
   the counterdrug intelligence centers and activities of the United 
                                States)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.   . (a) Coordination of Counterdrug Intelligence 
     Centers and Activities.--(1) Not later than 120 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office 
     of National Drug Control Policy shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a plan to improve 
     coordination, and eliminate unnecessary duplication, among 
     the counterdrug intelligence centers and counterdrug 
     activities of the Federal Government, including the centers 
     and activities of the following departments and agencies:
       (A) The Department of Defense, including the Defense 
     Intelligence Agency.
       (B) The Department of the Treasury, including the United 
     States Customs Service.
       (C) The Central Intelligence Agency.
       (D) The Coast Guard.
       (E) The Drug Enforcement Administration.
       (F) The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       (2) The purpose of the plan under paragraph (1) is to 
     maximize the effectiveness of the centers and activities 
     referred to in that paragraph in achieving the objectives of 
     the national drug control strategy. In order to maximize such 
     effectiveness, the plan shall--
       (A) articulate clear and specific mission statements for 
     each counterdrug intelligence center and activity, including 
     the manner in which responsibility for counterdrug 
     intelligence activities will be allocated among the 
     counterdrug intelligence centers;
       (B) specify the relationship between such centers;
       (C) specify the means by which proper oversight of such 
     centers will be assured;
       (D) specify the means by which counterdrug intelligence 
     will be forwarded effectively to all levels of officials 
     responsible for United States counterdrug policy; and
       (E) specify mechanisms to ensure that State and local law 
     enforcement agencies are apprised of counterdrug intelligence 
     in a manner which--
       (i) facilitates effective counterdrug activities by such 
     agencies; and
       (ii) provides such agencies with the information necessary 
     to ensure the safety of officials of such agencies in their 
     counterdrug activities.
       (b) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
     means the following:
       (1) The Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on 
     the Judiciary, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of 
     the Senate.
       (2) The Committee on International Relations, the Committee 
     on the Judiciary, and the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendments 
be set aside.
  Mr. KOHL. We have no objection to their being set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     PRESIDENT'S ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I had planned to offer an amendment which 
addresses a matter that is critical to the future of America. Drug use 
by the nation's youth is rising at alarming levels. The Office of 
National Drug Control Policy's budget request included $175 million for 
a youth oriented media anti-drug campaign aimed at reducing drug use by 
our nation's children. I strongly support this campaign.
  Drug use among America's youth has doubled over the past five years, 
tripling among eighth graders. These trends are devastating and 
threaten to destroy the fabric of American society. We have an 
obligation to reverse these trends by motivating America's youth to 
reject drugs. As you know, the media exerts tremendous influence on 
children. Through the power of the media we are equipped to influence 
children via outlets that include television, radio, computer software, 
and the Internet.
  While drug use has been glamorized, normalized and linked with 
popularity, this media campaign will employ a strategy to change youth 
attitudes about the perceived risk of drug use and to encourage parents 
to talk to their children about drugs. Coupled with support from the 
private sector, the program would finance anti-drug messages to reach 
90 percent of all children ages 9 through 17 at least four times per 
week. The media campaign will supplement existing public service 
campaigns carried out by groups such as the Partnership for a Drug Free 
America and the Ad Council, both of whom will participate in the Office 
of National Drug Policy campaign.
  Unfortunately, this program was not fully funded by the 
Appropriations Committee. I share its view that the funds used for this 
program must be carefully monitored to assure its effectiveness and 
non-partisan status, and I support the requirements the Committee has 
included that address these matters.
  However, I believe that denial of full funding sends the wrong 
message here. The Appropriations Committee questioned whether full 
funding for this new program at this time was premature. I fail to see 
the rationale. The numbers of children using drugs are going up. If 
anything, I would say that funding for such a campaign is too late, not 
premature.
  Let's put this funding in the context of the media. We all know that 
Hollywood is a multibillion dollar industry. Each year, billions of 
dollars are put into producing movies that glamorize drugs and alcohol. 
Then there is the advertising industry. I am told that the amount 
requested for this program is of the same magnitude of what is 
typically spent on one line of commercials for a fast food restaurant. 
And how much money every year is spent on beer commercials? If you 
imagine what our children are inundated with on a daily basis, and then 
if you think about how limited this campaign actually is, I believe one 
would begin to understand how much more we should be doing to prevent 
our children from being influenced to view drugs and alcohol in a 
positive light.
  My amendment would have added $65 million to help counter the 
messages our children receive each day. Given the expressions of 
opposition I have received from the Committee on this amendment, I will 
not offer it. Nonetheless I cannot think of a sound reason to oppose 
this critically important campaign. We must invest in the future of 
America's 68 million children. We cannot allow another generation 
children to be lost to the culture of drug use.
  I hope that in the future the Senate will have the opportunity to 
revisit this matter and increase funding for this most important anti-
drug campaign.

[[Page S7700]]

              FUNDING FOR THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the funding for 
the Federal Election Commission (FEC), as allocated in the Treasury, 
General Government, Civil Service Appropriations Bill.
  All of us know that Congress' appropriators are tasked with guiding 
one of the most difficult of our duties--deciding how to spend the 
taxpayers' money. While I appreciate the magnitude and difficulty of 
this task as approached by the Subcommittee on Treasury, General 
Government, and Civil Service Appropriations, I am disappointed that 
the committee did not provide the FEC with full funding at its request 
of $34.2 million, as supported by the President.
  Mr. President, the citizens' cries for campaign finance reform are 
growing louder and louder. Why? Because campaign spending is out of 
control. As money floods endlessly into our electoral system, however, 
I fear the voice of the average American will be drowned out and 
democracy will be the victim.
  Much must be done to truly and effectively clean up our political 
campaigns. But one thing we can do to start right now is provide the 
FEC--the agency charged by Congress with overseeing our campaign 
finance system--with the finances it needs to promptly and effectively 
enforce the laws that govern our campaigns.
  Consider that, in just eight years, we have seen a fourfold increase 
in the amount of money raised and spent by both parties, from $220 
million raised by both parties in 1988 to $881 million raised in 1996.
  In just four years, we have seen a 73 percent increase in political 
costs. A 73 percent increase in political costs since 1992--while wages 
rose 13 percent and education costs rose 17 percent during that same 
period.
  Congressional spending in 1996 general elections was $626.4 million, 
6.3 percent higher than the record 1994 levels.
  And an unprecedented $2.5 billion in financial activity was reported 
to the commission in 1996.
  And it was the FEC that had to oversee all this spending, to be sure 
it complied with the law.
  This increase in campaign spending has therefore generated a sharp 
increase FEC's workload. Between 1994 and November of 1996, the FEC's 
caseload rose 36 percent, and because complaints related to the 1996 
election are still being filed, the FEC expects the caseload to 
ultimately rise by 52 percent. Yet, providing adequate funding for the 
FEC has been a constant battle. Recent rescissions and funding 
rollbacks have prevented the FEC from keeping up with its ever-
increasing workload and meeting inflation in rent and salary costs.
  This combination of a decreasing budget and an increasing workload 
have hamstrung the FEC's ability to fulfill its watchdog role in a 
timely and effective manner. At the same time the FEC's caseload has 
risen, staff cuts required by the post-FY '95 budget reductions have 
led to a 25 percent drop in the FEC's ability to handle those cases.
  Perhaps that is one reason why the FEC has become known as a 
toothless tiger. I believe it is time to give this tiger the teeth it 
needs to carry out its duties.
  Mr. President, we are in the midst of multiple government 
investigations into campaign financing--investigations I wholeheartedly 
support. But as Congress has allocated millions of dollars for 
burgeoning Congressional campaign finance investigations, the least we 
can do is provide adequate funding for the independent and bipartisan 
FEC to do its job.
  Many of my colleagues have said that campaign finance reform is not 
the issue for 1997. The illegalities of 1996, they say, is the issue. 
Yet, at the same time, they refuse to fund the very agency that should 
be first to uncover and punish any illegalities.
  In October 1996, following news reports of alleged irregularities in 
fundraising by both political parties, I initiated a request that the 
FEC conduct an investigation of the Democratic National Committee, and 
pledged to make available all relevant records and personnel. At a 
Rules Committee hearing earlier this year, I was shocked to learn that 
as of February 1997, due to the tremendous backlog of cases and funding 
shortfalls at the FEC, that investigation had not even begun. While I 
am informed today that the investigation has now begun, I believe the 
delay in commencing the audit is illustrative of the magnitude of the 
FEC's budget problems.
  Earlier this year, after learning of the FEC's long delay in 
beginning to address the cases generated by the 1996 election, I 
introduced a bill to strengthen the FEC and authorize full funding for 
the agency. I was also recently joined by my colleagues Senators 
Kerrey, Reed, and Dorgan in writing to Senate appropriators to request 
that they provide the FEC with full funding. I ask unanimous consent 
that those letters be printed in the Record.
  I am disappointed that we have not fully funded the FEC at this time, 
but I remain hopeful that we will provide full funding--and enact other 
much needed FEC reforms--when we debate comprehensive campaign finance 
reform in what I hope will be the near future.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, July 7, 1997.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and 
         General Government Appropriations, Committee on 
         Appropriations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: As your subcommittee prepares to 
     consider the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill, we write to 
     urge you to appropriate full funding for the Federal Election 
     Commission at their request of $34.2 million.
       Established by Congress as one of the post-Watergate 
     reforms, the FEC was charged with overseeing and monitoring 
     federal election campaigns' compliance with the law. As we 
     mark the 25th anniversary of Watergate this year, it is time 
     that we enable the FEC to live up to its mandate by providing 
     it with the necessary funding.
       In recent elections, as the cost of campaigns has spiraled 
     out of control and current campaign laws have proven porous 
     and ineffective in discouraging this trend, the FEC's 
     caseload has risen, making its job more and more difficult. 
     The cost of campaigns rose 73% between the 1992 and 1996, and 
     parties raised four times the amount of money in 1996 that 
     they raised just eight years before in 1988. Between 1994 and 
     November of 1996, the FEC's caseload rose 36% and because 
     complaints related to the 1996 election are still being 
     filed, the FEC expects the caseload to ultimately rise by 
     52%. Yet, even as the FEC's workload has surged and Congress 
     has allocated millions of dollars for burgeoning 
     Congressional campaign finance investigations, providing 
     adequate funding for the independent and bipartisan FEC has 
     been a constant battle. Rescissions and funding rollbacks 
     over the last few years have not permitted the FEC to keep 
     pace with its increasing workload, or even to meet inflation 
     in rent and salary costs.
       This combination of a decreasing budget and an increasing 
     workload have hamstrung the FEC's ability to fulfill its 
     duties. At the same time the FEC's caseload has risen, staff 
     cuts required by the post-FY '95 budget reductions have led 
     to a 25% drop in the FEC's ability to handle those cases.
       The $34.2 million requested by the FEC encompasses $29.3 
     million included in the President's budget, which the FEC 
     requires to continue responsible operation and which would 
     restore the FEC's funding to its pre-1995 recision level. The 
     $34.2 million figure also encompasses an additional $4.9 
     million the FEC now needs to handle the increased volume of 
     work resulting from the 1996 elections.
       For too long, the FEC has been known as a toothless tiger, 
     an agency rendered powerless by both structural and financial 
     inadequacies. While we in Congress must explore many ways of 
     strengthening the FEC, one way we can help restore its 
     authority is to allocate the money it needs. We urge you and 
     your committee to make the requested FEC funding a top 
     priority.
     Robert J. Kerrey.
     Jack Reed.
     Christopher J. Dodd.
     Byron L. Dorgan.
                                                                    ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, July 7, 1997.
     Hon. Herb Kohl,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and 
         General Government Appropriations, Committee on 
         Appropriations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kohl: As your subcommittee prepares to 
     consider the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill, we write to 
     urge you to appropriate full funding for the Federal Election 
     Commission at their request of $34.2 million.
       Established by Congress as one of the post-Watergate 
     reforms, the FEC was charged with overseeing and monitoring 
     federal election campaigns' compliance with the law. As we 
     mark the 25th anniversary of Watergate this year, it is time 
     that we enable the FEC to live up to its mandate by providing 
     it with the necessary funding.
       In recent elections, as the cost of campaigns has spiraled 
     out of control and current campaign laws have proven porous 
     and

[[Page S7701]]

     ineffective in discouraging this trend, the FEC's caseload 
     has risen, making its job more and more difficult. The cost 
     of campaigns rose 75 percent between the 1992 and 1996, and 
     parties raised four times the amount of money in 1996 that 
     they raised just 8 years before in 1988. Between 1994 and 
     November of 1996, the FEC's caseload rose 36 percent, and 
     because complaints related to the 1996 election are still 
     being filed, the FEC expects the caseload to ultimately rise 
     by 52 percent. Yet, even as the FEC's workload has surged and 
     Congress has allocated millions of dollars for burgeoning 
     Congressional campaign finance investigations, providing 
     adequate funding for the independent and bipartisan FEC has 
     been a constant battle. Rescissions and funding rollbacks 
     over the last few years have not permitted the FEC to keep 
     pace with its increasing workload, or even to meet inflation 
     in rent and salary costs.
       This combination of a decreasing budget and an increasing 
     workload have hamstrung the FEC's ability to fulfill its 
     duties. At the same time the FEC's caseload has risen, staff 
     cuts required by the post-fiscal year 1995 budget reductions 
     have led to a 25 percent drop in the FEC's ability to handle 
     those cases.
       The $34.2 million requested by the FEC encompasses $29.3 
     million included in the President's budget, which the FEC 
     requires to continue responsible operation and which would 
     restore the FEC's funding to its pre-1995 rescission level. 
     The $34.2 million figure also encompasses an additional $4.9 
     million the FEC now needs to handle the increased volume of 
     work resulting from the 1996 elections.
       For too long, the FEC has been known as a toothless tiger, 
     an agency rendered powerless by both structural and financial 
     inadequacies. While we in Congress must explore many ways of 
     strengthening the FEC, one way we can help restore its 
     authority is to allocate the money it needs. We urge you and 
     your committee to make the requested FEC funding a top 
     priority.
           Sincerely,
     Robert J. Kerrey.
     Jack Reed.
     Christopher J. Dodd.
     Byron L. Dorgan.


 The National Historical Publications and Research Commission and The 
                        Nathaniel Greene Papers

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Campbell 
for his work on this appropriations bill. I was particularly pleased 
with the funding level for the National Historical Publications and 
Records Commission, which was increased by $1 million over the budget 
request. It is my hope that, although not specifically earmarked, a 
portion of these funds will go toward completing the Rhode Island 
Historical Society's ongoing project ``The Papers of General Nathaniel 
Greene.''
  As I am sure my colleagues are aware, Nathaniel Greene, in addition 
to being a famous Rhode Islander, was second in command to General 
George Washington during the American Revolutionary War. Nathaniel 
Greene's papers, which are extensive, provide a complete, first-person 
account of the Revolution. The Greene papers include numerous 
correspondence with George Washington, as well as letters from all of 
the members of the Continental Congress, the Board of War, many of the 
state governors, a number of Generals in the Continental Army, and 
other troops and their loved ones.
  When the war was over, General Greene, clearly recognizing the 
historical significance of his correspondence, gathered as many as 
6,000 letters and documents in trunks and made his way home to Rhode 
Island. Later, he stopped in Princeton, New Jersey, the site of the 
Continental Congress, and expressed his desire to have his papers 
copied, assembled, and bound in books. That very day, Congress agreed 
to General Greene's request and voted to provide him with a clerk to 
undertake this task. Regrettably, General Greene died two years later, 
and, over the years, his papers have been scattered between more than 
100 repositories in a number of states.
  Since 1971, the Rhode Island Historical Society has worked to 
assemble and publish the extraordinary papers of this remarkable 
patriot. At the onset of this project, which was cosponsored by The 
William L. Clement Library at the University of Michigan, funds were 
provided by the National Historical Publications Commission (now the 
NHPRC). Additional funds were received through the National Endowment 
for the Humanities, which contributed to the completion of the first 
nine volumes of ``The Papers of General Nathaniel Greene.''
  The remaining volumes of the Greene Papers will focus on the 
Revolutionary War in the South. Details about the Southern Campaign are 
far less well known than those about the War in the North.
  At the age of thirty-two, Nathaniel Greene became the youngest 
General in the Continental Army and later became commander of the 
Southern Army. In 1781 and 1782, he and his troops defeated the British 
in the Carolinas and in Georgia. The several volumes that remain to be 
completed focus on this aspect of our nation's early history. It is a 
period that, in some important aspects, is not well chronicled, and I 
believe that completion of the Greene Papers will add significantly to 
our knowledge of an entire region--the South.
  Once again, I applaud Senators Campbell and Kohl for their work on 
this bill and hope that funds from the National Historical Publications 
and Records Commission will be available for completion of the Greene 
Papers.


                   REGULATORY ACCOUNTING, SECTION 625

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to 
express my support for the regulatory accounting provision in Section 
625 of the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill, S. 1023. This continues 
last year's effort by Senator Stevens, and as the new Chairman of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, I strongly support it. I believe the 
public has the right to know the benefits and burdens of Federal 
regulatory programs. And Congress needs this information to better 
manage the regulatory process. Currently, Federal regulatory programs 
cost hundreds of billions of dollars per year--$700 billion by some 
estimates. That comes to several thousand dollars for the average 
American household--perhaps $7,000 per year. Our regulatory goals are 
too important, and our resources are too precious, to spend this money 
unwisely.
  This provision is identical to last year's Stevens Amendment. It 
requires the Office of Management and Budget to provide Congress with a 
report on: (1) the total annual costs and benefits of Federal 
regulatory programs; (2) the costs and benefits of rules costing $100 
million or more; (3) the direct and indirect impacts of Federal rules 
on the private sector, State and local government, and the Federal 
government; and (4) recommendations to streamline and improve 
regulatory programs. Before issuing the report in final form, OMB must 
provide the public with notice and an opportunity to comment on the 
draft report--its substance, methodologies, and recommendations. In the 
final report, OMB must summarize the public comments.
  Now we know that regulatory accounting is doable, and it does not 
impose an unjustifiable burden on the agencies. First, OMB has done its 
first draft report under last year's regulatory accounting provision, 
and we expect the draft to be published in the Federal Register early 
next week. While this report is not perfect, it shows that regulatory 
accounting can be done and can help us better understand the benefits 
and burdens of regulation. In the past week, the American Enterprise 
Institute and the Brookings Institution released a primer on how to do 
regulatory accounting, entitled ``Improving Regulatory 
Accountability.'' This should be helpful to all of us as OMB revises 
its draft report.
  Estimating the total annual costs and benefits of Federal regulatory 
programs is like assembling a jigsaw puzzle, and some of the major 
sections have been assembled. OMB's first draft report will provide a 
foundation for further improvements that can be proposed during the 
public comment period. Private studies have estimated the annual costs 
of regulation, and many of its benefits. These include Bob Hahn's 
``Regulatory Reform: What Do the Numbers Tell Us?,'' Tom Hopkins' 
``Cost of Regulation,'' and Hahn and Hird's ``The Costs and Benefits of 
Regulation.'' Moreover, Executive Order 12866, like the preceding 
Orders for the last 15 years, requires a cost-benefit assessment for 
significant regulations, which constitute most of the puzzle. The 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act also requires detailed cost-benefit 
analyses of $100 million rules. In addition, the paperwork burden--and 
I do think it should be addressed--constitutes about 1/3 of the cost 
puzzle, and paperwork burden hours already are estimated under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act. Those burdens can easily be monetized by 
estimating the value of the

[[Page S7702]]

time needed to comply with paperwork requirements. In addition, the 
cost of environmental regulation--about \1/4\ of the cost puzzle--is 
estimated in EPA's study, The Cost of a Clean Environment (1990), in 
annual estimates by the Department of Commerce, and by other sources. 
Finally, regulatory accounting should not create a resource drain for 
OMB. OMB should issue guidelines requiring the agencies to compile 
needed information, just as OMB does in the fiscal budget process.

  This regulatory accounting provision requires OMB to do a credible 
and reliable report on the costs and benefits of Federal regulation. 
First, subsection 625(a)(1) requires OMB to provide estimates of the 
``total annual'' costs and benefits of Federal regulatory programs. 
This includes those regulatory costs and benefits that will impact the 
nation during the upcoming fiscal year. These costs and benefits would 
include impacts from rules issued before this upcoming fiscal year, not 
just new rules. OMB should do its best to estimate and quantify that 
figure on the cost side, and to explain what benefits we are getting 
for the costs of these programs.
  When estimating the costs and benefits of ``Federal regulatory 
programs,'' OMB should use the valuable information already available, 
and supplement it where needed. Where agencies have or can produce 
detailed information on the costs and benefits of individual programs, 
they should make full use of this information. For example, EPA 
produces reports on the costs of their major environmental programs. 
Since EPA has program-by-program information, EPA should include such 
detail in its estimates. Other agencies may not have program-by-program 
estimates of costs and benefits, nor be capable of producing it, so 
they may need to rely on less detailed information. I expect a rule of 
reason will prevail: Where the agencies can produce detail that will be 
informative for the Congress and the public, they should do so. Where 
it is extremely burdensome to provide such detail, broader estimates 
should suffice. Information generated during the public comment period 
should assist OMB.
  Subsection 625(a)(3) requires OMB to assess the direct and indirect 
impacts of Federal rules on the private sector, State and local 
government, and the Federal Government. As many studies show, 
regulatory impacts go beyond compliance costs. Regulation also creates 
a drag on real wages, economic growth, and productivity. Complex 
economic models can quantify these adverse impacts. However, OMB is not 
mandated to devote vast resources to create such models. Instead, OMB 
may use available reports, studies, and other relevant information to 
assess the direct and indirect impacts of Federal rules. In addition, 
OMB should discuss the serious problems posed by unfunded federal 
mandates for State, local and tribal governments. OMB should inform 
Congress of its efforts to address these problems. Ultimately, OMB must 
provide Congress with a credible accounting statement on the regulatory 
process. This report should show clearly the benefits and burdens of 
the regulatory process, and it should help Congress to see which 
programs are cost-effective and which are wasteful.
  We have received a copy of OMB's first draft report prepared under 
last year's Stevens Amendment. The draft is an important first step, 
and I agree with many recommendations it provides. For example, I 
strongly agree that OIRA should lead an effort to raise the use and 
quality of agency analyses for developing regulations. I also agree 
that OIRA should develop a database on the costs and benefits of major 
rules and a system to track the net benefits of all new federal 
regulations and reforms of existing regulations. This information could 
be used to determine what improvements to recommend. However, I also 
think that there are several more areas that would be fruitful for OMB 
to consider. First, OMB should estimate the total costs of all federal 
mandates, not just environmental, health, safety and economic 
regulation. In particular, OMB should estimate the entire costs of 
paperwork, including from tax collection. Second, OMB should estimate, 
where feasible, the quantifiable indirect costs and the indirect 
benefits of regulation. This includes, for example, the costs 
associated with product bans and marketing limitations, as well as the 
indirect benefits associated with the preservation of endangered 
species. Third, OMB should examine the impact of regulation on wages, 
innovation, employment, and income distribution, including employment 
impacts on particular sectors of the economy. OMB should leverage the 
expertise and resources of other agencies, especially the President's 
Council of Economic Advisors, to do these analyses. Finally, OMB should 
do more to recommend improvements to the regulatory process, as well as 
particular programs and regulations. OMB does not have to be omniscient 
to propose such improvements, and its recommendations do not have to be 
based on perfect empirical data. Let's also use common sense and work 
together for the public good.
  In closing, I should note that this regulatory accounting provision 
is founded on broad support. Last year's Stevens amendment was adopted 
by voice vote. It was modeled on more detailed provisions strongly 
supported in the 104th Congress--in the Roth bill, S. 291, the Dole-
Johnston bill, S. 343, and the Glenn-Chafee bill. Regulatory accounting 
is widely endorsed--by those who labor under the growing regulatory 
burden, as well as by those who want to assure the benefits of 
regulation and to enhance the public's right to know about important 
governmental decisions.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, under a prior unanimous consent, all 
Members were advised that there would be debates tonight on the 
amendments that many of them had said they wanted to pursue. Several 
Senators have said they were going to be here this evening to do that. 
Unfortunately, we cannot find them. We don't know where they are. We 
called their offices. They are not down here to debate their 
amendments. So, with consultation with Senator Kohl, we are prepared to 
just close us down tonight.
  Mr. President, 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. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

                          ____________________