Summary:

All articles in Senate section

TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
(Senate - September 11, 1996)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S10285-S10321] TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997 The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. Amendment No. 5224, As Modified Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, it is my understanding we will each use about 5 minutes, and then I think the two leaders want to propose a unanimous-consent request after that. So if we can proceed on that basis, would that be satisfactory with my colleague? Mr. THOMAS. That is fine. Mr. GLENN. I ask unanimous consent that we have 5 minutes on a side to wrap this up, and then we will probably go to a vote after that. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I want to respond briefly to the comments my colleague made a moment ago. This is a broad act. He said the Economy Act of 1982 is really not working and that is one reason we are putting this in. I don't like putting other legislation that might not work on top of legislation he says is already not working. Let's make work the legislation that is in law now. I am all for that. Basically, it does what we are proposing here. In fact, I have a copy of that Economy Act of 1982 here, and one of the things provided under section 1335 under ``agency agreements,'' part 4 of paragraph (A) says: ``The head of the agency decides ordered goods or services cannot be provided as conveniently or cheaply by a commercial enterprise already required.'' I agree that should be lived up to. So then we come in with the legislation that my colleague and friend, Senator Thomas, says is not as broad as I am interpreting it to be, and yet the words in it say that ``except as provided in subsection (B)''--which I will get to in a moment--``none of the funds appropriated under any other act may be used by OMB or any other agency to publish, promulgate or enforce any policy, regulation, circular or any rule or authority in any other form that would permit any Federal agency to provide a commercially available property or service to any other Department of Government unless the policy, regulation, circular or other rule meets the requirements in subsection (B).'' Subsection (B) says 120 days after this OMB will prescribe regulations as required, subject to the following, which shall include the following: A requirement for comparison between the costs of providing the property or service concerned through the agency concerned and the cost of providing such property or service through the private sector. That is a mammoth requirement for any law or regulation to come out under. The (B) part of that, which is the last part, is a requirement for cost and performance benchmarks relating to the property or service provided relative to comparable services provided by other Government agencies and contractors permitting the oversight of this--and so on-- agency concerned with the Office of Management and Budget. That is a very, very broad-reaching, extremely broad-reaching, amendment. I would say it is true, it is already covered under the Economy Act of 1982, as I quoted just a moment ago, and the best thing I would advise is we bring this to the attention of Mr. Koskinen, who is going to appear before the committee next week, that we ask his opinion about how broad-gauged this is and why he is not already enforcing the Economy Act of 1982. That is the way to proceed, as I see it, in good Government, not just to automatically pass something that does the same thing that is not being adhered to in earlier legislation. Mr. President, I suggest we have that as our method of procedure. I am all for efficiency in Government, but I am not just for passing one law and covering up deficiencies in carrying out a law that is already on the books and should be adhered to. [[Page S10286]] I reserve the remainder of my time. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think for the interest of Senators, as I understand it, we are about to have a vote. Does the Senator from Wyoming know approximately what length of additional time he will need to complete his remarks? Mr. THOMAS. I believe I probably have about 2 minutes, and Senator Glenn has 1\1/2\ minutes. So I would guess less than 5 minutes. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, assuming that is agreeable to the majority leader, to have the vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming no later than 6:20. Mr. THOMAS. It is fine with me. Mr. GLENN. That will be fine. Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if that request was not made, I enter that request now. I ask unanimous consent that we have that vote not later than 6:20, and before if all time is yielded back. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has 2 minutes 5 seconds remaining. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would agree with the Senator if what he is saying were the case, and I think it is not. We have indicated that the statute requires under the Efficiency Act what we are asking here: that there be this effort to communicate in the private sector and measure that cost. The problem is this one right here. This is March 1996, called the ``Revised Supplemental Handbook, Performance of Commercial Activities, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget.'' It says: The cost comparison requirements of this supplemental handbook will not apply to existing or renewed ISSA's or the consolidation of commercial services. So it is not just a function of the law not being lived up to but, in fact, is a change that has been put in place by OMB. So that is what we are seeking to do. We are not seeking to change the law. We are not seeking to change the basic operation of this statute, but we are saying that there are changes made by Executive order which remove that requirement that those activities that are being carried on by one agency for another, not the activities for themselves, one agency for another, that the requirement continue to exist as it has in the past, that we see if there are commercial activities available at a lesser, more efficient cost. This is simply an effort to put back in place the requirement that has been in place for a very long time, that for the activities that are acquired from another agency within Government, that there be an effort to determine if it can be done more cheaply, more efficiently in the private sector. This is not a new idea. This is an idea that now exists in law but has been taken out of the law by OMB. This would put it back. It is not broad. I hope very much that the Senator from Ohio, and his committee, will take a look at this whole broad thing. But in the meantime, I think we need to return where we were so that private industry can be part of this idea. We have used it for a very long time. It has to do with being more efficient. It has to do with good Government. It has to do with strengthening the private sector. I certainly urge my colleagues to vote aye. 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. GLENN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio. Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time, and assume my colleague does. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator McConnell as a cosponsor to amendment No. 5232. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The question occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 5224, as modified, offered by the Senator from Wyoming. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth] is necessarily absent. Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is absent because of family illness. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 285 Leg.] YEAS--59 Abraham Ashcroft Baucus Bennett Biden Bond Bradley Breaux Brown Burns Campbell Chafee Coats Cochran Cohen Coverdell Craig D'Amato DeWine Domenici Faircloth Feinstein Frahm Frist Gorton Graham Gramm Grams Grassley Gregg Hatch Hatfield Helms Hutchison Inhofe Jeffords Kassebaum Kempthorne Kohl Kyl Lott Lugar Mack McCain McConnell Murkowski Nickles Pressler Santorum Shelby Simpson Smith Snowe Specter Stevens Thomas Thompson Thurmond Warner NAYS--39 Akaka Bingaman Boxer Bryan Bumpers Byrd Conrad Daschle Dodd Dorgan Exon Feingold Ford Glenn Harkin Heflin Hollings Inouye Johnston Kennedy Kerrey Kerry Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lieberman Mikulski Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murray Nunn Pell Reid Robb Rockefeller Sarbanes Simon Wellstone Wyden NOT VOTING--2 Pryor Roth The amendment (No. 5224), as modified, was agreed to. Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY. I ask unanimous consent that the pending committee amendments be temporarily laid aside. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendments Nos. 5249 through Amendment No. 5255, En Bloc Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I send a group of amendments, en bloc, to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] proposes amendments, en bloc, numbered 5249 through amendment No. 5255. Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendments are as follows: AMENDMENT NO. 5249 (Purpose: To provide for the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs to continue operations) Page 93 after line 19 insert the following new section: Sec. . Notwithstanding the provision under the heading ``Advisory Commission on intergovernmental relations'' under title IV of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104-52; 109 Stat. 480), the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations may continue in existence during fiscal year 1997 and each fiscal year thereafter. ____ AMENDMENT NO. 5250 (Purpose: To strike section 404) On page 60, line 19 strike all through line 21. ____ AMENDMENT NO. 5251 (Purpose: To provide for an audit by Inspector Generals of administratively uncontrollable overtime practices, to revise guidelines for such practices, and for other purposes) At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following new section: [[Page S10287]] Sec. . (a) No later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of each Federal department or agency that uses administratively uncontrollable overtime in the pay of any employee shall-- (1) conduct an audit on the use of administratively uncontrollable overtime by employees of such department or agency, which shall include-- (A) an examination of the policies, extent, costs, and other relevant aspects of the use of administratively uncontrollable overtime at the department or agency; and (B) a determination of whether the eligibility criteria of the department or agency and payment of administratively uncontrollable overtime comply with Federal statutory and regulatory requirements; and (2) submit a report of the findings and conclusions of such audit to-- (A) the Office of Personnel Management; (B) the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Senate; and (C) the Government Reform and Oversight Committee of the House of Representatives. (b) No later than 30 days after the submission of the report under subsection (a), the Office of Personnel Management shall issue revised guidelines to all Federal departments and agencies that-- (1) limit the use of administratively uncontrollable overtime to employees meeting the statutory intent of section 5545(c)(2) of title 5, United States Code; and (2) expressly prohibit the use of administratively uncontrollable overtime for-- (A) customary or routine work duties; and (B) work duties that are primarily administrative in nature, or occur in noncompelling circumstances. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment will address the abuses of Administratively Uncontrolled Overtime--AUO--throughout the Federal Government. The costs to taxpayers of AUO misuse, estimated at $323 million at a single Federal agency since 1990, are significant. With improper oversight, AUO is likely to be costing the Treasury tens of millions of dollars a year. This amendment will empower the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] to stop these abuses. First, it directs the Inspector General [IG] of each agency that utilizes AUO to audit its use and cost. The findings of these audits must be reported to the Congress and the Office of Personnel Management within 45 days. Second, OPM shall review these IG audits, and issue revised guidelines to the respective agencies to limit the use of AUO to its statutory intent. These strengthened guidelines shall prohibit the use of AUO for routine or inappropriate work duties. The amendment directs OPM to issue these new guidelines, to prevent the ongoing misuse of AUO, within 30 days of receiving the Inspector General audits. For my colleagues who, like myself, have not been acutely aware of the details and minutiae of Federal overtime policies, let me briefly describe AUO and how it can readily be fixed on behalf of taxpayers in this appropriations bill. ``Administratively Uncontrolled Overtime'' was authorized by Congress to pay overtime to law enforcement officers for vital investigative duties that require them to work irregular and unscheduled hours-- pursuing suspects, undercover work, special investigative operations, et cetera. That makes sense. Agency regulations stipulate that AUO should be reserved for work duties that are ``compelling'' and where it would be negligent for officers to stop their enforcement actions. What has been going on, however, for too many of the 6,300 employees receiving AUO, is that it has turned into a unjustified salary and retirement supplement for the most routine work duties imaginable. And that makes no sense whatsoever for taxpayers. I'd like to describe the abuses of AUO that occurred in a single Federal agency in my State, as revealed by a selfless Federal employee who stood much to lose by uncovering this waste. One Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] officer in Arizona reported that every single officer and supervisor at his facility was receiving the maximum AUO possible, despite the fact that ``In two years . . . not one legitimately qualifying AUO hour has been worked in my department.'' Mr. President, somehow those duties don't sound like ``hot pursuit'' to me. They certainly are necessary, but they do not meet the statutory criteria for AUO. This is not an isolated problem of mere local concern. Both the Inspector General and the INS's top policymakers have recognized this ongoing abuse of AUO. The INS investigated the use of AUO at a detention facility in Arizona and found that: ``None of the work performed [in Florence] met the criteria for AUO, because the overtime hours could be administratively controlled.'' The Inspector General at the Department of Justice then further investigated this INS facility, and the IG's findings provide the perfect rationale for this amendment. The IG stated that ``[W]e encountered no information [at the INS detention center] to demonstrate efforts to follow up on or implement'' the INS's own recommendations. The IG recommended that ``The issue of AUO needs to be systematically addressed.'' That is exactly what this amendment would accomplish. I would like to add that ``Citizens Against Government Waste'' have endorsed this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that some accompanying material be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Washington Post, Sept. 11, 1996] INS Accused of Tolerating Citizenship Testing Fraud (By William Branigin) The Immigration and Naturalization Service came under fire yesterday from congressional Republicans over allegations of fraud in the testing of new citizenship applicants and the payment of millions of dollars in overtime to federal law enforcement officers. In a hearing of the House Government Reform and Oversight subcommittee on national security Republican members assailed what they described as a ``controversial Clinton administration program,'' called Citizenship USA, that has streamlined naturalization procedures and helped produce record numbers of new citizens this year. Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-Ind.) charged that a program in which the INS licenses private organizations to test applicants on U.S. civics and English proficiency has led to ``serious instances of testing fraud in the citizenship process.'' He said the INS ``has done a very poor job of * * * cracking down on testing fraud'' and suggested that the Clinton administration is pushing naturalization as part of a plan to enlist large numbers of new Democratic voters in time for the November elections. T. Alexander Aleinikoff, executive associate commissioner of the INS for programs, rejected those charges. He said the agency has tightened monitoring of the privatized testing, which began under the previous Republican administration, and defended the Citizenship USA program as a needed response to an upsurge of applicants that threatened to overwhelm the naturalization system. While Republicans see politics behind the processing of this year's record 1 million-plus citizenship applicants, administration officials regard the subcommittee's investigation itself as politically motivated. Among the witnesses at yesterday's hearing was Jewell Elghazali, who formerly worked in Dallas for Naturalization Assistance Services, Inc., one of six entities authorized by INS to test immigrants on civics and English as part of the naturalization process. ``There is a lot of fraud going on'' in the programs, she testified. When she alerted a superior in the company to indications of cheating on tests administered by affiliates, she was fired, she said. Elghazali said that in grading tests during her five months at the firm, she found numerous cases in which the written answers of different applicants were in the same handwriting and responses to multi-choice questions--including wrong answers--were identical. She said that in many cases, applicants who had passed the test could not speak English when they called to inquire about the results. Some Spanish speakers became irate when there was no one in the office who could respond to them in their native language, she said. Paul W. Roberts, the chief executive officer of Naturalization Assistance Services, told the subcommittee that the firm has ``acted swiftly to revoke all licensees discovered engaging in improprieties.'' He said the for- profit company has shut down 43 of its test sites as a result of its own monitoring and argued that, in any case, passing the standardized test does not automatically guarantee citizenship for an applicant, who must still pass an interview with an INS examiner. INS Commissioner Doris M. Meissner acknowledged that ``there have been problems'' with the company, which has been warned that it faces suspension unless cleared by an INS review. ``If we need to suspend them, we will,'' she said. But she insisted that ``there is no validity to the notion that people are becoming citizens today who would not have 10 years ago'' because of a lowering of standards. She said citizenship requirements have remained unchanged. In a separate news conference yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called for a congressional investigation into alleged abuses [[Page S10288]] by the INS and other government agencies of a type of overtime pay. He cited a report by a watchdog group, Citizens Against Government Waste, that the INS has spent $323 million on ``administratively uncontrollable overtime'' since 1990, much of it in violation of regulations. The overtime pay, amounting to as much as 25 percent of many employees' salaries, has become an ``entitlement program'' that wastes tens of millions of dollars a year, the watchdog group charged. While the overtime is supposed to compensate law enforcement officers for working long hours on investigations or surveillance, it has been used routinely to pay for mundane duties such as delivering mail, guarding prisoners during meal times and substituting for absent employees, the citizens group charged. Besides the INS, ``administratively uncontrollable overtime'' has been used in the departments of justice, defense, interior and agriculture, the group said. Meissner said that in principle, the overtime category ``is a very good deal for the taxpayers.'' But she conceded that there has been a tendency to misuse it as ``an ongoing bonus'' and vowed renewed efforts to ensure it is properly managed. ____ [From the Tribune, Sept. 2, 1996] INS To Review Overtime Policies After Charges of Abuse (By the Associated Press) FLORENCE.--The Immigration and Naturalization Service will review its policies for filing overtime after government and civic groups showed it improperly spent millions of dollars on overtime. The agency's decision followed criticism by U.S. Sen. John McCain and a citizens watchdog group, which released a report last week estimating that the INS office here spent $60 million on overtime last year alone. The extra payments allow officers to pad their pensions and up their salaries by as much as 25 percent, according to the Citizens Against Government Waste. At issue is special pay called Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO). The fund was created to compensate federal officers for duties that require irregular hours, such as surveillance or undercover work. Federal rules say such overtime can be used only for ``uncontrollable'' overtime--work that can't be regulated or routinely scheduled by supervisors. According to government reports, the INS managers in Florence are using the fund for day-to-day duties, such as delivering mail, guarding prisoners during meals, going to court and filling in for absent employees. Documents obtained by The Arizona Republic show a 1995 INS probe and another in April 1996 by the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General concluded the practice being abused. ``None of the work performed in Florence met the criteria for AUO because the overtime hours could be administratively controlled,'' the 1995 INS report said. Virginia Kice, spokeswoman for the INS Western Region, said the agency is aware of the concerns and is conducting a review of the policy. ``We want to be sure that whatever we do is not only appropriate, that it's prudent, it's responsible and it won't have a negative impact on our enforcement operation,'' she said. According to John Raidt, McCain's legislative director, such abuse is likely rampant in government agencies. The special overtime is available for employees of at least four agencies: the Justice Department, which includes INS; the Defense Department; the Department of Interior; and the Department of Agriculture. McCain plans to amend a Senate appropriations bill to place tighter restrictions on such overtime and will ask for hearings this fall before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Raidt said. Critics say INS supervisors have an incentive to keep paying the special overtime. If managers supervise employees who qualify for the extra pay, then the managers also qualify for the money, according to federal guidelines. ____ Amendment No. 5252 At the appropriate place, insert the following: Sec. . Notwithstanding section 8116 of title 5, United States Code, and in addition to any payment made under 5 U.S.C. 8101 et seq., beginning in fiscal year 1997 and thereafter, the head of any department or agency is authorized to pay from appropriations made available to the department or agency a death gratuity to the personal representative (as that term is defined by applicable law) of a civilian employee of that department or agency whose death resulted from an injury sustained in the line of duty on or after August 2, 1990: Provided, That payments made pursuant to this section, in combination with the payments made pursuant to sections 8133(f) and 8134(a) of such title 5 and section 312 of Public Law 103-332 (108 Stat. 2537), may not exceed a total of $10,000 per employee. Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, my amendment is quite simple. It increases the reimbursement for funeral and burial costs and specific related expenses to $10,000 for Federal civilian employees who die as result of injuries sustained in the performance of duty. This amendment would apply to the dedicated civil servants who were tragically killed in the line of duty while accompanying Commerce Secretary Ron Brown on his trade mission to Bosnia and Croatia. And it would apply to the survivors of those Federal civilian employees who died during the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Under current law, Federal civilian employees who die in the performance of duty receive only a $1,000 reimbursement for funeral and burial costs, and related expenses. This amount was set in 1960, and it has not been adjusted since that time. This is not the case for military personnel. In 1990, at the beginning of the gulf war, Congress increased death-related benefits for the survivors of the military personnel killed in the line of duty. Military survivors are currently provided slightly more than $10,000 for funeral and burial costs. My amendment recognizes that civilian employees are no less dedicated and they are all too often called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice in the service of the United States. Further, I should note that this amendment does not require additional appropriations. It provides the discretion to agency heads to pay these increased benefits from existing appropriations. Mr. President, in short, this amendment provides for equity and updates current law. This is a good amendment that I believe all my colleagues should support. I urge its adoption. amendment no. 5253 (Purpose: To provide for training of explosive detection canines) At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following new section: SEC. . EXPLOSIVES DETECTION CANINE PROGRAM. (a) Authorization.-- (1) The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to establish scientific certification standards for explosives detection canines, and shall provide, on a reimbursable basis, for the certification of explosives detection canines employed by federal agencies, or other agencies providing explosives detection services at airports in the United States. (2) The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish an explosives detection canine training program for the training of canines for explosives detection at airports in the United States. (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this section. ____ AMENDMENT NO. 5254 At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following: SEC. . DESIGNATION OF MARK O. HATFIELD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE. The United States Courthouse under construction at 1030 Southwest 3d Avenue in Portland, Oregon, shall be known and designated as the ``Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse''. SEC. 2. REFERENCES. Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse''. SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section shall take effect on January 2, 1997. ____ amendment No. 5255 (Purpose: To provide for the establishment of uniform accounting systems, standards, and reporting systems in the Federal Government, and for other purposes) At the end of the bill, add the following new title: TITLE ____--FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the ``Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996''. SEC. ____02. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following: (1) Much effort has been devoted to strengthening Federal internal accounting controls in the past. Although progress has been made in recent years, Federal accounting standards have not been uniformly implemented in financial management systems for agencies. (2) Federal financial management continues to be seriously deficient, and Federal financial management and fiscal practices have failed to-- (A) identify costs fully; (B) reflect the total liabilities of congressional actions; and (C) accurately report the financial condition of the Federal Government. (3) Current Federal accounting practices do not accurately report financial results of the Federal Government or the full costs of programs and activities. The continued use of [[Page S10289]] these practices undermines the Government's ability to provide credible and reliable financial data and encourages already widespread Government waste, and will not assist in achieving a balanced budget. (4) Waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government undermine the confidence of the American people in the Government and reduce the Federal Government's ability to address vital public needs adequately. (5) To rebuild the accountability and credibility of the Federal Government, and restore public confidence in the Federal Government, agencies must incorporate accounting standards and reporting objectives established for the Federal Government into their financial management systems so that all the assets and liabilities, revenues, and expenditures or expenses, and the full costs of programs and activities of the Federal Government can be consistently and accurately recorded, monitored, and uniformly reported throughout the Federal Government. (6) Since its establishment in October 1990, the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (hereinafter referred to as the ``FASAB'') has made substantial progress toward developing and recommending a comprehensive set of accounting concepts and standards for the Federal Government. When the accounting concepts and standards developed by FASAB are incorporated into Federal financial management systems, agencies will be able to provide cost and financial information that will assist the Congress and financial managers to evaluate the cost and performance of Federal programs and activities, and will therefore provide important information that has been lacking, but is needed for improved decisionmaking by financial managers and the Congress. (7) The development of financial management systems with the capacity to support these standards and concepts will, over the long term, improve Federal financial management. (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are to-- (1) provide for consistency of accounting by an agency from one fiscal year to the next, and uniform accounting standards throughout the Federal Government; (2) require Federal financial management systems to support full disclosure of Federal financial data, including the full costs of Federal programs and activities, to the citizens, the Congress, the President, and agency management, so that programs and activities can be considered based on their full costs and merits; (3) increase the accountability and credibility of Federal financial management; (4) improve performance, productivity and efficiency of Federal Government financial management; (5) establish financial management systems to support controlling the cost of Federal Government; (6) build upon and complement the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-576; 104 Stat. 2838), the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-62; 107 Stat. 285), and the Government Management Reform Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-356; 108 Stat. 3410); and (7) increase the capability of agencies to monitor execution of the budget by more readily permitting reports that compare spending of resources to results of activities. SEC. ____03. IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS. (a) In General.--Each agency shall implement and maintain financial management systems that comply with Federal financial management systems requirements, applicable Federal accounting standards, and the United States Government Standard General Ledger at the transaction level. (b) Priority.--Each agency shall give priority in funding and provide sufficient resources to implement this title. (c) Audit Compliance Finding.-- (1) In general.--Each audit required by section 3521(e) of title 31, United States Code, shall report whether the agency financial management systems comply with the requirements of subsection (a). (2) Content of reports.--When the person performing the audit required by section 3521(e) of title 31, United States Code, reports that the agency financial management systems do not comply with the requirements of subsection (a), the person performing the audit shall include in the report on the audit-- (A) the name and position of any officer or employee responsible for the financial management systems that have been found not to comply with the requirements of subsection (a); (B) all facts pertaining to the failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (a), including-- (i) the nature and extent of the noncompliance; (ii) the primary reason or cause of the noncompliance; (iii) any official responsible for the noncompliance; and (iv) any relevant comments from any responsible officer or employee; and (C) a statement with respect to the recommended remedial actions and the timeframes to implement such actions. (d) Compliance Determination.-- (1) In general.--No later than the date described under paragraph (2), the Director, acting through the Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management, shall determine whether the financial management systems of an agency comply with the requirements of subsection (a). Such determination shall be based on-- (A) a review of the report on the applicable agency-wide audited financial statement; (B) the agency comments on such report; and (C) any other information the Director considers relevant and appropriate. (2) Date of determination.--The determination under paragraph (1) shall be made no later than 90 days after the earlier of-- (A) the date of the receipt of an agency-wide audited financial statement; or (B) the last day of the fiscal year following the year covered by such statement. (e) Compliance Implementation.-- (1) In general.--If the Director determines that the financial management systems of an agency do not comply with the requirements of subsection (a), the head of the agency, in consultation with the Director, shall establish a remediation plan that shall include the resources, remedies, and intermediate target dates necessary to bring the agency's financial management systems into compliance. (2) Time period for compliance.--A remediation plan shall bring the agency's financial management systems into compliance no later than 2 years after the date on which the Director makes a determination under paragraph (1), unless the agency, with concurrence of the Director-- (A) determines that the agency's financial management systems are so deficient as to preclude compliance with the requirements of subsection (a) within 2 years; (B) specifies the most feasible date for bringing the agency's financial management systems into compliance with the requirements of subsection (a); and (C) designates an official of the agency who shall be responsible for bringing the agency's financial management systems into compliance with the requirements of subsection (a) by the date specified under subparagraph (B). (3) Transfer of funds for certain improvements.--For an agency that has established a remediation plan under paragraph (2), the head of the agency, to the extent provided in an appropriation and with the concurrence of the Director, may transfer not to exceed 2 percent of available agency appropriations to be merged with and to be available for the same period of time as the appropriation or fund to which transferred, for priority financial management system improvements. Such authority shall be used only for priority financial management system improvements as identified by the head of the agency, with the concurrence of the Director, and in no case for an item for which Congress has denied funds. The head of the agency shall notify Congress 30 days before such a transfer is made pursuant to such authority. (4) Report if noncompliance within time period.--If an agency fails to bring its financial management systems into compliance within the time period specified under paragraph (2), the Director shall submit a report of such failure to the Committees on Governmental Affairs and Appropriations of the Senate and the Committees on Government Reform and Oversight and Appropriations of the House of Representatives. The report shall include-- (A) the name and position of any officer or employee responsible for the financial management systems that have been found not to comply with the requirements of subsection (a); (B) the facts pertaining to the failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (a), including the nature and extent of the noncompliance, the primary reason or cause for the failure to comply, and any extenuating circumstances; (C) a statement of the remedial actions needed; and (D) a statement of any administrative action to be taken with respect to any responsible officer or employee. (f) Personal Responsibility.--Any financial officer or program manager who knowingly and willfully commits, permits, or authorizes material deviation from the requirements of subsection (a) may be subject to administrative disciplinary action, suspension from duty, or removal from office. SEC. ____04. APPLICATION TO CONGRESS AND THE JUDICIAL BRANCH. (a) In General.--The Federal financial management requirements of this title may be adopted by-- (1) the Senate by resolution as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate; (2) the House of Representatives by resolution as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives; or (3) the Judicial Conference of the United States by regulation for the judicial branch. (b) Study and Report.--No later than October 1, 1997-- (1) the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall jointly conduct a study and submit a report to Congress on how the offices and committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and all offices and agencies of the legislative branch may achieve compliance with financial management and accounting standards in a manner comparable to the requirements of this title; and (2) the Chief Justice of the United States shall conduct a study and submit a report to Congress on how the judiciary may achieve compliance with financial management and accounting standards in a manner comparable to the requirements of this title. [[Page S10290]] SEC. ____05. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. (a) Reports by Director.--No later than March 31 of each year, the Director shall submit a report to the Congress regarding implementation of this title. The Director may include the report in the financial management status report and the 5-year financial management plan submitted under section 3512(a)(1) of title 31, United States Code. (b) Reports by the Comptroller General.--No later than October 1, 1997, and October 1, of each year thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States shall report to the appropriate committees of the Congress concerning-- (1) compliance with the requirements of section ____03(a) of this title, including whether the financial statements of the Federal Government have been prepared in accordance with applicable accounting standards; and (2) the adequacy of uniform accounting standards for the Federal Government. SEC. ____06. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. (a) Audits by Agencies.--Section 3521(f)(1) of title 31, United States Code, is amended in the first sentence by inserting ``and the Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management'' before the period. (b) Financial Management Status Report.--Section 3512(a)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by-- (1) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon; (2) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (F); and (3) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following: ``(E) a listing of agencies whose financial management systems do not comply substantially with the requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996, the period of time that such agencies have not been in compliance, and a summary statement of the efforts underway to remedy the noncompliance; and''. SEC. ____07. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this title: (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' means a department or agency of the United States Government as defined in section 901(b) of title 31, United States Code. (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. (3) Federal accounting standards.--The term ``Federal accounting standards'' means applicable accounting principles, standards, and requirements consistent with section 902(a)(3)(A) of title 31, United States Code, and includes concept statements with respect to the objectives of Federal financial reporting. (4) Financial management systems.--The term ``financial management systems'' includes the financial systems and the financial portions of mixed systems necessary to support financial management, including automated and manual processes, procedures, controls, data, hardware, software, and support personnel dedicated to the operation and maintenance of system functions. (5) Financial system.--The term ``financial system'' includes an information system, comprised of one or more applications, that is used for-- (A) collecting, processing, maintaining, transmitting, or reporting data about financial events; (B) supporting financial planning or budgeting activities; (C) accumulating and reporting costs information; or (D) supporting the preparation of financial statements. (6) Mixed system.--The term ``mixed system'' means an information system that supports both financial and nonfinancial functions of the Federal Government or components thereof. SEC. ____08. EFFECTIVE DATE. This title shall take effect on October 1, 1996. Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today I offer an amendment that has already passed the Senate as a free-standing bill called the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (S. 1130). This measure brings urgent reforms to Federal financial management and restores accountability to the Government. The Senate should include this measure in the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government appropriations bill because it is our best hope for enacting these important reforms into law this year. There is very little time left in this session and it is of the utmost importance that Congress send this measure to the President before we leave town. However, I strongly encourage efforts currently underway in the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee to pass S. 1130. Chairman Clinger as well as Government Management Subcommittee Chairman Horn are working hard on the bill and I hope they are able to get it through the House of Representatives during these busy weeks. Mr. President, I'll make just a brief statement on financial management reform. Several years ago, in an effort to identify excess spending in the Federal budget, I inquired as to overhead costs in Federal programs. I was advised that the Federal accounting system makes it impossible to identify overhead expenses for most Federal operations. The Federal Government, it turned out, has over 200 separate primary accounting systems, making it impossible to compare something as basic as overhead costs. Worse, many of these systems are shamefully inadequate even on their own terms. The Internal Revenue Service offers another disturbing example of poor financial management and its consequences. The General Accounting Office testified before the Governmental Affairs Committee on June 6, 1996, that despite years of criticism, ``fundamental, persistent problems remain uncorrected'' at the IRS. For example, the IRS cannot substantiate the amounts reported for specific types of taxes collected, such as Social Security taxes, income taxes, and excise taxes. The IRS cannot even verify a significant portion of its own nonpayroll operating expenses, which total $3 billion. One can hardly resist observing that this is the agency that demands precision from every taxpayer in America. The IRS is just a small part of a Government so massive and complex that it controls and directs cash resources of almost $2 trillion per year, issuing 900 million checks and maintaining a payroll and benefits system for over 5 million Government employees. Clearly it is imperative that the Government use a uniform and widely accepted set of accounting standards across the hundreds of agencies and departments that make up this Government. Enactment of this measure into law would be a great step toward putting Federal financial management in order. It requires that all Federal agencies implement and maintain uniform accounting standards. The result will be more accurate and reliable information for program managers and leaders in Congress, meaning better decisions will be made: tax dollars will be put to better use, and a measure of confidence in the Government will be restored. While this is not the kind of legislation that makes headlines, it is of great significance. Its passage would be a major accomplishment for the 104th Congress. Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the amendments I have offered are as follows: One is for Senator Stevens, to provide that the ACIR utilize nonappropriated funds for continued operations; for Senator Inhofe, to strike section 404 of the bill; for Senator McCain, regarding a study of the administratively uncontrollable overtime; for Senator Hollings, to provide certain death benefits to civilian Government employees; for myself and Senator Kerrey, regarding explosive detection training for canines; for myself, naming the new courthouse in Portland, OR; for Senator Brown, regarding Federal financial management improvement. Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendments on this side, and we support all of them. Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered and agreed to, en bloc, and that any accompanying statements be placed at the appropriate place in the Record. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendments (No. 5249 through 5255), en bloc, were agreed to. Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments were agreed to. Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. SHELBY. I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the chairman withhold? Mr. SHELBY. I am glad to withhold. Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may be allowed to offer an amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. SHELBY. Reserving the right to object, I would like to check with Senator Kassebaum on her amendment, and also Senator Wyden, who has been conferring with her, before we do that. Mr. WYDEN. Did the Senator from Alabama ask unanimous consent to lay aside---- Mr. SHELBY. The Senator from Nevada asked unanimous consent. What [[Page S10291]] we would like to know is, where are the Senator and Senator Kassebaum on the amendment? Mr. WYDEN. Senator Kassebaum and I are continuing to discuss these matters. I think it is fair to say, in fact, that Senator Kassebaum indicated that she thought it was appropriate to go on with further business, and we will continue to discuss the matters with respect to the gag rule a bit more. Mr. SHELBY. I have no objection to temporarily setting aside the Kassebaum amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will shortly send the amendment to the desk on my behalf and that of Senator Levin and that of Senator Biden. Mr. President, we have heard a lot in this Chamber about the issue of reimbursing the former employee of the White House Travel Office, Billy Dale, for attorney fees. There have been hours of talk in this Chamber about that issue. Unfortunately, Mr. President, much of what we have heard has been based on emotion and not on facts. In fact, there is very little, if any, factual support for this very costly expenditure of a $0.5 million--$500,000--to reimburse attorneys on the Billy Dale case. The American people, in effect, are being asked to pay for the attorney fees of a person who was lawfully indicted and legitimately prosecuted. Let me repeat: The American people are being asked to pay the attorney fees for a person who was indicted lawfully--no question about that--and who was legitimately prosecuted. Proponents of this taxpayer expenditure contend that Mr. Dale was wrongfully prosecuted. Yet, neither Dale nor these high-powered lawyers who represented him--and still represent him--ever raised any of this in any proceeding or in any case that was before the courts. They didn't move to dismiss his indictment on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct. In fact, when they filed a motion for acquittal, the court, having heard the evidence, denied the motion for acquittal. Why? Because it was the judge's reasonable assessment that sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable person to find Billy Dale guilty of the charges. Mr. Dale and his attorneys also failed to allege wrongdoing against those who investigated him, and there is no evidence to support that there was any wrongdoing by the people who did the investigation. The watchdog of Congress, the General Accounting Office, reviewed the case and determined that the FBI and the IRS action taken during the period surrounding the removal of the Travel Office employees were reasonable and consistent with the Agencies' normal procedures. Mr. President, a review by the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Justice Department concluded that there was no wrongdoing on the part of any FBI employees regarding the Travel Office matter. Mr. President, I want to say that I believe that the chairman of this subcommittee and the ranking member, the junior Senators from Alabama and Nebraska, have brought a good bill before this body. There are scores of amendments that have been filed. I would bet that a number of them are not germane. Certainly this one is, and I felt there is language in this bill that relates to this issue where this bill would pay, in effect, Mr. Dale's attorneys $500,000, and that this should be something that should be discussed. This should be an issue that is debated, and I do that under the recognition that I think the two managers of this legislation have done a good job. But let me repeat regarding these attorney fees that there is no evidence to support that Mr. Dale--as Mr. Dale and his attorneys did raise--there is nothing to support that there was any wrongdoing in this investigation. I repeat: The General Accounting Office reviewed this matter and determined that the FBI and the IRS did nothing wrong regarding the procedures in the Travel Office. They were reasonable and consistent with the Agencies' normal procedures and practices. A review by the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Justice Department concluded that there was no wrongdoing on part of any FBI employee regarding the Travel Office matter, and it is clear that all the people who investigated this case were there long before this administration took office. Notwithstanding this, the American taxpayers have been asked to pay almost $0.5 million to Dale's attorneys. This is clearly a private relief bill. If this had been in the form of an amendment, our rules would have allowed us to raise a point of order, and this procedure could have been knocked out. But in that the committee and the subcommittee had, in effect, amended the House bill, we have nothing to raise a point of order on. As a result of that, this is the only alternative we have. We are being asked as a body to grant this relief absent any hearing or committee report on this subject. The matter should be subject to the ordinary procedures for private relief bills provided under Senate rule XIV. That is why I am offering this amendment, along with Senators Levin and Biden, that comports with the procedures set out in rule XIV. The amendment that will shortly be offered refers the reimbursement of Mr. Dale's attorney fees to the Federal Court of Claims. Mr. President, the Federal Court of Claims is a body in which the judges are appointed for a period of 15 years. This is a body that has been in existence for over 100 years. It has decided exactly the type of issue presented in the Billy Dale matter on hundreds and hundreds of cases. This court has special jurisdiction for cases involving claims against the Federal Government. As I have indicated, it is made up of approximately 15 judges. These are referred to as article 1 judges because they serve for a time certain, and these people are appointed by the President of the United States for these 15-year terms. They handle primarily contractual claims, fifth amendment claims, and certain Indian claims. Over the past century, Congress has referred thousands of cases to the court. The court reviews these cases under specific statutory authority and procedures set out in claims cases under the United States. Initially, the case is referred to a chief judge who designates another judge. In fact, they usually have three people that hear these cases, and these three judges become the reviewing body. The bottom line is this panel has the most expertise that we have in America to handle this kind of case. I think this is something we would want to do to avoid the bitter political acrimony that has taken place on this floor in the past regarding this matter. It would seem that we should refer it to the body separate and apart from the policy involved. If in fact this amendment carries, it is up to the Court of Claims to determine the extent to which Mr. Dale has a legal and equitable remedy in this matter and whether or not the taxpayers should pay him money. Now, I think justice and equity weighs against Mr. Dale, but let the Court of Claims determine that. This amendment is the least we can do for the American taxpayer. Half a million dollars may be pocket change for some and maybe even Mr. Dale's attorneys, but it is not to the American public. It is a lot of money to the American public. Facts do not support such a controversial expenditure on behalf of someone who has been indicted for embezzlement and offered to plead guilty. Here is what we are being asked to do. We are being asked to pay $500,000 in attorney's fees for someone who admitted his guilt, basically, according to his attorney. Here is what his attorneys wrote to the U.S. attorney: Mr. Dale will enter a plea of guilty to a single count of 18 U.S.C. section 654. He will acknowledge that he intentionally placed Travel Office funds in his personal checking account without authorization. Here is what he, Mr. President, has agreed to plead guilty to. This is the statute. Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, embezzles or wrongly converts to his own use the money or property of another which comes into his possession or under his control in the execution of such office or employment, or under color or claim of authority as such officer or employee, shall be fined under this title . . . the value of the money and property thus embezzled . . . or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. It seems somewhat unique to me that someone who, in writing, agreed to [[Page S10292]] plead guilty, could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison, fined the amount of money he stole, is now coming before the Congress of the United States and saying pay my attorney's fees. Why? Because he was acquitted. Mr. President, I am a trial lawyer. Before I came here, I tried a lot of cases. I did criminal work. I believe in our system of justice. The vast majority of times trial by jury works out right. The right decision is not always reached, but most of the time it is. The vast majority of the time the right decision is reached. A lot of times the jury does not arrive at the right result, but they arrive at a result. Sometimes they do not, as we know it appears to a lot of us in the O.J. Simpson case or the Menendez brothers. The juries do not always do the right thing, but most of the time they do. This is an instance clearly when they did not do the right thing. Now, the facts do not support such a controversial expenditure on behalf of someone who is indicted for embezzlement and offered to plead guilty to a felony. This issue is not about the firing of the Travel Office emp

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
(Senate - September 11, 1996)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S10285-S10321] TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997 The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. Amendment No. 5224, As Modified Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, it is my understanding we will each use about 5 minutes, and then I think the two leaders want to propose a unanimous-consent request after that. So if we can proceed on that basis, would that be satisfactory with my colleague? Mr. THOMAS. That is fine. Mr. GLENN. I ask unanimous consent that we have 5 minutes on a side to wrap this up, and then we will probably go to a vote after that. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I want to respond briefly to the comments my colleague made a moment ago. This is a broad act. He said the Economy Act of 1982 is really not working and that is one reason we are putting this in. I don't like putting other legislation that might not work on top of legislation he says is already not working. Let's make work the legislation that is in law now. I am all for that. Basically, it does what we are proposing here. In fact, I have a copy of that Economy Act of 1982 here, and one of the things provided under section 1335 under ``agency agreements,'' part 4 of paragraph (A) says: ``The head of the agency decides ordered goods or services cannot be provided as conveniently or cheaply by a commercial enterprise already required.'' I agree that should be lived up to. So then we come in with the legislation that my colleague and friend, Senator Thomas, says is not as broad as I am interpreting it to be, and yet the words in it say that ``except as provided in subsection (B)''--which I will get to in a moment--``none of the funds appropriated under any other act may be used by OMB or any other agency to publish, promulgate or enforce any policy, regulation, circular or any rule or authority in any other form that would permit any Federal agency to provide a commercially available property or service to any other Department of Government unless the policy, regulation, circular or other rule meets the requirements in subsection (B).'' Subsection (B) says 120 days after this OMB will prescribe regulations as required, subject to the following, which shall include the following: A requirement for comparison between the costs of providing the property or service concerned through the agency concerned and the cost of providing such property or service through the private sector. That is a mammoth requirement for any law or regulation to come out under. The (B) part of that, which is the last part, is a requirement for cost and performance benchmarks relating to the property or service provided relative to comparable services provided by other Government agencies and contractors permitting the oversight of this--and so on-- agency concerned with the Office of Management and Budget. That is a very, very broad-reaching, extremely broad-reaching, amendment. I would say it is true, it is already covered under the Economy Act of 1982, as I quoted just a moment ago, and the best thing I would advise is we bring this to the attention of Mr. Koskinen, who is going to appear before the committee next week, that we ask his opinion about how broad-gauged this is and why he is not already enforcing the Economy Act of 1982. That is the way to proceed, as I see it, in good Government, not just to automatically pass something that does the same thing that is not being adhered to in earlier legislation. Mr. President, I suggest we have that as our method of procedure. I am all for efficiency in Government, but I am not just for passing one law and covering up deficiencies in carrying out a law that is already on the books and should be adhered to. [[Page S10286]] I reserve the remainder of my time. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think for the interest of Senators, as I understand it, we are about to have a vote. Does the Senator from Wyoming know approximately what length of additional time he will need to complete his remarks? Mr. THOMAS. I believe I probably have about 2 minutes, and Senator Glenn has 1\1/2\ minutes. So I would guess less than 5 minutes. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, assuming that is agreeable to the majority leader, to have the vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming no later than 6:20. Mr. THOMAS. It is fine with me. Mr. GLENN. That will be fine. Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if that request was not made, I enter that request now. I ask unanimous consent that we have that vote not later than 6:20, and before if all time is yielded back. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has 2 minutes 5 seconds remaining. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would agree with the Senator if what he is saying were the case, and I think it is not. We have indicated that the statute requires under the Efficiency Act what we are asking here: that there be this effort to communicate in the private sector and measure that cost. The problem is this one right here. This is March 1996, called the ``Revised Supplemental Handbook, Performance of Commercial Activities, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget.'' It says: The cost comparison requirements of this supplemental handbook will not apply to existing or renewed ISSA's or the consolidation of commercial services. So it is not just a function of the law not being lived up to but, in fact, is a change that has been put in place by OMB. So that is what we are seeking to do. We are not seeking to change the law. We are not seeking to change the basic operation of this statute, but we are saying that there are changes made by Executive order which remove that requirement that those activities that are being carried on by one agency for another, not the activities for themselves, one agency for another, that the requirement continue to exist as it has in the past, that we see if there are commercial activities available at a lesser, more efficient cost. This is simply an effort to put back in place the requirement that has been in place for a very long time, that for the activities that are acquired from another agency within Government, that there be an effort to determine if it can be done more cheaply, more efficiently in the private sector. This is not a new idea. This is an idea that now exists in law but has been taken out of the law by OMB. This would put it back. It is not broad. I hope very much that the Senator from Ohio, and his committee, will take a look at this whole broad thing. But in the meantime, I think we need to return where we were so that private industry can be part of this idea. We have used it for a very long time. It has to do with being more efficient. It has to do with good Government. It has to do with strengthening the private sector. I certainly urge my colleagues to vote aye. 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. GLENN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio. Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time, and assume my colleague does. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator McConnell as a cosponsor to amendment No. 5232. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The question occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 5224, as modified, offered by the Senator from Wyoming. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth] is necessarily absent. Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is absent because of family illness. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 285 Leg.] YEAS--59 Abraham Ashcroft Baucus Bennett Biden Bond Bradley Breaux Brown Burns Campbell Chafee Coats Cochran Cohen Coverdell Craig D'Amato DeWine Domenici Faircloth Feinstein Frahm Frist Gorton Graham Gramm Grams Grassley Gregg Hatch Hatfield Helms Hutchison Inhofe Jeffords Kassebaum Kempthorne Kohl Kyl Lott Lugar Mack McCain McConnell Murkowski Nickles Pressler Santorum Shelby Simpson Smith Snowe Specter Stevens Thomas Thompson Thurmond Warner NAYS--39 Akaka Bingaman Boxer Bryan Bumpers Byrd Conrad Daschle Dodd Dorgan Exon Feingold Ford Glenn Harkin Heflin Hollings Inouye Johnston Kennedy Kerrey Kerry Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lieberman Mikulski Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murray Nunn Pell Reid Robb Rockefeller Sarbanes Simon Wellstone Wyden NOT VOTING--2 Pryor Roth The amendment (No. 5224), as modified, was agreed to. Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY. I ask unanimous consent that the pending committee amendments be temporarily laid aside. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendments Nos. 5249 through Amendment No. 5255, En Bloc Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I send a group of amendments, en bloc, to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] proposes amendments, en bloc, numbered 5249 through amendment No. 5255. Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendments are as follows: AMENDMENT NO. 5249 (Purpose: To provide for the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs to continue operations) Page 93 after line 19 insert the following new section: Sec. . Notwithstanding the provision under the heading ``Advisory Commission on intergovernmental relations'' under title IV of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104-52; 109 Stat. 480), the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations may continue in existence during fiscal year 1997 and each fiscal year thereafter. ____ AMENDMENT NO. 5250 (Purpose: To strike section 404) On page 60, line 19 strike all through line 21. ____ AMENDMENT NO. 5251 (Purpose: To provide for an audit by Inspector Generals of administratively uncontrollable overtime practices, to revise guidelines for such practices, and for other purposes) At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following new section: [[Page S10287]] Sec. . (a) No later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of each Federal department or agency that uses administratively uncontrollable overtime in the pay of any employee shall-- (1) conduct an audit on the use of administratively uncontrollable overtime by employees of such department or agency, which shall include-- (A) an examination of the policies, extent, costs, and other relevant aspects of the use of administratively uncontrollable overtime at the department or agency; and (B) a determination of whether the eligibility criteria of the department or agency and payment of administratively uncontrollable overtime comply with Federal statutory and regulatory requirements; and (2) submit a report of the findings and conclusions of such audit to-- (A) the Office of Personnel Management; (B) the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Senate; and (C) the Government Reform and Oversight Committee of the House of Representatives. (b) No later than 30 days after the submission of the report under subsection (a), the Office of Personnel Management shall issue revised guidelines to all Federal departments and agencies that-- (1) limit the use of administratively uncontrollable overtime to employees meeting the statutory intent of section 5545(c)(2) of title 5, United States Code; and (2) expressly prohibit the use of administratively uncontrollable overtime for-- (A) customary or routine work duties; and (B) work duties that are primarily administrative in nature, or occur in noncompelling circumstances. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment will address the abuses of Administratively Uncontrolled Overtime--AUO--throughout the Federal Government. The costs to taxpayers of AUO misuse, estimated at $323 million at a single Federal agency since 1990, are significant. With improper oversight, AUO is likely to be costing the Treasury tens of millions of dollars a year. This amendment will empower the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] to stop these abuses. First, it directs the Inspector General [IG] of each agency that utilizes AUO to audit its use and cost. The findings of these audits must be reported to the Congress and the Office of Personnel Management within 45 days. Second, OPM shall review these IG audits, and issue revised guidelines to the respective agencies to limit the use of AUO to its statutory intent. These strengthened guidelines shall prohibit the use of AUO for routine or inappropriate work duties. The amendment directs OPM to issue these new guidelines, to prevent the ongoing misuse of AUO, within 30 days of receiving the Inspector General audits. For my colleagues who, like myself, have not been acutely aware of the details and minutiae of Federal overtime policies, let me briefly describe AUO and how it can readily be fixed on behalf of taxpayers in this appropriations bill. ``Administratively Uncontrolled Overtime'' was authorized by Congress to pay overtime to law enforcement officers for vital investigative duties that require them to work irregular and unscheduled hours-- pursuing suspects, undercover work, special investigative operations, et cetera. That makes sense. Agency regulations stipulate that AUO should be reserved for work duties that are ``compelling'' and where it would be negligent for officers to stop their enforcement actions. What has been going on, however, for too many of the 6,300 employees receiving AUO, is that it has turned into a unjustified salary and retirement supplement for the most routine work duties imaginable. And that makes no sense whatsoever for taxpayers. I'd like to describe the abuses of AUO that occurred in a single Federal agency in my State, as revealed by a selfless Federal employee who stood much to lose by uncovering this waste. One Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] officer in Arizona reported that every single officer and supervisor at his facility was receiving the maximum AUO possible, despite the fact that ``In two years . . . not one legitimately qualifying AUO hour has been worked in my department.'' Mr. President, somehow those duties don't sound like ``hot pursuit'' to me. They certainly are necessary, but they do not meet the statutory criteria for AUO. This is not an isolated problem of mere local concern. Both the Inspector General and the INS's top policymakers have recognized this ongoing abuse of AUO. The INS investigated the use of AUO at a detention facility in Arizona and found that: ``None of the work performed [in Florence] met the criteria for AUO, because the overtime hours could be administratively controlled.'' The Inspector General at the Department of Justice then further investigated this INS facility, and the IG's findings provide the perfect rationale for this amendment. The IG stated that ``[W]e encountered no information [at the INS detention center] to demonstrate efforts to follow up on or implement'' the INS's own recommendations. The IG recommended that ``The issue of AUO needs to be systematically addressed.'' That is exactly what this amendment would accomplish. I would like to add that ``Citizens Against Government Waste'' have endorsed this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that some accompanying material be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Washington Post, Sept. 11, 1996] INS Accused of Tolerating Citizenship Testing Fraud (By William Branigin) The Immigration and Naturalization Service came under fire yesterday from congressional Republicans over allegations of fraud in the testing of new citizenship applicants and the payment of millions of dollars in overtime to federal law enforcement officers. In a hearing of the House Government Reform and Oversight subcommittee on national security Republican members assailed what they described as a ``controversial Clinton administration program,'' called Citizenship USA, that has streamlined naturalization procedures and helped produce record numbers of new citizens this year. Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-Ind.) charged that a program in which the INS licenses private organizations to test applicants on U.S. civics and English proficiency has led to ``serious instances of testing fraud in the citizenship process.'' He said the INS ``has done a very poor job of * * * cracking down on testing fraud'' and suggested that the Clinton administration is pushing naturalization as part of a plan to enlist large numbers of new Democratic voters in time for the November elections. T. Alexander Aleinikoff, executive associate commissioner of the INS for programs, rejected those charges. He said the agency has tightened monitoring of the privatized testing, which began under the previous Republican administration, and defended the Citizenship USA program as a needed response to an upsurge of applicants that threatened to overwhelm the naturalization system. While Republicans see politics behind the processing of this year's record 1 million-plus citizenship applicants, administration officials regard the subcommittee's investigation itself as politically motivated. Among the witnesses at yesterday's hearing was Jewell Elghazali, who formerly worked in Dallas for Naturalization Assistance Services, Inc., one of six entities authorized by INS to test immigrants on civics and English as part of the naturalization process. ``There is a lot of fraud going on'' in the programs, she testified. When she alerted a superior in the company to indications of cheating on tests administered by affiliates, she was fired, she said. Elghazali said that in grading tests during her five months at the firm, she found numerous cases in which the written answers of different applicants were in the same handwriting and responses to multi-choice questions--including wrong answers--were identical. She said that in many cases, applicants who had passed the test could not speak English when they called to inquire about the results. Some Spanish speakers became irate when there was no one in the office who could respond to them in their native language, she said. Paul W. Roberts, the chief executive officer of Naturalization Assistance Services, told the subcommittee that the firm has ``acted swiftly to revoke all licensees discovered engaging in improprieties.'' He said the for- profit company has shut down 43 of its test sites as a result of its own monitoring and argued that, in any case, passing the standardized test does not automatically guarantee citizenship for an applicant, who must still pass an interview with an INS examiner. INS Commissioner Doris M. Meissner acknowledged that ``there have been problems'' with the company, which has been warned that it faces suspension unless cleared by an INS review. ``If we need to suspend them, we will,'' she said. But she insisted that ``there is no validity to the notion that people are becoming citizens today who would not have 10 years ago'' because of a lowering of standards. She said citizenship requirements have remained unchanged. In a separate news conference yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called for a congressional investigation into alleged abuses [[Page S10288]] by the INS and other government agencies of a type of overtime pay. He cited a report by a watchdog group, Citizens Against Government Waste, that the INS has spent $323 million on ``administratively uncontrollable overtime'' since 1990, much of it in violation of regulations. The overtime pay, amounting to as much as 25 percent of many employees' salaries, has become an ``entitlement program'' that wastes tens of millions of dollars a year, the watchdog group charged. While the overtime is supposed to compensate law enforcement officers for working long hours on investigations or surveillance, it has been used routinely to pay for mundane duties such as delivering mail, guarding prisoners during meal times and substituting for absent employees, the citizens group charged. Besides the INS, ``administratively uncontrollable overtime'' has been used in the departments of justice, defense, interior and agriculture, the group said. Meissner said that in principle, the overtime category ``is a very good deal for the taxpayers.'' But she conceded that there has been a tendency to misuse it as ``an ongoing bonus'' and vowed renewed efforts to ensure it is properly managed. ____ [From the Tribune, Sept. 2, 1996] INS To Review Overtime Policies After Charges of Abuse (By the Associated Press) FLORENCE.--The Immigration and Naturalization Service will review its policies for filing overtime after government and civic groups showed it improperly spent millions of dollars on overtime. The agency's decision followed criticism by U.S. Sen. John McCain and a citizens watchdog group, which released a report last week estimating that the INS office here spent $60 million on overtime last year alone. The extra payments allow officers to pad their pensions and up their salaries by as much as 25 percent, according to the Citizens Against Government Waste. At issue is special pay called Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO). The fund was created to compensate federal officers for duties that require irregular hours, such as surveillance or undercover work. Federal rules say such overtime can be used only for ``uncontrollable'' overtime--work that can't be regulated or routinely scheduled by supervisors. According to government reports, the INS managers in Florence are using the fund for day-to-day duties, such as delivering mail, guarding prisoners during meals, going to court and filling in for absent employees. Documents obtained by The Arizona Republic show a 1995 INS probe and another in April 1996 by the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General concluded the practice being abused. ``None of the work performed in Florence met the criteria for AUO because the overtime hours could be administratively controlled,'' the 1995 INS report said. Virginia Kice, spokeswoman for the INS Western Region, said the agency is aware of the concerns and is conducting a review of the policy. ``We want to be sure that whatever we do is not only appropriate, that it's prudent, it's responsible and it won't have a negative impact on our enforcement operation,'' she said. According to John Raidt, McCain's legislative director, such abuse is likely rampant in government agencies. The special overtime is available for employees of at least four agencies: the Justice Department, which includes INS; the Defense Department; the Department of Interior; and the Department of Agriculture. McCain plans to amend a Senate appropriations bill to place tighter restrictions on such overtime and will ask for hearings this fall before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Raidt said. Critics say INS supervisors have an incentive to keep paying the special overtime. If managers supervise employees who qualify for the extra pay, then the managers also qualify for the money, according to federal guidelines. ____ Amendment No. 5252 At the appropriate place, insert the following: Sec. . Notwithstanding section 8116 of title 5, United States Code, and in addition to any payment made under 5 U.S.C. 8101 et seq., beginning in fiscal year 1997 and thereafter, the head of any department or agency is authorized to pay from appropriations made available to the department or agency a death gratuity to the personal representative (as that term is defined by applicable law) of a civilian employee of that department or agency whose death resulted from an injury sustained in the line of duty on or after August 2, 1990: Provided, That payments made pursuant to this section, in combination with the payments made pursuant to sections 8133(f) and 8134(a) of such title 5 and section 312 of Public Law 103-332 (108 Stat. 2537), may not exceed a total of $10,000 per employee. Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, my amendment is quite simple. It increases the reimbursement for funeral and burial costs and specific related expenses to $10,000 for Federal civilian employees who die as result of injuries sustained in the performance of duty. This amendment would apply to the dedicated civil servants who were tragically killed in the line of duty while accompanying Commerce Secretary Ron Brown on his trade mission to Bosnia and Croatia. And it would apply to the survivors of those Federal civilian employees who died during the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Under current law, Federal civilian employees who die in the performance of duty receive only a $1,000 reimbursement for funeral and burial costs, and related expenses. This amount was set in 1960, and it has not been adjusted since that time. This is not the case for military personnel. In 1990, at the beginning of the gulf war, Congress increased death-related benefits for the survivors of the military personnel killed in the line of duty. Military survivors are currently provided slightly more than $10,000 for funeral and burial costs. My amendment recognizes that civilian employees are no less dedicated and they are all too often called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice in the service of the United States. Further, I should note that this amendment does not require additional appropriations. It provides the discretion to agency heads to pay these increased benefits from existing appropriations. Mr. President, in short, this amendment provides for equity and updates current law. This is a good amendment that I believe all my colleagues should support. I urge its adoption. amendment no. 5253 (Purpose: To provide for training of explosive detection canines) At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following new section: SEC. . EXPLOSIVES DETECTION CANINE PROGRAM. (a) Authorization.-- (1) The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to establish scientific certification standards for explosives detection canines, and shall provide, on a reimbursable basis, for the certification of explosives detection canines employed by federal agencies, or other agencies providing explosives detection services at airports in the United States. (2) The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish an explosives detection canine training program for the training of canines for explosives detection at airports in the United States. (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this section. ____ AMENDMENT NO. 5254 At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following: SEC. . DESIGNATION OF MARK O. HATFIELD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE. The United States Courthouse under construction at 1030 Southwest 3d Avenue in Portland, Oregon, shall be known and designated as the ``Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse''. SEC. 2. REFERENCES. Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse''. SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section shall take effect on January 2, 1997. ____ amendment No. 5255 (Purpose: To provide for the establishment of uniform accounting systems, standards, and reporting systems in the Federal Government, and for other purposes) At the end of the bill, add the following new title: TITLE ____--FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the ``Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996''. SEC. ____02. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following: (1) Much effort has been devoted to strengthening Federal internal accounting controls in the past. Although progress has been made in recent years, Federal accounting standards have not been uniformly implemented in financial management systems for agencies. (2) Federal financial management continues to be seriously deficient, and Federal financial management and fiscal practices have failed to-- (A) identify costs fully; (B) reflect the total liabilities of congressional actions; and (C) accurately report the financial condition of the Federal Government. (3) Current Federal accounting practices do not accurately report financial results of the Federal Government or the full costs of programs and activities. The continued use of [[Page S10289]] these practices undermines the Government's ability to provide credible and reliable financial data and encourages already widespread Government waste, and will not assist in achieving a balanced budget. (4) Waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government undermine the confidence of the American people in the Government and reduce the Federal Government's ability to address vital public needs adequately. (5) To rebuild the accountability and credibility of the Federal Government, and restore public confidence in the Federal Government, agencies must incorporate accounting standards and reporting objectives established for the Federal Government into their financial management systems so that all the assets and liabilities, revenues, and expenditures or expenses, and the full costs of programs and activities of the Federal Government can be consistently and accurately recorded, monitored, and uniformly reported throughout the Federal Government. (6) Since its establishment in October 1990, the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (hereinafter referred to as the ``FASAB'') has made substantial progress toward developing and recommending a comprehensive set of accounting concepts and standards for the Federal Government. When the accounting concepts and standards developed by FASAB are incorporated into Federal financial management systems, agencies will be able to provide cost and financial information that will assist the Congress and financial managers to evaluate the cost and performance of Federal programs and activities, and will therefore provide important information that has been lacking, but is needed for improved decisionmaking by financial managers and the Congress. (7) The development of financial management systems with the capacity to support these standards and concepts will, over the long term, improve Federal financial management. (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are to-- (1) provide for consistency of accounting by an agency from one fiscal year to the next, and uniform accounting standards throughout the Federal Government; (2) require Federal financial management systems to support full disclosure of Federal financial data, including the full costs of Federal programs and activities, to the citizens, the Congress, the President, and agency management, so that programs and activities can be considered based on their full costs and merits; (3) increase the accountability and credibility of Federal financial management; (4) improve performance, productivity and efficiency of Federal Government financial management; (5) establish financial management systems to support controlling the cost of Federal Government; (6) build upon and complement the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-576; 104 Stat. 2838), the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-62; 107 Stat. 285), and the Government Management Reform Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-356; 108 Stat. 3410); and (7) increase the capability of agencies to monitor execution of the budget by more readily permitting reports that compare spending of resources to results of activities. SEC. ____03. IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS. (a) In General.--Each agency shall implement and maintain financial management systems that comply with Federal financial management systems requirements, applicable Federal accounting standards, and the United States Government Standard General Ledger at the transaction level. (b) Priority.--Each agency shall give priority in funding and provide sufficient resources to implement this title. (c) Audit Compliance Finding.-- (1) In general.--Each audit required by section 3521(e) of title 31, United States Code, shall report whether the agency financial management systems comply with the requirements of subsection (a). (2) Content of reports.--When the person performing the audit required by section 3521(e) of title 31, United States Code, reports that the agency financial management systems do not comply with the requirements of subsection (a), the person performing the audit shall include in the report on the audit-- (A) the name and position of any officer or employee responsible for the financial management systems that have been found not to comply with the requirements of subsection (a); (B) all facts pertaining to the failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (a), including-- (i) the nature and extent of the noncompliance; (ii) the primary reason or cause of the noncompliance; (iii) any official responsible for the noncompliance; and (iv) any relevant comments from any responsible officer or employee; and (C) a statement with respect to the recommended remedial actions and the timeframes to implement such actions. (d) Compliance Determination.-- (1) In general.--No later than the date described under paragraph (2), the Director, acting through the Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management, shall determine whether the financial management systems of an agency comply with the requirements of subsection (a). Such determination shall be based on-- (A) a review of the report on the applicable agency-wide audited financial statement; (B) the agency comments on such report; and (C) any other information the Director considers relevant and appropriate. (2) Date of determination.--The determination under paragraph (1) shall be made no later than 90 days after the earlier of-- (A) the date of the receipt of an agency-wide audited financial statement; or (B) the last day of the fiscal year following the year covered by such statement. (e) Compliance Implementation.-- (1) In general.--If the Director determines that the financial management systems of an agency do not comply with the requirements of subsection (a), the head of the agency, in consultation with the Director, shall establish a remediation plan that shall include the resources, remedies, and intermediate target dates necessary to bring the agency's financial management systems into compliance. (2) Time period for compliance.--A remediation plan shall bring the agency's financial management systems into compliance no later than 2 years after the date on which the Director makes a determination under paragraph (1), unless the agency, with concurrence of the Director-- (A) determines that the agency's financial management systems are so deficient as to preclude compliance with the requirements of subsection (a) within 2 years; (B) specifies the most feasible date for bringing the agency's financial management systems into compliance with the requirements of subsection (a); and (C) designates an official of the agency who shall be responsible for bringing the agency's financial management systems into compliance with the requirements of subsection (a) by the date specified under subparagraph (B). (3) Transfer of funds for certain improvements.--For an agency that has established a remediation plan under paragraph (2), the head of the agency, to the extent provided in an appropriation and with the concurrence of the Director, may transfer not to exceed 2 percent of available agency appropriations to be merged with and to be available for the same period of time as the appropriation or fund to which transferred, for priority financial management system improvements. Such authority shall be used only for priority financial management system improvements as identified by the head of the agency, with the concurrence of the Director, and in no case for an item for which Congress has denied funds. The head of the agency shall notify Congress 30 days before such a transfer is made pursuant to such authority. (4) Report if noncompliance within time period.--If an agency fails to bring its financial management systems into compliance within the time period specified under paragraph (2), the Director shall submit a report of such failure to the Committees on Governmental Affairs and Appropriations of the Senate and the Committees on Government Reform and Oversight and Appropriations of the House of Representatives. The report shall include-- (A) the name and position of any officer or employee responsible for the financial management systems that have been found not to comply with the requirements of subsection (a); (B) the facts pertaining to the failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (a), including the nature and extent of the noncompliance, the primary reason or cause for the failure to comply, and any extenuating circumstances; (C) a statement of the remedial actions needed; and (D) a statement of any administrative action to be taken with respect to any responsible officer or employee. (f) Personal Responsibility.--Any financial officer or program manager who knowingly and willfully commits, permits, or authorizes material deviation from the requirements of subsection (a) may be subject to administrative disciplinary action, suspension from duty, or removal from office. SEC. ____04. APPLICATION TO CONGRESS AND THE JUDICIAL BRANCH. (a) In General.--The Federal financial management requirements of this title may be adopted by-- (1) the Senate by resolution as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate; (2) the House of Representatives by resolution as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives; or (3) the Judicial Conference of the United States by regulation for the judicial branch. (b) Study and Report.--No later than October 1, 1997-- (1) the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall jointly conduct a study and submit a report to Congress on how the offices and committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and all offices and agencies of the legislative branch may achieve compliance with financial management and accounting standards in a manner comparable to the requirements of this title; and (2) the Chief Justice of the United States shall conduct a study and submit a report to Congress on how the judiciary may achieve compliance with financial management and accounting standards in a manner comparable to the requirements of this title. [[Page S10290]] SEC. ____05. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. (a) Reports by Director.--No later than March 31 of each year, the Director shall submit a report to the Congress regarding implementation of this title. The Director may include the report in the financial management status report and the 5-year financial management plan submitted under section 3512(a)(1) of title 31, United States Code. (b) Reports by the Comptroller General.--No later than October 1, 1997, and October 1, of each year thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States shall report to the appropriate committees of the Congress concerning-- (1) compliance with the requirements of section ____03(a) of this title, including whether the financial statements of the Federal Government have been prepared in accordance with applicable accounting standards; and (2) the adequacy of uniform accounting standards for the Federal Government. SEC. ____06. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. (a) Audits by Agencies.--Section 3521(f)(1) of title 31, United States Code, is amended in the first sentence by inserting ``and the Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management'' before the period. (b) Financial Management Status Report.--Section 3512(a)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by-- (1) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon; (2) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (F); and (3) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following: ``(E) a listing of agencies whose financial management systems do not comply substantially with the requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996, the period of time that such agencies have not been in compliance, and a summary statement of the efforts underway to remedy the noncompliance; and''. SEC. ____07. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this title: (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' means a department or agency of the United States Government as defined in section 901(b) of title 31, United States Code. (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. (3) Federal accounting standards.--The term ``Federal accounting standards'' means applicable accounting principles, standards, and requirements consistent with section 902(a)(3)(A) of title 31, United States Code, and includes concept statements with respect to the objectives of Federal financial reporting. (4) Financial management systems.--The term ``financial management systems'' includes the financial systems and the financial portions of mixed systems necessary to support financial management, including automated and manual processes, procedures, controls, data, hardware, software, and support personnel dedicated to the operation and maintenance of system functions. (5) Financial system.--The term ``financial system'' includes an information system, comprised of one or more applications, that is used for-- (A) collecting, processing, maintaining, transmitting, or reporting data about financial events; (B) supporting financial planning or budgeting activities; (C) accumulating and reporting costs information; or (D) supporting the preparation of financial statements. (6) Mixed system.--The term ``mixed system'' means an information system that supports both financial and nonfinancial functions of the Federal Government or components thereof. SEC. ____08. EFFECTIVE DATE. This title shall take effect on October 1, 1996. Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today I offer an amendment that has already passed the Senate as a free-standing bill called the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (S. 1130). This measure brings urgent reforms to Federal financial management and restores accountability to the Government. The Senate should include this measure in the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government appropriations bill because it is our best hope for enacting these important reforms into law this year. There is very little time left in this session and it is of the utmost importance that Congress send this measure to the President before we leave town. However, I strongly encourage efforts currently underway in the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee to pass S. 1130. Chairman Clinger as well as Government Management Subcommittee Chairman Horn are working hard on the bill and I hope they are able to get it through the House of Representatives during these busy weeks. Mr. President, I'll make just a brief statement on financial management reform. Several years ago, in an effort to identify excess spending in the Federal budget, I inquired as to overhead costs in Federal programs. I was advised that the Federal accounting system makes it impossible to identify overhead expenses for most Federal operations. The Federal Government, it turned out, has over 200 separate primary accounting systems, making it impossible to compare something as basic as overhead costs. Worse, many of these systems are shamefully inadequate even on their own terms. The Internal Revenue Service offers another disturbing example of poor financial management and its consequences. The General Accounting Office testified before the Governmental Affairs Committee on June 6, 1996, that despite years of criticism, ``fundamental, persistent problems remain uncorrected'' at the IRS. For example, the IRS cannot substantiate the amounts reported for specific types of taxes collected, such as Social Security taxes, income taxes, and excise taxes. The IRS cannot even verify a significant portion of its own nonpayroll operating expenses, which total $3 billion. One can hardly resist observing that this is the agency that demands precision from every taxpayer in America. The IRS is just a small part of a Government so massive and complex that it controls and directs cash resources of almost $2 trillion per year, issuing 900 million checks and maintaining a payroll and benefits system for over 5 million Government employees. Clearly it is imperative that the Government use a uniform and widely accepted set of accounting standards across the hundreds of agencies and departments that make up this Government. Enactment of this measure into law would be a great step toward putting Federal financial management in order. It requires that all Federal agencies implement and maintain uniform accounting standards. The result will be more accurate and reliable information for program managers and leaders in Congress, meaning better decisions will be made: tax dollars will be put to better use, and a measure of confidence in the Government will be restored. While this is not the kind of legislation that makes headlines, it is of great significance. Its passage would be a major accomplishment for the 104th Congress. Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the amendments I have offered are as follows: One is for Senator Stevens, to provide that the ACIR utilize nonappropriated funds for continued operations; for Senator Inhofe, to strike section 404 of the bill; for Senator McCain, regarding a study of the administratively uncontrollable overtime; for Senator Hollings, to provide certain death benefits to civilian Government employees; for myself and Senator Kerrey, regarding explosive detection training for canines; for myself, naming the new courthouse in Portland, OR; for Senator Brown, regarding Federal financial management improvement. Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendments on this side, and we support all of them. Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered and agreed to, en bloc, and that any accompanying statements be placed at the appropriate place in the Record. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendments (No. 5249 through 5255), en bloc, were agreed to. Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments were agreed to. Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. SHELBY. I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the chairman withhold? Mr. SHELBY. I am glad to withhold. Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may be allowed to offer an amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. SHELBY. Reserving the right to object, I would like to check with Senator Kassebaum on her amendment, and also Senator Wyden, who has been conferring with her, before we do that. Mr. WYDEN. Did the Senator from Alabama ask unanimous consent to lay aside---- Mr. SHELBY. The Senator from Nevada asked unanimous consent. What [[Page S10291]] we would like to know is, where are the Senator and Senator Kassebaum on the amendment? Mr. WYDEN. Senator Kassebaum and I are continuing to discuss these matters. I think it is fair to say, in fact, that Senator Kassebaum indicated that she thought it was appropriate to go on with further business, and we will continue to discuss the matters with respect to the gag rule a bit more. Mr. SHELBY. I have no objection to temporarily setting aside the Kassebaum amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will shortly send the amendment to the desk on my behalf and that of Senator Levin and that of Senator Biden. Mr. President, we have heard a lot in this Chamber about the issue of reimbursing the former employee of the White House Travel Office, Billy Dale, for attorney fees. There have been hours of talk in this Chamber about that issue. Unfortunately, Mr. President, much of what we have heard has been based on emotion and not on facts. In fact, there is very little, if any, factual support for this very costly expenditure of a $0.5 million--$500,000--to reimburse attorneys on the Billy Dale case. The American people, in effect, are being asked to pay for the attorney fees of a person who was lawfully indicted and legitimately prosecuted. Let me repeat: The American people are being asked to pay the attorney fees for a person who was indicted lawfully--no question about that--and who was legitimately prosecuted. Proponents of this taxpayer expenditure contend that Mr. Dale was wrongfully prosecuted. Yet, neither Dale nor these high-powered lawyers who represented him--and still represent him--ever raised any of this in any proceeding or in any case that was before the courts. They didn't move to dismiss his indictment on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct. In fact, when they filed a motion for acquittal, the court, having heard the evidence, denied the motion for acquittal. Why? Because it was the judge's reasonable assessment that sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable person to find Billy Dale guilty of the charges. Mr. Dale and his attorneys also failed to allege wrongdoing against those who investigated him, and there is no evidence to support that there was any wrongdoing by the people who did the investigation. The watchdog of Congress, the General Accounting Office, reviewed the case and determined that the FBI and the IRS action taken during the period surrounding the removal of the Travel Office employees were reasonable and consistent with the Agencies' normal procedures. Mr. President, a review by the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Justice Department concluded that there was no wrongdoing on the part of any FBI employees regarding the Travel Office matter. Mr. President, I want to say that I believe that the chairman of this subcommittee and the ranking member, the junior Senators from Alabama and Nebraska, have brought a good bill before this body. There are scores of amendments that have been filed. I would bet that a number of them are not germane. Certainly this one is, and I felt there is language in this bill that relates to this issue where this bill would pay, in effect, Mr. Dale's attorneys $500,000, and that this should be something that should be discussed. This should be an issue that is debated, and I do that under the recognition that I think the two managers of this legislation have done a good job. But let me repeat regarding these attorney fees that there is no evidence to support that Mr. Dale--as Mr. Dale and his attorneys did raise--there is nothing to support that there was any wrongdoing in this investigation. I repeat: The General Accounting Office reviewed this matter and determined that the FBI and the IRS did nothing wrong regarding the procedures in the Travel Office. They were reasonable and consistent with the Agencies' normal procedures and practices. A review by the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Justice Department concluded that there was no wrongdoing on part of any FBI employee regarding the Travel Office matter, and it is clear that all the people who investigated this case were there long before this administration took office. Notwithstanding this, the American taxpayers have been asked to pay almost $0.5 million to Dale's attorneys. This is clearly a private relief bill. If this had been in the form of an amendment, our rules would have allowed us to raise a point of order, and this procedure could have been knocked out. But in that the committee and the subcommittee had, in effect, amended the House bill, we have nothing to raise a point of order on. As a result of that, this is the only alternative we have. We are being asked as a body to grant this relief absent any hearing or committee report on this subject. The matter should be subject to the ordinary procedures for private relief bills provided under Senate rule XIV. That is why I am offering this amendment, along with Senators Levin and Biden, that comports with the procedures set out in rule XIV. The amendment that will shortly be offered refers the reimbursement of Mr. Dale's attorney fees to the Federal Court of Claims. Mr. President, the Federal Court of Claims is a body in which the judges are appointed for a period of 15 years. This is a body that has been in existence for over 100 years. It has decided exactly the type of issue presented in the Billy Dale matter on hundreds and hundreds of cases. This court has special jurisdiction for cases involving claims against the Federal Government. As I have indicated, it is made up of approximately 15 judges. These are referred to as article 1 judges because they serve for a time certain, and these people are appointed by the President of the United States for these 15-year terms. They handle primarily contractual claims, fifth amendment claims, and certain Indian claims. Over the past century, Congress has referred thousands of cases to the court. The court reviews these cases under specific statutory authority and procedures set out in claims cases under the United States. Initially, the case is referred to a chief judge who designates another judge. In fact, they usually have three people that hear these cases, and these three judges become the reviewing body. The bottom line is this panel has the most expertise that we have in America to handle this kind of case. I think this is something we would want to do to avoid the bitter political acrimony that has taken place on this floor in the past regarding this matter. It would seem that we should refer it to the body separate and apart from the policy involved. If in fact this amendment carries, it is up to the Court of Claims to determine the extent to which Mr. Dale has a legal and equitable remedy in this matter and whether or not the taxpayers should pay him money. Now, I think justice and equity weighs against Mr. Dale, but let the Court of Claims determine that. This amendment is the least we can do for the American taxpayer. Half a million dollars may be pocket change for some and maybe even Mr. Dale's attorneys, but it is not to the American public. It is a lot of money to the American public. Facts do not support such a controversial expenditure on behalf of someone who has been indicted for embezzlement and offered to plead guilty. Here is what we are being asked to do. We are being asked to pay $500,000 in attorney's fees for someone who admitted his guilt, basically, according to his attorney. Here is what his attorneys wrote to the U.S. attorney: Mr. Dale will enter a plea of guilty to a single count of 18 U.S.C. section 654. He will acknowledge that he intentionally placed Travel Office funds in his personal checking account without authorization. Here is what he, Mr. President, has agreed to plead guilty to. This is the statute. Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, embezzles or wrongly converts to his own use the money or property of another which comes into his possession or under his control in the execution of such office or employment, or under color or claim of authority as such officer or employee, shall be fined under this title . . . the value of the money and property thus embezzled . . . or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. It seems somewhat unique to me that someone who, in writing, agreed to [[Page S10292]] plead guilty, could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison, fined the amount of money he stole, is now coming before the Congress of the United States and saying pay my attorney's fees. Why? Because he was acquitted. Mr. President, I am a trial lawyer. Before I came here, I tried a lot of cases. I did criminal work. I believe in our system of justice. The vast majority of times trial by jury works out right. The right decision is not always reached, but most of the time it is. The vast majority of the time the right decision is reached. A lot of times the jury does not arrive at the right result, but they arrive at a result. Sometimes they do not, as we know it appears to a lot of us in the O.J. Simpson case or the Menendez brothers. The juries do not always do the right thing, but most of the time they do. This is an instance clearly when they did not do the right thing. Now, the facts do not support such a controversial expenditure on behalf of someone who is indicted for embezzlement and offered to plead guilty to a felony. This issue is not about the firing of the Travel Office employees in 1993. Most agree that

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
(Senate - September 11, 1996)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S10285-S10321] TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997 The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. Amendment No. 5224, As Modified Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, it is my understanding we will each use about 5 minutes, and then I think the two leaders want to propose a unanimous-consent request after that. So if we can proceed on that basis, would that be satisfactory with my colleague? Mr. THOMAS. That is fine. Mr. GLENN. I ask unanimous consent that we have 5 minutes on a side to wrap this up, and then we will probably go to a vote after that. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I want to respond briefly to the comments my colleague made a moment ago. This is a broad act. He said the Economy Act of 1982 is really not working and that is one reason we are putting this in. I don't like putting other legislation that might not work on top of legislation he says is already not working. Let's make work the legislation that is in law now. I am all for that. Basically, it does what we are proposing here. In fact, I have a copy of that Economy Act of 1982 here, and one of the things provided under section 1335 under ``agency agreements,'' part 4 of paragraph (A) says: ``The head of the agency decides ordered goods or services cannot be provided as conveniently or cheaply by a commercial enterprise already required.'' I agree that should be lived up to. So then we come in with the legislation that my colleague and friend, Senator Thomas, says is not as broad as I am interpreting it to be, and yet the words in it say that ``except as provided in subsection (B)''--which I will get to in a moment--``none of the funds appropriated under any other act may be used by OMB or any other agency to publish, promulgate or enforce any policy, regulation, circular or any rule or authority in any other form that would permit any Federal agency to provide a commercially available property or service to any other Department of Government unless the policy, regulation, circular or other rule meets the requirements in subsection (B).'' Subsection (B) says 120 days after this OMB will prescribe regulations as required, subject to the following, which shall include the following: A requirement for comparison between the costs of providing the property or service concerned through the agency concerned and the cost of providing such property or service through the private sector. That is a mammoth requirement for any law or regulation to come out under. The (B) part of that, which is the last part, is a requirement for cost and performance benchmarks relating to the property or service provided relative to comparable services provided by other Government agencies and contractors permitting the oversight of this--and so on-- agency concerned with the Office of Management and Budget. That is a very, very broad-reaching, extremely broad-reaching, amendment. I would say it is true, it is already covered under the Economy Act of 1982, as I quoted just a moment ago, and the best thing I would advise is we bring this to the attention of Mr. Koskinen, who is going to appear before the committee next week, that we ask his opinion about how broad-gauged this is and why he is not already enforcing the Economy Act of 1982. That is the way to proceed, as I see it, in good Government, not just to automatically pass something that does the same thing that is not being adhered to in earlier legislation. Mr. President, I suggest we have that as our method of procedure. I am all for efficiency in Government, but I am not just for passing one law and covering up deficiencies in carrying out a law that is already on the books and should be adhered to. [[Page S10286]] I reserve the remainder of my time. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think for the interest of Senators, as I understand it, we are about to have a vote. Does the Senator from Wyoming know approximately what length of additional time he will need to complete his remarks? Mr. THOMAS. I believe I probably have about 2 minutes, and Senator Glenn has 1\1/2\ minutes. So I would guess less than 5 minutes. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, assuming that is agreeable to the majority leader, to have the vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming no later than 6:20. Mr. THOMAS. It is fine with me. Mr. GLENN. That will be fine. Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if that request was not made, I enter that request now. I ask unanimous consent that we have that vote not later than 6:20, and before if all time is yielded back. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has 2 minutes 5 seconds remaining. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would agree with the Senator if what he is saying were the case, and I think it is not. We have indicated that the statute requires under the Efficiency Act what we are asking here: that there be this effort to communicate in the private sector and measure that cost. The problem is this one right here. This is March 1996, called the ``Revised Supplemental Handbook, Performance of Commercial Activities, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget.'' It says: The cost comparison requirements of this supplemental handbook will not apply to existing or renewed ISSA's or the consolidation of commercial services. So it is not just a function of the law not being lived up to but, in fact, is a change that has been put in place by OMB. So that is what we are seeking to do. We are not seeking to change the law. We are not seeking to change the basic operation of this statute, but we are saying that there are changes made by Executive order which remove that requirement that those activities that are being carried on by one agency for another, not the activities for themselves, one agency for another, that the requirement continue to exist as it has in the past, that we see if there are commercial activities available at a lesser, more efficient cost. This is simply an effort to put back in place the requirement that has been in place for a very long time, that for the activities that are acquired from another agency within Government, that there be an effort to determine if it can be done more cheaply, more efficiently in the private sector. This is not a new idea. This is an idea that now exists in law but has been taken out of the law by OMB. This would put it back. It is not broad. I hope very much that the Senator from Ohio, and his committee, will take a look at this whole broad thing. But in the meantime, I think we need to return where we were so that private industry can be part of this idea. We have used it for a very long time. It has to do with being more efficient. It has to do with good Government. It has to do with strengthening the private sector. I certainly urge my colleagues to vote aye. 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. GLENN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio. Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time, and assume my colleague does. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator McConnell as a cosponsor to amendment No. 5232. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The question occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 5224, as modified, offered by the Senator from Wyoming. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth] is necessarily absent. Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is absent because of family illness. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 285 Leg.] YEAS--59 Abraham Ashcroft Baucus Bennett Biden Bond Bradley Breaux Brown Burns Campbell Chafee Coats Cochran Cohen Coverdell Craig D'Amato DeWine Domenici Faircloth Feinstein Frahm Frist Gorton Graham Gramm Grams Grassley Gregg Hatch Hatfield Helms Hutchison Inhofe Jeffords Kassebaum Kempthorne Kohl Kyl Lott Lugar Mack McCain McConnell Murkowski Nickles Pressler Santorum Shelby Simpson Smith Snowe Specter Stevens Thomas Thompson Thurmond Warner NAYS--39 Akaka Bingaman Boxer Bryan Bumpers Byrd Conrad Daschle Dodd Dorgan Exon Feingold Ford Glenn Harkin Heflin Hollings Inouye Johnston Kennedy Kerrey Kerry Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lieberman Mikulski Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murray Nunn Pell Reid Robb Rockefeller Sarbanes Simon Wellstone Wyden NOT VOTING--2 Pryor Roth The amendment (No. 5224), as modified, was agreed to. Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY. I ask unanimous consent that the pending committee amendments be temporarily laid aside. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendments Nos. 5249 through Amendment No. 5255, En Bloc Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I send a group of amendments, en bloc, to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] proposes amendments, en bloc, numbered 5249 through amendment No. 5255. Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendments are as follows: AMENDMENT NO. 5249 (Purpose: To provide for the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs to continue operations) Page 93 after line 19 insert the following new section: Sec. . Notwithstanding the provision under the heading ``Advisory Commission on intergovernmental relations'' under title IV of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104-52; 109 Stat. 480), the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations may continue in existence during fiscal year 1997 and each fiscal year thereafter. ____ AMENDMENT NO. 5250 (Purpose: To strike section 404) On page 60, line 19 strike all through line 21. ____ AMENDMENT NO. 5251 (Purpose: To provide for an audit by Inspector Generals of administratively uncontrollable overtime practices, to revise guidelines for such practices, and for other purposes) At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following new section: [[Page S10287]] Sec. . (a) No later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of each Federal department or agency that uses administratively uncontrollable overtime in the pay of any employee shall-- (1) conduct an audit on the use of administratively uncontrollable overtime by employees of such department or agency, which shall include-- (A) an examination of the policies, extent, costs, and other relevant aspects of the use of administratively uncontrollable overtime at the department or agency; and (B) a determination of whether the eligibility criteria of the department or agency and payment of administratively uncontrollable overtime comply with Federal statutory and regulatory requirements; and (2) submit a report of the findings and conclusions of such audit to-- (A) the Office of Personnel Management; (B) the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Senate; and (C) the Government Reform and Oversight Committee of the House of Representatives. (b) No later than 30 days after the submission of the report under subsection (a), the Office of Personnel Management shall issue revised guidelines to all Federal departments and agencies that-- (1) limit the use of administratively uncontrollable overtime to employees meeting the statutory intent of section 5545(c)(2) of title 5, United States Code; and (2) expressly prohibit the use of administratively uncontrollable overtime for-- (A) customary or routine work duties; and (B) work duties that are primarily administrative in nature, or occur in noncompelling circumstances. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment will address the abuses of Administratively Uncontrolled Overtime--AUO--throughout the Federal Government. The costs to taxpayers of AUO misuse, estimated at $323 million at a single Federal agency since 1990, are significant. With improper oversight, AUO is likely to be costing the Treasury tens of millions of dollars a year. This amendment will empower the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] to stop these abuses. First, it directs the Inspector General [IG] of each agency that utilizes AUO to audit its use and cost. The findings of these audits must be reported to the Congress and the Office of Personnel Management within 45 days. Second, OPM shall review these IG audits, and issue revised guidelines to the respective agencies to limit the use of AUO to its statutory intent. These strengthened guidelines shall prohibit the use of AUO for routine or inappropriate work duties. The amendment directs OPM to issue these new guidelines, to prevent the ongoing misuse of AUO, within 30 days of receiving the Inspector General audits. For my colleagues who, like myself, have not been acutely aware of the details and minutiae of Federal overtime policies, let me briefly describe AUO and how it can readily be fixed on behalf of taxpayers in this appropriations bill. ``Administratively Uncontrolled Overtime'' was authorized by Congress to pay overtime to law enforcement officers for vital investigative duties that require them to work irregular and unscheduled hours-- pursuing suspects, undercover work, special investigative operations, et cetera. That makes sense. Agency regulations stipulate that AUO should be reserved for work duties that are ``compelling'' and where it would be negligent for officers to stop their enforcement actions. What has been going on, however, for too many of the 6,300 employees receiving AUO, is that it has turned into a unjustified salary and retirement supplement for the most routine work duties imaginable. And that makes no sense whatsoever for taxpayers. I'd like to describe the abuses of AUO that occurred in a single Federal agency in my State, as revealed by a selfless Federal employee who stood much to lose by uncovering this waste. One Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] officer in Arizona reported that every single officer and supervisor at his facility was receiving the maximum AUO possible, despite the fact that ``In two years . . . not one legitimately qualifying AUO hour has been worked in my department.'' Mr. President, somehow those duties don't sound like ``hot pursuit'' to me. They certainly are necessary, but they do not meet the statutory criteria for AUO. This is not an isolated problem of mere local concern. Both the Inspector General and the INS's top policymakers have recognized this ongoing abuse of AUO. The INS investigated the use of AUO at a detention facility in Arizona and found that: ``None of the work performed [in Florence] met the criteria for AUO, because the overtime hours could be administratively controlled.'' The Inspector General at the Department of Justice then further investigated this INS facility, and the IG's findings provide the perfect rationale for this amendment. The IG stated that ``[W]e encountered no information [at the INS detention center] to demonstrate efforts to follow up on or implement'' the INS's own recommendations. The IG recommended that ``The issue of AUO needs to be systematically addressed.'' That is exactly what this amendment would accomplish. I would like to add that ``Citizens Against Government Waste'' have endorsed this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that some accompanying material be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Washington Post, Sept. 11, 1996] INS Accused of Tolerating Citizenship Testing Fraud (By William Branigin) The Immigration and Naturalization Service came under fire yesterday from congressional Republicans over allegations of fraud in the testing of new citizenship applicants and the payment of millions of dollars in overtime to federal law enforcement officers. In a hearing of the House Government Reform and Oversight subcommittee on national security Republican members assailed what they described as a ``controversial Clinton administration program,'' called Citizenship USA, that has streamlined naturalization procedures and helped produce record numbers of new citizens this year. Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-Ind.) charged that a program in which the INS licenses private organizations to test applicants on U.S. civics and English proficiency has led to ``serious instances of testing fraud in the citizenship process.'' He said the INS ``has done a very poor job of * * * cracking down on testing fraud'' and suggested that the Clinton administration is pushing naturalization as part of a plan to enlist large numbers of new Democratic voters in time for the November elections. T. Alexander Aleinikoff, executive associate commissioner of the INS for programs, rejected those charges. He said the agency has tightened monitoring of the privatized testing, which began under the previous Republican administration, and defended the Citizenship USA program as a needed response to an upsurge of applicants that threatened to overwhelm the naturalization system. While Republicans see politics behind the processing of this year's record 1 million-plus citizenship applicants, administration officials regard the subcommittee's investigation itself as politically motivated. Among the witnesses at yesterday's hearing was Jewell Elghazali, who formerly worked in Dallas for Naturalization Assistance Services, Inc., one of six entities authorized by INS to test immigrants on civics and English as part of the naturalization process. ``There is a lot of fraud going on'' in the programs, she testified. When she alerted a superior in the company to indications of cheating on tests administered by affiliates, she was fired, she said. Elghazali said that in grading tests during her five months at the firm, she found numerous cases in which the written answers of different applicants were in the same handwriting and responses to multi-choice questions--including wrong answers--were identical. She said that in many cases, applicants who had passed the test could not speak English when they called to inquire about the results. Some Spanish speakers became irate when there was no one in the office who could respond to them in their native language, she said. Paul W. Roberts, the chief executive officer of Naturalization Assistance Services, told the subcommittee that the firm has ``acted swiftly to revoke all licensees discovered engaging in improprieties.'' He said the for- profit company has shut down 43 of its test sites as a result of its own monitoring and argued that, in any case, passing the standardized test does not automatically guarantee citizenship for an applicant, who must still pass an interview with an INS examiner. INS Commissioner Doris M. Meissner acknowledged that ``there have been problems'' with the company, which has been warned that it faces suspension unless cleared by an INS review. ``If we need to suspend them, we will,'' she said. But she insisted that ``there is no validity to the notion that people are becoming citizens today who would not have 10 years ago'' because of a lowering of standards. She said citizenship requirements have remained unchanged. In a separate news conference yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called for a congressional investigation into alleged abuses [[Page S10288]] by the INS and other government agencies of a type of overtime pay. He cited a report by a watchdog group, Citizens Against Government Waste, that the INS has spent $323 million on ``administratively uncontrollable overtime'' since 1990, much of it in violation of regulations. The overtime pay, amounting to as much as 25 percent of many employees' salaries, has become an ``entitlement program'' that wastes tens of millions of dollars a year, the watchdog group charged. While the overtime is supposed to compensate law enforcement officers for working long hours on investigations or surveillance, it has been used routinely to pay for mundane duties such as delivering mail, guarding prisoners during meal times and substituting for absent employees, the citizens group charged. Besides the INS, ``administratively uncontrollable overtime'' has been used in the departments of justice, defense, interior and agriculture, the group said. Meissner said that in principle, the overtime category ``is a very good deal for the taxpayers.'' But she conceded that there has been a tendency to misuse it as ``an ongoing bonus'' and vowed renewed efforts to ensure it is properly managed. ____ [From the Tribune, Sept. 2, 1996] INS To Review Overtime Policies After Charges of Abuse (By the Associated Press) FLORENCE.--The Immigration and Naturalization Service will review its policies for filing overtime after government and civic groups showed it improperly spent millions of dollars on overtime. The agency's decision followed criticism by U.S. Sen. John McCain and a citizens watchdog group, which released a report last week estimating that the INS office here spent $60 million on overtime last year alone. The extra payments allow officers to pad their pensions and up their salaries by as much as 25 percent, according to the Citizens Against Government Waste. At issue is special pay called Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO). The fund was created to compensate federal officers for duties that require irregular hours, such as surveillance or undercover work. Federal rules say such overtime can be used only for ``uncontrollable'' overtime--work that can't be regulated or routinely scheduled by supervisors. According to government reports, the INS managers in Florence are using the fund for day-to-day duties, such as delivering mail, guarding prisoners during meals, going to court and filling in for absent employees. Documents obtained by The Arizona Republic show a 1995 INS probe and another in April 1996 by the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General concluded the practice being abused. ``None of the work performed in Florence met the criteria for AUO because the overtime hours could be administratively controlled,'' the 1995 INS report said. Virginia Kice, spokeswoman for the INS Western Region, said the agency is aware of the concerns and is conducting a review of the policy. ``We want to be sure that whatever we do is not only appropriate, that it's prudent, it's responsible and it won't have a negative impact on our enforcement operation,'' she said. According to John Raidt, McCain's legislative director, such abuse is likely rampant in government agencies. The special overtime is available for employees of at least four agencies: the Justice Department, which includes INS; the Defense Department; the Department of Interior; and the Department of Agriculture. McCain plans to amend a Senate appropriations bill to place tighter restrictions on such overtime and will ask for hearings this fall before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Raidt said. Critics say INS supervisors have an incentive to keep paying the special overtime. If managers supervise employees who qualify for the extra pay, then the managers also qualify for the money, according to federal guidelines. ____ Amendment No. 5252 At the appropriate place, insert the following: Sec. . Notwithstanding section 8116 of title 5, United States Code, and in addition to any payment made under 5 U.S.C. 8101 et seq., beginning in fiscal year 1997 and thereafter, the head of any department or agency is authorized to pay from appropriations made available to the department or agency a death gratuity to the personal representative (as that term is defined by applicable law) of a civilian employee of that department or agency whose death resulted from an injury sustained in the line of duty on or after August 2, 1990: Provided, That payments made pursuant to this section, in combination with the payments made pursuant to sections 8133(f) and 8134(a) of such title 5 and section 312 of Public Law 103-332 (108 Stat. 2537), may not exceed a total of $10,000 per employee. Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, my amendment is quite simple. It increases the reimbursement for funeral and burial costs and specific related expenses to $10,000 for Federal civilian employees who die as result of injuries sustained in the performance of duty. This amendment would apply to the dedicated civil servants who were tragically killed in the line of duty while accompanying Commerce Secretary Ron Brown on his trade mission to Bosnia and Croatia. And it would apply to the survivors of those Federal civilian employees who died during the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Under current law, Federal civilian employees who die in the performance of duty receive only a $1,000 reimbursement for funeral and burial costs, and related expenses. This amount was set in 1960, and it has not been adjusted since that time. This is not the case for military personnel. In 1990, at the beginning of the gulf war, Congress increased death-related benefits for the survivors of the military personnel killed in the line of duty. Military survivors are currently provided slightly more than $10,000 for funeral and burial costs. My amendment recognizes that civilian employees are no less dedicated and they are all too often called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice in the service of the United States. Further, I should note that this amendment does not require additional appropriations. It provides the discretion to agency heads to pay these increased benefits from existing appropriations. Mr. President, in short, this amendment provides for equity and updates current law. This is a good amendment that I believe all my colleagues should support. I urge its adoption. amendment no. 5253 (Purpose: To provide for training of explosive detection canines) At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following new section: SEC. . EXPLOSIVES DETECTION CANINE PROGRAM. (a) Authorization.-- (1) The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to establish scientific certification standards for explosives detection canines, and shall provide, on a reimbursable basis, for the certification of explosives detection canines employed by federal agencies, or other agencies providing explosives detection services at airports in the United States. (2) The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish an explosives detection canine training program for the training of canines for explosives detection at airports in the United States. (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this section. ____ AMENDMENT NO. 5254 At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following: SEC. . DESIGNATION OF MARK O. HATFIELD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE. The United States Courthouse under construction at 1030 Southwest 3d Avenue in Portland, Oregon, shall be known and designated as the ``Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse''. SEC. 2. REFERENCES. Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse''. SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section shall take effect on January 2, 1997. ____ amendment No. 5255 (Purpose: To provide for the establishment of uniform accounting systems, standards, and reporting systems in the Federal Government, and for other purposes) At the end of the bill, add the following new title: TITLE ____--FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the ``Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996''. SEC. ____02. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following: (1) Much effort has been devoted to strengthening Federal internal accounting controls in the past. Although progress has been made in recent years, Federal accounting standards have not been uniformly implemented in financial management systems for agencies. (2) Federal financial management continues to be seriously deficient, and Federal financial management and fiscal practices have failed to-- (A) identify costs fully; (B) reflect the total liabilities of congressional actions; and (C) accurately report the financial condition of the Federal Government. (3) Current Federal accounting practices do not accurately report financial results of the Federal Government or the full costs of programs and activities. The continued use of [[Page S10289]] these practices undermines the Government's ability to provide credible and reliable financial data and encourages already widespread Government waste, and will not assist in achieving a balanced budget. (4) Waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government undermine the confidence of the American people in the Government and reduce the Federal Government's ability to address vital public needs adequately. (5) To rebuild the accountability and credibility of the Federal Government, and restore public confidence in the Federal Government, agencies must incorporate accounting standards and reporting objectives established for the Federal Government into their financial management systems so that all the assets and liabilities, revenues, and expenditures or expenses, and the full costs of programs and activities of the Federal Government can be consistently and accurately recorded, monitored, and uniformly reported throughout the Federal Government. (6) Since its establishment in October 1990, the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (hereinafter referred to as the ``FASAB'') has made substantial progress toward developing and recommending a comprehensive set of accounting concepts and standards for the Federal Government. When the accounting concepts and standards developed by FASAB are incorporated into Federal financial management systems, agencies will be able to provide cost and financial information that will assist the Congress and financial managers to evaluate the cost and performance of Federal programs and activities, and will therefore provide important information that has been lacking, but is needed for improved decisionmaking by financial managers and the Congress. (7) The development of financial management systems with the capacity to support these standards and concepts will, over the long term, improve Federal financial management. (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are to-- (1) provide for consistency of accounting by an agency from one fiscal year to the next, and uniform accounting standards throughout the Federal Government; (2) require Federal financial management systems to support full disclosure of Federal financial data, including the full costs of Federal programs and activities, to the citizens, the Congress, the President, and agency management, so that programs and activities can be considered based on their full costs and merits; (3) increase the accountability and credibility of Federal financial management; (4) improve performance, productivity and efficiency of Federal Government financial management; (5) establish financial management systems to support controlling the cost of Federal Government; (6) build upon and complement the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-576; 104 Stat. 2838), the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-62; 107 Stat. 285), and the Government Management Reform Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-356; 108 Stat. 3410); and (7) increase the capability of agencies to monitor execution of the budget by more readily permitting reports that compare spending of resources to results of activities. SEC. ____03. IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS. (a) In General.--Each agency shall implement and maintain financial management systems that comply with Federal financial management systems requirements, applicable Federal accounting standards, and the United States Government Standard General Ledger at the transaction level. (b) Priority.--Each agency shall give priority in funding and provide sufficient resources to implement this title. (c) Audit Compliance Finding.-- (1) In general.--Each audit required by section 3521(e) of title 31, United States Code, shall report whether the agency financial management systems comply with the requirements of subsection (a). (2) Content of reports.--When the person performing the audit required by section 3521(e) of title 31, United States Code, reports that the agency financial management systems do not comply with the requirements of subsection (a), the person performing the audit shall include in the report on the audit-- (A) the name and position of any officer or employee responsible for the financial management systems that have been found not to comply with the requirements of subsection (a); (B) all facts pertaining to the failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (a), including-- (i) the nature and extent of the noncompliance; (ii) the primary reason or cause of the noncompliance; (iii) any official responsible for the noncompliance; and (iv) any relevant comments from any responsible officer or employee; and (C) a statement with respect to the recommended remedial actions and the timeframes to implement such actions. (d) Compliance Determination.-- (1) In general.--No later than the date described under paragraph (2), the Director, acting through the Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management, shall determine whether the financial management systems of an agency comply with the requirements of subsection (a). Such determination shall be based on-- (A) a review of the report on the applicable agency-wide audited financial statement; (B) the agency comments on such report; and (C) any other information the Director considers relevant and appropriate. (2) Date of determination.--The determination under paragraph (1) shall be made no later than 90 days after the earlier of-- (A) the date of the receipt of an agency-wide audited financial statement; or (B) the last day of the fiscal year following the year covered by such statement. (e) Compliance Implementation.-- (1) In general.--If the Director determines that the financial management systems of an agency do not comply with the requirements of subsection (a), the head of the agency, in consultation with the Director, shall establish a remediation plan that shall include the resources, remedies, and intermediate target dates necessary to bring the agency's financial management systems into compliance. (2) Time period for compliance.--A remediation plan shall bring the agency's financial management systems into compliance no later than 2 years after the date on which the Director makes a determination under paragraph (1), unless the agency, with concurrence of the Director-- (A) determines that the agency's financial management systems are so deficient as to preclude compliance with the requirements of subsection (a) within 2 years; (B) specifies the most feasible date for bringing the agency's financial management systems into compliance with the requirements of subsection (a); and (C) designates an official of the agency who shall be responsible for bringing the agency's financial management systems into compliance with the requirements of subsection (a) by the date specified under subparagraph (B). (3) Transfer of funds for certain improvements.--For an agency that has established a remediation plan under paragraph (2), the head of the agency, to the extent provided in an appropriation and with the concurrence of the Director, may transfer not to exceed 2 percent of available agency appropriations to be merged with and to be available for the same period of time as the appropriation or fund to which transferred, for priority financial management system improvements. Such authority shall be used only for priority financial management system improvements as identified by the head of the agency, with the concurrence of the Director, and in no case for an item for which Congress has denied funds. The head of the agency shall notify Congress 30 days before such a transfer is made pursuant to such authority. (4) Report if noncompliance within time period.--If an agency fails to bring its financial management systems into compliance within the time period specified under paragraph (2), the Director shall submit a report of such failure to the Committees on Governmental Affairs and Appropriations of the Senate and the Committees on Government Reform and Oversight and Appropriations of the House of Representatives. The report shall include-- (A) the name and position of any officer or employee responsible for the financial management systems that have been found not to comply with the requirements of subsection (a); (B) the facts pertaining to the failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (a), including the nature and extent of the noncompliance, the primary reason or cause for the failure to comply, and any extenuating circumstances; (C) a statement of the remedial actions needed; and (D) a statement of any administrative action to be taken with respect to any responsible officer or employee. (f) Personal Responsibility.--Any financial officer or program manager who knowingly and willfully commits, permits, or authorizes material deviation from the requirements of subsection (a) may be subject to administrative disciplinary action, suspension from duty, or removal from office. SEC. ____04. APPLICATION TO CONGRESS AND THE JUDICIAL BRANCH. (a) In General.--The Federal financial management requirements of this title may be adopted by-- (1) the Senate by resolution as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate; (2) the House of Representatives by resolution as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives; or (3) the Judicial Conference of the United States by regulation for the judicial branch. (b) Study and Report.--No later than October 1, 1997-- (1) the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall jointly conduct a study and submit a report to Congress on how the offices and committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and all offices and agencies of the legislative branch may achieve compliance with financial management and accounting standards in a manner comparable to the requirements of this title; and (2) the Chief Justice of the United States shall conduct a study and submit a report to Congress on how the judiciary may achieve compliance with financial management and accounting standards in a manner comparable to the requirements of this title. [[Page S10290]] SEC. ____05. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. (a) Reports by Director.--No later than March 31 of each year, the Director shall submit a report to the Congress regarding implementation of this title. The Director may include the report in the financial management status report and the 5-year financial management plan submitted under section 3512(a)(1) of title 31, United States Code. (b) Reports by the Comptroller General.--No later than October 1, 1997, and October 1, of each year thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States shall report to the appropriate committees of the Congress concerning-- (1) compliance with the requirements of section ____03(a) of this title, including whether the financial statements of the Federal Government have been prepared in accordance with applicable accounting standards; and (2) the adequacy of uniform accounting standards for the Federal Government. SEC. ____06. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. (a) Audits by Agencies.--Section 3521(f)(1) of title 31, United States Code, is amended in the first sentence by inserting ``and the Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management'' before the period. (b) Financial Management Status Report.--Section 3512(a)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by-- (1) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon; (2) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (F); and (3) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following: ``(E) a listing of agencies whose financial management systems do not comply substantially with the requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996, the period of time that such agencies have not been in compliance, and a summary statement of the efforts underway to remedy the noncompliance; and''. SEC. ____07. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this title: (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' means a department or agency of the United States Government as defined in section 901(b) of title 31, United States Code. (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. (3) Federal accounting standards.--The term ``Federal accounting standards'' means applicable accounting principles, standards, and requirements consistent with section 902(a)(3)(A) of title 31, United States Code, and includes concept statements with respect to the objectives of Federal financial reporting. (4) Financial management systems.--The term ``financial management systems'' includes the financial systems and the financial portions of mixed systems necessary to support financial management, including automated and manual processes, procedures, controls, data, hardware, software, and support personnel dedicated to the operation and maintenance of system functions. (5) Financial system.--The term ``financial system'' includes an information system, comprised of one or more applications, that is used for-- (A) collecting, processing, maintaining, transmitting, or reporting data about financial events; (B) supporting financial planning or budgeting activities; (C) accumulating and reporting costs information; or (D) supporting the preparation of financial statements. (6) Mixed system.--The term ``mixed system'' means an information system that supports both financial and nonfinancial functions of the Federal Government or components thereof. SEC. ____08. EFFECTIVE DATE. This title shall take effect on October 1, 1996. Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today I offer an amendment that has already passed the Senate as a free-standing bill called the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (S. 1130). This measure brings urgent reforms to Federal financial management and restores accountability to the Government. The Senate should include this measure in the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government appropriations bill because it is our best hope for enacting these important reforms into law this year. There is very little time left in this session and it is of the utmost importance that Congress send this measure to the President before we leave town. However, I strongly encourage efforts currently underway in the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee to pass S. 1130. Chairman Clinger as well as Government Management Subcommittee Chairman Horn are working hard on the bill and I hope they are able to get it through the House of Representatives during these busy weeks. Mr. President, I'll make just a brief statement on financial management reform. Several years ago, in an effort to identify excess spending in the Federal budget, I inquired as to overhead costs in Federal programs. I was advised that the Federal accounting system makes it impossible to identify overhead expenses for most Federal operations. The Federal Government, it turned out, has over 200 separate primary accounting systems, making it impossible to compare something as basic as overhead costs. Worse, many of these systems are shamefully inadequate even on their own terms. The Internal Revenue Service offers another disturbing example of poor financial management and its consequences. The General Accounting Office testified before the Governmental Affairs Committee on June 6, 1996, that despite years of criticism, ``fundamental, persistent problems remain uncorrected'' at the IRS. For example, the IRS cannot substantiate the amounts reported for specific types of taxes collected, such as Social Security taxes, income taxes, and excise taxes. The IRS cannot even verify a significant portion of its own nonpayroll operating expenses, which total $3 billion. One can hardly resist observing that this is the agency that demands precision from every taxpayer in America. The IRS is just a small part of a Government so massive and complex that it controls and directs cash resources of almost $2 trillion per year, issuing 900 million checks and maintaining a payroll and benefits system for over 5 million Government employees. Clearly it is imperative that the Government use a uniform and widely accepted set of accounting standards across the hundreds of agencies and departments that make up this Government. Enactment of this measure into law would be a great step toward putting Federal financial management in order. It requires that all Federal agencies implement and maintain uniform accounting standards. The result will be more accurate and reliable information for program managers and leaders in Congress, meaning better decisions will be made: tax dollars will be put to better use, and a measure of confidence in the Government will be restored. While this is not the kind of legislation that makes headlines, it is of great significance. Its passage would be a major accomplishment for the 104th Congress. Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the amendments I have offered are as follows: One is for Senator Stevens, to provide that the ACIR utilize nonappropriated funds for continued operations; for Senator Inhofe, to strike section 404 of the bill; for Senator McCain, regarding a study of the administratively uncontrollable overtime; for Senator Hollings, to provide certain death benefits to civilian Government employees; for myself and Senator Kerrey, regarding explosive detection training for canines; for myself, naming the new courthouse in Portland, OR; for Senator Brown, regarding Federal financial management improvement. Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendments on this side, and we support all of them. Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered and agreed to, en bloc, and that any accompanying statements be placed at the appropriate place in the Record. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendments (No. 5249 through 5255), en bloc, were agreed to. Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments were agreed to. Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. SHELBY. I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the chairman withhold? Mr. SHELBY. I am glad to withhold. Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may be allowed to offer an amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. SHELBY. Reserving the right to object, I would like to check with Senator Kassebaum on her amendment, and also Senator Wyden, who has been conferring with her, before we do that. Mr. WYDEN. Did the Senator from Alabama ask unanimous consent to lay aside---- Mr. SHELBY. The Senator from Nevada asked unanimous consent. What [[Page S10291]] we would like to know is, where are the Senator and Senator Kassebaum on the amendment? Mr. WYDEN. Senator Kassebaum and I are continuing to discuss these matters. I think it is fair to say, in fact, that Senator Kassebaum indicated that she thought it was appropriate to go on with further business, and we will continue to discuss the matters with respect to the gag rule a bit more. Mr. SHELBY. I have no objection to temporarily setting aside the Kassebaum amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will shortly send the amendment to the desk on my behalf and that of Senator Levin and that of Senator Biden. Mr. President, we have heard a lot in this Chamber about the issue of reimbursing the former employee of the White House Travel Office, Billy Dale, for attorney fees. There have been hours of talk in this Chamber about that issue. Unfortunately, Mr. President, much of what we have heard has been based on emotion and not on facts. In fact, there is very little, if any, factual support for this very costly expenditure of a $0.5 million--$500,000--to reimburse attorneys on the Billy Dale case. The American people, in effect, are being asked to pay for the attorney fees of a person who was lawfully indicted and legitimately prosecuted. Let me repeat: The American people are being asked to pay the attorney fees for a person who was indicted lawfully--no question about that--and who was legitimately prosecuted. Proponents of this taxpayer expenditure contend that Mr. Dale was wrongfully prosecuted. Yet, neither Dale nor these high-powered lawyers who represented him--and still represent him--ever raised any of this in any proceeding or in any case that was before the courts. They didn't move to dismiss his indictment on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct. In fact, when they filed a motion for acquittal, the court, having heard the evidence, denied the motion for acquittal. Why? Because it was the judge's reasonable assessment that sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable person to find Billy Dale guilty of the charges. Mr. Dale and his attorneys also failed to allege wrongdoing against those who investigated him, and there is no evidence to support that there was any wrongdoing by the people who did the investigation. The watchdog of Congress, the General Accounting Office, reviewed the case and determined that the FBI and the IRS action taken during the period surrounding the removal of the Travel Office employees were reasonable and consistent with the Agencies' normal procedures. Mr. President, a review by the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Justice Department concluded that there was no wrongdoing on the part of any FBI employees regarding the Travel Office matter. Mr. President, I want to say that I believe that the chairman of this subcommittee and the ranking member, the junior Senators from Alabama and Nebraska, have brought a good bill before this body. There are scores of amendments that have been filed. I would bet that a number of them are not germane. Certainly this one is, and I felt there is language in this bill that relates to this issue where this bill would pay, in effect, Mr. Dale's attorneys $500,000, and that this should be something that should be discussed. This should be an issue that is debated, and I do that under the recognition that I think the two managers of this legislation have done a good job. But let me repeat regarding these attorney fees that there is no evidence to support that Mr. Dale--as Mr. Dale and his attorneys did raise--there is nothing to support that there was any wrongdoing in this investigation. I repeat: The General Accounting Office reviewed this matter and determined that the FBI and the IRS did nothing wrong regarding the procedures in the Travel Office. They were reasonable and consistent with the Agencies' normal procedures and practices. A review by the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Justice Department concluded that there was no wrongdoing on part of any FBI employee regarding the Travel Office matter, and it is clear that all the people who investigated this case were there long before this administration took office. Notwithstanding this, the American taxpayers have been asked to pay almost $0.5 million to Dale's attorneys. This is clearly a private relief bill. If this had been in the form of an amendment, our rules would have allowed us to raise a point of order, and this procedure could have been knocked out. But in that the committee and the subcommittee had, in effect, amended the House bill, we have nothing to raise a point of order on. As a result of that, this is the only alternative we have. We are being asked as a body to grant this relief absent any hearing or committee report on this subject. The matter should be subject to the ordinary procedures for private relief bills provided under Senate rule XIV. That is why I am offering this amendment, along with Senators Levin and Biden, that comports with the procedures set out in rule XIV. The amendment that will shortly be offered refers the reimbursement of Mr. Dale's attorney fees to the Federal Court of Claims. Mr. President, the Federal Court of Claims is a body in which the judges are appointed for a period of 15 years. This is a body that has been in existence for over 100 years. It has decided exactly the type of issue presented in the Billy Dale matter on hundreds and hundreds of cases. This court has special jurisdiction for cases involving claims against the Federal Government. As I have indicated, it is made up of approximately 15 judges. These are referred to as article 1 judges because they serve for a time certain, and these people are appointed by the President of the United States for these 15-year terms. They handle primarily contractual claims, fifth amendment claims, and certain Indian claims. Over the past century, Congress has referred thousands of cases to the court. The court reviews these cases under specific statutory authority and procedures set out in claims cases under the United States. Initially, the case is referred to a chief judge who designates another judge. In fact, they usually have three people that hear these cases, and these three judges become the reviewing body. The bottom line is this panel has the most expertise that we have in America to handle this kind of case. I think this is something we would want to do to avoid the bitter political acrimony that has taken place on this floor in the past regarding this matter. It would seem that we should refer it to the body separate and apart from the policy involved. If in fact this amendment carries, it is up to the Court of Claims to determine the extent to which Mr. Dale has a legal and equitable remedy in this matter and whether or not the taxpayers should pay him money. Now, I think justice and equity weighs against Mr. Dale, but let the Court of Claims determine that. This amendment is the least we can do for the American taxpayer. Half a million dollars may be pocket change for some and maybe even Mr. Dale's attorneys, but it is not to the American public. It is a lot of money to the American public. Facts do not support such a controversial expenditure on behalf of someone who has been indicted for embezzlement and offered to plead guilty. Here is what we are being asked to do. We are being asked to pay $500,000 in attorney's fees for someone who admitted his guilt, basically, according to his attorney. Here is what his attorneys wrote to the U.S. attorney: Mr. Dale will enter a plea of guilty to a single count of 18 U.S.C. section 654. He will acknowledge that he intentionally placed Travel Office funds in his personal checking account without authorization. Here is what he, Mr. President, has agreed to plead guilty to. This is the statute. Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, embezzles or wrongly converts to his own use the money or property of another which comes into his possession or under his control in the execution of such office or employment, or under color or claim of authority as such officer or employee, shall be fined under this title . . . the value of the money and property thus embezzled . . . or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. It seems somewhat unique to me that someone who, in writing, agreed to [[Page S10292]] plead guilty, could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison, fined the amount of money he stole, is now coming before the Congress of the United States and saying pay my attorney's fees. Why? Because he was acquitted. Mr. President, I am a trial lawyer. Before I came here, I tried a lot of cases. I did criminal work. I believe in our system of justice. The vast majority of times trial by jury works out right. The right decision is not always reached, but most of the time it is. The vast majority of the time the right decision is reached. A lot of times the jury does not arrive at the right result, but they arrive at a result. Sometimes they do not, as we know it appears to a lot of us in the O.J. Simpson case or the Menendez brothers. The juries do not always do the right thing, but most of the time they do. This is an instance clearly when they did not do the right thing. Now, the facts do not support such a controversial expenditure on behalf of someone who is indicted for embezzlement and offered to plead guilty to a felony. This issue is not about the firing of the Travel Office emp

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
(Senate - September 11, 1996)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S10285-S10321] TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997 The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. Amendment No. 5224, As Modified Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, it is my understanding we will each use about 5 minutes, and then I think the two leaders want to propose a unanimous-consent request after that. So if we can proceed on that basis, would that be satisfactory with my colleague? Mr. THOMAS. That is fine. Mr. GLENN. I ask unanimous consent that we have 5 minutes on a side to wrap this up, and then we will probably go to a vote after that. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I want to respond briefly to the comments my colleague made a moment ago. This is a broad act. He said the Economy Act of 1982 is really not working and that is one reason we are putting this in. I don't like putting other legislation that might not work on top of legislation he says is already not working. Let's make work the legislation that is in law now. I am all for that. Basically, it does what we are proposing here. In fact, I have a copy of that Economy Act of 1982 here, and one of the things provided under section 1335 under ``agency agreements,'' part 4 of paragraph (A) says: ``The head of the agency decides ordered goods or services cannot be provided as conveniently or cheaply by a commercial enterprise already required.'' I agree that should be lived up to. So then we come in with the legislation that my colleague and friend, Senator Thomas, says is not as broad as I am interpreting it to be, and yet the words in it say that ``except as provided in subsection (B)''--which I will get to in a moment--``none of the funds appropriated under any other act may be used by OMB or any other agency to publish, promulgate or enforce any policy, regulation, circular or any rule or authority in any other form that would permit any Federal agency to provide a commercially available property or service to any other Department of Government unless the policy, regulation, circular or other rule meets the requirements in subsection (B).'' Subsection (B) says 120 days after this OMB will prescribe regulations as required, subject to the following, which shall include the following: A requirement for comparison between the costs of providing the property or service concerned through the agency concerned and the cost of providing such property or service through the private sector. That is a mammoth requirement for any law or regulation to come out under. The (B) part of that, which is the last part, is a requirement for cost and performance benchmarks relating to the property or service provided relative to comparable services provided by other Government agencies and contractors permitting the oversight of this--and so on-- agency concerned with the Office of Management and Budget. That is a very, very broad-reaching, extremely broad-reaching, amendment. I would say it is true, it is already covered under the Economy Act of 1982, as I quoted just a moment ago, and the best thing I would advise is we bring this to the attention of Mr. Koskinen, who is going to appear before the committee next week, that we ask his opinion about how broad-gauged this is and why he is not already enforcing the Economy Act of 1982. That is the way to proceed, as I see it, in good Government, not just to automatically pass something that does the same thing that is not being adhered to in earlier legislation. Mr. President, I suggest we have that as our method of procedure. I am all for efficiency in Government, but I am not just for passing one law and covering up deficiencies in carrying out a law that is already on the books and should be adhered to. [[Page S10286]] I reserve the remainder of my time. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think for the interest of Senators, as I understand it, we are about to have a vote. Does the Senator from Wyoming know approximately what length of additional time he will need to complete his remarks? Mr. THOMAS. I believe I probably have about 2 minutes, and Senator Glenn has 1\1/2\ minutes. So I would guess less than 5 minutes. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, assuming that is agreeable to the majority leader, to have the vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming no later than 6:20. Mr. THOMAS. It is fine with me. Mr. GLENN. That will be fine. Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if that request was not made, I enter that request now. I ask unanimous consent that we have that vote not later than 6:20, and before if all time is yielded back. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has 2 minutes 5 seconds remaining. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would agree with the Senator if what he is saying were the case, and I think it is not. We have indicated that the statute requires under the Efficiency Act what we are asking here: that there be this effort to communicate in the private sector and measure that cost. The problem is this one right here. This is March 1996, called the ``Revised Supplemental Handbook, Performance of Commercial Activities, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget.'' It says: The cost comparison requirements of this supplemental handbook will not apply to existing or renewed ISSA's or the consolidation of commercial services. So it is not just a function of the law not being lived up to but, in fact, is a change that has been put in place by OMB. So that is what we are seeking to do. We are not seeking to change the law. We are not seeking to change the basic operation of this statute, but we are saying that there are changes made by Executive order which remove that requirement that those activities that are being carried on by one agency for another, not the activities for themselves, one agency for another, that the requirement continue to exist as it has in the past, that we see if there are commercial activities available at a lesser, more efficient cost. This is simply an effort to put back in place the requirement that has been in place for a very long time, that for the activities that are acquired from another agency within Government, that there be an effort to determine if it can be done more cheaply, more efficiently in the private sector. This is not a new idea. This is an idea that now exists in law but has been taken out of the law by OMB. This would put it back. It is not broad. I hope very much that the Senator from Ohio, and his committee, will take a look at this whole broad thing. But in the meantime, I think we need to return where we were so that private industry can be part of this idea. We have used it for a very long time. It has to do with being more efficient. It has to do with good Government. It has to do with strengthening the private sector. I certainly urge my colleagues to vote aye. 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. GLENN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio. Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time, and assume my colleague does. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator McConnell as a cosponsor to amendment No. 5232. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The question occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 5224, as modified, offered by the Senator from Wyoming. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth] is necessarily absent. Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is absent because of family illness. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 285 Leg.] YEAS--59 Abraham Ashcroft Baucus Bennett Biden Bond Bradley Breaux Brown Burns Campbell Chafee Coats Cochran Cohen Coverdell Craig D'Amato DeWine Domenici Faircloth Feinstein Frahm Frist Gorton Graham Gramm Grams Grassley Gregg Hatch Hatfield Helms Hutchison Inhofe Jeffords Kassebaum Kempthorne Kohl Kyl Lott Lugar Mack McCain McConnell Murkowski Nickles Pressler Santorum Shelby Simpson Smith Snowe Specter Stevens Thomas Thompson Thurmond Warner NAYS--39 Akaka Bingaman Boxer Bryan Bumpers Byrd Conrad Daschle Dodd Dorgan Exon Feingold Ford Glenn Harkin Heflin Hollings Inouye Johnston Kennedy Kerrey Kerry Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lieberman Mikulski Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murray Nunn Pell Reid Robb Rockefeller Sarbanes Simon Wellstone Wyden NOT VOTING--2 Pryor Roth The amendment (No. 5224), as modified, was agreed to. Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY. I ask unanimous consent that the pending committee amendments be temporarily laid aside. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendments Nos. 5249 through Amendment No. 5255, En Bloc Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I send a group of amendments, en bloc, to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] proposes amendments, en bloc, numbered 5249 through amendment No. 5255. Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendments are as follows: AMENDMENT NO. 5249 (Purpose: To provide for the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs to continue operations) Page 93 after line 19 insert the following new section: Sec. . Notwithstanding the provision under the heading ``Advisory Commission on intergovernmental relations'' under title IV of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104-52; 109 Stat. 480), the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations may continue in existence during fiscal year 1997 and each fiscal year thereafter. ____ AMENDMENT NO. 5250 (Purpose: To strike section 404) On page 60, line 19 strike all through line 21. ____ AMENDMENT NO. 5251 (Purpose: To provide for an audit by Inspector Generals of administratively uncontrollable overtime practices, to revise guidelines for such practices, and for other purposes) At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following new section: [[Page S10287]] Sec. . (a) No later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of each Federal department or agency that uses administratively uncontrollable overtime in the pay of any employee shall-- (1) conduct an audit on the use of administratively uncontrollable overtime by employees of such department or agency, which shall include-- (A) an examination of the policies, extent, costs, and other relevant aspects of the use of administratively uncontrollable overtime at the department or agency; and (B) a determination of whether the eligibility criteria of the department or agency and payment of administratively uncontrollable overtime comply with Federal statutory and regulatory requirements; and (2) submit a report of the findings and conclusions of such audit to-- (A) the Office of Personnel Management; (B) the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Senate; and (C) the Government Reform and Oversight Committee of the House of Representatives. (b) No later than 30 days after the submission of the report under subsection (a), the Office of Personnel Management shall issue revised guidelines to all Federal departments and agencies that-- (1) limit the use of administratively uncontrollable overtime to employees meeting the statutory intent of section 5545(c)(2) of title 5, United States Code; and (2) expressly prohibit the use of administratively uncontrollable overtime for-- (A) customary or routine work duties; and (B) work duties that are primarily administrative in nature, or occur in noncompelling circumstances. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment will address the abuses of Administratively Uncontrolled Overtime--AUO--throughout the Federal Government. The costs to taxpayers of AUO misuse, estimated at $323 million at a single Federal agency since 1990, are significant. With improper oversight, AUO is likely to be costing the Treasury tens of millions of dollars a year. This amendment will empower the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] to stop these abuses. First, it directs the Inspector General [IG] of each agency that utilizes AUO to audit its use and cost. The findings of these audits must be reported to the Congress and the Office of Personnel Management within 45 days. Second, OPM shall review these IG audits, and issue revised guidelines to the respective agencies to limit the use of AUO to its statutory intent. These strengthened guidelines shall prohibit the use of AUO for routine or inappropriate work duties. The amendment directs OPM to issue these new guidelines, to prevent the ongoing misuse of AUO, within 30 days of receiving the Inspector General audits. For my colleagues who, like myself, have not been acutely aware of the details and minutiae of Federal overtime policies, let me briefly describe AUO and how it can readily be fixed on behalf of taxpayers in this appropriations bill. ``Administratively Uncontrolled Overtime'' was authorized by Congress to pay overtime to law enforcement officers for vital investigative duties that require them to work irregular and unscheduled hours-- pursuing suspects, undercover work, special investigative operations, et cetera. That makes sense. Agency regulations stipulate that AUO should be reserved for work duties that are ``compelling'' and where it would be negligent for officers to stop their enforcement actions. What has been going on, however, for too many of the 6,300 employees receiving AUO, is that it has turned into a unjustified salary and retirement supplement for the most routine work duties imaginable. And that makes no sense whatsoever for taxpayers. I'd like to describe the abuses of AUO that occurred in a single Federal agency in my State, as revealed by a selfless Federal employee who stood much to lose by uncovering this waste. One Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] officer in Arizona reported that every single officer and supervisor at his facility was receiving the maximum AUO possible, despite the fact that ``In two years . . . not one legitimately qualifying AUO hour has been worked in my department.'' Mr. President, somehow those duties don't sound like ``hot pursuit'' to me. They certainly are necessary, but they do not meet the statutory criteria for AUO. This is not an isolated problem of mere local concern. Both the Inspector General and the INS's top policymakers have recognized this ongoing abuse of AUO. The INS investigated the use of AUO at a detention facility in Arizona and found that: ``None of the work performed [in Florence] met the criteria for AUO, because the overtime hours could be administratively controlled.'' The Inspector General at the Department of Justice then further investigated this INS facility, and the IG's findings provide the perfect rationale for this amendment. The IG stated that ``[W]e encountered no information [at the INS detention center] to demonstrate efforts to follow up on or implement'' the INS's own recommendations. The IG recommended that ``The issue of AUO needs to be systematically addressed.'' That is exactly what this amendment would accomplish. I would like to add that ``Citizens Against Government Waste'' have endorsed this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that some accompanying material be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Washington Post, Sept. 11, 1996] INS Accused of Tolerating Citizenship Testing Fraud (By William Branigin) The Immigration and Naturalization Service came under fire yesterday from congressional Republicans over allegations of fraud in the testing of new citizenship applicants and the payment of millions of dollars in overtime to federal law enforcement officers. In a hearing of the House Government Reform and Oversight subcommittee on national security Republican members assailed what they described as a ``controversial Clinton administration program,'' called Citizenship USA, that has streamlined naturalization procedures and helped produce record numbers of new citizens this year. Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-Ind.) charged that a program in which the INS licenses private organizations to test applicants on U.S. civics and English proficiency has led to ``serious instances of testing fraud in the citizenship process.'' He said the INS ``has done a very poor job of * * * cracking down on testing fraud'' and suggested that the Clinton administration is pushing naturalization as part of a plan to enlist large numbers of new Democratic voters in time for the November elections. T. Alexander Aleinikoff, executive associate commissioner of the INS for programs, rejected those charges. He said the agency has tightened monitoring of the privatized testing, which began under the previous Republican administration, and defended the Citizenship USA program as a needed response to an upsurge of applicants that threatened to overwhelm the naturalization system. While Republicans see politics behind the processing of this year's record 1 million-plus citizenship applicants, administration officials regard the subcommittee's investigation itself as politically motivated. Among the witnesses at yesterday's hearing was Jewell Elghazali, who formerly worked in Dallas for Naturalization Assistance Services, Inc., one of six entities authorized by INS to test immigrants on civics and English as part of the naturalization process. ``There is a lot of fraud going on'' in the programs, she testified. When she alerted a superior in the company to indications of cheating on tests administered by affiliates, she was fired, she said. Elghazali said that in grading tests during her five months at the firm, she found numerous cases in which the written answers of different applicants were in the same handwriting and responses to multi-choice questions--including wrong answers--were identical. She said that in many cases, applicants who had passed the test could not speak English when they called to inquire about the results. Some Spanish speakers became irate when there was no one in the office who could respond to them in their native language, she said. Paul W. Roberts, the chief executive officer of Naturalization Assistance Services, told the subcommittee that the firm has ``acted swiftly to revoke all licensees discovered engaging in improprieties.'' He said the for- profit company has shut down 43 of its test sites as a result of its own monitoring and argued that, in any case, passing the standardized test does not automatically guarantee citizenship for an applicant, who must still pass an interview with an INS examiner. INS Commissioner Doris M. Meissner acknowledged that ``there have been problems'' with the company, which has been warned that it faces suspension unless cleared by an INS review. ``If we need to suspend them, we will,'' she said. But she insisted that ``there is no validity to the notion that people are becoming citizens today who would not have 10 years ago'' because of a lowering of standards. She said citizenship requirements have remained unchanged. In a separate news conference yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called for a congressional investigation into alleged abuses [[Page S10288]] by the INS and other government agencies of a type of overtime pay. He cited a report by a watchdog group, Citizens Against Government Waste, that the INS has spent $323 million on ``administratively uncontrollable overtime'' since 1990, much of it in violation of regulations. The overtime pay, amounting to as much as 25 percent of many employees' salaries, has become an ``entitlement program'' that wastes tens of millions of dollars a year, the watchdog group charged. While the overtime is supposed to compensate law enforcement officers for working long hours on investigations or surveillance, it has been used routinely to pay for mundane duties such as delivering mail, guarding prisoners during meal times and substituting for absent employees, the citizens group charged. Besides the INS, ``administratively uncontrollable overtime'' has been used in the departments of justice, defense, interior and agriculture, the group said. Meissner said that in principle, the overtime category ``is a very good deal for the taxpayers.'' But she conceded that there has been a tendency to misuse it as ``an ongoing bonus'' and vowed renewed efforts to ensure it is properly managed. ____ [From the Tribune, Sept. 2, 1996] INS To Review Overtime Policies After Charges of Abuse (By the Associated Press) FLORENCE.--The Immigration and Naturalization Service will review its policies for filing overtime after government and civic groups showed it improperly spent millions of dollars on overtime. The agency's decision followed criticism by U.S. Sen. John McCain and a citizens watchdog group, which released a report last week estimating that the INS office here spent $60 million on overtime last year alone. The extra payments allow officers to pad their pensions and up their salaries by as much as 25 percent, according to the Citizens Against Government Waste. At issue is special pay called Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO). The fund was created to compensate federal officers for duties that require irregular hours, such as surveillance or undercover work. Federal rules say such overtime can be used only for ``uncontrollable'' overtime--work that can't be regulated or routinely scheduled by supervisors. According to government reports, the INS managers in Florence are using the fund for day-to-day duties, such as delivering mail, guarding prisoners during meals, going to court and filling in for absent employees. Documents obtained by The Arizona Republic show a 1995 INS probe and another in April 1996 by the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General concluded the practice being abused. ``None of the work performed in Florence met the criteria for AUO because the overtime hours could be administratively controlled,'' the 1995 INS report said. Virginia Kice, spokeswoman for the INS Western Region, said the agency is aware of the concerns and is conducting a review of the policy. ``We want to be sure that whatever we do is not only appropriate, that it's prudent, it's responsible and it won't have a negative impact on our enforcement operation,'' she said. According to John Raidt, McCain's legislative director, such abuse is likely rampant in government agencies. The special overtime is available for employees of at least four agencies: the Justice Department, which includes INS; the Defense Department; the Department of Interior; and the Department of Agriculture. McCain plans to amend a Senate appropriations bill to place tighter restrictions on such overtime and will ask for hearings this fall before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Raidt said. Critics say INS supervisors have an incentive to keep paying the special overtime. If managers supervise employees who qualify for the extra pay, then the managers also qualify for the money, according to federal guidelines. ____ Amendment No. 5252 At the appropriate place, insert the following: Sec. . Notwithstanding section 8116 of title 5, United States Code, and in addition to any payment made under 5 U.S.C. 8101 et seq., beginning in fiscal year 1997 and thereafter, the head of any department or agency is authorized to pay from appropriations made available to the department or agency a death gratuity to the personal representative (as that term is defined by applicable law) of a civilian employee of that department or agency whose death resulted from an injury sustained in the line of duty on or after August 2, 1990: Provided, That payments made pursuant to this section, in combination with the payments made pursuant to sections 8133(f) and 8134(a) of such title 5 and section 312 of Public Law 103-332 (108 Stat. 2537), may not exceed a total of $10,000 per employee. Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, my amendment is quite simple. It increases the reimbursement for funeral and burial costs and specific related expenses to $10,000 for Federal civilian employees who die as result of injuries sustained in the performance of duty. This amendment would apply to the dedicated civil servants who were tragically killed in the line of duty while accompanying Commerce Secretary Ron Brown on his trade mission to Bosnia and Croatia. And it would apply to the survivors of those Federal civilian employees who died during the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Under current law, Federal civilian employees who die in the performance of duty receive only a $1,000 reimbursement for funeral and burial costs, and related expenses. This amount was set in 1960, and it has not been adjusted since that time. This is not the case for military personnel. In 1990, at the beginning of the gulf war, Congress increased death-related benefits for the survivors of the military personnel killed in the line of duty. Military survivors are currently provided slightly more than $10,000 for funeral and burial costs. My amendment recognizes that civilian employees are no less dedicated and they are all too often called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice in the service of the United States. Further, I should note that this amendment does not require additional appropriations. It provides the discretion to agency heads to pay these increased benefits from existing appropriations. Mr. President, in short, this amendment provides for equity and updates current law. This is a good amendment that I believe all my colleagues should support. I urge its adoption. amendment no. 5253 (Purpose: To provide for training of explosive detection canines) At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following new section: SEC. . EXPLOSIVES DETECTION CANINE PROGRAM. (a) Authorization.-- (1) The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to establish scientific certification standards for explosives detection canines, and shall provide, on a reimbursable basis, for the certification of explosives detection canines employed by federal agencies, or other agencies providing explosives detection services at airports in the United States. (2) The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish an explosives detection canine training program for the training of canines for explosives detection at airports in the United States. (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this section. ____ AMENDMENT NO. 5254 At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following: SEC. . DESIGNATION OF MARK O. HATFIELD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE. The United States Courthouse under construction at 1030 Southwest 3d Avenue in Portland, Oregon, shall be known and designated as the ``Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse''. SEC. 2. REFERENCES. Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse''. SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section shall take effect on January 2, 1997. ____ amendment No. 5255 (Purpose: To provide for the establishment of uniform accounting systems, standards, and reporting systems in the Federal Government, and for other purposes) At the end of the bill, add the following new title: TITLE ____--FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the ``Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996''. SEC. ____02. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following: (1) Much effort has been devoted to strengthening Federal internal accounting controls in the past. Although progress has been made in recent years, Federal accounting standards have not been uniformly implemented in financial management systems for agencies. (2) Federal financial management continues to be seriously deficient, and Federal financial management and fiscal practices have failed to-- (A) identify costs fully; (B) reflect the total liabilities of congressional actions; and (C) accurately report the financial condition of the Federal Government. (3) Current Federal accounting practices do not accurately report financial results of the Federal Government or the full costs of programs and activities. The continued use of [[Page S10289]] these practices undermines the Government's ability to provide credible and reliable financial data and encourages already widespread Government waste, and will not assist in achieving a balanced budget. (4) Waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government undermine the confidence of the American people in the Government and reduce the Federal Government's ability to address vital public needs adequately. (5) To rebuild the accountability and credibility of the Federal Government, and restore public confidence in the Federal Government, agencies must incorporate accounting standards and reporting objectives established for the Federal Government into their financial management systems so that all the assets and liabilities, revenues, and expenditures or expenses, and the full costs of programs and activities of the Federal Government can be consistently and accurately recorded, monitored, and uniformly reported throughout the Federal Government. (6) Since its establishment in October 1990, the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (hereinafter referred to as the ``FASAB'') has made substantial progress toward developing and recommending a comprehensive set of accounting concepts and standards for the Federal Government. When the accounting concepts and standards developed by FASAB are incorporated into Federal financial management systems, agencies will be able to provide cost and financial information that will assist the Congress and financial managers to evaluate the cost and performance of Federal programs and activities, and will therefore provide important information that has been lacking, but is needed for improved decisionmaking by financial managers and the Congress. (7) The development of financial management systems with the capacity to support these standards and concepts will, over the long term, improve Federal financial management. (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are to-- (1) provide for consistency of accounting by an agency from one fiscal year to the next, and uniform accounting standards throughout the Federal Government; (2) require Federal financial management systems to support full disclosure of Federal financial data, including the full costs of Federal programs and activities, to the citizens, the Congress, the President, and agency management, so that programs and activities can be considered based on their full costs and merits; (3) increase the accountability and credibility of Federal financial management; (4) improve performance, productivity and efficiency of Federal Government financial management; (5) establish financial management systems to support controlling the cost of Federal Government; (6) build upon and complement the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-576; 104 Stat. 2838), the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-62; 107 Stat. 285), and the Government Management Reform Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-356; 108 Stat. 3410); and (7) increase the capability of agencies to monitor execution of the budget by more readily permitting reports that compare spending of resources to results of activities. SEC. ____03. IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS. (a) In General.--Each agency shall implement and maintain financial management systems that comply with Federal financial management systems requirements, applicable Federal accounting standards, and the United States Government Standard General Ledger at the transaction level. (b) Priority.--Each agency shall give priority in funding and provide sufficient resources to implement this title. (c) Audit Compliance Finding.-- (1) In general.--Each audit required by section 3521(e) of title 31, United States Code, shall report whether the agency financial management systems comply with the requirements of subsection (a). (2) Content of reports.--When the person performing the audit required by section 3521(e) of title 31, United States Code, reports that the agency financial management systems do not comply with the requirements of subsection (a), the person performing the audit shall include in the report on the audit-- (A) the name and position of any officer or employee responsible for the financial management systems that have been found not to comply with the requirements of subsection (a); (B) all facts pertaining to the failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (a), including-- (i) the nature and extent of the noncompliance; (ii) the primary reason or cause of the noncompliance; (iii) any official responsible for the noncompliance; and (iv) any relevant comments from any responsible officer or employee; and (C) a statement with respect to the recommended remedial actions and the timeframes to implement such actions. (d) Compliance Determination.-- (1) In general.--No later than the date described under paragraph (2), the Director, acting through the Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management, shall determine whether the financial management systems of an agency comply with the requirements of subsection (a). Such determination shall be based on-- (A) a review of the report on the applicable agency-wide audited financial statement; (B) the agency comments on such report; and (C) any other information the Director considers relevant and appropriate. (2) Date of determination.--The determination under paragraph (1) shall be made no later than 90 days after the earlier of-- (A) the date of the receipt of an agency-wide audited financial statement; or (B) the last day of the fiscal year following the year covered by such statement. (e) Compliance Implementation.-- (1) In general.--If the Director determines that the financial management systems of an agency do not comply with the requirements of subsection (a), the head of the agency, in consultation with the Director, shall establish a remediation plan that shall include the resources, remedies, and intermediate target dates necessary to bring the agency's financial management systems into compliance. (2) Time period for compliance.--A remediation plan shall bring the agency's financial management systems into compliance no later than 2 years after the date on which the Director makes a determination under paragraph (1), unless the agency, with concurrence of the Director-- (A) determines that the agency's financial management systems are so deficient as to preclude compliance with the requirements of subsection (a) within 2 years; (B) specifies the most feasible date for bringing the agency's financial management systems into compliance with the requirements of subsection (a); and (C) designates an official of the agency who shall be responsible for bringing the agency's financial management systems into compliance with the requirements of subsection (a) by the date specified under subparagraph (B). (3) Transfer of funds for certain improvements.--For an agency that has established a remediation plan under paragraph (2), the head of the agency, to the extent provided in an appropriation and with the concurrence of the Director, may transfer not to exceed 2 percent of available agency appropriations to be merged with and to be available for the same period of time as the appropriation or fund to which transferred, for priority financial management system improvements. Such authority shall be used only for priority financial management system improvements as identified by the head of the agency, with the concurrence of the Director, and in no case for an item for which Congress has denied funds. The head of the agency shall notify Congress 30 days before such a transfer is made pursuant to such authority. (4) Report if noncompliance within time period.--If an agency fails to bring its financial management systems into compliance within the time period specified under paragraph (2), the Director shall submit a report of such failure to the Committees on Governmental Affairs and Appropriations of the Senate and the Committees on Government Reform and Oversight and Appropriations of the House of Representatives. The report shall include-- (A) the name and position of any officer or employee responsible for the financial management systems that have been found not to comply with the requirements of subsection (a); (B) the facts pertaining to the failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (a), including the nature and extent of the noncompliance, the primary reason or cause for the failure to comply, and any extenuating circumstances; (C) a statement of the remedial actions needed; and (D) a statement of any administrative action to be taken with respect to any responsible officer or employee. (f) Personal Responsibility.--Any financial officer or program manager who knowingly and willfully commits, permits, or authorizes material deviation from the requirements of subsection (a) may be subject to administrative disciplinary action, suspension from duty, or removal from office. SEC. ____04. APPLICATION TO CONGRESS AND THE JUDICIAL BRANCH. (a) In General.--The Federal financial management requirements of this title may be adopted by-- (1) the Senate by resolution as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate; (2) the House of Representatives by resolution as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives; or (3) the Judicial Conference of the United States by regulation for the judicial branch. (b) Study and Report.--No later than October 1, 1997-- (1) the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall jointly conduct a study and submit a report to Congress on how the offices and committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and all offices and agencies of the legislative branch may achieve compliance with financial management and accounting standards in a manner comparable to the requirements of this title; and (2) the Chief Justice of the United States shall conduct a study and submit a report to Congress on how the judiciary may achieve compliance with financial management and accounting standards in a manner comparable to the requirements of this title. [[Page S10290]] SEC. ____05. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. (a) Reports by Director.--No later than March 31 of each year, the Director shall submit a report to the Congress regarding implementation of this title. The Director may include the report in the financial management status report and the 5-year financial management plan submitted under section 3512(a)(1) of title 31, United States Code. (b) Reports by the Comptroller General.--No later than October 1, 1997, and October 1, of each year thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States shall report to the appropriate committees of the Congress concerning-- (1) compliance with the requirements of section ____03(a) of this title, including whether the financial statements of the Federal Government have been prepared in accordance with applicable accounting standards; and (2) the adequacy of uniform accounting standards for the Federal Government. SEC. ____06. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. (a) Audits by Agencies.--Section 3521(f)(1) of title 31, United States Code, is amended in the first sentence by inserting ``and the Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management'' before the period. (b) Financial Management Status Report.--Section 3512(a)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by-- (1) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon; (2) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (F); and (3) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following: ``(E) a listing of agencies whose financial management systems do not comply substantially with the requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996, the period of time that such agencies have not been in compliance, and a summary statement of the efforts underway to remedy the noncompliance; and''. SEC. ____07. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this title: (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' means a department or agency of the United States Government as defined in section 901(b) of title 31, United States Code. (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. (3) Federal accounting standards.--The term ``Federal accounting standards'' means applicable accounting principles, standards, and requirements consistent with section 902(a)(3)(A) of title 31, United States Code, and includes concept statements with respect to the objectives of Federal financial reporting. (4) Financial management systems.--The term ``financial management systems'' includes the financial systems and the financial portions of mixed systems necessary to support financial management, including automated and manual processes, procedures, controls, data, hardware, software, and support personnel dedicated to the operation and maintenance of system functions. (5) Financial system.--The term ``financial system'' includes an information system, comprised of one or more applications, that is used for-- (A) collecting, processing, maintaining, transmitting, or reporting data about financial events; (B) supporting financial planning or budgeting activities; (C) accumulating and reporting costs information; or (D) supporting the preparation of financial statements. (6) Mixed system.--The term ``mixed system'' means an information system that supports both financial and nonfinancial functions of the Federal Government or components thereof. SEC. ____08. EFFECTIVE DATE. This title shall take effect on October 1, 1996. Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today I offer an amendment that has already passed the Senate as a free-standing bill called the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (S. 1130). This measure brings urgent reforms to Federal financial management and restores accountability to the Government. The Senate should include this measure in the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government appropriations bill because it is our best hope for enacting these important reforms into law this year. There is very little time left in this session and it is of the utmost importance that Congress send this measure to the President before we leave town. However, I strongly encourage efforts currently underway in the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee to pass S. 1130. Chairman Clinger as well as Government Management Subcommittee Chairman Horn are working hard on the bill and I hope they are able to get it through the House of Representatives during these busy weeks. Mr. President, I'll make just a brief statement on financial management reform. Several years ago, in an effort to identify excess spending in the Federal budget, I inquired as to overhead costs in Federal programs. I was advised that the Federal accounting system makes it impossible to identify overhead expenses for most Federal operations. The Federal Government, it turned out, has over 200 separate primary accounting systems, making it impossible to compare something as basic as overhead costs. Worse, many of these systems are shamefully inadequate even on their own terms. The Internal Revenue Service offers another disturbing example of poor financial management and its consequences. The General Accounting Office testified before the Governmental Affairs Committee on June 6, 1996, that despite years of criticism, ``fundamental, persistent problems remain uncorrected'' at the IRS. For example, the IRS cannot substantiate the amounts reported for specific types of taxes collected, such as Social Security taxes, income taxes, and excise taxes. The IRS cannot even verify a significant portion of its own nonpayroll operating expenses, which total $3 billion. One can hardly resist observing that this is the agency that demands precision from every taxpayer in America. The IRS is just a small part of a Government so massive and complex that it controls and directs cash resources of almost $2 trillion per year, issuing 900 million checks and maintaining a payroll and benefits system for over 5 million Government employees. Clearly it is imperative that the Government use a uniform and widely accepted set of accounting standards across the hundreds of agencies and departments that make up this Government. Enactment of this measure into law would be a great step toward putting Federal financial management in order. It requires that all Federal agencies implement and maintain uniform accounting standards. The result will be more accurate and reliable information for program managers and leaders in Congress, meaning better decisions will be made: tax dollars will be put to better use, and a measure of confidence in the Government will be restored. While this is not the kind of legislation that makes headlines, it is of great significance. Its passage would be a major accomplishment for the 104th Congress. Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the amendments I have offered are as follows: One is for Senator Stevens, to provide that the ACIR utilize nonappropriated funds for continued operations; for Senator Inhofe, to strike section 404 of the bill; for Senator McCain, regarding a study of the administratively uncontrollable overtime; for Senator Hollings, to provide certain death benefits to civilian Government employees; for myself and Senator Kerrey, regarding explosive detection training for canines; for myself, naming the new courthouse in Portland, OR; for Senator Brown, regarding Federal financial management improvement. Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendments on this side, and we support all of them. Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered and agreed to, en bloc, and that any accompanying statements be placed at the appropriate place in the Record. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendments (No. 5249 through 5255), en bloc, were agreed to. Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments were agreed to. Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. SHELBY. I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the chairman withhold? Mr. SHELBY. I am glad to withhold. Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may be allowed to offer an amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. SHELBY. Reserving the right to object, I would like to check with Senator Kassebaum on her amendment, and also Senator Wyden, who has been conferring with her, before we do that. Mr. WYDEN. Did the Senator from Alabama ask unanimous consent to lay aside---- Mr. SHELBY. The Senator from Nevada asked unanimous consent. What [[Page S10291]] we would like to know is, where are the Senator and Senator Kassebaum on the amendment? Mr. WYDEN. Senator Kassebaum and I are continuing to discuss these matters. I think it is fair to say, in fact, that Senator Kassebaum indicated that she thought it was appropriate to go on with further business, and we will continue to discuss the matters with respect to the gag rule a bit more. Mr. SHELBY. I have no objection to temporarily setting aside the Kassebaum amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will shortly send the amendment to the desk on my behalf and that of Senator Levin and that of Senator Biden. Mr. President, we have heard a lot in this Chamber about the issue of reimbursing the former employee of the White House Travel Office, Billy Dale, for attorney fees. There have been hours of talk in this Chamber about that issue. Unfortunately, Mr. President, much of what we have heard has been based on emotion and not on facts. In fact, there is very little, if any, factual support for this very costly expenditure of a $0.5 million--$500,000--to reimburse attorneys on the Billy Dale case. The American people, in effect, are being asked to pay for the attorney fees of a person who was lawfully indicted and legitimately prosecuted. Let me repeat: The American people are being asked to pay the attorney fees for a person who was indicted lawfully--no question about that--and who was legitimately prosecuted. Proponents of this taxpayer expenditure contend that Mr. Dale was wrongfully prosecuted. Yet, neither Dale nor these high-powered lawyers who represented him--and still represent him--ever raised any of this in any proceeding or in any case that was before the courts. They didn't move to dismiss his indictment on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct. In fact, when they filed a motion for acquittal, the court, having heard the evidence, denied the motion for acquittal. Why? Because it was the judge's reasonable assessment that sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable person to find Billy Dale guilty of the charges. Mr. Dale and his attorneys also failed to allege wrongdoing against those who investigated him, and there is no evidence to support that there was any wrongdoing by the people who did the investigation. The watchdog of Congress, the General Accounting Office, reviewed the case and determined that the FBI and the IRS action taken during the period surrounding the removal of the Travel Office employees were reasonable and consistent with the Agencies' normal procedures. Mr. President, a review by the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Justice Department concluded that there was no wrongdoing on the part of any FBI employees regarding the Travel Office matter. Mr. President, I want to say that I believe that the chairman of this subcommittee and the ranking member, the junior Senators from Alabama and Nebraska, have brought a good bill before this body. There are scores of amendments that have been filed. I would bet that a number of them are not germane. Certainly this one is, and I felt there is language in this bill that relates to this issue where this bill would pay, in effect, Mr. Dale's attorneys $500,000, and that this should be something that should be discussed. This should be an issue that is debated, and I do that under the recognition that I think the two managers of this legislation have done a good job. But let me repeat regarding these attorney fees that there is no evidence to support that Mr. Dale--as Mr. Dale and his attorneys did raise--there is nothing to support that there was any wrongdoing in this investigation. I repeat: The General Accounting Office reviewed this matter and determined that the FBI and the IRS did nothing wrong regarding the procedures in the Travel Office. They were reasonable and consistent with the Agencies' normal procedures and practices. A review by the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Justice Department concluded that there was no wrongdoing on part of any FBI employee regarding the Travel Office matter, and it is clear that all the people who investigated this case were there long before this administration took office. Notwithstanding this, the American taxpayers have been asked to pay almost $0.5 million to Dale's attorneys. This is clearly a private relief bill. If this had been in the form of an amendment, our rules would have allowed us to raise a point of order, and this procedure could have been knocked out. But in that the committee and the subcommittee had, in effect, amended the House bill, we have nothing to raise a point of order on. As a result of that, this is the only alternative we have. We are being asked as a body to grant this relief absent any hearing or committee report on this subject. The matter should be subject to the ordinary procedures for private relief bills provided under Senate rule XIV. That is why I am offering this amendment, along with Senators Levin and Biden, that comports with the procedures set out in rule XIV. The amendment that will shortly be offered refers the reimbursement of Mr. Dale's attorney fees to the Federal Court of Claims. Mr. President, the Federal Court of Claims is a body in which the judges are appointed for a period of 15 years. This is a body that has been in existence for over 100 years. It has decided exactly the type of issue presented in the Billy Dale matter on hundreds and hundreds of cases. This court has special jurisdiction for cases involving claims against the Federal Government. As I have indicated, it is made up of approximately 15 judges. These are referred to as article 1 judges because they serve for a time certain, and these people are appointed by the President of the United States for these 15-year terms. They handle primarily contractual claims, fifth amendment claims, and certain Indian claims. Over the past century, Congress has referred thousands of cases to the court. The court reviews these cases under specific statutory authority and procedures set out in claims cases under the United States. Initially, the case is referred to a chief judge who designates another judge. In fact, they usually have three people that hear these cases, and these three judges become the reviewing body. The bottom line is this panel has the most expertise that we have in America to handle this kind of case. I think this is something we would want to do to avoid the bitter political acrimony that has taken place on this floor in the past regarding this matter. It would seem that we should refer it to the body separate and apart from the policy involved. If in fact this amendment carries, it is up to the Court of Claims to determine the extent to which Mr. Dale has a legal and equitable remedy in this matter and whether or not the taxpayers should pay him money. Now, I think justice and equity weighs against Mr. Dale, but let the Court of Claims determine that. This amendment is the least we can do for the American taxpayer. Half a million dollars may be pocket change for some and maybe even Mr. Dale's attorneys, but it is not to the American public. It is a lot of money to the American public. Facts do not support such a controversial expenditure on behalf of someone who has been indicted for embezzlement and offered to plead guilty. Here is what we are being asked to do. We are being asked to pay $500,000 in attorney's fees for someone who admitted his guilt, basically, according to his attorney. Here is what his attorneys wrote to the U.S. attorney: Mr. Dale will enter a plea of guilty to a single count of 18 U.S.C. section 654. He will acknowledge that he intentionally placed Travel Office funds in his personal checking account without authorization. Here is what he, Mr. President, has agreed to plead guilty to. This is the statute. Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, embezzles or wrongly converts to his own use the money or property of another which comes into his possession or under his control in the execution of such office or employment, or under color or claim of authority as such officer or employee, shall be fined under this title . . . the value of the money and property thus embezzled . . . or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. It seems somewhat unique to me that someone who, in writing, agreed to [[Page S10292]] plead guilty, could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison, fined the amount of money he stole, is now coming before the Congress of the United States and saying pay my attorney's fees. Why? Because he was acquitted. Mr. President, I am a trial lawyer. Before I came here, I tried a lot of cases. I did criminal work. I believe in our system of justice. The vast majority of times trial by jury works out right. The right decision is not always reached, but most of the time it is. The vast majority of the time the right decision is reached. A lot of times the jury does not arrive at the right result, but they arrive at a result. Sometimes they do not, as we know it appears to a lot of us in the O.J. Simpson case or the Menendez brothers. The juries do not always do the right thing, but most of the time they do. This is an instance clearly when they did not do the right thing. Now, the facts do not support such a controversial expenditure on behalf of someone who is indicted for embezzlement and offered to plead guilty to a felony. This issue is not about the firing of the Travel Office employees in 1993. Most agree that