[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 29, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9212-S9239]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Senator Daschle and I have been working to 
identify the remaining amendments and the time that will be necessary 
to debate those amendments. I thank Senator Daschle, again, for the 
time he spent on that.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments, as previously 
identified on the consent agreement, be limited to the following times, 
to be equally divided:
  Senator Bingaman with regard to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 20 
minutes;
  Senator Baucus regarding post office closings, 10 minutes;
  Senator McConnell regarding the Federal Elections Commission, 10 
minutes;
  Senator Glenn regarding FEC, 10 minutes;
  Senator Harkin regarding drug control, 30 minutes;
  And Senator Wellstone regarding naming of a post office, 10 minutes.
  We will continue to work with the Senators on this list to see if we 
can work them out and get them accepted, but we need to get this order 
lined up and identify what those amendments are to be.
  Mr. GLENN. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if we can have 15 
minutes on my side. We have a couple of people who want to make short 
remarks.
  Mr. LOTT. I would modify that request, then, so we will have 15 
minutes on each side?
  Mr. GLENN. Yes.
  Mr. LOTT. Now we are talking 30 minutes.
  Mr. GLENN. That is right, instead of 20.
  Mr. LOTT. Then Senator McConnell will need 30 minutes. So you are 
talking about 30 minutes on each side--30 minutes equally divided or 30 
minutes total?
  Mr. GLENN. Thirty total.
  Mr. LOTT. It would be 30 minutes equally divided on the McConnell 
amendment and 30 minutes on the Glenn amendment.
  I remind our colleagues, it is a quarter till 7. I can't think of any 
profound statement that can be made that will take 30 minutes that will 
affect one iota the vote or its outcome. If the Senators will be 
willing to yield some of that time, that will be very helpful.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I appreciate my amendment being on the 
list. I would like 20 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. LOTT. Baucus amendment, 20 minutes equally divided.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the majority leader's 
request?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes, there is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Objection on two parts. First of all, with regard to 
the Gene McCarthy Post Office, if we are going to debate this, I would 
like to have that 20 minutes equally divided. And second of all, I did 
not agree--I thought we might reach an agreement--I did not agree to 
withdraw my other amendment. There is another amendment that should be 
added to the list that will deal with mental health or substance abuse 
as it affects Federal employees. I would like to have 20 minutes 
equally divided on that.
  Mr. President, let me just add, I have been here in the afternoon 
ready to go with amendments, so I am not trying to delay anything.
  Mr. DASCHLE. How much time did the Senator want on the second 
amendment?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Twenty minutes equally, if it is not accepted--maybe 
it will be acceptable--20 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe this is sprouting wings here. I 
think I am going to at this point withdraw this agreement and notify 
Members I will move to table all amendments when offered. Unless we can 
get reasonable time agreements--we are now talking 1 hour, 2 hours, 
3\1/2\ hours. What the heck, I will just move to table, and we will 
have a vote on each one of them.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I say to the leader, I am willing to reduce mine down to 
2 minutes if the Senator will agree to my amendment. (Laughter.)
  Mr. LOTT. That would take unanimous consent. You might get my 
agreement, but I am not sure you will get the rest of them.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If I get your agreement, I will reduce mine to 2 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the leader yield for and observation?
  Mr. LOTT. I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to the majority leader, Senator Glenn suggested 
that my amendment will require 30 minutes, 15 minutes on a side, and 
then he wanted 30 minutes for his amendment. I had offered him earlier 
in the day that we could adopt them both on voice vote which will 
require no time at all for the Senate. If I understand the Glenn 
amendment, it is adding $2.8 million for the FEC; is that the Glenn 
amendment?
  Mr. GLENN. Correct.
  Mr. LOTT. Let me renew the request because Senator Daschle and I have 
other things we would like to do. If you want to talk and have votes, 
we will just be having votes every 20 minutes the rest of the night. We 
are not going to stack them. You need to be reasonable. The request as 
it now stands--does Senator Graham have an addition?
  Mr. GRAHAM. The central Florida drug trafficking area amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. I understand you have an amendment in there which they are 
attempting to work out.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I hope we can work it out. I want to be certain I am 
protected in the event.
  Mr. LOTT. I renew my request with the present conditions:
  Bingaman amendment for 20 minutes;
  Baucus amendment for 20 minutes;
  McConnell amendment for 30 minutes;
  Glenn amendment for 30 minutes;
  Harkin amendment for 30 minutes;
  And Senator Wellstone, two amendments, 20 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if you are 
not on this list, does this mean you are precluded from offering your 
amendment?
  Mr. LOTT. No, you would be in the order about 10 or 11 o'clock.

[[Page S9213]]

  Mr. GRAHAM. I want to make sure I am protected to offer my amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. The Senator's reservation is recognized, and if the issue 
is not worked out, he will have an opportunity to offer it and vote on 
it. Senator Daschle has a suggestion to make.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I think we ought to add the Graham amendment and then 
limit it to the ones on this list. I don't want to see this list grow.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let's add Senator Graham to the list for 10 
minutes. I don't think we can lock it in at this point because we have 
the managers' amendment and other problems could be caused doing that.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, at the very least, why don't we proceed 
that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to a vote on a 
tabling motion.
  Mr. LOTT. I agree. I further ask that no second-degree amendments be 
in order prior to a vote on a tabling motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the majority leader's 
request as amended by the minority leader? Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. TORRICELLI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                           Amendment No. 3376

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of 
the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, with regard to the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve.
  Among the great attributes of our country, historic memory may not be 
our greatest strength. It was only 25 years ago that America found her 
economy crippled by attempts made to compromise her national security 
by an oil embargo placed upon states that disagreed with fundamental 
aspects of our national foreign policy.
  The 1970s may be a memory, but we have been revisited by the low oil 
prices that preceded the oil embargo of that decade.
  Mr. President, because of the foresight of this Congress in creating 
a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, there is now space for 120 million 
barrels of oil. This Congress had the foresight, during and after the 
oil embargo, to plan to preserve our foreign policy independence, to 
preserve a large capacity to store oil so we could not be intimidated.
  What is missing now is the foresight to fill that reserve. The 
Senator from New Mexico has noted there is no better time, with oil 
being sold at historically low prices. But it is important for Members 
of the Senate to understand that this is a propitious moment not only 
because the reserve has capacity and prices are low, but because in 
many ways the principal factors that led to the embargo of the 1970s, 
in an attempt to exercise leverage over American foreign policy, many 
of those factors are being revisited.
  In 1973, the United States imported less than 27 percent of its crude 
oil requirements. In 1979, we imported less than 43 percent of our 
requirements. Yet, an embargo, given those numbers, was enough to 
create a national recession, hyperinflation, and caused a serious 
debate about foreign policy objectives.
  The United States has now passed the 50 percent limit on importing 
foreign crude oil--9.2 million barrels per day--and by the year 2015 
could import fully 70 percent of America's oil. Indeed, in the last 10 
years, the rate of increase in the American importation of oil is more 
than all the imported oil of all nations in the world, other than Japan 
and Russia. Not only are we dependent, not only is it at historic 
highs, it is increasing.
  Secretary of Energy Pena said:

       The United States is highly dependent on Persian Gulf oil 
     for a large and growing percent of our imports.

  Mr. President, it is not only a question of the level of our imports, 
it is also the fact that many of those importations of oil continue to 
come from volatile areas of the world, including the Persian Gulf where 
we have serious foreign policy disputes with nations in the region.
  It is estimated by the year 2010, the Persian Gulf's share of world 
export markets could surpass 67 percent, a level not seen since the oil 
embargoes of 1973 and 1974. Simultaneously, while American dependence 
on foreign oil is increasing, and world dependence on Persian Gulf oil 
is increasing, the United States continues to abandon domestic wells at 
an extraordinary rate. In the last 10 years alone, 173,000 U.S. oil 
wells have been abandoned. And oil production from smaller stripper 
wells is at its lowest level in 50 years.
  Mr. President, at a time when Americans are enjoying a low price for 
oil and foreign policy threats have retreated for the moment, it is 
difficult for the Senator from New Mexico to rise and gain support of 
the Congress for this important initiative. But almost certainly this 
country will be revisited at another time when there will be an attempt 
to compromise our foreign policy and use the economic leverage of oil 
against this country.
  We cannot be so foolish to forget what the oil lines were like or the 
recessions or the high inflation. In only a year after the Shah fell in 
Iran, in 1979, oil prices rose 250 percent. There are few easy ways to 
guard against this attempted intimidation or the economic shocks that 
would follow. Indeed, I know of only one. It is not perfect, it is not 
complete, but it is a contribution--it is the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve.
  It is time again to take advantage of these low prices to begin 
filling the reserve. For that reason, Mr. President, I rise in favor of 
the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, 
and I urge its adoption.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I do not know how much time is left on 
the amendment, but I would like to speak briefly on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico controls the time, 
and there are 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to yield the remaining time to the Senator 
from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague from New Mexico.
  I rise in support of the amendment authorizing the purchase of 420 
million dollars worth of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. First 
of all, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it 
is my responsibility to protect the energy security interests of this 
country. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created for emergency 
purposes.
  This amendment today would accomplish several goals: one, replace the 
oil that has been sold over the past several years for budgetary 
purposes. Now is a most opportune time to buy oil, when prices are at a 
30-year low.
  In this context, it is interesting to reflect on the fact that the 
average price of the oil in the SPR is about $33 a barrel. Over the 
past several years, the average price we have gotten in selling it is 
about $19 a barrel. So far, the Government has not done very well. I do 
not know whether they figured they would make it up in volume, but it 
is certainly poor business to buy high and sell low.
  By taking action earlier this year, we stopped a proposed sale of oil 
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that was ordered in the 1998 
Interior appropriations bill. We saved the American taxpayers over $\1/
2\ billion by that action, and our energy security insurance policy 
remained intact. We did this, Mr. President, on an emergency 
appropriations bill.
  Over the past 3 years, we have steadily drained our Nation's energy 
security insurance policy. The drain started in 1996 when the 
Department of Energy proposed the sale of $96 million worth of oil to 
pay for the decommissioning of the Weeks Island facility. In other 
words, we had a piggy bank. We broke into it. We did it in order to 
meet some budgetary requirements. We have had a hard time staying out 
of that piggy bank ever since.
  In addition to the sale we canceled last year, there have been three 
additional sales. In January of 1996, the Balanced Budget Downpayment 
Act authorized the sale of $5.1 million barrels from Weeks Island. The 
oil cost a total of $40.33 a barrel. We sold it for $18.82. We lost 
$110 million.
  In the 1996 budget agreement, we required the sale of 12.8 million 
barrels for $227 million. Based upon the average cost of oil in the 
SPR, the American taxpayer lost approximately $200 million.

[[Page S9214]]

  The fiscal year 1997 appropriations required the sale of 10 million 
barrels for $220 million. Oil prices were up that winter, so the 
American taxpayer lost only $110 million.
  So far we have lost the American taxpayer $\1/2\ billion by selling 
oil that we put in the SPR by buying it high and selling it low. And, 
of course, two years ago the President proposed to balance the budget 
in the year 2002 by selling $1.5 billion worth of SPR oil at $10 a 
barrel, which would be 150,000 barrels of oil. I am grateful that wiser 
heads have prevailed.
  However, we did not stop the drip, drip, drip of small sales, the 
appropriations process. As I indicated, we paid an average of $33 per 
barrel. With three sales so far, it has cost the taxpayers a great deal 
of money--$\1/2\ billion. But now we have an opportunity to stop that 
by pursuing the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from New 
Mexico, who is also a member of the Energy Committee, because we are 
able to at an all-time low.
  It is a great investment for our national energy security interests. 
I am told that what we are doing now is replacing, in this 28 million 
barrels, the amount that we have sold over the past several years for 
budgetary purposes. So while we are still short of our objective of a 
90-day supply of net imports, we will be somewhere in the area of a 64-
day supply.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Let me congratulate my 
friend from New Mexico for offering it. I yield the floor and yield 
back whatever time I have.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me first thank the Senator from 
Alaska for his strong support of this amendment and his leadership on 
this issue over many years.
  Let me also indicate the strong support that we have had from the 
Independent Petroleum Association of America and the National Stripper 
Well Association. I thank them for the good work they have done in 
developing the facts that support what we are doing here.
  I ask unanimous consent a letter from the President and chairman of 
those two organizations be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                         IPAA,

                                    Washington, DC, July 29, 1998.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Hon. Frank Murkowski,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Bingaman and Murkowski: The Independent 
     Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and the National 
     Stripper Well Association (NSWA) write in support of your 
     amendment to the FY 1999 Treasury/Postal Appropriations. IPAA 
     and NSWA, national associations representing America's 8,000 
     crude oil and natural gas producers, applaud your effort to 
     seek an emergency appropriation of $420 million to purchase 
     28 million barrels of crude oil for the Strategic Petroleum 
     Reserve (SPR).
       Throughout 1998, America's independent oil producers have 
     been experiencing a price crisis of historic magnitude. From 
     October 1997 through July 1998, crude oil prices have dropped 
     more than $7.00 per barrel. In many producing regions, oil 
     producers are facing price declines of up to $10.00 per 
     barrel.
       A combination of events--increased foreign oil production, 
     the collapse of Asian economies, and a mild winter--helped to 
     create a temporary oversupply of crude oil on the world 
     market. The result of the price collapse is that many of the 
     500,000 marginal oil wells, representing 20 percent of U.S. 
     production or the same volume of oil imported from Saudi 
     Arabia, are at risk of being permanently shut-in.
       The amendment, which is similar to the recent $500 million 
     emergency appropriation to remove excess agriculture 
     commodities from the world market, would benefit (1) domestic 
     oil producers, (2) the economies of the U.S. and other 
     countries, and (3) U.S. national security.
       1. Removing 28 million barrels of oil from a saturated 
     market would help stabilize oil prices. In effect, policy 
     makers would be signaling oil markets that the U.S. 
     government is committed to preserving America's true 
     strategic petroleum reserve--domestic crude oil producers.
       This action could potentially increase prices to levels 
     that would keep marginal oil wells economic. The average 
     marginal oil well produces 2.2 barrels per day and costs 
     $41.11 a day to operate. When oil sells for $14 a barrel, the 
     marginal well generates only $30.80, resulting in a loss of 
     $10.31 per day. Annually, the well loses $3,752. For a 
     typical operator of 100 marginal wells, annual losses exceed 
     $375,000.
       2. This one-time purchase of oil for the SPR will stimulate 
     U.S. and world economies. According to the National Petroleum 
     Councils' 1994 Marginal Wells report, marginal wells generate 
     80,000 jobs and contribute an annual $14.4 billion to the 
     U.S. economy. When oil prices fall, so do state and federal 
     revenues. IPAA estimates that from November 1997 through July 
     1998 state severance taxes and federal oil royalties have 
     dropped by more than $819 million.
       The consequence of these revenue losses falls not on the 
     producer but on the nation's citizens. The pinch is already 
     being felt in state school spending where a great deal of 
     this revenue is used. Construction spending, book purchases, 
     and other key costs for state schools are being constrained 
     because of lost revenues.
       Additionally, the oversupply of oil on the world market is 
     having a serious impact on the economies of Russia, 
     Indonesia, Malaysia, and other countries. Last week, the 
     International Monetary Fund announced the approval of an 
     additional $11.2 billion in aid to Russia. Of that amount, 
     $2.9 billion was directed to make up for shortfalls in 
     Russia's oil export earnings.
       3. The purchase of crude oil for the SPR would enhance 
     America's energy and economic security. U.S. dependence on 
     oil imports has grown to 54 percent, and is projected to 
     climb to 61 percent by 2015. The SPR is America's best tool 
     to combat the impact of growing import dependence and 
     possible disruptions in crude oil supply. However, the 
     federal government has sold 28 million barrels of oil from 
     the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Revenues raised from all 
     three non-emergency sales were used to pay for government 
     programs and to balance the federal budget.
       Given the low price of crude oil, the purchase of 
     additional stockpiles for the SPR would be a bargain for the 
     U.S. Treasury. This purchase should be viewed as an asset 
     transfer rather than spending. Purchasing cheap oil for the 
     SPR makes good business sense for the U.S. government and 
     more importantly, for the tax paying citizens of this 
     country. It's that simple.
       IPAA and NSWA strongly support this important amendment. If 
     you have any questions, please contact Craig Ward of the IPAA 
     staff at 202-857-4722.
           Sincerely,
     George Yates,
       Chairman, Independent Petroleum Association of America.
     Stephen D. Layton,
       President, National Stripper Well Association.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I add my support to the Bingaman amendment. To my 
knowledge, there is no opposition on the majority side. I urge its 
support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3376) was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I am going to stay around here and we are 
going to have these 30-minute discussions and then the amendments are 
going to be taken, I am going to move to table them and we are going to 
have votes and I am going to fight every one of them.
  Senators, get serious. You have an amendment. Give a very brief 
explanation and let's dispose of it. This is ridiculous. I am going to 
start insisting on recorded votes. If we have an agreement to take an 
amendment, take it. Don't take the time and then not have a vote.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3377

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress that a postage stamp 
should be issued honoring the 150th anniversary of Irish immigration to 
  the United States that resulted from the Irish Famine of 1845-1850)

  Mr. CAMPBELL. I have a couple of housekeeping things that have been 
accepted. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration on behalf of Senators Durbin, Kennedy, Dodd and McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell] for Mr. Durbin, 
     for himself, and Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dodd and Mr. McCain 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3377.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert:
       The Senate finds more than 44 million Americans trace their 
     ancestry to Ireland;

[[Page S9215]]

       Finds these 44 million, many are descended from the nearly 
     two million Irish immigrants who were forced to flee Ireland 
     during the ``Great Hunger'' of 1845-1850;
       Finds those immigrants dedicated themselves to the 
     development of our nation and contributed immensely to it by 
     helping to build our railroads, our canals, our cities and 
     our schools;
       Finds 1998 marks the 50th anniversary of the mass 
     immigration of Irish immigrants to America during the Irish 
     Potato Famine;
       Finds commemorating this tragic but defining episode in the 
     history of American immigration would be deserving of honor 
     by the United States Government:
       It is the sense of Congress that the United States Postal 
     Service should issue a stamp honoring the 150th anniversary 
     of Irish immigration to the United States during the Irish 
     Famine of 1845-1850.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. This is a sense of Congress regarding a commemorative 
stamp for the 150th anniversary of the Irish immigration to the United 
States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3377) was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is 
laid upon the table.


                           Amendment No. 3378

     (Purpose: To amend title 39, United States Code, to establish 
   guidelines for the relocation, closing, or consolidation of post 
                   offices, and for other purposes.)

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] for himself, Mr. 
     Jeffords, Mr. Allard, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. 
     Enzi, Mr. Reid and Mr. Bryan proposes an amendment numbered 
     3378.

  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent 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, add the following:

     SEC. __. POST OFFICE RELOCATIONS, CLOSINGS, AND 
                   CONSOLIDATIONS.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Community and Postal Participation Act of 1998''.
       (b) Guidelines for Relocation, Closing, or Consolidation of 
     Post Offices.--Section 404 of title 39, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b)(1) Before making a determination under subsection 
     (a)(3) as to the necessity for the relocation, closing, or 
     consolidation of any post office, the Postal Service shall 
     provide adequate notice to persons served by that post office 
     of the intention of the Postal Service to relocate, close, or 
     consolidate that post office not later than 60 days before 
     the proposed date of that relocation, closing, or 
     consolidation.
       ``(2)(A) The notification under paragraph (1) shall be in 
     writing, hand delivered or delivered by mail to persons 
     served by that post office, and published in 1 or more 
     newspapers of general circulation within the zip codes served 
     by that post office.
       ``(B) The notification under paragraph (1) shall include--
       ``(i) an identification of the relocation, closing, or 
     consolidation of the post office involved;
       ``(ii) a summary of the reasons for the relocation, 
     closing, or consolidation; and
       ``(iii) the proposed date for the relocation, closing, or 
     consolidation.
       ``(3) Any person served by the post office that is the 
     subject of a notification under paragraph (1) may offer an 
     alternative relocation, consolidation, or closing proposal 
     during the 60-day period beginning on the date on which the 
     notice is provided under paragraph (1).
       ``(4)(A) At the end of the period specified in paragraph 
     (3), the Postal Service shall make a determination under 
     subsection (a)(3). Before making a final determination, the 
     Postal Service shall conduct a hearing, and persons served by 
     the post office that is the subject of a notice under 
     paragraph (1) may present oral or written testimony with 
     respect to the relocation, closing, or consolidation of the 
     post office.
       ``(B) In making a determination as to whether or not to 
     relocate, close, or consolidate a post office, the Postal 
     Service shall consider--
       ``(i) the extent to which the post office is part of a core 
     downtown business area;
       ``(ii) any potential effect of the relocation, closing, or 
     consolidation on the community served by the post office;
       ``(iii) whether the community served by the post office 
     opposes a relocation, closing, or consolidation;
       ``(iv) any potential effect of the relocation, closing, or 
     consolidation on employees of the Postal Service employed at 
     the post office;
       ``(v) whether the relocation, closing, or consolidation of 
     the post office is consistent with the policy of the 
     Government under section 101(b) that requires the Postal 
     Service to provide a maximum degree of effective and regular 
     postal services to rural areas, communities, and small towns 
     in which post offices are not self-sustaining;
       ``(vi) the quantified long-term economic saving to the 
     Postal Service resulting from the relocation, closing, or 
     consolidation;
       ``(vii) whether postal officials engaged in negotiations 
     with persons served by the post office concerning the 
     proposed relocation, closing, or consolidation;
       ``(viii) whether management of the post office contributed 
     to a desire to relocate;
       ``(ix)(I) the adequacy of the existing post office; and
       ``(II) whether all reasonable alternatives to relocation, 
     closing, or consolidation have been explored; and
       ``(x) any other factor that the Postal Service determines 
     to be necessary for making a determination whether to 
     relocate, close, or consolidate that post office.
       ``(5)(A) Any determination of the Postal Service to 
     relocate, close, or consolidate a post office shall be in 
     writing and shall include the findings of the Postal Service 
     with respect to the considerations required to be made under 
     paragraph (4).
       ``(B) The Postal Service shall respond to all of the 
     alternative proposals described in paragraph (3) in a 
     consolidated report that includes--
       ``(i) the determination and findings under subparagraph 
     (A); and
       ``(ii) each alternative proposal and a response by the 
     Postal Service.
       ``(C) The Postal Service shall make available to the public 
     a copy of the report prepared under subparagraph (B) at the 
     post office that is the subject of the report.
       ``(6)(A) The Postal Service shall take no action to 
     relocate, close, or consolidate a post office until the 
     applicable date described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) The applicable date specified in this subparagraph 
     is--
       ``(i) if no appeal is made under paragraph (7), the end of 
     the 60-day period specified in that paragraph; or
       ``(ii) if an appeal is made under paragraph (7), the date 
     on which a determination is made by the Commission under 
     paragraph (7)(A), but not later than 120 days after the date 
     on which the appeal is made.
       ``(7)(A) A determination of the Postal Service to relocate, 
     close, or consolidate any post office may be appealed by any 
     person served by that post office to the Postal Rate 
     Commission during the 60-day period beginning on the date on 
     which the report is made available under paragraph (5). The 
     Commission shall review the determination on the basis of the 
     record before the Postal Service in the making of the 
     determination. The Commission shall make a determination 
     based on that review not later than 120 days after appeal is 
     made under this paragraph.
       ``(B) The Commission shall set aside any determination, 
     findings, and conclusions of the Postal Service that the 
     Commission finds to be--
       ``(i) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 
     otherwise not in accordance with the law;
       ``(ii) without observance of procedure required by law; or
       ``(iii) unsupported by substantial evidence on the record.
       ``(C) The Commission may affirm the determination of the 
     Postal Service that is the subject of an appeal under 
     subparagraph (A) or order that the entire matter that is the 
     subject of that appeal be returned for further consideration, 
     but the Commission may not modify the determination of the 
     Postal Service. The Commission may suspend the effectiveness 
     of the determination of the Postal Service until the final 
     disposition of the appeal.
       ``(D) The provisions of sections 556 and 557, and chapter 7 
     of title 5 shall not apply to any review carried out by the 
     Commission under this paragraph.
       ``(E) A determination made by the Commission shall not be 
     subject to judicial review.
       ``(8) In any case in which a community has in effect 
     procedures to address the relocation, closing, or 
     consolidation of buildings in the community, and the public 
     participation requirements of those procedures are more 
     stringent than those provided in this subsection, the Postal 
     Service shall apply those procedures to the relocation, 
     consolidation, or closing of a post office in that community 
     in lieu of applying the procedures established in this 
     subsection.
       ``(9) In making a determination to relocate, close, or 
     consolidate any post office, the Postal Service shall comply 
     with any applicable zoning, planning, or land use laws 
     (including building codes and other related laws of State or 
     local public entities, including any zoning authority with 
     jurisdiction over the area in which the post office is 
     located).
       ``(10) The relocation, closing, or consolidation of any 
     post office under this subsection shall be conducted in 
     accordance with section 110 of the National Historic 
     Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470h-2).''.
       (c) Policy Statement.--Section 101(g) of title 39, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``In addition to taking into consideration the matters 
     referred to in the preceding sentence, with respect to the 
     creation of any new postal facility, the Postal Service shall 
     consider the potential effects of that facility on the 
     community to be served by that facility and the

[[Page S9216]]

     service provided by any facility in operation at the time 
     that a determination is made whether to plan or build that 
     facility.''.

  Mr. BAUCUS. In the spirit of cooperation, although I have been 
allotted 20 minutes, I will be very brief, hoping I can pick up a vote 
or two. It is a good amendment, anyway.
  Very simply, the matter is this: In my State, and I know various 
other Senators in various other States, ran into a problem with the 
Postal Service. Namely, when the Postal Service wants to properly 
close, relocate or build a new post office, it has been, frankly, not 
the most sensitive operation in the world. That is, just close a post 
office, announce a closure, and that is it--giving the public and 
communities no say and no opportunity to comment on the closing, no 
opportunity to work out some accommodation with the Postal Service.
  There are many examples of this. Let me give one in Livingston, MT. 
The Postal Service decided they were going to close the post office in 
downtown Livingston, just announced that they will build a new building 
on the edge of town. The community was up in arms because they had no 
notice of this, they had no opportunity to try to work something out 
with the Postal Service. This is a very, very, very, popular part of 
town. It is the center of a small town. People go to the post office, 
linger, talk to their friends. It is basically kind of a commons. To 
have this willy-nilly moved out of town is quite disruptive to the 
community.
  So one day when I was in Livingston, I decided to walk over to the 
post office to see what was going on there. The Postal Service might 
have a good argument, but the folks also had a pretty good argument. So 
I walked over to the post office. They said I couldn't come in. They 
said, ``Sorry, Senator, you can't come in. We have to check in with 
headquarters to see if you can come in or not: So I say, ``OK.'' I 
cooled my heels for 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes; 45 
minutes later they got OK and approval from the headquarters 
someplace--maybe the Denver office, I don't know--that I could come to 
the post office, walk around and see why they needed to move the post 
office.
  I wasn't being arrogant. I wasn't being unreasonable at all. I was 
just being a person. This is one example of the arrogance that we run 
up against. As it turns out, as a consequence of this, they are very 
embarrassed and sat down and worked out a solution with the community.
  My amendment is very simple. Basically, it says whenever the Postal 
Service wants to close a post office, and I am sure there are needs to 
close post offices, and there are needs to relocate. Whenever they 
close or decide to relocate, they have to do several things.
  No. 1, give notice. Give notice to the public, 60 days' notice to the 
communities being served. No. 2, have a hearing. No. 3, that they abide 
by the local zoning requirements of the community.
  It is quite simple. I know the Postal Service will object, saying, 
gee, Congress shouldn't get into managing the Postal Service, and we 
are not getting into the managing of the Postal Service. We are saying 
give the communities an opportunity to be heard. If the Postal Service 
and the Commission reject the community's demand, that is it. There is 
no right of appeal or judicial jurisdiction over any decision made by 
the Postal Commission after the public has an opportunity to comment.
  It is my experience that sometimes when a Government agency sits down 
with a community, in advance, and talks it over with the community and 
asks their opinions about things before making a decision of what they 
will do, that usually things work out pretty well.
  On the other hand, if an agency doesn't in advance go talk to the 
community, but just announces a decision arbitrarily, the community 
feels like it has not been consulted and it hasn't been consulted. The 
committee feels like they are taken for granted. The fact is that we 
are talking about the public. They are the employers. The employees are 
the Postal Service. I just ask Senators to support this amendment 
because it does give communities a little bit of a say in where the 
facilities are located. It is as simple as that.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield to my good friend from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to argue in support of an 
amendment sponsored by myself and Senator Baucus that would require the 
U.S. Postal Service to let communities know when they are planning to 
shut down, relocate, or consolidate a community's post office. This 
amendment aims to preserve the fabric of downtowns and prevent sprawl 
by giving citizens a say in Postal Service decisions to close, 
relocate, or consolidate their local post office.

  This amendment is supported by the National Governors Association, 
the National League of Cities, the National Trust for Historic 
Preservation, the National Association of Postmasters of the United 
States, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation 
Officers, the American Planning Association, the Association of United 
States Postal Lessors, and the International Downtown Association.
  Coming from a small town in Vermont, I understand the importance 
downtowns or village centers play in the identity and longevity of a 
community. Downtowns are where people go to socialize, shop, learn what 
their elected representatives are doing, and gather to celebrate 
holidays with their neighbors.
  One of the focal points of any downtown area is the community's post 
office. Post offices have been part of downtowns and village centers as 
long as most cities and towns have existed. These post offices are 
often located in historic buildings and have provided towns with a 
sense of continuity as their communities have changed over time. The 
removal of this focal point can quickly lead to the disappearance of 
continuity and spirit of a community and then the community itself.
  Mr. President, this amendment will enable the inhabitants of small 
villages and large towns to have a say when the Postal Service decides 
that their local post office will be closed, relocated, or 
consolidated. Some of my colleagues may ask why this legislation is 
necessary. A few stories from my home state of Vermont will answer this 
question.
  A few years ago the general store on the green in Perkinsville, 
Vermont went bankrupt and the adjacent post office wanted to leave the 
small village center for a new building outside of town. By the time 
the community was aware of the project, plans were so far along--the 
new building had actually been constructed based on the promise of the 
post office as the anchor tenant--that there was no time to fully 
investigate in-town alternatives. One elderly resident wrote that in 
contrast to families now being able to walk to the post office, ``we 
certainly won't be walking along the busy Route 106 two miles or more 
to get our mail.'' The State Historic Preservation Officer commented 
that as people meet neighbors at the post office, the threads of 
community are woven and reinforced. ``It may be intangible, but its 
real, and such interaction is critically important to the preservation 
of the spirit and physical fabric of small village centers like 
Perkinsville.''
  In 1988, the post office in the Stockbridge, Vermont, General Store 
needed to expand. The store owner tried to find money to rehabilitate 
an 1811 barn next to the store to provide the needed space, but was not 
successful. In 1990, the post office moved into a new facility located 
on the outskirts of Stockbridge on a previously undeveloped section of 
land at the intersection of two highways. People can no longer walk to 
the post office as they once were able to do when it was located in the 
village center. The relocation of the Stockbridge post office 
unfortunately removed one of the anchors of the community.
  These are not isolated examples.
  Mr. President, post office relocations are not only occurring in 
Vermont, but all across the country. My colleagues will quickly 
discover similar examples in their own states where the removal of the 
post office has harmed the economic vitality of the downtown area, 
deprived access to citizens without cars, and contributed to urban 
sprawl.
  The basic premise for this legislation is to give the individuals in 
a community a voice in the process of a proposed relocation, closing or 
consolidation of a post office. This community

[[Page S9217]]

voice has been lacking in the current process. This bill does not give 
the citizenry the ultimate veto power over a relocation, closing or 
consolidation. Instead, the bill sets up a process that makes sure 
community voices and concerns are heard and taken into account by the 
Postal Service.
  Additionally, this act will require the Postal Service to abide by 
local zoning laws and the historic preservation rules regarding federal 
buildings. Because it is a federal entity, the Postal Service has the 
ability to override local zoning requirements. In some cases this has 
lead to disruption of traffic patterns, a rejection of local safety 
standards, and concerns about environmental damage from problems such 
as storm water management.
  Mr. President, post offices in Vermont and across the nation are 
centers of social and business interaction. In communities where post 
offices are located on village greens or in downtowns, they become 
integral to these communities' identities. I believe that this 
legislation will strengthen the federal-local ties of the Postal 
Service, help preserve our downtowns, and combat the problem of sprawl. 
I urge my colleagues to join Senator Baucus and me in support of this 
important amendment.
  This is a simple amendment. I can't believe it can't be accepted.
  Vermonters are tired of waking up in the morning and finding out 
their post office will be somewhere else. Under the proposed rule, all 
they get is a notice in the mail. There is no public hearing required. 
There is no way to appeal. It is just given carte blanche as to what 
they want to do.
  In one little town in Vermont, they found out their post office moved 
2 miles outside of town, and the people who had gathered in the 
village, a lot of the reason they gathered in the village was to be 
able to walk to the post office. They have to go 2 miles to get their 
mail.
  No notice, no ability to participate at all. Blanket exemption for 
many zoning rules. They don't have to even take care of what the 
planning for the town has been. There is an exemption from the historic 
preservation rule. It says they can exempt projects from the new 
standards if the project is to meet an emergency requirement or is for 
temporary use, with no definition of what they are.
  You are at the complete mercy of the post office to stick it anywhere 
they want. I tell you, our post offices are up in arms over this. All 
we want is a simple logical way where people are notified, they get a 
chance to be heard, they find out where the locations are going to be, 
they have an opportunity to make suggestions, and then they get on with 
life. But right now the way it is, it has my people in Vermont in the 
small town areas deeply upset. They have got postmasters who are ready 
to march on Washington. Why? Because we want some simple, commonsense 
rules to be abided by so that there is local input as to where your 
next post office is going to be.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition, reluctantly, to 
this amendment because I agree very strongly with the fact that 
customers and residents of an area where a post office facility is 
located that is considered for relocation, consolidation, or closing, 
ought to have an opportunity to have a say-so in that process.
  For over a year, our subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the 
legislation involving the Postal Service, has been working closely with 
officials at the U.S. Postal Service to try to improve the processes. I 
can tell you that we have received a lot of cooperation, and I am 
convinced that we will continue to receive cooperation in improving 
this process and showing some sensitivity to political concerns and to 
local interests that are affected by these decisions.
  The Postal Service's continued efforts are appreciated very much by 
me. I think it would be a mistake for the Senate to legislate a new set 
of requirements or procedures that the U.S. Postal Service would have 
to follow. It would have the effect of undoing a lot of the good work 
that has been done recently when we have tried to work with them on 
this issue.
  In fact, Postmaster General Henderson has recently placed a 
moratorium on the closing of small post offices. This is an important 
issue. I agree with that. It deserves the attention of the Congress. 
But it is also a complex issue, one that should receive the careful 
consideration of the legislative committee in the due course of 
business, not by the adoption of an amendment, with 10 minutes of 
debate on each side, attached to an appropriations bill.
  This amendment would add a lengthy procedural set of requirements for 
all facility replacements, relocations, and closings. If a fire 
destroyed a postal facility, for example, necessary replacement would 
be delayed, as this new process--if we adopt it--ran its course. For 
each facility change, the postmasters would have to write to each 
customer explaining what, why, and when the action was planned. A 
public hearing would then be required, with testimony received from 
persons served by the facility. The Service would then have to respond 
in writing to any proposal of an alternative, giving reasons for 
rejecting such proposal. And then if one postal customer objects, the 
proposed action could be appealed to the Postal Rate Commission, 
causing additional delay.
  The effect of this amendment would be to seriously slow down the 
facility modernization program of the U.S. Postal Service. The Service 
has over 35,000 facilities around the country, and 8,000 of these 
facilities were modernized or improved during the last year.
  The Service has just recently published in the Federal Register new 
requirements that it is imposing on itself for consultation with local 
leaders and customers on all facility projects. The projects must be 
publicized in the local newspaper and a public hearing held to explain 
the proposal. Additionally, local public officials receive at least a 
45-day notice before the Postal Service solicits for a new site. The 
new processes should provide ample opportunity for public input in a 
responsible and orderly way. I think they should be given a chance to 
work.
  I urge Senators to reject this amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Your side has 3 minutes 6 seconds. The other 
side has 6 minutes 7 seconds.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield a minute and a half to my good 
friend from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the list of things I presented is the 
list that the Senator from Mississippi was talking about. It doesn't do 
anything for you. It allows you to know and gives you a 1-day notice. 
You get it in the mail and you find out the next day where it is 
located. There is a minimum 60 days for the--there is a gross 
exemption, blanket exemption, of the zoning requirements. They are 
exempt from new standards if it is for temporary use, but there is no 
definition of what that is. All these things I mentioned are what we 
are talking about. That is why we believe very strongly that our 
amendment should prevail and we will work it out in conference.
  I yield whatever time I have.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Simply, Mr. President, this is already in the law. A 
person may already appeal a decision to close a post office. The 
Commission then decides whether that is reviewable. We are not changing 
that. That is in the law today. Any person can appeal the decision made 
by the Postal Service to close a post office. That is in the law today. 
We are saying, at least give the community notice that they are going 
to close. If that is done, then fewer people are going to appeal. That 
is all this is.
  I just urge Senators to vote for something which is just common sense 
and reasonable. It is not going to be an excessive burden on the Postal 
Service. It is just asking for people up front to have an opportunity 
to be in on the process.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder 
of the time in opposition and move to table the amendment. I don't want 
to

[[Page S9218]]

cut off any Senator's right to express themselves. I yield back the 
time left on this side on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Montana yield back his 
time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats) and 
the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is 
absent because of illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 21, nays 76, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 245 Leg.]

                                YEAS--21

     Ashcroft
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Craig
     Faircloth
     Graham
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--76

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Coats
     Gorton
     Helms
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3378) was rejected.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator from Ohio will yield 
momentarily, I know he is up next, but I think we have an agreement 
that will help us bring this to conclusion.


                           Amendment No. 3378

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the Baucus amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I believe we have to act on the underlying amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3378) was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am continuing to struggle to try to get a 
finite list of amendments. I think we have that. I know a number of 
these amendments will be worked out, will be included in the managers' 
package. I have discussed this arrangement and this list with the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the ranking member, and with Senator 
Daschle. I believe this is the best way to get this to a conclusion 
that would be fair to one and all.
  Again, I do note, before I make that unanimous consent request, that 
we do have some Senators who are going to represent the entire body at 
the funeral in the morning. So we are trying to go ahead and take up 
the Department of Defense appropriations bill first thing in the 
morning, lay it down at 9 o'clock, and then any stacked votes would 
occur at 1 o'clock.
  To renew the bidding, in the earlier unanimous consent agreement, we 
have lined up for consideration the McConnell amendment for 30 minutes, 
the Glenn amendment for 30 minutes, and the Harkin amendment for 30 
minutes; Harkin with regard to drug control, the other two with regard 
to FEC.
  I now ask unanimous consent that no further first-degree amendments 
be in order other than the list agreed to earlier this evening and the 
below-listed amendments, and they be subject to relevant second-degree 
amendments: Graham relevant amendment, managers' package; DeWine 
regarding Customs; Domenici regarding FLETC; Stevens relevant 
amendment; Senators Daschle and Lott--one relevant each; Conrad 
regarding high-intensity drug areas; Dorgan regarding an advisory 
commission; one by Graham; Harkin and Bingaman--all three on the high-
intensity drug issue. I hope they could work those out or roll them 
into one or something of that nature; Kerrey regarding sense of the 
Senate; and a Kohl managers' amendment.
  I further ask all amendments must be offered and debated tonight and 
the votes be postponed to occur at 1, if any are needed, on the 
amendments. And, of course, final passage on Thursday, and that they 
occur in stacked sequence with 2 minutes for debate at that time before 
each vote for closing remarks, and that following those votes the bill 
be advanced to third reading.
  I further ask that if the motion relative to the Graham motion to 
reconsider is not tabled, the underlying amendment and motions be 
limited to unlimited debate.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. If I could, through the Chair, address the majority leader: 
We have a matter at 1 o'clock, for the hour. We have the Director of 
the CIA coming. We have 35 Senators who have said they want to hear 
him. It is going to be in 407. Could we do it at 2 o'clock, or 10 till, 
the votes?
  Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will yield for a moment, it is the 
intention of the leader to take up the defense bill when we convene in 
the morning, right?
  Mr. LOTT. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. With the understanding we can proceed with business 
other than votes prior to that time, I think we can handle it.
  Mr. LOTT. All right. Then we would have those stacked votes at----
  Mr. REID. At 2 o'clock?
  Mr. LOTT. At 2 o'clock? Is that agreeable with the chairman?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, it is. I ask the leader if there is any possibility 
we might get some agreement, however, that we can see the amendments 
that are going to be brought up in the balance of the day by noon 
tomorrow with regard to the Defense bill. If we could just have an 
indication what Senators are going to have amendments so we can start 
scheduling the action after the vote on the stacked amendments?
  Mr. LOTT. Let me say if I could, to the chairman, if there are 
amendments that are debated and ready for a vote at that time, we could 
put them in the sequence at 2 o'clock.
  Mr. STEVENS. We would be happy to do that. We would like to see what 
the remainder of the day, and Friday morning, is going to look like if 
we are going to finish the bill sometime Friday.
  Mr. LOTT. We amend the request, then, to 2 o'clock.
  Mr. REID. I extend my appreciation to the leader.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, and I will not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am trying to discern whether or not the post office 
in St. Paul named after Eugene McCarthy will be in the managers' 
amendment? Is that correct?

[[Page S9219]]

  Mr. LOTT. That will be accepted. The objection that has been lodged 
will be withdrawn and the agreement was, the understanding was, when 
that is withdrawn, the Senator had another amendment that he would 
withhold.
  Your amendment will be in the bill when it is passed.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the majority leader's 
request? The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I 
don't intend to, may I just have scheduled, between 12:30 and 1:30, 5 
minutes?
  Mr. LOTT. Five minutes or so?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Five.
  Mr. LOTT. We will make sure that occurs, Mr. President.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                           Amendment No. 3379

(Purpose: To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
 431 et seq.) to provide for appointment and term length for the staff 
 director and general counsel of the Federal Election Commission, and 
                          for other purposes)

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

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for himself, Mr. 
     McCain, Mr. Bennett and Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3379.

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

       At the end of title V, add the following section:

     SEC. __. PROVISIONS FOR STAFF DIRECTOR AND GENERAL COUNSEL OF 
                   THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION.

       (a) Appointment and Term of Service.--
       (1) In general.--The first sentence of section 306(f)(1) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     437c(f)(1)) is amended by striking ``by the Commission'' and 
     inserting ``by an affirmative vote of not less than 4 members 
     of the Commission for a term of 4 years''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall apply with respect to any individual serving as the 
     staff director or general counsel of the Federal Election 
     Commission on or after January 1, 1999, without regard to 
     whether or not the individual served as staff director or 
     general counsel prior to such date.
       (b) Treatment of Individuals Filling Vacancies; Termination 
     of Authority Upon Expiration of Term.--Section 306(f)(1) of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 437c(f)(1)) is amended by inserting after 
     the first sentence the following: ``An individual appointed 
     as a staff director or general counsel to fill a vacancy 
     occurring other than by the expiration of a term of office 
     shall be appointed only for the unexpired term of the 
     individual whose term is being filled. An individual serving 
     as staff director or general counsel may not serve in such 
     position after the expiration of the individual's term unless 
     reappointed in accordance with this paragraph.''.
       (c) Rule of Construction Regarding Authority of Acting 
     General Counsel.--Section 306(f) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     437c(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit 
     any individual serving as an acting general counsel of the 
     Commission from performing any functions of the general 
     counsel of the Commission.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I had earlier offered to enter into a 
much shorter time agreement, because this amendment really requires 
very little explanation.
  Last year, in the Treasury-Postal bill, we enacted term limits for 
the FEC Commissioners, and the terms of the Federal Election Commission 
members, Mr. President, are now one 6-year term.
  This amendment continues the necessary reform of the Federal Election 
Commission by providing that two critical staff members at the Federal 
Election Commission--the staff director and the general counsel--serve 
a 4-year term, but it is important to note, these important staff 
members could continue to serve with the vote of four of the six FEC 
Commissioners. It is important to remember the FEC is a 3-3 Commission, 
three Republicans, three Democrats. It was structured that way on 
purpose. It is necessary that it be structured that way.
  A very important part of the Federal Election Commission team is the 
staff director and the general counsel. Under the amendment that I have 
offered, cosponsored by Senator McCain, Senator Bennett and Senator 
Warner, the chairman of the Rules Committee, beginning in January, the 
general counsel and the staff director will be subject to a 4-year 
term, and in order to achieve that 4-year term, Mr. President, they 
would have to enjoy the confidence of both parties; that is, they would 
have to achieve four votes which means at least three of one party and 
one of another----
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, may we have order, please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Those Senators 
wishing to continue discussions please take your discussions off the 
floor of the Senate.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Or for that matter, Mr. President, the general counsel 
might achieve the votes of two of one party and two of another. In 
other words, four votes to achieve a 4-year term, after which the 
general counsel, if he or she wanted to continue--and many of them 
might not--would have to be able to reach across party lines, which is, 
of course, the spirit of the Federal Election Commission, in order to 
achieve a 4-year term.
  There is really nothing else to say about this amendment. It 
continues the reform process.
  Mr. President, how much of my time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 13 minutes, 23 seconds.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Utah 
whatever time he may desire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, my understanding of the actions and 
activities of the FEC up to this point indicate that it is an agency 
badly in need of reform, and I am delighted that the term limits have 
been enacted. It is also my understanding that because of its past 
history, some Commissioners of the FEC have been less than diligent in 
their duties and, as a result, the power to run the Commission has 
devolved to the staff.
  When we debate term limits generally, we are often told that one of 
the reasons we should oppose term limits is because it will put too 
much power in the hands of the staff. The staff becomes the permanent 
and institutional memory of the body, while those who are supposed to 
run it keep cycling through on term limits.
  I think it entirely appropriate that we give the new Commissioners, 
as their terms expire, the opportunity to act affirmatively on the 
staff and not allow the power of inertia to keep staff members in 
forever and forever. It is a logical thing to do, and I am happy to 
support it and happy to be a cosponsor of this amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of the time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment. If this is 
adopted, this means that this will be the only independent agency or 
department of Government to time limit the general counsel or staff 
director--the only independent agency in the Government.
  One of the FEC Commissioners has indicated to us what he thought 
would happen in this regard. He said it would cause chaos in the agency 
because, as the distinguished Senator from Kentucky has said, the 
Commission normally must have four votes for any action to ensure 
action is bipartisan.
  This means that if they were trying to get rid of the general counsel 
for whatever reason, the amendment would allow a minority of three to 
fire the general counsel because there wouldn't be a majority to 
retain, there wouldn't be the four votes. So there is concern about who 
they can get to even serve in a general counsel position in that 
situation.

[[Page S9220]]

  I think this will go a long ways toward destroying the FEC's 
independence in its own investigations under the law, because the 
general counsel will have to continually lobby for reinstatement. That 
just doesn't make any sense. I see no reason why we should be carving 
out the FEC, which is so important to us these days in trying to get 
elections laws straightened out, to be the only independent agency in 
all of Government to have such a time limit put on their general 
counsel or their staff director.
  They serve there, they have served for longer terms before, and 
served very honorably and well, but to place them under these different 
restrictions on voting, that would mean a general counsel could be 
ousted much more easily than I believe any of us would like to see and 
is something I don't think we should do.
  Mr. President, I rise to oppose this. If there are any others who 
wish to speak against this amendment, I will be glad to yield such 
time. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 minutes, 52 seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I wonder if the Senator from Ohio will yield me 6 
minutes.
  Mr. GLENN. I yield such time as the Senator may desire.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment offered 
by the Senator from Kentucky. I already spoke at length on the floor 
against a very similar amendment in its other incarnation in the other 
House. Fortunately, that body did not keep this provision on the bill.
  What is happening here is the opposite of reform. It is the opposite 
of reform. This is an effort, plain and simple, to hamstring the agency 
that is charged with the very important responsibility of enforcing the 
Federal election law to which we all have to adhere--the Federal 
Election Commission. This effort has deadly serious consequences in 
terms of the independence of this Commission, and it has to be 
defeated.
  The effect of the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky would be to 
result in the firing of the Commission's general counsel. The amendment 
involves the Congress in the personnel decisions of the FEC, the agency 
that we have charged with overseeing the way we conduct our reelection 
campaigns.
  The Senator from Kentucky wants to get rid of a career civil servant 
who is simply trying to do his job to enforce the election laws. The 
current general counsel's institutional memory and knowledge is 
critically important now, because we are poised to confirm three new 
Commissioners, perhaps before the August recess.
  If we do that, Mr. President, the Commission will be at full strength 
for the first time in almost 3 years. It has been that long since all 
six slots on the Commission were filled. And right as that happens, if 
we adopt this amendment, we are going to throw the Commission into 
turmoil once again by getting rid of the general counsel and forcing 
this newly constituted Commission to come to agreement on someone else. 
That could take months and hamper the enforcement efforts of the 
Commission at a crucial time, a very interesting time, right after the 
1998 elections.
  Mr. President, I want my colleagues to understand, as the Senator 
from Ohio has well stated, just how unprecedented this micromanaging of 
an agency's personnel decisions is.
  No other agency must reappoint or replace its top staff every 4 
years--not one. According to the Congressional Research Service, there 
are three independent agencies where the general counsel is actually a 
political appointee, nominated by the President and confirmed by the 
Senate. In each of these cases, the general counsel has direct 
statutory authority.
  But in every other independent agency, including the FEC, the general 
counsel is appointed by either the chairman or the entire body and 
serves at the pleasure of the appointing entity. That is what the law 
is now with respect to the FEC, and there is no reason to change it.
  In recent years, the FEC has undertaken a number of controversial 
actions in a very reasonable attempt to enforce the law that the 
Congress has written. Some of these cases have taken on very powerful 
political figures or groups--and they have done it on both sides of the 
aisle. And the crucial point is that the FEC itself has authorized all 
of these cases by a majority vote. If you don't like a case that the 
FEC has filed, you need to look to the Commission, not the general 
counsel. He is just trying to do his job as he sees fit.
  What we have here, Mr. President, is an effort to intimidate an 
agency. The proponents of this firing want to punish the FEC's general 
counsel for bringing forward recommendations to enforce the law, even 
though in all of the cases I have mentioned, a bipartisan majority of 
the commission has agreed with him. In every one of those cases a 
bipartisan group has agreed to take the action.
  Mr. President, I submit that we cannot let this happen. We need to 
let the professional staff of the FEC do its job. Surely the 3 to 3 
party split on the Commission is enough to make sure that the 
Commission doesn't go off on some partisan vendetta. We must stop the 
partisan vendetta that this proposal represents. Protect the 
independence of the FEC and the nonpartisan nature of its staff by 
defeating the McConnell amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the McConnell 
amendment. If this provision is enacted, the traditional bipartisan 
balance of the Federal Elections Commission will be disrupted. Under 
this provision the general counsel and staff director of the FEC can 
essentially be fired by either the three Democratic or Republican 
Commissioners on the FEC.
  This amendment has the potential of paralyzing the Federal Elections 
Commission and further eroding what is already a weakened campaign 
oversight agency.
  Mr. President, such a move would be unprecedented in the Federal 
Government. According to a memorandum prepared by the Congressional 
Research Service, no general counsel which is not subject to Senate 
confirmation may be removed in this manner. It would be ironic that the 
agency charged with investigating political campaigns is crippled by 
Congress.
  When this amendment was put forward in the House of Representatives, 
the New York Times noted that this provision would cripple the FEC and 
guarantee ``an open field for influence peddlers and influence 
buyers.''
  In a year when this Congress failed to pass campaign finance reform, 
it would be even more tragic if we crippled the only watchdogs of our 
campaign finance system.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the McConnell amendment.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment which proposes to 
limit the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) general counsel and staff 
director to a term of 4 years unless four of the six Commissioners vote 
to renew their terms. The Commission is composed of six members--three 
Republicans and three Democrats.
  Consistent with the FEC's overall statutory scheme, requiring a 
majority decision to take official action, four votes are currently 
needed to remove the general counsel or staff director from office. If 
this amendment is adopted, four affirmative votes would be required for 
these officials to retain their position. That means three 
Commissioners from the same party voting as a block could force the 
termination of either the general counsel or the staff director and 
hold hostage either of the two top career officials at the FEC.
  This amendment injects partisanship into the carefully balanced 
bipartisan structure at the FEC. Further, this could cause the staff to 
make recommendations based on partisan considerations in order to 
protect their jobs. These consequences would be extremely detrimental 
to the administration of the FEC and the enforcement of our campaign 
finance laws.
  There appears to be little question that the purpose of this 
provision is to retaliate against the general counsel, Lawrence Noble, 
for certain actions. The general counsel recently made several 
controversial recommendations to the Commission. In response to 1997 
rulemaking petitions filed by President Clinton and others, Mr. Noble 
recommended that the FEC seek public

[[Page S9221]]

comment on a proposal to prohibit the use of soft money in connection 
with federal elections.
  Acting on the general counsel's recommendation, the Commission also 
pursued cases in court that have received negative reactions from some 
Members. A review of Mr. Noble's record indicates that he has been 
nonpartisan, balanced and fair. Mr. Noble has aggressively pursued 
enforcement of campaign finance laws against Democrats and Republicans 
alike.
  In a year in which the need for campaign finance reform has received 
so much attention, Congress would be sending the wrong message if it 
passes a provision designed to weaken the very agency responsible for 
enforcing campaign finance laws.
  I urge you to oppose this amendment.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. One other item I would like to note for everyone's 
illumination on this.
  The House had a similar provision to that which is proposed by the 
Senator from Kentucky. They had a similar provision in the bill when it 
came to the House floor. They had a debate over there on this very 
provision which was described to me as being a bitter debate, a lot of 
rancor in it. It wound up with a bipartisan effort being put forward to 
strike this position on the floor of the House; and it was struck. They 
voted this provision out of the House bill on a bipartisan vote. And 
now this is an effort being made to put it back in on the floor of the 
Senate here.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the House vote was on a point of order. 
In fact, this particular reform has been recommended by the House 
authorizing committee. Let us not make this more complicated than it 
is.
  All this amendment does that the Senator from Kentucky has offered, 
in concert with the Senator from Utah, is require that on this--in this 
unique agency; it is different from any other agency in the Federal 
Government; it is three and three: three Republicans and three 
Democrats--to require that in this agency every 4 years the top two 
staff people enjoy enough confidence across party lines to be 
reappointed for 4 years.
  In fact, Mr. President, this amendment ensures that the agency will, 
in fact, be operated on a bipartisan basis because any staff director 
or general counsel who, after 4 years in the office, cannot get the 
confidence of both parties, Mr. President, clearly is not operating on 
a bipartisan basis and therefore should not be reappointed.
  So it is, in fact, this amendment that ensures that the Federal 
Election Commission achieves its original mission, which was to operate 
on a bipartisan basis.
  I see that my friend from Utah is on the floor. I yield to him 
whatever time he may need.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. I simply have to respond to the notion that this is an 
amendment to fire the incumbent general counsel. That is what we were 
told in the last debate. That assumes that the present general counsel 
does not enjoy bipartisan support. That assumes that the present 
general counsel has conducted himself in such a way that he cannot 
gather the necessary four votes. I have no knowledge that that is 
indeed the case. But if it is indeed the case, it is a strong argument 
for saying that the present general counsel probably should not be in 
his job.
  If he cannot muster bipartisan support to hold this job, we have a 
situation where he is obviously supporting one party over the other in 
order to maintain those three votes. That is the only conclusion that 
can be drawn from the argument made by the Senator from Wisconsin who 
claims this is an attempt to fire the incumbent general counsel.
  There is nothing in here that says this is an attempt to fire the 
incumbent general counsel. It simply says the incumbent general counsel 
has to enjoy bipartisan support. And if he is as wonderful and as 
bipartisan as the Senator from Wisconsin says he is, he has nothing to 
fear from this amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend from Utah, in further 
elaboration, after the enactment of this into law, we are not making 
the general counsel or the staff director subject to removal on a whim. 
They have a 4-year term, an opportunity to develop a record of 
bipartisan cooperation with both the Republicans and the Democrats on 
the Federal Election Commission before reaching the end of the 4-year 
term. At that point, if they want to continue enjoying enough 
confidence across party lines to achieve another 4-year appointment--it 
seems to me eminently reasonable. And, Mr. President, I think it 
guarantees that the Federal Election Commission will be the kind of 
agency that the Congress intended it to be when it was created in the 
mid 1970s.
  Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time, if I have any.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 37 seconds.
  Mr. GLENN. We are prepared to go to a vote. I am prepared to yield 
back the remainder of my time if the Senator from Kentucky is prepared 
to do the same thing.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back by both 
parties. The question is on the amendment.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that Elizabeth Coliguri, a member 
of my staff, be given floor privileges for the remainder of the 
consideration of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. There is obviously some misunderstanding about the 
earlier consent agreement that was entered into between all of us and 
the Parliamentarian. I think there is no misunderstanding among the 
Senators, so I ask unanimous consent that all of the amendments debated 
tonight be voted upon in order of their offering beginning at 2 o'clock 
tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be the order.
  Is there objection?
  Mr. GLENN. Reserving the right to object, and I do not plan to 
object, but my understanding is the majority leader proposed that and 
it was already entered. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. There was some misunderstanding by the Parliamentarian 
as to whether we were voting further tonight. I do not think there was 
any misunderstanding among Senators.
  Mr. GLENN. OK. Fine. Whatever.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                           Amendment No. 3380

 (Purpose: To provide additional funding for enforcement activities of 
                    the Federal Election Commission)

  Mr. GLENN. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.

[[Page S9222]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. GLENN], for himself, Mr. 
     Jeffords, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Levin, Mr. Feingold and Mr. Dodd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3380.

  Mr. GLENN. 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 44, line 13, insert after ``$33,700,000'' the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,800,000 to be used for 
     enforcement activities)''.
       On page 46, line 18, strike ``$5,665,585,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,662,785,000''.
       On page 56, line 20, strike ``$5,665,585,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,662,785,000''.

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I send this to the desk, along with my 
cosponsors, Senators Jeffords, Kohl, Levin, Feingold, and Dodd. I offer 
this amendment to increase the budgeted funds a small amount for 
enforcement efforts by the Federal Election Commission. This agency 
bears the very difficult and thankless task of policing all of our 
campaigns in the whole Congress.
  Mr. President, I would like to point out, first, that this amendment 
was offered in the House, was debated there, and was approved. And the 
amendment I offer today adds exactly the same amount. It is just an 
additional $2.8 million to the FEC budget. The money would help the 
agency to investigate and prove wrongdoing. These additional funds are 
just a small step toward giving the Commission the resources that it 
really needs.

  In past years, we have seen attempts by Congress to stop vigorous 
enforcement of the law by failing to provide an adequate budget for 
this agency. Just last year, following an election in which 
unprecedented abuse of the campaign finance laws occurred, Congress 
refused to give money to the FEC to hire more staff to investigate 
these abuses. I thought that was a tragedy.
  Just last week in the House, we saw an extraordinary display of 
bipartisanship because the House defeated provisions intended to 
politicize the agency, and instead approved additional funds, as I 
mentioned a moment ago, for the Federal Election Commission. The extra 
money was set aside very specifically to help the FEC pay for 
investigations, many stemming from the events of the 1996 campaign. 
Those of us who support campaign finance reform--which is a clear 
majority in this body--agree that the system is broken and needs to be 
fixed.
  Until we can pass new laws, we must at least allow the agency we 
created to do its best to actively and vigorously enforce the existing 
law. This amendment takes an important step toward assuring that the 
FEC can do just that. This amendment is a renewed commitment by the 
Members of Congress to make a real effort to ensure that people who 
violate our existing campaign finance laws are found and are held 
accountable. This is the only way we can assure the continued integrity 
of our election process.
  Last year, we saw a lot of effort on campaign finance reform, and 
with Chairman Thompson, I had the privilege of serving as the ranking 
member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs' investigation into the 
1996 campaign finance fiasco. During the course of those hearings, 
Chairman Thompson called on several campaign finance experts to 
testify. One of those witnesses was Norm Ornstein of the Brookings 
Institution who told us in testimony that he believed that the FEC 
would probably need at least $50 million--that is about twice what they 
are receiving--in order to become an effective enforcement agency.
  These funds I am proposing are a very small step. They just match the 
House funds that have already passed over there. It is a small step, 
but still leaves the agency woefully short of what experts think it 
needs.
  Let me give a little bit of perspective of the job facing the FEC. 
Right now, the FEC has 200 cases pending; 93 of those cases are under 
investigation and 107 cases, over half, are sitting in a file cabinet. 
Why? Why are these cases just sitting there in the cabinets with no 
action? They are waiting for staff to become available for these 200 
cases. The FEC can only afford 25 staff attorneys.
  How about the investigators who could help the attorneys? The FEC has 
two, which they consider a great improvement from 1994 when they had 
exactly zero. They had none. By way of contrast, on last year's 
investigative staff of the Governmental Affairs Committee, we had 44 
lawyers and a dozen investigators, and we weren't dealing with the 
whole aspect of everything the FEC has to deal with. We were dealing 
with only one limited aspect of what occurred during the 1996 campaign. 
We faced nowhere near the caseload that confronts the agency that is 
trying to do the best job it can on a real shoestring.
  I think we can all agree it doesn't matter how good the law that you 
have, if it isn't actively and vigorously enforced, it means nothing. 
It becomes a scofflaw. The Federal Election Commission already enforces 
a law readily exploited and bent in ways never intended. We, in 
Congress, fail to give the FEC the resources to find and hold 
accountable those who willfully violate these laws, who misuse soft 
money, who attempt to disguise political ads as issue advertising, and 
on and on. With all of the things we know that can happen, how can we 
hope to ensure the public has confidence in its elections and in its 
elected officials?
  This amendment is a very, very small and reasonable step towards 
allowing the FEC to accomplish its mission and enforce the law. I hope 
my colleague will support it. I repeat, it is one that has already 
passed in the House. We just matched the figure of $2.8 million that 
they have already passed in the House. I hope my colleagues will 
support my amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, very briefly, the FEC is clearly not 
underfunded. Its budget has more than doubled in the past decade. They 
are already getting $2 million more this year than last year under the 
budget of the Senator from Colorado, who has been quite generous to the 
Federal Election Commission--frankly, beyond what I would have done had 
I been in his shoes. The FEC's problems are certainly not on the 
financial side.
  Senator Glenn would give them an extra $2.8 million over and above 
the additional $2 million that the distinguished Senator from Colorado 
is already providing for this agency. You are talking about a 16-
percent budget increase, a 16-percent budget increase for the Federal 
Election Commission. I think the U.S. district court, in a recent case, 
said it best when they reported in a Wall Street Journal editorial of 
July 13:

       If there is one thing all the players agree on, it is the 
     need for better disclosure of contributions and a crackdown 
     on violators. But a Federal court this week [the Wall Street 
     Journal referring to a court decision] signaled that the 
     Nation's electoral traffic cop, the Federal Election 
     Commission, is lax in carrying out even that basic function.

  That is the point. The basic function of the Federal Election 
Commission is disclosure.
  The distinguished Senator from Colorado has more than adequately 
provided funding for this agency. To give them the additional money 
offered by the distinguished Senator from Ohio would provide a 16-
percent increase over last year. Clearly, that is not appropriate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, that's difficult to respond to, to say the 
FEC needs more resources. My distinguished colleague, my friend from 
Kentucky, says they need to monitor disclosure better; but how do they 
monitor that if they don't have the people to do it? They should crack 
down on violators. How do they crack down if they don't have the people 
on the staff to do it? They have a grand total of 25 staff attorneys. 
Until 1994, they didn't have any investigators.
  To say that we put them up a certain percentage this year, when 
estimates we had in testimony before the Governmental Affairs Committee 
were that we should probably double their budget to give them a fair 
shot at doing their job, which would put their budget up around, 
somewhere around $50 million was the estimate, instead of where it is 
now, to think if they could even come close to fulfilling the law and 
the requirements they are supposed to monitor with the staff they have, 
just isn't right.

[[Page S9223]]

  I said in my statement a moment ago, the FEC has 200 cases pending. 
They are only investigating 93. Why? It is because they don't have the 
people to do it. To say that they don't need more money and are quite 
adequately funded just flies in the face of logic. They do not have 
adequate staff. They can't even keep up with these things. These cases 
are years and years old. Many of them will not even be settled before 
the next election cycle comes around. They don't have the staff over 
there for any expeditious treatment. Ninety-three of those cases are 
under investigation, 107 cases are sitting in file cabinets for lack of 
people.
  In 1994, they didn't have any investigators and then they hired one. 
Then it was said later on they had 100-percent improvement in their 
investigative staff because they then hired two; they had two people on 
their investigative staff. None of these attorneys are people who are 
normally going out and doing all the spadework, doing all of the 
investigating, doing the fieldwork out in the field. To say that they 
have quite adequate funding because they went up a certain small 
percentage just flies in the face of logic.
  I know we are not going to probably change many minds on this 
particular subject, but if we are serious about ever improving our 
campaign financing and having the FEC as the monitoring body that does 
that, this is such a modest little amount of $2.8 million. I hope my 
colleagues will vote for this and match the House with the exact same 
amount the House put in. We wanted to match what they have done.
  They had a debate on this in the House and decided to put this in. It 
was because they felt they not only needed this, they probably needed 
much more, but could not get more through. I would like to see us do 
this an extra $15 million or $20 million. I know we are not going to do 
that here, but this is such a modest increase and they need it so badly 
that I hope my colleagues will agree to the amendment I am proposing 
when we vote tomorrow.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I'm pleased to cosponsor and rise in 
support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio, Senator 
Glenn. And how fitting that Senator Glenn has taken the lead on this 
issue since he spent much of last year investigating the fundraising 
scandals of the 1996 election. I congratulate him on that work and on 
offering this very modest, but very important amendment today.
  Mr. President, as you know, I have spent a lot of time on this floor 
in this Congress debating the McCain-Feingold bill, and the issue of 
campaign finance reform. It has been a very difficult issue to make 
progress on. We have a strong bipartisan majority, including seven 
Senators from the Republican side of the aisle, in support of reform. A 
partisan minority continues to block our bill.
  But one area on which this entire body is united, Mr. President, is 
the need to enforce the laws that are already on the book. In fact, 
time after time when we debated the issue last fall and again early 
this spring, opponents of our bill raised that issue as a reason that 
they opposed McCain-Feingold. Why should we enact new laws, they said, 
when we can't even enforce the ones on the book? No less than eight 
Senators made some version of that argument in last fall's debate, 
right in the middle of the Thompson Committee hearings. More still 
raised it when we revisited campaign finance reform in February.
  In fact, given the arguments made by the opponents of the McCain-
Feingold bill, I would hope this amendment would be adopted by 100-0 
when we vote. Because all the amendment does is give the resources that 
the Federal Election Commission says it needs to carry out the duties 
that we have given it under the law. The very small amount of money 
that this amendment proposes to add to the FEC's appropriation--just 
2.8 million dollars--will bring the FEC's funding up to its full budget 
request, which is the level that the House passed bill includes.
  This is a particularly good and important time to fully fund the FEC. 
The Rules Committee recently recommended approval of three new nominees 
to the Commission, and one reappointment. If the Senate follows that 
recommendation, the FEC will have a full complement of Commissioners 
for the first time since October 1995 when then Chairman Trevor Potter 
left the Commission. We therefore have a chance to have a fully 
functioning Commission prior to this year's elections. What better time 
to have a fully funded Commission as well. What better time to give the 
FEC the resources it says it needs to do its job right.
  The additional funding provided in this amendment will go directly to 
hiring new personnel to beef up the FEC's enforcement capacity. And 
there is no doubt at all that these additional investigative and legal 
staff are truly necessary. The FEC simply is not able to keep up with 
the workload as things now stand. In Fiscal Year 1997, it dismissed 133 
cases as being too minor or too old to be worth pursuing. Through June 
of this year, three quarters of the way through this Fiscal Year, the 
FEC has already dismissed 144 cases. Now these are not frivolous cases, 
these are cases that staff has determined are worth pursuing.
  And here is the most disturbing statistic, Mr. President. In every 
year since the FEC adopted this practice of dropping cases that it 
can't get to the number of cases that are dropped because they are not 
that important has exceeded the number that are dropped because they 
are stale. Until this year. This year, nearly 60 percent of the cases 
dropped were high priority but stale. This is a very disturbing fact. 
The FEC is having a harder and harder time getting to the cases that it 
deems to be significant because of the rising caseload and inadequate 
resources.
  So, Mr. President, frankly, I can hardly imagine how one could argue 
against this amendment. The FEC is a very small agency, with a very 
small appropriation, and a very big job. Campaign spending by 
candidates continues to increase. Involvement in election activity by 
outside groups continues to expand. We simply cannot pretend that we 
want the laws to be enforced at election time and then ignore the FEC 
at budget time.
  There is nothing that undermines the public's faith in government 
more, Mr. President, than a feeling that the rules of the election game 
are being ignored. In a very real sense, Mr. President, this amendment 
gives us the chance to put our money where our mouth is. I hope we take 
it.
  Once again, I congratulate the senior Senator from Ohio for offering 
this amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment by 
Senator Glenn to bring the funding for the Federal Elections Commission 
to the level requested by the administration. Mr. President, we have 
watched during the last few years as public confidence in our electoral 
system has crumbled. We've seen investigations, deliberations, 
orations--but nothing substantive to improve how we elect Members of 
Congress.
  We all know that despite the strong efforts of many in this 
institution--especially Senator McCain and my colleague from Wisconsin, 
Senator Feingold--we have not passed genuine campaign finance reform.
  At the same time, the workload at the FEC has exploded. Since 1991, 
campaign spending has increased by nearly 150 percent. The number of 
audits have gone up 110 percent. And the sheer number of transactions 
recorded by the FEC has increased by 157 percent. This increase in work 
has come at a time when the FEC, an independent federal agency, has 
lost employees. In the last three years the number of full time 
employees has actually dropped from 314 to 300.
  With this increase in work and decrease in staff, it should not be a 
surprise that the FEC--the agency charged with investigating campaign 
fraud and abuse--has been forced to drop legitimate cases because of 
insufficient resources. In 1998 alone, of the cases the FEC dismissed, 
nearly two out of three cases were dropped because the FEC did not have 
the resources to fully investigate them.
  Mr. President, if I came before this body today and told you that 
criminals were being let out of jail because there were not enough 
policemen on the beat, we would rush to provide more resources to law 
enforcement. But because those allegedly breaking the law are political 
candidates and campaigns, we are ignoring the problem.
  The House of Representatives recognized the deficiency in funding and 
voted to bring the FEC budget to $36.5 million. Senator Glenn's 
amendment

[[Page S9224]]

would do the same, and without increasing overall spending.
  Mr. President, we should have passed meaningful campaign finance 
reform this year, but we did not. Therefore, the only real improvement 
we can make to our campaign finance system is to provide the policemen 
of that systems the tool they need to enforce our laws. The Glenn 
amendment will provide that additional support, and I urge its passage.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I will reserve the balance of my time. Do 
we have 2 minutes to explain this before the vote tomorrow? Was that 
the agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes, evenly divided, 
before each vote.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield the balance of my time for this 
evening.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Glenn 
amendment at the agreed to time tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the great courtesies that the 
Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Wisconsin have extended in 
terms of a series of amendments that relate to drug issues. It is my 
hope and expectation that before we come to closure on this matter, 
those various amendments will be combined in an amendment that will be 
supported by the managers of this bill.
  I am in a difficult situation, however, wanting to assure that in the 
unlikely event that that doesn't occur, the amendment that I propose to 
offer is protected. So in a minimum amount of time, I would like to 
offer the amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Mr. Robert Warshaw, the 
Associate Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which 
outlines the severity of the situation in the region of central 
Florida, which is the subject of the amendment, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of National 
           Drug Control Policy,
                                    Washington, DC, July 29, 1998.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: This is in response to your inquiry 
     concerning the status of the Central Florida High Intensity 
     Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). The Central Florida HIDTA was 
     designated by this office on February 27, 1998 after 
     consultation with the governor of Florida, the Attorney 
     General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the 
     Secretary of the Treasury.
       A thorough analysis of the Threat Assessment and supporting 
     information submitted by the Central Florida HIDTA reveals 
     that this region has been severely affected by the flow of 
     illegal drugs from domestic and international sources, and 
     that this drug trafficking affects the nation as a whole. 
     Illegal drugs are increasingly smuggled into Orlando and 
     Tampa from the Caribbean and Latin America. Among Florida 
     cities in 1996, Orlando reported the highest rate of heroin 
     deaths. Marijuana seizures doubled between 1995 and 1996. 
     Violent crime in Orlando and St. Petersburg increased by 8% 
     in the first six months of 1997, at a time when violent crime 
     declined in many other locations.
       The Central Florida HIDTA will provide federal assistance 
     intended to measurably reduce drug trafficking through a more 
     coordinated, deliberate and focused approach to drug 
     enforcement and interdiction in the Central Florida area. We 
     anticipate that Federal assistance will enhance combined 
     federal, state and local law enforcement agencies who will 
     focus on heroin, marijuana, methamphetamine and money 
     laundering organizations.
       With the support of Congress, and federal, state and local 
     law enforcement programs, the Central Florida HIDTA and the 
     national HIDTA program will continue to provide assistance in 
     countering drug trafficking. ONDCP looks forward to your 
     continued support and cooperation in advancing this goal.
           Respectfully,

                                               Robert Warshaw,

                                               Associate Director,
                                          State and Local Affairs.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I do not propose to have further debate on 
this matter now. I hope this amendment can be vitiated tomorrow because 
it will have been adopted or ready to be adopted in a form that would 
be submitted and supported by the managers of the bill.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I want to assure our colleague, Senator 
Graham of Florida, that staff is working very diligently trying to 
reach agreement to work these amendments into one and make sure they 
are protected. We have a little work to do in finding offsets, but we 
are very close to that.


                           Amendment No. 3381

  (Purpose: To provide funding for the Central Florida High Intensity 
                         Drug Trafficking Area)

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

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], for himself and Mr. 
     Mack, proposes an amendment numbered 3381.

  Mr. GRAHAM. 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 20, line 16, strike $3,164,399,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,162,399,000.
       On page 39, line 10, strike ``$171,007,000'' and insert 
     ``$173,007,000''.
       On page 40, line 3, strike ``: Provided, That funding'' and 
     insert the following: ``, and of which $3,000,000 shall be 
     used to continue the recently created Central Florida High 
     Intensity Drug Trafficking Area: Provided, That except with 
     respect to the Central Florida High Intensity Drug 
     Trafficking Area, funding''.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3382

(Purpose: To designate the building of the United States Postal Service 
located at 180 East Kellogg Boulevard in Saint Paul, Minnesota, as the 
              ``Eugene J. McCarthy Post Office Building'')

  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 legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], for Mr. 
     Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 3382.

  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 104, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:

     SEC. 6__. DESIGNATION OF EUGENE J. MCCARTHY POST OFFICE 
                   BUILDING.

       (a) In General.--The building of the United States Postal 
     Service located at 180 East Kellogg Boulevard in Saint Paul, 
     Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the ``Eugene J. 
     McCarthy Post Office Building''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     building referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 
     a reference to the ``Eugene J. McCarthy Post Office 
     Building''.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this amendment is on behalf of Mr. 
Wellstone, and it deals with the naming of a post office, which has 
been agreed to by both sides.
  I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3382) was agreed to.


               Additional Cosponsor on Amendment No. 3377

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Mack be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 3377.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3357

     (Purpose: To promote the public's right to know about Federal 
   regulatory programs, improve the quality of Government, increase 
           Government accountability, and for other purposes)

  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 legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], for Mr. Thompson, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3357.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page S9225]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 625 and insert the following:
       Sec. 625. (a) In General.--Beginning in calendar year 2000, 
     and every 2 calendar years thereafter, the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget shall prepare and submit to 
     Congress, with the budget submitted under section 1105 of 
     title 31, United States Code, an accounting statement and 
     associated report containing--
       (1) an estimate of the total annual costs and benefits 
     (including quantifiable and nonquantifiable effects) of 
     Federal rules and paperwork, to the extent feasible--
       (A) in the aggregate;
       (B) by agency and agency program; and
       (C) by major rule;
       (2) an analysis of impacts of Federal regulation on State, 
     local, and tribal government, small business, wages, and 
     economic growth; and
       (3) recommendations for reform.
       (b) Notice.--The Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall provide public notice and an opportunity to 
     comment on the statement and report under subsection (a) 
     before the statement and report are submitted to Congress.
       (c) Guidelines.--To implement this section, the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget shall issue guidelines to 
     agencies to standardize--
       (1) measures of costs and benefits; and
       (2) the format of accounting statements.
       (d) Peer Review.--The Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget shall provide for independent and external peer 
     review of the guidelines and each accounting statement and 
     associated report under this section. Such peer review shall 
     not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
     U.S.C. App.).

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment to 
strengthen the regulatory accounting provision in Section 625 of the 
Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill. This amendment would require OMB 
to submit a biannual report to Congress on the costs and benefits of 
federal regulatory programs. I ask unanimous consent that Majority 
Leader Lott and Senators Breaux, Shelby, and Robb be added as 
cosponsors to my amendment. We come from different political 
viewpoints, but we all agree that we need to improve our regulatory 
system and make it more open and accountable.
  This amendment continues the effort begun by Senator Stevens, the 
former Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, when he passed 
the Stevens Regulatory Accounting Amendment on the Treasury-Postal 
Appropriations bill in 1996. Our goal is to promote the public's right 
to know about regulation, increase government accountability, and to 
improve the quality of regulatory programs. This amendment would not 
change any regulation or regulatory standard. It just provides 
important information for smarter and more accountable regulation.
  Under the Stevens Amendment, the Office of Management and Budget 
issued its first regulatory accounting report to the Congress in 
September 1997. While this first Report was an important step toward 
government accountability, it left a lot to be desired. Following that 
first Report, Senator Stevens and I wrote to the OMB Director 
expressing our concern that OMB was not fully complying with the 
Amendment. Several members of the House sent a similar letter. In 
addition, the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings 
Institution held a workshop reviewing the first OMB Report in the fall 
of 1997. At that workshop, a distinguished group of economists 
unanimously agreed that OMB had fallen short on the Stevens Amendment.
  Now it's time to take another step toward a more open and accountable 
regulatory system. This amendment would add a few simple requirements 
to the Stevens regulatory accounting provision to ensure that:
  Regulatory Accounting is a permanent requirement. Every two years, 
OMB would submit the Report with the President's budget.
  The Report is more informative. To the extent feasible, agencies 
would provide cost and benefit estimates for agency programs. In 
addition, the Report will clearly cover paperwork costs, including the 
large costs of complying with our Byzantine tax system. That was always 
supposed to be covered.
  The Report is of higher quality. OMB guidelines to the agencies and 
peer review will improve future reports.
  As OMB said in their first regulatory accounting Report, 
``regulations (like other instruments of government policy) have 
enormous potential for both good and harm.'' Better information will 
help us regulate smarter--to increase the benefits of regulation while 
reducing needless waste and redtape. This will help ensure the success 
of important programs, while enhancing the economic security and well-
being of our families and our communities.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter to 
former OMB Director Franklin Raines, and a letter from the Alliance USA 
be printed in the Record following my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, October 29, 1997.
     Subject: Implementation of Regulatory Accounting Amendment.
     Hon. Franklin D. Raines,
     Director, Office of Management and Budget,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Director Raines: We would like to work with you toward 
     the successful implementation of the regulatory accounting 
     provision in section 625 of the Treasury and General 
     Government Appropriations Act, 1998 (Pub. L. 105-61). This 
     provision carries forward for another year the requirement 
     that OMB report to Congress on the total costs and benefits 
     of Federal regulatory programs. Based on our review of OMB's 
     first regulatory accounting report, we believe there is an 
     opportunity to make further progress toward a more 
     transparent, cost-effective, and accountable regulatory 
     system.
       We believe that the public has a right to know the costs 
     and benefits of federal regulatory programs. While the budget 
     process provides the public and Congress with an opportunity 
     to monitor and control tax-and-expenditure programs, 
     regulatory programs do not receive such scrutiny. As your 
     first report says, ``regulations (like other instruments of 
     government policy) have enormous potential for both good and 
     harm.'' We believe that better information will help us to 
     increase the benefits and reduce the costs of regulation. 
     This would contribute to the success of programs the public 
     values, while enhancing the economic security and well-being 
     of our families and communities.
       While the first regulatory accounting report has some 
     serious omissions, it is an important foundation for 
     improving the regulatory system. Critics said it could not be 
     done, and we appreciate that OMB's Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA''), with limited staff, proved the 
     critics were wrong. We agree that OMB should use the report 
     to raise the quality and utility of agency analyses--for 
     developing new regulations, reviewing existing regulations, 
     and tracking regulatory impacts over time. We encourage OMB 
     to build on this effort by tracking the net benefits of 
     regulations and reforms of old rules.
       As OMB develops its second report, we believe there are 
     several opportunities for improvement, and we would like to 
     make the following recommendations. First, the report should 
     adhere to specific statutory requirements. The first report 
     fails to recommend improvements for specific regulatory 
     programs or program elements, as required by subsection 
     (a)(4). OMB need not base its recommendations on perfect 
     empirical information nor on its overall estimates of the 
     impacts of the regulatory system. Moreover, the first report 
     does not assess the indirect impacts of Federal regulation, 
     as required by subsection (a)(3).
       Second, the report should more fully implement the 
     legislation to achieve its goals. The first report failed to 
     break down costs and benefits by program or program element 
     where feasible, as intended by subsection (a)(1). The public 
     also deserves a complete accounting of federal mandates--not 
     simply those that fall within OMB's categories of ``social'' 
     and ``economic'' regulations. OMB should estimate the costs 
     of all paperwork requirements, including those associated 
     with tax collection. OMB also should estimate transfer costs, 
     even if they are viewed as a different category of regulatory 
     costs.
       Finally, OMB should exercise leadership to assure the 
     quality and reliability of information reported. 
     Specifically, we urge OMB to standardize procedures 
     government-wide for collecting, analyzing, and documenting 
     the best available information. OMB should leverage its 
     effort with cooperation from the agencies and the President's 
     Council of Economic Advisors. OMB also should establish a 
     database, enforce its ``Best Practices'' guidelines, and 
     track the costs and benefits of programs, program elements, 
     and rules over time. OMB should synthesize and evaluate the 
     information provided by the agencies and provide an 
     independent assessment. To this end, OMB staff should be 
     directed to critique the quality of the estimates provided to 
     them, not to simply compile data presented by the agencies.
       We commend you for an important first step toward a more 
     open, efficient, and accountable regulatory system. We look 
     forward to working with you to advance further in the 1998 
     report. We would appreciate your response to our 
     recommendations by December 1, 1997.
       With best wishes,
           Cordially,
     Fred Thompson,

[[Page S9226]]

       Chairman, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.
     Ted Stevens,
       Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee.
                                  ____



                                                 Alliance USA,

                                    Washington, DC, July 28, 1998.
     Hon. Fred Thompson,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thompson: I am writing you on behalf of 
     Alliance USA (member list attached) to express our support of 
     your regulatory accounting amendment to the Treasury-Postal 
     Appropriations bill to our coalition. As you know, this 
     amendment would continue the important work on regulatory 
     accounting begun by Senator Stevens.
       Alliance USA is a nationwide coalition of over 1,000 
     companies united by their support for responsible regulatory 
     reform. Our coalition believes that your regulatory 
     accounting amendment would improve the effectiveness of 
     several pending regulatory reform measures, including S. 981, 
     the Regulatory Improvement Act of 1998.
       We believe that the successful addition of your amendment 
     would result in a more informed public and Congress about the 
     benefits and burdens of federal regulations. It would also 
     enable Congress to assess more accurately the effectiveness 
     of regulatory programs.
       We commend you for your continued efforts to improve the 
     regulatory accounting process. If our coalition can be 
     helpful in this effort, please let me know.
       Thank you for your consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Lewis I. Dale,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this amendment is acceptable to both 
sides of the aisle, and I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3357) was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the chairman of the committee would indulge 
me for an amendment on the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I am happy to yield to the Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 3383

(Purpose: To provide additional funding for the Federal Law Enforcement 
                            Training Center)

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

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for himself, 
     Mr. Coverdell, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment 
     numbered legislative 3383.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 8, line 11, strike ``$66,251,000'' and insert 
     ``$71,923,000''.
       On page 10, line 12, strike ``and related expenses, 
     $15,360,000'' and insert ``new construction, and related 
     expenses, $42,620,000''.
       On page 46, line 18, strike ``$5,665,585,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,632,552,000''.
       On page 50, line 20, strike ``$668,031,000'' and insert 
     ``$634,998,000''.
       On page 50, line 23, strike ``$323,800,000'' and insert 
     ``$309,499,000''.
       On page 52, line 13, strike ``$344,236,000'' and insert 
     ``$311,203,000''.
       On page 56, line 20, strike ``$5,665,585,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,632,552,000''.
       On page 45, line 21, strike ``$508,752,000'' and insert 
     ``$475,719,000''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I offer this amendment today with my 
distinguished colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, and my 
colleague from, New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, to address funding for 
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, referred to as FLETC.
  This is a consolidated law enforcement training center for the 
Federal Government that is operated by the Department of the Treasury.
  The committee bill reduces the funding for FLETC by $18.7 million 
below the President's budget request of $100.3 million.
  The bill reduces funding for both the operating and the construction 
and maintenance accounts, which will have serious effects on our law 
enforcement training program.
  Mr. President, some years ago, because law enforcement training 
became a necessity for a number of departments of the Federal 
Government, every major department which wanted to train their own law 
enforcement people, and the U.S. Government made a very good decision. 
They said the Department of Treasury will establish the Federal Law 
Enforcement Training Center, and it will take care of most of law 
enforcement training that is required for institutions and entities 
like the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Immigration, and just an untold 
number of agencies that need to have their law enforcement people 
trained.
  Through good fortune, an earlier abandoned naval base in the State of 
Georgia, called Glynco, was the site that was determined for this 
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
  As a matter of fact, I am sure some wonder why I remain so interested 
in this. A little part of it is in the State of New Mexico. But, 
believe it or not, when I was a second-year Senator on the Public Works 
Committee, we were about to spend $600 million on a new center for the 
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. I suggested, almost in a very 
mild voice, wondering whether then committee chairman of the Public 
Works Committee would even consider this new center, and said, ``Would 
you adopt a resolution saying that before we agree to build a new one 
that we will take a year and look around and see if we might not 
already own a facility such as an abandoned military base?'' I think, 
to get rid of me, they all said, ``Let's adopt the resolution.'' And 
sure enough, 9 months later, before we ever spent any money, the 
chairman called me to his office and said, ``Look. They found a naval 
base in the State of Georgia which has just recently been closed, and 
it will be perfect. We will not have to build a new one.''
  Although many, many claimed they were the people that got Glynco, I 
was very pleased to be invited as a brand new Senator in the back row 
and know that because I had asked that we not spend money until we look 
around, that we found it.
  It has been doing a marvelous job. The only major competitor is the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
  Some time ago, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, when Jim 
Baker was Secretary of Treasury, decided to expand and create a new 
one. They picked a former college in the city of Artesia, NM, which 
offered them the entire campus at a bargain rate, and it has since 
grown along with the Glynco establishment in Georgia.
  I came to the floor tonight to urge the committee to restore the 
FLETC salary and expenses and construction to the President's level.
  I know the committee had difficulty because they had to do a lot of 
things the House didn't do in their bill with the same amount of 
allocation, overall. But this amendment will actually allow $20 million 
for new construction of critical dormitory and classroom facilities at 
both Artesia in New Mexico and Glynco: $6.4 million for new dormitories 
in Artesia; $7.5 million for new dormitories at headquarters in Glynco; 
and, $6.4 million dollars for new classrooms at Glynco, which will be 
augmented by the amounts in the bill, restoring the budget request, and 
a proposed reprogramming of funds.
  Mr. President, the Congress has put a significant emphasis on law 
enforcement over the past decade. I have been concerned for quite some 
time that the law enforcement agencies of the Treasury Department--that 
is FLETC, the Customs Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 
Firearms--are overlooked when Congress talks about violent and youth 
crimes, drugs, gangs, and illegal immigration. The Department of the 
Treasury plays a very important role in this regard. While Congress has 
more than tripled the budget of the Department of Justice law 
enforcement agencies over the last decade, Treasury agencies--and this 
is no aspersions on the current leadership of the subcommittee--have 
often struggled to keep up with workloads that are increasing all the 
time. FLETC is a case in point. Since Congress began serious anticrime 
efforts, thousands of law enforcement agents have been recruited. Many 
of these agents receive

[[Page S9227]]

their basic as well as advanced training at these Federal law 
enforcement facilities. While the administration and Congress added 
these agents, sufficient resources were not devoted to keep up with the 
training requirements. The President requested $71.9 million for the 
Federal law enforcement training salaries and expenses, and the 
committee provided $66.25.

  There are 70 Federal agencies that depend solely upon the Federal Law 
Enforcement Training Center to provide all direct costs for entry level 
training. Without these additional funds, the number of students 
trained in 1999 will fall below the actual number of agents trained in 
1997 while the demand is greater. That will be 3,900 less. Should the 
administration decide to keep training levels stable, as much as 10 
percent would have to be cut from other sources or some programs would 
have to be reduced or eliminated such as the Office for State, Local 
and International Training within FLETC.
  Rather than go on with all of the details that I have regarding this, 
I just want to conclude that this is not good policy. If Congress is 
going to commit to strong law enforcement, it needs not only the 
personnel but the high-quality training needed to prepare and protect 
our law enforcement agents. FLETC, the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
Center, must be in position to meet those demands.
  Mr. President, this amendment provides important resources to support 
the training of our Federal law enforcement personnel. I believe the 
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center should be a priority in this 
bill, and I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 
the Treasury Department, signed by Raymond Kelly, Under Secretary, to 
me indicating that they would very much support funding the President's 
level in this bill for operation and for getting ready for future 
demands in terms of construction.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                   Department of the Treasury,

                                    Washington, DC, July 28, 1998.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Domenici:  On behalf of Secretary Rubin, I 
     want to thank you for your leadership and support of Treasury 
     Enforcement programs. Like you, we believe that the Federal 
     Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) should be funded at 
     the President's request of $100.283 million and thereby 
     ensure our capacity to meet critical infrastructure needs. 
     The Treasury Department considers this a high priority so 
     FLETC can have adequate facilities, at both Glynco and 
     Artesia, in order to meet the surging workload associated 
     with border management build-up, drug interdiction, anti-
     terrorism, and related activities.
       Equally important, we are committed to ensuring that 
     funding for FLETC does not offset other Treasury programs. We 
     hope that the Senate will be able to restore the funding 
     levels requested by the Administration during its 
     deliberations on the FY 1999 appropriations.
           Very truly yours,
                                                 Raymond W. Kelly,
                                  Under Secretary for Enforcement.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman, with 
whom I have conferred and whose staff I have conferred at length, would 
the chairman do his best to fully fund FLETC as requested by the 
President when he goes to conference?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would be honored to support Senator 
Domenici's request in this amendment. I had some experience with FLETC, 
too. I visited the campus in Artesia, NM, a few years ago and was very 
impressed. It is one of the opportunities that Federal agencies really 
have to interact with each other, and certainly the agents who are 
going back to separate departments.
  The Senator also mentioned other agencies. We have the Indian law 
enforcement agents who work throughout America.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Exactly.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. We have, of course, as every other subcommittee, only a 
certain amount of spending authority, and we have to deal with that. We 
have had a great many requests. We are now wrestling, in fact, with the 
request for the six high-density drug trafficking areas which are all 
becoming more expensive, and certainly they work in an allied fashion, 
because people who get out of FLETC sometimes go into those different 
agencies. But I want to assure the Senator I am very supportive and we 
will do our very best to come up with the money necessary to deal with 
the President's request.


                     Amendment No. 3383, Withdrawn

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment which I 
heretofore sent to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's first amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 3383) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 3384

(Purpose: To provide additional funding for the Federal Law Enforcement 
                            Training Center)

  Mr. DOMENICI. I will send an amendment to the desk shortly which I 
hope will be adopted. This one is in behalf of myself, Senator 
Coverdell, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Cleland from the respective 
States, the largest center in Georgia by far, and we have kind of a 
small adjunct to it in the State of New Mexico. So all four Senators 
are on the amendment.
  First, we are relying upon the distinguished chairman, who will see 
to it in conference that the President's request for operations and the 
like will be met, and that probably is already in the House bill.
  This amendment says that within the amounts appropriated in the act, 
up to $20.3 million may be transferred to the acquisition, 
construction, improvements and related expenses account of the Federal 
Law Enforcement Training Center for new construction. I send that 
amendment to the desk. It is the one with the four Senators who I have 
mentioned.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for himself, 
     Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Cleland, and others 
     propose an amendment numbered 3384.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 end of the bill add the following new section:
       ``Sec.   . Within the amounts appropriated in this Act, up 
     to $20.3 million may be transferred to the Acquisition, 
     Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses account of 
     the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center for new 
     construction.''

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of an 
amendment that I have cosponsored and introduced today with my 
colleague from New Mexico and Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator 
Domenici, regarding funding for the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
Center.
  To date only fifty one percent of FLETC's master construction plan is 
completed, and this amendment would move FLETC closer toward its goal 
of being the centralized training center for our federal agencies.
  Whether traveling in my home state of Georgia, or chairing a 
Subcommittee hearing on drug interdiction, the need to address the 
crisis we face with drugs and crime is consistently brought to my 
attention. Through continued funding and support of the Federal Law 
Enforcement Training Center we will be able to take the necessary steps 
to achieve this goal for all Americans.
  Mr. President, I once again urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I withhold that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If there is nothing further before the Senate, is not 
the next matter adoption of the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3384) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their help 
in this matter, and I yield the floor.

[[Page S9228]]

  Mr. CAMPBELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. 3385

(Purpose: To provide for an adjustment in the computation of annuities 
  for certain Federal officers and employees relating to average pay 
                determinations, and for other purposes)

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

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3385.

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

     SEC. __. AVERAGE PAY DETERMINATION OF CERTAIN FEDERAL 
                   OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Civil Service Retirement System.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 8339 the following:

     ``Sec. 8339a. Average pay determination in certain years

       ``(a) For purposes of this section the term `covered 
     position' means--
       ``(1) any position for which pay is adjusted by statute 
     whenever an adjustment takes effect under section 5303 (or 
     any statute relating to cost-of-living adjustments in 
     statutory pay systems in effect before the effective date of 
     section 101 of the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 
     1990 (Public Law 101-509; 104 Stat. 1429)); or
       ``(2) any position for which pay is adjusted by rule, 
     practice, or order based on an adjustment in the pay of a 
     position described under paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Subject to subsection (d), for purposes of 
     determining the average pay of an employee or Member, the 
     basic pay of the employee or Member during a year described 
     under subsection (c) shall be deemed to be the basic pay paid 
     at the actual rate of pay adjusted by the same percentage as 
     any cost-of-living adjustment of annuities under section 8340 
     which took effect during such year, on the date such cost-of-
     living adjustment took effect.
       ``(c) Subsection (b) refers to any year in which--
       ``(1) any cost-of-living adjustment of annuities under 
     section 8340 took effect; and
       ``(2) the applicable employee or Member serving in a 
     covered position did not receive an adjustment in pay 
     described under subsection (a) (1) or (2) because a statute 
     provided that such adjustment would not take effect with 
     respect to a covered position described under subsection (a) 
     (1).
       ``(d) Average pay shall be determined under this section, 
     if the applicable employee or Member, or the survivor of such 
     employee or Member, deposits to the credit of the Fund an 
     amount equal to the difference between the amount deducted 
     from the basic pay of the employee or Member during the 
     period of service in a covered position and the amount which 
     would have been deducted during such period if the rate of 
     basic pay had been adjusted as provided under subsections (b) 
     and (c), plus interest as computed under section 8334(e).''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 8339 
     the following:

``8339a. Average pay determination in certain years.''.
       (b) Federal Employees Retirement System.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 8415 the following:

     ``Sec. 8415a. Average pay determination in certain years

       ``(a) For purposes of this section the term `covered 
     position' means--
       ``(1) any position for which pay is adjusted by statute 
     whenever an adjustment takes effect under section 5303 (or 
     any statute relating to cost-of-living adjustments in 
     statutory pay systems in effect before the effective date of 
     section 101 of the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 
     1990 (Public Law 101-509; 104 Stat. 1429)); or
       ``(2) any position for which pay is adjusted by rule, 
     practice, or order based on an adjustment in the pay of a 
     position described under paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Subject to subsection (d), for purposes of 
     determining the average pay of an employee or Member, the 
     basic pay of the employee or Member during a year described 
     under subsection (c) shall be deemed to be the basic pay paid 
     at the actual rate of pay adjusted by the same percentage as 
     any cost-of-living adjustment of annuities under section 8462 
     which took effect during such year, on the date such cost-of-
     living adjustment took effect.
       ``(c) Subsection (b) refers to any year in which--
       ``(1) any cost-of-living adjustment of annuities under 
     section 8462 took effect; and
       ``(2) the applicable employee or Member serving in a 
     covered position did not receive an adjustment in pay 
     described under subsection (a) (1) or (2) because a statute 
     provided that such adjustment would not take effect with 
     respect to a covered position described under subsection (a) 
     (1).
       ``(d) Average pay shall be determined under this section, 
     if the applicable employee or Member, or the survivor of such 
     employee or Member, deposits to the credit of the Fund an 
     amount equal to the difference between the amount deducted 
     from the basic pay of the employee or Member during the 
     period of service in a covered position and the amount which 
     would have been deducted during such period if the rate of 
     basic pay had been adjusted as provided under subsections (b) 
     and (c), plus interest as computed under section 8334(e).''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 8415 
     the following:

``8415a. Average pay determination in certain years.''
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on 
     January 2, 1999, and shall apply only to any annuity 
     commencing on or after such date.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will explain this amendment further 
tomorrow. What it does is deal with the computation of pay for retired 
Federal employees. It is an attempt to try to adjust the payment for 
retired former employees. It has nothing to do with the pay of any 
current Member. It will deal only with adjusting the pay of retired 
employees. I will explain it further. I ask it be set aside for the 
time being.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in objection to the amendment and 
suggest we vote on it tomorrow.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3386

(Purpose: To protect Federal law enforcement officers who intervene in 
     certain situations to protect life or prevent bodily injury.)

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Grassley 
and that it be considered as being the Lott relevant amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], for Mr. Grassley, 
     for himself, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Stevens and Mr. 
     Grams, proposes an amendment numbered 3386.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``crime of violence'' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 16 of title 18, United States Code; and
       (2) the term ``law enforcement officer'' means any employee 
     described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 
     8401(17) of title 5, United States Code; and any special 
     agent in the Diplomatic Security Service of the Department of 
     State.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, for purposes of chapter 171 of title 28, 
     United States Code, or any other provision of law relating to 
     tort liability, a law enforcement officer shall be construed 
     to be acting within the scope of his or her office or 
     employment, if the officer takes reasonable action, including 
     the use of force, to--
       (1) protect an individual in the presence of the officer 
     from a crime of violence;
       (2) provide immediate assistance to an individual who has 
     suffered or who is threatened with bodily harm; or
       (3) prevent the escape of any individual who the officer 
     reasonably believes to have

[[Page S9229]]

     committed in the presence of the officer a crime of violence.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Colorado for 
offering my amendment. This is legislation that I originally offered 
last year as a free standing bill. I would like to say a few words on 
the amendment and ask my colleagues to support. It is co-sponsored by 
Senators D'Amato, Sessions, Stevens, and Grams.
  First, let me remind my colleagues of what the amendment does. I have 
outlined these in letters to my colleagues and in my original statement 
on the floor. In addition, many of you have heard from various federal 
law enforcement associations that support this amendment. Its main 
intent is to address a problem, a gray area, in current law. As it now 
stands, the situation reminds me of the old saying that no good deed 
goes unpunished.
  This involves what I call the 7-11 situation. Suppose for a moment 
that an off-duty Capitol Police officer or a Customs Agent or some 
other federal officer goes into the 7-11 to buy coffee. While he is 
there, a robber tries to hold up the store and is threatening the 
public with violence. Under the present circumstance a not so funny 
thing can happen. If the off-duty officer intervenes to protect the 
public and is hurt in the process. Or if someone is hurt in the 
incident, the officer could lose his workman's compensation or be sued 
by the felon for injuries because the Federal officer was acting 
outside the scope of his work. If he was not on duty or if the felony 
did not occur as part of the duties involved in his job description, he 
has no protections.
  This is a real concern to serving officers. It puts them in a 
difficult situation. That is what this amendment fixes. It would give 
protection to Federal officers in these situations.
  Now, let me make it clear. This does not mean an expansion of the 
authorities to Federal officers to make arrests in matters reserved to 
the states. I have checked this with the States' Attorneys General. 
This amendment also does not authorize Federal law enforcement officers 
to act like cowboys. Nothing in current law, even when acting on 
official duty, would permit an officer to act irresponsibly. They are 
subject to penalties if they should do so under their scope of work and 
they are subject to the same sanctions here.
  What we have now, however, is a situation where a law enforcement 
officer has to make a sudden decision. Does he intervene to protect the 
public, which is what we would all expect? Or does he sit it out to 
avoid the risk of being sued or losing his workman's compensation if he 
is injured? I think I know what most of us would expect. I know what 
most of us believe is the responsible thing to do. We would expect the 
officer to intervene with a clear conscience and the knowledge that his 
act of decency and responsibility will not be punished. I would add 
that this situation, fortunately, is not a common one. It is, however, 
one that needs to be addressed.
  I hope that we will adopt this amendment today. It has been a long 
time in coming and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for it. 
Again, let me remind my colleagues that this language has been a free-
standing bill for almost a year and has been available for comment. We 
have worked with DEA, Customs, and many others on the language. It has 
been provided to both majority and minority members. Most of these 
members have been visited by all the major Federal law enforcement 
associations and unions, which, I might mention, support this 
legislation wholeheartedly. I offer for the Record a few of the letters 
that have been written to me and other Members in support. I believe 
all the Federal law enforcement officers who risk their lives on our 
behalf deserve this much. We know only too well the risk they take on 
our behalf.
  I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Federal Law Enforcement


                                         Officers Association,

                               East Northport, NY, April 10, 1998.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: On behalf of the approximately 
     14,000 members of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
     Association (FLEOA), I wish to thank you for introducing S. 
     1031, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer's Good Samaritan 
     Act of 1997. This bill has the support of every FLEOA member, 
     their families, and their friends. FLEOA guarantees you of 
     our strong support and, pledges our efforts to see that this 
     important piece of legislation is passed.
       FLEOA is a non-partisan professional association 
     representing federal agents and criminal investigators from 
     the federal agencies listed on the left masthead. We 
     represent line agents, supervisors and managers, with over 
     sixty chapters across the United States and several overseas. 
     We provide a voice for our members to express their concerns 
     regarding legislative activity in Washington, D.C., relating 
     to law enforcement. Having visited over 25 chapters within 
     these last few months, I can assure you of the overwhelming 
     support that S. 1031 has all over the country. Without a 
     doubt, this piece of legislation will allow law enforcement 
     to be more effective and better serve the American Public. We 
     commend you for your efforts on S. 1031.
       If you have any questions or need further information, 
     please feel free to contact me directly at (212) 264-8406 or 
     through FLEOA's Corporate Service offices at (516) 368-6117. 
     We look forward to working with experienced and expert 
     staffers, such as William Olson, on this issue. Thank you 
     again.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Richard J. Gallo,
     President.
                                  ____

                                        Fraternal Order of Police,


                                         Eastern Chapter #111,

                                                   April 30, 1998.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: On behalf of the men and women of 
     the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), lodge #111, I wish to 
     thank you for introducing S. 1031, the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Officer's Good Samaritan Act of 1997. This bill 
     has the support of each and every member, their families, and 
     friends. The F.O.P. guarantees you our strong support and 
     pledges our efforts to see that this important piece of 
     legislation is passed.
       If you have any questions or need further information, 
     please feel free to contact me directly at (215) 597-3507.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Frank Norris,
     President #111.
                                  ____

                                               The Law Enforcement


                                           Steering Committee,

                                    Washington, DC, June 10, 1998.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: On behalf of the Law Enforcement 
     Steering Committee (LESC), I write to request your support of 
     S. 1031, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Good Samaritan 
     Act of 1998. The LESC is a nonpartisan coalition of police 
     organizations collectively representing over 500,000 law 
     enforcement officers and managers nationwide.
       This bill, introduced by Senator Chuck Grassley in 1997, 
     would provide full legal protection for federal law 
     enforcement officers who intervene in certain situations to 
     prevent loss of life or serious bodily injury to a citizen. 
     This bill, if enacted, would offer legal protection to 
     federal law enforcement officers who unexpectedly encounter 
     and take action to prevent a violent crime in progress or to 
     assist in an emergency. The bill does not expand the 
     investigative authority or jurisdiction of any federal 
     agency. The bill has the support of the Fraternal Order of 
     Police, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement 
     Executives, the National District Attorney's Association, and 
     many other law enforcement organizations. The citizens of the 
     United States would benefit in that the country's well 
     trained and equipped law enforcement officers would be 
     encouraged to assist the public. Federal law enforcement 
     officers would benefit in the knowledge that the Congress of 
     the United States supports them when they take appropriate 
     action to help a citizen in need.
       It is our desire to see this bill enacted during the 105th 
     Congress. We would appreciate your assistance in this effort.
           Sincerely,
                                                Robert L. Stewart,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                               The Law Enforcement


                                           Steering Committee,

                                    Washington, DC, June 10, 1998.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Ranking Minority Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: On behalf of the Law Enforcement 
     Steering Committee (LESC), I write to request your support of 
     S. 1031, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Good Samaritan 
     Act of 1998. The LESC is a nonpartisan coalition of police 
     organizations collectively representing over 500,000 law 
     enforcement officers and managers nationwide.
       This bill, introduced by Senator Chuck Grassley in 1997, 
     would provide full legal protection for federal law 
     enforcement officers who intervene in certain situations to 
     prevent loss of life or serious bodily injury to a citizen. 
     This bill, if enacted, would offer legal protection to 
     federal law enforcement officers who unexpectedly encounter 
     and take action to prevent a violent crime in progress or to 
     assist in an emergency. The bill does not expand the 
     investigative authority or jurisdiction of any federal 
     agency. The bill has the support of the Fraternal

[[Page S9230]]

     Order of Police, the National Organization of Black Law 
     Enforcement Executives, the National District Attorney's 
     Association, and many other law enforcement organizations. 
     The citizens of the United States would benefit in that the 
     country's well trained and equipped law enforcement officers 
     would be encouraged to assist the public. Federal law 
     enforcement officers would benefit in the knowledge that the 
     Congress of the United States supports them when they take 
     appropriate action to help a citizen in need.
       It is our desire to see this bill enacted during the 105th 
     Congress. We would appreciate your assistance in this effort.
           Sincerely,
                                                Robert L. Stewart,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                               The Law Enforcement


                                           Steering Committee,

                                    Washington, DC, June 10, 1998.
     Hon. Henry Hyde
     Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hyde: On behalf of the Law Enforcement 
     Steering Committee (LESC), I write to request your support of 
     H.R. 3839, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Good 
     Samaritan Act of 1998. The LESC is a nonpartisan coalition of 
     police organizations collectively representing over 500,000 
     law enforcement officers and managers nationwide.
       This bill, introduced by Senator Chuck Grassley in 1997, 
     would provide full legal protection for federal law 
     enforcement officers who intervene in certain situations to 
     prevent loss of life or serious bodily injury to a citizen. 
     This bill, if enacted, would offer legal protection to 
     federal law enforcement officers who unexpectedly encounter 
     and take action to prevent a violent crime in progress or to 
     assist in an emergency. The bill does not expand the 
     investigative authority or jurisdiction of any federal 
     agency. The bill has the support of the Fraternal Order of 
     Police, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement 
     Executives, the National District Attorney's Association, and 
     many other law enforcement organizations. The citizens of the 
     United States would benefit in that the country's well 
     trained and equipped law enforcement officers would be 
     encouraged to assist the public. Federal law enforcement 
     officers would benefit in the knowledge that the Congress of 
     the United States supports them when they take appropriate 
     action to help a citizen in need.
       It is our desire to see this bill enacted during the 105th 
     Congress. We would appreciate your assistance in this effort.
           Sincerely,
                                                Robert L. Stewart,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                               The Law Enforcement


                                           Steering Committee,

                                    Washington, DC, June 10, 1998.
     Hon. John Conyers
     Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Representative Conyers: On behalf of the Law 
     Enforcement Steering Committee (LESC), I write to request 
     your support of H.R. 3839, the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Officers Good Samaritan Act of 1998. The LESC is a 
     nonpartisan coalition of police organizations collectively 
     representing over 500,000 law enforcement officers and 
     managers nationwide.
       This bill, introduced by Senator Chuck Grassley in 1997, 
     would provide full legal protection for federal law 
     enforcement officers who intervene in certain situations to 
     prevent loss of life or serious bodily injury to a citizen. 
     This bill, if enacted, would offer legal protection to 
     federal law enforcement officers who unexpectedly encounter 
     and take action to prevent a violent crime in progress or to 
     assist in an emergency. The bill does not expand the 
     investigative authority or jurisdiction of any federal 
     agency. The bill has the support of the Fraternal Order of 
     Police, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement 
     Executives, the National District Attorney's Association, and 
     many other law enforcement organizations. The citizens of the 
     United States would benefit in that the country's well 
     trained and equipped law enforcement officers would be 
     encouraged to assist the public. Federal law enforcement 
     officers would benefit in the knowledge that the Congress of 
     the United States supports them when they take appropriate 
     action to help a citizen in need.
       It is our desire to see this bill enacted during the 105th 
     Congress. We would appreciate your assistance in this effort.
           Sincerely,
                                                Robert L. Stewart,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

  

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this 
amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN. Mr. President, what is the order of business? I have an 
amendment I wish to send to the desk. Is that proper to do so at this 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is proper to do so.


                           Amendment No. 3387

(Purpose: To provide additional funding to reduce methamphetamine usage 
               in High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas)

  Mr. HARKIN. I have an amendment I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself and Mrs. 
     Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 3387.

  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent 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 add the following:
       On page 39, strike lines 10 through 12 and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following: ``Area Program, $179,007,000 for drug 
     control activities consistent with the approved strategy for 
     each of the designated High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, 
     of which $8,000,000 shall be used for methamphetamine 
     programs above the sums allocated in fiscal year 1998 and 
     otherwise provided for in this legislation with no less than 
     half of the $8,000,000 going to areas solely dedicated to 
     fighting methamphetamine usage and in addition no less than 
     $1,000,000 of the $8,000,000 shall be allocated to the 
     Cascade High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, of which''
       Amend page 50, line 20 by reducing the dollar figure by 
     $8,000,000;
       Amend page 52, line 13 by reducing the dollar figure by 
     $8,000,000.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there is a plague sweeping across our 
Nation. It is ruining an untold number of lives, claiming countless 
numbers of our children. It is in our streets as well as our 
classrooms. Drugs have become more abundant. But there is a new drug, 
one that is far more addictive and readily available than heroin, 
cocaine, or any other illegal narcotic. Methamphetamine is becoming the 
leading addictive drug in this Nation. From the suburbs, to city 
streets, to the corn rows of Iowa, meth is destroying thousands of 
lives every year. The majority of those lives, unfortunately, are our 
children.
  Methamphetamine is commonly referred to as Iowa's drug of choice in 
my State. It is reaching epidemic proportions as it sweeps from the 
west coast, ravages through the Midwest, and is now beginning to reach 
the east coast. The trail of destruction of human lives as a result of 
methamphetamine addiction stretches across America.
  To illustrate the violence that meth elicits in people, 
methamphetamine is cited as a contributing factor in 80 percent of 
domestic violence cases in my State, and a leading factor in a majority 
of violent crimes. I recently introduced the Comprehensive 
Methamphetamine Control Act which I think will get support and get 
through the Senate. But I offer this amendment today as an opportunity 
to take immediate action to help our Nation's law enforcement in their 
war on methamphetamine.
  This amendment makes a simple and modest request, taking $8 million 
in certain offsets and puts those dollars where they can do real good 
to combat the growing problem of methamphetamine.
  These funds will be added to the High Intensity Drug Trafficking 
Areas Program to be used for increased enforcement and prosecution of 
meth dealers, additional undercover agents, and to help pay for the 
tremendous cost of confiscation and cleanup of clandestine meth labs.
  The number of meth arrests, court cases, and confiscation of labs 
continues to escalate. The number of clandestine meth labs confiscated 
and destroyed in 1998 is on pace to triple the number that was 
confiscated in 1997--so triple this year over last year. The cost of 
cleaning up each lab ranges from $5,000 to $90,000. This cost is being 
absorbed by communities who are not prepared or experienced to deal 
with the dangers of methamphetamine.
  These clandestine meth labs create an enormous amount of hazardous 
waste. For every 1 pound of methamphetamine produced, there are 5 to 6 
pounds of hazardous waste as a by-product. This waste is highly toxic 
and seeps into the ground where eventually it ends up in our drinking 
water supply.

[[Page S9231]]

  The dangers posed to law enforcement officers are also greatly 
increased by these meth labs. Many peddlers of meth have now what they 
call ``kitchen'' labs. Meth pushers are now simply using mobile homes 
or even pickup trucks to produce their drugs. Combining many volatile 
chemicals in an uncontrolled environment, meth labs are time bombs to 
police officers and communities everywhere.
  I believe we have a window of opportunity as a nation to take a stand 
right now to defeat this scourge. This amendment will not solve all of 
these problems, but it will give law enforcement the support that they 
vitally need in their efforts to defeat this dangerous drug.
  Mr. President, family after family is being devastated across the 
Midwest. In my State, I have seen methamphetamine skyrocket in its 
use--the importation in the State and the development of these 
methamphetamine labs in the State of Iowa. Communities are trying to 
fight this, but they do not have the resources. Children are being lost 
and getting hooked to this deadly drug every day. So the time now is to 
do whatever we can to try to halt the growth of these meth labs, to 
give our high-intensity drug traffic areas the tools that they need to 
stop this drug, to help our communities, and most importantly to help 
our law enforcement officials.
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I want to assure the Senator we are 
doing our very best to find a resolution in the funding of this. We 
have four that we are working with. And just in my own personal 
experience of having worked with several, particularly one in Denver, 
CO, I am certainly aware of the good work that they do in coordinating 
local, State, tribal and Federal law enforcement agencies so they are 
not duplicating their efforts and so that these agencies can share 
ideas and share resources.
  The Senator's comments certainly underscore the importance of trying 
to stop the growth of the methamphetamine labs. These things are 
volatile. They are mobile. They are contaminative, so even when you do 
go through an expensive process of cleaning them up, you still have to 
worry about what it has done to contaminate the area, particularly the 
earth.
  So I just want to assure him, we are working very hard to find a 
resolution to make sure they are all funded properly. I thank the 
Senator for his comments.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the chairman. I know of his great interest in 
this area. And I know of his great support for our law enforcement 
agencies to crack down on the methamphetamine labs. I know your 
chairman is having the same experience out in his State, too, as we are 
in Iowa. I understand that you and the chairman, and Senator Kohl, are 
working on putting all this together. Obviously, it would be my 
intention to withdraw the amendment if this whole thing gets worked 
out. I am sure that we will get it worked out.
  I thank the Senators.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Senator for his comments.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3388

  (Purpose: To provide funding for Customs drug interdiction and High 
                   Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas)

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Harkin amendment is set 
aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], for himself, and 
     Mr. Kohl, proposes an amendment numbered 3388.

  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, strike and insert the following:
       On page 10, line 14, strike through Page 10, line 20.
       On page 17, line 7, strike ``98,488,000,'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``113,488,000,''
       On page 17, line 20 strike ``1999.'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``1999: Provided further, That of the amount 
     provided, $15,000,000 shall be made available for drug 
     interdiction activities in South Florida and the Caribbean.''
       On page 39, line 10 strike ``171,007,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``183,977,000''.
       On page 39, line 19 after ``criteria,'' insert ``and of 
     which $3,000,000 shall be used to continue the recently 
     created Central Florida High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, 
     and of which $1,970,000 shall be used for the addition of 
     North Dakota into the Midwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking 
     Area, and of which $7,000,000 shall be used for 
     methamphetamine programs otherwise provided for in this 
     legislation with not less than half of the $7,000,000 shall 
     expand the Midwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, and 
     of which $1,000,000 shall be used to expand the Cascade High 
     Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, and of which $1,500,000 
     shall provided to the Southwest Border High Intensity Drug 
     Trafficking Area,''

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, last week I introduced legislation that 
would bring a new, comprehensive strategy to America's effort against 
illegal drugs.
  The Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act would support enhanced 
drug interdiction efforts in the major transit countries, and support a 
comprehensive supply eradication and crop substitution program in 
source countries. This legislation has 16 other Senate cosponsors.
  Mr. President, this is a $2.6 billion authorization initiative over 3 
years for enhanced international eradication, interdiction and crop 
substitution efforts. This important counter-drug initiative would 
restore a balanced drug control strategy by renewing our nation's 
commitment to international eradication and interdiction efforts--
efforts that have proven successful in reducing the trafficking and use 
of illegal drugs. I believe that this is an important investment in the 
future of America--and the future of our children.
  The day after the new drug initiative was introduced, I offered an 
amendment to the Transportation appropriations bill to provide much-
needed resources for the U.S. Coast Guard--resources that will increase 
their drug interdiction capability. Other cosponsors of this amendment 
included Senators Coverdell, Graham, Bond, Faircloth, and Grassley. 
This amendment, which was agreed to by voice vote, accomplishes two 
goals: First, it increases funds available for equipment devoted to 
drug interdiction by approximately $37.5 million. Second, the amendment 
sets aside resources needed to restore a much-needed drug interdiction 
operation in the Caribbean--an operation which I had the opportunity to 
visit earlier this year.
  Today, I rise again with Senators Coverdell, Graham, Bond, Faircloth, 
Grassley, and Mack to introduce an amendment to the Treasury, Postal 
appropriations bill. Specifically, we seek $15 million for enhanced 
drug interdiction efforts for the U.S. Customs Service in South Florida 
and the Caribbean.

  Mr. President, in May, I traveled to the Caribbean for a very short--
36-hour--visit to look at our interdiction operations there. I visited 
with U.S. Customs officials in Key West, Florida. It was on this very 
trip that I gained a greater appreciation of the actual difficult task 
of drug interdiction. I learned that it is far from an easy task--it is 
in fact highly dangerous.
  U.S. Customs officials showed me video tapes of U.S. Customs go-fast 
boats pursuing Colombian go-fast boats in the middle of the night in 
high waves--waves that reached 5 or 6 feet. The videos showed Colombian 
boats ramming into our boats.
  One of the key problems I learned about on that trip was that U.S. 
Customs has very few go-fast boats--and the ones they have lack 1990's 
technology. Our boats have a top speed of 70 mph--while Colombian boats 
can reach 80 or 90 mph. I rode in one of our go-fast boats in Key West 
during a mock chase--and I can tell you that even during the day and in 
low waves, this is dangerous work.
  There can be no doubt that our U.S. Customs agents in Florida and the 
Caribbean need more equipment, better equipment dedicated to drug 
interdiction, and more personnel. Since 1986, the number of U.S. 
Customs vessels has decreased from 77 to 30. There has also

[[Page S9232]]

been a significant decrease in maritime officers, from 124 to 23. In 
fact, U.S. Customs no longer runs a 7-day, 24-hour drug interdiction 
operation.
  Mr. President, the amendment I offer today would provide U.S. Customs 
with more go-fast boats and more manpower for South Florida and the 
Caribbean. Let me tell you what this amendment would accomplish.
  First, it would refurbish 22 interceptor and Blue Water Platform 
Boats. The interceptor boats are what is known as ``go-fast boats.'' 
The Blue Water Platform Boats are for deep waters and have command 
and control capability--these vessels can accommodate satellite 
communications equipment and radar to communicate with the interceptor 
boats to enable them to better interdict the drug traffickers. Right 
now, these 22 vessels cannot be used because of lack of funding for 
refurbishment. This small amount of money will make a huge, huge 
difference. The amendment would also appropriate money for 9 new 
interceptor go-fast boats.

  The amendment would also provide money for the hiring and training of 
30 special agents--criminal investigators--for maritime operations. 
Finally, the amendment would provide resources for overhead coverage 
and operation and maintenance in the Caribbean.
  Mr. President, this is a very important amendment which will 
accomplish a lot with a small amount of resources. The amendment has 
bipartisan support.
  Mr. President, I see the distinguished Chairman and the Ranking 
Member of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government 
Subcommittee, Senator Campbell and Senator Kohl. I thank them for their 
cooperation with this bipartisan amendment.
  First, I want to make clear that I intend to work with the conferees 
and the Treasury Department on alternatives to fund this amendment. 
While an offset has been identified in order to pay for this amendment, 
I want to work with them to find alternatives.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Ohio--
first in offering this very important amendment and for his diligence 
in seeking additional funds for the U.S. Customs Service. I look 
forward to working with him on this important issue and we will work to 
address any remaining items during conference.
  Mr. KOHL. I too appreciate the Senator from Ohio's efforts in seeking 
additional funds for the U.S. Customs Service to better interdict drug 
traffickers. I look forward to working with him to find an appropriate 
offset for this amendment.
  Mr. DeWine. Mr. President, again, I would like to express my thanks 
to the chairman and the ranking member of the Treasury, Postal Service, 
and General Government Subcommittee for their efforts to assist me and 
the distinguished list of cosponsors of this amendment. I also extend 
my thanks to the staff of the subcommittee for their efforts, which 
were nothing less than first rate.
  Mr. President, this amendment today is another important step toward 
restoring a balanced drug interdiction strategy. I expect there will be 
many more steps in the future--steps that are needed if we are going to 
restore a truly balanced, truly effective drug control strategy. This 
amendment represents a bipartisan effort to make a targeted and 
specific investment in stopping drugs before they reach America. It 
will take similar efforts over the course of the next 3 years to bring 
our drug strategy back into balance, and most important, back on the 
course of reducing drug use in our homes, schools, and communities.
  I thank the chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. This amendment deals with funding for Customs drug 
addiction, and High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas.
  This amendment has been agreed to by both sides of the aisle. It 
accommodates Senators, DeWine, Conrad, Harkin, Graham, Mack, Coverdell, 
Bond, Faircloth, Grassley, Bingaman, and Murray.
  I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3388) was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. 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. 3389

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding payroll tax 
                                relief)

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

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for Mr. Kerrey, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3389.

  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:

     SECTION 1. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE REDUCTION OF 
                   PAYROLL TAXES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) The payroll tax under the Federal Insurance 
     Contributions Act (FICA) is the biggest, most regressive tax 
     paid by working families.
       (2) The payroll tax constitutes a 15.3 percent tax burden 
     on the wages and self-employment income of each American, 
     with 12.4 percent of the payroll tax used to pay social 
     security benefits to current beneficiaries and 2.9 percent 
     used to pay the medicare benefits of current beneficiaries.
       (3) The amount of wages and self-employment income subject 
     to the social security portion of the payroll tax is capped 
     at $68,400. Therefore, the lower a family's income, the more 
     they pay in payroll tax as a percentage of income. The 
     Congressional Budget Office has estimated that for those 
     families who pay payroll taxes, 80 percent pay more in 
     payroll taxes than in income taxes.
       (4) In 1996, the median household income was $35,492, and a 
     family earning that amount and taking standard deductions and 
     exemptions paid $2,719 in Federal income tax, but lost $5,430 
     in income to the payroll tax.
       (5) Ownership of wealth is essential for everyone to have a 
     shot at the American dream, but the payroll tax is the 
     principal burden to savings and wealth creation for working 
     families.
       (6) Since 1983, the payroll tax has been higher than 
     necessary to pay current benefits.
       (7) Since most of the payroll tax receipts are deposited in 
     the social security trust funds, which masks the real amount 
     of Government borrowing, those whom the payroll tax hits 
     hardest, working families, have shouldered a disproportionate 
     share of the Federal budget deficit reduction and, therefore, 
     a disproportionate share of the creation of the Federal 
     budget surplus.
       (8) Over the next 10 years, the Federal Government will 
     generate a budget surplus of $1,550,000,000,000, and all but 
     $32,000,000,000 of that surplus will be generated by excess 
     payroll taxes.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) if Congress decides to use the Federal budget surplus 
     to provide tax relief the payroll tax should be reduced 
     first; and
       (2) Congress and the President should work to reduce this 
     tax which burdens American families.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be laid aside in keeping with the prior unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. 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.


            Unanimous consent agreement--Amendment No. 3356

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that, 
notwithstanding the previous consent, it be in order on Thursday for 
the managers to offer a modification to amendment No. 3356, which was 
previously adopted.

[[Page S9233]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   daschle marriage penalty amendment

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, earlier today I voted to table an amendment 
to the Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill that had been 
offered by the distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. So 
there will be no confusion with respect to my position on this issue, I 
wish to advise my colleagues of the reason for my opposition.
  First, I am, as are others, deeply concerned with that anomaly in the 
tax code known as the ``marriage penalty.'' I can think of no rational 
reason why two individuals--individuals who have vowed a lifelong 
commitment to each other through the sacred institution of marriage--
should, in certain cases, have their combined income taxed at a higher 
rate than that of two unmarried persons. At a time of declining social 
values, it simply does not make sense for the Congress to sanction 
policies which clearly work to the detriment of family stability.
  However, despite this concern, I could not, in all good conscience, 
support the Daschle amendment for the most basic of reasons, namely, 
that Article I, section 7 of the Constitution of the United States 
requires that all revenue bills originate in the House of 
Representatives, not here in the Senate. As I am sure my colleagues 
know, that is a prerogative that the House vigorously defends. 
Consequently, I believe that had the Daschle amendment been adopted to 
the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, which is a Senate-originated 
bill, that that bill would have been subjected to a constitutional 
point of order in the House. In short, adoption of the Daschle 
amendment would have killed this very important appropriations measure.
  Again, Mr. President, notwithstanding my vote earlier today, I wish 
my colleagues to know that I remain committed to working toward the 
goal of alleviating the marriage penalty in the tax code.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I would like to engage in a colloquy with Senator 
Campbell from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I would welcome the opportunity to engage in a colloquy 
with my colleague from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, as you know there has been severe 
financial turmoil in Asia. This has lead to a dramatic increase in the 
trade deficit. It is my understanding that exports from Asian nations 
are up significantly, particularly with respect to textiles. This is an 
important industry to my home State of North Carolina. My principal 
concern is that when quotas are met, there will be an attempt to 
illegally ship textiles into this country through other countries, like 
Mexico. This is a process known as ``transhipment.'' As you know, the 
U.S. Customs Service has frontline responsibility for enforcing the 
laws that would bar illegal shipments into this country. We have 
already written our Senate report, but I would hope that in Conference 
you would advocate report language that would encourage the Customs 
Service to step up their enforcement activities in this area.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I certainly agree with the Senator that this is an 
important issue and I will work with you on that. We are running high 
trade deficits. I will certainly work with the gentleman to encourage 
the Customs Service to work diligently to stop illegal textile 
shipments into the United States. I thank the gentleman for raising 
this issue, I think it is one that deserves our attention and the 
attention of the administration.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I thank the Senator from Colorado and I look forward 
to working with him on this issue in conference.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. It has come to our attention that concerns have been 
raised regarding report language in the Treasury-General Government 
Appropriations bill on tax standards for tax-exempt health clubs. We 
would like to enter into a colloquy to clarify our intent in including 
the report language.
  Mr. KOHL. I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the 
concerns that have been raised. The issue of tax-exempt health clubs 
has been of concern in my home State of Wisconsin. However, I share the 
Senator from New Jersey's desire to clarify the intent of the report 
language. In so doing, we also have the opportunity to emphasize that 
no one wishes to harm community service organizations who are 
legitimately using their tax-exempt status to serve our young people, 
our families, and our seniors through a variety of health-related 
programs, including health and fitness programs.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I, too, share Senator Kohl's concerns and want to 
be clear that long-standing community service providers engaged in 
legitimate tax-exempt activities related to their central mission will 
not be targeted by this study. I am also concerned, however, that some 
tax-exempt organizations are moving away from their core purpose and 
that there are legitimate concerns as to whether they are engaging in 
commercial competition with the for-profit sector. Was it the 
Committee's intent to address this concerns?
  Mr. KOHL. Yes, it was. But while addressing those concerns, we 
certainly do not wish the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] to reinvent 
the wheel. The IRS has issued several private letter rulings and 
technical advice memoranda (including Technical Advice Memorandum 
8502002) over the past years regarding the circumstances when adult 
fitness can be a charitable activity. It is my understanding that these 
rulings have stated that adult fitness is a charitable activity as long 
as the program serves a broad section of the community.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. While considering current business practices, we 
would expect the IRS to focus on adult fitness provided by tax-exempt 
organizations that serve only adults.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I 
want to state that it is my understanding this report will in no way 
require the IRS to effect any changes in current tax policy. It only 
asks the IRS to provide clear guidance for examining the issue in light 
of new market factors that may need to be considered.
  Mr. KOHL. I appreciate your input. I Know Senator Grassley will also 
have a statement on this issue, and that I and the Senator from 
Colorado would certainly be happy to work with any and all group that 
may have further concerns as we prepare to conference the Treasury-
General Government Appropriations bill with the House.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I rise today to express my concern about some language 
included in Senate report that accompanies this bill. This language is 
not in the House report. This Senate language directs the Internal 
Revenue Service to review the legal standards and decisions the IRS 
utilizes in determining when fitness services and activities of tax-
exempt organizations should be subject to unrelated business income 
tax. The stated intent of this review is to insure that tax-exempt 
health clubs are not unfairly competing with for-profit health clubs. I 
am afraid that the effect of this language will be to harm non-profit 
community organizations. Is this the intent of the language?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. No, it is not. This language is not intended to harm 
non-profit community organizations.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. These non-profit community organizations provide a 
unique variety of programs based on community needs. Some of the 
programs offered are child care, Head Start, GED classes, job training, 
substance abuse prevention, delinquency prevention, teen centers, 
counseling, and health and fitness for all children, youth, families, 
and adults. They have partnerships with public housing projects, 
juvenile courts and schools. It is of utmost importance to me that the 
Congress not urge the IRS to change current IRS policies in a way that 
will hurt our communities and our families. The IRS has determined that 
adult fitness is a charitable activity as long as the organization 
serves a broad segment of the community. does the committee intend that 
this determination be changed?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. No, it is not the committee's intent to change this 
determination because it would hurt the poor and the young--the very 
people who benefit most from these community organizations. I agree 
that it is important that these non-profit community organizations are 
able to continue to provide their health, fitness, and other services 
to both adults and children. I would be glad to work with you to insure 
that any language included in the conference report takes

[[Page S9234]]

into account the unique aspects of these community organizations, and 
does not unfairly target them.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator from Colorado.


                         atf arson task forces

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I see my friend and colleague, Senator 
Campbell, on the floor. I would like to briefly discuss with him a 
concern I have relating to BATF arson task forces.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I would be glad to respond to my friend from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the manager of the bill for his courtesy. I was 
very pleased to note that the committee report accompanying this bill 
specifically notes that the program objectives of the BATF include 
assisting ``Federal, State, and local investigative and regulatory 
agencies in explosives and arson-related areas.''
  Until recently, BATF was involved in just such a program in my State 
of Utah, where in the past year there has been a very troubling 
escalation of arsons connected with the animal rights movement. Utah 
has experienced a string of animal rights terrorism arsons, including 
an attack on a West Jordan McDonald's, the firebombing of a Murray mink 
co-op, and numerous other arsons.
  I am very concerned, however, by reports last week that the BATF has 
withdrawn the last remaining agent assigned to this task force, leading 
to its imminent disbandment. I believe this will have a serious 
negative effect on counter-terrorism efforts in Utah, and will send the 
wrong message to those pursuing social and political goals through 
violence.
  I think the Utah task force is exactly the type of program the 
Subcommittee has in mind, and I would like to ask Senator Campbell if 
he agrees.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. The Senator from Utah is correct. The arson task force 
he describes is exactly the kind of program the Subcommittee wishes the 
BATF to engage in.
  Mr. HATCH. Would the Chairman also agree that BATF should devote 
sufficient resources to ensure the continued viability of these 
efforts?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I agree with the Senator that disbanding a successful 
taskforce sends the wrong message to arsonists.
  Mr. HATCH. I would appreciate the Senator working with me to address 
my concerns over the BATF's withdrawing support for this important task 
force.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I would be happy to work with Senator Hatch to address 
his concerns, and ensure that BATF dedicates necessary resources to 
arson task forces such as the one he describes.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank Senator Campbell for his assistance and his 
courtesy, and yield the floor.


     reducing the number of executive branch political appointments

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in the past, the Treasury-Postal 
Appropriations bill has been the vehicle for proposals relating to an 
area of great concern to me; namely, growing numbers of executive 
branch political appointees, and I want to offer a few comments on this 
matter.
  I was pleased to introduce legislation early in this session to 
address this issue. That bill, S. 38, would cap the total number of 
political appointees at 2,000, and I am pleased to be joined in that 
effort by my good friend, the Senior Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain). 
Our proposal to cap the number of political appointees has been 
estimated by CBO to save $330 million over five years.
  Mr. President, our bill was based on the recommendations of a number 
of distinguished panels, including most recently, the Twentieth Century 
Fund Task Force on the Presidential Appointment Process. The task force 
findings are only the latest in a long line of recommendations that we 
reduce the number of political appointees in the Executive Branch. For 
many years, the proposal has been included in CBO's annual publication, 
``Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options,'' and it was one 
of the central recommendations of the National Commission on the Public 
Service, chaired by former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker.
  Mr. President, our proposal is also consistent with the 
recommendations of the Vice President's National Performance Review, 
which called for reductions in the number of federal managers and 
supervisors, arguing that ``over-control and micro management'' not 
only ``stifle the creativity of line managers and workers, they consume 
billions per year in salary, benefits, and administrative costs.''
  Those sentiments were also expressed in the 1989 report of the 
Volcker Commission, when it argued the growing number of presidential 
appointees may ``actually undermine effective presidential control of 
the executive branch.'' The Volcker Commission recommended limiting the 
number of political appointees to 2,000, as our legislation does.
  Mr. President, it is essential that any Administration be able to 
implement the policies that brought it into office in the first place. 
Government must be responsive to the priorities of the electorate. But 
as the Volcker Commission noted, the great increase in the number of 
political appointees in recent years has not made government more 
effective or more responsive to political leadership.
  Between 1980 and 1992, the ranks of political appointees grew 17 
percent, over three times as fast as the total number of Executive 
Branch employees and looking back to 1960 their growth is even more 
dramatic. In his recently published book ``Thickening Government: 
Federal Government and the Diffusion of Accountability,'' author Paul 
Light reports a startling 430% increase in the number of political 
appointees and senior executives in Federal government between 1960 and 
1992.
  In recommending a cap on political appointees, the Volcker Commission 
report noted that the large number of presidential appointees simply 
cannot be managed effectively by any President or White House. This 
lack of control is aggravated by the often competing political agendas 
and constituencies that some appointees might bring with them to their 
new positions. Altogether, the Commission argued that this lack of 
control and political focus ``may actually dilute the President's 
ability to develop and enforce a coherent, coordinated program and to 
hold cabinet secretaries accountable.''
  The Volcker Commission also reported that the excessive number of 
appointees is a barrier to critical expertise, distancing the President 
and his principal assistants from the most experienced career 
officials. Though bureaucracies can certainly impede needed reforms, 
they can also be a source of unbiased analysis. Adding organizational 
layers of political appointees can restrict access to important 
resources, while doing nothing to reduce bureaucratic impediments.
  Author Paul Light says, ``As this sediment has thickened over the 
decades, presidents have grown increasingly distant from the lines of 
government, and the front lines from them.'' Light adds that 
``Presidential leadership, therefore, may reside in stripping 
government of the barriers to doing its job effectively. . .''
  Mr. President, the report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on 
the Presidential Appointment Process identified another problem 
aggravated by the mushrooming number of political appointees; namely, 
the increasingly lengthy process of filling these thousands of 
positions. As the Task Force reported, both President Bush and 
President Clinton were into their presidencies for many months before 
their leadership teams were fully in place. The Task Force noted that 
``on average, appointees in both administrations were confirmed more 
than eight months after the inauguration--one-sixth of an entire 
presidential term.'' By contrast, the report noted that in the 
presidential transition of 1960, ``Kennedy appointees were confirmed, 
on average, two and a half months after the inauguration.''
  In addition to leaving vacancies among key leadership positions in 
government, the appointment process delays can have a detrimental 
effect on potential appointees. The Twentieth Century Fund Task Force 
reported that appointees can ``wait for months on end in a limbo of 
uncertainty and awkward transition from the private to the public 
sector.''
  Mr. President, there is little doubt that the large number of 
political appointments currently made aggravates a cumbersome process, 
even in the best of circumstances. The long delays and

[[Page S9235]]

logjams created in filling these positions under the Bush and Clinton 
Administrations simply illustrates another reason why the number of 
positions should be cut back.
  Mr. President, let me also stress that the problem is not simply the 
initial filling of a political appointment, but keeping someone in that 
position over time. The General Accounting Office reviewed a portion of 
these positions for the period of 1981 to 1991, and found high levels 
of turnover--7 appointees in 10 years for one position--as well as 
delays, usually of months but sometimes years, in filling vacancies.
  Mr. President, I was pleased to see the Government Affairs Committee 
beginning to examine issues surrounding political appointees and the 
political appointment process. The issues of vacancy rate, turnover, 
delays in the appointment process, and of course the total number of 
appointees, all merit scrutiny by that Committee, and I would very much 
like to work with Chairman Thompson and the Committee in crafting a 
bipartisan response to the set of problems that have been identified in 
this area.
  I am also encouraged that the Administration is moving forward as 
well. The total number of appointees is down from last year, and down 
significantly from the levels seen in 1992. This is a healthy trend, 
and I very much hope it continues.
  Mr. President, because the Government Affairs Committee is examining 
a variety of issues surrounding the presidential appointment process, 
and with the modest improvements in the overall number of political 
appointees, I will not pursue an amendment to the Treasury-Postal 
Appropriations measure capping the number of political appointees.
  I will, however, continue to monitor the progress made both by the 
Government Affairs Committee and the Administration. This issue is 
important not only because of the potential to realize significant 
deficit reduction, but also because of the impact the appointees have 
on the day to day functioning of government.
  As we move forward to implement the NPR recommendations to reduce the 
number of government employees, streamline agencies, and make 
government more responsive, we should also right size the number of 
political appointees, ensuring a sufficient number to implement the 
policies of any Administration without burdening the Federal budget 
with unnecessary, possibly counterproductive political jobs.


                        Random Audits by the IRS

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my appreciation 
to the managers for accepting an amendment to S. 2312, the FY 1999 
Treasury-Postal Service Appropriations bill, regarding the practice of 
randomly selecting innocent taxpayers for audits, otherwise known as 
random audits. This is an issue that has been a focus of mine for a 
long time. I would like to take this opportunity to discuss this matter 
with my good friend, the senior Senator from Colorado and the manager 
of the bill, who shares my concern about the impact the Internal 
Revenue Service has upon taxpayers and the potential for abuse of 
taxpayers' rights.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Indeed, I share many of the concerns of Senator 
Coverdell regarding taxpayer rights. I commend the Senator for his 
tenacious work on behalf of taxpayers, particularly low-income 
taxpayers who are least able to defend themselves. This amendment the 
Senator offers presents a critical foundation upon which the Senate can 
build.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank my good friend. Over the past several years, 
all of us have seen news accounts of regular, average citizens who have 
become the targets of grueling IRS audits. These individuals were 
neither wealthy nor powerful; in fact, they were most often ordinary, 
law-abiding taxpayers who earned a modest wage, ran a small business, 
or operated a family farm. Some struggled just to make ends meet, and 
many were understandably confused about what wrong they had committed 
to justify the scrutiny of the IRS.
  The truth is they committed no wrong. They were simply unfortunate 
victims of a scandalous IRS practice called ``random audits,'' where 
the IRS just picks people out of a hat in the hope it can uncover some 
wrongdoing.
  A recent report produced by the General Accounting Office at my 
request confirms that the IRS has been targeting thousands of poor 
taxpayers and small businesses for random audits. In fact, almost 95 
percent of all random audits performed between 1994 and 1996 were 
conducted on individual taxpayers who earned less than $25,000 each 
year.
  Last fall, hearings held by the Senate Finance Committee brought the 
IRS's abuse of taxpayers to the attention of the entire Nation. One 
witness, Jennifer Long, who is a current field agent with the IRS, 
remarked, ``As of late, we seem to be auditing only the poor people. 
The current IRS Management does not believe anyone in this country can 
possibly live on less than $20,000 per year, insisting anyone below 
that level must be cheating by understating their true income.''
  The IRS' belief that low-income families are more likely to cheat 
than others serves as a disturbing sign of how far it has strayed from 
the principles of American justice. The GAO report also indicates that 
the IRS has been specifically targeting the State of Georgia for random 
audits. Nearly twice as many random audits took place in Georgia 
between 1994 and 1996 than in all the New England states combined and 
Georgians are three-times more likely to be randomly audited than their 
California counterparts. Earlier this year, I introduced legislation to 
prohibit the use of random audits by the IRS and will continue to 
protect innocent taxpayers.


   Amendment of the Gun Control Act to Exempt Certain Muzzle Loading 
                        Weapons From Regulation

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, according to the amendment, would the 
Knight DISC rifle manufactured in my State fall under the definition of 
a muzzle loader, or a regulated firearm?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. The Knight DISC rifle would be defined as a muzzle 
loader.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, with regard to the amendment of the Gun 
Control Act to Exempt Certain Muzzle Loading Weapons from Regulation 
(``the amendment''), in subparagraph (c), did the Committee intend 
``fixed ammunition'' to mean a completed centerfire or rimfire 
cartridge?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, for the purposes of the amendment, fixed 
ammunition is defined as a complete centerfire or rimfire cartridge.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, subparagraph (c) of the amendment states 
that the term ``antique firearm'' shall not include any weapon which 
incorporates a firearm frame or receiver . . .'' However, the amendment 
does not define the terms firearm frame or receiver.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. For the purpose of the amendment, a firearm frame or 
receiver is defined as a serial numbered firearm frame or receiver.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the first sentence of subparagraph (c) 
of the amendment does not address the types of ignition systems which 
would fall within the definition of muzzle loading rifles.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. The Committee did not address the issue of ignition 
systems because muzzle loaders may use black powder or a black powder 
substitute with any ignition system.


                           blue water vessels

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to address my 
colleagues on a matter of critical importance to our national drug 
interdiction program.
  I am very concerned about the condition of some of the currently 
deployed drug interdiction vessels. I understand that some of the 
vessels currently deployed in the U.S. Customs Service's marine program 
fleet are 30 years old and may pose a threat to U.S. Customs Service 
agents and the viability of our drug interdiction program.
  The Customs Service already has a contract to build replacement 
vessels on demand. However, this contract will expire at the end of FY 
1999, and no vessels have been purchased to date. I believe the Customs 
Service should extend this contract and make efforts to replace aging 
vessels in the field a high priority.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank Senator Snowe for bringing this serious matter 
to our attention. I certainly understand and share her concerns about 
the importance of operating these drug interdiction vessels in a safe 
condition.
  Ms. SNOWE. In recent years, drug seizures by the Customs Service have

[[Page S9236]]

increased significantly. This progress is due in no small part to the 
Customs agents who put their lives on the line to help stem the flow of 
illegal narcotics into the United States. Protecting our borders and 
reducing the proliferation of narcotics is an enormous challenge.
  It is imperative that we maintain the viability of our drug 
interdiction program and the fleet we use to enforce our drug laws on 
the high seas. I believe procurement of drug interdiction vessels would 
be an invaluable investment in our drug interdiction program.
  In 1995, the U.S. Customs Service entered into a contract to build 
82-foot ``blue water'' vessels for drug interdiction. As I mentioned, 
the contract was effective through FY 1999 but no vessel has been 
built.
  These vessels have a proven track record, and the contract was 
awarded by Customs in anticipation of resources for replacement 
vessels. However, the FY 1995 budget request proposed a 50-percent 
reduction in Customs marine program operations and staffing. The 
Congress restored some of the funding for this program. However, no 
additional funds were appropriated to Customs for the replacement costs 
of vessels.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. The Customs Service has certainly had to make difficult 
choices in the marine program under budget constraints. However, I 
recognize the importance of these vessels to drug interdiction efforts.
  Ms. SNOWE. I am grateful to Senator Campbell and Senator Kohl for 
their leadership on this important program. In the Committee's report 
on FY 1999 Customs' appropriations, the Committee recognizes the 
importance of the blue water vessels as a central component of the 
marine interdiction strategy, and urges the Customs Service to maintain 
its fleet of blue water vessels at a level which is safe for its 
agents.
  I understand the delicate funding balance that the Customs Service 
and the Committee must strike. I had hoped to see some replacement blue 
water vessels built in FY 1999. Unfortunately, it was not possible to 
allocate the funding for this purpose this year. However, we should not 
let this opportunity to upgrade these vessels slip by--I believe we 
should ensure that the option to fund these vessels remains in the 
event that funding becomes available next year.
  Again, Customs already has a contract to build these vessels on 
demand scheduled to expire in the 1999 fiscal year. I strongly believe 
that Customs should extend this contract.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I agree that the U.S. Customs Service should revisit 
this issue.
  Ms. SNOWE. Again, I applaud the leadership of the Committee on this 
matter, and thank them for their cooperation. I look forward to working 
with the Committee on this continuing and important effort in the 
future.


                      marriage penalty amendments

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my views on providing 
tax relief for working families, and more specifically about the 
marriage penalty. I have always supported efforts to alleviate the tax 
burden felt by many of our nation's working families. In 1993, I 
supported tax cuts for millions of working families making less than 
$30,000 per year through an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. 
And again, last year, I supported tax cuts targeted toward working 
families, including the $500 per-child-tax credit, the $1,500 HOPE 
education tax credit, reinstatement of student loan deductions, full 
deductibility of health insurance premiums for the self-employed and 
capital gains and estate tax relief, I was pleased to support these tax 
cuts, Mr. President, because each was carefully targeted, fully paid 
for, and consistent with a balanced budget.
  Today, I continue to support efforts to bring relief to working 
families, including providing them with substantial relief from the 
marriage penalty. Yet, despite my support for repealing the marriage 
penalty which affects more than 20 million American families, I felt 
compelled to vote against the amendment offered by Senator Brownback, 
because in my view, the amendment did not provide targeted relief to 
those who need it most. In fact, Senator Brownback's amendment would 
offer marriage penalty relief to only about 40 percent of those 
currently penalized. Moreover, this amendment was both a costly 
measure--costing $125 billion over five years and $300 billion over the 
next ten years--and one that was not paid for.
  Mr. President, because Senator Brownback's amendment was not offset, 
it would have significantly drained the Treasury and put an incredible 
strain on the Social Security trust fund. Indeed, had this amendment 
been adopted without an offset as proposed, we would be forced to make 
draconian across-the-board spending cuts to all discretionary spending, 
including many important programs like Head Start, public health 
programs, and defense. In addition, this amendment threatened to use as 
its offset, funds from the Social Security reserves, which clearly 
would jeopardize the solvency of and undermine the strength of the 
Social Security trust fund. Mr. President, in my view, we could ill 
afford to pay for this amendment with either option, and that is why I, 
in good conscience, could not support this amendment.
  I want to be clear, however, that I support efforts to repeal the 
marriage penalty. Yet I remain committed to doing so in a way that does 
not harm the progress we've made in balancing the budget and in a way 
that targets relief to working families who need it most. That is why I 
was pleased to support the Democratic alternative, which would have 
reduced the marriage penalty in the tax code for approximately 90 
percent of the families currently penalized. Indeed, this amendment was 
carefully targeted and would cut the marriage tax penalty more for a 
greater number of families Furthermore, this proposal would have cost 
far less than Senator Brownback's proposal--$7 billion over five years 
and $21 billion over the next ten years. And finally, the Democratic 
alternative was fully offset without using reserves from the Social 
Security trust fund, but rather by using a number of widely supported 
proposals from the President's budget.
  Although I was disappointed that the Democratic alternative was 
defeated, I remain hopeful that Congress will continue to work to 
repeal the marriage penalty in a way that is both fiscally responsible 
and carefully targeted to the American families who need relief the 
most.
  Mr. KLY. Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the 
Chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Campbell, regarding the 
importance of High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTAs).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I understand the Senator's interest in this area.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President. I would like to take a few minutes to 
describe the importance of HIDTAs, and specifically the creation of a 
new Central Arizona HIDTA.
  As you know, HIDTAs are an effective mechanism for fighting drugs and 
especially for combating the increase in methamphetamine use and meth 
labs. Arizona has a huge problem with meth and meth lab cleanup. In 
April, I held a field hearing in Phoenix on this issue and I heard 
first-hand about the magnitude of the drug problem in urban and rural 
areas of the state. For example, I heard testimony that the Maricopa 
County HIDTA Meth Lab Unit presently dismantles an average of three 
labs per week and that, during fiscal year 97, it seized 137 meth labs. 
Projections for seizures this year are expected to reach 200. Moreover, 
the DEA testified that clandestine lab seizures in Arizona have 
increased 910 percent since 1994.
  The formation of a new Arizona HIDTA, the Central Arizona HIDTA, is a 
cooperative effort among three Arizona counties--Maricopa, Pinal, and 
Mohave--representing both rural and urban interests.
  Designating new HIDTAs where a need can be demonstrated and where law 
enforcement has joined together is key to stopping the spread of drugs. 
I look forward to working with you to ensure that new HIDTAs, like the 
Central Arizona HIDTA, receive funding.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. This Committee is increasingly aware of the unique 
problems meth poses, as well as the cleanup of their toxic labs. This 
is an area where a HIDTA can provide much needed assistance to a 
community, therefore I can understand your interest in the creation of 
a Central Arizona HIDTA. I look forward to working with the Senator in 
the coming months to address these concerns.

[[Page S9237]]

  Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator.


                          tax code termination

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire: Mr. President, I rise today in support of 
the Tax Code Termination Act, which had been proposed as an amendment 
to the Treasury-Postal Appropriations Act. This measure, which I 
cosponsored with Senators Hutchinson and Brownback, would sunset the 
Federal Tax Code by the end of 2002.
  Our current Tax Code, with its many rates, deductions and exemptions, 
needs to be replaced with a simpler, fairer system that will eliminate 
the bias against savings and investment and promote economic growth. 
Consider these facts:
  The Tax Code is made up of about 7,500 pages. All the Internal 
Revenue Service regulations, rulings and tax court decisions add tens 
of thousands more pages. By contrast, when the income tax was enacted 
eighty-five years, the Tax Code was under twenty pages long.
  By the most conservative estimate, the total cost of collecting 
taxes, including the value of the 4.5 billion hours that taxpayers 
spend preparing tax returns, is $75 billion per year. Other estimates 
are several times higher. The cost of complying with some provisions 
exceeds what the government collects in taxes.
  I can think of no more fitting commentary on the tax laws that are on 
the books today than The Federalist Papers, and I quote: ``It will be 
of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their 
own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so 
incoherent that they cannot be understood.''
  Is there any doubt that our current Tax Code is too voluminous to be 
read or too incoherent to be understood? There probably is not a single 
accountant who understands the Code in its entirety. Not even the IRS, 
which employs about 110,000 people and is twice as big as the CIA, 
seems to have a complete grasp on the Code. In 1993, for example, the 
IRS provided an estimated 8.5 million incorrect or incomplete answers 
to taxpayer inquiries, and taxpayers were overcharged an estimated $5 
billion in penalties.
  Another measure of the Code's complexity is the number of disputes it 
generates. As many as 40 percent of major corporate audits end up in 
administrative or legal disputes. Some last for years.
  The Tax Code is so burdensome that it encourages tax evasion and 
distorts investment. the IRS has reported that there are hundreds of 
people who pay no taxes on incomes of more than $200,000 per year. 
Remember Leona Helmsly, the New York real estate magnate who spent 
eighteen months in jail for tax evasion? According to her former 
housekeeper, Leona said: ``[w]e don't pay taxes. Only the little people 
pay taxes.'' Taxpayers who can afford to pay for tax planning have a 
strong incentive to invest in schemes to avoid paying taxes instead of 
investing in productive enterprises that will help the economy thrive.
  Up to 30% of individuals reporting business income are not complying 
with the Tax Code, according to the IRS. Small wonder that many small 
businesses are not in compliance, when we consider the Code's 
complexity. For every $100 they paid in income taxes, small businesses 
with net profits paid an estimated $377 in accounting fees and other 
costs to comply with the tax laws, according to a 1996 Tax Foundation 
report. If the current tax code were not so complex, perhaps we would 
not be facing the enforcement problems that we brought to light by the 
Finance Committee in its April 1998 IRS oversight hearings.
  Critics of the Tax Code Termination Act maintain that it would be 
irresponsible to sunset the Tax Code until a substitute is prepared. 
But there are already a number of other federal programs on the books 
that contain sunset language; and why should the Tax Code by any 
different? This legislation simply sets a fixed date by which the Tax 
Code will have to be reauthorized, thereby forcing the President and 
Congress to engage in a meaningful dialogue on the issue.
  Mr. President, I urge my Senate colleagues to take the first step 
toward meaningful tax reform by setting a date when the Tax Code will 
expire. We should discard the current maze that is our Tax Code and 
enact a new tax system that is simple, fair and does not discourage 
savings or investment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of this bill 
for their hard work in putting forth this legislation which provides 
federal funding for numerous vital programs. The Senate will soon vote 
to adopt the Treasury and General Appropriations Bill for the Fiscal 
Year 1999. I intend to support this measure because it provides funding 
for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal Service, the 
Executive Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies.
  Mr. President, as elected officials, we bear no greater 
responsibility than to see the American people's hard earned tax 
dollars utilized in the most prudent fashion. We must remain committed 
to open and fair consideration of public expenditures. Our objective 
must always be to further the greatest public good. This must remain 
the cornerstone of the appropriations process.
  I admit that this is a difficult task. Each year the appropriators 
face the daunting task of supporting necessary governmental activities 
and balancing additional competing interests for funding. However, this 
is a challenge that we must firmly uphold with integrity. I come 
forward to this body to once again declare that we are undermining the 
national faith by continuing the practice of earmarking and 
inappropriately designating funding for projects based on erroneous 
criteria rather than national priority and necessity.
  After reviewing the Treasury Postal Appropriations Bill, it is 
painfully clear the subcommittee has not lost its appetite for pork-
barrel spending. This bill has been fattened up with vast amounts of 
low-priority, unnecessary and wasteful spending. In fact, this 
appropriations bill contains well over $826 million in specifically 
earmarked pork-barrel spending. This is more than $791 million more 
than last year's pork-barrel spending total for this bill, which only 
contained $34.25 million in wasted funds. In addition, the bill and 
report directs that current year spending be maintained for hundreds of 
projects, without being specific about any dollar amount.
  We now have the first unified-budget surplus in nearly 30 years. CBO 
projects that we will have $1.6 billion of budget surpluses over the 
next 10 years. However, if we continue with our current levels of 
wasteful spending, these budget surpluses may not occur. Pork-barrel 
spending today not only robs well-deserving programs of much needed 
funds, it also jeopardizes our fiscal well-being into the next century. 
I would be remiss if I did not inform the American public of the 
seriousness and magnitude of wasteful spending endorsed by this body. 
These individual earmarks may not seem extravagant. However, taken 
together, they represent a serious diversion of taxpayers' hard-earned 
dollars to low priority programs at the expense of numerous programs 
that have undergone the appropriate merit-based selection process. I 
take very strong exception to a large number of provisions in the bill 
before us today.
  As usual, this bill and report contain numerous earmarks of new funds 
for particular states, as well as language designed to ensure the 
continued flow of federal funds into certain states. I have compiled a 
lengthy list of these and numerous other add-ons, earmarks in this 
bill. I will not spare precious time to recite the entire list. 
Instead, I will ask unanimous consent to have this list printed in the 
Record. However, I will discuss some of the more troubling provisions 
in this bill in detail.
  Mr. President, this bill contains a provision which requires the 
Postal Service to work with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture to 
devise a plan to combat pest introduction into Hawaii through the U.S. 
mail. Also contained in this report is over one half billion dollars in 
new courthouse construction specifically allocated to certain states 
and localities. This type of earmarking of federal funds must stop.
  Mr. President, in the last few weeks, the Senate has wasted billions 
of taxpayers' dollars on wasteful, unnecessary, or low priority 
projects. Most alarming, we still have 5 more appropriations bills 
still to be considered. When will Congress curb its appetite

[[Page S9238]]

for wasteful pork-barrel spending? How much is too much?
  Mr. President, I will not deliberate much longer on the objectionable 
provisions of this bill. I simply ask my colleagues to apply fair and 
reasonable spending principles when appropriating funds to the 
multitude of priority and necessary programs in our appropriations 
bills. Fiscal responsibility yields long term dividends to America as a 
whole. Moreover, responsible spending will renew the public's faith in 
their elected representatives, while also insuring that America 
realizes any projected budget surpluses.
  Congress can ill afford to waste taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. Let 
us use these budget surpluses to pay down our multi-trillion-dollar 
national debt. Let us use the anticipated budget surpluses to save 
social security and for additional tax cuts. These objectives further 
the greater public good, and our long-term prosperity. Wasteful pork-
barrel spending which has limited short term benefits to a few obscure 
special interests, does not further the public good. It drains our 
budget, and threatens our long-term prosperity. Congress will only make 
our potentially prosperous future a reality if it curbs its appetite 
for pork-barrel spending.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to think seriously about the 
repercussions that could soon be felt right here in this body, if we 
continue the longstanding practice of pork-barrel spending. Wasteful 
pork-barrel spending simply erodes the public's trust in our system of 
government. Congress must reaffirm its commitment to furthering the 
public good by curbing its appetite for pork-barrel spending.
  I ask unanimous consent that the list be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

 LOW PRIORITY, UNNECESSARY, OR WASTEFUL SPENDING CONTAINED IN S. 2312, 
  TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                                  1999

       The total dollar amount included in this bill is more than 
     $3 billion over the Fiscal Year 1999 budget request.


                             Bill Language

       Sections 506, 507, 508, and 606 all contain the usual 
     protectionist, Buy-America provisions.


                            Report Language

       BATF: $4.5 million to expand the National Tracing Center in 
     Martinsburg, WV. $2.4 million for 12 trafficking agents, 
     three of which are to be for Milwaukee, WI. The Committee 
     urges the BATF to give strong consideration to Aurora, CO, 
     Denver, CO, and Omaha, NE in determining the new locations 
     for the expansion of the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction 
     Initiative.
       U.S. Customs Service: Language directing the Customs 
     Service to maintain staffing levels at the Charleston, WV 
     Customs office.
       $750,000 for part-time and temporary positions in the 
     Honolulu Customs District.
       Language directing the Customs Service to ensure the 
     staffing levels are sufficient to staff and operate all New 
     Mexico border facilities.
       Language stating that a high priority should be placed on 
     the funding of the ports of entry in Florida.
       Language directing the Customs Service to study the 
     staffing levels of the Great Falls, MT area.
       Language directing the Customs Service to conduct a 
     feasibility study on the creation of an international freight 
     processing center in McClain County, OK.
       Language encouraging the Blaine, WA area port director to 
     continue the current onboard clearance procedures for Amtrak 
     passengers traveling inbound from Vancouver, BC.
       $500,000 to expand the Vermont World Trade Office due to 
     the fact that the current office has been ``overwhelmed by 
     requests from companies interested in exploring 
     opportunities''.
       Internal Revenue Service: Language directing the IRS to 
     maintain problem resolution specialist, problem resolution 
     officer and associate problem resolution officer positions in 
     the States of Alaska and Hawaii. Language stating that any 
     reorganization of the IRS Criminal Investigative Division may 
     not result in a reduction of criminal investigators in 
     Wisconsin and South Dakota.
       U.S. Postal Service: Language directing the Postal Service, 
     together with the USDA and the Hawaii Department of 
     Agriculture, to devise and implement a program to combat pest 
     introduction into Hawaii through the U.S. mail.
       Office of National Drug Control Policy: $1.5 million to 
     expand the Milwaukee High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area 
     (HIDTA).
       Language urging the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
     (ONDCP) to give special consideration to the State of 
     Hawaii's application to be HIDTA.
       Language encouraging the ONDCP to assist in the clean up of 
     methamphetamine labs in Missouri, Washington, Iowa, and New 
     Mexico.
       Language urging the ONCDP to consider Omaha, NE as the site 
     for future conferences relating to methamphetamine.
       General Services Administration: The Committee has funded 
     the Federal Buildings Fund - Construction and Acquisition 
     account at $553 million, which is $509 million above the 
     budget request.
       New Construction: $3.4 million for a U.S. Courthouse in 
     Little Rock, AR.
       $15.4 million for a U.S. Courthouse in San Diego, CA.
       $10.8 million for a U.S. Courthouse in San Jose, CA.
       $84 million for a U.S. Courthouse in Denver, CO.
       $14.1 million for DOT Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
       $10 million for the Southeast Federal Center remediation in 
     Washington, D.C.
       $86 million for a U.S. Courthouse in Jacksonville, FL.
       $1.9 million for a U.S. Courthouse in Orlando, FL.
       $46.5 million for a U.S. Courthouse in Savannah, GA.
       $5.6 million for a U.S. Courthouse in Springfield, MA.
       $572,000 for a Michigan border station.
       $7.5 million for a U.S. Courthouse in Mississippi.
       $2.2 million for a U.S. Courthouse in Missouri.
       $6.2 million for a border station in Montana.
       $152.6 million for a U.S. Courthouse in Brooklyn, NY.
       $3.2 million to New York U.S. Mission to the United 
     Nations.
       $7.2 million for a U.S. Courthouse in Eugene, Oregon.
       $28.2 million for a U.S. Courthouse in Greenville, TN.
       $28.1 million for a U.S. Courthouse in Laredo, Texas.
       $29.3 million for a U.S. Courthouse in Wheeling, WV.
       $10 million for Nationwide: nonprospectus.
       Language granting the GSA the authority to purchase the 
     property located on block 111, East Denver, Denver, CO.
       Language directing $475,000 of nonprospectus construction 
     funds be used for the planning of the Mauna Kea Astronomy 
     Educational Center in Hawaii.
       Language stating that the Administrator of the GSA is not 
     permitted to obligate funding for the design of the new 
     headquarters of the DOT until the Secretary of Transportation 
     approves landing rights for British Airways at Denver 
     International Airport and Guarantees landing slots to the 
     U.S. carrier authorized to serve the Charlotte-London 
     (Gatwick) route.


        Funding for Repairs and Alterations to Federal Buildings

       $29.8 million for an appraisers building in San Francisco.
       $29.4 million for the Denver Federal Building in CO.
       $13.8 million for Federal Building 10B in Washington, D.C.
       $84 million to the ICC.
       $25.2 million for the OEOB.
       $29.8 million for the State Department.
       $20 million for an IRS service Center in Brookhaven, NY.
       $4.8 million for a U.S. Courthouse in New York.
       $11.2 million for a courthouse in Philadelphia, PA.
       $9.1 million for the J.W. Powell Building in Reston, VA.
       Language directing the GSA to upgrade the lighting system 
     for the Bryne-Green Federal Courthouse in Philadelphia, PA.
       $1.6 million for basic repair and alteration of a U.S. 
     Courthouse and Federal Building located in Milwaukee, WI.
       $1.1 million for a new fence around the Federal complex in 
     Suitland MD.
       $2.8 million for the Zorinsky building in Omaha, NE.
       Language directing the GSA to study the cost and need for 
     repair of the Federal Building in Tuscaloosa, AL.
       Language directing the GSA to study the alternatives to 
     repairing the Butte-Silver Bow Courthouse in Butte, MT.
       Language directing the GSA to work with BATF to provide 
     adequate facilities to meet the space needs of the National 
     Tracing Center in Martinsburg, WV. ($4.5 million has been 
     directed to this facility under a different account 
     previously in this report.)
       Language urging the GSA to report on the responsibility of 
     the Federal Government to fund and provide security to the 
     Federal complex in Newark, NJ.
       Language directing the GSA to support the 1999 Women's 
     World Cup Soccer and the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships 
     in Vail, CO.
       Language directing the GSA to give the U.S. Olympic 
     Committee special consideration to acquire a Federal Building 
     in Colorado Springs, CO--should it become available.
       Language providing for the demolition, cleanup, and 
     transfer of property in Anchorage, AK.
       Language stating that the GSA may convey the site which 
     contains the U.S. Army Reserve Center in Racine, WI to the 
     City of Racine.
       National Archives: $875,000 to address space inadequacies 
     in the Anchorage, AK facility.
       Office of Personnel Management: Language directing the OPM 
     to continue to work with the University of Hawaii to develop 
     culturally sensitive model health programs.

[[Page S9239]]



                          ____________________