[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.
____________________