[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 134 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10245-S10251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                         1998 CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of 
conference on H.R. 2378 making appropriations for the Treasury 
Department, the U.S. Postal Service, the Executive Office of the 
President, and certain independent agencies, for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 
2378 which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2378) having met, after full and free conference, have agreed 
     to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses this 
     report, signed by a majority of the conferees.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 29, 1997.)


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, before proceeding with my statement, I 
ask unanimous consent that the following staff be allowed floor 
privileges during the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 
2378. That will be Pat Raymond, Barbara Retzlaff, Tammy Perrin, Lula 
Edwards, and Frank Larkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, my colleague and I, Senator Kohl, are 
bringing before the Senate today the fiscal year 1998 appropriations 
bill of the Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Postal Service, and 
the Executive Office of the President, and certain independent 
agencies.
  This bill contains $25.6 billion in mandatory and discretionary 
funding for fiscal year 1998. Reaching this level of funding has not 
been an easy task, and I would like at this time to publicly thank the 
ranking member, Senator Kohl, for his cooperation and continued effort 
in supporting this bill. We have tried our best to be supportive of the 
requests of individual Senators, and I think our bill reflects that.
  This bill funds 40 percent of all Federal law enforcement. Adequate 
funding for this activity has been a top priority for both Senator Kohl 
and myself. In addition to providing sufficient funding for law 
enforcement, this bill goes a long way in encouraging the IRS to stay 
on track with modernization while at the same time addressing

[[Page S10246]]

their needs for the year 2000 computer program.
  Also, this bill provides for a new $195 million antidrug campaign for 
the Office of National Drug Control Policy targeted at our Nation's 
youth. This is $20 million above what the administration has requested.
  In addition, this bill provides $10 million for the Drug Free 
Communities Act, a program which 27 Members of the Senate cosponsored. 
These funds will be used for the establishment of local counterdrug 
efforts focusing on successful local initiatives.
  The bill also includes $159 million for the high intensity drug 
trafficking areas, or HIDTA's, as they are known. This provides funding 
for the existing HIDTA's, which are in Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New 
York, the southwest border, Washington/Baltimore, Puerto Rico/Virgin 
Islands, Atlanta, Chicago, Philadelphia/Camden, Cascade, the gulf 
coast, Lake County, the Midwest, the Rocky Mountains, San Francisco, 
and Detroit. In addition, funding is provided for the new HIDTA's in 
West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, central Florida and Wisconsin.
  The bill also provides $10 million for the ATF's Gang Resistance 
Education And Training Program, or GREAT, as it is known, which many of 
my colleagues also support. This program provides grants to local law 
enforcement agencies.
  There is also $13 million for an antidrug technology transfer program 
targeted at State and local law enforcement. This new program aims at 
getting much-needed counterdrug technology currently used by Federal 
law enforcement out to those in the State and local communities in 
their efforts to help them in their efforts in fighting the drug war.
  These are just a few of the items funded in this bill, Mr. President. 
This bill has taken lots of very, very hard work to stay within the 
budget agreement and still fund many important programs within the 
jurisdiction of the bill. I think this bill takes a strong stand for 
law enforcement while at the same time meeting the needs of many non-
law enforcement agencies within the bill.
  Therefore, I urge my Senate colleagues to support this bill. I 
believe it goes a long way in supporting what we all believe is 
important, primarily to continue to do what we can to reduce crime in 
the Nation.
  Mr. President, this bill is the result of lots of hard work on behalf 
of Members and staff, too. I wish to thank all of them for that effort. 
I believe it deserves our support.
  I now yield to Senator Kohl, our ranking minority member.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of this bill which provides funding 
for the Department of the Treasury, Executive Offices of the President, 
General Services Administration, and related agency programs. We have 
tried to be as critical and constructive as we can be. And I believe we 
have provided a strong funding bill.
  Throughout this year we have had to grapple with a number of 
difficult issues, such as: accusations of IRS staff browsing at 
taxpayer files; IRS modernization efforts going awry; unidentified 
century date change requirements; and the appropriate funding level of 
the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, media campaign.
  These are issues we will continue to review and examine in 1998. And 
I hope we see some real progress occur as a result of the funding that 
we have provided.
  In addition, we continue to be concerned with the level of crime 
through out our country. We realize that the money that is available 
through illegal drug and gun trafficking is enormous. As long as this 
kind of profit is available by doing illegal things our job will be 
more difficult in providing the necessary funding and technology 
required to deter that.
  As a result, we have worked vigorously to fund the law enforcement 
agencies' priorities. And I hope that we can continue to work together 
to continue to fully fund much needed crime prevention programs such as 
GREAT, the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, the Drug Free 
Prison Zone demonstration project and others.
  I have enjoyed reviewing the diverse and complex issues of the 
agencies funded through this bill. I look forward to continuing to work 
with the subcommittee members and these agencies. Only through a 
constructive dialog, in a bipartisan fashion can we continue to build 
and maintain the agencies contained in this bill.
  Finally, I want to say that I have enjoyed working with you, Mr. 
Chairman, and with your staff.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I reserve the balance of my time.
  I yield the floor.


                                  OIRA

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask the Chairman, is it correct that it 
is Congress' intent that the budget appropriated for the Office of 
Management and Budget includes sufficient funds for the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, to coordinate and implement 
the Congressional Review Act?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. That is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Chairman. It has become evident that OIRA 
has not been implementing and coordinating the Congressional Review Act 
despite its organizing statute and President Clinton's Executive order. 
To make the Congressional Review Act work, Congress and the agencies 
need OIRA's expertise to coordinate agency input to the General 
Accounting Office on the new rules they promulgate. The General 
Accounting Office has reported to us that they have been frustrated by 
OIRA's refusal to work with them in their role of helping Congress 
understand the impact of each major rule.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Senator.
  We have several requests for time on both sides of the aisle, Mr. 
President. I would be happy to have Senator Kohl yield time to Senator 
Wellstone.
  Mr. KOHL. I yield to Senator Wellstone.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I thank both my colleagues, Senator Kohl from Wisconsin and Senator 
Ben Nighthorse Campbell from Colorado, for their fine work.
  Let me, first of all, say, Mr. President, I understand this is a 
conference committee report, we will have a vote on it and there are 
many, many good things in this bill. I understand the good work of all 
Senators. I also want to express my personal gratitude to 
Representative Bernie Sanders in the House and Senator Harkin for a 
provision, with the support of my colleagues, that they now have in 
this bill which really puts our country on the side of taking some 
action against coerced child labor in other countries. I think it is a 
terribly important provision, and I am very pleased to see this 
provision in this conference report, Mr. President.
  So it is with a little bit of regret that I speak against this bill. 
I intend to vote against it, though, again, I want to make it clear why 
because there are a lot of good things in the bill.
  When we had this bill before us in the Senate, I had sent a letter 
out to colleagues saying that I thought it was not appropriate for us 
to take a pay increase, cost-of-living increase, salary increase, 
whatever you want to call it, which I would raise our salaries to about 
$136,000. I sent a letter to all my colleagues, and then we in the 
Senate voice voted for the proposition that we would delete that pay 
increase. So the Senate took a position when we voice voted that we are 
not going to have a recorded vote because there is unanimity, there is 
a consensus in the Senate, that this cost-of-living adjustment for 
Members is not the right thing to do. I regret to say that in the 
conference committee we did not keep this pay increase out of this 
legislation. So now we are here today with the pay increase.
  Now, a filibuster is beside the point. There is much in this bill 
that is very good. It is going to pass. I understand that. But I want 
to go on record as a Senator from Minnesota about this pay increase, 
not to talk about the process, though I must say I think my colleagues 
have done a pretty good job of not being recorded for or against this 
pay increase.
  To me, there is something more important. That is why I speak in the 
Senate this morning and why I am going to vote against this conference 
report. I hope other Senators will as

[[Page S10247]]

well. I put the cost-of-living increase or pay increase for Senators 
and Representatives in the context of the debate that we have had on 
the floor of the Senate over the last several years. I have traveled in 
the country and spent a lot of time in poor communities, and I cannot 
even begin to tell you the number of Head Start teachers who tell me 
how important early Head Start is, how it would make so much difference 
if they could have a chance to work with kids when they are 1 and 2 
years of age to give them a head start. We have a pittance of funding 
for that. We say we do not have any more money for it, and yet we give 
ourselves a salary increase.
  I cannot begin to describe the conversations that I have had with 
people all across the country about child care, affordable child care, 
which by the way is not just a problem for low-income people, but is a 
problem for middle-income and moderate-income families as well. Again, 
we have made precious little investment in children for child care but 
we give ourselves this salary increase.

  I was at the University of Iowa on Monday and there I found a focus 
on Pell grants. I can't tell you how many people in the higher 
education communities say, ``Look, by doing so little by way of 
expanding Pell grants--yes, you did the tax deductions and tax 
credits--you are still not dealing with the students most in need.'' 
Expansion of the Pell grant is by far the most effective way to do 
this. We say we cannot do it, but we give ourselves a salary increase.
  Mr. President, most poignantly of all, or at least most poignant to 
me, we voted not long ago for some $50 billion in deficit reduction, 
and the two major programs that we targeted were, first, the Food Stamp 
Program, which is the major safety net program in this country when it 
comes to nutrition for children; and second, benefits for legal 
immigrants. Now, we have restored some of the benefits, though, again, 
we still have eliminated food and nutrition assistance for legal 
immigrants, and by the year 2002 there will be a 20 percent cut in food 
assistance for children.
  Over 50 percent of the cuts we have made come from the Food Stamp 
Program, which is the major food nutrition program in this country and 
is our major safety net program. This is the program that has led to a 
significant reduction in malnutrition and hunger among children, and 
yet we said that in the name of sacrifice and in the name of deficit 
reduction and in the name of tightening our belt that we would cut the 
major nutrition programs for children in America, and at the same time 
we are now about to vote for a conference report that gives ourselves a 
salary increase, putting our salaries over $136,000 a year.
  I don't think a salary increase is appropriate, Mr. President. I just 
don't think it is appropriate. That is my own view. I have had a chance 
to come to the floor of the Senate and express that view honestly, 
openly and directly. I expressed that view in the letter I sent to my 
colleagues before this ever came out of the Senate. I sent another 
letter to conferees saying, please stick to the Senate position. We had 
a unanimous vote in the Senate to stop this pay increase and yet we 
still now have the increase in this piece of legislation.
  I just don't see the justice of it, colleagues. I don't see how we 
can cut basic benefits to the most needy and vulnerable citizens in 
this country--food and nutrition benefits for children in the name of 
belt tightening, sacrifice and deficit reduction--and at the same time 
give ourselves a salary increase, putting our salary over $136,000 a 
year. I don't think it is appropriate. I don't think it is the right 
thing to do.
  As good a job as both colleagues have done on this piece of 
legislation, I will vote against this bill and I hope other colleagues 
will as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, before I yield 2 minutes to my friend 
from Kansas, Senator Brownback, I commend Senator Wellstone for 
personally taking the lead on many of our children's issues in the U.S. 
Senate. I have always admired him for that. He knows my background from 
a home for orphans as a youngster, and I have always really appreciated 
his willingness to fight the battles for so many children in Congress 
who do not have a voice themselves.
  In this bill there are many dollars, in fact, many tens of thousands 
of dollars, that are going to eventually help youngsters. The GREAT 
Program is a good example, the Youth Crime Awareness Program is a good 
example. Just because we fund money through the Federal agencies 
doesn't mean that some of it has not gone to help reduce gang violence 
or trying to get youngsters away from a life of crime.
  I point out that I think in the other bills that have come before the 
Senate we have tried to at least keep the baseline steady, in fact, 
increased funding for many children programs in other areas of the 
national budget.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. This is less in the spirit of a question, but I want 
to make it clear to my colleague, because I appreciate what he said, I 
have no objection to increases for other programs for children in the 
Government, and I understand full well some of the important programs 
in this piece of legislation.
  That is not my quarrel. My quarrel is the proposition that we did not 
eliminate the pay increase for ourselves. And I think we should have 
included increases for the other programs I spoke about.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Kansas [Mr. 
Brownback].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Colorado for 
yielding.
  I want to express my appreciation and congratulations to the 
conferees on the bill and what they put together. Overall, it is a good 
bill. There is a provision in this that I disagree with, and I will 
join my colleague from Minnesota in voting and stating my position 
against this bill because it does contain the COLA for Members of 
Congress.
  That amendment was offered by myself and the senior Senator from 
Minnesota and was a bipartisan amendment which prohibited the Congress 
from receiving a cost-of-living adjustment in fiscal year 1998. Mr. 
President, I strongly believe that Congress should not receive a COLA 
until we balance the budget. The Senator from Minnesota and I have 
different reasons for doing this but the same objective, which is to 
object to the COLA for Members of Congress. I note, as well, that 
Members of Congress have not received a COLA for several years to date. 
I have been involved in those fights when I was in the House. The 
problem for me is that I think while we are moving to balance the 
budget and we are asking everyone to sacrifice in getting that done, 
that we should not be receiving a COLA during that period of time. 
While we have passed legislation to balance the budget, we are not 
quite there yet. But we are close.
  Mr. President, it has never been my purpose in this debate to cast 
aspersions upon any of my colleagues or the institution of the 
Congress. I have great respect for the Senate and the people with whom 
I have the privilege to serve--all of the people in the Senate and all 
the people in this body. But I continue to believe that we should not 
receive a COLA while we are still running deficits. We should lead by 
example and not raise our COLA while we are still getting the 
Government's fiscal house in order.
  Therefore, I oppose this conference report and call on my colleagues 
to do the same. I believe this is the kind of leadership that is 
necessary to finish the work of balancing the budget and beginning to 
pay down our massive public debt. I think our children deserve no less. 
For that reason, I do oppose overall the conference report. For that 
reason, even though I think it has many, many, very good features and I 
congratulate my colleagues for putting it together, I cannot support 
the COLA at this point in time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank my colleagues from Kansas and Minnesota.
  I point out a couple of things: It has been 5 years in which most of 
the Members voted down a cost-of-living increase for themselves; also, 
as they both remember when we were here on the floor with this bill a 
month or so ago, it was Senator Brownback's

[[Page S10248]]

amendment and cosponsored by Senator Wellstone and me to delete that 
COLA increase from the original bill.
  So I think I have a pretty strong record. In fact, I have never voted 
for a pay increase in the U.S. Senate. And in fact when we did go to 
conference, as the Senator probably knows, both Senators probably know, 
there was a vote. It was a tie vote. It was not deleted. But Senator 
Kohl and I both voted against a pay raise in conference, if you want to 
use that phrase, but some people have a disagreement. However, we lost.
  The question here is, should we sink a $26 billion bill because we 
didn't get our way in conference or we didn't get our way on the floor? 
I have been torn with this myself, too. It is a difficult decision for 
all of us, but frankly I just think there is so much good in this bill 
that there are other options. Certainly we can return it to the 
Treasury. If Members do not want it, certainly they can give it to 
charity as I have done in the past. They can give it to scholarships.
  From my perspective, Mr. President, this bill is extremely important. 
Today is the date that funding runs out. It seems to me we need to pass 
the bill even if we don't agree with the various parts of it.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I say to the Senator from Colorado he has been a 
leader in this effort on Members of Congress not receiving a COLA, and 
did put this in the bill that came from the Senate. That was the Senate 
provision, that there would not be a COLA for Members of Congress. That 
was the Senate provision. It was the House that put in otherwise.
  I recognize the work that the Senator has done, and I appreciate that 
very much. I also recognize the totality of the bill and the excellent 
qualities within it. I just want to note that because it had that 
provision I could not support it, but by no means question you or other 
Members of the Senate. Our provision did not have the COLA in it.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr President, I rise today in opposition to the Treasury, 
Postal, and general Government appropriations bill. I do so with 
respect for the managers of the bill, my good friends Senator Campbell 
of Colorado and Senator Kohl of Wisconsin. They have done a fine job of 
bringing divergent interests together, crafting a bill that takes care 
of essential Government functions. Clearly, there is much that is right 
with this bill.
  One thing that is right is funding for the Global Trade and Research 
Program at the Montana World Trade Center in Missoula, MT. This vital 
program is the only world trade center housed in a university. This 
important link will allow new global business markets to be identified 
and targeted to create new jobs in Montana.
  But, Mr. President, I will vote against this bill because it contains 
a pay raise for Members of Congress. Look, I'm not against pay raises. 
Who couldn't use a few extra dollars in every paycheck. The question 
is: who needs the raise. Clearly, Montanans do. And I think with this 
bill we are missing the point and sending the wrong message.
  The message this bill sends is simply ``we are going to protect 
ourselves instead of creating an economy that protects average 
families.'' That just doesn't make sense.
  A vote to raise Members' pay is the wrong priority for Congress. This 
is not the kind of leadership the Congress needs. I believe that we 
will be as effective as leaders as the level of confidence vested in 
us. Clearly, voting to raise our pay will undermine public confidence 
in Congress. Particularly when we have an economy that isn't protecting 
average Americans.
  It is clear that income for the average Montanan is not rising. Just 
Monday, the Census Bureau released consumer income statistics for 1994 
to 1996. The numbers are startling and, I hope, a call to action for 
this Congress. Let's look at Montana. Median household income in 
Montana from 1994 to 1996 was $28,838. That's household income, money 
that an entire family has to spend for the year on bills, groceries, 
education, health care, and all the other expenses that take a bite out 
of their wallets. Montana's median income for those 3 years is over 
$6,000 lower than the national average and ranks 43d in the Nation.
  And, compared to our regional neighbors, our median income ranks as 
the lowest. Now, we have all seen the stock market rise over the last 
few years. And clearly, a healthy percentage of Americans are making 
significant money. But it hasn't trickled down, to borrow a phrase, to 
the average Montanan.
  I grew up on a ranch where it was a day's work for a day's pay. 
Americans work hard. And we in Congress work hard, but let's not lose 
sight of who we work for. We work for the citizens of our States and 
our country. We have a responsibility to protect them and to advance 
their ability to get a fair wage for a fair day's work. That should be 
the job of this Congress, not whether we in this Chamber are getting a 
raise.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am sorry to say that I cannot support 
the legislation before the Senate today. While this bill contains many 
good provisions, I have never supported any legislation to raise the 
pay of Members of Congress, and I will not support this bill.
  Yes, the Republican Congress has accomplished much this year. We have 
passed legislation which puts us on track toward balancing the Federal 
budget and providing much-needed tax relief for Americans. We have 
reformed the welfare system, our nation's immigration policies, ensured 
our national security, and many other laudable accomplishments.
  But there are many tasks the American people expect us to complete 
that we have yet to accomplish.
  We still face a $5.4 trillion national debt, which will increase by 
hundreds of millions of dollars for several more years. In fact, 
current predictions are that we will not eliminate annual deficits 
until 2001 or 2002, and our national debt will have increased to nearly 
$6 trillion by that time. We have a long way to go before we can claim 
to have ended the fiscal irresponsibility that has saddled our children 
and grandchildren with this staggering debt.
  We still face the daunting tasks of ensuring the future viability of 
the Medicare and Social Security systems, improving access to and 
affordability of health care for all Americans, reducing the size and 
intrusiveness of our Federal Government in people's lives, and ensuring 
the continued economic health of our Nation.
  Members of Congress already rank in the top 1 percent of wage earners 
in this country. Public service in the Congress should not be a means 
to becoming wealthy, but an opportunity to serve our country.
  I intend to vote against this legislation. And if it passes, I will 
not accept a pay raise. I have donated to charity every pay raise 
Congress has approved for itself since I have been in office, and I 
will do the same with this raise.
  Mr. President, I find it quite ironic that, at the same time the 
Congress is proposing to raise pay for Members, we are also wasting 
more millions of taxpayer dollars on unnecessary, wasteful programs.
  Mr. President, this bill contains the usual earmarks and set-asides 
requested by Members of Congress for their home States or districts.
  I am particularly disappointed to note that the conferees retained 
all but one of the provisions to which I had objected in the Senate 
bill. And that one provision that was not retained in the conference 
bill--an earmark of $4 million each for repair work at the Truman and 
Johnson Presidential Libraries--has, instead, been clearly earmarked in 
the conference report language.
  I would like to list for my colleagues the Senate bill language, 
retained in this conference agreement, that are earmarks for 
unnecessary or low-priority spending or that are protectionist in 
nature.
  There is $1.25 million earmarked for the Global Trade and Research 
Program at the Montana World Trade Center, which the report indicates 
is a one-time set-aside to support research and dissemination of 
information on exploration, definition, and measurement of 
contributions to economic globalization. I should note that the Senate 
had allocated $2.5 million for this program, and the conferees very 
frugally cut this earmark in half.

[[Page S10249]]

  Section 107--Prohibition on reorganizing the Aberdeen, SD, office of 
the IRS until toll-free phone line assistance reaches an 80-percent 
service level. We all know the difficulties experienced by all 
taxpayers in getting accurate, timely information from the IRS. But why 
should the taxpayers in Aberdeen, SD, be guaranteed continued access to 
an area IRS office? What about taxpayers in North Dakota? Or rural 
Ohio? And what if it makes sense to save money by closing some IRS 
offices in order to devote more resources to achieving the 80 percent 
service level for IRS telephone assistance?
  Section 108--Prohibition on reorganizing the IRS Criminal 
Investigative Division if the result is a reduction of criminal 
investigators in Wisconsin and South Dakota from the 1996 level. Again, 
I question whether the Congress is the right body to decide whether the 
IRS' criminal investigative resources should be concentrated.
  Section 123--Requirement to establish the port of Kodiak, AK, as a 
port of entry requiring U.S. Customs Service personnel in Anchorage to 
serve that port. Neither the Senate report nor the conference report 
offer any particular rationale for this directive.
  Earmark of $3 million for the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Area, plus $1.5 million earmarked for methamphetamine 
reduction efforts at the facility. I ask my colleagues, do we know 
whether the Rocky Mountain area is most needful of this extra money?
  Sections 507 and 508--Provisions requiring compliance with Buy 
America trade restrictions. I have long sought to remove all 
protectionist restrictions on free trade, and having made some 
progress, I guess the conferees wanted to ensure that nothing would 
change in the global marketplace.
  Not surprisingly, the conferees also added several provisions from 
the House bill that are the same type of wasteful spending:
  Earmark of $10 million for three newly designated High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Areas--one in the three-State area of Kentucky, Tennessee, 
and West Virginia; one in central Florida; and one in Milwaukee, WI 
that was not included in either bill. We all support heightened efforts 
to combat drug trafficking throughout the United States, but I wonder 
how the Appropriations Committee determined that these three locations 
were the highest priority areas for funding for antidrug efforts?
  Section 410--Earmark of ``such sums as may be necessary'' to repay 
debts to the U.S. Treasury incurred by the Pennsylvania Avenue 
Development Corporation. How much is ``necessary''? And what sense does 
it make to appropriate Federal tax dollars to repay the Federal 
Treasury?
  Section 412--Directed sale of the Bakersfield Federal Building at 800 
Truxton Avenue in Bakersfield, CA, including all land and improvements. 
It is unclear from the conference agreement or the House report 
language whether the Federal Government wants to dispose of this 
property, or if the Congress has unilaterally decided to demand that it 
be sold.
  Mr. President, these are just the provisions that are included in the 
bill. The report language of this conference agreement contains 
numerous other earmarks and set-asides. Let me note just a few:
  Three Hundred thousand dollars to staff a dedicated commuter lane in 
El Paso, TX. This was an earmark in the Senate report that is repeated 
in the conference report, for emphasis, I guess.
  Language ``encouraging'' the Customs Service to provide extended 
hours at the Opa-locka Airport in Florida.
  Language ``urging'' GSA to consider the needs of the U.S. Olympic 
Committee and to give the USOC priority in acquiring a Federal building 
in Colorado Springs, just in case the current occupants--the U.S. Air 
Force Space Command--decide to move out.
  I ask unanimous consent that a list of objectionable provisions in 
this conference agreement be printed in the Record at the conclusion of 
my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. McCAIN. I think it is important to note for my colleagues that 
this conference agreement, like each of the four other conference 
agreements the Senate has approved in the past few days, contains a 
clause in the statement of managers language that specifically endorses 
every single earmark and set-aside in the underlying reports of the 
House and Senate, unless specifically stated otherwise in the 
conference report. Mr. President, the bottom line is that Members of 
Congress can use the language in these reports, which ``urges'' or 
``encourages'' or ``strongly supports'' some action, but which falls 
short of an earmark or directive, to pressure agencies to act 
accordingly.
  Mr. President, I will say once again that this practice of wasteful 
spending must stop.

                               Exhibit 1

 Objectionable Provisions in Conference Agreement on H.R. 2378, the FY 
                1998 Treasury/Postal Appropriations Bill


                             Bill LANGUAGE

       $1.25 million earmarked for the Global Trade and Research 
     Program at the World Trade Center, which the report indicates 
     is a one-time set-aside to support research and dissemination 
     of information on exploration, definition, and measurement of 
     contributions to economic globalization.
       Section 107--Prohibition on reorganizing the Aberdeen, 
     South Dakota, office of the IRS until toll-free phone line 
     assistance reaches an 80 percent service level.
       Section 108--Prohibition on reorganizing the IRS Criminal 
     Investigative Division if the result is a reduction of 
     criminal investigators in Wisconsin and South Dakota from the 
     1996 level.
       Section 123--Requirement to establish the port of Kodiak, 
     Alaska, as a port of entry requiring U.S. Customs Service 
     personnel in Anchorage to serve that port.
       Earmark of $10 million for three newly designated High 
     Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas--in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; in 
     the three State area of Kentucky, Tennessee, and West 
     Virginia; and in central Florida.
       Earmark of $3 million for the Rocky Mountain High Intensity 
     Drug Trafficking Area, plus $1.5 million earmarked for 
     methamphetamine reduction efforts at the facility.
       Section 410--Earmark of ``such sums as may be necessary'' 
     to repay debts to the U.S. Treasury incurred by the 
     Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation.
       Section 412--Directed sale of the Bakersfield Federal 
     Building at 800 Truxton Avenue in Bakersfield, California, 
     including all land and improvements.
       Sections 507 and 508--Provisions requiring compliance with 
     ``Buy America'' trade restrictions.


                            REPORT LANGUAGE

       [Note: Conferees explicitly endorse all earmarks and set-
     asides included in either the House and Senate reports, 
     unless specifically addressed in the conference report 
     statement of managers. The following listing includes only 
     those objectionable provisions specifically included in the 
     conference report language; additional items can be found in 
     the underlying House and Senate reports on the bill.]

                                Earmarks

       $500,000 earmarked for contract awards to the National Law 
     Center for Inter-American Free Trade to support federal 
     government efforts to conduct legal research specific to 
     relevant trade issues.
       $500,000 to support the Global TransPark Network Customs 
     Information Project.
       $300,000 to staff a dedicated commuter lane in El Paso, 
     Texas.
       $2 million add-on for Customs Service monitoring and 
     enforcement of the U.S./Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement, and 
     language stating the conferees' ``expectation'' that the 
     Customs Service will cease to enforce any interpretive ruling 
     ``that would have the effect of undermining enforcement of 
     the Lumber Agreement, including any ruling that would have 
     the effect of classifying lumber that would otherwise be 
     classified under the heading of 4407 of the Harmonized Tariff 
     Schedule in a different classification because it has been 
     drilled or otherwise subject to minor processing, until 
     Congress can address this issue''.
       $2 million of GSA funds directed to be spent in accordance 
     with House report, which earmarks the funds to initiate a 
     pilot project in the development, demonstration, and 
     continuous research of emerging digital learning 
     technologies.
       $1 million of GSA funds earmarked for a digital medical 
     education project.
       Directive language that GSA provide funding in FY 1999 for 
     protection and maintenance of Governor's Island in New York, 
     as necessary to ensure no undue deterioration of the property 
     prior to disposal.
       $4 million earmarked for repair and restoration of the 
     Truman Library, and another $4 million for similar work on 
     the Roosevelt Library.

                        Words of encouragement:

       Language ``encouraging'' the Customs Service to provide 
     customs service at Opa-locka Airport in Dade County from 9:00 
     a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily, instead of the current 9:00 a.m. to 
     5:00 p.m. daily schedule, because the conferees believe the 
     diversion of aircraft after 5:00 p.m. to Miami International 
     Airport creates unnecessary congestion at the nation's 
     busiest cargo airport.

[[Page S10250]]

       Language ``urging'' GSA to strongly consider the U.S. 
     Olympic Committee's need for additional space and to give 
     priority to the USOC request to gain title to or otherwise 
     acquire a building in Colorado Springs currently occupied by 
     the U.S. Air Force Space Command and owned by GSA.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning 
the fiscal year 1998 Treasury appropriations conference report. First, 
I would like to thank the chairman of the Senate Treasury 
Appropriations Subcommittee, and my good friend, Senator Campbell. He 
and his staff have been most gracious in working with me on a range of 
issues of concern to North Carolina, including funding in the budget of 
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for two new data 
acquisition stations [DAS] for the Cumberland County sheriff's office 
and the Guilford County sheriff's office. These two stations will allow 
law enforcement in both western and eastern North Carolina access to 
sophisticated technology to examine bullets and bullet fragments found 
at crime scenes. These DAS stations will be powerful crime-fighting 
tools, and I want to thank the chairman for helping to make this 
possible.
  I also want to thank the chairman for his inclusion of language I 
requested to repeal section 1555 of the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act [FASA]. As many of my colleagues in the Senate know, 
this language was originally passed in 1994 without any hearings, and 
without any debate in Congress.
  It was intended to give State and local governments access to the 
General Services Administration [GSA] purchasing schedule. GSA sells 
everything from office supplies to cars and law enforcement equipment.
  The problem is this--if every State and local government purchases 
their supplies directly through the Federal Government, thousands of 
small businesses who currently provide those supplies will go out of 
business.
  Section 1555 has not yet been implemented--a temporary moratorium was 
enacted in 1995, and most recently extended until the end of this 
session of Congress as part of the Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997.
  If section 1555 were not repealed, most businesses would no longer be 
able to sell products to their local governments, but would be driven 
out by unfair competition. Perhaps a select few would be included in 
the General Services Administration's purchasing schedules, but heaven 
help the small business man or woman who must come to Washington, DC, 
for permission every time he or she wants to sell office supplies to 
their local city council or county commission. Tragically, this is the 
kind of result that section 1555 would bring about, and it would 
devastate small businesses across the country.
  I have heard from numerous small business men and women who regard 
this provision to be a potential disaster, were it ever to be 
implemented. Thankfully, it will not be, now that language to repeal 
this statute has been included in this conference report. Section 1555 
should never be implemented, it should be repealed as soon as possible. 
I strongly support the repeal language included in the bill.


                        CONGRESSIONAL PAY RAISE

  Mr. President, there are two other matters addressed in the Treasury 
appropriations conference report which forces me to oppose the bill, in 
spite of much that I have already described which is good.
  Most troubling to me is language added to this conference report 
which removes a Senate amendment placing a 1-year freeze on 
congressional pay. I am opposed to a congressional pay increase. I am 
deeply disappointed that Members of Congress will now receive a 2.3-
percent cost-of-living adjustment [COLA], and I do not plan on 
accepting this increase when I receive it.
  In fact, I believe that to accept this pay raise next year would be 
in violation of the 27th amendment to the Constitution. I know that 
Chairman Campbell and others joined me in opposition to this pay 
increase, but due to some procedural shortcuts, a conference was 
convened late on the evening of September 29--on a day when no votes 
had been scheduled, and I had already made commitments to be in North 
Carolina--for the sole purpose of attaching this pay increase for 
Members of Congress.
  I am also deeply disappointed that an amendment I offered to remove 
computer games from all Government computers was not included in the 
conference report. I am pleased, however, that Senator Thompson, 
chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, has indicated his 
interest in pursuing this issue in the future. I look forward to 
working with Senator Thompson to ensure that Government employees are 
not wasting taxpayers' dollars playing computer games when they should 
be working.
  Due to the inclusion of the pay raise for Members of Congress and the 
removal of my amendment to remove computer games from Government 
computers, I regret that I must vote against the Treasury 
appropriations conference report on final passage.


                     THE CONGRESSIONAL PAY INCREASE

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern 
about one provision within the bill before us today. The fiscal year 
1998 Treasury-Postal Appropriations Act contains a cost-of-living 
adjustment--a pay raise--for Members of Congress. This increase 
represents a major change in policy. It has not been the subject of 
hearings. It has not been aired in public. The timing and merit are 
questionable. In light of these concerns, I intend to vote no on the 
pay raise, and no on the bill.
  Each year I have been in the Senate, we have acted to suspend cost-
of-living adjustments for Congress. In light of our ongoing efforts to 
balance the Federal budget and restore people's faith in the process, I 
think this has been the right course. Simply stated, allowing our own 
pay to increase sends the wrong signal at a time when the budget is out 
of balance and real wages are stagnant for many workers.
  Like it or not, we in Federal office have a responsibility to set an 
example, to set the tone for responsible dialog about the Federal 
budget. Accepting a pay raise at this time undermines any credibility 
we might have on budget issues.
  In July, Congress passed a historic law that will balance the Federal 
budget. After years of partisan rancor, bickering, disputes, and 
Government shut-downs, we were able to put aside differences and agree 
on a compromise that makes sense, and gives the people what they have 
been asking for.
  Now, most of us who worked on this package, and made the tough calls 
over the past few years understandably want to promote the compromise 
and take credit for finishing the job. And I think we should. But 
taking a pay raise on the heels of passing a balanced budget sends the 
wrong signal. It says to the people, ``we didn't really mean it.''
  As a member of the Appropriations Committee, it is very difficult for 
me to vote against the Treasury-Postal bill. In fact, it is rare that 
any of us on the committee opposes one of our own bills. In this case, 
I have to make an exception, even though there are many worthy programs 
and projects funded in this bill.
  I hope my colleagues will hear my reasons and listen to them. As 
elected leaders, we are held to a different standard. We have a 
responsibility to set the tone, to earn the respect of our 
constituents. The public will be watching this vote. To them, it is not 
about funding the executive branch agencies. Instead, it is about 
whether we are willing to live up to our own standard of fiscal 
responsibility in 1997.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my opposition to a 
provision within the Treasury, General Government, Civil Service 
Appropriations Act.
  I am the ranking member of the subcommittee which crafted this 
legislation, and there is much to support in the bill. However, I am 
opposed to the provision in the bill to provide a 2.3-percent cost-of-
living-adjustment to Members of Congress.
  I have heard the arguments on both sides of the issue and I cannot 
agree that it is appropriate for Congress to receive this pay raise. 
While we have made progress in balancing the budget, we have not made 
the kind of progress which justifies this raise. The American public is 
rightly holding us to a higher standard, and until we meet that 
standard, congressional pay should remain at its current level.

[[Page S10251]]

  Earlier this week, we had a vote in the House-Senate conference 
committee on whether to keep the pay raise in the bill. I was prepared 
to offer a motion to reject the pay raise, and, indeed, voted against 
the measure. As this body knows, the House voted to insist on its 
position, and we could not muster a majority in the Senate to similarly 
insist on this Chamber's position against the pay raise.
  Mr. President, this bill before us also includes many provisions and 
important programs. If this were an up-or-down vote on the pay raise, I 
would again oppose the measure. But, this bill is more than that--it 
funds the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, the White 
House, and dozens of other Federal agencies.
  In addition, the bill includes many anticrime programs, including 
those operated by ``Drug Czar,'' the Treasury Department, and the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. I'm pleased that the 
legislation includes $3 million for the designation of a high-intensity 
drug trafficking area for milwaukee, WI. Unfortunately, the drug 
epidemic often crosses State lines, and it is necessary for Wisconsin 
law enforcement agencies to coordinate with Federal authorities. If the 
drug czar concurs with the language in this bill, this money will help 
my State better combat the growing drug problem.
  The legislation also includes a $1 million increase in the Youth Gun 
Crime Interdiction Initiative. Milwaukee is one of a small number of 
cities selected last year to participate in the program which uses 
resources from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to 
trace weapons in an attempt to track the seller. The program saw its 
first success in April when Milwaukee Police arrested a grocery store 
security guard and charged him with Federal firearms violations. 
Lawrence M. Shikes plead guilty to purchasing guns and reselling them 
to juveniles, gang members, and drug dealers in the Milwaukee area. 
This is an important program, and one of the reasons that I am voting 
for the overall bill.
  Mr. President, while I am voting for this bill, I strongly oppose to 
the congressional pay raise provision. Because of this conviction, I 
will not accept any increase in my salary. Since coming to the Senate 
in 1989, I have not accepted any salary increase, and I will return any 
future pay increase to the U.S. Treasury to reduce the deficit.
  Since this is one provision of a larger bill, I will vote in favor of 
the measure.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time 
continue to be charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. 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. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted 
to speak as in morning business for up to about 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________