Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 104 (Wednesday, July 29, 1998)

[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]]

____________________