[Pages H5651-H5723]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 498 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 4104.

{time} 1208

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4104) making appropriations for the Treasury Department,
the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the
President, and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, with Mr. Dreier in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, July
15, 1998, all time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, at this point in the Record I will insert a
table showing the details of this bill.
The material referred to is as follows:

[[Page H5652]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JY98.001

[[Page H5653]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JY98.002

[[Page H5654]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JY98.003

[[Page H5655]]

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill,
through page 26, line 10, be considered as read, printed in the Record,
and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I just want
to make sure, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer) has an
amendment on page 23, line 22, title I.
Under my reservation, I yield to the chairman, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) simply to explain the consequences of his request.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, to explain, our intention here is to try to
proceed in as orderly a fashion as possible with the rule that we
adopted last night. Obviously, large sections of our bill are subject
to points of order.
What I would like to do is to try, rather than reading paragraph by
paragraph, to do it one title at a time, in this case, because title II
is only 2 pages, titles 1 and 2, Treasury and Post Office. It does not
preclude any amendment from being offered at any time, I would add.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, under my reservation, I
appreciate the gentleman's explanation. I would simply inform him,
obviously, I will not object, but will inform him that if we can have
discussions about after title II, subsequent to title II, starting with
title II, if we can have a different procedure.
Mr. KOLBE. Correct. We can have that discussion again.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the bill is open to page 26, line
10.
The text of the bill through page 26, line 10, is as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Treasury
Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive
Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies,
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other
purposes, namely:

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Departmental Offices

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Departmental Offices
including operation and maintenance of the Treasury Buildings
and Annex; hire of passenger motor vehicles; maintenance,
repairs, and improvements of, and purchase of commercial
insurance policies for, real properties leased or owned
overseas, when necessary for the performance of official
business; not to exceed $2,900,000 for official travel
expenses; not to exceed $150,000 for official reception and
representation expenses; not to exceed $258,000 for
unforeseen emergencies of a confidential nature, to be
allocated and expended under the direction of the Secretary
of the Treasury and to be accounted for solely on his
certificate; $122,889,000: Provided, That the Office of
Foreign Assets Control shall be funded at no less than
$5,517,000: Provided further, That of the funds provided
under this heading, $2,000,000 shall be available only for
the provision of compensation for losses incurred due to the
denial of entry into the United States of any firearms as
defined in section 921(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code
that (1) as of the date of the enactment of this Act, could
lawfully be manufactured and sold in the United States; (2)
that is of a type that was determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury on April 6, 1998, to be not importable into the
United States; and (3) as of February 10, 1998, was
conditionally released under bond to the importer by the
United States Customs Service. The losses compensated under
the preceding sentence shall be only for the cost of the
weapons and any shipping, transportation, duty, and storage
costs incurred by the importer, as determined by the
Secretary of the Treasury.

Office of Professional Responsibility

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of Professional
Responsibility, including the purchase and hire of passenger
motor vehicles, $1,250,000.

Automation Enhancement

(including transfer of funds)

For the development and acquisition of automatic data
processing equipment, software, and services for the
Department of the Treasury, $31,190,000: Provided, That these
funds shall remain available until September 30, 2000:
Provided further, That these funds shall be transferred to
accounts and in amounts as necessary to satisfy the
requirements of the Department's offices, bureaus, and other
organizations: Provided further, That this transfer authority
shall be in addition to any other transfer authority provided
in this Act: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated shall be used to support or supplement Internal
Revenue Service appropriations for Information Systems:
Provided further, That no funds may be obligated for the
Automated Commercial Environment project until the
Commissioner of Customs has submitted to the Committees on
Appropriations an enterprise information systems architecture
plan for the U.S. Customs Service consistent with the
Treasury Information Systems Architecture Framework and
approved by the Treasury Investment Review Board.

Office of Inspector General

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, not to exceed $2,000,000 for official travel
expenses; including hire of passenger motor vehicles; and not
to exceed $100,000 for unforeseen emergencies of a
confidential nature, to be allocated and expended under the
direction of the Inspector General of the Treasury;
$30,678,000.

Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration

For the repair, alteration, and improvement of the Treasury
Building and Annex, $27,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That these funds shall not be available
for obligation until September 30, 1999.

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network, including hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel
expenses of non-Federal law enforcement personnel to attend
meetings concerned with financial intelligence activities,
law enforcement, and financial regulation; not to exceed
$14,000 for official reception and representation expenses;
and for assistance to Federal law enforcement agencies, with
or without reimbursement; $24,000,000: Provided, That funds
appropriated in this account may be used to procure personal
services contracts.

Violent Crime Reduction Programs

(including transfer of funds)

For activities authorized by Public Law 103-322, to remain
available until expended, which shall be derived from the
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, as follows:
(1) As authorized by section 190001(e), $122,000,000; of
which $3,000,000 shall be available to the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms for administering the Gang Resistance
Education and Training program; of which $14,528,000 shall be
available to the United States Secret Service, including
$6,700,000 for vehicle replacement, $5,000,000 for
investigations of counterfeiting, and $2,828,000 for forensic
and related support of investigations of missing and
exploited children, of which $828,000 shall be available not
earlier than September 30, 1999, as a grant for activities
related to the investigations of exploited children and shall
remain available until expended; of which $66,472,000 shall
be available for the United States Customs Service, including
$54,000,000 for narcotics detection technology, $9,500,000
for the passenger processing initiative, $972,000 for
construction of canopies for inspection of outbound vehicles
along the Southwest border, and $2,000,000 for the Customs
Cyber-Smuggling Center in support of the anti-child
pornography program; of which $14,000,000 shall be available
to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, including
$13,000,000 to the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center
to continue the program to transfer technology to State and
local law enforcement agencies, and $1,000,000 for Model
State Drug Law Conferences; and of which $24,000,000 shall be
available for Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement.
(2) As authorized by section 32401, $10,000,000 to the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for disbursement
through grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts to local
governments for Gang Resistance Education and Training:
Provided, That notwithstanding sections 32401 and 310001,
such funds shall be allocated to State and local law
enforcement and prevention organizations.

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center, as a bureau of the Department of the
Treasury, including materials and support costs of Federal
law enforcement basic training; purchase (not to exceed 52
for police-type use, without regard to the general purchase
price limitation) and hire of passenger motor vehicles;
uniforms without regard to the general purchase price
limitation for the current fiscal year; the conducting of and
participating in firearms matches and presentation of awards;
for public awareness and enhancing community support of law
enforcement training; not to exceed $9,500 for official
reception and representation expenses; and services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; $71,923,000, of which up to
$13,843,000 for materials and support costs of Federal law
enforcement basic training shall remain available until
September 30, 2001: Provided, That the Center is authorized
to accept and use gifts of property, both real and personal,
and to accept services, for authorized purposes, including
funding of a gift

[[Page H5656]]

of intrinsic value which shall be awarded annually by the
Director of the Center to the outstanding student who
graduated from a basic training program at the Center during
the previous fiscal year, which shall be funded only by gifts
received through the Center's gift authority: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
students attending training at any Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center site shall reside in on-Center or Center-
provided housing, insofar as available and in accordance with
Center policy: Provided further, That funds appropriated in
this account shall be available, at the discretion of the
Director, for the following: training United States Postal
Service law enforcement personnel and Postal police officers;
State and local government law enforcement training on a
space-available basis; training of foreign law enforcement
officials on a space-available basis with reimbursement of
actual costs to this appropriation, except that reimbursement
may be waived by the Secretary for law enforcement training
activities in foreign countries undertaken pursuant to
section 801 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996, Public Law 104-32; training of private sector
security officials on a space-available basis with
reimbursement of actual costs to this appropriation; travel
expenses of non-Federal personnel to attend course
development meetings and training at the Center; for expenses
for student athletic and related activities; and room and
board for student interns: Provided further, That the Center
is authorized to obligate funds in anticipation of
reimbursements from agencies receiving training at the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, except that total
obligations at the end of the fiscal year shall not exceed
total budgetary resources available at the end of the fiscal
year: Provided further, That the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center is authorized to provide short-term medical
services for students undergoing training at the Center.

acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

For expansion of the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center, for acquisition of necessary additional real property
and facilities, and for ongoing maintenance, facility
improvements, and related expenses, $28,360,000, to remain
available until expended.

Interagency Law Enforcement

interagency crime and drug enforcement

For expenses necessary for the detection and investigation
of individuals involved in organized crime drug trafficking,
including cooperative efforts with State and local law
enforcement, $51,900,000, of which $7,827,000 shall remain
available until expended.

Financial Management Service

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Financial Management Service,
$198,510,000, of which not to exceed $13,235,000 shall remain
available until September 30, 2001 for information systems
modernization initiatives.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms, including purchase of not to exceed 812
vehicles for police-type use, of which 650 shall be for
replacement only, and hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire
of aircraft; services of expert witnesses at such rates as
may be determined by the Director; for payment of per diem
and/or subsistence allowances to employees where a major
investigative assignment requires an employee to work 16
hours or more per day or to remain overnight at his or her
post of duty; not to exceed $20,000 for official reception
and representation expenses; for training of State and local
law enforcement agencies with or without reimbursement,
including training in connection with the training and
acquisition of canines for explosives and fire accelerants
detection; and provision of laboratory assistance to State
and local agencies, with or without reimbursement;
$530,624,000; of which $2,206,000 shall not be available
until September 30, 1999; of which not to exceed $1,000,000
shall be available for the payment of attorneys' fees as
provided by 18 U.S.C. 924(d)(2); and of which $1,000,000
shall be available for the equipping of any vessel, vehicle,
equipment, or aircraft available for official use by a State
or local law enforcement agency if the conveyance will be
used in joint law enforcement operations with the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and for the payment of overtime
salaries, travel, fuel, training, equipment, supplies, and
other similar costs of State and local law enforcement
personnel, including sworn officers and support personnel,
that are incurred in joint operations with the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms: Provided, That no funds made
available by this or any other Act may be used to transfer
the functions, missions, or activities of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to other agencies or
Departments in fiscal year 1999: Provided further, That no
funds appropriated herein shall be available for salaries or
administrative expenses in connection with consolidating or
centralizing, within the Department of the Treasury, the
records, or any portion thereof, of acquisition and
disposition of firearms maintained by Federal firearms
licensees: Provided further, That no funds appropriated
herein shall be used to pay administrative expenses or the
compensation of any officer or employee of the United States
to implement an amendment or amendments to 27 CFR 178.118 or
to change the definition of ``Curios or relics'' in 27 CFR
178.11 or remove any item from ATF Publication 5300.11 as it
existed on January 1, 1994: Provided further, That none of
the funds appropriated herein shall be available to
investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal
firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c): Provided
further, That such funds shall be available to investigate
and act upon applications filed by corporations for relief
from Federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c):
Provided further, That no funds in this Act may be used to
provide ballistics imaging equipment to any State or local
authority who has obtained similar equipment through a
Federal grant or subsidy unless the State or local authority
agrees to return that equipment or to repay that grant or
subsidy to the Federal Government: Provided further, That no
funds under this Act may be used to electronically retrieve
information gathered pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(4) by name
or any personal identification code.

United States Customs Service

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the United States Customs
Service, including purchase and lease of up to 1,050 motor
vehicles of which 550 are for replacement only and of which
1,030 are for police-type use and commercial operations; hire
of motor vehicles; contracting with individuals for personal
services abroad; not to exceed $30,000 for official reception
and representation expenses; and awards of compensation to
informers, as authorized by any Act enforced by the United
States Customs Service; $1,638,065,000, of which such sums as
become available in the Customs User Fee Account, except sums
subject to section 13031(f)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(3)),
shall be derived from that Account; of the total, not to
exceed $150,000 shall be available for payment for rental
space in connection with preclearance operations, not to
exceed $4,000,000 shall be available until expended for
research, not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be available until
expended for conducting special operations pursuant to 19
U.S.C. 2081, and up to $8,000,000 shall be available until
expended for the procurement of automation infrastructure
items, including hardware, software, and installation:
Provided further, That uniforms may be purchased without
regard to the general purchase price limitation for the
current fiscal year: Provided further, That notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the fiscal year aggregate
overtime limitation prescribed in subsection 5(c)(1) of the
Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 261 and 267) shall be
$30,000: Provided further, That $7,000,000 of these funds
shall not be available for obligation until September 30,
1999.

operation and maintenance, air and marine interdiction programs

For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance of marine vessels, aircraft, and
other related equipment of the Air and Marine Programs,
including operational training and mission-related travel,
and rental payments for facilities occupied by the air or
marine interdiction and demand reduction programs, the
operations of which include the following: the interdiction
of narcotics and other goods; the provision of support to
Customs and other Federal, State, and local agencies in the
enforcement or administration of laws enforced by the Customs
Service; and, at the discretion of the Commissioner of
Customs, the provision of assistance to Federal, State, and
local agencies in other law enforcement and emergency
humanitarian efforts; $100,688,000, which shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That no aircraft or other
related equipment, with the exception of aircraft which is
one of a kind and has been identified as excess to Customs
requirements and aircraft which has been damaged beyond
repair, shall be transferred to any other Federal agency,
department, or office outside of the Department of the
Treasury, during fiscal year 1999 without the prior approval
of the Committees on Appropriations.

harbor maintenance fee collection

(including transfer of funds)

For administrative expenses related to the collection of
the Harbor Maintenance Fee, pursuant to Public Law 103-182,
$3,000,000, to be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund and to be transferred to and merged with the Customs
``Salaries and Expenses'' account for such purposes.

Bureau of the Public Debt

Administering the Public Debt

For necessary expenses connected with any public-debt
issues of the United States, $176,500,000, of which not to
exceed $2,500 shall be available for official reception and
representation expenses, and of which not to exceed
$2,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2001
for information systems modernization initiatives: Provided,
That the sum appropriated herein from the General Fund for
fiscal year 1999 shall be reduced by not more than $4,400,000
as definitive security issue fees and Treasury Direct
Investor Account Maintenance fees are collected, so as to
result in a final fiscal year 1999 appropriation from the
General Fund estimated at $172,100,000, and in addition,
$20,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund to reimburse the Bureau for administrative and personnel
expenses for financial management of the Fund, as authorized
by section

[[Page H5657]]

102 of Public Law 101-380: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provisions of law, effective upon
enactment and thereafter, the Bureau of the Public Debt shall
be fully and directly reimbursed by the funds described in
section 104 of Public Law 101-136 (103 Stat. 789) for costs
and services performed by the Bureau in the administration of
such funds.

Internal Revenue Service

Processing, Assistance, and Management

For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for
tax return processing; revenue accounting; tax law and
account assistance to taxpayers by telephone and
correspondence; programs to match information returns and tax
returns; management services; rent and utilities; and
inspection; including purchase (not to exceed 150 for
replacement only for police-type use) and hire of passenger
motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)); and services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may be
determined by the Commissioner; $3,025,013,000, of which up
to $3,700,000 shall be for the Tax Counseling for the Elderly
Program, and of which not to exceed $25,000 shall be for
official reception and representation expenses.

Tax Law Enforcement

For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for
determining and establishing tax liabilities; providing
litigation support; issuing technical rulings; examining
employee plans and exempt organizations; conducting criminal
investigation and enforcement activities; securing unfiled
tax returns; collecting unpaid accounts; compiling statistics
of income; and conducting compliance research; including
purchase (for police-type use, not to exceed 850) and hire of
passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)), and services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may be
determined by the Commissioner; $3,164,189,000.

Earned Income Tax Credit Compliance Initiative

For funding essential earned income tax credit compliance
and error reduction initiatives pursuant to section 5702 of
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33),
$143,000,000, of which not to exceed $10,000,000 may be used
to reimburse the Social Security Administration for the costs
of implementing section 1090 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of
1997.

Information Systems

For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for
information systems and telecommunications support, including
developmental information systems and operational information
systems; the hire of passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C.
1343(b)); and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at
such rates as may be determined by the Commissioner;
$1,224,032,000, which shall be available until September 30,
2000, and of which $125,000,000 shall be available only for
improvements to customer service and restructuring and reform
of the Internal Revenue Service.

Information Technology Investments

For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service,
$210,000,000, to remain available until expended, for the
capital asset acquisition of information technology systems,
including management and related contractual costs of such
acquisition, and including contractual costs associated with
operations authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided, That none
of these funds is available for obligation until September
30, 1999: Provided further, That none of these funds shall be
obligated until the Internal Revenue Service and the
Department of the Treasury submit to Congress for approval, a
plan for expenditure that (1) implements the Internal Revenue
Service's Modernization Blueprint submitted to Congress on
May 15, 1997; (2) meets the information systems investment
guidelines established by the Office of Management and Budget
and in the fiscal year 1998 budget; (3) is reviewed and
approved by the Office of Management and Budget, the
Department of the Treasury's IRS Management Board, and is
reviewed by the General Accounting Office; (4) meets the
requirements of the May 15, 1997 Internal Revenue Service's
Systems Life Cycle program; and (5) is in compliance with
acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and systems
acquisition management practices of the Federal Government.

administrative provisions--internal revenue service

Section 101. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation
made available in this Act to the Internal Revenue Service
may be transferred to any other Internal Revenue Service
appropriation upon the advance approval of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 102. The Internal Revenue Service shall maintain a
training program to ensure that Internal Revenue Service
employees are trained in taxpayers' rights, in dealing
courteously with the taxpayers, and in cross-cultural
relations.
Sec. 103. The funds provided in this Act for the Internal
Revenue Service shall be used to provide, as a minimum, the
fiscal year 1995 level of service, staffing, and funding for
Taxpayer Services.
Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated by this title
shall be used in connection with the collection of any
underpayment of any tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 unless the conduct of officers and employees of the
Internal Revenue Service in connection with such collection,
including any private sector employees under contract to the
Internal Revenue Service, complies with subsection (a) of
section 805 (relating to communications in connection with
debt collection), and section 806 (relating to harassment or
abuse), of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C.
1692).
Sec. 105. The Internal Revenue Service shall institute and
enforce policies and procedures which will safeguard the
confidentiality of taxpayer information.
Sec. 106. Funds made available by this or any other Act to
the Internal Revenue Service shall be available for improved
facilities and increased manpower to provide sufficient and
effective 1-800 help line for taxpayers. The Commissioner
shall continue to make the improvement of the Internal
Revenue Service 1-800 help line service a priority and
allocate resources necessary to increase phone lines and
staff to improve the Internal Revenue Service 1-800 help line
service.

United States Secret Service

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the United States Secret Service,
including purchase of not to exceed 739 vehicles for police-
type use, of which 675 shall be for replacement only, and
hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire of aircraft; training
and assistance requested by State and local governments,
which may be provided without reimbursement; services of
expert witnesses at such rates as may be determined by the
Director; rental of buildings in the District of Columbia,
and fencing, lighting, guard booths, and other facilities on
private or other property not in Government ownership or
control, as may be necessary to perform protective functions;
for payment of per diem and/or subsistence allowances to
employees where a protective assignment during the actual day
or days of the visit of a protectee require an employee to
work 16 hours per day or to remain overnight at his or her
post of duty; the conducting of and participating in firearms
matches; presentation of awards; for travel of Secret Service
employees on protective missions without regard to the
limitations on such expenditures in this or any other Act if
approval is obtained in advance from the Committees on
Appropriations; for repairs, alterations, and minor
construction at the James J. Rowley Secret Service Training
Center; for research and development; for making grants to
conduct behavioral research in support of protective research
and operations; not to exceed $20,000 for official reception
and representation expenses; not to exceed $50,000 to provide
technical assistance and equipment to foreign law enforcement
organizations in counterfeit investigations; for payment in
advance for commercial accommodations as may be necessary to
perform protective functions; and for uniforms without regard
to the general purchase price limitation for the current
fiscal year; $594,657,000.

acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

For necessary expenses of construction, repair, alteration,
and improvement of facilities, $6,445,000, to remain
available until expended.

General Provisions--Department of the Treasury

Sec. 110. Any obligation or expenditure by the Secretary of
the Treasury in connection with law enforcement activities of
a Federal agency or a Department of the Treasury law
enforcement organization in accordance with 31 U.S.C.
9703(g)(4)(B) from unobligated balances remaining in the Fund
on September 30, 1998, shall be made in compliance with
reprogramming guidelines.
Sec. 111. Appropriations to the Department of the Treasury
in this Act shall be available for uniforms or allowances
therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901), including
maintenance, repairs, and cleaning; purchase of insurance for
official motor vehicles operated in foreign countries;
purchase of motor vehicles without regard to the general
purchase price limitations for vehicles purchased and used
overseas for the current fiscal year; entering into contracts
with the Department of State for the furnishing of health and
medical services to employees and their dependents serving in
foreign countries; and services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
Sec. 112. The funds provided to the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms for fiscal year 1999 in this Act for the
enforcement of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act shall
be expended in a manner so as not to diminish enforcement
efforts with respect to section 105 of the Federal Alcohol
Administration Act.
Sec. 113. Not to exceed 2 percent of any appropriations in
this Act made available to the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, United States Customs
Service, and United States Secret Service may be transferred
between such appropriations upon the advance approval of the
Committees on Appropriations. No transfer may increase or
decrease any such appropriation by more than 2 percent.
Sec. 114. Not to exceed 2 percent of any appropriations in
this Act made available to the Departmental Offices, Office
of Inspector General, Financial Management Service, and
Bureau of the Public Debt, may be transferred between such
appropriations upon the advance approval of the Committees on
Appropriations. No transfer may increase or decrease any such
appropriation by more than 2 percent.

[[Page H5658]]

Sec. 115. The Secretary is authorized to promote the
benefits of and encourage the use of electronic tax
administration programs, as they become available, through
the use of mass communications and other means. Additionally,
the Secretary may implement procedures to pay appropriate
incentives to commercial concerns for electronic filing
services: Provided, That such payment may not be made unless
the electronic filing service is provided without charge to
the taxpayer whose return is so filed: Provided further, That
the Internal Revenue Service shall assure the security of all
electronic transmissions and the full protection of the
privacy of taxpayer data.
Sec. 116. (a) The Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the
Department of the Treasury shall not award a contract for
Solicitation No. BEP-97-13 (TN) until such time as the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services and the Committee
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives authorize
the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, in writing, to proceed
with the award of Solicitation No. BEP-97-13 (TN).
(b) The Bureau of Engraving and Printing may extend the
distinctive currency paper ``bridge'' contract (TEP-97-10) up
to 6 (six) months beginning on the date the contract expires,
if, by such date, the Congress has not authorized the
awarding of a new contract or if the Congress takes action
based on the report submitted by the General Accounting
Office pursuant to section 9003(a) of Public Law 105-18. The
Bureau of Engraving and Printing must notify Congress prior
to taking any action with respect to the extension of TEP-97-
10.

TITLE II--POSTAL SERVICE

Payment to the Postal Service Fund

For payment to the Postal Service Fund for revenue forgone
on free and reduced rate mail, pursuant to subsections (c)
and (d) of section 2401 of title 39, United States Code,
$71,195,000: Provided, That mail for overseas voting and mail
for the blind shall continue to be free: Provided further,
That 6-day delivery and rural delivery of mail shall continue
at not less than the 1983 level: Provided further, That none
of the funds made available to the Postal Service by this Act
shall be used to implement any rule, regulation, or policy of
charging any officer or employee of any State or local child
support enforcement agency, or any individual participating
in a State or local program of child support enforcement, a
fee for information requested or provided concerning an
address of a postal customer: Provided further, That none of
the funds provided in this Act shall be used to consolidate
or close small rural and other small post offices in the
fiscal year ending on September 30, 1999.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there points of order against that portion of the
bill?
If not, are there any amendments?

Amendment Offered by Mr. Schumer

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Schumer:
Page 2, line 20, insert ``(reduced by $2,000,000)'' after
``$122,889,000''.
Page 2, line 23, insert ``(reduced by $2,000,000)'' after
``$2,000,000''.
Page 11, line 7, insert ``(increased by $2,000,000)'' after
``$530,624,000''.

{time} 1215

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chair and ranking
member for their courtesy in helping us bring this amendment forward.
My amendment is simple, Mr. Chairman. Two million dollars was put
into this bill for gun dealers who tried and failed to bring foreign-
made assault weapons into this country. My amendment gives that $2
million to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms for more law
enforcement.
Just so everyone understands, in April the President signed an
executive order banning the import of thousands of semiautomatic
copycat assault weapons, weapons banned already here, made overseas,
that the President said should not be allowed to be imported. These
weapons are pictured right here. The President did the right thing. The
President stood up to the gun lobby and kept thousands of the most
lethal weapons off our streets. I saluted him then, and I salute him
now.
But buried in an en bloc amendment, an amendment considered
noncontroversial, was a $2 million payoff to a handful of gun importers
for 1,700 guns stopped at the border. That is a payoff, Mr. Chairman,
of $1,000 a gun for guns that are advertised in a catalog for $250.
Let us not quibble about the price, because, in my view, $1 is too
much. Instead, let us talk about the gun dealers who we are bailing
out. Let us talk about the gun dealers who skated on the edge of the
law to get these copycat assault weapons into the country.
Read this. Our last shipment of Bulgarian stock kits arrived just
before the ban direct from Bulgaria. What are they trying to do? Skirt
the ban.
Now we are bailing them out. It is unbelievable. They knew what they
were doing. They tested the assault weapons law. They tested the
regulations. They imported the weapons that look and perform like AK-
47s but with minor cosmetic changes to try and skirt the ban. Very
clever, very, very clever. But they were caught, and there was an
outcry. And the President had the courage to act, and all of us were
pleased. Except the NRA and some gun dealers who got stuck with some
bad merchandise at the border.
Now, unbelievably, Mr. Chairman, this Congress wants to pay them for
their gamble. So many business people have made gambles on far more
legitimate enterprises. We are not giving them more money, more money
than they paid for these guns, but we are giving these gun dealers it.
Shame, shame.
I know what Members will say. They will say, well, the administration
signed off on this. Well, I know the real story. Some in this body, the
Republican leadership, have the President over a barrel. They threaten
to overturn his executive order and flood our streets with assault
weapons. Well, I say, let us call the bluff. I say, go ahead, offer an
amendment to bring AK-47s into this country. I do not think anyone will
do it.
I do not think we want to let the secret out about how this Congress
begs and grovels and appeases the gun lobby every chance they get.
They may have the administration over a barrel, but they do not have
us, the Members of this Congress, over a barrel. This is a gift. This
is a welfare check. Do they want to do welfare reform? Start with the
gun dealers.
It is a payoff to those who intentionally, knowingly play to the
fringes of the law. They do not deserve a taxpayer bailout. Reject this
deal. If we have $2 million to spare, give it to our brave ATF
officials who try to get the guns off the streets, instead of to the
gun dealers who are trying to import these malicious weapons into our
country.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I urge in the strongest possible terms this body to reject this
amendment. The compensation provision that is included, the gentleman
from New York referred to it as a stealth amendment and an en bloc
amendment, it was hardly stealthy. It was worked on at great length by
members of the subcommittee and the full committee with the
administration.
Let me quote from the administration's Statement of Administration
Policy: The administration supports an amendment agreed to in committee
that would provide up to $2 million of in-transit relief as
compensation for actual losses incurred due to denial of entry of
certain assault weapons affected by the determination of the Treasury
Department on April 6, 1998.
So let us make no mistake about this. This was agreed to as a
compromise with the administration. The question here is not one of gun
control. It is not one of gun safety. Those are not in dispute. There
is no risk of flooding the United States with so-called assault
weapons. The weapons that we are talking about are very few in number,
and they are in the custody of the Treasury Department.
For that matter, I think it is important to note that the weapons in
question, every one of these weapons could be manufactured and sold
domestically. If it is manufactured here in the United States, it can
be manufactured and sold legally. We are talking about guns that are
being brought in that were being imported, the same guns, and because
of a change in the administration policy, they were en route, and now
they cannot be sold in the United States.
If anything ever comes to a more clear taking of property at the last
moment, this is really about it. These were being imported legally into
the United States and were blocked from being sold because they were en
route. All that is being dealt with is those that are in transit. Let
me just give my colleagues the facts here.
On November 14 of last year, the President announced a temporary ban
on the import of certain categories of rifles that were and they remain
legal to possess and to manufacture here in the United States. There
were a small number of American businesses who

[[Page H5659]]

complied with all the relevant laws and were fully entitled to import
their goods, and they were left in the lurch. They could neither
recover their goods, nor could they reexport them. Even had they done
so, there is no foreign market for these specialized collectors' items.
When, following the study announced by the President in November, the
Treasury Department determined to make the ban permanent, these
businesses were faced with, in some cases, a complete, a total
financial loss. The committee believes that such action deprives
citizens of their property without just compensation and this measure
is designed to rectify that oversight. It is supported by the
administration because it deals only with the compensation issue for
these people who were legally bringing these guns in this country.
This action does not present any risk of illegal weapons in the
United States. It is only a few thousand weapons that are included in
this provision. It is strictly limited to those weapons that are legal
to manufacture and own here in the United States.
It is specifically limited to those that are affected by the
permanent ban. It is specifically limited to those that, as of February
10, 1998, had been conditionally released under bond, under bond to the
importers by the Customs Service. And all of these guns are going to
remain in the possession of the Treasury Department, of the Customs
Bureau.
Third point I would like to make is, this provision does not affect
the April 6 determination that this, that the ban on these weapons
would indeed be permanent. I would note that there is a precedent for
this kind of in-transit relief. In 1994, a previous embargo was placed
on a larger quantity of imports of sporting arms from China, and they
were compensated. It also would not repeal the April 6 executive order,
as I have said, that makes the ban permanent.
Mr. Chairman, this executive order by the President has caused
hardship to U.S. importers who possess valid imported permits for
legally importable categories of firearms. This would simply undo that
action.
It is supported by the administration. It would rectify that, and it
is a simple matter of fairness. I urge my colleagues in the strongest
possible terms to defeat this very, very unfair amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I think it is
outrageous that this Congress is actually considering paying gun
manufacturers millions of dollars because they were caught trying to
evade the law and because the Treasury Department has seized the
merchandise as contraband.
I know we were told a few moments ago by the honorable gentleman that
the poor gun makers, these merchants of death, they are not able to
sell these deadly weapons in the country because the administration
unfairly seized them without giving them proper notice so we have to
compensate them.
We should be punishing them for trying to sell these weapons in this
country in the first place, for trying to evade the law. This
Republican Congress cannot find a few million dollars for low income
heating assistance in the Northeast, but it can find a few million
dollars to pay these gun manufacturers.
Now we are told that these gun manufacturers are innocent victims of
the administration which put out this executive order and they did not
know about it. Well, maybe. Let them sue in court. Is it our normal
practice, is it our normal practice in this House that when the
Treasury Department seizes contraband at the border and the owner of
that contraband claims that he had a legal right to bring it in that we
compensate them? Is that what we do?
Or do we say to those people, go to court and make your case in front
of a judge, an impartial magistrate? We have a system of justice in
this country and if you can convince the judge that you were wronged,
then there is compensation or the return of the contraband.
No, it is not good enough for these gun makers. The NRA owns this
House, so we have to pay them for it. We have to pay them for it
instead of letting them go to court.
I wish the administration had not been so cowardly in making this
deal, because they were over a barrel and were threatened that this
Congress would overturn the ban on the imports of copycat assault
weapons. If I were in the administration, my advice would have been,
let them try, make my day. I would love to see what the American people
think in November of a Congress that overturns, that passes a special
law to say, let the foreign gun makers import their merchandise that
they cannot sell in their own countries here. Let them import the
copycat assault weapons. But, unfortunately, they did not have that
confidence in the judgment of the American people.
Assault weapons are not for sport. They are not necessary to hunt
deer or pheasants. They are killing machines. They kill police
officers. They kill our young people. They kill our family members.
They serve no legitimate purpose in our society, and they should not be
permitted here.
The administration should be commended for its executive order. And
the authors of this provision ought to think again, what precedent do
we want to set when someone tries to import something that our law
enforcement agencies say is against the law to import and they
disagree? They did not have adequate notice, they say. The law
enforcement agency is misinterpreting the law, they think. Should
Congress compensate them, or should they go to court and let the courts
decide?
I submit that this is a terrible precedent, this provision. The
Schumer-McDermott amendment ought to pass. We should not be paying
$1,000 a gun to people whose guns have been seized as contraband
because they tried to evade the law as it is. If they think the law was
unfair or they were not properly notified, let them go to court. Why
should we bail them out? The only reason we would even think of bailing
them out is because this Congress apparently is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the National Rifle Association.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

{time} 1230

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me,
and I would just make another point. The $2 million in this bill only
goes to 3 or 4 gun importers for approximately 1700 guns. They will be
getting, again, $1,000, over $1,000 for each gun that retails for $250.
If there was ever a giveaway, on any fiscal basis, this is it.
Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we hear a lot of
rhetoric in this House about cracking down on crime. In 1994, a
Democratic Congress cracked down on crime. It passed a bill to put
100,000 new cops on the beat, to crack down on violence against women,
and to enact the assault weapons ban. Now we see what the Republican
leadership is trying to do: Let us take back those steps one by one and
let us make sure that these three companies, who tried to evade the
law, get paid without a court date.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
First of all, we just heard some significant misstatements of fact.
These companies did not violate the law. In fact, the law was changed
in the midst of them carrying out their right to carry on a business.
And the fact that the administration, who changed the law, concurs that
this is a fair and proper thing to do, would also counter the argument
that this is something that they did not agree with when, in fact, it
was carried out.
So although I can understand the gentleman's lack of understanding of
firearms and understand their feelings on firearms, which I respect
totally, we should stay with the facts. These are not bad Americans.
They are Americans doing things totally within the limits of the law.
And to characterize them as someone other than that is unfair.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and will
give the time back if he wants to followup. The gentleman from Oklahoma

[[Page H5660]]

makes one point very well, and that is the previous speaker, the
gentleman from New York, referred to these people as people who were
evading the law. They were not evading the law. They were complying
with the law. The administration changed the law through its Executive
Order.
The second misstatement. He referred to them as manufacturers. They
are not manufacturers. These are people that import goods. Whether they
import guns or they import television sets or they import dolls or they
import shirts, they are importers. They are not manufacturers of these
guns.
And the third point I would make is the gentleman referred to the
fact that we should not sanction these people getting around the rule
of law. Well, if we are going to talk about the rule of law, how about
the Gun Control Act of 1968? That is where Congress established which
the last I heard Congress was the law making body of this country, the
definitions of permissible guns in the United States that could be sold
and manufactured in this country.
So I would suggest that it is the administration who was evading the
law with this Executive Order. Nonetheless, that is the reality. And
even the administration, a little bit embarrassed by what they have
done, recognizes there should be compensation for these people who were
acting lawfully when they brought these guns to the United States.
The last point I would make, in response to what the other gentleman
from New York, from Brooklyn, said, when he referred to this being a $2
million boondoggle for all of these importers. It does not mean all
this money is going to go to them. It is only going to go to them as
these guns are purchased. It is up to $2 million. And if it is not used
for that purpose, then, fine, it will be reprogrammed for other
purposes.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I share the chairman's position on this but not his
passion.
A, not only should the President of the United States not be
embarrassed, every American ought to thank the President of the United
States for standing up to make our streets safer, for taking on some
very powerful interest groups to try to save children, save police
officers, save our fellow neighbors. That is what the President of the
United States is trying to do, and he ought not to be embarrassed, and
is not embarrassed for one second, in his efforts to try to do that.
I supported that ban. I supported the assault weapons ban when we
passed it in the House and sent it over to the Senate, and I support it
today. The administration not only ought not to be embarrassed but
ought to be congratulated because they are bending over backwards to be
fair. Some think they are bending over too far. I do not agree with my
friends who think that. Because what the administration is really
saying is our effort is to make streets safe, not to hurt American
businessmen, even when they tried to beat the ban. That is what the
gentleman from New York was pointing out; that the ads were, ``Get in
before you can't get in; before they stop this, because there is a time
frame.''
So I say to my friends on both sides of this issue, both sides are
right. They were doing something legal and, therefore, I disagree with
my friend from New York. They knew, however, as both of my friends from
New York indicate, that it was not going to be able to be done pretty
soon and that they needed to get in before the deadline. So, yes, there
was a little bit of wrongdoing on their part trying to beat the ban.
The fact of the matter, however, and what the administration has
said, and why I oppose the amendment and support the chairman's
position, is that, look, we understand that the import was legal and we
understand when it got here we stopped it. And by the way, it is in the
importer's warehouse at this point in time, at their expense. But there
are some who wanted to let those guns go on the street. That was the
alternative, the amendment that was going to be offered. Let them go.
Let 1700 AK-47s and assault weapons on the street.
The administration said we are not for that. We are not going to
support that. We will fight that. So we made an accommodation. But the
administration said, on the other hand, we understand these have been
paid for, so we will purchase these guns and we are going to melt them
down so they will never be used to assault anybody.
Now, I want to reiterate, however, for my friends from New York, the
chairman's point. It is ``up to $2 million''. And, in fact, the
administration, as I understand it, believes that we are going to be
talking about, perhaps, for 1900 rifles and 100 receivers, $237,432. I
do not know that, and they do not know that. So this sum that was put
in here is a sum that is ``up to'' available for this purchase.
So, in closing, I want to make a number of points. One, the
administration stood up courageously on behalf of the safety of our
streets and communities and said this is not the kind of weapon we want
imported into the United States and we are going to stop it. And they
have.
Secondly, they have now said, but those who were caught in the
transition, for whatever reason, we are not going to make that
judgment, but if they were caught in the transition, we will not
penalize them financially. And so we will agree to, reluctantly, this
was not their initiative, this was not their action, reluctantly agreed
to by the administration, to provide for funds to purchase these
weapons and, frankly, to destroy these weapons.
So I, frankly, think that under those circumstances, while I
certainly appreciate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer), there
has been nobody in this Congress who has been any more committed,
focused, and hard working on the issue of making America's streets
safer than the gentleman from New York, and we can all applaud and
thank him for that effort, on the other hand, the administration is
saying we are not against businessmen, we are against guns. We are for
the safety of our streets.
I will, therefore, oppose the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on this
amendment are postponed.
Are there further amendments?

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SCHUMER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. SCHUMER. Are we going to get a recorded vote on this? I do not
mind if they roll it.
The CHAIRMAN. The demand for a recorded vote has been postponed.
Mr. SCHUMER. What does that mean?
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Chair will postpone the request for
the vote and that will come up at a later point.
Mr. SCHUMER. Parliamentary inquiry again.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SCHUMER. Under the rule, then, that means that the counting for a
quorum would be done at a later time, even though the call for the vote
was right now?
The CHAIRMAN. A Member could invoke that point of order at the later
proceedings, at what is considered a later point.
Mr. SCHUMER. Just another point of parliamentary inquiry. Have we
ever done that before? I know we roll votes routinely.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. SCHUMER. Okay.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I want to tell the gentleman from New York, and I want to tell the
Members, that I know the gentleman is worried that he may not be on the
floor when it comes up. I will protect the gentleman from New York on
this and we will have a vote on it, because I will protect him if, per
chance, he is not on the floor to make the point of order at that time.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. As always, he is
fair, judicious and a great American.
Mr. HOYER. Well, there is obviously unanimous agreement on that
issue, I suppose.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?

[[Page H5661]]

If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE III--EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO
THE PRESIDENT

Compensation of the President and the White House Office

compensation of the president

For compensation of the President, including an expense
allowance at the rate of $50,000 per annum as authorized by 3
U.S.C. 102; $250,000: Provided, That none of the funds made
available for official expenses shall be expended for any
other purpose and any unused amount shall revert to the
Treasury pursuant to section 1552 of title 31, United States
Code: Provided further, That none of the funds made available
for official expenses shall be considered as taxable to the
President.

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for the White House as authorized by
law, including not to exceed $3,850,000 for services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3 U.S.C. 105; subsistence
expenses as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 105, which shall be
expended and accounted for as provided in that section; hire
of passenger motor vehicles, newspapers, periodicals,
teletype news service, and travel (not to exceed $100,000 to
be expended and accounted for as provided by 3 U.S.C. 103);
and not to exceed $19,000 for official entertainment
expenses, to be available for allocation within the Executive
Office of the President; $52,344,000: Provided, That
$10,100,000 of the funds appropriated shall be available for
reimbursements to the White House Communications Agency.

Executive Residence at the White House

operating expenses

For the care, maintenance, repair and alteration,
refurnishing, improvement, heating, and lighting, including
electric power and fixtures, of the Executive Residence at
the White House and official entertainment expenses of the
President, $8,061,000, to be expended and accounted for as
provided by 3 U.S.C. 105, 109, 110, and 112-114: Provided,
That such amount shall not be available for expenses for
domestic staff overtime.
In addition, for necessary expenses for domestic staff
overtime, $630,000: Provided, That such amount shall not
become available for obligation until the Comptroller General
of the United States submits to the Committees on
Appropriations a final report on (1) the audit of fiscal year
1996 unvouchered expenditures of appropriated funds of the
Executive Office of the President; (2) the review of
processes and procedures relating to reimbursable activities
and obligations of the Executive Residence; and (3) the
number and costs, including domestic staff overtime, of
overnight stays in the Executive Residence.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Are we reading by
paragraph?
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk is resuming the reading of the bill by
paragraph on page 26.

Point of Order

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I understand we are now at page 28, and I
rise to make a point of order against a proviso beginning on page 28,
line 2 through line 11, because it constitutes legislation in an
appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
I ask for a ruling by the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. For the record, the Clerk will report that paragraph.
The Clerk read as follows:

In addition, for necessary expenses for domestic staff
overtime, $630,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Arizona desire to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. KOLBE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, on the point of order.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland made a point of order, I
believe, against line 2 beginning with ``Provided''.
Mr. HOYER. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. KOLBE. I would insist the point of order lie against the entire
paragraph, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. So does the gentleman concede the point of order?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order must be
against the entire paragraph, not just the proviso portion.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the money is authorized. The point of order
does not lie against the first sentence. In fact, I have raised the
point of order as to the proviso that is added, starting with page 28,
line 2 through line 11. I would oppose the point of order as it relates
to the first part of that provision because a point of order does not
lie against it.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is entitled to expand the
point of order to the entire paragraph.

Point of Order

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, to do it from a correct parliamentary
standpoint I would make the additional point of order against lines 1
and 2 on page 28, through line 11 on page 28.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Arizona concede the point of
order?
Mr. KOLBE. I make the point of order. I concede the point of order,
but I make the point of order against lines 1 through 11.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I believe that a point of order is pending
before the Chair. That point of order was made by me, and that point of
order relates to line 2, starting with ``Provided'' and ending on line
11, concluding with ``Residence.''
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state to the gentleman from Maryland
that any Member can raise a point of order against the entire
paragraph.
Mr. KOLBE. That is what I am doing, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. That is what the gentleman from Arizona is doing at
this time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the point of order
as it relates to the first sentence.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to argue further on the point
of order that has been raised by the gentleman from Arizona?
Mr. HOYER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, absolutely.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the point of order that I raised said that
line 2, starting with ``Provided'', down to line 11, concluding with
``Residence'', is legislation on an appropriation bill and it is,
therefore, subject to a point of order because it violates clause 2 of
rule XXI. However, the chairman now seeks to expand upon the point of
order I have made by including in the ambit of that point of order the
first sentence. The first sentence reads, ``In addition, for necessary
expenses for domestic staff overtime, $630,000.''
I would suggest to the Chair that a point of order does not lie
against that inclusion because it is, in fact, authorized.

{time} 1245

And it is not legislation on an appropriation bill, it is an
appropriation to an objective which is consistent with the rules
providing for the Committee on Appropriations report to make such
appropriations as it deems appropriate for such objectives as it
provides.
My point being that I raised a proper point of order and the Chairman
seeks to add something thereto which is not subject to a point of
order.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on my point of order?
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dreier). The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is
recognized.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would make the point, as the Chair
correctly said, a Member may expand a point of order. It is correct
that an individual may make a point of order against certain provisions
of a paragraph. But if a Member chooses to make the point of order and
believes that there is something in that paragraph which is not
permissible, under the Rules of the House, the point of order lies
against the entire paragraph. And I make the point of order against the
entire paragraph and would ask for a ruling.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
Where a point of order lies on the basis of the proviso, it may be
applied against the entire paragraph at the insistence of any Member;
and, therefore, the Chair has concluded that the entire paragraph will
be stricken from the bill.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. HOYER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it for future reference,
as we go through the rest of this bill paragraph by paragraph, and
there may be other expansions, can the Chairman focus me on where I
ought to look at the rules and/or the precedence for that ruling?
The CHAIRMAN. Page 661 of the House Rules and Manual, clause 2 of
rule XXI.
Are there further amendments?

[[Page H5662]]

If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

reimbursable expenses

For the reimbursable expenses of the Executive Residence at
the White House, such sums as may be necessary: Provided,
That all reimbursable operating expenses of the Executive
Residence shall be made in accordance with the provisions of
this paragraph: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, such amount for reimbursable
operating expenses shall be the exclusive authority of the
Executive Residence to incur obligations and to receive
offsetting collections, for such expenses: Provided further,
That the Executive Residence shall require each person
sponsoring a reimbursable political event to pay in advance
an amount equal to the estimated cost of the event, and all
such advance payments shall be credited to this account and
remain available until expended: Provided further, That the
Executive Residence shall require the national committee of
the political party of the President to maintain on deposit
$25,000, to be separately accounted for and available for
expenses relating to reimbursable political events sponsored
by such committee during such fiscal year: Provided further,
That the Executive Residence shall ensure that a written
notice of any amount owed for a reimbursable operating
expense under this paragraph is submitted to the person owing
such amount within 60 days after such expense is incurred,
and that such amount is collected within 30 days after the
submission of such notice: Provided further, That the
Executive Residence shall charge interest and assess
penalties and other charges on any such amount that is not
reimbursed within such 30 days, in accordance with the
interest and penalty provisions applicable to an outstanding
debt on a United States Government claim under section 3717
of title 31, United States Code: Provided further, That each
such amount that is reimbursed, and any accompanying interest
and charges, shall be deposited in the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts: Provided further, That the Executive
Residence shall prepare and submit to the Committees on
Appropriations, by not later than 90 days after the end of
the fiscal year covered by this Act, a report setting forth
the reimbursable operating expenses of the Executive
Residence during the preceding fiscal year, including the
total amount of such expenses, the amount of such total that
consists of reimbursable official and ceremonial events, the
amount of such total that consists of reimbursable political
events, and the portion of each such amount that has been
reimbursed as of the date of the report: Provided further,
That the Executive Residence shall maintain a system for the
tracking of expenses related to reimbursable events within
the Executive Residence that includes a standard for the
classification of any such expense as political or
nonpolitical: Provided further, That no provision of this
paragraph may be construed to exempt the Executive Residence
from any other applicable requirement of subchapter I or II
of chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code.

Special Assistance to the President and the Official Residence of the
Vice President

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses to enable the Vice President to
provide assistance to the President in connection with
specially assigned functions; services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109 and 3 U.S.C. 106, including subsistence expenses
as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 106, which shall be expended and
accounted for as provided in that section; and hire of
passenger motor vehicles; $3,512,000.

operating expenses

(including transfer of funds)

For the care, operation, refurnishing, improvement,
heating, and lighting, including electric power and fixtures,
of the official residence of the Vice President; the hire of
passenger motor vehicles; and not to exceed $90,000 for
official entertainment expenses of the Vice President, to be
accounted for solely on his certificate; $334,000: Provided,
That advances or repayments or transfers from this
appropriation may be made to any department or agency for
expenses of carrying out such activities.

Council of Economic Advisers

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Council in carrying out its
functions under the Employment Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1021 et
seq.), $3,666,000.

Office of Policy Development

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of Policy Development,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3
U.S.C. 107, $4,032,000.

National Security Council

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the National Security Council,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109,
$6,806,000.

Office of Administration

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of Administration,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3
U.S.C. 107, and hire of passenger motor vehicles,
$28,350,000.

Office of Management and Budget

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of Management and
Budget, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $59,017,000, of
which not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be available to carry
out the provisions of chapter 35 of title 44, United States
Code: Provided, That, of the amounts appropriated, not to
exceed $5,229,000 shall be available to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, of which $1,200,000 shall
not be obligated until the Office of Management and Budget
submits a report to the House Committee on Appropriations and
the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight that:
(1) identifies annual five percent reductions in paperwork
expected in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000; and (2)
issues guidance on the requirements of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801(a)
(1) and (3); sections 804(3), and 808(2), including a
standard new rule reporting form for use under section
801(a)(1)(A)-(B): Provided further, That, as provided in 31
U.S.C. 1301(a), appropriations shall be applied only to the
objects for which appropriations were made except as
otherwise provided by law: Provided further, That none of the
funds appropriated in this Act for the Office of Management
and Budget may be used for the purpose of reviewing any
agricultural marketing orders or any activities or
regulations under the provisions of the Agricultural
Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.):
Provided further, That none of the funds made available for
the Office of Management and Budget by this Act may be
expended for the altering of the transcript of actual
testimony of witnesses, except for testimony of officials of
the Office of Management and Budget, before the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations or the House and Senate
Committees on Veterans' Affairs or their subcommittees:
Provided further, That the preceeding shall not apply to
printed hearings released by the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations or the House and Senate Committees on
Veterans' Affairs.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

salaries and expenses

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy; for research activities pursuant to title I
of Public Law 100-690; not to exceed $20,000 for official
reception and representation expenses; and for participation
in joint projects or in the provision of services on matters
of mutual interest with nonprofit, research, or public
organizations or agencies, with or without reimbursement;
$36,442,000, of which $17,000,000 shall remain available
until expended, consisting of $1,000,000 for policy research
and evaluation and $16,000,000 for the Counterdrug Technology
Assessment Center for counternarcotics research and
development projects: Provided, That the $16,000,000 for the
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center shall be available
for transfer to other Federal departments or agencies:
Provided further, That the Office is authorized to accept,
hold, administer, and utilize gifts, both real and personal,
public and private, without fiscal year limitation, for the
purpose of aiding or facilitating the work of the Office.

FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMS

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
Program, $162,007,000 for drug control activities consistent
with the approved strategy for each of the designated High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, of which no less than
$81,007,000 shall be transferred to State and local entities
for drug control activities, which shall be obligated within
120 days of the date of enactment of this Act and up to
$81,000,000 may be transferred to Federal agencies and
departments at a rate to be determined by the Director:
Provided, That funding shall be provided at no less than the
fiscal year 1998 level for those High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas that had been designated by the Director of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy on or before
February 2, 1994: Provided further, That any new High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas to be designated shall be
funded from within the existing appropriation for this
account.

special forfeiture fund

(including transfer of funds)

For activities to support a national anti-drug campaign for
youth, and other purposes, authorized by Public Law 100-690,
as amended, $215,000,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That such funds may be transferred to other Federal
departments and agencies to carry out such activities:
Provided further, That, of the funds provided in this
paragraph, $195,000,000 shall be to support a national media
campaign to reduce and prevent drug use among young
Americans: Provided further, That none of the funds provided
for the support of a national media campaign may be obligated
for the following purposes: to supplant current anti-drug
community based coalitions; to supplant current pro bono
public service time donated by national and local
broadcasting networks; for partisan political purposes; or to
fund media campaigns that feature any elected officials,
persons seeking elected office, cabinet-level officials, or
other Federal officials employed pursuant to Schedule C of
title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, section 213, absent
advance notice to the Committees on Appropriations and the
Senate Judiciary Committee: Provided further, That

[[Page H5663]]

funds provided for the support of a national media campaign
may be used to fund the purchase of media time and space,
talent re-use payments, reimbursement of out of pocket
advertising production costs for agencies that provide all
creative development on a pro bono basis, and the negotiated
fee for the contract buying agency: Provided further, That
the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
shall report to Congress quarterly on the obligation of funds
as well as on the specific parameters of the national media
campaign, and shall report to Congress within one year on the
effectiveness of the national media campaign based upon the
measurable outcomes provided to Congress previously: Provided
further, That, of the funds provided in this paragraph,
$20,000,000 shall be to continue a program of matching grants
to drug-free communities, as authorized in the Drug-Free
Communities Act of 1997.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that we are now on
page 37 and 38?
Mr. HOYER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. NEUMANN. I would like to raise a point of order against the $2.25
billion for Year 2000.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) will
suspend.
The Clerk will resume reading.
Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object.
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman will suspend, the Chair wishes to
resume reading on page 37 of the bill.
Mr. HOYER. No, sir. The Clerk has read ``unanticipated needs.'' The
Clerk read, and I will ask the Record be read back if necessary, but
the Clerk has read ``unanticipated needs.'' We have passed the
paragraph to which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) seeks to
address.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair believes that inadvertently a paragraph on
page 37 was not read. So the Chair wishes to have the Reading Clerk
proceed with the reading of that paragraph.
Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object or state a parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
I have been following pretty closely. I do not know what paragraph
was inadvertently not read. And perhaps, we have the Record here, and I
am sure we can review it again paragraph by paragraph.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has been advised by both the Reading Clerk
and the Parliamentarian that that paragraph was inadvertently not read.
Mr. HOYER. Which one?
The CHAIRMAN. On page 37, beginning on line 10.
The Chair will call on the Reading Clerk to proceed with the reading
of that paragraph.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the objection. My staff advises
me that the Chair is correct, and I will withdraw.
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman would suspend until the Reading Clerk
proceeds with the reading on page 37.
The Clerk read as follows:

Information Technology Systems and Related Expenses

(including transfer of funds)

For emergency expenses related to Year 2000 conversion of
Federal information technology systems, and related expenses,
$2,250,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That these funds may be transferred to any other accounts,
except within the Department of Defense, to carry out Federal
governmental activities necessary to meet the requirements of
such systems and expenses: Provided further, That the entire
amount shall be available only to the extent that an official
budget request for a specific dollar amount, that includes
designation of the entire amount of the request as an
emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is
transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided
further, That the President's request shall specifically
identify agencies, accounts, programs, projects and
activities to be funded and no funds shall be available until
15 days after the submission of the request: Provided
further, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended: Provided further, That the funds
transferred shall be merged with and shall be available for
the same purposes and for the same time period as the
appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That
such transfer authority shall be in addition to any other
transfer authority available.

Point of Order

Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a point of order
against the portion of the bill beginning on page 37 line 10 and
continuing through page 38 line 14.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. NEUMANN. I do not believe this is authorized; and, therefore, it
should be subject to a point of order and should be stricken from the
bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, this was included in
the bill at the insistence of the chairman of the subcommittee and the
chairman of the committee for the purposes of providing for the
emergency that they foresaw with respect to effecting a solution to the
problem of our computers working after January 1, 2000.
In that context, it was judged to be an emergency and critically
important to be included in this bill so that the objectives of this
bill and every other bill other than the defense bill could be ensured
to be carried out in the next millennium.
I would hope that the Chair, realizing the critical nature of this
provision, therefore, might find that in fact it was in order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is unaware of any statutory authorization for
the funds in the paragraph and, therefore, sustains the point of order
of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann). The paragraph is
stricken from the bill.
Are there further amendments?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Unanticipated Needs

For expenses necessary to enable the President to meet
unanticipated needs, in furtherance of the national interest,
security, or defense which may arise at home or abroad during
the current fiscal year, $1,000,000.

Point of Order

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the portion
of the bill beginning on page 38 line 15 and continuing through line 21
of the same.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. COBURN. This is, I believe, to be unauthorized and legislating on
an appropriations bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard in opposition to the
point of order raised by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)?
Mr. KOLBE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, just simply to say that I would concede
that this is not authorized and, therefore, is subject to being
stricken on a point of order under the rule that we have adopted, much
to my regret.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would join my friend the gentleman from
Arizona, the chairman, in saying that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Coburn) raises correctly a point that can be raised against about 70
percent of the bill that remains.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to inquire of the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) if he simply wanted to include lines 15 through
19 or if in his point of order he also wanted to include lines 20 and
21?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I stand corrected. It is 15 through 19.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and that
paragraph is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

This title may be cited as the ``Executive Office
Appropriations Act, 1999''.

TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Committee for Purchase From
People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled established by the
Act of June 23, 1971, Public Law 92-28, $2,464,000.

Federal Election Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended,
$33,700,000, of which no less than $4,402,500 shall be
available for internal automated data processing systems, and
of which not to exceed $5,000 shall be available for
reception and representation expenses: Provided, That of the
amounts appropriated for salaries and expenses, $1,120,000
may not be obligated until the Federal Election Commission
submits a plan for approval to the House Committee on
Appropriations for the expenditure of such funds.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.

[[Page H5664]]

The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York:
Page 39, line 13, insert after ``$33,700,000'' the
following: ``(increased by $2,800,000 to be used for
enforcement activities)''.
Page 40, line 25, insert after ``$482,100,000'' the
following: ``(reduced by $2,800,000)''.
Page 41, line 22, insert after ``$5,626,928,000'' the
following: ``(reduced by $2,800,000)''.
Page 46, line 21, insert after ``$2,583,261,000'' the
following: ``(reduced by $2,800,000)''.
Page 48, line 23, insert after ``$5,626,928,000'' the
following: ``(reduced by $2,800,000)''.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment which will give the Federal Election Commission an additional
$2.8 million, bringing its total budget to $36.5 million. This is the
full amount requested in the President's budget. This amendment is
sensible. It is a proposal that simply gives the Federal Election
Commission the resources it needs to do the job to efficiently enforce
the laws that we create.
All throughout the campaign finance reform debate we have heard
opponents of reform argue that we do not need any new laws, we just
need to enforce the laws that are on the books. But those same
opponents of reform are reform refuse to fully fund the Federal
Election Commission. The FEC is the only bipartisan agency empowered to
enforce our campaign finance laws. It is the watchdog which polices our
elections.

{time} 1300

It is the only government center that compiles information on
campaign contributions and expenditures.
But many Members of this House would like to see the FEC become a
toothless tiger incapable of enforcing any laws. There was even an
effort to change the whole structure in the FEC of how they hire and
fire personnel.
Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight which, along with the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee,
has spent over $7 million on a partisan investigation of the Clinton
administration. By contrast, during the last year the Federal
Election's General Counsel's Office spent only 6 and a half million
dollars enforcing the law, and the FEC is responsible of investigating
all elections in this country, not just the presidential race. So we
see this body empowering committees to spend more than the entire FEC
on investigating President Clinton, but they will not fund it to the
level that they say they need to do an appropriate job.
Opponents of the FEC like to argue that since 1990 funding for the
agency has increased. This statement is only partially true. On paper,
funding for the FEC has increased, but in recent years Congress has
fenced off large portions of their budget for use of modernization of
computers. Congress has specifically told them that they cannot use the
money for investigations. When we consider the fact that the total
amount of money available to the FEC for enforcement and disclosure has
more or less remained constant over the last 4 years, yet the work load
has increased dramatically and the total number of staff that the FEC
has been able to hire has actually gone down, and while the FEC
resources have stayed constant or decreased, campaign spending has
increased astronomically. In fact, since 1990 campaign spending has
gone up 146 percent, cases in which the FEC has determined that there
is a sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to conduct an audit have gone up
110 percent, and total itemized transactions, and here I mean the total
number of contributions which the FEC records in its data base, have
gone up by 157 percent. So, even if the FEC's budget has gone up, it
has clearly not gone up enough to keep pace with the explosion in
campaign spending and alleged abuses. So the argument that the FEC's
resources have kept pace with the work load is simply not supported by
the facts.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I would like to really thank the
gentleman from Kansas for his work on this issue and for offering this
amendment, and I hope that all Members will support it. If we are
serious about campaign finance reform, then all Members in this body
should join us in this effort to fund the FEC at the level that they
feel is necessary to enforce the laws that are on the book.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, just very briefly; I do not want to go through all of
the arguments that my colleague from New York (Mrs. Maloney) has
already gone through, but I do think it is important, as we are in the
current debate on campaign finance, as we go through the debate on
campaign finance throughout this year, I think one point that has not
been made in any of the bills that had been talked about very widely in
the press, and that is the issue of enforcement.
Now I know there are a lot of complaints about the FEC and the way
they do their job. Those may be very valid points. The issue here is
though we only have one law enforcement agency in the area of campaign
finance, and that is the Federal Election Commission. Right now one
stands a 7-in-10 chance of not having any action taken good against
them if the FEC has a report against them. It seems to me that
enforcement of campaign finance laws is as important, enforcement of
the current laws is as important, as trying to change the law which
will have no better enforcement.
If we truly have concerns about the FEC, if we have concerns about
the way they do their job, if we do not think they can do the job any
more, let us deal with that, and let us replace them. But right now
they are the only law enforcement agency, and I think that they need to
have the proper funding as well as the proper personnel to do the job.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I think that in the words of the gentleman that just
preceded me to give the enforcers the right to enforce and the
wherewithal to enforce is a great proposition if there were adequate,
competent and reasonable enforcers; or certainly if they were fair
enforcers. But, unfortunately, I do not think any of that is the case
when we are talking about the Federal Election Commission.
The Federal Election Commission has not done an adequate job since I
have followed their activities over the last 10 or 15 years.
I can remember when it used to allow its General Counsel into the
deliberations, and the court ruled that the commissioners should stop
that, and then they did not stop it. I can remember when one former
senator, who was a former Member of this House as well, who had a case
before this commission, and somehow he got an appointment as an ex
officio member of the Federal Election Commission and sat in on the
deliberations even though he had a case pending. I can remember when
Federal Election Commission officers and maybe Commissioners traveled
to the Democrat National Convention in August of 1996, presumably on
taxpayers' dollars.
Year after year they hire a press office of about five people to turn
out press releases complaining that we are holding down their budget,
and yet since 1991 we have increased their budget by 85 percent.
Funding for the Office of General Counsel has increased by 88 percent.
Before 1998, the staff had grown by roughly 30 percent. Salaries and
benefits, up 57 percent. Cash awards, up 191 percent. Travel, up 75
percent. Audit divisions, up 100 percent. And yet while the money is
still coming in for these great enforcers, they drop backlog cases.
In fact, just a month or two ago we saw where they dropped well over
a hundred cases because they did not, could not, get around to them. In
1993, they dropped 130 backlogged cases, and I think since then there
have been a couple other instances where they have just not gotten
around to enforcement.
What I worry about when we talk about the Federal Election Commission
is, A, they are not fair, but, B, they micromanage the campaigns of the
people who are genuinely trying to follow the law and discourage good
people from running for office and, at the same time, ignoring the
infractions of the people that deserve investigations.
In fact, as recently as July 13, 1998, about three or four days ago,
the lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Chairman, talks
about how the Federal Election Commission simply did not do their job
in an investigation

[[Page H5665]]

of the Democrat National Committee. So the Federal judge had to weigh
in and virtually condemn them for not having done the job. I quote:
``U.S. District Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled the FEC had inexplicably
waited 15 months to dismiss a request to investigate whether the
Democrat National Committee and the Clinton-Gore campaign sold seats on
the Commerce Department trade missions in exchange for contributions.''
It goes on: ``The FEC responded to Judicial Watch, a civic inquiry
group, in December 1977 by closing the case in light of the information
on the record, the relative significance of the case and the amount of
time that has elapsed. Judicial Watch challenged the FEC's dismissal,
and the judge slammed the FEC for attempting to thwart a review of
these charges.''
And they want more money. We gave them $2 million more in funds,
taxpayers' dollars, than they had last year, and yet they have the
audacity to prevail on Members to come to the floor and say that is not
enough. And this amendment would take money out of the GAO, General
Accounting Office, that is guarding the taxpayers' funds to put money
into this wasteful and inefficient and, I dare say, improper
organization.
The fact is this organization has been in place since 1974. The
commissioners, many of the commissioners were never replaced.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Livingston) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Livingston was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, some of the Commissioners have never
been replaced. Even though their terms were renewable, they have been
on the commission for some 20 years. We, finally, last year put a term
limit on the Commissioners and this year thought it was a good idea to
put a term on the General Counsel who apparently has, I only found out
subsequently to my filing of the amendment, been in the position for
nearly 11 years without interruption.
Now it seems to me that if term limits are good for, according to
some people, Members of Congress, and I disagree with that because I
think the ballot box is a great term limit for elected officials. But,
if it is good for committee chairmen and subcommittee chairmen, as
appointed officials within this House of Representatives, and it is
good for various other executive agencies, then it is good for the
Federal Election Commission. And maybe that person who has made life
tenure out of serving in that position, I say albeit not altogether
fairly, should be up for review as to whether or not he should continue
to hold his office. These are legitimate questions I have.
We tried to fence money for years to compel the Federal Election
Commission to upgrade its computers. They were using equipment that
went back 25 years, ancient technology. And they wouldn't do it.
Finally, we just made them do it, and they were forced to upgrade their
technology.
They are beginning to come into the new technological world, but they
have not demonstrated a need for additional moneys. They have not
demonstrated that they will utilize those funds fairly and
appropriately, and until they do I am not prepared to vote an extra
$2.8 million for them. In fact, I urge Members to reject this amendment
soundly and send the FEC back to improve the job that they should be
doing.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Arizona continue to reserve his
point of order?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order, but I do seek
to speak against it.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I really think this amendment is big spending at its
very worst. As the distinguished chairman of the full committee has
pointed out, the FEC's budget has grown by 85 percent since 1991. The
President is requesting an additional 15 percent for the forthcoming
year, 1 year, and that is what this amendment would provide.
We have recommended in our bill, we have $33.7 million for the FEC in
fiscal year 1999. That is an increase of 9 percent, more than $2
million over the amount that is available in the current fiscal year.
So we gave the President a good more than half of what he thought that
this agency should have.
Let us be honest. If we look at any of the spending bills, a 9
percent increase in any spending bill, even those that have as much
popular support such as the National Institutes of Health is a large,
substantial increase, especially given the budgetary constraints that
we are under right now. But to talk of giving an agency and this agency
of which against I think there lies serious questions of its
management, to talk about giving them a 15 percent increase when we
have not really seen the reforms that we think need to be made to this
agency, I think it is just unthinkable.
The sponsors of the amendment say they are concerned about the
enforcement part of FEC. But I am sure they are aware the committee
includes an increase of $1.12 million for enhanced enforcement by the
Federal Elections Commission.

{time} 1315

So this would add another $2.8 million to the increase that is
already in there.
While I certainly agree that enforcement ought to be a top priority
of the FEC, and there are clearly some problems as it relates to
enforcing our campaign finance laws, and that most lay here at the foot
of Congress itself, I do not agree that simply throwing more money at
the FEC is the way to fix it.
The fact of the matter is, funding for the Office of General Counsel,
which is the enforcement arm of the FEC, has increased even more than
the rest of the FEC, slightly more, by 88 percent. Its staffing has
increased by more than 28 percent. Surely, given the problems that
exist there, I do not think that additional revenue is really going to
resolve the problem.
We initiated an independent audit of the Federal Elections
Commission, and of its operations and management. The purpose of the
audit is to address the issue of resources as it relates to their
ability to meet its statutory responsibility. This audit is under way,
and we anticipate the results in January of 1999. It will include a
thorough review of all of their enforcement activities, including the
Office of General Counsel, and I am optimistic that, based on what we
find in this audit, we will be in a position to address from an
appropriations viewpoint, if the authorizing committees do not, the
issues raised by this audit and the issues that have been raised, I
think correctly, on this floor for and against additional funding for
the Federal Elections Commission. But I do not think we should go with
this money, on top of the money we are already increasing their budget
by, until we at least are able to see how these concerns bear out in
that audit.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. We
have done the best we can, given the resources we have. This additional
increase will take severely from some other areas that I know are
important to other Members, including maintenance and rehabilitation of
buildings. So I would urge the defeat of the amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and would rise in support of this
amendment. I thank the gentlewoman from New York, who has been such a
tenacious spokesperson on behalf of monitoring and ensuring fair
elections in America. Her leadership on this issue has been
outstanding, and all of America owes her a debt of gratitude.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that we ought to clarify what
this amendment does. The chairman of the committee indicated it took it
from the General Accounting Office. That was incorrect. The chairman
made a mistake. It is out of the General Services Administration. I am
not for reducing those accounts, but this particular account that is
being reduced is over, I think, $2.3 billion, and this takes $2 million
out of it. So it is a minor nick at best on the particular accounting
question.
Having said that, the gentleman from Kansas, who is the cosponsor of
this amendment, observes that we obviously feel in this country there
are substantial problems with elections.

[[Page H5666]]

Over $1 million was spent, not just by the committee, but by the
parties involved, on one congressional election during this Congress,
$1 million, \1/34\th of the dollars in this bill for FEC. That did not
include the President or any of the other Federal races, United States
Senate or House Members, other than that one race.
This Congress has spent, and you can get all sorts of estimates and I
will not say which one is precise or not, but anywhere between $10
million and $40 million, a pretty broad spectrum, looking at the
Presidential race alone. Just one race. We ask the FEC to look at
essentially thousands of candidates to ensure that they are complying
with the laws this Congress adopted to ensure that Americans have fair
elections.
Now, the gentlewoman's amendment and the gentleman from Kansas's
amendment takes the FEC from the $34 million-plus that we have
incorporated in this bill to the $36 million-plus that was the request
of the administration. Some would argue pretty strenuously that that
was insufficient in and of itself. Why? Because the dollars involved in
campaigns has escalated geometrically. We all know that. Just taking
House races alone, where the average expenditures have gone in the last
20 years from probably less than $300,000 to, for the most part, close
to $1 million, that is three-and-a-half times in 20 years.
The number of candidates is rising. I am not sure that is true this
year on House races off the top of my head, but we know over the last 6
years, the number of candidates has escalated very substantially.
The FEC has had to dismiss cases. They have had to dismiss cases
because they did not have the resources to handle them. So unless they
are very serious cases, they have not been able to deal with them. The
proposition raised by the gentlewoman from New York and the gentleman
from Kansas is that ought not to be, because, if that happens, we
cannot ensure fair elections.
Now, I understand the chairman of the committee feels strongly that
the FEC does not do its job properly. I understand his premise. I also
understand his premise when he talks about the length of service by
some Commissioners. I think he makes a good point. I am not for term
limits, as the chairman is not for term limits, but we did not raise a
whole lot of stuff about his provision last year.
But I would hope that every Member of the House on either side of the
aisle would look at this amendment in the context of what we are trying
to do in America to ensure that funds are raised properly, spent
properly, and administered properly.
I hear in one-minutes, in special orders and in debate on this bill
and other bills many, many members of the majority party getting up and
saying how awful it is that we do not know exactly what happened in the
elections in terms of raising money from foreigners, from domestic
people, soft money, hard money, whatever. Well, my friends, if you
really want to get at it, this is where we have set up in law to do it.
And to say on the one hand you want to get at fair elections and on the
other hand undercut the resources of the agencies that Congress has
established to accomplish that objective I think is problematic at
best. So I would urge my friends to adopt this amendment, and
congratulate my colleagues for offering it, and hope that the House
will adopt it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, my friend from Arizona earlier described this amendment
as ``big spending at its worst.'' This amendment adds a couple of
million dollars to the Federal Elections Commission budget for the
purpose of increasing their capacity to protect the integrity of what
is left of our campaign finance laws.
I would suggest that that is not quite the case. I think big spending
at its worst is the rampant cancerous use of soft money to obliterate
intelligent debate in political campaigns. I think the big spending at
its worst is the use of phony so-called issue advocacy ads or phony
independent expenditures, whether it be by labor or by big business or
by single interest groups, to influence elections, all the while
pretending that they are not involved in elections at all. I think that
is what is big spending at its worst, and this money is just a tiny
effort to control that big spending at its worst.
I would also say that it is, at least to me, apparent what the agenda
of the majority party is in this case. They have been engaged in a
year-long defense of the status quo on campaign finance laws, and they
have been systematically attacking the agency which is trying to
preserve the integrity of what is left of the existing campaign laws.
They 2 years ago term-limited the FEC so that there is no institutional
memory or in the future will be no institutional memory at that body.
They are now trying to make certain that the Federal Elections
Commission looks more like a pussycat than a tiger, and what they want
to do is make certain that they can intimidate the executive director
into not antagonizing anybody in order to assure that he can be
reappointed.
It is clear to me that there is great resentment on the other side of
the aisle because the Federal Elections Commission has the temerity to
dig into the activities of the use of the Republican Party of GOPAC,
which contains, in my view, some of the most socially irresponsible
and, at the same time, richest people in America, to influence the
economic agenda of this Congress. They are unhappy because the FEC is
having the temerity to examine those linkages.
It just seems to me that the choice is clear: If you want to continue
the status quo, if you want to continue to have a crippled FEC, vote
against the amendment. If you want to cast a vote in favor of the
public interest, if you want to cast a vote in favor of giving the
Federal Elections Commission the additional tools it needs to see to it
that everyone is policed more adequately, then vote for the amendment.
The issue is clear, and no rhetoric to the contrary will confuse the
public on this question.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the
gentlemen from the Committee on Appropriations from the minority side
for their very strong statements and really to rise in support of their
statements and respond to some of the words on the other side of the
aisle, where one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
accused the FEC of being partisan. Yet a study by the Conservative Fair
Government Foundation found that ``partisan favoritism is absent'' at
the Federal Election Commission. In fact, in this study, and I would be
glad to give it to my colleagues, it showed that they had, in fact,
investigated more Democrats than Republicans. Yet there is no doubt
that the need for more spending at the FEC is needed because of the
spending in campaigns and the allegations that have come to them.
Campaign spending, as my colleagues have pointed out, has gone up 146
percent, referrals of audits have gone up 110 percent and itemized
transactions to be processed have gone up 157 percent, so they need
this money.
As my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) pointed out, whether it is the $6 million that has been spent in
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight investigating
President Clinton, or the monies that have been spent in others, I have
seen everything from $30 to $50 million in investigations in committees
in this body, some of which only subpoena Democrats, only investigate
Democrats, at least at the FEC they investigate both parties, all
people who run, Democrat, Independent, Republican.
There have been some concerns that the majority party has been trying
to destroy the FEC, and I will at this point put in the Record
editorials that have appeared across this country.

[From Roll Call, June 11, 1998]

Micro-Muzzling

Congress is at it again, trying to throttle the Federal
Election Commission, the weak watchdog it created to regulate
campaign finance. As spending and contribution levels soar
and crafty political operatives invent new loopholes to skirt
finance laws, Congress regularly keeps the FEC on a bare-
subsistence diet, unable to keep up with the action.

[[Page H5667]]

Now, in a simultaneous act of micro-management and muzzling,
House Republicans seem bent on firing the commission's
general counsel, Lawrence Noble.
Under current law, it would take a four-member majority of
the six-member FEC to oust Noble. The commission is evenly
divided, with three Republicans and three Democrats. But last
month, the House Oversight Committee approved a bill to
require that both the FEC's staff director and general
counsel be reconfirmed in office every four years, beginning
next January, with a four-vote majority. The bill won't
become law, but the Noble ouster may be adopted today as a
rider to the Treasury, Postal Service and general government
appropriations bill. Disingenuously, backers of the provision
say it's not aimed at Noble, just at administratively tidying
up the FEC. But everyone knows what's really going on.
Noble, who's in charge of FEC enforcement, has angered
Republicans by claiming that the agency, having opened the
loophole that allows for unlimited soft-money donations to
political parties, has the power to close it. Noble takes an
expansive view of FEC posers to regulate issue ads. And he
led the way in investigating the 1996 Dole campaign's
management of Republican party advertising, which led to a
hefty fine. To his credit, he also is reliably reported to be
investigating the even more blatant and extensive White House
use of Democratic National Committee funds to run ads
boosting President Clinton.
For Congress to be deciding who serves as general counsel
of the FEC would be like allowing the AFL-CIO to name (and
fire) the chairman of the National labor Relations Board or
for the Chemical Manufacturers Association to pick the head
of the Environmental Protection Agency. Already, politicians
appoint the members of the commission. The equal partisan
division of the commission ensures that it can't be wildly
aggressive or overly partisan. Having created the commission,
Congress ought to let it pick--and keep--its own general
counsel.
In addition, it's time for Congress to quit hog-tying the
agency with limited funds and then complaining it has to
perform triage on the cases it investigates. Last year, the
FEC dismissed 55 percent of its cases as ``low rated'' or
``stale'' in order to concentrate on higher priorities and to
clear its backlog. Fundraising by House and Senate candidates
during the first 15 months of the 1997-98 election cycle was
up by 14 percent over the same period in 1996, yet House
Oversight cut the FEC's budget authorization from a requested
$36.5 million to $33.7 million.
It's time for Congress to strengthen federal campaign laws
and the FEC, not sneakily undermine them.
____

[From The New York Times, June 11, 1998]

Punishing Competence at the F.E.C.

At a time when Congress should be moving aggressively to
strengthen the Federal Election Commission's ability to
enforce the nation's campaign finance laws, House Republicans
are racing headlong in the opposite direction.
The F.E.C. remains hampered by an inadequate budget, and by
a commission structure (three members from each party) that
tends toward gridlock. Now a move is afoot to get rid of the
agency's evenhanded general counsel, Lawrence Noble, in
retaliation for his attempts to enforce the law as written.
He is pressing the commission to use its existing powers to
bar the huge ``soft-money'' contributions that have corrupted
Federal campaigns. He has pursued lawsuits against groups
like Gopac and the Christian Coalition for alleged rules
violations. The Republican leadership is not happy.
Last month the House Oversight Committee approved a measure
proposed by its chairman, Bill Thomas of California, taking
aim at Mr. Noble without mentioning his name. Currently, it
takes a vote by four members of the commission to appoint or
remove a general counsel or staff director. Mr. Thomas's bill
would require reappointment to these posts every four years,
beginning next year, thereby setting the stage for a
Republican coup ousting Mr. Noble. The change is nothing more
than an attempt to install a do-nothing enforcement staff.
Given Attorney General Janet Reno's lax approach to campaign
law, a crippled F.E.C. would guarantee an open field for
influence-peddlers and influence-buyers.
A House Appropriations subcommittee is expected to take up
this mischievous measure today, with an eye toward adding it
as a rider to the Treasury appropriations bill. Reform-minded
members from both parties have a duty to oppose this
vendetta. President Clinton, meanwhile, who could stand a
better image on soft money, needs to make clear that he
considers it veto bait.

Mr. Chairman, one of them called it a vendetta by the Republican
Party to not fund, to fence the money they have, and to change the
whole procedure of firing people at the FEC.
I really want to say that it is the only body that is bipartisan,
and, in order to investigate, there must be a majority of all of the
commissioners who vote to do so, so it takes the vote of three
Republicans and three Democrats to do so. So when they voted to
investigate GOPAC, it was not the decision of Democrats, it was a vote
by the Republicans and the Democrats on that committee. So there has
been much rhetoric on this floor talking about campaign finance reform
and the need to ban soft money and to regulate independent
expenditures.

{time} 1330

The FEC has come forward and made these recommendations. They have
recommended to ban soft money and to regulate the independent
expenditures, which is the heart of the Shays-Meehan bill that many of
us support in this body and are hopeful that we will pass eventually.
But if one is serious about campaign finance reform, then it is
important that we fund at a level that they can do their job, the one
body that is bipartisan, that is actually empowered to keep records and
to investigate, not just one party, but both parties. It is an
important body. There have been problems with it.
The chairman mentioned the investigation that was stopped, but that
was a criminal investigation. They are not supposed to do criminal
investigations. They are only supposed to do civil investigations.
So, again, I would refer to the items I mentioned earlier that show
their bipartisan decisions, how they are made by Republicans and
Democrats to investigate. There is in this bill, and later on today I
will move to strike it, a whole effort, and talk about a toothless
tiger, to remove the teeth, to skin it, and make it totally ineffective
by making the staff able to be fired by just one party. Now it has to
be bipartisan. That would mean that the staff would never investigate
anyone again unless they were an independent or in a primary, because
they would probably be fired. They would totally declaw the Federal
Elections Commission.
So, Mr. Chairman, if we are serious about campaign finance reform,
then I hope my colleagues will join us in this bipartisan amendment.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), chairman of
the full Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to comment on the points that
the gentlewoman that preceded me made. In fact, she said that the
Commission has been bipartisan. Well, I do not totally share that view,
but that view is shared by one of the experienced attorneys who used to
do election law, and in fact, probably still practices election law.
One is quoted in the Washington Times on July 14, only a couple of days
ago, and his quote is precisely my experience and that is that the
Commission tramples on legal and constitutional rights in a bipartisan
fashion.
So if they are bipartisan, then they are uniformly in error and in
conflict with the Constitution.
But going back to the editorial that I mentioned in my earlier
comments in the Wall Street Journal of July 13, I would like to comment
on what the gentlewoman said about the fact that the Commission is not
supposed to take criminal cases. Let me just read these paragraphs,
because I think they are very, very important to understand. The
Commission does not treat evidence of those criminal activities in an
appropriate fashion.
The editorial says, ``Judge Sporkin has had other tangles with the
FEC, including the one in 1986 in which he ruled that the GOP
Commissioners had acted contrary to law in closing down a probe of a
Republican committee. His current decision goes to the heart of the
fears many have about giving the FEC even more power to referee
elections. Larry Noble, the FEC's General Counsel, has had great power
to decide which political players will be investigated and to push his
view that political speech should be regulated. Mr. Noble has been
General Counsel since 1987 and keeps his job indefinitely unless a
majority of the six highly partisan FEC Commissioners oust him. That
means Mr. Noble remains, but since a majority of Commissioners seldom
approve his request for prosecution, a kind of permanent gridlock has
set in. That means many of the cases the FEC brings are exercises in
`trivial pursuit.' At the same time, the agency's lawyers actually
argued,'' and this is the part that gets me, Mr. Chairman, ``the
agency's lawyers actually argued before Judge Sporkin that the bribery

[[Page H5668]]

allegations'' referred to in this editorial ``involving the Commission
trade mission are `not under the Commission's jurisdiction.' Judge
Sporkin was skeptical of that, but indicated that even if that were
true, the FEC should have referred the case to the Justice Department.
They did not.''
Mr. Chairman, this is a toothless tiger. It is a wasteful agency. It
is an agency that takes money from the taxpayer and does not perform
the real service that it is intended to perform.
I know my friend, one of the sponsors of the amendment, the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Snowbarger), feels very strongly that we ought to give
the enforcers the opportunity to enforce, but I would simply analogize
this to saying, well, a policeman is an enforcer, but if he is a bad
policeman, we do not give him more money to do a bad job. These people
are not doing the job they should. We have already given them a raise.
That should be sufficient, and this amendment should be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House resolution 498, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York will be
postponed.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 498, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order: the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Schumer); and the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Schumer

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer),
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 122,
noes 301, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 286]

AYES--122

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hinojosa
Hooley
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Kennedy (MA)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lantos
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rothman
Rush
Sabo
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Tauscher
Thompson
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn

NOES--301

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

Gonzalez
Hefner
Hill
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
McDade
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Pickering
Roybal-Allard
Slaughter

{time} 1357

Messrs. BILIRAKIS, EWING, PORTER, HORN, and Ms. SANCHEZ changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. DIXON and Mr. DAVIS of Illinois changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Personal Explanation

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 286, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Personal Explanation

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No.
286, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea''.

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 498, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Maloney

The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is a demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Maloney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page H5669]]

The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214,
noes 210, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 287]

AYES--214

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Camp
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Hulshof
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skaggs
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith, Adam
Snowbarger
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Yates

NOES--210

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

Barton
Gonzalez
Hill
Jenkins
Kennelly
McDade
McNulty
Roybal-Allard
Sisisky
Slaughter

{time} 1409

Messrs. FOLEY, MORAN of Kansas, and FOX of Pennsylvania changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. McKINNEY, and Messrs. KANJORSKI, HOLDEN, DOYLE, MASCARA, LEWIS of
Georgia, MURTHA, and MOLLOHAN changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Federal Labor Relations Authority

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the
Federal Labor Relations Authority, pursuant to Reorganization
Plan Numbered 2 of 1978, and the Civil Service Reform Act of
1978, including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109,
including hire of experts and consultants, hire of passenger
motor vehicles, and rental of conference rooms in the
District of Columbia and elsewhere; $22,586,000: Provided,
That public members of the Federal Service Impasses Panel may
be paid travel expenses and per diem in lieu of subsistence
as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5703) for persons employed
intermittently in the Government service, and compensation as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received from fees
charged to non-Federal participants at labor-management
relations conferences shall be credited to and merged with
this account, to be available without further appropriation
for the costs of carrying out these conferences.

General Services Administration

Federal Buildings Fund

limitations on availability of revenue

(including transfer of funds)

For additional expenses necessary to carry out the purpose
of the Federal Buildings Fund established pursuant to section
210(f) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services
Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 490(f)), $482,100,000, to be deposited
into the Fund. The revenues and collections deposited into
the Fund shall be available for necessary expenses of real
property management and related activities not otherwise
provided for, including operation, maintenance, and
protection of federally owned and leased buildings; rental of
buildings in the District of Columbia; restoration of leased
premises; moving governmental agencies (including space
adjustments and telecommunications relocation expenses) in
connection with the assignment, allocation, and transfer of
space; contractual services incident to cleaning or servicing
buildings, and moving; repair and alteration of federally
owned buildings, including grounds, approaches, and
appurtenances; care and safeguarding of sites; maintenance,
preservation, demolition, and equipment; acquisition of
buildings and sites by purchase, condemnation, or as
otherwise authorized by law; acquisition of options to
purchase buildings and sites; conversion and extension of
federally owned buildings; preliminary planning and design of
projects by contract or otherwise; construction of new
buildings (including equipment for such buildings); and
payment of principal, interest, and any other obligations for
public buildings acquired by installment purchase and
purchase contract; in the aggregate amount of $5,626,928,000,
of which (1) $527,100,000 shall remain available until
expended for construction of additional projects at locations
and at maximum construction improvement costs (including
funds for sites and expenses and associated design and
construction services) as follows:
New Construction:
Arkansas:
Little Rock, Courthouse, $3,436,000
California:
San Diego, Courthouse, $15,400,000
San Jose, Courthouse, $10,800,000
Colorado:
Denver, Rogers Federal Building--Courthouse Expansion,
$78,173,000
District of Columbia:
Southeast Federal Center Site Remediation, $5,000,000
Florida:
Jacksonville, Courthouse, $86,010,000
Orlando, Courthouse Annex, $1,930,000
Georgia:
Savannah, Courthouse Annex, $46,462,000
Massachusetts:
Springfield, Courthouse, $5,563,000
Michigan:
Sault Sainte Marie, Border Station, $572,000
Missouri:

[[Page H5670]]

Cape Girardeau, Courthouse, $2,196,000
Mississippi:
Biloxi--Gulfport, Courthouse, $7,543,000
Montana:
Babb, Piegan Border Station, $6,165,000
New York:
Brooklyn, Courthouse, $152,626,000
New York, U.S. Mission to the United Nations, $3,163,000
Oregon:
Eugene, Courthouse, $7,190,000
Tennessee:
Greenville, Courthouse, $26,517,000
Texas:
Laredo, Courthouse, $28,105,000
West Virginia:
Wheeling, Courthouse, $29,303,000
Nationwide:
Non-prospectus construction projects, $10,946,000:

Provided, That each of the immediately foregoing limits of
costs on new construction projects may be exceeded to the
extent that savings are effected in other such projects, but
not to exceed 10 percent unless advance approval is obtained
from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of a
greater amount: Provided further, That all funds for direct
construction projects shall expire on September 30, 2000, and
remain in the Federal Buildings Fund except for funds for
projects as to which funds for design or other funds have
been obligated in whole or in part prior to such date:
Provided further, That of the funds provided for non-
prospectus construction projects, $2,100,000 shall be
available until expended for acquisition, lease,
construction, and equipping of flexiplace telecommuting
centers; (2) $655,031,000, of which $19,000,000 shall be
available for obligation on September 30, 1999, shall remain
available until expended for repairs and alterations, which
includes associated design and construction services, for the
following projects and activities:
Repairs and alterations:
California:
San Francisco, Appraisers Building
District of Columbia:
Federal Office Building, 10B
Interstate Commerce Commission, Connecting Wing Complex,
Customs Buildings, Phase 3/3
Old Executive Office Building
State Department Building, Phase I
Colorado:
Lakewood, Denver Federal Center, Building 25
New York:
Brookhaven, Internal Revenue Service, Service Center
New York, U.S. Courthouse, 40 Foley Square
Pennsylvania:
Philadelphia, Byrne-Green, Federal Building-U.S. Courthouse
Virginia:
Reston, J.W. Powell Building
Nationwide:
Chlorofluorocarbons Program
Energy Program
Design Program
Basic Repairs and Alterations:

Provided further, That additional projects for which
prospectuses have been fully approved may be funded under
this category only if advance approval is obtained from the
Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That the
amounts provided in this or any prior Act for ``Repairs and
Alterations'' may be used to fund costs associated with
implementing security improvements to buildings: Provided
further, That the difference between the funds appropriated
and expended on any projects in this or any prior Act, under
the heading ``Repairs and Alterations'', may be transferred
to Basic Repairs and Alterations or used to fund authorized
increases in prospectus projects: Provided further, That all
funds for repairs and alterations prospectus projects shall
expire on September 30, 2000, and remain in the Federal
Buildings Fund, except funds for projects as to which funds
for design or other funds have been obligated in whole or in
part prior to such date: Provided further, That $5,700,000 of
the funds provided under this heading in Public Law 103-329
for the Holtsville, New York, IRS Service Center shall remain
available until September 30, 1999: Provided further, That
the amount provided in this or any prior Act for Basic
Repairs and Alterations may be used to pay claims against the
Government arising from any projects under the heading
``Repairs and Alterations'' or used to fund authorized
increases in prospectus projects; (3) $215,764,000 for
installment acquisition payments including payments on
purchase contracts, which shall remain available until
expended; (4) $2,583,261,000 for rental of space, which shall
remain available until expended; and (5) $1,554,772,000 for
building operations, of which $223,000,000 shall be available
for obligation on September 30, 1999, which shall remain
available until expended: Provided further, That funds
available to the General Services Administration shall not be
available for expenses of any construction, repair,
alteration and acquisition project for which a prospectus, if
required by the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (40 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), has not been approved, except that necessary funds
may be expended for each project for required expenses of the
development of a proposed prospectus: Provided further, That
for the purposes of this authorization, and hereafter,
buildings constructed pursuant to the purchase contract
authority of the Public Buildings Amendments of 1972 (40
U.S.C. 602a), buildings occupied pursuant to installment
purchase contracts, and buildings under the control of
another department or agency where alterations of such
buildings are required in connection with the moving of such
other department or agency from buildings then, or thereafter
to be, under the control of the General Services
Administration shall be considered to be federally owned
buildings: Provided further, That funds available in the
Federal Buildings Fund may be expended for emergency repairs
when advance approval is obtained from the Committees on
Appropriations: Provided further, That amounts necessary to
provide reimbursable special services to other agencies under
section 210(f)(6) of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 490(f)(6)), and amounts to
provide such reimbursable fencing, lighting, guard booths,
and other facilities on private or other property not in
Government ownership or control as may be appropriate to
enable the United States Secret Service to perform its
protective functions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3056, shall be
available from such revenues and collections: Provided
further, That the remaining balances and associated assets
and liabilities of the Pennsylvania Avenue Activities account
are hereby transferred to the Federal Buildings Fund to be
effective October 1, 1998, and all income earned after that
effective date that would otherwise have been deposited to
the Pennsylvania Avenue Activities account shall thereafter
be deposited to the Fund, to be available for the purposes
authorized by Public Laws 104-134 and 104-208,
notwithstanding subsection 210(f)(2) of the Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C.
490(f)(2)): Provided further, That revenues and collections
and any other sums accruing to the Federal Buildings Fund
during fiscal year 1999, excluding reimbursements under
section 210(f)(6) of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 490(f)(6)), in excess of
$5,626,928,000 shall remain in the Fund and shall not be
available for expenditure except as authorized in
appropriations Acts.

Point of Order

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the portion
of the bill beginning on page 42, line 3 and continuing through page
44, line 9 on the basis that these are unauthorized, and they are
legislating on an appropriations bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would appreciate if the gentleman from
Oklahoma would restate the point of order.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the portion
of the bill beginning on page 42, line 3, and continuing through page
44, line 10 ending with the semicolon.
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman would proceed with a statement of his
point of order.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, this point of order is raised on the basis
that these are unauthorized projects. They have never been authorized.
Number two, they are legislating on an appropriations bill.
I would further State that it is difficult for us to be building $600
million worth of buildings when our children owe $6 billion and that
perhaps a better use of this money might be in paying the interest on
the national debt.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member desire to be heard on the point
of order?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would concede the gentleman's point of
order but would make the following observation.
I would concede it based on the rule which we adopted that these
projects are at the same time unauthorized. I would, however, note that
in every case we simply follow the priorities the Judicial Conference
and so we are not substituting our own judgment, but the gentleman's
point of order would be correct on this. I regret very much saying
that, that that would be the case.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) wish to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, this rule, which I
opposed precisely because it did not, as it does in most instances,
protect provisions that are absolutely essential, the gentleman from
Oklahoma makes the point about our kids' debts.
Very frankly, the chairman took all of these as priorities from the
Judicial Conference and GSA. These are not political priorities. These
are the judgments of those around the country in the justice system who
know the facilities that are needed to carry out justice in this
country.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to inform the Members that the debate
should center around the point of order. The gentleman was straying
beyond the point of order question.

[[Page H5671]]

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Chair. The Chair is correct. I was simply
responding to the rhetoric of the point of order that was made.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma also proceeded beyond that,
but as it has proceeded, we have decided to rein it in.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the Chair. The gentleman from California is very
fair.

{time} 1415

I would join the chairman of the committee in lamenting the fact that
the gentleman from Oklahoma is technically correct, notwithstanding the
fact I think he is substantively wrong.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order, as stated by the gentleman from
Oklahoma, is conceded and sustained, and that portion of the bill will
be stricken from the Record.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

policy and operations

For expenses authorized by law, not otherwise provided for,
for Government-wide policy and oversight activities
associated with asset management activities; utilization and
donation of surplus personal property; transportation;
procurement and supply; Government-wide and internal
responsibilities relating to automated data management,
telecommunications, information resources management, and
related technology activities; utilization survey, deed
compliance inspection, appraisal, environmental and cultural
analysis, and land use planning functions pertaining to
excess and surplus real property; agency-wide policy
direction; Board of Contract Appeals; accounting, records
management, and other support services incident to
adjudication of Indian Tribal Claims by the United States
Court of Federal Claims; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109; and not to exceed $5,000 for official reception and
representation expenses; $108,494,000.

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
and services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $32,000,000:
Provided, That not to exceed $10,000 shall be available for
payment for information and detection of fraud against the
Government, including payment for recovery of stolen
Government property: Provided further, That not to exceed
$2,500 shall be available for awards to employees of other
Federal agencies and private citizens in recognition of
efforts and initiatives resulting in enhanced Office of
Inspector General effectiveness.

allowances and office staff for former presidents

(including transfer of funds)

For carrying out the provisions of the Act of August 25,
1958, as amended (3 U.S.C. 102 note), and Public Law 95-138,
$2,241,000: Provided, That the Administrator of General
Services shall transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury such
sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of such
Acts.

general provisions--general services administration

Sec. 401. The appropriate appropriation or fund available
to the General Services Administration shall be credited with
the cost of operation, protection, maintenance, upkeep,
repair, and improvement, included as part of rentals received
from Government corporations pursuant to law (40 U.S.C. 129).

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order this is in
violation of clause 2, rule XXI of the House, because it proposes to
change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation
bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Has the gentleman stated exactly what section?
Mr. OBEY. It is section 401.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member desire to be heard on the point
of order?
If not, according to the precedent of June 18, 1991, the point of
order is sustained. Section 401 will be stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 402. Funds available to the General Services
Administration shall be available for the hire of passenger
motor vehicles.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I again make a point of order against section
402 because it proposes to change existing law and again constitutes
legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members wishing to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, for the reason just stated, according to the precedent of
June 18, 1991, the point of order is sustained and that section will be
stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 403. Funds in the Federal Buildings Fund made
available for fiscal year 1999 for Federal Buildings Fund
activities may be transferred between such activities only to
the extent necessary to meet program requirements: Provided,
That any proposed transfers shall be approved in advance by
the Committees on Appropriations.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I again make a point of order against section
403 for the same reason as the previous two sections.
The CHAIRMAN. For the same stated reasons, the point of order is
sustained and that section, 403, will be stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 404. No funds made available by this Act shall be used
to transmit a fiscal year 2000 request for United States
Courthouse construction that (1) does not meet the design
guide standards for construction as established and approved
by the General Services Administration, the Judicial
Conference of the United States, and the Office of Management
and Budget; and (2) does not reflect the priorities of the
Judicial Conference of the United States as set out in its
approved 5-year construction plan: Provided, That the fiscal
year 2000 request shall be accompanied by a standardized
courtroom utilization study of each facility to be
constructed, replaced, or expanded.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I again make a point of order against this
section for the same reason.
The CHAIRMAN. Any other Member wishing to be heard on the point of
order against section 404 of the bill?
The Chair finds that section 404 is explicitly legislation in an
appropriation bill and is, therefore, stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 405. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used to increase the amount of occupiable square feet,
provide cleaning services, security enhancements, or any
other service usually provided through the Federal Buildings
Fund, to any agency which does not pay the rate per square
foot assessment for space and services as determined by the
General Services Administration in compliance with the Public
Buildings Amendments Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-313).

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, again, on section 405, I make a point of
order against this provision because it also constitutes legislation on
an appropriation bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Any other Members wishing to be heard on the point of
order raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that section
405 contains legislative language. The point of order is sustained. The
section is stricken.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 406. Funds provided to other Government agencies by
the Information Technology Fund, General Services
Administration, under 40 U.S.C. 757 and sections 5124(b) and
5128 of Public Law 104-106, Information Technology Management
Reform Act of 1996, for performance of pilot information
technology projects which have potential for Government-wide
benefits and savings, may be repaid to this Fund from any
savings actually incurred by these projects or other funding,
to the extent feasible.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, again, the same point of order on section 406
for the same reason.
The CHAIRMAN. Any other Member desiring to be heard on the point of
order?
Section 406 constitutes legislation. The point of order is sustained.
The section is stricken.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 407. From funds made available under the heading
``Federal Buildings Fund Limitations on Availability of
Revenue'', claims against the Government of less than
$250,000 arising from direct construction projects and
acquisition of buildings may be liquidated from savings
effected in other construction projects with prior
notification to the Committees on Appropriations.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, again, point of order. I make the point of
order against section 407 for the same reason. It violates the same
clause of the same rule.
The CHAIRMAN. Any other Member wishing to be heard?
If not, for the same reason, the point of order is sustained.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 408. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
requirement under section 407 of Public Law 104-208 (110
Stat. 3009-337-38), that the Administrator of General
Services charge user fees for flexiplace telecommuting
centers that approximate commercial charges for comparable
space and

[[Page H5672]]

services but in no instance less than the amount necessary to
pay the cost of establishing and operating such centers,
shall not apply to the user fees charged for the period
beginning October 1, 1996, and ending September 30, 1998, for
the telecommuting centers established as part of a pilot
telecommuting demonstration program in the Washington, D.C.
metropolitan area by Public Laws 102-393, 103-123, 103-329,
104-52, and 104-298: Provided, That for these centers in the
pilot demonstration program for the period beginning October
1, 1998, and ending September 30, 2000, the Administrator
shall charge fees for Federal agency use of a telecenter
based on 50 percent of the Administrator's annual costs of
operating the center, including the reasonable cost of
replacement for furniture, fixtures, and equipment: Provided
further, That effective October 1, 2000, the Administrator
shall charge fees for Federal agency use of the demonstration
telecommuting centers based on 100 percent of the annual
operating costs, including the reasonable cost of replacement
for furniture, fixtures, and equipment: Provided further,
That, to the extent such user charges do not cover the
Administrator's costs in operating these centers,
appropriations to the General Service Administration are
authorized to reimburse the Federal Buildings Fund for any
loss of revenue.

LAND CONVEYANCE, UNITED STATES NAVAL OBSERVATORY/ALTERNATE TIME SERVICE
LABORATORY

Sec. 409. (a) Authority To Convey.--
(1) In general.--Not withstanding any other provision of
law, the Administrator of General Services shall convey to
the University of Miami, by negotiated sale and by not later
than September 30, 1999, all right, title, and interest of
the United States in and to the property described in
paragraph (2).
(2) Property described.--The property referred to in
paragraph (1) is real property in Miami-Dade County, Florida,
including improvements thereon, comprising the Federal
facility known as the United States Naval Observatory/
Alternate Time Service Laboratory, consisting of
approximately 76 acres. The exact acreage and legal
description of the property shall be determined by a survey
that is satisfactory to the Administrator.
(b) Condition Regarding Use.--Any conveyance under
subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that during
the 10-year period beginning on the date of the conveyance,
the University shall use the property, or provide for use of
the property, only for--
(1) a research, education, and training facility
complementary to longstanding national research missions,
subject to such incidental exceptions as may be approved by
the Administrator;
(2) research-related purposes other than the use specified
in paragraph (1), under an agreement entered into by the
Administrator and the University; or
(3) a combination of uses described in paragraph (1) and
paragraph (2), respectively.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Administrator may
require such additional terms and conditions with respect to
the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Administrator
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
(d) Reversion.--If the Administrator determines at any time
that the property conveyed under subsection (a) is not being
used in accordance with this section, all right, title, and
interest in and to the property, including any improvements
thereon, shall revert to the United States, and the United
States shall have the right of immediate entry thereon.

Point of Order

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order on section
409 of the bill because it violates clause 2 of rule XXI and
constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any Members wishing to be heard on the point
of order?
If not, section 409 expressly supersedes existing law with explicitly
prescriptive language. As such, it constitutes legislation in violation
of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained and that
section of the bill is stricken.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 410. (a) Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Property,
Racine, Wisconsin.--The Administrator of General Services
shall convey, by negotiated sale, to the city of Racine,
Wisconsin (in this section referred to as the ``City''), all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
vacant Army Reserve property (including improvements thereon)
located at the intersection of 24th and Center Streets in
Racine, Wisconsin, for the purpose of permitting the City to
use the property as the site of water and wastewater
utilities.
(b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Administrator. The cost of any such survey shall be
borne by the City.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Administrator may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Administrator
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 410
because it proposes to change existing law, constitutes legislation on
an appropriation bill, and violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Section 410 does, in fact, as the gentleman has stated,
constitute legislation in an appropriation bill. The point of order is
sustained and that section will be stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 411. The Administrator of General Services is directed
to reincorporate the elements of the original proposed design
for the facade of the United States Courthouse, London,
Kentucky project into the revised design of the building in
order to ensure compatibility of this new facility with the
historic U.S. Courthouse in London, Kentucky to maintain the
stateliness of the building. Construction or design of the
London, Kentucky project should not be diminished in anyway
to achieve this goal.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I again make a point of order against section
411 for the same reasons as I did for the previous section.
The CHAIRMAN. And for the same reasons the Chair ruled in the
previous section, the gentleman is correct and the point of order is
sustained and the section 411 will be stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund

For payment to the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund to
carry out activities authorized in the Environmental Policy
and Conflict Resolution Act of 1997, $4,250,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $3,000,000 will be for
capitalization of the Fund, and $1,250,000 will be for annual
operating expenses.

Merit Systems Protection Board

salaries and expenses

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Merit
Systems Protection Board pursuant to Reorganization Plan
Numbered 2 of 1978 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, rental of
conference rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere,
hire of passenger motor vehicles, and direct procurement of
survey printing, $25,805,000, together with not to exceed
$2,430,000 for administrative expenses to adjudicate
retirement appeals to be transferred from the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund in amounts determined by the
Merit Systems Protection Board.

National Archives and Records Administration

operating expenses

For necessary expenses in connection with the
administration of the National Archives (including the
Information Security Oversight Office) and records and
related activities, as provided by law, and for expenses
necessary for the review and declassification of documents,
and for the hire of passenger motor vehicles, $216,753,000:
Provided, That the Archivist of the United States is
authorized to use any excess funds available, from the amount
borrowed for construction of the National Archives facility,
for expenses necessary to provide adequate storage for
holdings.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Sanders

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 13, printed in the
July 14, 1998 Congressional Record.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Sanders:
Page 58, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000) (increased by
$2,000,000)''.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to earmark
$2 million of the funds appropriated to the National Archives and
Records Administration for fiscal year 1999 for the National Personnel
Records Center. The funds will enable the records center to modernize
its records management system, allowing it to respond to 90 percent of
all veterans' records inquiries received from the Veterans
Administration within 10 days or less.
This amendment has the endorsement of all of the major national
veterans organizations in the United States who recognize the severity
of this problem. And the groups that are supporting the Sanders
amendment include the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion,
the Disabled American Veterans, the Vietnam Veterans of America,
AMVETS, the Reserve Officer's Association of the United States, and the
National Officer's Association.
Mr. Chairman, through my work with veterans in the State of Vermont,
I

[[Page H5673]]

have learned that there are frequently very long delays in simply
obtaining a veteran's personnel records, which are essential for the
Department of Veterans Affairs to offer effective medical assistance or
provide benefits. In Vermont, a request for medical records or any
detailed request generally takes 4 to 6 months to complete.
And this is not just a Vermont problem, it is a national problem. A
veteran comes in and wants his medical records, in order to get health
treatment, and he waits 2, 3, 4, 6 months. A veteran comes in to get
his medical records, in order to get the benefits that he or she is
entitled to, and waits 2, 4, 6 months. This is not the way that we
should be treating America's veterans.
Mr. Chairman, America has a commitment to provide our veterans with
adequate health care. Reliable access to veterans' personnel records is
essential to meeting this commitment. During the wait of 4 to 6 months,
in some cases up to a year, little or nothing can be done to assist the
veteran, as the personnel records, which are the very basis for any
medical or administrative decision, cannot be assessed. A similar
situation exists for benefits, as it is impossible for the veteran to
make his or her request without this information.
My staff has made calls to many of my colleagues' offices and we have
tried to find out if this problem is existing all over this country,
and we find that it is. Let me very briefly read from some of the
comments made by the service organizations.
The Retired Officer's Association states, and I quote, ``Our
association frequently assists uniformed services retirees and
survivors with disability and other entitlement issues requiring
documentation available only at the records center. Sadly, needed
compensation is often delayed for months because of the center's
antiquated and overwhelmed records management systems. Particularly for
survivors and older veterans, unfamiliar with specific personnel
documents issued many years ago, this is far too often an extremely
frustrating exercise that reflects very poorly on the government.''
That is from the Retired Officer's Association. Let me read to my
colleagues from the Reserve Officer's Association of the United States.
``We here at the ROA are keenly aware of the difficulties veterans
frequently encounter when attempting to obtain copies of documents and
their official military records in order to establish their entitlement
to veterans benefits. Anything that can be done to expedite the
processing time involving these requests will be deeply appreciated by
the veterans and their families. The sheer magnitude of the NPRC's
operations in St. Louis must be seen to be comprehended.''
Let me read from the Military Order of the Purple Heart. ``The
majority of veterans seeking assistance from the VA has to endure long
waiting times for the VA to locate their records, then they have to
tolerate further delays if they require additional documentation from
the NPRC. In many instances, time is a critical factor, particularly
for our older veterans.''
Let me read from the National Officer's Association. ``We are fully
supportive of this effort and, in consideration of the aggravation and
additional cost incurred by the Department of Veterans Affairs in
addressing problems arising because of the delayed actions in support
of veterans' claims, are of the opinion that the modest outlay of $6
million'', and, actually, we are only asking for $2 million now for the
first year, ``would be very helpful.''
Veterans of Foreign Wars: Sympathetic to the Sanders amendment. The
American Legion: Sympathetic. The Disabled American Veterans:
Sympathetic. In other words, the veterans organizations know that it is
an outrage that when a veteran asks for help and medical records he or
she is delayed 4 to 6 months. I ask for support of this important
amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, if one was inclined to be opposed to this amendment
after the impassioned plea of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders),
it would be very hard to oppose him.
Mr. Chairman, let me just state for the record that our committee,
our subcommittee, has recognized the problem. We have been talking with
and working with the Archives. This has been, for a long time, an
ongoing problem we have had with the National Personnel Records Center,
going back more than 25, almost 30, years, since the great fire took
place there and destroyed so many records.

{time} 1430

The Archives is very much committed to changing the way it does its
work at the Personnel Records Center, and the key part of that change
is going to be the infusion of information technology in the receipt,
control, and response to the 1.75 million requests for information it
receives on an annual basis. That is going to take place over the next
5 years at a cost of about $6 million. The goal is to be able to have
retrieval of information, case retrieval time, in less than 10 days for
every individual.
Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that this amendment is required for this
coming fiscal year, but I would like to accept the amendment and work
with the author and with the ranking member of the minority side and
others to try to achieve in conference what we all agree is the goal
that we want to achieve.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the chairman and I have discussed this. I am pleased
that the chairman is going to accept this amendment.
I want to congratulate the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) who
has talked to both the chairman and myself, worked very closely with
us. This obviously is a problem. We need to ensure that the records of
veterans which are critical for health care purposes, retirement
purposes, all sorts of other purposes, are in fact retrieved in a
timely fashion. That is not now happening.
The good news is not only that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders) has brought this to our attention, obviously communicated with
the veterans' organizations throughout this country and energized them
and focused them on how we can solve this problem, but also that
Governor Carlin, who is the administrator, relatively new, recognizes
that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is absolutely correct.
This is a problem that needs to be solved, and they are initiating and
pursuing that objective.
So I want to congratulate the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
for this initiative. It is a positive one, and I am pleased to join the
chairman in supporting it.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe)
and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for their support for this
amendment. We have worked together, and I know they are cognizant of
the problems.
The sad fact is that this problem has existed for many, many, many
years. The reason that I want the $2 million appropriated right now is
that I want to see action take place immediately. As a member of the
Committee on Government Reform, we will be watching how well they
proceed in getting these records updated and automated and
computerized.
So I look forward to working with both gentlemen so that our veterans
get a fair shake and we end this bureaucratic nightmare.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders) will be pursuing this. The gentleman is one of the most
tenacious and energetic Members of the House, and I know he will be
following this very closely to ensure that this objective is
accomplished.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I do not plan on taking 5 minutes. But maybe I can
appeal to my colleague. The cause and effect of veterans, not only
their records, but the real problem is with their medical care in the
first place. I think the gentleman agrees with that. It is a cause and
effect. He may not agree with trickle-down economics, but he think he
believes in trickle-down problems that come down to the lowest level.
I would ask the gentleman that we have had the Moran and Watts bill
help with FEHBP. That is just a Band-Aid

[[Page H5674]]

right now as it is. The Tricare system is a Band-Aid. Subvention is a
Band-Aid. And the veterans are looking for the same benefits that the
employees have that if a secretary works over in the Pentagon, when she
goes under Medicare, she has got a follow-on program called BEHBP. A
military person does not. A veteran does not. And that is wrong.
My bill solved that, and it got rid of all the Band-Aids, but they
could not find the funds for it. I think in the future we have need to
look at that.
The records are a problem not only with veterans but active duty
military, and we are working on that. But I would appeal to my friends,
we have less than 24 percent retention in our military today. Most of
those people are going to get out and be veterans that are getting out
of the service right now.
The OPTEMPO is 300 percent above what it was in Vietnam in Cold War.
And our families in the military, people are saying, hey, I cannot
handle this with my family and have it, too. If we want to solve both
and live under the caps in defense budget and this budget, then we have
got to reduce the OPTEMPO of our overseas commitment and we have got to
bring our people home. And then we can have the dollars, instead of
Haiti and Somalia and Bosnia and all the others, we will have some more
dollars to do what we really need not only for our active duty but for
our veterans.
I thank the gentleman for his amendment. I think it is very
thoughtful, and I support it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

repairs and restoration

For the repair, alteration, and improvement of archives
facilities and Presidential Libraries, and to provide
adequate storage for holdings, $10,450,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $2,000,000 is for an
architectural and engineering study for the renovation of the
Archives I facility and of which $4,000,000 is for encasement
of the Charters of Freedom.

National Historical Publications and Records Commission

grants program

For necessary expenses for allocations and grants for
historical publications and records as authorized by 44
U.S.C. 2504, $6,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Office of Government Ethics

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office
of Government Ethics pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act
of 1978, and the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, rental of conference
rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and not to exceed $1,500 for
official reception and representation expenses; $8,492,000.

Office of Personnel Management

Salaries and Expenses

(including transfer of trust funds)

For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office
of Personnel Management pursuant to Reorganization Plan
Numbered 2 of 1978 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; medical
examinations performed for veterans by private physicians on
a fee basis; rental of conference rooms in the District of
Columbia and elsewhere; hire of passenger motor vehicles; not
to exceed $2,500 for official reception and representation
expenses; advances for reimbursements to applicable funds of
the Office of Personnel Management and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for expenses incurred under Executive Order No.
10422 of January 9, 1953, as amended; and payment of per diem
and/or subsistence allowances to employees where Voting
Rights Act activities require an employee to remain overnight
at his or her post of duty; $85,350,000; and in addition
$91,236,000 for administrative expenses, to be transferred
from the appropriate trust funds of the Office of Personnel
Management without regard to other statutes, including direct
procurement of printed materials, for the retirement and
insurance programs: Provided, That the provisions of this
appropriation shall not affect the authority to use
applicable trust funds as provided by section 8348(a)(1)(B)
of title 5, United States Code: Provided further, That,
except as may be consistent with 5 U.S.C. 8902a(f)(1) and
(i), no payment may be made from the Employees Health
Benefits Fund to any physician, hospital, or other provider
of health care services or supplies who is, at the time such
services or supplies are provided to an individual covered
under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, excluded,
pursuant to section 1128 or 1128A of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1320a-7 through 1320a-7a), from participation in
any program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395 et seq.): Provided further, That no part of this
appropriation shall be available for salaries and expenses of
the Legal Examining Unit of the Office of Personnel
Management established pursuant to Executive Order No. 9358
of July 1, 1943, or any successor unit of like purpose:
Provided further, That the President's Commission on White
House Fellows, established by Executive Order No. 11183 of
October 3, 1964, may, during fiscal year 1999, accept
donations of money, property, and personal services in
connection with the development of a publicity brochure to
provide information about the White House Fellows, except
that no such donations shall be accepted for travel or
reimbursement of travel expenses, or for the salaries of
employees of such Commission.

office of inspector general

salaries and expenses

(including transfer of trust funds)

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act,
as amended, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109, hire of passenger motor vehicles, $960,000; and in
addition, not to exceed $9,145,000 for administrative
expenses to audit the Office of Personnel Management's
retirement and insurance programs, to be transferred from the
appropriate trust funds of the Office of Personnel
Management, as determined by the Inspector General: Provided,
That the Inspector General is authorized to rent conference
rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere.

government payment for annuitants, employees health benefits

For payment of Government contributions with respect to
retired employees, as authorized by chapter 89 of title 5,
United States Code, and the Retired Federal Employees Health
Benefits Act (74 Stat. 849), as amended, such sums as may be
necessary.

government payment for annuitants, employee life insurance

For payment of Government contributions with respect to
employees retiring after December 31, 1989, as required by
chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code, such sums as may
be necessary.

payment to civil service retirement and disability fund

For financing the unfunded liability of new and increased
annuity benefits becoming effective on or after October 20,
1969, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 8348, and annuities under
special Acts to be credited to the Civil Service Retirement
and Disability Fund, such sums as may be necessary: Provided,
That annuities authorized by the Act of May 29, 1944, as
amended, and the Act of August 19, 1950, as amended (33
U.S.C. 771-775), may hereafter be paid out of the Civil
Service Retirement and Disability Fund.

Office of Special Counsel

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office
of Special Counsel pursuant to Reorganization Plan Numbered 2
of 1978, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-
454), the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (Public Law
101-12), Public Law 103-424, and the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-353),
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, payment of
fees and expenses for witnesses, rental of conference rooms
in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and hire of
passenger motor vehicles, $8,720,000.

United States Tax Court

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses, including contract reporting and
other services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $34,490,000:
Provided, That travel expenses of the judges shall be paid
upon the written certificate of the judge.
This title may be cited as the ``Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1999''.

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

This Act

Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 502. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those
contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public
record and available for public inspection, except where
otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing
Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be available for any activity or for paying the salary
of any Government employee where funding an activity or
paying a salary to a Government employee would result in a
decision, determination, rule, regulation, or policy that
would prohibit the enforcement of section 307 of the Tariff
Act of 1930.
Sec. 504. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be available in fiscal year 1999 for the purpose of
transferring control over the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center located at Glynco, Georgia, and Artesia, New
Mexico, out of the Department of the Treasury.
Sec. 505. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available to pay

[[Page H5675]]

the salary for any person filling a position, other than a
temporary position, formerly held by an employee who has left
to enter the Armed Forces of the United States and has
satisfactorily completed his period of active military or
naval service, and has, within 90 days after his release from
such service or from hospitalization continuing after
discharge for a period of not more than 1 year, made
application for restoration to his former position and has
been certified by the Office of Personnel Management as still
qualified to perform the duties of his former position and
has not been restored thereto.

point of order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against
section 505 because it proposes to change existing law, constitutes
legislation in an appropriation bill, and violates clause 2 of rule
XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Do any other Members wish to be heard on the point of
order raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
As was stated earlier, under the precedent established June 18 of
1991, this section constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill;
and section 505, therefore, will be stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 506. No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may
be expended by an entity unless the entity agrees that in
expending the assistance the entity will comply with sections
2 through 4 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).
Sec. 507. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products.--In the case of any equipment or products that may
be authorized to be purchased with financial assistance
provided under this Act, it is the sense of the Congress that
entities receiving such assistance should, in expending the
assistance, purchase only American-made equipment and
products.
(b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing
financial assistance under this Act, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a
notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the
Congress.
Sec. 508. If it has been finally determined by a court or
Federal agency that any person intentionally affixed a label
bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription
with the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to
the United States that is not made in the United States, such
person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or
subcontract made with funds provided pursuant to this Act,
pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility
procedures described in sections 9.400 through 9.409 of title
48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 509. Except as otherwise specifically provided by
law, not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances
remaining available at the end of fiscal year 1999 from
appropriations made available for salaries and expenses for
fiscal year 1999 in this Act, shall remain available through
September 30, 2000, for each such account, and may be
transferred to any other Department account, for the purposes
authorized: Provided, That a request shall be submitted to
the Committees on Appropriations for approval prior to the
expenditure of such funds: Provided further, That these
requests shall be made in compliance with reprogramming
guidelines.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against
section 509 for the same reason as I cited previously.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair rules that this is considering legislation in
an appropriations bill; and, for that reason, the point of order is
sustained, and section 509 will be stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 510. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Executive Office of the President to request
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation any official
background investigation report on any individual, unless--
(1) such individual has given his or her express written
consent for such request not more than 6 months prior to the
date of such request and during the same presidential
administration; or
(2) such request is required due to extraordinary
circumstances involving national security.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make the same point of order
against section 510.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair's response is the same as on the last section
and the point of order is sustained; and section 510 will, therefore,
be stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 511. (a) Appointment and Term of Service of Staff
Director and General Counsel of Federal Election
Commission.--
(1) In general.--The first sentence of section 306(f)(1) of
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C.
437c(f)(1)) is amended by striking ``by the Commission'' and
inserting the following: ``by an affirmative vote of not less
than 4 members of the Commission and may not serve for a term
of more than 4 consecutive years without reappointment in
accordance with this paragraph''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply with respect to any individual serving as the
staff director or general counsel of the Federal Election
Commission on or after January 1, 1999, without regard to
whether or not the individual served as staff director or
general counsel prior to such date.
(b) Treatment of Individuals Filling Vacancies; Termination
of Authority Upon Expiration of Term.--Section 306(f)(1) of
such Act (2 U.S.C. 437c(f)(1)) is amended by inserting after
the first sentence the following new sentences: ``An
individual appointed as a staff director or general counsel
to fill a vacancy occurring other than by the expiration of a
term of office shall be appointed only for the unexpired term
of the individual he or she succeeds. An individual serving
as staff director or general counsel may not serve in such
position after the expiration of the individual's term unless
reappointed in accordance with this paragraph.''.
(c) Rule of Construction Regarding Authority of Acting
General Counsel.--Section 306(f) of such Act (2 U.S.C.
437c(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(5) Nothing in this Act may be construed to prohibit any
individual serving as an acting general counsel of the
Commission from performing any functions of the general
counsel of the Commission.''.

Point of Order

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of
order against section 511 on page 67, lines 5 through page 68, line 17,
on the grounds that it violates clause 2 of rule XXI constituting
legislation on a general appropriations bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Do any other Members wish to be heard on the point of
order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
This is direct legislation in the appropriation bill; and, therefore,
the point of order is sustained and section 511 will be stricken from
the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 512. Hereafter, any payment of attorneys fees, costs,
and sanctions required to be made by the Federal Government
pursuant to the order of the district court in the case
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. v.
Clinton, 989 F. Supp. 8 (1997), or any appeal of such case,
shall be derived by transfer from amounts made available in
this or any other Act for any fiscal year for ``Compensation
of the President and the White House Office--Salaries and
Expenses''.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against
section 512 for the same reasons as I cited previously.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members wishing to be heard on the
point of order being raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)?
If not, for the aforestated reasons, legislation in an appropriation
bill, the point of order is sustained; and section 512 will, therefore,
be stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 513. (a) Audits by the Postmaster General.--Subsection
(e) of section 2008 of title 39, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(e)(1) At least once each year beginning with the fiscal
year commencing after the date of enactment of this Act, the
financial statements of the Postal Service (including those
used in determining and establishing postal rates) shall be
audited by the Inspector General or by an independent
external auditor, as determined by the Inspector General.
``(2) Audits under this section shall be conducted in
accordance with applicable generally accepted government
auditing standards.
``(3) Upon completion of the audit required by this
subsection, the person who audits the statement shall submit
a report on the audit to the Board''.
(b) Results of Inspector General's Audit To Be Included in
Annual Report.--Section 2402 of title 39, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after the first sentence the
following: ``Each report under this section shall include,
for the most recent fiscal year for which a report under
section 2008(e) is available (unless previously transmitted
under the following sentence), a copy of such report.''.
(c) Coordination Provisions.--Subsection (d) of section
2008 of title 39, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``(d) Nothing'' and inserting ``(d)(1)
Except as provided in paragraph (2), nothing''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2)(A) Before obtaining any audit or report under
paragraph (1), the Postal Service shall give the Inspector
General advance written notice of that intention.

[[Page H5676]]

``(B) Any exercise of power under paragraph (1) shall be
subject to any authority available to the Inspector General
in carrying out section 4(a) of the Inspector General Act of
1978.''.
(d) Effective Date.--This subsection shall take effect on
the date of enactment of this Act.

Point of Order

Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against
section 513, and I do so because it proposes to change existing laws
and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore,
violates clause 2 of rule XXI. And I ask for a ruling from the chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other member wishing to be heard on the
point of order being raised by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Torres)?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman is correct. This is direct legislation on an
appropriations bill. The point of order is sustained, and that
provision will be stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 514. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be
available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative
expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal
employees health benefit program which provides any benefits
or coverage for abortions.

amendment offered by ms. delauro

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro:
Strike section 514 (relating to prohibition of FEHB plan
coverage for abortions).

Ms. DeLAURO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Connecticut?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman,
I inquire of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), is this a
straight-strike amendment?
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, yes, it is.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlwoman
from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides funding for Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program. In the network of health insurance
plans for Federal employees, there are approximately 1.2 million women
of reproductive age who rely on the FEHBP for their medical care.
Until November, 1995, Federal employees, just like private-sector
workers, could choose a health care plan which covered a full range of
reproductive health services, including abortion. Approximately one-
third of private fee-for-service plans, 30 percent of HMOs do not
provide abortion coverage, two-thirds are fee-for-coverage, and 70
percent of HMOs did.
In 1993 and 1994, Congress voted to permit Federal employees to
choose a health care plan which covered abortion or to choose one that
did not cover abortion. The choice was in the hands of the individual.
According to the American Medical Association, funding restrictions,
such as the ones in this bill, make it more likely that women will
continue a potentially health-threatening pregnancy to term or undergo
abortion procedures that will endanger their health.
Let me take a moment to address a concern raised by some of my
colleagues that this amendment will use taxpayer dollars to subsidize
abortion. This simply is not the case. Coverage of abortion services in
Federal-held plans does not mean that Government or the taxpayer is
subsidizing abortion.
Just like private-sector employees negotiating a compensation
package, Federal employees agree to work for the Federal Government in
return for a salary and a benefits package. That salary and those
benefits belong to the employee and not to the Government.
The Federal employee, not Government, chooses the health care plan
that best fits the person and that person's family's needs. As an
employer, the Federal Government makes a contribution to help pay the
premium on that health insurance. The rest of the premium is paid by
the employee. The payment that the Government makes is part of that
Federal employee's compensation package. It belongs to the Federal
employee just as much as the paycheck that is deposited in the bank
does.
We would never claim that the paycheck paid to Federal employees is
taxpayer money; and, therefore, no Federal employee should be allowed
to spend his or her salary to pay for an abortion. Just like the
salary, the benefit package belongs to the employee, not the employer.
And employees who do not wish to choose a plan with abortion coverage
are not required to.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak at length about
individual choice and the value of taking decisions out of the hands of
Government and returning the power of choice to individuals. Why, then,
do they oppose allowing those who serve the public from making their
choice of health care plans? Why do we deny these individuals their
right to choose?

{time} 1445

Mr. Chairman, the antichoice movement in this country has failed to
make abortion illegal; therefore, activists are trying to make it more
difficult and more dangerous. Singling out abortion for exclusion from
health care plans that cover other reproductive health care is harmful
to a woman's health. Why not trust the individual rather than mandate a
particular point of view of some Members of Congress? This amendment
discriminates against women in public service who are denied access to
a legal health procedure simply because of who they work for. It has
real consequences for real people.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to quickly read a letter written by one of
those families.

I have been a Federal employee for 13 years. My husband and
I were elated this summer when I became pregnant. I was
scheduled for a sonogram at 14 weeks. My husband, mother and
sister accompanied me to the ultrasound waiting room because
seeing this baby was a big event. The radiologist detected
abnormalities and recommended that only my husband be allowed
to see the sonogram. The radiologist termed it severe
hydrocephalus. We saw an empty skull, termed it incompatible
with life. The doctors I saw agreed there was no hope for the
fetus, recommended terminating as soon as possible. We were
devastated. To compound the tragedy came the news that
companies insuring Federal workers are prohibited from
covering abortions. In the end we paid a very high fee to
have the abortion because the fetal anomaly made the
procedure more complicated. My husband and I question whether
Congress was implying we were immoral for aborting this fetus
in hoping to get pregnant with a healthy child. Our decision
was not wanton or frivolous. It was heartbreaking.

My Chairman, talk about giving individuals choices, I urge my
colleagues to please give our public servants back this choice. I urge
them to support this amendment.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I just like to make one medical technical comment:
Intrauterine hydrocephalus today is treated, it is treated effectively
in all the centers throughout the country. Abortion is not the answer
to intrauterine hydrocephalus; a shunt is. We are very successful, we
do it routinely, and, in fact, what it sounds like is this Federal
employee got terrible advice because, in fact, when I am encountering
that same situation, my patients have a shunt placed in their baby
while they are still in their mother's womb and do not have
hydrocephalus at birth, and, in fact, that, therefore, is not a good
example of why we should be doing that.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the DeLauro amendment.
The underlying language I would just say to my colleagues that is in
this bill that the DeLauro amendment would gut has been in effect every
year except two since the early 1980s and can best be described as the
Hyde amendment for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The
prolife language in the bill ensures that taxpayers and premium payers
do not subsidize abortion on demand, and that very simply is the issue
that is before us.
Today we vote on whether the taxpayers will indeed subsidize. That is
what it is all about.
As Members probably know, the taxpayers pay more than 73 percent of
the

[[Page H5677]]

total funding of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. My
colleagues and I, those of us who are part of that program, pay the
remaining 27 percent. So the same rationale holds here as in the Hyde
amendment. Americans should not be forced to underwrite the cost of
destroying unborn babies.
Despite, Mr. Chairman, and I just say this with all due respect to my
colleagues on the other side, despite the years of propaganda, despite
all of the efforts to sanitize, and the euphemisms, and the masking of
abortion, the partial-birth abortion debate has finally stripped the
veil off the sordid business of what abortion is all about. Abortion,
Mr. Chairman, is violence against children, it is the ultimate human
rights abuse, and it tries to purport to be a right, and yet it is
violence.
Abortion methods are acts of violence that usually kill the victim,
although we are seeing in growing numbers of cases, the most recently
the doctor in Phoenix that was trying to destroy a child using partial-
birth abortion, and, after slashing and lacerating the child's face,
realized the kid, the baby, was so old that he could not continue with
it. That is what the defenders of partial-birth abortion have to defend
because that is what happens each and every day. Normally they just
result in killing the baby with their violent methods.
Some of those methods, as I have said on this floor, and I think it
bears repeating until it hopefully gets across to a growing number of
people, include dismemberment of an unborn child. Loop-shaped knives
called curettes are used to literally hack off the arms, and the legs,
and the head, leaving a torso, and the ribs are ripped apart. That is
the ugly reality stripped of all the euphemisms of what abortion is all
about. It is done routinely, and then the suction machine that is 20 to
30 times more powerful than the average vacuum cleaner takes that
bloody pulp of what used to be a baby and puts that baby into a bottle.
I do not know how people can defend that.
Chemical abortions, salt abortions, saline salting out, high
concentrated salt solutions pumped into the amniotic sac. The baby
breaths in that fluid because the organs of respiration are being
developed, and it is the amniotic fluid that goes in and out until the
actual birth occurs, and swallows and digests, if my colleagues will,
through, or absorbs through the lungs that high-concentrated salt;
kills the baby usually in about 2 hours, and when the baby emerges
after delivery, a very chemically-burned, often very red child emerges,
and this is commonplace. This is called the right to choose.
And, of course, as we all know, again very soon when we debate the
partial-birth abortion ban, which would be covered if the DeLauro
amendment passes, there is nothing whatsoever that would preclude
payment under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program for the
partial-birth abortions. And we all remember the big lie that was used
to minimize and trivialize the number of those later-term abortions
that are done in this country. When that was unmasked, in my own State
of New Jersey one clinic was found to be doing 1,500 of those grisly
child killings per year, all of a sudden the 500 figure, which Planned
Parenthood and the Guttmacher Institute and ZPG and all the other
groups were bandying about in letters to my colleagues and to I and to
everyone else, and I have copies of the letters, they said that is what
the number was. Well, 500 would be a massacre as well, but it is many,
many thousands more than that. That could be subsidized and paid for if
the DeLauro amendment were to prevail.
The amendment that we have crafted, and I first offered it, John
Ashcroft offered it, did not prevail in the early 1980s. I offered it
back, I believe it was in 1983. It has been in effect except for 2
years, and it has said very simply we do not want to be part of
subsidizing either through the 70 to 73 percent of our taxpayer portion
or as premium payers, those of us who buy our insurance, HMOs,
whatever, we do not want to be subsidizing abortion. That is what this
is simply all about.
Let me remind Members that in virtually every poll, and I have a
whole list of them here, when people are asked do they want to
subsidize or have the government pay for abortions, the answer is
clearly and unambiguously no.
So I ask Members, and let me remind them there are three exceptions
in this amendment: rape, incest and life of the mother. That has been
the law for the last couple of years, so I do hope that Members will
support the Hyde amendment of the Federal Employees Health Benefits
Program. Defeat the DeLauro amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, before I address this particular amendment, I would
like to ask the gentleman from New Jersey whether, in fact, in addition
to opposing abortion he opposes all kinds of contraception.
I have been working very hard with colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, Democrat and Republican, prochoice, prolife, to prevent
unintended pregnancies. We have been working with the national campaign
on preventing teenage pregnancy to try and promote abstinence, to
encourage abstinence upon our young people, to encourage
responsibility.
Now I believe the gentleman and the Republican party, in fact, by
disallowing my amendment, which would make the Federal employee health
plans which are disallowing coverage of abortion also disallowing
coverage of contraception, I believe the gentleman also does not
believe that the majority of the American people who would like to be
able to purchase contraceptives should be able to have contraceptives.
So I think we are mixing up the debate here. The gentleman is talking
about the debate next week on so-called partial-birth abortion, but, in
fact, in this bill the gentleman does not feel we should cover
contraception. So we are telling to all the Federal employees, ``No, we
are not going to cover abortion, we are not going to pay for abortion,
but you know what? We are not going to cover contraception either.''
Now I wonder if the gentleman from New Jersey would like to tell that
to all the constituents in his district who work for the Federal
Government, that, no, we are not going to cover abortion, but we are
not going to cover contraception either.
Now it seems to me that there are five established methods of
contraception that have been approved by the FDA. Now what we are
saying and what we said in our amendment was that the Federal employee
should be entitled to have those expenses covered. Now the cost of
health care to women is 68 percent higher for women than that of a man,
and in fact only 10 percent of the plans cover all of the forms of
abortion, and, excuse me, cover all forms of contraception that have
been approved. In fact, 81 percent of the plans do not cover the five
methods of contraception.
So, my colleagues, I am trying to figure this out. The Republican
majority does not want to cover payment for abortion for these women
even though the women's health care costs are 68 percent higher, but
they do not want to pay for contraception.
I would hope, my colleagues, we could work together to really reduce
unintended pregnancies. Let us encourage abstinence, let us encourage
responsibility, but it is hard to believe, and I am saying this to the
American people, all the women out there, this party does not want to
give us a vote on covering of contraception. Does this make any sense?
So I speak in support of my colleague, the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro's) amendment because I think that Federal
employees with their own money that they have earned should be able to
have abortion covered, but I also believe that Federal employees should
be able to have the costs of contraception covered. That is only fair.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am not sure where the gentlewoman got her information
from about how the Federal Government health care plans are not
covering contraceptives. I had my office contact the Office of
Personnel Management, and every health care provider for Federal
employees currently provides full prescription coverage for the

[[Page H5678]]

pill, the predominant method of choice of child-bearing age in this
country.
Furthermore, according to the Office of Personnel Management, over 75
percent of all Federal employees currently have coverage which includes
all FDA-approved methods. Now those FDA-approved methods or drugs and
devices include the pill, the diaphragm, IUDs, Norplant, Depo-Provera
and the morning-after abortion pill, and under the proposed amendment,
as soon as the FDA would approve the abortion pill, the French abortion
pill RU-486, it would also be covered. But currently 75 percent of all
Federal employees do have coverage, so to say that they do not have
access to contraceptives is misleading to the American public because
they do have that opportunity now.
Now I do agree with the gentlewoman that we should encourage
abstinence in sexual activity, certainly for minors. Once they are age
of adult it is a different thing, but for minors we ought to teach kids
abstinence, but when it comes to Federal employees, they have this
access to this coverage now.
So I think that we should keep clear from the issue that is in this
current amendment by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
She is striking the area of section 514 which says no funds
appropriated by this act shall be available to pay for abortions.
Now there was a reference where she said that this was not about tax
dollars paying for abortions, but if I read this again on page 70,
section 514, lines 18 and 19, it says no funds approved by this act
shall be available to pay for abortions. Well, if it is not funds, not
tax dollars, then there is no reason for the amendment because the
amendment says that no Federal funds will pay for abortions. So I think
there is kind of a disconnect in what was presented in the idea of this
amendment and what the reality of the language in the legislation.
Now there was also reference, Mr. Chairman, that the benefit package
belongs to the employee and not the employer. Well, I think if my
colleagues talk to every small businessman around America who is paying
the bill for these health care packages, they believe they have
something at stake, and if we talk to any large corporations in the
Fortune 500, I believe that they would tell us that their benefit
packages, that they have a stake in their benefit packages.

{time} 1500

The employer has a stake in the benefit packages. So what you have
then in the case of a Federal employee, and I think this is a case that
is too often forgotten, Federal employees work for the people of the
United States of America, the taxpayers. That is who employ these
people. That is who ultimately they have to answer to. They work for
the people of the United States of America.
This is a democracy. We are governed by the consent of the governed.
Our government exists according to our Declaration of Independence, our
Nation's birthright. So I think what we should do is take the
temperature from the employer.
What does the employer say about using Federal tax dollars to pay for
abortions? In overwhelming numbers, they say do not use tax dollars to
fund abortions. Do not use tax dollars to fund abortions. Yet that is
what the intent of this legislation is, is to legislate that we would
use Federal tax dollars to provide someone else's abortion. I think it
is unfortunate that that is what is going on. It goes against the
employer, against the will of the American taxpayer. So I think that we
ought to defeat this amendment and allow the American taxpayer to be
free.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify this with the facts. Ten
percent of the Federal employee health benefit plans currently do not
cover any method of contraception, ten percent. Eighty-one percent of
the plans cover some of the methods.
I do not know when the gentleman last had to deal with that issue,
but for some women the pill is better than other procedures such as the
IUD or diaphragm. It is not up to us to tell that woman which method is
better.
So I think it is important to know that 81 percent of the plans do
not cover all five of the established methods. Only 1 percent of the
plans, I think this is important, do not cover sterilization. I think
we owe it to women to give them a broader range of options. I think it
is also important to know that when we are talking about contraception
we are not talking about RU-486.
So what we are trying to say here with regard to contraception is
that the Federal Government should be the model employer. When it comes
to private insurance plans, only 50 percent currently cover all five
methods of contraception.
So, in conclusion, I think it is very unreasonable, if we are saying
to the American people that we are really trying to reduce unintended
pregnancies, not to cover the cost of contraception, when women's costs
are 68 percent higher than males', and, in fact, contraception is basic
health care for women. In this bill, to vote not to cover abortion is
your right, but then it seems to me the height of hypocrisy not to
cover contraception.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a comment to my
colleague from Kansas. The Federal Government pays Federal employees'
salaries, as well as provides the opportunity for a benefit package.
They pay our salary, they pay benefit packages. That is all taxpayer
dollars. We often get into that in debate, about ``taxpayer dollars.''
The fact of the matter is, I do not know that we are assuming that
what we would intend to do here is to dictate to people what they could
do with their own salaries. That is taxpayer money, as well as taxpayer
dollars that may be involved in benefits packages.
The gentleman helped me to make my point, which is you negotiate a
package, salary and benefits, and we are now putting ourselves in the
position of dictating what people do with their benefits. Not only
that, it is not saying that. What we are only saying here is allow the
service to be offered in a benefits package. Some offer it, some do
not.
My colleague, I know we have had these commentaries over a long
period of time, would say to those of us on this side of the aisle,
give people the choice. Allow them to select the schools they want
their kids to go to, allow them to do what they need to do in their own
lives. The Federal Government should stay out of their lives in choice.
They have a range of health packages. They can then make an
individual selection, not based on what you think, not based on what I
think, but what, in fact, meets the needs of themselves and of their
families.
That is essentially what we are talking about here. Allow Federal
workers to have that choice. Do not distinguish their benefits from
their salary.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say there are large
parts of the benefit package, the retirement package, and even some
portions of the salary that are outside the control of the employee. It
is under the guise of the employer, the taxes that are withdrawn, the
way the retirement is invested and the health care provided. So, once
again, they have to be subject to the employer.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. MANZULLO. It is the Republican side.
The CHAIRMAN. The ranking minority member of the subcommittee sought
recognition.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I spoke out of order. I intended to speak
on the last amendment, to strike the last word. I would withdraw my
comments.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is recognized
for 5 minutes.

[[Page H5679]]

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, we confuse salary and Federal employee
benefits, health benefits and retirement benefits.
Let me bring this back to what this debate, from my perspective, is
all about. First of all, I will tell my friend from Kansas that I
presume he means that our employees are self-employed. He references
that they work for the taxpayers, apparently not conceiving that they
themselves are taxpayers. To that extent, I suppose they work for
themselves. My point being that they are taxpayers, they are citizens
of this country, and they are due equal consideration, as every other
working American is due. It so happens, yes, they are our employees,
but they deserve no less respect, no less integrity in their decisions,
than any other employee.
Now, let me tell my friend, every employee in America essentially has
a compensation package. They may not refer to it as fancifully as that,
but they have a compensation package. Most employees, not all, most
have at least two components of that compensation package, salary and
health benefits.
We know there are a large number of employees that only have one;
that is, the salary component. Other employees have, in addition to the
salary and the health benefits, a retirement benefit, making it a
three-component compensation package. But the fact of the matter is it
is all their money, not the employer's, whether the employer be a
public sector or private sector employer.
For instance, General Motors. General Motors makes a contract with
their employees, and they go and negotiate back and forth. Some
employers used to want to have more health benefits in their package
and less salary because they pay FICA tax on salary, and it was cheaper
to do health costs. As health costs have escalated, they have gone to
salary. Because health benefits are too expensive and they are going to
HMOs, we are causing the problem we are discussing.
The fact of the matter is that compensation package is the
employee's. They made a deal, and they said, ``I will spend X number of
hours using my talent and effort to accomplish the objectives you, the
employer, want to accomplish, and in consideration for my talent and
effort, you will compensate me with X number of dollars. Part of those
dollars will be paid in salary. I get my check.''
Now, if the gentleman from Kansas and the gentleman from New Jersey
perceive those as Federal dollars, if those are Federal dollars, those
salaries, because they are paid out of exactly the same pot that
compensation and retirement are paid out, exactly, there is no
distinction, if you perceive that to be Federal dollars, then the
Federal employee, unlike every other employee, can only spend their
dollars when they go home that they earn in salary as we tell them, as
Big Brother, as dictator employer tells them to spend it.
But you make an interesting distinction and say oh, well, they can
spend their salary money, which, of course, comes out of the taxpayers'
pocket, the way they want; but the part of their compensation package
that we pay directly to the insurance, because we have a joint system
in which we directly pay the insurer, which makes it cheaper for the
employee and cheaper for the employer, so the taxpayer gets a benefit
because we put it together, as opposed to giving it directly to the
employee and having them purchase it discretely, individually, which
would be a lot less efficient and therefore a lot more costly.
I do not know why we look at Federal employees as some second-rate
employees in America.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my
friend from Maryland for yielding to me. I think this is the crucial
point. Are we going to treat Federal employees, public servants of this
country, any differently than we treat other American citizens?
As the gentleman will recall, we played this same game with American
servicewomen, women who are serving our country in the military, and
this majority stripped them of the power to be able to get a safe,
legal abortion in overseas medical clinics.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make
is, here these women are serving our country, and, guess what? There is
something called the Supreme Court, and it gives us our constitutional
rights, and in those constitutional rights is the right to a legal and
safe abortion. It is a constitutional right.
These women are defending this country's Constitution, standing on
the line defending the right of this country to express itself in
freedom. Yet they themselves are being denied their constitutional
rights. Just as that happened with the defense bill, now the majority
is going after Federal employees.
So it seems to me the only people in this country who are going to be
truly denied their constitutional rights are the women who are serving
in our Nation's military and our women who happen to be Federal
employees.
I would dare say, just to make this one last point, it is interesting
here in this Congress, I enjoy seeing my colleagues snicker over here,
because 95 percent of the women Members of this United States Congress
support the DeLauro amendment, and we are going to say, the men in this
House are going to decide whether women have a certain type of
reproductive freedom or not.
To me that sounds awfully like gender domination here. If it does not
sound like that to you, it would be interesting if men were able to get
pregnant and they would have the right, see whether they were going to
stand up here and not vote for the DeLauro amendment. When you think
about reproductive rights and you think if men had to pay this, and
they were denied the same coverage in here, the same outrage we are
hearing, but from the women.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I understand what the gentleman is
saying. What I am trying to focus us on is abortion is a wrenching
question for America. It is a wrenching question for Americans. It is a
wrenching, traumatic issue for the individuals involved. It is a
wrenching issue for me as a legislator. I will tell you that. I cannot
believe I am any different than any other legislator in this body.

{time} 1515

What I am saying is, that is not what this is about. It is not about
this because Federal employees, like every American, have been
guaranteed by the Constitution to choose something that many people
believe ought not to be an available choice. I understand that. But
they ought not to be treated differently because they are Federal
employees, and that is what this is about; not about whether abortion
is legal or illegal, not about the wrenching issues brought up by the
gentleman from New Jersey, for whom I have a great deal of respect. It
is about whether Federal employees will be treated differently than
every other employee in America.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, first of all, that no
one is questioning the integrity.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas, Mr.
Tiahrt.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that no one is
criticizing the integrity of Federal employees. We believe that they
are people who want to serve this country in that capacity, are good,
wonderful people. That is not the issue here. Nor is the issue whether
abortion is available to them.
We have a ruling of the Supreme Court that we all live with, and
abortions are available to Americans today, and there are health care
plans outside

[[Page H5680]]

the Federal Government that do not pay for abortion services. This is
not, we are not treating them separately from other parts of America.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the
gentleman's perspective, but my point is, no other employees have that
prescription on the purchase of their health insurance. Now, employers,
the gentleman is correct, may choose a limited policy, I understand
that, and the employee may have the choice of only one policy; I
understand that. That is the compensation package available to them.
Fortunately, in my opinion, for Federal employees, their compensation
package is broader as it relates to Federal employee health benefits.
The gentleman is making a distinction between all other employees and
Federal employees and, inevitably, because of the gentleman's premise
that the premium is being paid by taxpayer dollars as opposed to
Federal employee dollars.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeLauro-Morella-Moran-
Greenwood-Hoyer amendment.
The bottom line in our discussion today is simply that this amendment
is going to prevent discrimination against Federal employees and their
health care coverage.
It was 3 years ago when Congress voted to deny Federal employees
coverage for abortions that were already provided to most of the
country's workforce through their health insurance plans. This decision
was discriminatory then, and it was another example of Congress
chipping away at the benefits of Federal employees and their right to
choose an insurance plan that best meets their health care needs.
The coverage of abortion services in Federal health plans would not
mean that abortions would be subsidized by the Federal Government,
which has been part of this discussion here. Currently, the government
simply contributes to the premiums of Federal employees, and in order
to allow them to purchase private health insurance, and this
contribution, I want to reiterate, is part of the employee benefit
package, just like an employee's salary or retirement benefits.
Mr. Chairman, right now, if somebody chose to buy a plan through the
Federal employee health benefit plan program, they could not buy it if
it covered any abortion services. When one has this amendment in order,
someone could choose to buy a plan that does not pay for abortion
services. They have their choice. And this is what we are saying. We
should not deny Federal employees from having the same choice that most
people have in the private sector, because, currently, approximately
two-thirds of private fee-for-service health insurance plans and 70
percent, 70 percent of HMOs provide this coverage.
When the ban was reinstated 3 years ago, 178 FEHBP plans, Federal
employee health benefit plans, out of 345, offered abortion coverage.
Women had the choice to decide whether or not to participate in the
plan with it or without it. Thus, an employee who did not choose to
have that kind of plan with abortion coverage could do just that. I
want to emphasize that. But, unfortunately, Congress denied Federal
employees their access to abortion coverage, thereby discriminating
against them, treating them differently than the vast majority of
private sector employees. Frankly, it is insulting to Federal employees
that they are being told that part of their own compensation package is
not under their control.
Thousands of Federal employees struggle to make ends meet. Many
Federal employees are single parents or the sole wage earners in their
families and for them the cost of an abortion would be a significant
hardship, interfering with a woman's constitutionally protected right
to choose. For these women, the lack of this health coverage could
result in delayed abortions occurring later in pregnancy, an outcome
that nobody here wants to see.
Mr. Chairman, approximately 1.2 million women of reproductive age
rely on the FEHB program for their health coverage; 1.2 million women
without access to abortion coverage. Without access, the right to
choose is effectively denied.
So I urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro-Morella-Moran-
Greenwood-Hoyer amendment to ensure that Federal employees are once
again provided their legal right to choose.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it very
clear to the Members that this is a clear-cut vote on the Hyde
amendment for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. It is
identical in terms of its wording, in terms of its effect, the rape,
incest and the life of the mother exceptions are included.
Let me point out that the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy)
was saying, this is another gift, or not precisely his words, from the
Republican majority. Well, I am very glad that my colleagues on the
Republican side respect the value and dignity of unborn life and want
to protect it in a tangible way, but many of our colleagues on the
Democrat side likewise feel the unborn are worthy of respect and that
the subsidization of their killing by way of abortion is not something
that we can countenance.
When we contribute, as we do, in excess of 70 percent, 73 percent of
the money for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program comes right
from the taxpayers. Less than a quarter of it comes from, or a little
over a quarter comes from the premium payer. So we are talking about a
tax-payer-funded abortion scheme.
The Supreme Court made it very clear in upholding the Hyde amendment
that there is a fundamental difference between abortion and all other
types of surgeries. Surgeries and health interventions normally are
designed to cure and to mitigate disease, to excise a cyst, unless one
construes an unborn cyst to be a tumor or a wart to be done away with
at will; and, again, the court that actually gave us Roe versus Wade
when it upheld the Hyde amendment said there is a fundamental
difference between the two.
Let me also remind my colleagues that the Federal service labor
management relation statute makes it very clear that there is no
collective bargaining over health benefits. It is not permitted in this
Federal sector, and whether we like that or not, that is the law. We
can prescribe or proscribe certain limitations on what is permitted and
what is not under the health benefits program. Those of us who believe
that the unborn are worthy of respect, that chemical poisoning and
dismemberment is an abuse of that child, it is child abuse in the
extreme, and it exploits women, those of us who have that view I
believe have every right to stand here and say, do not use my taxpayer
dollars, or my premium dollars, to pay for the destruction of that
unborn child.
As I said earlier in the debate, there is not a single method
employed by the abortionists that is precluded if the DeLauro amendment
were to pass. So even partial birth abortions could be subsidized, as
well as the suction and all of the other methods that do grotesque
things to unborn children.
So I urge Members to realize that, as legislators and lawmakers, I
believe we have an affirmative obligation to the weakest and the most
vulnerable among us, even when it is inconvenient, even when people
stand up and say, oh, you are antiwoman or, you do not care about
women's rights. I care about women's rights. I care for women deeply.
But I believe that killing unborn baby girls and boys is an act of
violence, I say that with all due respect to my friends on the other
side, and that birth is an event that happens to all of us. It is not
the beginning of life. And that child is deserving of respect and that,
at the minimal, we should not be subsidizing the demise of those
children.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, since 1995, 1.2 million federally employed women of
child-bearing age have been denied coverage of abortion services by
their own Federal health insurance plans. And that means that all over
the United States these Federal employees have been denied a
constitutional right to make the critical choices about their own
health. More than half of the Federal health insurance plans offered
coverage of

[[Page H5681]]

abortion services before the 1995 ban; and, currently, two-thirds of
private health insurance plans provide abortion coverage to their
subscribers.
The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith) and other proponents of this provision argue that
the Federal Government is using tax dollars to pay for Federal health
insurance plans. We would argue that that is too much of a stretch,
because the Federal health insurance plan is one-third of a benefit
package that every Federal employee receives in exchange for their
employment, for their work. The three benefits that they get are
salary, health insurance and retirement benefits.
Restricting health care on the basis that it is paid for with
taxpayer dollars is the same as specifying how a Federal employee can
use their paycheck or their retirement savings. To mandate how they can
use that money is like telling them what they can buy when they go
shopping. This is money that is their money. They earned it. We have no
right to tell them after they have earned it how they can spend it.
I heard a while ago from a constituent of mine, I will not reveal her
name, but she was forced through an ordeal that none of us would ever
want to face. To think that she faces this situation only because she
chose a career as a Federal employee is unconscionable, and it should
make us ashamed as the people charged with making decisions about the
terms of her employment.
After being elated to learn she was pregnant at the age of 36, my
constituent was devastated by the information that the fetus she had
carried had severe fetal anomalies, anomalies that her doctor termed
``incompatible with life.'' Her physician recommended that she
terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible. This procedure is covered
by her insurance plan, when medically necessary, for non-Federal
employees. Her insurance plan covers it if she was not a Federal
employee, but only because she was a Federal employee, only because of
the ban we imposed in 1995, she had to pay for this expensive procedure
out of her own pocket.
To quote from a letter, ``My husband and I question whether Congress
is implying that we were immoral for aborting this fetus that had no
brain and was virtually a vegetable. I was hoping to get pregnant with
a healthy child. We were doing nothing wrong. Our decision was not
wanton or frivolous, it was heartbreaking.''
For some couples, this cost can be prohibitive, further endangering
the future chances of having a healthy pregnancy by delaying it even
further until they can get enough money together. What right do we have
to intervene in these lives and these kinds of heartbreaking decisions,
making these kinds of difficult, moral choices for people we do not
know in situations that we do not understand? We have no right.
They earned this money. They have the right to make these kinds of
decisions. We cannot predict what complicated, heartbreaking, tragic
circumstances these women and families confront. Who are we to make
these kinds of moral decisions for them? It is an arrogant abuse of
congressional power to do this kind of thing to Federal employees or to
anyone.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to end this discriminatory
practice of denying coverage of necessary health care on the basis of
the fact that these people are employed by the Federal Government.
Please vote in favor of this amendment.

{time} 1530

Mr. WYNN. I move to strike the requisite number of words, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro amendment, and cite my
objections to the bill as written. On its face, this bill is
discriminatory, and worse, it is arbitrary, because it singles out
Federal employees for the simple reason that the majority can do it.
They can get away with it because they control the Federal employee
benefit package. But it is in fact discriminatory against Federal
employees.
What the Republicans are trying to say or what the proponents of this
bill have tried to say is essentially this, that this is some sort of
Federal subsidy of abortion. I respect their opinions on abortion, I
respect the fact that they oppose abortion, but this is in no form or
fashion a Federal subsidy. What we are talking about here is the right
of Federal employees to use their compensation as they see fit to
address their own health care needs in a private way.
If these Federal employees were not employed by the Federal
Government, if they were in the private sector, they could get
insurance, and if they so choose, use that health insurance for an
abortion. But because they work in the Federal sector and because folks
on the other side of the aisle have the ability to control their health
benefits, they are denied this right.
Make no mistake, benefits, health benefits, are part of compensation,
just like your salary, your wages. It is compensation for the labor you
provide for the United States of America. In that context, when you are
compensated for your labor, that compensation belongs to you. It is no
longer the taxpayers', any more than your paycheck is the taxpayers'.
The paycheck belongs to the Federal employee, the health benefits
belong to the Federal employee, and on that basis the Federal employee
ought to be able to use them to purchase the health care plan that they
so desire.
There are 1.2 million women of reproductive age under the Federal
Employees Health Benefit Plan. They ought to have the right to purchase
the health care that they want to. That was the case prior to 1995,
when my colleagues on that side of the aisle chose to change the law.
I am not here to debate the merits of abortion. That has been
resolved by the courts. The courts have said it is a legal procedure.
On that basis, 70 percent of private insurers offer this benefit.
Because of that, I believe Federal employees ought to have the right to
take advantage of that benefit as part of their compensation.
We should not exercise the . . ., as my colleague referred to it, and
arbitrary power to inhibit the choices of these women of childbearing
age simply because we can. That is really all it amounts to.
They cannot do it for the workers in the Fortune 500 companies who
have private insurance. They cannot do it for the workers in any other
company in this country that offer private insurance. They do it to
Federal employees because they can do it to Federal employees. That is
not a matter of a moral judgment on their part, that is a matter of
discrimination . . . . It is being done because they can do it to
Federal employees.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I
would ask that he rephrase that. There is absolutely no arrogance.
Rather, we are trying to manifest our----
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I believe I control the time, and I have not
yielded.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the gentleman's
words be taken down.
Mr. WYNN. I control the time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. It is not an act of arrogance. I would ask
that the gentleman's words be taken down.
Mr. WYNN. I think the gentleman is making a very subjective argument.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has requested that the
words of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) be taken down.
The Clerk will report the words.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, in the interests of time and in comity, I
withdraw the statement regarding arrogance.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Wynn) withdraws that statement.
There was no objection.
Mr. WYNN. Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying this. It may not
be arrogant, but it is certainly capricious, and it is certainly
arbitrary to single out Federal employees for different treatment than
we could give to any segment of society that happens to receive health
insurance.
I hope we would correct this injustice by supporting the DeLauro
amendment.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan
amendment. This amendment would improve basic health care for women and
their families by providing health plans that cover abortion services.
Women serving the Federal Government deserve just the same civil
rights

[[Page H5682]]

as all other American women. The vast majority of American women have
private insurance plans that cover the full range of reproductive
health services. Men, men who work for the Federal Government, are able
to get all the medical services that they need. But unfortunately, this
Congress has sought to treat American women who work for the Federal
Government as sort of second-class citizens. That is just wrong.
We have heard today about value and dignity. I will say to the
Members today and to my colleagues that women's lives have value and
dignity. Let us respect them. Let us respect those women, and let us
respect the decisions that they make about their health care.
What we need to do is make abortion less necessary, not more
difficult and more dangerous for Federal employees. Federal employees
do a good day's work. They deserve to be treated as all American women
deserve to be treated, with value, with dignity. I urge my colleagues
to support the DeLauro-Mo- rella-Moran-Greenwood-Hoyer amend- ment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro amendment. Several
things are clear, or ought to be clear, as we debate this amendment.
First, there is a division in this House, as there is in the country,
over the question of the morality of abortions between the people who
believe in choice and the people who believe that choice should not be
permitted to American women on this question.
Second, it is clear that the Supreme Court has declared that the
right of choice for women to have abortions if they wish is a
constitutional mandate. We live with that.
Third, it is clear that this bill, without the DeLauro amendment,
arrogates to itself the power to tell Federal employees who are women
that they cannot choose the abortions if they wish, that they do not
have the choice that all other women in America have.
The Federal Employee Health Benefits Program is a negotiated benefit
that is part of the compensation package. To say that we will not
permit women who are covered by that health benefit package to use
their health benefits to pay for abortions, the government will not pay
for it, and neither can they, through their health insurance, is the
exact equivalent of saying that because the taxpayers pay the salaries
of women who work for the Federal Government, we have the right, and
the power to exercise it, to say that women who work for the Federal
Government may not use their own salaries to pay for abortions. It is
the same thing.
As the gentleman from Maryland said, we are doing it because we have
the power to do it, whereas we do not have the power under the
Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, to say in other
respects that women may not have the right of choice. We should not
arrogate this power to ourselves. Someone referred to this as
arrogance. I do not know that I would call it arrogance on the part of
the authors of the bill, but it would be arrogance on the part of the
United States Government if the bill passes in the form it is in.
Let me say one other thing. The Committee on Rules protected every
other amendment, but it did not protect from a point of order the
provision adopted by the Committee on Appropriations, authored by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) that said that Federal employee
health benefits must give women the choice of abortions; that a woman
must have the ability, Federal employees, to purchase plans that will
cover contraception.
So now we would be saying the Federal Employee Health Benefits
Program cannot pay for abortions because it is immoral, or we think it
is immoral, or some people think it is immoral, and we will not permit
it to pay for contraception to reduce the need for abortions.
This is somewhat inconsistent. Some might even say it is little
hypocritical. I will not say that, but some might say that. It is
certainly inconsistent. It is certainly inconsistent. What is the
reason for this? Again, because we can.
Why should it not pay for contraception? Because it is immoral? Does
this House think that birth control is immoral, because some religious
groups think that it is against their religion? Let those adherents to
religious groups refrain from contraception.
Why on God's green Earth should the House of Representatives say that
contraception should not be permitted to be paid for by the Federal
Employee Health Benefit Program? Because Members want more abortions?
Because we want to impose religious doctrines on the American people?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from
New York for yielding.
Is the gentleman aware that under the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program, contraception is provided? It is just is not
mandated. It is totally permissible. An HMO, a Kaiser Permanente, you
name it, if they want to provide contraception, they can.
Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, the point, of course, is that the
choice of contraception ought to be the employee's, not the health
benefit corporation's. Most health benefit corporations, most health
plans in this country, cover contraception. Most Federal employee
health benefit plans do not. The choice, obviously, ought to be the
purchasers, the women who are the Federal employees who need to use the
contraception, not the HMOs or the corporation.
Why would we not say to the corporation, if you are going to provide
health benefits for employees, you must have a full range of health
benefits, which normally includes contraception? Why did the Committee
on Rules say that the provision in the bill that said so is the only
provision in this bill not protected from a point of order because of
lack of authorization?
Again, I submit, it is because, well, I am not sure why people oppose
contraception. It makes no sense. If you want fewer abortions and if
you want women to have their rights in this country, then we should
protect that right. So I urge the adoption of the DeLauro amendment. I
would hope the Lowey provision can get into this bill, too.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro amendment. This
weekend marks the 150th anniversary of the first women's rights
convention in this country. One hundred and fifty years ago on this
weekend, women gathered in Seneca Falls, New York, and created a
document called the Women's Bill of Rights. Since then, we have worked
hard to gain more freedoms and to be sure that our rights are not run
over.
We have come a long way since Seneca Falls, but now, in this
Congress, I feel that we can no longer make progress. We can only fight
to hold onto the hard-earned rights we won in prior Congresses, and in
fact, we are losing ground for women. This Congress has acted again and
again and again toward the gradual elimination of a woman's right to
choose.
Let us put this vote today in perspective. This is the 88th vote
either to protect choice or to restore choice that we have taken in
this body since the beginning of the 104th Congress. Two years ago
Federal employees were prevented from getting health insurance that
covers abortions. That was one of the first in a series of setbacks,
and it needs to be corrected.
This amendment gives back the right of choice to Federal employees.
It does not require anyone to provide coverage or choose coverage for
abortions. It simply allows an insurance company to cover abortions,
and it allows women to choose those companies. They may still select a
company which does not cover abortions. It is all about choice. It is
about choice in health care, legal, safe health care. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment to give back to women, Federal
employees, their right to choose.
I want to just end by saying that I remember when I received my
notice, after the Republican majority passed the law barring a woman's
access or right to purchase abortion coverage. It was a chilling moment
to see in writing a specific act of this Congress rolling back choice
piece by piece for women.
Let us restore choice. Let us vote for the DeLauro amendment.

[[Page H5683]]

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, in hopes that we can end the debate on this
issue, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

{time} 1545

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a number of arguments in
this debate today. I would just like to briefly remind my colleagues of
a few points.
If the language in the bill is allowed to remain, hard-working public
servants will be unable to choose health insurance which covers legal,
doctor-recommended abortions which are necessary to preserve a woman's
health. If this amendment passes, no health plan will be required to
offer abortion coverage, no one, no one will be required to choose a
health plan which covers abortion. It will be an individual decision.
This is not a question of taxpayer money being used to subsidize
abortion. That is not the issue here. The health insurance premiums are
earned by the employees of our government every single bit as much as
their paycheck. Those premiums, just like the paycheck, belong to the
employee, not to the Government and not to the taxpayer.
The American Medical Association tells us that making it more
difficult, more expensive for women to access needed abortion leads to
more health complications for mothers. This is a question of allowing
women to choose a health insurance plan which covers an important
aspect of women's health. Under the language in the bill, health
insurance plans are not permitted to cover an abortion when the doctor
tells the patient that an abortion is needed to preserve the mother's
health. This is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues, do not impose your
own particular point of view on these good, hard-working public
servants. Allow these women to choose for themselves.
Vote to strike this provision and preserve the right of these women
to choose.
One final point, this is a bipartisan amendment. I thank my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for participating in this effort.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro motion to
strike. Last night, the House Republican leadership passed a rule that
effectively blocked the Lowey provision on contraceptive coverage for
federal employees. Today, Ms. DeLauro is attempting to strike the
restriction on abortion coverage for those same employees.
This is simple logic. Federal employees should have access to a range
of the most common methods of birth control. If we deny them access to
contraception--the very means to preventing abortion--then the
alternative is to provide access to abortion services.
Nearly 50 percent of pregnancies in this country are unintended--
about 30 percent of those occur in marriages--and many of those
unintended pregnancies will end in abortion.
To my colleagues who are opposed to abortion, I must ask you: Why
prevent Federal employees from having coverage of a range of
contraceptive methods? Why not work with us, as Americans want us to
do, to be responsible? We should have protected the contraceptive
coverage provision in the bill--not kowtowed to the National Right to
Life Committee and other groups that equate contraception with
abortion. They are extreme, and Americans are tired of their extremism.
They, like many of us, are tired of this debate.
Americans want us to work together on solutions. Contraception works.
It prevents the need for abortion. We failed the American people last
night--let's not repeat that mistake today. Support the DeLauro motion
to strike the abortion coverage restrictions. It's the responsible
thing to do.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 498, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 515. The provision of section 514 shall not apply
where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus
were carried to term, or the pregnancy is the result of an
act of rape or incest.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 515
on the grounds that it constitutes legislation on an appropriations
bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order the gentleman is raising?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to remind Members that
this is the rape, incest, life of the mother exception that the
distinguished gentleman is striking with the point of order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, are we taking editorials on points of order?
The CHAIRMAN. Section 515 has, in fact, been held to constitute
legislation on an appropriations bill, and for that reason the point of
order is sustained. Section 515 stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 516. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be expended by the Office of Personnel Management to
enter into or renew any contract under section 8902 of title
5, United States Code, for a health benefits plan--
(1) which provides coverage for prescription drugs, unless
such plan also provides equivalent coverage for all
prescription contraceptive drugs or devices approved by the
Food and Drug Administration, or generic equivalents approved
as substitutable by the Food and Drug Administration; or
(2) which provides benefits for outpatient services
provided by a health care professional, unless such plan also
provides equivalent benefits for outpatient contraceptive
services.
(b) For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``contraceptive drug or device'' means a drug
or device intended for preventing pregnancy; and
(2) the term ``outpatient contraceptive services'' means
consultations, examinations, procedures, and medical
services, provided on an outpatient basis and related to the
use of contraceptive methods (including natural family
planning) to prevent pregnancy.

Point of Order

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order against section
516 of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this provision violates clause 2 of House
rule XXI which prohibits of authorization on an appropriations bill,
and I ask that the provision be stricken from the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, it is shameful and outrageous that this
provision is being removed from the bill. It is shameful and outrageous
that the Republican leadership will not allow an open and honest debate
on the issue.
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) would
confine her remarks to the point of order being raised, the Chair would
be appreciative.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, it is shameful and outrageous that over a
million women covered by the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program
will not be covered for the payment of contraception.
The CHAIRMAN. Any other Member wishing to the heard on the point of
order?
The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) makes a point of order that
section 516 of the bill proposes to change existing law in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI. The provision is in the form of a limitation;
that is, it proposes a negative restriction on funds in the bill for a
specified object. That object is the entry or renewal of a contract
lacking specified terms.
One such term is for the provision of benefits for outpatient
contraceptive services that are equivalent to any benefits provided for
outpatient services provided by a health care professional. As recorded
in Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section 52,

[[Page H5684]]

even though an amendment in the form of a negative restriction on funds
in the bill might refrain from explicitly assigning new duties to
officers of the government, if the putative limitation ``implicitly
requires them to make investigations, compile evidence, or make
judgments and determinations not otherwise required other than by
law,'' then it assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a
point of order under clause 2 of rule XXI.
The proponent of a limitation, in this instance, the bill originated
by the Committee on Appropriations, assumes the burden of proving that
any duties imposed by the provision are merely ministerial or are
already required by law. The Chair, in this instance, must focus on the
implicit requirement in section 516 that the officials who administer
the contracts in question must judge the ``equivalence'' of benefits
between specified classes of outpatient services. Absent a showing that
those officials are already charged with that responsibility or
possessed of that information under current law, the Chair is
constrained to conclude that section 516 proposes to change existing
law by imposing a new duty or requiring a new determination in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Departments, Agencies, and Corporations

Sec. 601. Funds appropriated in this or any other Act may
be used to pay travel to the United States for the immediate
family of employees serving abroad in cases of death or life
threatening illness of said employee.
Sec. 602. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the
United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any
other Act for fiscal year 1999 shall obligate or expend any
such funds, unless such department, agencies, or
instrumentality has in place, and will continue to administer
in good faith, a written policy designed to ensure that all
of its workplaces are free from the illegal use, possession,
or distribution of controlled substances (as defined in the
Controlled Substances Act) by the officers and employees of
such department, agency, or instrumentality.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 602
for the same reason that I cited earlier.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
If not, section 602 applies to funds appropriated in other acts and
imposes additional duties on Federal officials in violation of clause 2
of rule XXI. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 603. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1345, any agency,
department, or instrumentality of the United States which
provides or proposes to provide child care services for
Federal employees may, in fiscal year 1999 and thereafter,
reimburse any Federal employee or any person employed to
provide such services for travel, transportation, and
subsistence expenses incurred for training classes,
conferences, or other meetings in connection with the
provision of such services: Provided, That any per diem
allowance made pursuant to this section shall not exceed the
rate specified in regulations prescribed pursuant to section
5707 of title 5, United States Code.
Sec. 604. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the
maximum amount allowable during the current fiscal year in
accordance with section 16 of the Act of August 2, 1946 (60
Stat. 810), for the purchase of any passenger motor vehicle
(exclusive of buses, ambulances, law enforcement, and
undercover surveillance vehicles), is hereby fixed at $8,100
except station wagons for which the maximum shall be $9,100:
Provided, That these limits may be exceeded by not to exceed
$3,700 for police-type vehicles, and by not to exceed $4,000
for special heavy-duty vehicles: Provided further, That the
limits set forth in this section may not be exceeded by more
than 5 percent for electric or hybrid vehicles purchased for
demonstration under the provisions of the Electric and Hybrid
Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976:
Provided further, That the limits set forth in this section
may be exceeded by the incremental cost of clean alternative
fuels vehicles acquired pursuant to Public Law 101-549 over
the cost of comparable conventionally fueled vehicles.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 604
for the same reasons cited previously.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other Member wishing to be heard on the
point of order being raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin? If not,
the Chair is prepared to rule.
As the Chair ruled on June 18, 1991, this provision constitutes
legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of clause 2 of rule
XXI. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 605. Appropriations of the executive departments and
independent establishments for the current fiscal year
available for expenses of travel, or for the expenses of the
activity concerned, are hereby made available for quarters
allowances and cost-of-living allowances, in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 5922-5924.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 605
for the same reason.
The CHAIRMAN. As the Chair ruled on June 18, 1991, this provision
constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of clause
2 of rule XXI. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained. The
section is stricken.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 606. Unless otherwise specified during the current
fiscal year, no part of any appropriation contained in this
or any other Act shall be used to pay the compensation of any
officer or employee of the Government of the United States
(including any agency the majority of the stock of which is
owned by the Government of the United States) whose post of
duty is in the continental United States unless such person
(1) is a citizen of the United States; (2) is a person in the
service of the United States on the date of enactment of this
Act who, being eligible for citizenship, has filed a
declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United
States prior to such date and is actually residing in the
United States; (3) is a person who owes allegiance to the
United States; (4) is an alien from Cuba, Poland, South
Vietnam, the countries of the former Soviet Union, or the
Baltic countries lawfully admitted to the United States for
permanent residence; (5) is a South Vietnamese, Cambodian, or
Laotian refugee paroled in the United States after January 1,
1975; or (6) is a national of the People's Republic of China
who qualifies for adjustment of status pursuant to the
Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992: Provided, That for
the purpose of this section, an affidavit signed by any such
person shall be considered prima facie evidence that the
requirements of this section with respect to his or her
status have been complied with: Provided further, That any
person making a false affidavit shall be guilty of a felony,
and, upon conviction, shall be fined no more than $4,000 or
imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both: Provided
further, That the above penal clause shall be in addition to,
and not in substitution for, any other provisions of existing
law: Provided further, That any payment made to any officer
or employee contrary to the provisions of this section shall
be recoverable in action by the Federal Government. This
section shall not apply to citizens of Ireland, Israel, or
the Republic of the Philippines, or to nationals of those
countries allied with the United States in a current defense
effort, or to international broadcasters employed by the
United States Information Agency, or to temporary employment
of translators, or to temporary employment in the field
service (not to exceed 60 days) as a result of emergencies.
Sec. 607. Appropriations available to any department or
agency during the current fiscal year for necessary expenses,
including maintenance or operating expenses, shall also be
available for payment to the General Services Administration
for charges for space and services and those expenses of
renovation and alteration of buildings and facilities which
constitute public improvements performed in accordance with
the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (73 Stat. 749), the Public
Buildings Amendments of 1972 (87 Stat. 216), or other
applicable law.
Sec. 608. In addition to funds provided in this or any
other Act, all Federal agencies are authorized to receive and
use funds resulting from the sale of materials, including
Federal records disposed of pursuant to a records schedule
recovered through recycling or waste prevention programs.
Such funds shall be available until expended for the
following purposes:
(1) Acquisition, waste reduction and prevention, and
recycling programs as described in Executive Order No. 12873
(October 20, 1993), including any such programs adopted prior
to the effective date of the Executive order.
(2) Other Federal agency environmental management programs,
including, but not limited to, the development and
implementation of hazardous waste management and pollution
prevention programs.
(3) Other employee programs as authorized by law or as
deemed appropriate by the head of the Federal agency.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 608
for the same reason cited before.
The CHAIRMAN. For the same reasons and, accordingly, as has been
stated repeatedly, under the precedent that was established on June 18,
1991, the provision does constitute legislation on

[[Page H5685]]

an appropriation bill. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 609. Funds made available by this or any other Act for
administrative expenses in the current fiscal year of the
corporations and agencies subject to chapter 91 of title 31,
United States Code, shall be available, in addition to
objects for which such funds are otherwise available, for
rent in the District of Columbia; services in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 3109; and the objects specified under this head, all
the provisions of which shall be applicable to the
expenditure of such funds unless otherwise specified in the
Act by which they are made available: Provided, That in the
event any functions budgeted as administrative expenses are
subsequently transferred to or paid from other funds, the
limitations on administrative expenses shall be
correspondingly reduced.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against this section
on the same grounds as cited earlier.
The CHAIRMAN. Once again, a June 18, 1991 precedent has been
established on this language and this constitutes legislation on an
appropriation bill.
Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 610. No part of any appropriation for the current
fiscal year contained in this or any other Act shall be paid
to any person for the filling of any position for which he or
she has been nominated after the Senate has voted not to
approve the nomination of said person.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 610
for the same reason.
The CHAIRMAN. As has been stated, June 18, 1991, the precedent has
been established. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained, and
this section will be stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 611. No part of any appropriation contained in this or
any other Act shall be available for interagency financing of
boards (except Federal Executive Boards), commissions,
councils, committees, or similar groups (whether or not they
are interagency entities) which do not have a prior and
specific statutory approval to receive financial support from
more than one agency or instrumentality.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 611
for the same reason as previously cited.
The CHAIRMAN. According to a precedent of June 18, 1991, the point of
order is sustained, and this section of the bill will be stricken from
the Record.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 612. Funds made available by this or any other Act to
the Postal Service Fund (39 U.S.C. 2003) shall be available
for employment of guards for all buildings and areas owned or
occupied by the Postal Service and under the charge and
control of the Postal Service, and such guards shall have,
with respect to such property, the powers of special
policemen provided by the first section of the Act of June 1,
1948, as amended (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318), and, as to
property owned or occupied by the Postal Service, the
Postmaster General may take the same actions as the
Administrator of General Services may take under the
provisions of sections 2 and 3 of the Act of June 1, 1948, as
amended (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318a and 318b), attaching
thereto penal consequences under the authority and within the
limits provided in section 4 of the Act of June 1, 1948, as
amended (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318c).
Sec. 613. None of the funds made available pursuant to the
provisions of this Act shall be used to implement,
administer, or enforce any regulation which has been
disapproved pursuant to a resolution of disapproval duly
adopted in accordance with the applicable law of the United
States.
Sec. 614. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
and except as otherwise provided in this section, no part of
any of the funds appropriated for fiscal year 1999 by this or
any other Act, may be used to pay any prevailing rate
employee described in section 5342(a)(2)(A) of title 5,
United States Code--
(1) during the period from the date of expiration of the
limitation imposed by section 614 of the Treasury, Postal
Service and General Government Appropriations Act, 1998,
until the normal effective date of the applicable wage survey
adjustment that is to take effect in fiscal year 1999, in an
amount that exceeds the rate payable for the applicable grade
and step of the applicable wage schedule in accordance with
such section 614; and
(2) during the period consisting of the remainder of fiscal
year 1999, in an amount that exceeds, as a result of a wage
survey adjustment, the rate payable under paragraph (1) by
more than the sum of--
(A) the percentage adjustment taking effect in fiscal year
1999 under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, in
the rates of pay under the General Schedule; and
(B) the difference between the overall average percentage
of the locality-based comparability payments taking effect in
fiscal year 1999 under section 5304 of such title (whether by
adjustment or otherwise), and the overall average percentage
of such payments which was effective in fiscal year 1998
under such section.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
prevailing rate employee described in subparagraph (B) or (C)
of section 5342(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code, and no
employee covered by section 5348 of such title, may be paid
during the periods for which subsection (a) is in effect at a
rate that exceeds the rates that would be payable under
subsection (a) were subsection (a) applicable to such
employee.
(c) For the purposes of this section, the rates payable to
an employee who is covered by this section and who is paid
from a schedule not in existence on September 30, 1998, shall
be determined under regulations prescribed by the Office of
Personnel Management.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rates of
premium pay for employees subject to this section may not be
changed from the rates in effect on September 30, 1998,
except to the extent determined by the Office of Personnel
Management to be consistent with the purpose of this section.
(e) This section shall apply with respect to pay for
service performed after September 30, 1998.
(f) For the purpose of administering any provision of law
(including section 8431 of title 5, United States Code, and
any rule or regulation that provides premium pay, retirement,
life insurance, or any other employee benefit) that requires
any deduction or contribution, or that imposes any
requirement or limitation on the basis of a rate of salary or
basic pay, the rate of salary or basic pay payable after the
application of this section shall be treated as the rate of
salary or basic pay.
(g) Nothing in this section shall be considered to permit
or require the payment to any employee covered by this
section at a rate in excess of the rate that would be payable
were this section not in effect.
(h) The Office of Personnel Management may provide for
exceptions to the limitations imposed by this section if the
Office determines that such exceptions are necessary to
ensure the recruitment or retention of qualified employees.
Sec. 615. During the period in which the head of any
department or agency, or any other officer or civilian
employee of the Government appointed by the President of the
United States, holds office, no funds may be obligated or
expended in excess of $5,000 to furnish or redecorate the
office of such department head, agency head, officer, or
employee, or to purchase furniture or make improvements for
any such office, unless advance notice of such furnishing or
redecoration is expressly approved by the Committees on
Appropriations. For the purposes of this section, the term
``office'' includes the entire suite of offices assigned to
the individual, as well as any other space used primarily by
the individual or the use of which is directly controlled by
the individual.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 615
for reasons previously cited.
The CHAIRMAN. As the Chair has ruled on June 18, 1991, the precedent
has been established and this constitutes legislation on an
appropriation bill. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained, and
this section will be stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 616. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
executive branch agency shall purchase, construct, and/or
lease any additional facilities, except within or contiguous
to existing locations, to be used for the purpose of
conducting Federal law enforcement training without the
advance approval of the Committees on Appropriations.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 616
for reasons previously cited.
The CHAIRMAN. Any other Member wishing to be heard on the point of
order raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin? If not, the Chair is
prepared to rule.
This section waives existing law and constitutes legislation on an
appropriation bill. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained and
this section will be stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 617. Notwithstanding section 1346 of title 31, United
States Code, or section 611 of this Act, funds made available
for fiscal year 1999 by this or any other Act shall be
available for the interagency funding of national security
and emergency preparedness telecommunications initiatives
which benefit multiple Federal departments, agencies, or
entities, as provided by Executive Order No. 12472 (April 3,
1984).

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 617
for reasons previously cited.

[[Page H5686]]

The CHAIRMAN. According to the precedent set on June 18, 1991, the
point of order is sustained. This section will be, therefore, stricken
from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 618. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this or any
other Act may be obligated or expended by any Federal
department, agency, or other instrumentality for the salaries
or expenses of any employee appointed to a position of a
confidential or policy-determining character excepted from
the competitive service pursuant to section 3302 of title 5,
United States Code, without a certification to the Office of
Personnel Management from the head of the Federal department,
agency, or other instrumentality employing the Schedule C
appointee that the Schedule C position was not created solely
or primarily in order to detail the employee to the White
House.
(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to
Federal employees or members of the armed services detailed
to or from--
(1) the Central Intelligence Agency;
(2) the National Security Agency;
(3) the Defense Intelligence Agency;
(4) the offices within the Department of Defense for the
collection of specialized national foreign intelligence
through reconnaissance programs;
(5) the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the
Department of State;
(6) any agency, office, or unit of the Army, Navy, Air
Force, and Marine Corps, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
and the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department of
Justice, the Department of Transportation, the Department of
the Treasury, and the Department of Energy performing
intelligence functions; and
(7) the Director of Central Intelligence.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 618
for the same reasons.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Section 618 applies to funds appropriated in other acts and imposes
additional duties on Federal officials in violation of clause 2 of rule
XXI. Therefore, the point of order is sustained, and that section will
be stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 619. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the
United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any
other Act for fiscal year 1999 shall obligate or expend any
such funds, unless such department, agency, or
instrumentality has in place, and will continue to administer
in good faith, a written policy designed to ensure that all
of its workplaces are free from discrimination and sexual
harassment and that all of its workplaces are not in
violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,
and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Sec. 620. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act may be used to pay for the expenses of travel of
employees, including employees of the Executive Office of the
President, not directly responsible for the discharge of
official governmental tasks and duties: Provided, That this
restriction shall not apply to the family of the President,
Members of Congress or their spouses, Heads of State of a
foreign country or their designees, persons providing
assistance to the President for official purposes, or other
individuals so designated by the President.
Sec. 621. Notwithstanding any provision of law, the
President, or his designee, shall certify to Congress,
annually, that no person or persons with direct or indirect
responsibility for administering the Executive Office of the
President's Drug-Free Workplace Plan are themselves subject
to a program of individual random drug testing.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 621
for reasons previously cited.
The CHAIRMAN. Any other Member wishing to be heard on the point of
order?
If not, the Chair finds that section 621 explicitly supersedes other
law. Section 621, therefore, constitutes legislation. The point of
order is sustained, and that section is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 622. No funds appropriated in this or any other Act
for fiscal year 1999 may be used to implement or enforce the
agreements in Standard Forms 312 and 4355 of the Government
or any other nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement if such
policy, form, or agreement does not contain the following
provisions: ``These restrictions are consistent with and do
not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee
obligations, rights, or liabilities created by Executive
Order No. 12356; section 7211 of title 5, United States Code
(governing disclosures to Congress); section 1034 of title
10, United States Code, as amended by the Military
Whistleblower Protection Act (governing disclosure to
Congress by members of the military); section 2302(b)(8) of
title 5, United States Code, as amended by the Whistleblower
Protection Act (governing disclosures of illegality, waste,
fraud, abuse or public health or safety threats); the
Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421
et seq.) (governing disclosures that could expose
confidential Government agents); and the statutes which
protect against disclosure that may compromise the national
security, including sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 of
title 18, United States Code, and section 4(b) of the
Subversive Activities Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)). The
definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions,
and liabilities created by said Executive order and listed
statutes are incorporated into this agreement and are
controlling.'': Provided, That notwithstanding the preceding
paragraph, a nondisclosure policy form or agreement that is
to be executed by a person connected with the conduct of an
intelligence or intelligence-related activity, other than an
employee or officer of the United States Government, may
contain provisions appropriate to the particular activity for
which such document is to be used. Such form or agreement
shall, at a minimum, require that the person will not
disclose any classified information received in the course of
such activity unless specifically authorized to do so by the
United States Government. Such nondisclosure forms shall also
make it clear that they do not bar disclosures to Congress or
to an authorized official of an executive agency or the
Department of Justice that are essential to reporting a
substantial violation of law.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I again make a point of order against section
622 on grounds that it, indeed, constitutes legislation on an
appropriation bill and violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that section 622 addresses funds in other acts.
Section 622, therefore, does, as the gentleman has stated, constitute
legislation. The point of order is sustained, and this section will be
stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.

{time} 1600

The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 623. No part of any funds appropriated in this or any
other Act shall be used by an agency of the executive branch,
other than for normal and recognized executive-legislative
relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for
the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet,
booklet, publication, radio, television or film presentation
designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the
Congress, except in presentation to the Congress itself.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 623
for reasons previously cited.
The CHAIRMAN. As was just stated, the Chair rules that this addresses
funds in other acts, and section 623, therefore, does constitute
legislation. The point of order is sustained and this portion will be
stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 624. (a) In General.--No later than September 30,
1999, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
shall submit to the Congress a report that provides--
(1) estimates of the total annual costs and benefits of
Federal regulatory programs, including quantitative and
nonquantitative measures of regulatory costs and benefits;
(2) estimates of the costs and benefits (including
quantitative and nonquantitative measures) of each rule that
is likely to have a gross annual effect on the economy of
$100,000,000 or more in increased costs;
(3) an assessment of the direct and indirect impacts of
Federal rules on the private sector, State and local
government, and the Federal Government; and
(4) recommendations from the Director and a description of
significant public comments to reform or eliminate any
Federal regulatory program or program element that is
inefficient, ineffective, or is not a sound use of the
Nation's resources.
(b) Notice.--The Director shall provide public notice and
an opportunity to comment on the report under subsection (a)
before the report is issued in final form.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 624
for the same reasons.
The CHAIRMAN. Any other Members wishing to be heard on the point of
order?
If not, the Chair finds that section 624 includes language imparting
direction. Section 624, therefore, constitutes legislation. The point
of order is sustained and the provision will be stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 625. None of the funds appropriated by this or any
other Act, may be used by an

[[Page H5687]]

agency to provide a Federal employee's home address to any
labor organization, unless the employee has authorized such
disclosure or such disclosure has been ordered by a court of
competent jurisdiction.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 625
for reasons previously cited.
The CHAIRMAN. Any other Members wishing to be heard?
If not, the Chair finds that section 625 addresses funds in other
acts. Section 625, therefore, constitutes legislation. The point of
order is sustained and this portion will be stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 626. 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.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 626
for the same reasons.
The CHAIRMAN. Any other Members wishing to be heard?
If not, the Chair finds that section 626 includes language conferring
authority. Section 626, therefore, constitutes legislation. The point
of order is sustained. The provision is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 627. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act may be used to provide any non-public information
such as mailing or telephone lists to any person or any
organization outside of the Federal Government without the
approval of the Committees on Appropriations.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 627
for reasons previously cited.
The CHAIRMAN. Any Members wishing to be heard on the point of order?
If not, the Chair finds that section 627 addresses funds in other
acts and, therefore, section 627 constitutes legislation. The point of
order is sustained and that provision will be stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 628. For purposes of each provision of law amended by
section 704(a)(2) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 U.S.C.
5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5,
United States Code, shall be considered to have taken effect
in fiscal year 1999 in the rates of basic pay for the
statutory pay systems.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefner

Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Hefner:
On page 89, beginning on line 12, strike Section 628 in its
entirety.

Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, last evening we had a very contentious
debate on the previous question and on the rule on this legislation. It
was pretty much of a stretch, but we had something that was passed out
to Members from the National Republican Congressional Committee, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), to Democrats, saying:
``We will be watching whether you vote to increase your own pay.
National Republican Congressional Committee chairman John Linder issued
a strong warning to House Democrats: We will be watching how you vote
tonight on the Treasury, Postal Service appropriation rule. Linder said
anyone voting against a procedural motion is unequivocally voting to
give themselves a pay raise. A raise, Linder noted, would not be taken
well by constituents, too many of whom are juggling two jobs trying to
make ends meet. If Democrats want to block this motion so they can get
a raise, so be it, but tomorrow I guarantee every newspaper in their
district will know about it.''
Now, I understand politics pretty good. I have been here some 24
years, and pay has always been a contentious issue in this body. We
thought we had solved the problem a few years ago when we set in place
a procedure that says we would get a cost of living like every other
Federal employee. And when we had the last substantial pay raise, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Newt Gingrich) and Mr. Bob Michel stood in
this well before the Democratic caucus and said, look, if everyone will
all support this pay raise, it will not be a political issue; we will
not bring it up in the elections. And guess what? Two weeks later, in
my district, they were accusing me of being a big spender. But that is
another story.
If we can make the stretch that voting for a procedural motion could
be perceived as voting for a pay raise, I think it is only fair and
fitting that Members in this House have a chance to express themselves
as to whether they want to accept the raise, a cost of living raise
that is in the bill, and take this section out of the bill. Then we
will have the same stretch that we can make from the handout of the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) that we had voted against a pay
raise.
It is unfortunate that these kind of things take place in political
campaigns. This, I would not say was hypocritical, but I would say that
it is absolutely intellectually dishonest.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out another couple of things
here. Last year the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) voted for the
conference report, which contained, incidentally, our cost of living
last year. But he voted against the original bill. So he could have it
both ways: He could be for it and against it.
So I think the Members should be entitled to have a vote on taking
this portion out of this bill, where they can let people know where
they stand on a pay raise. It is unfortunate that this has to be, with
all the things that we are confronted with, that people have to
apologize for what they are paid by the American people when we preside
over the biggest corporation in the world. And we get paid far less
than rock-and-roll performers, baseball players, or soccer players.
It is unfortunate that this has to be a political football but, Mr.
Chairman, I would urge Members to vote for my amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the sentiments expressed by the gentleman
from North Carolina. The gentleman from Maryland and I and others on
both sides of the aisle in this body have worked very hard over the
last couple of years to try to depoliticize the issue of Members' pay.
This body did that, as a matter of fact, several years ago when we
established a procedure whereby the increases, the cost of living
adjustments in the salaries received by Members of this body, would be
tied to that of other Federal employees, but with half a percent less
than they would get. So we would never get the same amount as another
Federal employee was getting.
The idea was to take it out of the process of forcing us to have
votes on this one at a time, to have the gut-wrenching vote as to
whether or not we should receive a pay increase. That process was
established in law and we had, I believe, every hope that that process
would work. Unfortunately, Members have realized that the rules of this
House permit other ways of getting at a vote on the Members' pay raise,
even when there is not really an increase in the pay; that we are
talking simply about a cost of living adjustment.
So we have had this process, unfortunately, on this bill for too many
years. It does not really belong at all on this legislation. We have
had this provision added in on several years which would prevent
Members from receiving the cost of living adjustment that other Federal
employees have gotten.
In the strongest possible terms I deplore the use of this issue by
anybody on either side of the aisle. Members ought to be allowed to
consider this in the least politically obtrusive way possible. We ought
to be able to consider this on its merits. Unfortunately, when we have
Members and it has happened, I would remind the gentleman from North
Carolina, on both sides of the aisle in the past who have attacked the
cost of living adjustment for Members, it becomes, especially in an
election year, a very difficult issue for Members to withstand what
they perceive to be the heat that they will receive at home on this
issue.
Therefore, this year, it was very clear from the statements that had
been made in both the House and the Senate that there was going to be
an

[[Page H5688]]

effort made to make sure that Members did not get a cost of living
adjustment. It was the decision of the subcommittee that we simply put
that decision into the bill before it got to the floor of the House.
And that is why we see this provision in the legislation, and that is
why the rule, which was adopted last night, protects this particular
provision.
I wish that we did not have to go through this debate. I wish we did
not have to have this kind of provision in the legislation but,
nonetheless, it is there. It is, I think, the decision of the
leadership on both sides of the aisle that we will not subject the
Members to a vote on a cost of living adjustment, and I would certainly
urge my colleagues to vote against the gentleman's amendment and leave
this provision intact in the legislation when it leaves the House of
Representatives.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I share the disdain of the gentleman from North
Carolina for the scurrilous press release, the totally misleading press
release which was issued last night by the Republican Congressional
Campaign Committee. Everyone knows that the issue on the rule had
nothing whatsoever to do with the congressional cost of living. It had
everything to do with our disagreement about the abandoning of the
effort to treat as an emergency the Year 2000 computer problems faced
by virtually every agency of government, and it had everything to do
with the decision of the Committee on Rules to, in effect, knock out
the Lowey amendment on family planning.
I make no apology for the fact that the law provides that under
normal circumstances, Members of Congress are entitled to a cost of
living adjustment in their pay on an annual basis, minus one-half
percent below the amount that has been given to other workers in this
society in the previous year. That is what the formula provides. That
formula provides that Members' salaries will be whatever private sector
workers have received in the previous year minus one-half percent. That
is simply a short COLA. I make no apology for that. I think that is a
rational approach.
But to make clear how phony that press release was, I would urge
Members to vote against the amendment offered by the gentleman from
North Carolina. I appreciate the fact that he has given us the
opportunity to make clear that that press release last night was
totally off base and totally scurrilous, but I would simply say that
those Members who are truly concerned about trying to prevent a COLA
from taking place for Members, now is their chance; they can vote
against this amendment and they will accomplish that fact.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe) is one of the fairest in this Congress. I want to go on record
saying that. But when he says the leadership made an agreement, the
leadership went back on their agreement when they put out this press
release threatening people that they are going to go to their local
newspapers and say they voted for a pay raise when the pay raise was in
the entire bill.
Let me urge my colleagues, if they want to vote against a pay raise,
they should vote against my amendment. But if they think they are worth
the money, and they think they are doing the business for their
constituents, they should vote for my amendment. Those that we are
talking about, that want to be on record as voting against a pay raise,
they should vote against my amendment.

{time} 1615

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say, this reminds me of an
event that occurred a number of years ago when we were asked by the
Reagan administration to vote for the IMF increase on this side of the
aisle; and when we did, the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee
then demagogued us and put out press releases attacking us for doing
what the leader of their party asked us to do. I think the press
release last night was just as unfair.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, to correct one thing that the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) said I think in interpreting my remarks, my
comment about the leadership agreement applied to the agreement that we
reached last year.
There was an attempt made to reach an agreement this year on the
issue of the COLA. Since it was not reached, we agreed to put in the
prohibition. There was no other agreement beyond that about what would
or would not be said this year by anybody on the other side.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would simply again urge
Members to make the situation and to make the facts as opposed to the
propaganda perfectly clear, that we vote against the Hefner amendment.
I thank the gentleman for offering it, and I thank the chairman of the
subcommittee for accurately stating the situation.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner)
for offering this amendment. My experience has been, in the some 30-
plus years that I have been in public office, that the constituents
with whom I deal hate most hypocrisy. They can disagree with me from
time to time, and they do, but it is when they know, and hopefully it
does not happen very often, hopefully never, that I am saying something
that I do not believe, that I am voting a way I do not act.
In 1989, this body, in a bipartisan way, with the leadership of the
present Speaker, the then Speaker Tom Foley, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), many
others, Mr. Michael in particular, I think even the presiding officer
presently came together and said that we need to have a system that we
believe is fair and the public will believe is fair.
We, at that point in time, for those Members who are new and do not
recall, could take 30 percent of our salary from private-sector
interests to enhance our salary. It was called honoraria.
I did not think that was right. This body did not think it was right
and good policy. And we changed that. And in changing that, we said, we
are going to set in place a system that will attempt to fairly reflect
a salary that will, in effect, stay level. Because that is what cost of
living is, of course, staying level, staying even. So that costs
increase and salaries increase across the board, we escalate Social
Security by a cost-of-living adjustment so that the value of the
receipt of Social Security is approximately the same.
And so we did that. But as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
has correctly pointed out, we said that we are going to take the
economic cost index, ECI, the private-sector wage information,
determine what that average salary increase is, and we will then deduct
half a point from that so that we will be getting less than that
average in the private sector and adjust our salaries by that number.
Now, is it a raise? Yes, of course it is an increase. But is it a
real raise? No, it is not. It is a staying even with the economy. That
was, in my opinion, an honest, rational, common-sense approach. Members
voted on that reform on this floor in public on the record at 4 in the
afternoon, full light of day. And we did it before an election. And we
said that that would not go into effect until we were reelected. In
other words, we did not take it at that point in time.
And, in fact, I believe that every Member who sought re-election that
was reelected, or even defeated, was not done so because of that
provision. That is to say, citizens understood that. They thought it
was fair. In fact, they thought it was reform and common cause, and
many other citizens organizations endorsed it.
Now, for a number of years after passing that, we did in fact follow
without debates; and if Federal employees and if private sector got a
cost-of-living adjustment, we got a cost-of-living adjustment. It was
not a controversial item among the citizens in America. They understand
that that is

[[Page H5689]]

what, for the most part, they would like in their jobs and, for the
most part, they get in their jobs.
We have, however, always been inclined to demagogue the institution
and demagogue one another on institutional issues. That is a shame. It
is a shame because it brings disrespect on this institution and
disrespect on the individual Members.
Now, is that bad for the individuals? Of course. But, much worse, it
is bad for America to lose faith and trust in its Members, who somehow
give the impression that they are taking something that is either
undeserved or unearned.
I would hope that every Member on the majority side, as I will tell
my colleagues on my side, will tell the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder), this is not good policy. It may be good politics. It may adopt
the premise of the Speaker that politics is war. But it is lousy public
policy. It is demagoguery of the worst type.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, in point of fact, it was also dishonest.
Because, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out,
the vote yesterday was not on this issue; it was, in fact, on issues of
import which we have debated on this floor at some length and was on
the issue of whether or not we were going to fund in this bill the
fixing of computers in the Federal Government so that they would be
compatible with the change of the century.
Those were substantive issues. They have both been struck on this
floor today by one Member because of the rule we adopted. I regret that
it appears that the rule was specifically fashioned to facilitate this
kind of demagoguery, this kind of threat, this kind of intimidation on
the Members of this House.
Now, as every Member knows, I have been for this process and have
been sometimes among 20 people, 30 people voting for the cost-of-living
adjustment because I thought the American public deserved an honest
response. The American public is not surprised that when we vote on
this, sometimes half, maybe sometimes two-thirds, vote against the
cost-of-living. And the American public is not surprised when, guess
what, almost every Member who voted no on the ECI takes the money,
takes the money, leading to further disrespect for this institution and
the individual Members who they thereby perceive as dishonest with
them.
I love this institution and respect it. It is in fact the people's
House. But if we do not respect ourselves, if we do not respect this
institution, we cannot expect the American public to respect us or this
institution.
I am going to vote no on this amendment, which will probably be the
first time since I have served in this body that I have voted against
the cost-of-living adjustment. The reason I am going to vote against it
is because I do not want to flimflam the public. We reported this out
because it was the perception of the chairman and mine that this issue
had been so politicized and would be so politicized that it would lead
to further undermining of this institution's credibility.
But I want everyone to know that I am for the ECI. I think it ought
to go into effect. Because I believe that was a reform that was good
for America and this institution and was fair and honest.
I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment so that no one will
be confused by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) or anybody else.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. And I realize that
very few other people will support this amendment today, but I think it
is important that some do.
I want to first commend the author of the amendment, and I want to
commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for the very elegant
statement that he just made. This issue has called forth much lack of
candor over the years. And it is easy in a campaign to go say, ``my
opponent voted for a pay increase for himself.''
As the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member both said,
back in 1989, with support from all groups in this House, from both
parties, from the leadership, from the present Speaker, a decision was
made to take this issue out of politics and to serve it in a
responsible way so that Members of the House and the Senate would get
paid responsibly so that future increases would only be cost-of-living
increases; and then, in return for foregoing the opportunity of earning
money outside the salary of the Members of the House, they would be
guaranteed a cost-of-living increase like other Federal employees, like
most employees of major corporations in this country, with one
difference, a half a percent less than the actual cost-of-living
increase that everybody else gets. And this would be done automatically
so we would not have the demagogic attacks on votes every year.
For those last few years, we have had those demagogic attacks because
people have figured out ways of getting votes to the floor.
Now, in the absence of this amendment, there would not be a vote on
the floor. Yet we have a demagogic attack on a different vote as if it
were a vote on this. The fact is, with every election cycle, a greater
proportion of the membership of this House are millionaires.
If we want ordinary men and women to continue to serve in this House,
we have to allow the salary to increase with the cost of living, as all
other Federal salaries do, as most government salaries do, as we should
certainly want all salaries in the private sector to do.
So I do not expect or ask that many people vote for this amendment
today. Because the real purpose of this amendment is to undo the
political mischief that was done by that dishonest and demagogic press
release that was talked about a few minutes ago.
The real purpose of this amendment is to enable a straight up-or-down
vote on this cost-of-living increase in which most Members, because the
judgment has been made that the political atmosphere is too poisoned to
permit it this year, most Members will vote no.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
I was down in my office meeting with some constituents and I noticed
that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) got up and spoke, and so I
turned on my television.
I have got to tell my colleagues, I came down to the floor to
associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Maryland in
many ways, maybe not all of them. But I do love this institution, as
the gentleman from Maryland does.
I think that there is too much attack on this institution and its
Members. It greatly disturbs me when Members and the media and
otherwise claim that there is corruption in this Chamber. I have many
times come down to this floor and challenged people that said there is
corruption in this Chamber to show me and name the corruption that is
in this Chamber.
And I, too, have voted for cost-of-living increases, and I am for
them, and I think it is very important. In order to maintain the
integrity of this body and making sure that Members can take care of
their families in a reasonable way that reflects their abilities, we
should be very, very careful when we attack this institution in this
regard.
So I appreciate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and I
appreciate the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply would ask the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay) who just spoke, I am happy to hear he loves this
institution. My question is, does he love it enough to tell the
chairman of his campaign committee that he ought to quit issuing
misleading press releases about this issue?

{time} 1630

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that
I would hope in the future, and, as I said, I plan to vote for this
amendment, I do not expect to urge many

[[Page H5690]]

others to do so, but I think some of us should. But I hope in the
future, whoever is in charge of the committee and the leadership of
this House, that when this bill comes to the floor next year and the
year after and the year after, and it provides for the cost of living
increase.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Nadler was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear the gentleman said
``this bill.'' This bill does not provide for any pay raise or cost of
living adjustment for Members, with or without this provision. This
provision prohibits what is provided for in the law that was passed in
1989 from going into effect so that when the bill comes those who
demagogue the bill for being a pay raise are absolutely incorrect.
I know what the gentleman meant; I just wanted to clarify that.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the clarification.
Let me simply express the hope that next year and the year after the
cost of living increase is permitted to go into effect in the way it
was intended without a specific piece of legislation or a vote and that
the rule provides that an amendment that would come on the floor should
not be permitted because otherwise the entire purpose of the 1989 law
is nullified, and if we want this House gradually to become the House
of millionaires that ordinary men and women do not run for, that is a
good way to do it, and we should not permit that.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words for just a moment.
Mr. Chairman, I must say that as I sat in my office watching this
discussion on television, I could not help but be moved to come and at
least have my voice be heard in connection with the proposal being made
by my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner).
I must say that in the years that I have been in this body, I have
seen on more than one occasion on both sides of the aisle a propensity
to demagogue both salary adjustments as well as benefits for the
Members of this House. It is most disconcerting to me that people
would, on either side of the aisle, ever play politics for the sake of
politics on issues such as this.
I am particularly disconcerted by this pattern because it has
dramatically impacted over the years a number of younger Members who
are serving very well in this body, who, because upon arriving here
with young children, otherwise unaware of the incredible cost of living
in this region and maintaining residence at home, et cetera, found
themselves leaving the body long before their service was well
completed.
It does not serve the body well or the American public well to simply
demagogue an issue like this because somebody thinks it may be votes at
home for someone that they might choose. I have never seen this issue
make a difference in a significant congressional race, but people love
to demagogue it.
Mr. Chairman, I not only applaud my colleague, the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hefner), I intend to support his position. I would
urge as many Members in the House on both sides of the aisle who can
stand the heat to do so as well.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 498, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Hefner) will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 629. No part of any appropriation contained in this or
any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda
purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized
by the Congress.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, back to the old business, I make a point of
order against section 629 for reasons previously cited, ad nauseam ad
nauseam.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order
that has just been raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)?
If not, the Chair finds that section 629 addresses funds in other
acts, and section 629, therefore, constitutes legislation.
The point of order is sustained, and section 629 will, therefore, be
stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 630. None of the funds appropriated in this or any
other Act shall be used to acquire information technologies
which do not comply with part 39.106 (Year 2000 compliance)
of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, unless an agency's
Chief Information Officer determines that noncompliance with
part 39.106 is necessary to the function and operation of the
requesting agency or the acquisition is required by a signed
contract with the agency in effect before the date of
enactment of this Act. Any waiver granted by the Chief
Information Officer shall be reported to the Office of
Management and Budget, and copies shall be provided to
Congress.
Sec. 631. None of the funds made available in this Act for
the United States Customs Service may be used to allow the
importation into the United States of any good, ware,
article, or merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured by
forced or indentured child labor, as determined pursuant to
section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307).
Sec. 632. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
part of any funds provided by this Act or any other Act
beginning in fiscal year 1999 and thereafter shall be
available for paying Sunday premium pay to any employee
unless such employee actually performed work during the time
corresponding to such premium pay.
Sec. 633. No part of any appropriation contained in this or
any other Act shall be available for the payment of the
salary of any officer or employee of the Federal Government,
who--
(1) prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to
prohibit or prevent, any other officer or employee of the
Federal Government from having any direct oral or written
communication or contact with any Member, committee, or
subcommittee of the Congress in connection with any matter
pertaining to the employment of such other officer or
employee or pertaining to the department or agency of such
other officer or employee in any way, irrespective of whether
such communication or contact is at the initiative of such
other officer or employee or in response to the request or
inquiry of such Member, committee, or subcommittee; or
(2) removes, suspends from duty without pay, demotes,
reduces in rank, seniority, status, pay, or performance of
efficiency rating, denies promotion to, relocates, reassigns,
transfers, disciplines, or discriminates in regard to any
employment right, entitlement, or benefit, or any term or
condition of employment of, any other officer or employee of
the Federal Government, or attempts or threatens to commit
any of the foregoing actions with respect to such other
officer or employee, by reason of any communication or
contact of such other officer or employee with any Member,
committee, or subcommittee of the Congress as described in
paragraph (1).
Sec. 634. Section 404(a) of the Government Management
Reform Act of 1994 is amended by striking the period at the
end of paragraph (2) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding
at the end the following paragraph:
``(3) the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).''.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point or order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 634
for reasons previously cited.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other Member wishing to be heard on the
point of order that is being put forward by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)?
If not, the Chair finds that section 634 directly amends other law.
Section 634, therefore, constitutes legislation, and the point of order
is sustained, and section 634 will, therefore, be stricken from the
bill.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rose a few weeks ago before we went on recess to give
indication that I had a very serious problem with the Customs
Department regarding a ruling that had to do with soft

[[Page H5691]]

lumber from Canada. I told the Customs Department that unless some
action were taken, either yes or no, that I intended to offer an
amendment reducing their appropriation.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to tell those of my colleagues, especially
the members of the Forestry 2000, who incidentally very generously had
agreed each to give me 5 minutes to talk about the demerits of this
bill unless Customs did something, so I was intending to speak for 8
hours on this bill, and thanks to the wisdom of the Customs Department
who issued the ruling that very same day, no longer will my colleagues
be subjected to that misfortune of having to listen to me for 8 hours.
So, as a result of Customs' brilliance and as a result of their
decision, I am happy to tell my colleagues that I now support the bill,
and I would urge my colleagues at the appropriate time to vote in favor
of this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 635. Notwithstanding section 611 of this Act and
notwithstanding section 1346 of title 31, United States Code,
funds made available for fiscal year 1999, by this or any
other Act shall be available for the interagency funding of
specific projects, workshops, studies, and similar efforts to
carry out the purposes of the National Science and Technology
Council (authorized by Executive Order No. 12881), which
benefit multiple Federal departments, agencies, or entities.

Point of Order

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point or order.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order
against section 635 of the bill. It violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on section 635?
If not the Chair is prepared to rule.
Section 635 explicitly supersedes other law and applies to funds in
other acts. The point of order is sustained, and the section is
stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 636. Section 626(b) of the Treasury, Postal Service,
and General Government Appropriations Act, 1997, as contained
in section 101(f) of Public Law 104-208 (110 Stat. 3009-360),
the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, is amended
to read as follows:
``(b) Until the end of the current FTS 2000 contracts, or
September 30, 1999, whichever is sooner, subsection (a) shall
continue to apply to the use of the funds appropriated by
this or any other Act.''.
Sec. 637. (a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``crime of violence'' has the meaning given
that term in section 16 of title 18, United States Code; and
(2) the term ``law enforcement officer'' means any employee
described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section
8401(17) of title 5, United States Code; and any special
agent in the Diplomatic Security Service of the Department of
State.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, for purposes of chapter 171 of title 28,
United States Code, or any other provision of law relating to
tort liability, a law enforcement officer shall be construed
to be acting within the scope of his or her office or
employment, if the officer takes any action, including the
use of force, that is determined by the officer to be
necessary to--
(1) protect an individual in the presence of the officer
from a crime of violence;
(2) provide immediate assistance to an individual who has
suffered or who is threatened with bodily harm; or
(3) prevent the escape of any individual who the officer
reasonably believes to have committed in the presence of the
officer a crime of violence.
Sec. 638. The Administrator of General Services may
provide, from government-wide credit card rebates, up to
$3,000,000 in support of the Joint Financial Management
Improvement Program as approved by the Chief Financial
Officer's Council.

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 638
for reasons previously cited.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order being raised by the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that section 638 includes language conferring
authority. Therefore it constitutes legislation. The point of order is
sustained, and section 638 is, therefore, stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 639. Federal Firefighters Overtime Pay Reform Act of
1998.--(a) Subchapter V of chapter 55 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 5542 by adding the following new subsection
at the end thereof:
``(f) In applying subsection (a) of this section with
respect to a firefighter who is subject to section 5545b--
``(1) such subsection (a) shall be deemed to apply to hours
of work officially ordered or approved in excess of 106 hours
in a biweekly pay period, or, if the agency establishes a
weekly basis for overtime pay computation, in excess of 53
hours in an administrative workweek; and
``(2) the overtime hourly rate of pay is an amount equal to
one and one-half times the hourly rate of basic pay under
section 5545b (b)(1)(A) or (c)(1)(B), as applicable, and such
overtime hourly rate of pay may not be less than such hourly
rate of basic pay in applying the limitation on the overtime
rate provided in paragraph (2) of such subsection (a).''; and
(2) by inserting after section 5545a the following new
section:

``Sec. 5545b. Pay for firefighters

``(a) This section applies to an employee whose position is
classified in the firefighter occupation in conformance with
the GS-081 standard published by the Office of Personnel
Management, and whose normal work schedule, as in effect
throughout the year, consists of regular tours of duty which
average at least 106 hours per biweekly pay period.
``(b)(1) If the regular tour of duty of a firefighter
subject to this section generally consists of 24-hour shifts,
rather than a basic 40-hour workweek (as determined under
regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel
Management), section 5504(b) shall be applied as follows in
computing pay--
``(A) paragraph (1) of such section shall be deemed to
require that the annual rate be divided by 2756 to derive the
hourly rate; and
``(B) the computation of such firefighter's daily, weekly,
or biweekly rate shall be based on the hourly rate under
subparagraph (A).
``(2) For the purpose of sections 5595(c), 5941, 8331(3),
and 8704(c), and for such other purposes as may be expressly
provided for by law or as the Office of Personnel Management
may by regulation prescribe, the basic pay of a firefighter
subject to this subsection shall include an amount equal to
the firefighter's basic hourly rate (as computed under
paragraph (1)(A)) for all hours in such firefighter's regular
tour of duty (including overtime hours).
``(c)(1) If the regular tour of duty of a firefighter
subject to this section includes a basic 40-hour workweek (as
determined under regulations prescribed by the Office of
Personnel Management), section 5504(b) shall be applied as
follows in computing pay--
``(A) the provisions of such section shall apply to the
hours within the basic 40-hour workweek;
``(B) for hours outside the basic 40-hour workweek, such
section shall be deemed to require that the hourly rate be
derived by dividing the annual rate by 2756; and
``(C) the computation of such firefighter's daily, weekly,
or biweekly rate shall be based on subparagraphs (A) and (B),
as each applies to the hours involved.
``(2) For purposes of sections 5595(c), 5941, 8331(3), and
8704(c), and for such other purposes as may be expressly
provided for by law or as the Office of Personnel Management
may by regulation prescribe, the basic pay of a firefighter
subject to this subsection shall include--
``(A) an amount computed under paragraph (1)(A) for the
hours within the basic 40-hour workweek; and
``(B) an amount equal to the firefighter's basic hourly
rate (as computed under paragraph (1)(B)) for all hours
outside the basic 40-hour workweek that are within such
firefighter's regular tour of duty (including overtime
hours).
``(d)(1) A firefighter who is subject to this section shall
receive overtime pay in accordance with section 5542, but
shall not receive premium pay provided by other provisions of
this subchapter.
``(2) For the purpose of applying section 7(k) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 to a firefighter who is subject
to this section, no violation referred to in such section
7(k) shall be deemed to have occurred if the requirements of
section 5542(a) are met, applying section 5542(a) as provided
in subsection (f) of that section: Provided, That the
overtime hourly rate of pay for such firefighter shall in all
cases be an amount equal to one and one-half times the
firefighter's hourly rate of basic pay under subsection
(b)(1)(A) or (c)(1)(B) of this section, as applicable.
``(3) The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe
regulations, with respect to firefighters subject to this
section, that would permit an agency to reduce or eliminate
the variation in the amount of firefighters' biweekly pay
caused by work scheduling cycles that result in varying hours
in the regular tours of duty from pay period to pay period.
Under such regulations, the pay that a firefighter would
otherwise receive for regular tours of duty over the work
scheduling cycle shall, to the extent practicable, remain
unaffected.''.
(b) The analysis for chapter 55 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by inserting

[[Page H5692]]

at the appropriate place the following new item:

``5545b. Pay for firefighters.''.

(c) Section 4109 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by adding the following new subsection at the end thereof:
``(d) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1), a firefighter who
is subject to section 5545b of this title shall be paid basic
pay and overtime pay for the firefighter's regular tour of
duty while attending agency sanctioned training.''.
(d) section 8331(3) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' after subparagraph (D);
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (G);
(3) by inserting the following:
``(E) with respect to a criminal investigator, availability
pay under section 5545a of this title;
``(F) pay as provided in section 5545b (b)(2) and (c)(2);
and ''; and
(4) by striking ``subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), and (E)''
and inserting ``subparagraphs (B)-(G)''.
(e) The amendments made by this section shall take effect
on the first day of the first applicable pay period which
begins on or after the later of October 1, 1998, or the 180th
day following the date of enactment of this section.
(f) Under regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel
Management, a firefighter subject to section 5545b of title
5, United States Code, as added by this section, whose
regular tours of duty average 60 hours or less per workweek
and do not include a basic 40-hour workweek, shall, upon
implementation of this section, be granted an increase in
basic pay equal to 2 step-increases of the applicable General
Schedule grade, and such increase shall not be an equivalent
increase in pay. If such increase results in a change to a
longer waiting period for the firefighter's next step
increase, the firefighter shall be credited with an
additional year of service for the purpose of such waiting
period. If such increase results in a rate of basic pay which
is above the maximum rate of the applicable grade, such
resulting pay rate shall be treated as a retained rate of
basic pay in accordance with section 5363 of title 5, United
States Code.
(g) Under regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel
Management, the regular pay (over the established work
scheduling cycle) of a firefighter subject to section 5545b
of title 5, United States Code, as added by this section,
shall not be reduced as a result of the implementation of
this section.

Coordination of Southwest Border Counterdrug Activities

Sec. 640.--(1) Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy shall conduct a review of Federal efforts
and submit to the appropriate congressional committees,
including the Committees on Appropriations, a plan to improve
coordination among the Federal agencies with responsibility
to protect the borders against drug trafficking. The review
shall also include consideration of Federal agencies'
coordination with State and local law enforcement agencies.
The plan shall include an assessment and action plan,
including the activities of the following departments and
agencies:
(A) Department of the Treasury;
(B) Department of Justice;
(C) United States Coast Guard;
(D) Department of Defense;
(E) Department of Transportation;
(F) Department of State; and
(G) Department of Interior.
(2) The purpose of the plan under paragraph (1) is to
maximize the effectiveness of the border control efforts in
achieving the objectives of the national drug control
strategy in a manner that is also consistent with the goal of
facilitating trade. In order to maximize the effectiveness,
the plan shall:
(A) specify the methods used to enhance cooperation,
planning and accountability among the Federal, State, and
local agencies with responsibilities along the Southwest
border;
(B) specify mechanisms to ensure cooperation among the
agencies, including State and local agencies, with
responsibilities along the Southwest border;
(C) identify new technologies that will be used in
protecting the borders including conclusions regarding
appropriate deployment of technology;
(D) identify new initiatives for infrastructure
improvements;
(E) recommend reinforcements in terms of resources,
technology and personnel necessary to ensure capacity to
maintain appropriate inspections;
(F) integrate findings of the White House Intelligence
Architecture Review into the plan; and
(G) make recommendations for strengthening the HIDTA
program along the Southwest border.
Sec. 641. (a) Flexiplace Work Telecommuting Programs.--For
fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year thereafter, of the
funds made available to each Executive agency for salaries
and expenses, at a minimum $50,000 shall be available only
for the necessary expenses of the Executive agency to carry
out a flexiplace work telecommuting program.
(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) Executive agency.--The term ``Executive agency'' means
the following list of departments and agencies: Department of
State, Treasury, Defense, Justice, Interior, Labor, Health
and Human Services, Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban
Development, Transportation, Energy, Education, Veterans'
Affairs, General Service Administration, Office of Personnel
Management, Small Business Administration, Smithsonian,
Social Security Administration, Environmental Protection
Agency, U.S. Postal Service.
(2) Flexiplace work telecommuting program.--The term
``flexiplace work telecommuting program'' means a program
under which employees of an Executive agency are permitted to
perform all or a portion of their duties at a flexiplace work
telecommuting center established under section 210(l) of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40
U.S.C. 490(l)) or other Federal law.
Sec. 642. (a) Meritorious Executive.--Section 4507(e)(1) of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking
``$10,000'' and inserting ``an amount equal to 20 percent of
annual basic pay''.
(b) Distinguished Executive.--Section 4507(e)(2) of title
5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``$20,000'' and
inserting ``an amount equal to 35 percent of annual basic
pay''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 1998, or the date of
enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
Sec. 643. (a) Career SES Performance Awards.--Section
5384(b)(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``3 percent'' and inserting ``10 percent'';
and
(2) by striking ``15 percent'' and inserting ``20
percent''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 1998, or the date of
enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
Sec. 644. (a)(1) Paragraph (1) of section 5303(b) of title
5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``If, because
of national emergency or serious economic conditions
affecting the general welfare,'' and inserting ``If, because
of a declared state of war or severe economic conditions,''.
(2) Section 5303(b) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) For purposes of applying this subsection with respect
to any pay adjustment that is to take effect in any calendar
year, `severe economic conditions' shall be considered to
exist if, during the 12-month period ending 2 calendar
quarters before the date as of which such adjustment is
scheduled to take effect (as determined under subsection
(a)), there occur 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth
in the real Gross Domestic Product.''.
(3) Paragraph (2) of section 5303(b) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``an economic condition
affecting the general welfare under this subsection,'' and
inserting ``economic conditions for purposes of this
subsection,''.
(b)(1) Subsection (a) of section 5304a of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``If, because of national
emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the
general welfare,'' and inserting ``If, because of a declared
state of war or severe economic conditions,''.
(2) Section 5304a of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c) and
by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) For purposes of applying this section with respect to
any comparability payments that are to become payable in any
calendar year, `severe economic conditions' shall be
considered to exist if, during the 12-month period ending 2
calendar quarters before the date as of which such payments
are scheduled to take effect (as determined under section
5304(d)(2)), there occur 2 consecutive quarters of negative
growth in the real Gross Domestic Product.''.
(c) The amendments made by this section shall apply with
respect to any alternative pay adjustments under section
5303(b) of title 5, United States Code, and any alternative
level of comparability payments under section 5304a of such
title 5, scheduled to take effect after 1999.
(d) The adjustment in rates of basic pay for the statutory
pay systems that takes effect in fiscal year 1999 under
section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall be an
increase of 3.1 percent, unless otherwise provided for under
such section.

Point of Order

Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that section 644
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order being raised by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent)?
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I object to the substance of the point of
order. Federal employees deserve to be paid according to the Federal
Employees Pay Comparability Act which we passed, signed into law.
Striking this section would deny Federal employees their just pay.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to be further heard on this?
Anyone else wishing to be heard on the

[[Page H5693]]

point of order being raised by the gentleman from Oklahoma?
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me just ask my friend from
Oklahoma who has raised this objection, Federal employees, as my
colleague knows, have been on some very difficult times through the
years, and the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act which was signed
into law by President Bush has called for annual cost of living
allowances that can be waived by the administration under severe
economic circumstances, and we find ourselves this year with a stock
market at an all-time high, unemployment at a generation low.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair requests the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Davis) to address his remarks to the Chair and to the point of order
that is being raised by the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, it would seem under these
circumstances that, if the gentleman could reconsider and allow perhaps
this to move through to the conference where it could be more fully
debated at this point, I think he would be doing all Federal employees
a great service.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other Member wishing to be heard on the
point of order being propounded by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Largent)?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would hope, too, that the gentleman would
withdraw his point of order, not because, as he knows, his point of
order is not well taken, because the Committee on Rules failed, as it
did on so many other instances amenably to protect items that were
important but were technically not consistent with existing the rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Again the Chair would ask the gentleman to confine his
remarks to the point of order that has been propounded by the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
Mr. HOYER. Again I would reiterate I would hope that the gentleman
would withdraw his point of order. This is, as the gentleman from
Virginia said, an important effort that ought to be there for
conference so that we can discuss it further.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members wishing to be heard on the
point of order offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent)?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that section 644 directly amends existing law. It,
therefore, constitutes legislation, and the point of order is
sustained, and the section will be stricken from the bill.

The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 645. (a) None of the funds made available in this or
any other Act may be obligated or expended for any employee
training that--
(1) does not meet identified needs for knowledge, skills,
and abilities bearing directly upon the performance of
official duties;
(2) contains elements likely to induce high levels of
emotional response or psychological stress in some
participants;
(3) does not require prior employee notification of the
content and methods to be used in the training and written
end of course evaluation;
(4) contains any methods or content associated with
religious or quasi-religious belief systems or ``new age''
belief systems as defined in Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission Notice N-915.022, dated September 2, 1988;
(5) is offensive to, or designed to change, participants'
personal values or lifestyle outside the workplace; or
(6) includes content related to human immunodeficiency
virus-acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) other
than that necessary to make employees more aware of the
medical ramifications of HIV/AIDS and the workplace rights of
HIV-positive employees.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit, restrict, or
otherwise preclude an agency from conducting training bearing
directly upon the performance of official duties.

Point of Order.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 645
for reasons previously cited.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order that is being put forward by the gentleman from Wisconsin?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that section 645 addresses funds in other acts, and,
therefore, it constitutes legislation, and the point of order is
sustained, and that section 645 will, therefore, be stricken from the
bill.

{time} 1645

The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 646. (a) International Postal Arrangements.--Section
407 of title 39, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:

``Sec. 407. International postal arrangements

``(a) The United States Trade Representative shall be
responsible for the formulation, coordination, and oversight
of foreign policy related to international postal services
and international delivery services, except that the Trade
Representative may not negotiate or conclude any treaty,
convention, or other international agreement (including those
regulating international postal service) if such treaty,
convention, or agreement would, with respect to any class of
mail or type of mail service, grant an undue or unreasonable
preference to the Postal Service, a private provider of
international postal services, or any other person.
``(b) In carrying out the responsibilities set forth in
subsection (a), the Trade Representative--
``(1) shall coordinate with and give full consideration to
the authority vested by law or Executive order in the Postal
Rate Commission and the Department of Commerce; and
``(2) shall consult with the Postal Service, private
providers of international postal services, users of
international postal services, the general public, and such
other persons as the Trade Representative considers
appropriate.
``(c) The Postal Service may enter into such commercial and
operational contracts relating to international postal
services as it considers necessary, except that the Postal
Service may not enter into any contract with an agency of a
foreign government (whether under authority of this
subsection or otherwise) if it would grant an undue or
unreasonable preference to the Postal Service with respect to
any class of mail or type of mail service.''.
(b) Trade-In-Services Program.--The second sentence of
paragraph (5) of section 306(a) of the Trade and Tariff Act
of 1984 (19 U.S.C. 2114b(5)) is amended by inserting ``postal
and delivery services,'' after ``transportation,''.

Point of Order

Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section
646. I do so because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriations bill, and, therefore, violates clause
2 of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members wishing to be heard on the
point of order being offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Torres)?
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
In fact, I want to urge my colleague to withdraw his point of order.
The provision the gentleman wants to strike is a step towards
fairness. I want to just follow up by saying if the point of order is
not withdrawn, I have an amendment at the desk that I am prepared to
offer that will contain the language that was negotiated to try to
create fairness. It will strictly prohibit the use of funds by the Post
Office at the Universal Postal Union convention next year.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members wishing to be heard on the
point of order of the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres)?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that section
646 directly amends existing law. It therefore constitutes legislation.
The point of order is sustained, and the provision is therefore
stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 647. (a) Limitation.--No funds appropriated for the
United States Postal Service under this or any other Act may
be expended by the Postal Service to initiate new nonpostal
commercial activities or pack and send services.
(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``nonpostal commercial activities'' includes services such as
volume retail photocopying, notary public services, and the
sale of office supplies or novelty items.
(c) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be considered--
(1) to affect any governmental function or any services in
support of a governmental function;
(2) to be applicable to the extent contrary to statute or
any treaty or international agreement; or
(3) to have any force or effect before October 1, 1998, or
after September 30, 1999.

Point of Order

Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section
647. Again, I do so because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes

[[Page H5694]]

legislation in an appropriations bill. Therefore, it violates clause 2
of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any Members wishing to be heard on the point
of order of the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres)?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that section 647 addresses funds in other acts. The
gentleman is correct, it therefore constitutes legislation. The point
of order is sustained and that section of the bill will be stricken.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Northup

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mrs. Northup:
On Page 109, after line 24, insert the following:
Sec. 648. None of the funds appropriated by this or any
other Act may be used to fund United States Postal Service
participation in the Universal Postal Union.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment mostly as a
placeholder in order to allow the conference to reinsert the language
that was stripped as a result of a point of order. The fact is that
every 5 years the Universal Postal Union meets to negotiate
international mail processes.
The United States Postal Service is right now in control of all of
these negotiations. We all know what they want. They would want what
any business wants, and that is special arrangements that would help
them assume a monopoly in the services they wish to offer.
The problem is, these services are not a monopoly. They offer the
same services that private carriers offer. Right now, because of these
special arrangements that have been negotiated, Japan has 60 percent of
the current package market. The fact is that this coming February there
will be a new negotiation in which the Universal Postal Union will
negotiate the next 5 years' mail processes. For that reason, I hope to
reinsert the language that was stripped on a point of order.
Some people will try to claim that the Post Office should continue to
have this role and use these services as a way to offset the cost of
universal mail. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is
that universal mail is a monopoly, and it is covered by all of first,
second and third class rates. There is not 1 cent that is gotten in the
competitive market that the Postal Service contributes to offset
Americans' cost of stamps. In fact, there is more evidence that they
use the revenues they get from the cost of stamps to offset the cost of
their package delivery service in Japan.
The point is that in today's world, we may lose on a point of order
what was just stricken, but what we will not lose is the fact that the
American people believe in fairness, and they do not believe that the
United States Government should be able to use a quasi-government
organization to go and provide for them certain services that the
competitive market, the private carriers, cannot provide.
In my district, Mr. Chairman, the UPS and the Teamsters work very
hard. They pay taxes, they pay property taxes, they pay workers'
compensation, they comply with OSHA requirements, and they are
competing with the Post Office that has none of those things. Plus they
donate millions of dollars into our schools and schools all across this
country. All this amendment would have done, all the language in the
bill would have done, was to make sure that when we go into this
international organization to negotiation, that we have fairness.
Since that was stripped out, I ask that we pass an amendment that
says that the Post Office cannot spend any money at this organization
next year. I think then what we will find is in conference people will
agree to the fair restrictions and the fair negotiating authority and
will give everybody equality.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. NORTHUP. I yield to the gentleman from California.
(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate of the
gentlewoman yielding. I asked her to yield simply to say it was my
intention to give support to the gentlewoman's position regarding the
language that has been stricken from the bill.
Indeed, there is little question that the Postal Service currently is
in a very unusual position of paying no sales taxes, no income taxes,
no property taxes, and, ofttimes, find themselves competing with
organizations using that advantage to essentially take the marketplace
away from that which could be served at least as well in the private
sector.
I appreciate the gentlewoman's work in this connection, and look
forward to continuing to work with her.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from California.
I would conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that this is the only way
in which we can ensure that we will have this negotiation in the
conference committee. I have no intention to take away from anybody the
ability for fairness, particularly not the postal employees in my
district nor the postmasters. But I do believe that we can all find
fair ground here so that every carrier that wishes to deliver packages
overseas will all deal with the same fair rules. I think that the
American people eventually will resent terribly if the Post Office is
not held to the same rules.

Point of Order

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, now that I have had a chance to see the
amendment, I do make a point of order against the amendment, because it
does, Mr. Chairman, propose to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriation bill, and, therefore, violates clause 2
of rule XXI. The pertinent part of that rule says, ``No amendment to a
general appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing
law.''
This amendment goes beyond funds in this act. It has the words ``none
of the funds appropriated by this or any other act may be used to
appropriate.'' Therefore, it violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and I would
make the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the
current law of the U.S. Code, section 2401, provides a permanent
appropriation to the U.S. Postal Service, and, as such, this amendment
is within the jurisdiction of the appropriations bill. The fact is that
every dollar that the Postal Service collects for stamps comes into the
U.S. Treasury and then is appropriated out by us.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members wishing to be heard on the
point of order raised by the gentleman from Arizona?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that the amendment addresses funds in other acts, and
it therefore does constitute legislation, and, therefore, the point of
order is sustained, and the amendment is therefore out of order.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mrs. Lowey:
Page 109, after line 24, add the following:
sec. 648. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be used to enter into or renew a contract which includes
a provision providing prescription drug coverage, except
where the contract also includes a provision for
contraceptive coverage.
(b) Nothing in this section shall apply to a contract with
any of the following religious plans:
(1) SelectCare.
(2) PersonalCaresHMO.
(3) Care Choices.
(4) OSF Health Plans, Inc.
(5) Yellowstone Community Health Plan.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of her amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, the Treasury-Postal
bill originally contained the Lowey contraceptive coverage language
providing Federal employees with contraceptive coverage. I offer now an
amendment that allows this House a fair and open debate on
contraceptives.

[[Page H5695]]

This amendment, if passed, will restore language providing
contraceptive coverage for Federal employees. My amendment also
respects the rights of religious plans that as a matter of conscience
choose not to cover contraceptives. The amendment clearly exempts those
plans.
Although all but one of the FEHBP plans covers sterilization, only 10
percent cover the five most basic, most widely used forms of
contraception, and 81 percent only cover some of the five methods.
Contraception, Mr. Chairman, is basic health care for women. It allows
couples to plan families, have healthier babies when they choose to
conceive, and it makes abortion less necessary.
Currently women of reproductive age spend 68 percent more in out-of-
pocket costs than men, partly because of the cost of contraceptives.
Plans refuse to cover contraceptives because they know that, if forced
to, women will pay for it themselves. On average, women using the pill
pay $25 a month. That is $300 a year for their prescriptions.
It is important to understand what we are talking about when we talk
about contraceptive methods. We are not talking about abortion. We are
not talking about RU-486 or any other abortion method. No abortions
will be covered by this amendment. We are talking about the range of
contraceptive options that women need.
It is crucial that plans cover the range of choices, because some
methods do not work for some women. For example, many women cannot use
any of the hormone-based methods, such as the oral contraceptive pill,
because it causes migraines or because they have been advised not to by
their physician because it may increase the risk of stroke or breast
cancer. Let us be clear, my colleagues. This is not a mandate on
private plans. What we are discussing here is what the United States as
an employer should provide to its employees. The United States
Government should be a model for other employers.

A myriad of health groups support the provision, including the
American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family
Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics. It is also supported by
the AFL-CIO and the American Federation of Government Employees.
Finally, my colleagues, a recent Congressional Budget Office analysis
determined that this improved coverage for Federal employees would not
have any impact, no impact on the budget totals for fiscal year 1999.
I want to repeat that again. This will have no impact for fiscal year
1999 on the budget.
This issue is absolutely essential to millions of American women,
Democrat and Republican, pro-life, pro-choice. I truly hope, my
colleagues, that after many of the debates that are very difficult for
all of us, we can come together now to support contraceptive coverage
and prevent abortions. I would ask my colleagues to vote for the Lowey
amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Point of Order

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a point
of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing
law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and
therefore, violates clause 2 of Rule XXI.
The rule states, in pertinent part, that ``No amendment to a general
appropriations bill shall be in order, if changing existing law.''
Let me make it very clear that this gives affirmative direction, in
effect, and very importantly, it does impose additional duties. Whether
it be the OMB director or whoever makes the final decision, additional
duties will be imposed as a result of this amendment.
So I hope the ruling of the Chair, as consistent with the other
amendments, will rule this out of order.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) is recognized.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, the point of order raised by the gentleman
is not well-founded. The amendment is a limitation on funds contained
in the bill and does not place any duties upon Federal officials. The
amendment merely limits the types of Federal Health Benefit Programs
that can be funded in the bill to those that contain certain benefits.
The programs exempted from the requirements under the limitation are
currently known, and again, do not place additional affirmative duties
on Federal officials.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members wishing to be heard on the
point of order raised by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to reiterate the last
statement made by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), that all
of the plans specified in this amendment are already known to the
administration. There are no additional duties involved whatsoever in
identifying them, and I think the amendment is clearly in order, under
the rule.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members wishing to be heard on the
point of order?
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that I think
that this amendment makes a great deal of sense. If we are, in fact,
united in trying to reduce abortions, this is the way to do it, and the
Federal Government should lead the way.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that that had nothing to do with
the point of order; the Chair is now hearing arguments on the point of
order.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order,
this amendment has been modeled precisely on the passage of the bill
that says no funds basically shall be expended to cover abortions. This
is no funds; none of the funds appropriated by this act may be used,
and basically to pay for a health care plan that does not provide
contraceptives.
So this is modeled exactly on the underlying bill, the language in
the bill that has been acceptable, and so I would hope that the Chair
would rule favorably.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, just to point out that this
would mandate, this would require, and as a precondition of receiving
funds from the Federal Government, one would have to be provided
services. Right now, this is permissible, this would make it mandatory.
That certainly imposes a duty.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that the amendment is in the form of a limitation on
the use of funds in the bill to pay for Federal health plans which do
not cover contraceptive prescription drugs with certain exceptions for
specified plans. The amendment does not affirmatively mandate coverage
or require new determinations by the FDA of equivalency or of
outpatient availability. This amendment is a proper negative limitation
denying funding for contracts without specified terms.
The point of order is overruled on the amendment.
Are there any Members wishing to be heard on the Lowey amendment?
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey amendment
to this bill.
This language would require that Federal Employee Health Benefit
Plans cover prescription contraception, just as they cover other
prescription drugs.
Prescription contraception is like any other prescription medication
or device that is now covered by Federal plans. It is taken or used
under the guidance of a physician with the clear purpose of protecting
and promoting women's health.
Contraception is absolutely essential if a woman wants to prevent
unintended pregnancies, and if this Congress is truly committed to
reducing the number of abortions in the United States, then the use of
and affordable access to contraception is imperative in achieving that
goal.
Prescription contraception methods have health benefits that go
beyond preventing pregnancy. Birth control pills, for example, have
been shown to be effective in reducing the risks of disease such as
uterine cancer. Yet, despite the clear advantages that prescription
contraception offers, women covered under Federal plans are not
guaranteed affordable access to them.
Mr. Chairman, 81 percent of Federal employee plans do not cover all 5
of the widely used and effective methods of reversible contraception.
Ten percent of FEHB plans do not cover any type of

[[Page H5696]]

contraception. The undue financial burden of preventing pregnancy
through contraception is placed on women who now spend 68 percent more
in out-of-pocket health care costs than men. This is largely due to the
cost of purchasing prescription contraception, because most health
insurance companies will not cover the 5 most effective methods of
birth control.
The Federal Government health plan is a model for all other health
plans. Because of the poor example set by this plan, less than 20
percent of traditional indemnity plans and PPOs cover all types of
prescription contraception. Less than 40 percent of HMOs cover all
types of contraception.
Recently, the administration ordered the Medicaid programs in all 50
States to cover the cost of Viagra. This drug has been hailed as the
medical miracle for men who have suffered from impotency for years. But
if we are going to cover the cost of medication that helps the
reproductive functions of men, then it seems ironic that we are not
willing to offer the same protection to women. By not requiring FEHB
plans to cover prescription contraception, we are essentially placing
it in the same category as a drug which has only cosmetic purposes.
Women should not be forced to assume total financial responsibility
for contraception outside of these plans. We must support the Lowey
amendment to this bill and require that all Federal health benefit
plans cover the contraceptive methods that women need for their health
and well-being.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong
opposition to this amendment.
I hope Members pay close attention in reading the amendment. This
amendment does not define the term ``contraceptive.''
Now, one might think that the meaning of the term is self-evident,
but this is not so. The term ``contraceptive'' is not defined in
Federal law. Moreover, the debates on this very issue on the floor of
this very body in recent times demonstrates that there is clearly a
sharp disagreement, even among Members of this body and among groups
promoting this type of amendment, regarding what the term actually
means.
For example, the abortion pill RU46 is used to chemically induce
abortions between 5 and 7 weeks into pregnancy, yet some groups refer
to it as a contraceptive in their literature. The original Lowey
amendment contained a definition which, in my view, is flawed, but this
version contains no definition at all. Therefore, it imposes a complex
and perhaps impossible new duty on the FDA officials, and so we have a
situation where it will be in the eyes of the beholder.
Let me also point out to my colleagues that this is a mandate. Mr.
Chairman, if we read the language of this legislation or of this
amendment, an HMO or a provider of services under the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Program would not even get reimbursed for an antibiotic
that they wanted to write as a prescription, penicillin or any other
kind of prescription, unless they provided a provision of contraceptive
coverage, and again, that is not defined.
So I believe this does open up a Pandora's box. It leaves open the
possibility of abortifacients, those chemicals that kill and destroy a
newly formed human life, and will indeed be mandated if this
legislation or this amendment becomes law.
So I hope that Members will vote ``no.'' It is certainly ambiguous;
it does not define what the word ``contraceptive'' means, and while
indeed a way has been found to get this offered today, there is not
really a nickel's worth of difference between this and the other,
except that it gained muster in terms of parliamentary procedure.
I urge Members to vote ``no.'' This mandates right now in the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program contraception, however one may define
it, is permissible. It is up to the individual HMOs, and many of them
provide it, but it is not mandated. If I as an HMO want to provide, or
a provider of services, these kinds of things, one can do it, but one
is not told that they have to do it, and they do not risk losing
everything else in the prescription area as a result of not being
willing to provide these methods of birth control, which also will
include abortifacients.
So I hope Members will vote ``no'' on the amendment.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Lowey provision within the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill. The
vast majority of FEHB plans do not cover the full range of prescription
contraceptives which prevent unintended pregnancies and 10 percent of
the FEHB plans do not even cover any of the five major contraceptives.
We all know that the FEHB program serves as a model for the nation's
private health insurance plans. If we do not even cover such basic and
essential prescription drugs that can decrease the number of abortions
in this country, then what kinds of message are we sending the American
people?
Eighty-one percent of FEHB plans do not cover all five leading
reversible methods of contraception. (Oral contraceptives, diaphragm,
IUD's, Norplant, and Depo-Provera). Many women have medical conditions
that prevent them from even having the option to use certain forms of
contraception. Women deserve to be able to choose from all 5 of the
major forms of contraception not only for their specific medical needs,
but because she and her mate should be able to determine the form of
birth control that is right for them. This should not and cannot be
based on the lack of funds, which far too often results in unwanted
pregnancies.
Currently, women of reproductive age spend 68% more in out-of-pocket
health costs than men. We need to narrow the gender gap in insurance
coverage--not widen the disparities between those who have and those
have not, and further expand the chasm that has hurt far too many women
and families throughout the country already.
The Lowey provision is a critical, yet basic necessity that has a
``negligible'' cost according to the Congressional Budget Office. I
urge my colleagues to join me in making sure that we do all that we can
to reduce the likelihood of abortion in this country, do all that we
can to help women obtain the prescription drugs they need, and do all
that we can to make this health care system more equal for women and
men.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to speak today. I rise to strongly support the Lowey Amendment to the
FY 1999 Treasury Postal Service general government appropriations bill.
The Rules Committee voted not to protect Representative Lowey's
language on H.R. 4104.
Representative Lowey's amendment required Federal employee health
benefits to cover contraceptive drugs and related services to
individuals and their families. However, with her amendment on the
floor, I believe we cannot deny American women to select their own
contraceptive methods.
Currently the Federal employee health benefit plan uniformly offers
prescription drug coverage, but the majority of such health plans
discriminate against women by failing to include coverage for the full
range of prescription contraceptives. Such Federal health insurance
must cover these FDA approved contraceptives.
In fact, 10% of Federal employee health plans fail to cover
reversible contraceptives.
In some cases, plans only cover one method of prescription
contraception. Overall, 81% of Federal employee health benefit plans do
not cover all five leading reversible methods of contraception, which
of course, prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce the need for
abortion.
The Federal program should be a model for private plans, and as an
employer, it is shocking that the Federal Government does not provide
this basic health benefit for women and their families insured through
FEHB.
Women of reproductive age spend 68% more of their own money for
health care than men, with contraception and related health services
accounting for much of the difference. If their Congress can include
Medicaid coverage for Viagra--why should women be denied needed health
coverage.
Making the full range of contraceptive options available to our
Federal employees is not only an issue of fairness, but is an issue of
women's health and reproductive choice.
We must remember that increased access to contraceptives is critical
to the effort of reducing the number of unintended pregnancies.
Contraceptive use is an appropriate family planning method.
Increasing access to contraceptives through insurance coverage will
help Federal employees obtain the methods and services they need to
plan their families. Poll show that 90% of the American voting public
supports family planning.
I hope that my colleagues will take this opportunity to support
family planning. Let's make sure every child is a wanted and cared for
child.
I urge my colleagues to support Ms. Lowey's amendment.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey
amendment to include contraceptive coverage under all Federal Employee
Health Benefit plans, allowing,

[[Page H5697]]

of course, exceptions based on religious beliefs.
It seems like the beginning of the appropriations process signals the
beginning of hunting season on a women's reproductive rights.
Figure it out--contraception means prevention of pregnancy . . .
rubbers, gels, pills, IUDs . . .
Unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates drop when women have access to
the preventive reproductive health care they want and need.
Voluntary family planning gives mothers and families new choices and
new hope . . . increasing child survival and safe motherhood by
offering choice in their method of birth control . . . providing choice
of contraceptive options.
Prohibiting Federal workers from using their health care coverage for
prescription contraceptive coverage as they see fit discriminates
against women just because they work for the Federal Government!
This is a disgrace!
Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on the rule.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to set the record
straight.
It's time for an open and honest dialogue regarding government's
message to a couple's right to exercise choice.
My colleagues from the other side of the aisle argue that
contraception shouldn't be included in the Federal Employees Healthcare
Benefit Plan.
Why!? It's time that government takes responsibility about what we
tell the American people.
On one hand you say no abortion and then hypocritically turn the
cheek and say no contraception.
Well, we can't have it both ways.
Come-on. Let's level with the American people.
To refuse to provide basic medical service to a woman, what we are
really saying is that we don't trust her to make a responsible choice.
The FEHB program should be a model for private plans.
We need to narrow the gender inequity with regards to women's health.
Abortion makes us all uneasy.
Voting to strike the Lowey language guarantees an increase in the
practice of abortion--period.
Ensuring that the Lowey language stands reiterates Congress's
commitment to make abortion less common and less necessary.
I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to respect a
woman's decision and maintain the FEHBP plans provide contraception.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Representative
Lowey's amendment, which would require Federal Employee Health Benefit
Plans to cover prescription contraceptives as they cover other
prescription drugs. This amendment will guarantee contraceptive
coverage to more than a million women and will help bridge the
unfortunate gap between the out-of-pocket health care expenses of women
and men.
As I have stated in many occasions, it is my personal view that the
miracle of procreation is the greatest gift we are given, and it should
be accorded the utmost respect and protection. Although I am deeply
committed to this belief, I have always recognized that certain
exceptions exist where compassion and morality dictate that abortion is
the only humane choice. For this reason, I have consistently favored an
exception to abortion restrictions where it is necessary to save the
life of the mother, and I have voted to allow states to use Medicaid
funding to perform abortions in cases of rape or incest.
Furthermore, I have always believed that women should have access to
contraception. I recognize that this is a critical component of
comprehensive women's health care and is an important means of
preventing unintended pregnancies. Perhaps most importantly, increasing
the availability of contraceptives can reduce the need for abortion, a
goal which I believe all of my colleagues join me in supporting. It
would indeed be hypocritical to condemn abortion while simultaneously
denying women access to methods of contraception which can help make
this tragic practice a less common occurrence.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the abortion
debate to join me in supporting the Lowey amendment. Despite the
controversy surrounding this issue, I would hope that we might come
together in support of improving women's health while reducing the need
for abortions.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House resolution 498, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey)
will be postponed.
Are there further amendments?

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Northup

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mrs. Northup:
Page 109, after line 24, insert the following:
Sec. 648. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to fund United States Postal Service participation in
the Universal Postal Union.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I again rise to talk about the importance
of fairness.
In this country we have given the United States Postal Service a
monopoly on delivery of mail and universal mail service. None of us
disagree with that. In fact, all of us appreciate the wonderful gains
that have been made over the past years in terms of customer
friendliness and in terms of efficiency, and we are not here to
jeopardize that today.
But, in fact, the United States Postal Service has decided that they
are going to expand their operations and get into services and provide
services in which the private market already exists. As they do that,
they have used, in the international forum, special prerogatives that
they have to negotiate sweetheart deals with other countries in order
to bypass Customs, both saving time and money.
What does that mean? That means that our hard-working Americans here
in this country, members of the teamsters, that deliver the packages
around this country and that depend on the solvency and the growth and
the opportunities that our private carriers are providing, that their
jobs are in jeopardy.
So as the Postal Service gets into competitive services, we ought to
make sure that whoever negotiates the arrangements between this country
and other countries, that all of those arrangements are the same,
regardless of whether one is a private carrier bringing that package,
or the United States Post Office.

{time} 1715

All we ask is that the trade negotiator have an opportunity to be in
that room and ensure that the same arrangements that are available to
the postal service are available to the private carriers.
That is what the language was that was in the bill. It was struck on
a point of order. So now I bring an amendment on which I have checked
with the parliamentarian, and understand is not authorizing on
appropriations. It is meant to hold a place so in the conference
committee we can restore the very popular language that is supported by
so many Members of this body to ensure that we have fairness.
It would be great if we could do it another year, but the fact is,
these negotiations are going to go on this February, before we have
another chance to pass a bill to bring this fairness. So if we do not
put this in this bill, then all the Americans who have jobs in this
country, all the union jobs for companies that provide package delivery
service, all of those jobs and their ability for their companies to
compete internationally will be in jeopardy.
It is important that we pass this amendment so that we have the
fairness that all American employees deserve.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. NORTHUP. I yield to the gentleman from California.
(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman
yielding. I certainly would not repeat the exhilerating speech I gave
earlier.
Because there is a possibility that when the gentlewoman's former
amendment was stricken, our language might have been stricken, I would
like to make sure that the world does not miss the opportunity of
reading these wonderful remarks.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Those were remarks we would not want anybody to miss.
They were very helpful. I thank the gentleman from California.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is quite correct. As drafted, this
amendment is quite germane, because it is

[[Page H5698]]

simply a funds limitation to this act, as I think she knows, and as is
suggested by her comments that she is looking for a placeholder.
There are no funds appropriated in this act for the Postal Service
for this purpose, or virtually any other purpose, for that matter,
except for a very small appropriation that we give for the overseas
mail and for mail for the blind.
Therefore, it does not have any real effect on the bill, but would
certainly sustain or keep her position in the conference committee.
Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I do not favor this amendment because I do not believe
that the United States ought to be involved in this agency on terms
that enable us to less effectively defend our national interests than
we are under the present circumstances.
In substance, I think the amendment is wrong. I would say, however,
that this amendment does absolutely ``nothing to nobody,'' as my
friends in the old neighborhood used to say. It has no real effect.
It reminds me what Congress does on foreign policy sanctions. This
Congress passes item after item which places sanctions on some foreign
country on something that the Congress does not like, and then it gives
the President a waiver so the President can waive the sanction
limitations. That means Congress as an institution gets to pose for
political holy pictures. We get to pretend that we have done something.
Then the President has to wrestle with the real world.
That is sort of, in mini scale, what this amendment does. This
amendment is simply an institutional press release which says that we
want Federal Express and United Parcel Service to be cut in on the
deal, rather than having the U.S. post office.
Because, as the chairman indicates, this bill carries no funds for
that purpose, and because the post office has plenty of funds it gets
elsewhere, the practical effect of this amendment is nil. So Members
can pass this if they want, they can pretend they have done something
if they want, but it has no real effect.
If it did have an effect, it would be negative, in my view, so I, for
whatever good it will do, would oppose this amendment, but I recognize
what is going to happen here.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Sanders

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Sanders:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. 648. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to make any loan or credit in excess of $250,000,000
to a foreign entity or government of a foreign country
through the exchange stabilization fund under section 5302 of
title 31, United States Code.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment aims to stop the Exchange
Stabilization Fund from making loans to foreign countries without the
approval of Congress.
This amendment has wide tripartisan support, and is being cosponsored
by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Burton), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
Mr. Chairman, the Exchange Stabilization Fund was created in 1934 to
allow the government to buy and sell currency in order to stabilize the
dollar. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent years, a slush fund for
anything the Secretary of the Treasury considers necessary. This is
wrong. It must be changed. That is what this tripartisan amendment is
all about.
Mr. Chairman, in 1995 the House passed a very similar amendment to
what I am offering today by a very strong vote of 245 to 183. It passed
that amendment then for the same reason that I hope and believe the
amendment today will pass. That is that Members of Congress do not
believe that the President of the United States, any President, no
matter what his or her politics might be, should unilaterally be able
to commit billions of taxpayer dollars without congressional approval.
That is the major issue that we are discussing today.
As a result of compromise within the conference committee in 1995, a
diluted version of this original amendment was eventually passed into
law prohibiting more than $1 billion for any future bailouts for longer
than 6 months without congressional approval. That was the law up until
a few months ago. Unfortunately, this provision expired after 2 years,
which is why we are here today.
I should add that days after this legislation expired, President
Clinton committed at least $3 billion to Indonesia and $5 billion to
South Korea through the Exchange Stabilization Fund as part of the East
Asian financial bailouts. These billions of dollars of taxpayers' money
were, once again, placed at risk without any debate or any vote in the
United States Congress.
My amendment will simply restore some limited and modest restraints
on the ESF similar to restraints that have won congressional approval
in the past, and have worked out well in practice.
Mr. Chairman, let me explain exactly what this amendment does,
because there has been some confusion about this. This amendment will
limit the use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund for loans and credits
in excess of $250 million to foreign governments, banks, or investors
unless authorized and approved by Congress. Our amendment will not,
underlined, not, stop the Treasury Department from using the ESF for
its original purpose, which is stabilizing U.S. currency.
For example, the recent $2 billion yen purchase would not be blocked
by our amendment. This amendment will not affect over 90 percent of ESF
loans, credit, and currency purchases.
What this amendment does address are the relatively rare but highly
controversial multibillion dollar loans which put billions of dollars
of taxpayer money at risk without one minute of debate on the floor of
the Congress. Not until 1995 was this fund ever used for loans in
excess of $1 billion to any one country, or for longer than 6 months.
Mr. Chairman, if the President of the United States wants to come
before the Congress and propose a bailout of a foreign country, that is
fine. Let him come. If the Congress wants to approve that
appropriation, that is fine. But what this amendment says, very
straightforwardly, is that the President of the United States may not
unilaterally place at risk billions of taxpayer dollars without the
approval of the Congress.
That is the right way to deal with these issues, and in fact, that is
the constitutional way to address these issues, consistent with article
1 of the U.S. Constitution, which invests Congress with the power of
the purse. The Exchange Stabilization Fund is a classic example of how
powers granted to the executive for one purpose are perverted to other
uses.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Sanders was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, it is wrong and it was wrong for the
President of the United States to put at risk $20 billion in the
Mexican bailout, to put at risk $3 billion providing credit to
Indonesia, and $5 billion to South Korea, without discussion, debate,
or approval of the Congress.
Now, there are some Members here who thought that was a good idea.
That is fine. But if we are here to represent the taxpayers of this
country on major foreign policy and financial issues, we cannot simply
sit back and allow a slush fund which is estimated to have $30 billion
to be used whenever the President of the United States, any President,
wants to do that.

[[Page H5699]]

I personally, for example, would have fought vigorously against the
bailout to Indonesia, which went to General Suharto, a well-known
dictator, who has the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on his
hands. Should we have sat back and said, no problem, let Suharto have
that money, or do we have a right to debate that issue?
In terms of Mexico, we have a letter that I will submit for the
Record signed by the leader of the 126-member bloc in the congress of
Mexico which says that the Exchange Stabilization Fund, plus the IMF,
resulted in disastrous policies for Mexico, higher unemployment, lower
wages, the collapse of small business.
Should that issue be discussed on the floor of the Congress? Of
course it should. Some may say it was a good idea. That is fine. Some
may have opposed it. That is fine. But we cannot abdicate our
responsibility and sit back.
To conclude, Mr. Chairman, this amendment in many ways is similar to
the amendment that was overwhelmingly passed several years ago, and I
would urge my colleagues to support this concept once again.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) insist on
his point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I am not sure,
quite frankly, in trying to read this amendment, whether it really has
any impact at all, since it states that no funds in the act shall be
made available or shall be used to make any loan or credit in excess of
$250 million.

{time} 1730

Since we do not appropriate money for the loans or credit in this
act, it is not clear to me at all, without a further limitation on
salaries of the personnel of the Department, whether or not this really
has any impact. But on the assumption that it will indeed have an
impact, let me just say that I am very opposed to putting such a
sweeping and substantive amendment on this legislation.
If the gentleman's intent is correct and it is worded correctly, he
would prevent them from administering funds for the Economic
Stabilization Fund but it does not spell out any conditions for turning
the funding back on. So it is just nothing in excess of $250 million
which, as we know, in modern day times is not a lot of money when you
are looking at trying to stabilize the currency of a country.
This is an overreaction, Mr. Chairman. It is an overreaction to the
concerns about legislative oversight of the ESF, which is considerable,
but it should not be a part of this bill.
The primary purpose of the fund is to give the Department of
Treasury, which has the expertise, the training and the institutional
knowledge to deal with an economic crisis, the ability to respond to
unforeseen shifts in currency markets.
Now, this is not new. The ESF has been around for over 60 years as a
vital tool for defending the American dollar and protecting U.S.
economic and security issues. It was critical in stopping the dollar
turbulence from 1987 to 1990, and the fund continues to be the
Department of Treasury's main currency stabilizing force. It has been
used again, as was mentioned by the gentleman from Vermont, in Mexico.
It has been used again in the crisis in Asia.
While it is important that Congress continue its oversight function
to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being properly administered, it is
completely unrealistic and unworkable for the U.S. Congress to
preapprove each and every use of this fund. Let me just give you an
example of this.
At this time, we have 37,000 troops stationed in South Korea. The
border area between the North and South is constantly on the verge of
conflict. The North Koreans certainly want to take advantage of any
weakness that they would see in South Korea, and that would include
economic weaknesses. Our troops, our men and women who are stationed in
Korea, would be in jeopardy from a national security standpoint if
there was a complete financial breakdown, an economic breakdown in
South Korea.
There is no way that Congress can convene to determine whether or not
to stabilize that economic situation on the spur of the moment. Given
the current economic crisis that we are seeing in Southeast Asia and
the recent saber rattling between Pakistan and India, this is not the
time to take away this important economic tool that the administration
has.
I cannot think of anything that we would be more ill-advised to do on
an appropriations bill, something as sweeping as this, as far-reaching
as this, and one which would have such an enormous economic impact. I
would hope this body would reject firmly and decisively the Sanders
amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the subcommittee chairman,
for his very sober and realistic comments on this amendment.
Let me start by saying that I have a very high regard for the
gentleman from Vermont. I am very fond of him personally. I think he is
one of the few Members in this institution who really cares about poor
people and working people. And if everybody had his heart in putting
them first, this country would be a far better place.
But I have to say I think he is profoundly wrong on this amendment. I
opposed NAFTA. I opposed GATT. Because I thought the way that they were
structured made workers of this country cannon fodder in the way this
country dealt with the pressures of globalization. But I have to say
that to require the Congress to have to preapprove every single action
taken by any executive before they could use the Exchange Stabilization
Fund would be a profound recipe for disaster.
Let me explain why. All you have to do is take a look at this
morning's newspaper, the first page of the business section, and you
will see that our economy in the last quarter has slowed almost to
zero. The reason for that is not because of anything that has happened
in this country. The reason for that is because of something that has
happened in a faraway place called Asia. And what we had there is a
series of currency collapses which have resulted in our inability to
export our goods to that market because they are in such a panic they
cannot buy things. And it will also result in the future in underpriced
goods coming into this country from those same countries, taking away
American jobs.
The best way to deal with that is to try to stabilize currencies.
Now, when the administration did that a number of years ago with
respect to Mexico, I had great doubts about it. At one point I even
cast a vote on this floor expressing those doubts. But I was wrong. The
fact is that even though I would have done it differently, we wound up
making money on that transaction.
I would point out that there would have been no way that we could
have responded to the emergency in South Korea if we had had to have
the prior approval of Congress before we did that. And the Asian
collapse and its effect on the U.S. economy today would have been far,
far worse.
The gentleman mentioned Indonesia. I, for years, have wanted the
United States to get rid of its relationship with the previous dictator
in that country. I supported amendments on both the Republican and
Democratic side of the aisle to eliminate military aid to Indonesia,
because I thought that that army was nothing but a butcher's dream. But
I would say that it is not wrong to try to stabilize the economy in
that country before their instability washes over our workers and
causes American workers to lose jobs.
I would make one further observation. I think anybody knows that if
we had to preapprove every executive action on this issue, that
decisions about the use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund would be
made primarily on the basis of politics and not economics. I do not
think that that would be a very great credit to this Congress or a very
great contribution to the country.
The Great Depression was caused not by the collapse of the American
stock market but by the fact that you had a successive collapse of
banks and currencies around the world, and the result was that our
Federal Reserve itself was frozen, as FDR said, in the ice of

[[Page H5700]]

its own indifference. And the result was a mess for years in this
economy and the world economy.
I think the amendment is well meaning, but I think the amendment
would be highly destructive if it were ever put into place. I would
urge the rejection of the amendment so that our Treasury Department
retains the capacity to move quickly to contain currency problems
before they become major crises.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I know this amendment is well intentioned, but I think
if it were to become the law of the land it would truly be disastrous.
The only thing that gives me some consolation is that it would not
become the law of the land because the President would veto any bill
that would contain such a limiting amendment. So I stand with the
chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), in the strongest possible opposition
to this amendment.
Rather than simply give my own words, what I would like to do is read
from a recent letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin.
Secretary Rubin wrote to the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee
with specific reference to this amendment.
He said,

Such an amendment would constitute an unacceptable
limitation on the Executive Branch's ability to protect
critical United States economic interests, and I would be
forced to recommend a presidential veto if the final bill
contains such restrictions.

{time} 1745

The original Economic Stabilization Fund statute deliberately
provided the executive branch with the flexibility needed to respond
expeditiously and effectively when justified by important national
economic interests. Because the nature of financial crises sometimes
requires urgent action to stabilize markets and protect the United
States' economy, it is necessary to act more quickly than is permitted
by the deliberative procedures of the legislative branch. This is
particularly true in today's large, fast-moving financial markets.
To take just one recent example, the Economic Stabilization Fund
permitted the United States, with broad international cooperation, to
participate in a critical, highly time-sensitive Christmas Eve effort
to forestall financial default in Korea, where 37,000 American troops
are stationed. The economic and national security consequences of a
Korean default were clearly unacceptable risks for the United States,
and the availability and flexibility of Exchange Stabilization Fund
resources were indispensable to our stabilization efforts.
Let me make clear that we fully accept our responsibility to account
to Congress for our actions under the ESF statute. Treasury submits
detailed monthly reports on ESF transactions to the banking committees,
and the President submits an annual report to the Congress. We believe
strongly that our past use of the ESF, as well as any potential use as
intended in the Asian crisis, is prudent and consistent with the spirit
and letter of the law.
He urges then the Congress to preserve the ESF statute and reject
this amendment.
My colleagues, this is not only the position of this Secretary of the
Treasury, this is the position of every single past Secretary of the
Treasury, regardless whether conservative, Republican, or liberal
Democrat, and every single President.
We are not talking about the IMF now, we are talking about the
Exchange Stabilization Fund. This is an essential tool. We would no
more send our troops into combat saying that they could not expend more
than $250 million in a military action without congressional approval
than we would say, when it comes to an economic crisis, the
administration is prevented from acting unless there is prior
congressional approval. That simply would not work. We would be the
laughing stock of the world. But more than being the laughing stock of
the world, we could precipitate an even worse international crisis than
anything we have ever encountered.
We are the world's not only military superpower, we are the world's
only economic superpower right now and we need the weaponry of the ESF,
the Exchange Stabilization Fund, to fulfill this important role. Please
reject this amendment.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
My good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), should
read the amendment. The amendment says that we cannot give $250 million
in a giveaway or a loan. We can still go out and prop up the currency.
So I do not know if the gentleman perhaps did not read the amendment,
but what we are talking about is should our government have a slush
fund and go out and give away money; make loans. That is what we are
talking about. So I rise on behalf of the amendment, an enthusiastic
cosponsor.
Basically, let us take this analogy. Let us say that tonight we
decided to form a limited partnership or a corporation. We all sat down
and we each put up $100. We elected a president and a secretary. And
for tonight, that case would be President Clinton, would be our
President, and our secretary would be Rubin. We would put all our money
in a pot.
Well, after about 10 years we find that the President and the
secretary have a slush fund beyond the money that was reported to us,
and they want to use this money as a giveaway. Not only do we have the
President and the Secretary of Treasury doing this, in terms of just
giving the money as a loan, or giving it away as foreign aid without
approval from us or Congress, they now have a slush fund which he
accumulated to a point when it is $38 billion.
So the question we are talking about tonight, do we want our
Congress, that represents the people, to control giving away more than
$250 million? Do we want our Congress to control loans of more than
$250 million? I submit the answer is yes.
That is all we are asking tonight. We are not saying that the
Exchange Stabilization Fund cannot prop up currencies. Good Lord, the
President has the IMF; he has the World Bank. Is it not proper for
representatives of Congress, who are elected by the people, to control
money as foreign aid; and as loans? Should we not, before we give away
$300 million, a billion dollars, have the approval of the taxpayers; or
in this case this little group of people that meets tonight to form
this limited partnership or this corporation?
So I rise in strong support of this amendment. Our colleague here on
our side offered this amendment in 1995. It passed overwhelmingly, and
then, of course, it expired. So what we are asking tonight is not a big
deal. We are just asking to reinforce our past policy and to extend
this policy. This is what this amendment does.
I think it was mentioned earlier that the ESF was established in
1934. Let us go back to what its purpose was: to give the U.S. adequate
financial resources to counteract the activities of the European fund.
Now, the fund was established with $2 billion appropriated from profits
realized from the revaluation of U.S. gold holdings. But slowly,
through history, this limited partnership, this corporation, this
country in this case, was successful, and they have more and more
money, and they have perverted the original idea of just using it for
stabilizing funds. They are now the supreme power today and now just
give away our money. They have their own foreign aid slush fund. Their
own bank which operates without U.S. citizens consent.
All we are saying is, listen, if we are going to give away money to a
sovereign nation, or we are going to make a loan, just come back and
ask the taxpayers for approval. Because this little group that meets,
or these 260 million Americans, would like to know what you are doing.
It is constitutional in fact. The Exchange Stabilization Fund, when it
gets this big, $38 billion, its mission is going to change. It will be
all over the park. It will be doing all kinds of things that are not in
the original mission. We are just going to ask for a little control
here tonight. It is an important principle.
And if the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), and others, are
really, really worried, what Mr. Rubin is able to do, he can still loan
$250 million today, then a month later he can do another $250 million,
and he can keep

[[Page H5701]]

doing this without coming back to Congress. Now, that is not the intent
of this amendment, but he can skirt the process.
Now, the proponents will counter and they will say no nation has ever
defaulted on such loans. Well, do we bail out nations in order to pay
us back? Is that what we are trying to do tonight? Those nations go to
other sources and borrow more money. Is this an effective means to help
nations? The use of the ESF in this manner is truly unproductive and
repetitive. Not only is there IMF funds to help nations, there is also
the World Bank and, as I mentioned, the private sector. Most of us
believe in the free market. Why can't the private sector make the loans
and provide credits? Why does Secretary Rubin have to bail out nations
with an illegal slush fund?
Tonight, I believe we have an opportunity to change this habitual
practice, and I ask all my colleagues to support this amendment
because, in so doing, they are going to put a little control in this
slush fund so that no longer will the administration have their own
foreign aid program where they give away money. They will have to come
back to Congress. They can continue to balance the exchange rate in
case of emergencies, like the gentleman from New York mentioned in
Korea on Christmas Eve, but they cannot go out and just give money
gratuitously hoping to influence policy.
So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. Many of my colleagues
have pointed out in the process that the Economic Stabilization Fund
has changed since 1934, and I think that that is true. The world has
changed, and the role of the United States today, as the leading
economic power in the global marketplace, is very important.
I would think that my colleagues would be looking at the global
economy and looking at our mixed economy and the free enterprise system
and marketplace values that we have advocated, and the success that
they are having on a global basis, and have a very great interest in
maintaining them. To adopt this amendment would be the military
equivalent of a unilateral disarmament.
The fact is I understand that many of my colleagues would advocate
such a free market situation that we would leave some of the countries
that are experiencing these economic downturns and turmoil to proceed
to economic ground zero. The fact is that almost anyplace we look at
the utilization of the Economic Stabilization Fund, as exercised
authority by the Treasury, with the approval of the President and past
Presidents and past Secretaries of the Treasury, anyplace we look at
that we find a lot of pain, economically, as is the case that has been
pointed out with regards to Mexico and the bankruptcy and problems that
have occurred. The ESF isn't loaning funds where it isn't needed.
But the question that one must ask themselves is what would it have
been like if we had let the hand of sort of an Adam Smith level the
entire country of Mexico and then start over. I am certain that none of
my colleagues are so duty bound to the ideological proposition or
theories of a free market that they want to see that type of suffering
occur in Mexico.
The fact of the matter is we are not just doing this to help the
Mexicans or the Korean government, as many of my colleagues talked
about the U.S. and IMF intervention since last December, but, in fact,
we are doing it to help ourselves that is the U.S.A. too. In other
words, this is the evolution in terms of how the U.S.A. intervenes and
how to assist a global economy and help our own exchange rates and help
other economies that has also evolved since 1934. We have a better
understanding of the global economy. And, of course, this Economic
Stabilization Fund plays a key role, along with other multinational
financial institutions that exist, which, of course, we are debating
broadly.
And, of course, there is great debate over whether or not the IMF
ought to receive the type of funding that has been requested by the
President. But this amendment of ESF is not just a new funding. This
attempt in this particular amendment is to renege, is to renege on the
existing powers and the existing authority and the existing tools that
the Secretary of the Treasury and that this President have in terms of
trying to deal with a tumultuous economic circumstance that basically
surrounds us in four different directions. That is what the effect of
this amendment is to deny and frustrate the ability of the U.S.A. to
play a vital economic role.
And, of course, to portray that we could deal with those particular
problems in $250 million increments is, of course, not a serious
effort. The fact of the matter is that countries right today, right
this week, as we pick up the paper and read about the type of loans and
the type of financial structure that had to be dealt with to prevent
the default of the entire country of Russia, I would think would bring
a little bit to reality; would bring us down to a little bit of terra
firma, right down to the ground, to where we can feel and experience
what is going on rather than being up here where we would pull the
tools away and let the chips fall where they may.
Is this a perfect tool? Is the IMF a perfect tool? I think the answer
is no. But the gentleman is offering to take this away and to
substantially reduce it to the point of being ineffectual and not
putting anything in its place. And, of course, I think one can point
out that some employees used this for dinners or did other things that
this money was not to be used for, but we get monthly reports on this
now. There has been an accounting and is an accounting that needs to be
the subject of our oversight committees.
But to pull this ESF down is to, in fact, set a course for an
economic spiral, a downturn, that would greatly hurt this Nation. So
the gentleman's amendment is not offering improvement, it is offering
pulling the plug out. Stop the world, I want to get off. I want to stop
this U.S. economy. We have to accept more responsibility than that, and
we ought to exercise good judgment by resisting and soundly defeating
this amendment.

{time} 1800

This amendment deserves to be defeated. We should not let them
unilaterally disarm our economic capacity. We ought to leave those
tools in place. We ought to be debating the IMF and trying to improve
on what the programs do and how they operate.
Yes, there is a lot of pain where the IMF is involved or where the
economic stabilization fund is involved, but not because of it. These
programs are the solutions to the economic difficulties, not the
problem.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, and this has been said several times but
let us say it one more time, this Exchange Stabilization Fund was
created by this Congress, by an appropriation by this Congress in 1934.
And our Nation, our Treasury, our taxpayer, that is taxpayer money,
that is money that belongs to the citizens of the United States. It is
not the Treasury's money. It is not the Congress's money. It is not the
President's money. It is the people's money. And presently it is $38
billion.
What this amendment says to this money which we can oversee, it says
that we will not loan more than $250 million of this money at any one
time to a foreign country. It does not place any limitations on us
using this fund for currency transactions. In fact, we had a currency
transaction 2 weeks ago by the Treasury. This fund is a fund to
strengthen the U.S. dollar.
And what did we use this fund for 2 weeks ago? We used it to drive
down the U.S. dollar and drive up the yen to enable Japan to be able to
export cheaper to the United States. That is what we used it for 2
weeks ago. We used it to help the Japanese economy and to help people
that compete against our businesses.
I was told, in opposing this amendment, the chairman of the
subcommittee said $250 million is not a lot of money. Well, let me say
this about the economy. Let me say this about protecting our economy.
And when the gentleman has time, I will let him yield to me and we will
debate. Let me say this about our economy.

[[Page H5702]]

Senator E.B. McLean came to my office today. He and I served in the
Alabama legislature. He told me that a company that had been in
Birmingham for over 100 years, employed 400 people, had gone out of
business 3 months ago, a coke plant. There were no Federal funds
available to help this coke plant. Had it been in Korea, we could have
taken money out of this fund I guess and propped it up because it would
have helped the Korean economy and that would have helped our economy
perhaps. But it failed. And he said it failed because of cheap coke
coming into our country from the Pacific Basin.
So I am not saying that we should not use all this money to go around
the country. And the President said we want to use $5 billion to loan
to South Korea; we want to loan $3 billion of this money to Indonesia.
I am simply saying, I do not think we ought to continue to loan this
money. It is not strengthening the U.S. dollar. It is strengthening
those economies. It strengthens their economies. And, yes, there is a
residual of benefit for us. But what if we had gone to Birmingham,
Alabama, and used some of that money to have assisted that coke plant
with 400 people that worked there? Would that not have helped our
economy? Would that not be a more direct way?
We can turn our backs on all this and we can say this is not under
our control and this $38 billion can be loaned all over the world. Or,
as representatives of the people, we can vote for this amendment and
say, if they are going to loan this money to foreign countries, which
was not the original intent of the Exchange Stabilization Fund, at
least vote yes or no.
They are giving away money, billions of dollars. They are proposing
it. If this amendment does not go on, the President has already
announced $8 billion worth of loans out of the Treasury.
Somebody talked about the Constitution, what is appropriate and what
is not. Let me quote section 9 of Article I of the Constitution. ``No
money shall be drawn from the Treasury but by appropriation made by law
by this Congress.''
What happened to the Constitution when we gave $20 billion to Mexico?
I do not care whether it was paid back or not. It was given to Mexico.
Did it help Mexico? No. Their GNP is worse than it was before the loan.
They owe $160 billion today. They owed $40 billion then.
We can continue to loan money to every country around this world,
Russia, China, Japan; and one day we are not going to have a fund to
bail out our own dollar.
Mr. Chairman, let me say this in conclusion. I am saying let us vote
on this. If we want to loan money to these foreign countries, take a
stand, vote on it. Do not turn our backs and let the President do it
without consent.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment. I do so for
many of the reasons that have already been articulated by some of our
colleagues; and that is, simply, we are being told that this
stabilization fund cannot do business if it has to get engaged in a
little bit of democratic process. And that is that we have a fund here
with $38 billion that was originally designed for the stabilization of
currency. We have had interventions time and again, many of which have
not been certainly questioned by the Congress, many of which have been
unsuccessful, some of which have been successful when they are
coordinated on a multilateral basis. But the fact of the matter is now
what we have is we have a means by which we circumvent whether or not
some of the activities that the IMF is able to do or not able to do or
willing to do or not willing to do and we are now making investments of
substantial amounts of the American taxpayer dollars. And we ought to
have disclosure of that, we ought to have debate of that, and we ought
to have approval of that.
Because we have moved out of the minor leagues in this day and age.
We are moving into now the movement and the quick movement of billions
of dollars. And depending upon the timing of that movement, sometimes
it is wise and sometimes it is not. And sometimes, as we see, the early
decisions about the commitment of those monies have turned out to be
the wrong decision. I think that it is time that this Congress have
some ability to have some say in this process.
This money is getting moved further and further away from the people
that provide this money, the taxpayers of this country. It is getting
moved further and further away from the decision-making process within
the Congress of the United States, who should be making the decisions
about the utilization of these funds.
That is what the Sanders amendment requests. This is not a unilateral
economic disarmament. It is nothing of the sort. This is not
surrendering. This is not recognizing that we do not have problems
around the world in various economies, whether it is in Asia or Russia
or elsewhere. All of that is still on the table.
What this suggests is that we ask people to come and be accountable
to the Congress for the decisions they make about the commitments of
these resources. Why do we do that? Why do we do that? Because if we do
not do this properly, even as we look at Asia and as we look at Russia,
if we do not look at this properly, what we become, we become the
enablers, we become the enablers of the flow of capital for people who
now go beyond reasonable risk, go beyond a reasonable return, go beyond
speculation. They head deep into greed. They head deep into greed with
the commitment of money by private sources; and then when it goes
wrong, they come back to the IMF, they come back to the Economic
Stabilization Fund, and they say they have got to bail them out. They
have to take our private decisions, many of which in the late stages of
these games in Indonesia or Malaysia or Korea or Russia were driven by
greed. They were not driven by economics. They were not driven by cost-
benefit studies. They were not driven by determination of market or
cash flow. They were driven by greed.
Now they want to make those debts, those private decisions, public.
But in order to do that, they need a partner, and that partner becomes
the U.S. taxpayer. I think the U.S. taxpayer has a right to ask us, as
though sitting on the board of directors, what the hell is going on and
what do you know about this.
Now, there is private meetings. The Secretary of Treasury and others
move through the corridors of Congress and they talk to this group and
that group and they say this is what they are going to do. But what
they do not do is they do not come out here and debate it on the floor.
Now maybe we are going to have that debate when the IMF comes up in
the next appropriations. But the Economic Stabilization is part of that
debate, because this fund has become something for which it was not
originally intended.
I appreciate we can put a very expansive decision on currency
stabilization. But most people understood that to be the kind of
traditional interventions. We are going way beyond that at this stage.
We are talking about loans being made to stabilize countries, many of
which I appreciate money has not been lost, but there is also a great
prospect that it will not be recovered on a timely basis for a
considerable period of time.
And it is about our job as Members of Congress, as elected delegates
of the people to have some say, to have some review, not just in
reports submitted to us months afterwards, but up front and before the
determinations are made about the commitment of money.
Maybe this fund should be reduced. Maybe there is another use for the
billions of dollars here. That is part of the debate, too. Because this
is about priorities. I think we all understand that we are going to
have to have commitments around the world to help stabilize the world
economy. But the size of that commitment, the timing of that commitment
and whether or not that is a wise plan, we should be able to exercise
some judgment, too.
That is part of democracy. That is part of democracy. They are going
to have the debate in the Russian Duma whether or not they want to
accept this plan and whether or not they think this is good for Russia
or is not. But we are already going to commit the money. We already are
going to commit the money. If we meet with enough people from the
Russian Duma, we wonder if any of this would be possible.

[[Page H5703]]

So the Sanders amendment is about democratization of this process.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. I would have to say
this amendment is a very modest approach to a serious problem. I see no
reason for the Exchange Stabilization Fund to exist. There is no
constitutional authority for it. There is no economic benefit for it.
It is detrimental to the people.
The reason why we have to support this amendment is it is a modest,
just a small step in the direction of openness in government, a little
bit of accountability, a little bit of oversight.
The idea that we can create a fund in 1934 and have essentially no
oversight for all these years, I just wonder how many billions,
probably hundreds of billions, of dollars that have come and gone in
and out and all the mischief it has caused. It was originally set up to
stabilize the dollar. And what does it do, as the gentleman from
Alabama mentioned earlier, stabilizes the yen.
Where did the money come from? It came from confiscation, not through
taxation, but confiscating gold from the American people, revaluing the
gold, taking the net profits, putting it into the Exchange
Stabilization Fund, as well as the initial financing of the IMF.
They tried to reassure us and say, well, this is not an injury to our
appropriations process. We do not appropriate money. We do not lose
money. Well, that is precisely the problem. We are supposed to have
responsibility. It is not the kind of amendment I want.
We should be talking about this in terms of a free society.
Certainly, if we had a sound currency, under a sound currency we do not
have all this kind of mischief going on. And certainly, if we had a lot
of respect for the Constitution and actually knew something about the
Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, we would say, where do we get this
authority to prop up other countries and other currencies at the
expense of the American taxpayers?
This amendment, if we want to give a lot of foreign aid away, this
does not preclude it, it just slows us up a little bit and makes us
think about it.
Yes, we can get into the currency markets to the tune of billions of
dollars. They say, well, there is only 38; they might not be able to do
any mischief. But my strong suspicion is that the line of credit to the
Federal Reserve is endless in the time of crisis.
This is why we need more openness. Because, ultimately, this is a
threat to the dollar. The dollar, when it is devalued, it hurts the
American taxpayer. It is a hidden tax. When we devalue the dollar, we
are spending money indirectly. We take away wealth and purchasing power
from the American people. And it is a sinister tax. It is the most
sinister of all taxes.
That is why the Exchange Stabilization Fund should either be
abolished or put on the appropriations process. If we cannot do that or
will not do that, we have to at least pass this amendment. Pass this
amendment and say, yes.
If we are going to give away $250 million per country for propping up
a foreign currency or foreign country or propping up some banks that
made loans overseas or propping up our competitors to our own
industries, we have to at least know about it.
I do not think this is much of an amendment. The fact that the
President threatens to veto this bill just because we are acting
responsibly, this is just a small step in the right direction. I see no
reason why we cannot pass this amendment.
We talk a lot about supporting the currency. On a day-to-day basis,
$1.6 trillion are transferred over the wire service. There is not one
reputable economist in this country that I know of that really defends
currency intervention as being productive and being able to change the
course of events. Because although $38 billion is a lot of money and
intervention does cause sudden shocks, causes some bond traders,
currency traders to lose money quickly, it has no long-term effect.

{time} 1815

So the original purpose under fixed exchange rate no longer exists.
There is no need to prop up a dollar under floating currencies. This is
used precisely to bail out special privileged people who have made
loans overseas, special corporations around the country, special
countries that are our competitors, and it is a way of getting around
the Congress, it is a way of devaluing the dollar, putting more
pressure on the dollar and hurting the American people.
If for no other reason, if my colleagues disagree with all the
economic arguments, there should be nobody that should disagree with
the fact that we have a responsibility for open government. That is
what this issue is all about, and that is what this amendment makes an
attempt to do is try to at least get it back to where we will be
responsible for our acts.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and would
like to try to get the debate back on the facts.
Let us remember for a moment that the original ESF statute
deliberately provided the executive branch with the flexibility needed
to respond expeditiously and effectively when justified by important
national economic interests. That was done in 1934 for a very real
purpose; it is just as valid today.
Two nights ago we in this body in 40 minutes time deliberated a bill
that was critical to making a multi-million-dollar sale of benefit to
American agriculture, wheat-producer-specific, yesterday. Forty minutes
we debated it. Thank goodness we did. We expeditiously handled it. That
is something that is getting overlooked now.
Many times, as we have heard the explanation of the international
currency market, we do not have the time to respond. We can talk about
our philosophical differences, which we are doing today, and I respect
those. But since the law's enactment in 1934, this flexibility given to
the President has served the United States well by enabling it to
respond to emergencies.
Consistent with this original purpose there is no need to amend the
statute because the nature of financial crisis sometimes requires
urgent action to stabilize markets and protect the United States
economy. It is almost always necessary to act more quickly than is
permitted by a deliberative procedure of this legislative branch.
Now the slush fund language a moment ago, I wish we would not use
terms like that unless colleagues are willing to say that the detailed
monthly reports on ESF transactions which are submitted to our
Committee on Banking and Financial Services monthly and the President's
submission of an annual report to the Congress constitutes a slush
fund. Do not use that kind of language unless searching for sound bites
for 20-second commercials. It is not a slush fund. The appropriate
committees are responsible for that. Mr. Chairman, I am not on the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, but I trust those on both
sides who are.
U.S. pledges of second line of financial support during the Asian
financial crisis have been an integral part of the international
response to the region's financial instability. It mobilized billions
of dollars in multilateral support, spreading the burden among many
nations, not just us. Japan has committed well over twice what we have
committed, for example, as the use of this ESF funding.
As in all such emergencies, the U.S. must be ready to act quickly and
nimbly to protect our interests.
We have talked about Mexico for a moment. Let us talk again about
Mexico. The use of the ESF during the Mexican financial crisis served
critical U.S. national interests by containing a rapidly escalating
financial meltdown that directly threatened the U.S. economy and the
stability of international financial systems. The use of the ESF was
not only instrumental in the ending of the crisis, but it resulted in a
profit of $580 million for U.S. taxpayers.
Now U.S. agriculture has benefited from the recovery in Mexico, and I
am here speaking primarily on behalf of U.S. agriculture, but it
affects all of our national interest. In the wake of the recent peso
devaluation and its aftermath, U.S. agricultural exports dropped by
only 11 percent, and they surged back with a 34 percent gain. And we
have heard all the anti-NAFTA et cetera, et cetera, but from the
standpoint of the facts, from fiscal

[[Page H5704]]

year 1995 to 1996, U.S. farm and food exports to Mexico climbed by $1.3
billion.
So to characterize ESF as somehow being a slush fund, a boondoggle,
as a benefit to everybody but the United States, I say to my colleagues
who are making this argument they are not dealing with the facts.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. What I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm), Mr. Chairman, is that in terms of Mexico between 1995 and
1997, after the so-called bailout, more than a third of Mexico's
businesses declared bankruptcy. We have one-third of the work force is
unemployed or in imminent danger of unemployment, nearly 2 million
peasants have been forced to migrate in search of work, real wages have
fallen almost 25 percent. If my colleague went to the Mexican Congress
today, they would not tell him that it has been a successful bailout.
They would tell him it was a disaster.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I am happy for the point the gentleman
makes. I am here on behalf of American interests. What he is saying is
what Mexico should or should not be doing. That was a question for
their legislative body to, in fact, address. I am talking about what we
ought to be doing, and I am making the argument it is in our best
interests to provide the President of the United States with the
flexibility needed whenever crises are involved and need to be
addressed; that is all that I am saying today. And I believe the facts,
as they have pertained to Southeast Asia, to Mexico and to Korea last
December all bear out the wisdom of the original congressional act of
1934, and I hope we continue that.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the amendment is a mistake. Yes, we have the
power to do this, but it is not sensible to exercise indirectly every
ounce of power we have. There are times when we may decide to get our
purposes accomplished better by some delegation.
One of the problems we have is we are talking here about emergency
situations. In emergency situations it is useful for this government to
have the power to react.
Now it could come to Congress, but let us be clear about one of the
major principles of legislation. The ankle bone is connected to the
shoulder bone. There is a pattern here of an important bill coming to
this body, and even more to the other body, and remember, this
amendment does not say the House will decide, it says Congress will
decide. So this means that nothing will happen unless it has gone
through this body and the other body. The fact is that it can then
become tied up with all matter of other issues. If, in fact, we think
there ought to be a capacity to act on the merits or not in the
particular financial situation, then saying there has to be an issue-
by-issue vote in both the House and the Senate makes that very
unlikely.
Now we have heard all kinds of terrible things that could happen from
this fund, but the opponents of the fund, the advocates of the
amendment, have said noticeably we have had this since 1934. Well,
where are the horror stories? Where are all the terrible things that
happened? We have had people say, well, billions could have been taken,
this could have happened. We got a lot of ``couldas'' and a lot of
``mightas'' and a lot of possibles, but we have no horror stories. And
one thing that body is good at is giving the horror stories. If there
had been abuses, we would have heard about them.
Now my friend from Texas, who is intellectually honest and coherent,
says that he is against the whole fund, he is a supporter of the gold
standard, he does not like this whole notion of currency. He is a
logical proponent of the amendment. But I would suggest that others
less fiercely devoted to the gold standard than he probably are not as
on solid logical ground.
I will say my friend from Texas was, I thought, uncharacteristically
a little inconsistent when he said on the one hand it is a terrible
idea because it propped up other currencies, but then he also noted
that according to him it is impossible to do that. So it may be guilty
of trying to do the impossible, but it could not be guilty of having
done the impossible.
The gentleman from Alabama complained because we use it to prop up
the yen. We propped up the yen because we wanted to stop the drain on
American exports. The yen was reaching such a dangerously low level
that it was threatening American jobs and jobs elsewhere.
Yes, it was very much in America's interest to prop up the yen. Using
the funds to prop up the yen was a very pro-American thing to do. And
does anyone think that we could have done that by saying, oh, we have
to have this emergency deal, and we are going to try and foil the
speculators; I know what we will do, let us have a Senate hearing, and
by the time we are through with this Senate hearing we will have foiled
the speculators. Of course it would not work. We cannot do that.
And then we have the gentleman from Florida, and he gave what I
thought was the strangest argument for an amendment I have ever heard:
Vote for it because it will be meaningless. Remember the gentleman from
Florida said, well, he can lend 250 today, and 250 next week, and 250
the week after. So that is a pretty odd argument for an amendment: Vote
for this amendment, it will not mean anything. It will just be more
game playing.
We are in a difficult world. I agree with my friend who pointed out
that the aftermath in Mexico was bad. But, as my colleagues know, what
we are forgetting when we deal particularly in the international world,
the most important principle of a great philosopher, Henny Youngman:
``Whenever you are measuring the effect of any particular policy in
this area, you have to remember the key question: Compared to what?''
Yes, there were terrible problems in Mexico after that problem when
we responded, but would they have been worse or better without this? Is
Kim Dae Jung and Boris Yeltzin, two men, and in one case there is some
imperfections, but two men who I believe are great devotees of
democracy, are they better off if we have to go through a Senate
filibuster before we get through?
Mr. Chairman, I will yield if the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders) is asking me to yield, or is he just going to look puzzled?.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) took the words out of my mouth. I appreciate his yielding.
Here is the point: The gentleman asks what might have happened. He
does not know what might have happened, I do not know what might have
happened. But this I do know; that the so-called global economy, of
which the ESF is an integral part, has helped lower the standard of
living of workers in the United States, lowered the standard of living
of Mexican workers, lowered the standard of living of the people in
Canada, has been disastrous.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I take back my time. The
gentleman was not responding to my question, and I have to say the
gentleman is articulate and thoughtful, and I take his nonresponse as
an example of the fact that no response is possible because my question
was the gentleman cited the problems in Mexico. My question was would
it have been worse or better? Yes, I am very critical of aspects of the
global economy, but the question is does the existence of ESF make it
worse or better, and I believe it helps.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders amendment. This
amendment prevents the President of the United States from using the
Exchange Stabilization Fund to bail out corrupt and incompetent regimes
throughout the world without so much as a vote of Congress.
We engage in this body in heated debates, heated debates, and we have
votes that put us on the record as the elected representatives of the
people of the United States on expenditures that just are in the
millions of dollars, just in the millions. We expect that each and
every one of us, because we are the elected representatives of the
people, must accept the responsibility of where those millions of
dollars are being

[[Page H5705]]

spent, and we will call for a vote to make sure that our colleagues are
on the record and so that the American people can make their judgment
about the job that we are doing in overseeing their resources, the
American resources, the use of Federal resources. Those are the
resources the American people.
That is the way it is supposed to be, that is what our Founding
Fathers expected, that is what representative government is all about.
Those who oppose the Sanders amendment want the President of the
United States to have, yes, a slush fund which he will be able to spend
up to $38 billion, as much as he wants, to send that overseas to
whatever regimes, whether they are corrupt or incompetent, whether they
are friend or foe, whether we believe it is in the best interests of
the United States or not, without so much as a vote in Congress by the
elected representatives of the people. This is absurd. I am shocked, I
think the American people should be shocked, to learn that we have
given the President of the United States that power in the past.
This is the most antidemocratic element that I have discovered among
the current procedures of our government, and I commend the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for trying to do something to put
accountability back in this democratic system and make it a democratic
system.

{time} 1830

What we have now with this stabilization fund is an invitation to
corruption and sculduggery. No, I cannot give you specific examples,
but I am sure they are there. But, often enough, we can rest assured
that this bailout money that is going to foreign regimes does not even
help the people of the countries who are in crisis.
Instead, like in Mexico, where billions of dollars were being spent
to supposedly get them out of a crisis, instead it got them further and
deeper in debt. And who was helped by that bailout? Much of that money
went to very powerful financial interests in this country, perhaps a
few powerful financial interests in Mexico as well. The victims are the
Mexican people and the people of the United States, who are put on the
hook without so much as a vote of the Members of Congress.
In recent years we have seen the stabilization fund, this
stabilization fund that was meant to protect our currency, used to bail
out Mexico to the tune of $12 to 20 billion, Indonesia, $3 billion,
South Korea, $5 billion, and, now, how many billions of dollars will
they want to take to bail out Russia? And where does this money go?
I am a member of the Committee on International Relations, and I can
tell you in Russia alone, not to mention Indonesia, we are not talking
about honest people over there. We are talking about people that would
have a tough time getting elected and reelected here, with freedom of
speech and freedom of press and some scrutiny. But, instead, we want to
grant the President of the United States the ability to send billions
of dollars over to those people, without so much as a vote in Congress?
This is absurd.
This is a fund, as I say, that is supposed to protect the American
dollar. It is not and was never intended to be a slush fund for the
whims of the President, so he can send it to people across this world
at his discretion.
This amendment makes sense. If the President is going to spend more
than $250 million of our money, we should have to approve it. I hope
the American people who are listening to this debate will take note of
who in this body is suggesting that they do not want to have the
responsibility to have a vote up and down on where billions of dollars
of our money is being spent. And when it goes overseas, these billions
of dollars, what does it do and who does it help? We are being told for
the stabilization of the world, this global economy requires us to
grant this power to the President, this power to give away billions of
dollars and to loan billions of dollars without the approval of
Congress. Who does it help? It does not help the American people.
I agree with the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). In the end, it
has helped people who compete with the United States for jobs. This is
a total violation and betrayal of the American people. Vote for the
Sanders amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders-Bachus-Miller-
Stearns-Kaptur-Burton-DeFazio-Rohrabacher Kucinich-Paul-Stark-Owens
amendment, and I do so for several reasons.
First of all, the amendment restores proper Congressional
constitutional prerogatives over the spending of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
These are our people's dollars. We have a legitimate role here to play
in the Congress.
This is a eminently reasonable amendment, because it basically says
the administration has latitude up to $250 million, not small change by
anyone's measure, but when you go over that limit, then you have to
come and seek approval by this Congress, simply because those dollars
are then used in order to assist foreign governments, banks, investors,
many who have no role in electing the Members here. There are serious
issues that we may have with those who would benefit from this type of
wealth exchanging hands.
Let me mention that this particular fund, the Economic Stabilization
Fund, was established by law in 1934, and its purpose, its legislative
purpose as written by Congress, is to buy or sell currency in order to
stabilize our dollar in current short-term crises. The fund was never
meant to be used for medium-term loans or long-term loans or to prop up
foreign governments, which is what it has been doing of late, to the
magnitude that is currently being used just in the last couple of
years, $20 billion, into the billions. It was never, ever intended for
that purpose. We have back-doored our way into this practice.
This amendment basically prohibits any administration from putting
billions of taxpayer dollars at risk in loans to other countries
without the explicit approval of this Congress. And we well know what
has been going on, whether we are talking about Korea or Russia or
Mexico. We are talking about speculative investment that has fueled
export-led development in those nations that cannot be sustained over
time.
I think the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) talked about the
need for IMF reform. I completely agree, because we end up getting in
these currency crises because the fundamental development policy is
wrong. It is unsustainable internally in these countries, and it cannot
be maintained.
We fight always to get a vote here on declarations of war, and it has
been hard for the legislative branch over the decades to maintain its
prerogatives under the Constitution. But that is not to say we should
not do it. The same is true with economic policy. Yes, we may have to
fight for our day in the sun, but, under our Constitution, we have that
constitutional responsibility.
This amendment passed before in 1995 by a wide margin. Two hundred
forty-five Members voted in favor of it. In fact, since that time it
has not blocked any kind of assistance where it was essentially needed.
So we are not trying to reinvent the wheel here.
I always wanted to say that it is very, very important that Members
think about where these dollars go, and is it not as important for us
to have oversight over billions of dollars that goes beyond our borders
in the same way as we have oversight of millions that flow within these
borders? We have GAO studies, and we have Congressional oversight
committees, and we have all kinds of staff studies to take a look at
where every single dollar goes in our health care financing programs
and so forth, our food stamps, our defense spending. Why should we be
any less rigorous when the money goes for foreign purposes?
We have received letters from leaders in the Parliament, for example,
in Mexico City, talking about the serious financial problems Mexico
currently faces because of the fact that the fundamental development
policy was never changed. But we end up trying to bail out the
speculators that prop up the real estate market and make investments
that are not creditworthy. We then end up using the ESF fund to try to
prop up a house of cards that cannot stands on its own.
In closing, I just want to read a couple lines from the letter that
came

[[Page H5706]]

from this particular Secretary of Treasury.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Kaptur was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say one of the arguments
that the Secretary of Treasury uses in the materials he sent to us
today say, ``The administration and any President needs these dollars
because of today's large, fast-moving financial markets.''
I want to say that that is exactly the reason that this Congress
should have oversight; that because in fact so many powerful global
financial interests have an impact on this marketplace, we in Congress
have got to be in tandem with those movements. We cannot absent ourself
from that process, and, in fact, we have to gain some leverage over
these major financial decisions that end up being political decisions
in the end, when we end up supporting certain financial interests in
other places.
The Secretary says, ``Treasury fully accepts its responsibility to
account to Congress.'' I would say Congress ought to accept its
responsibility to account to the American people. I urge the Members to
support the Sanders-Bachus amendment.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, we arm wrestle every day back and forth across the
aisle on domestic spending. We have got budget caps, and we have some
serious problems in this country. Even though the economics are
supposed to be good, as many of you believe, and I do, too, there is a
big difference between Wall Street and Main Street. There is probably
not a handful of times in the past 8 years that I have agreed with the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). Two times in one day, I am
starting to question my own rationalization.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, me, too. We
will not tell anybody.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We will not tell anybody outside of this.
But the gentleman's idea is good. I also agree with the gentlewoman
on the fact concerning declaring war, there ought to be a limit, and
this Congress needs to have its position based on the Constitution, and
this is a good constitutional issue.
I thank the gentleman from Vermont. I think it is a very good
amendment.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I will not talk about the merits of it, but
earlier today we talked about a pay raise, and it gets so political. If
you think that it is political for the pay raise and demagoguery, this
amendment is tailor-made for demagoguery.
The gentleman from California just a moment ago said we are going to
be looking at how people vote on this amendment. So there is room for a
lot of mischief. I am not speaking to the merits of it, but this is
something that could take forever if you had to go through the House
and the Senate. It is just a cautionary observation.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand what
the gentleman is saying. To me this is not demagoguery. This is good
economic sense and good policy, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) just said. I ask for support of the Sanders amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this proposed amendment, proposed proposition, puts its
finger on the pulse of a problem, but it is at this juncture very much
the wrong prescription.
We have a new set of problems in this world economically. Fifteen
years ago globalization meant our trade with Europe and Japan. In the
last decade it has meant our trade relations with developing economies,
and that is increasingly so since we voted on this 3 years ago.
It has created all kinds of new issues. We do need new rules of
competition. We are dealing with economies that are very different from
our economy, and they have all kinds of subsidies, and they have all
kinds of different labor market rules. They have all different kinds of
rules, period. We need to face up to this, and we have not fully. But a
piecemeal or potshot approach to these serious problems is not the
answer.
We need a comprehensive set of policies, and we do not need slogans
like ``slush funds'' or ``giveaways'' or ``loans'' thrown all together.
The proposition with Mexico was not a slush fund or a giveaway, it was
a loan, under certain strict conditions, and the loans were repaid. We
made money on them.
We need to take a serious look at this. Three years ago we passed
this, but a lot has changed since then. We have lots of currency
problems with developing economies, a lot of them. Now Mexico is cited.
Look, we need more than just a few minutes of discussion here. I am
not sure history is going to judge the Mexico loan one way or another,
but I will tell you, I think there is a good chance it is going to be
judged as having been a good move by the United States. This is coming
from someone who feels deeply about the problems in terms of
competition with Mexico and what was their rigged economy and rigged
labor market conditions.
But to simply say we should not allow use of a stabilization fund
when the currency of another country threatens to go whacky and
undermine jobs in this country and because their currency becomes so
weak it is tempting to export even more their way out of their
problems, that is not the way to handle this. Contrary to some of the
debate here, we acted on the yen to strengthen the value of the yen,
not to weaken it; to make sure that they were less tempted to export
their way and flood the American market with cars and other products.
One gentleman from Florida said, well, the Secretary of Treasury can
skirt this by $200 million every week. What kind of an amendment is
this that can be skirted by the Secretary doing the $250 million a
week?

{time} 1845

Now, we in Congress need to look at this seriously. This amendment is
totally a piecemeal approach. It would handicap us when we need to act.
Currency problems are serious problems, and this would handicap us.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, does my friend understand that this
amendment has nothing to do and does not change in any way our ability
to deal with stabilizing U.S. currency?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is not true. It
does not limit all of our interventions in terms of the currency, but
it does limit us. It would have limited us in terms of action on Mexico
where there was a tremendous peso problem and there was a danger of
such weakening of the peso that it was going to have major
ramifications not only for the investors in Mexico, and I do not want
them to come out without some pain, but people in America who were
producing goods in competition with Mexico and did not want the peso to
drop so much in value it would be impossible to compete.
We need new rules of competition, not amendments that are piecemeal,
that are potshots, that may be good populist rhetoric, and I love the
gentleman's motives, the gentleman is serious about this. This is not
the way to attack the problem. I oppose this amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the previous speaker in the well
that we do need a comprehensive approach, but we are always told, this
is not the time.
The IMF fund has been languishing without replenishment from this
Congress because many of us have genuine concerns about the activities
of the IMF, and now we are being told we are in a crisis, we have to
fund it. We have been told that for months now. We are in a crisis, we
must fund it, but do not worry, we will reform it after we give them
another $18 billion when they do not need us for another couple of
years. Well, we know what will happen. Nothing will happen. This has
gone on time and time again.

[[Page H5707]]

The same thing here with the Economic Stabilization Fund. It is
always the wrong time to deal with this issue, we are being told. The
Secretary of the Treasury said, we are confronted with large, fast-
moving financial markets. He is right, and we need to do something
about hot money going around the globe, attacking everybody's currency
and destroying economies so a few people on Wall Street or in London or
some other financial center can get filthy, stinking rich. But we are
not dealing with that. It is not time to deal with that. Just pump some
more money into the existing system so that they can continue to become
incredibly wealthy, but do not worry, some day we will deal with it.
There are things we could do immediately. The U.S. could take steps
through the World Bank with conditions upon additional money to the IMF
to deal with hot money, requiring other nations around the world to put
in place steps to deal with hot money. The Tobin tax, a tiny tax on
this hot money moving in and out of countries, billions of dollars in a
single day, just putting a tiny tax on that could fund all of the
activities of the IMF, all of the activities of the World Bank, dampen
speculation, and stop tapping the taxpayers of the United States to pay
for all of the bailouts of all of these wealthy people, these
speculators around the world.
That is what this debate is about here on the floor. It is not about
the stability of the United States dollar.
This amendment leaves the President total authority to use that $29
billion any way he wishes to support the United States dollar or to
devalue the United States dollar, as was done recently by an
intervention by the United States Treasury. That is still here.
Although we have had people rise here on the floor and say, this would
impinge upon the capability; it would not. All it says is one cannot
lend the money directly, one cannot go around the Congress.
How did we get into this debate? Because the President was going to
come to the Congress for $8 billion for Mexico, they counted heads and
found out under those conditions there were not a majority of Members
in the House of Representatives who wanted to use $8 billion of
taxpayer money to bail out the Mexican speculators, both Mexican and
U.S. speculators who were in there getting incredible rates of return;
50, 100 percent rate of return on short-term investments, and they
wanted all of their capital back, too. They had already made 100
percent profit, but they wanted the capital back.
When Congress was a little reluctant to do that, concerned that we
ask the speculators to take a hit, not just the people of Mexico and
not just the taxpayers of the United States, the Secretary of the
Treasury went and took the money out of the Economic Stabilization
Fund, without the authority of the Congress. They say that they can do
that.
We are just trying to say now that we want to renew the provisions we
put in effect 3 years ago that says, if they are going to take more
than $250 million out of the Economic Stabilization Fund, our money as
United States citizens, that if it is going to be for purposes other
than defending or supporting or weakening the United States dollar, as
is seen fit by the Secretary of the Treasury and the President, that
they get prior authorization from Congress. That is not going to
threaten our troops in Korea. It is not going to threaten the stability
of Israel in the case of a war. It is not going to cause all of this
economic calamity. What it would do is begin to force people to reform
this system.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would pick up on a point my friend made.
Does my friend know what the interest rates in Russia right now are
when people are buying Russian bonds?
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, they went to 150. I do not know what they
are now.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, they are over 100 percent. These people
who are lending the money are running to the Congress and saying, fund
the IMF. Give the money to Russia so that we can make sure we get back
our money at 100, 125 percent. The gentleman is absolutely right.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
I also have a letter from a member of the PRD party in Mexico, and he
goes on at great length about the conditions that came out of the
Mexican bailout and the disaster it has been for the people of Mexico;
the fact that it did only bail out a few very wealthy people in Mexico
and banking interests and wealthy people in the United States and yet
has caused 20,000 small businesses to collapse and, I am told, economic
calamity.
We need to change these policies. If we do not adopt this amendment
tonight, we will never get them changed.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The Exchange
Stabilization Fund is being misused by Treasury to bail out foreign
investment failures. When some aspect of corporate foreign investment
policy fails, Treasury taps the ESF to cover over the failure.
Here is a recent example. In Indonesia, the International Monetary
Fund caused a run on Indonesian banks when it directed the closure of
16 banks there. A confidential internal IMF memo even acknowledged the
failure. The IMF caused the panic by making a bad situation worse.
So what does the ESF, Foreign Investment Failure Fund, do? Without
congressional approval, Treasury dispatched a credit line of $3 billion
to cover the mistake; $3 billion, without a vote of the Congress, and
we have long debates here over $2 million, $2 million as opposed to $3
billion, and this is just one example.
NAFTA caused a flood of U.S. investors to abandon their investments
in the U.S. for higher rates of return in Mexico. Then, the already
overvalued Mexican currency collapsed. Guess what? The ESF's Foreign
Investment Failure Fund was used again without congressional approval
to cover the multibillion dollar failure. Indeed, the ESF was used in
this way because Congress refused to pass a $20 billion package to
benefit the Mexican few at the expense of the Mexican people. The use
of the ESF by Treasury thwarted the will of the Congress.
What is this House all about, except being the government of the
people? The Constitution puts the legislative power in our hands. The
Constitution puts the power of the purse in our hands. The Founders
could not have envisioned a condition where the Congress of the many
would forfeit its constitutional power, its financial prerogatives to
an elite few. We are the government of the people, and we have a
constitutional responsibility to take control over a fund which is out
of control, and the ESF billions are way out of control.
The ESF's Foreign Investment Failure Fund is used to accomplish
policy changes that often make international financial conditions
worse. In Korea, important consumer and labor standards and regulations
were overturned as conditions for $5 billion in Exchange Stabilization
Fund monies from the U.S.
Koreans now talk about IMF suicides to characterize the wave of
suicide among jobless and hopeless Koreans. Korean labor unions are
conducting massive protests and strikes. Without Congress's approval or
involvement, global economic policy is being forged for the benefit of
the few, with the funds of the American people as leverage.
This amendment, the Sanders amendment, will correct abuses, but it
will not tie Treasury's hands. If Treasury needs to stabilize another
country's currency, it will be able to use the ESF to do so,
unilaterally and without Congress's approval. The amendment allows
Treasury to do currency swaps and other currency stabilization aids
without congressional approval, but if Treasury is making a large loan
to another country, they will have to come to Congress, which is the
only appropriate process, given the American system of checks and
balances.
This amendment is nearly identical to one that Congress passed in
1995. Many of my fellow Democrats voted for that amendment then.
Unfortunately, the authority of that provision lapsed in October, 1997.
Today, we need to repeat the corrective action.

[[Page H5708]]

So long as the ESF is used to extend credit or to give loans to
foreign nations without Congress's approval, these foreign investment
failures will get larger, and they will become more frequent. More of
the U.S. Treasury will be exposed to paper over them, benefit foreign
elites, bail out global banks and underwrite austerity, joblessness and
hopelessness for a majority of ordinary people around the globe.
Congress, take back your authority. Vote ``yes'' on the Sanders
amendment.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to sit and listen to all
of the debate this afternoon on this issue.
This has been a debate dealing with really two issues. One is process
and the other is policy.
With respect to the process, it is really unworkable, but if we are
going to apply it to this, we should apply it across the board. We
should apply it to the Federal Reserve, which my colleague may actually
support, and what they do to enter the market to support the dollar and
to effect interest rates, and the excess funds of the Federal Reserve,
which is an entity of the U.S. Government and thus the taxpayers. So
perhaps we should do it with that.
Perhaps we should look at every loan guarantee made by OPIC and the
Eximbank and have every single loan guarantee approved by Congress;
every action taken by the commodity credit corporation approved by
Congress.
The fact is, it would be unworkable; and the fact is that we already
have the process in place. As a member of the authorizing committee,
along with the sponsor of the amendment, we have the opportunity to
review what the Exchange Stabilization Fund is doing, or what the
Treasury Department is doing, what the ESF, just as the appropriators
do, just as we do with every other type of function that we have.
With respect to policy, this was a bad idea in 1995, and it is a bad
idea today.
I think we need to also clear up some of the rhetoric that has been
said on the floor. Some of it has bordered on xenophobia, but I think
that the sponsor of the amendment is very sincere in his approach, and
while we disagree on this, I think that his is a question of policy
over global economics and where we are going, some of which is in our
control and some of which is not.

{time} 1900

Let me address some of the rhetoric that was said. Our colleague, one
of our colleagues from California, talked about corruption in the ESF
program. Here is a report dated July 1, 1998, from the Congressional
Research Service. That is part of our operation here.
It says that there is no evidence to suggest that the Economic
Stabilization Fund has abused its authority. Previous ESF loans to
foreign governments were all repaid in a timely way, which goes to a
second piece of rhetoric that was stated about slush fund and
giveaways. It is very clear that always the process that has been used,
particularly in terms of loans, it has been loans. There have been no
giveaways to any countries, and in fact, if anything, the loans have
been above market.
There is a complaint as to why the interest rates are so high on some
of these loans. It is because these countries cannot get loans in the
private market because they have no liquidity, because there is no
confidence in their currency. That is why their loans are above market,
because it is the lender of last resort.
Then the question comes, why should we be doing this in the first
place? Why should we not be more concerned about a coke factory in
Alabama? I think we are concerned about the coke factory in Alabama,
because we are concerned about whether or not that factory is going to
be able to sell our product overseas.
Right now we have a situation in Asia which represents more than a
quarter of our exports. The fact that the GDP for the second quarter is
probably around zero, and potentially a contraction, is because we have
had a dropoff in our export business, and we have seen an increase in
our trade imbalance. So the last thing we want to do is to cut our
clients off.
If there is a currency crisis anywhere in the world, it affects the
value of the dollar. What is done with the ESF fund through the loans
that are made is part of exchange stabilization. It either directly,
through market intervention in supporting the dollar, or indirectly,
through market intervention in supporting the world economy and how
that affects of the dollar, moves in helping the American worker.
So this is really a bad idea. I think that it will probably pass
because it sounds good. It makes good politics, and the closer we get
to November, good politics tends to be more important than good policy.
But if the House was wise, it would reject this amendment, because
imposing this type of policy on the administration, the only thing that
we would be doing is saying that we are going to erect a mercantilist
policy in the United States at the expense of the American work force.
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to bring this debate down to one
which I think is very simple. The reason we need to oppose the Sanders
amendment and maintain the flexibility with the Exchange Stabilization
Fund is because it is important to protect U.S. working men and women.
It is without contention that in our economy, so many more of our
jobs in this country are becoming more dependent on international
market opportunities. We only have 4 percent of the world's population
in the United States. Ninety-six percent live outside our borders. Yet,
we produce 26 percent of the world's gross domestic product. It is very
clear that we are becoming increasingly dependent on the ability to
export our products, export the labor of the working men and women of
this country.
The Exchange Stabilization Fund plays a very important and critical
role there, because it can move rapidly to respond to financial crises,
which can restore confidence in those international markets, which can
restore confidence to those currencies and maintain their values.
That is important, because when we see the decline in the value of
the yen, that has the potential to make their exports more competitive
with U.S. exports. If we do not find ways to stabilize the yen and
other currencies, we are in fact jeopardizing the ability of the
product of the labors of U.S. men and women to be competitive in the
international marketplace.
I would also state that here we have a program that has played a
critical role, again, in protecting jobs in this country. It is one
that has not cost taxpayers one dime. We have not lost money on
utilization of the Exchange Stabilization Fund. In fact, when it
responded to the crisis in Mexico, it contributed to our budget by
adding $500 million that we derived from interest on those loans.
I ask Members to please oppose this amendment, in the interests of
the U.S. working men and women.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOOLEY of California. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take this opportunity
to thank all of those people who have supported this amendment, and
show my respect for those people who have been in opposition. It has
been a good debate. It has been an important debate. We need more
debates like this.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, there are three basic points that I
would like to make. Number one, I hope everybody understands that this
amendment does not stop the Treasury Department from stabilizing U.S.
currency. That remains, absolutely, as has been the case for so many
years.
Number two, I think there is an important constitutional issue. That
is, should we sit back and allow tens and tens of billions of dollars
from U.S. taxpayers being placed at risk without debate, without
discussion?
The third point that I would make is that if we pass this amendment,
it allows the Congress to become more involved in debates over the
global economy that my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dooley) has touched on.
I would simply suggest that if we look at the global economy, the
standard of living of American workers has declined over the last 20
years. People are working longer hours for lower wages. We have lost
millions of decent jobs.

[[Page H5709]]

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, just to
bring my comments to a close on my own time, it is clear that this
amendment would work against the interests of the working men and women
of this country.
When people talk about the standard of the working men and women in
this country declining, that is wrong. When we start evaluating in
terms of how many hours an average worker has to spend in order to
afford a house, to afford a car, to afford a college education, it is
much less today than it has ever been in the history of this country.
In part it is because of our ability to access international markets.
This measure, if it is successful in passing, will reduce our ability
to ensure that U.S. workers have the ability to be as competitive as
possible in the international marketplace, because it will allow this
country the tools to maintain currency values, which is absolutely
critical to our economic interest.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, in listening to the proponents of this amendment,
Members would think that we were a self-sufficient economy; that it
does not really matter what happens to other economies around the
world, whether it be Asia or Latin America or even Europe, and that, in
fact, our leadership role, such as it is, is dispensable, not
necessary.
Nothing could be further from the truth. We are all enjoying the
benefits of a booming economy, an unparalleled level of prosperity. But
how many people understand that at least a third of the economic growth
that we are benefiting from is due to international trade, and that
international trade is dependent upon the confidence of capital
investors in our global economy?
If they are not confident in the economies of other nations, they are
not going to invest, they are not going to put their money into those
economies in such a way that those economies will be strong and stable.
If those economies are not strong and stable, they will not be able to
buy our products. In fact, they could fall into such a desperate
situation that they will be forced to dump their products on our
marketplace.
If there is anything that could jeopardize the strength of our
current prosperity, it is an international currency crisis. If that
happens, it will be because we did not sufficiently respect and
appreciate the role that the United States is currently playing in the
global economy.
We are the leaders of the global economy. One of the reasons that we
are the leaders of the global economy is precisely because we have
these kinds of stabilization funds. Investors all over the world
understand that before an economy is allowed to collapse, the United
States is going to take the lead to stabilize their currency, to build
up their economy, to ensure that the rest of the international economy
does not collapse, because we understand our own vested interest.
I hope they are not giving us too much credit. I would hope that the
Congress of these United States fully understands what is at stake; how
important, how dependent the welfare of our constituents is on a
healthy global economy. If we vote for this amendment, it will reflect
a lack of understanding, truly an ignorance, of the role the United
States must play as the leaders of this global economy.
This is a terribly important amendment, not just because of the
specifics of the amendment itself, but because of the signal it sends
to the rest of the world. We have to send that signal. We have to be
the leaders of the global economy. We have to assume our
responsibility.
Not only have we the strongest military, a military greater than all
the other militaries in the world combined, but the principal reason we
are the global leader is because of the strength of our economy, and
the fact that we are prepared to do what is necessary to ensure the
sustained prosperity of the rest of the world, which is the marketplace
for our products today and whose economic stability will be the source
of our security tomorrow.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Sanders' amendment
to earmark $6 million of the appropriation in this bill for the
National Archives and Records Administration for the National Personnel
Records Center.
I am particularly pleased that this amendment is going to address an
issue that has been brought to my attention by the county Veterans
Affairs offices in my district. The issue relates to the timely
processing of medal requests which are critically dependant upon
documentation for military service. The National Personnel Records
Center is part of the National Archives and Records Administration and
houses all veterans records.
My office has been contacted by several veterans requesting an
original or a replacement set of medals, who have had to wait in excess
of two years for their request to be answered. The county offices have
had similar experiences. While my office advocates on behalf of
individual veterans and their families, and is happy to do so, there
appears to be a general pattern of problems in this area. Those
providing direct services to veterans on a daily basis in my district
are very frustrated and feel very strongly about the need to address
this unacceptable delay.
Let me give you three examples: (1) Wells E. Elston has been waiting
3 years for assistance from the National Records Center. (2) Edward
Hendy has been waiting for 4 years for assistance from the Records
Center. He is a World War II Veteran in poor health, and is entitled to
a Good Conduct Medal, an American Theatre Service Medal, and a
European-African-Middle East Service Medal with 5 bronze stars. (3)
Randy Marwede, Director of Ingham County Veterans Affairs, sent in a
request for a copy of his DD 214 and has yet to hear back--the request
was dated July 1996.
Our veterans gave us far better service than this--and risked their
lives to do it. They deserve far better from this country and the
government agencies who serve them. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 498, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont will be
postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Wicker

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Wicker:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

SEC. ____. LIMITATION.

No funds appropriated for the United States Postal Service
under this Act may be expended by the Postal Service to
initiate new nonpostal commercial activities or pack and send
services.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. The chairman of the
subcommittee has advised me that he will accept the amendment if I am
brief, and I intend to comply with that request.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with competition by the Postal
Service in nonpostal commercial activities, such as the pack and send
activities. The gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) had an
amendment that was closely related to it that was accepted by the
Committee of the Whole a few hours ago now. It dealt with fairness
globally.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, deals with fairness as it relates
between the Postal Service and small business, where, for example, a
small business has taken out a loan, it is a mom and pop operation,
they are raising their kids, paying their taxes, and here comes the big
behemoth Postal Service coming in to compete with them.
This certainly is not as strong as the committee language which was
stricken by a point of order, but it does send a message. It does say
that no funds under this act shall be used to initiate new commercial
non-postal services. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will be very, very brief on this. The gentleman is
correct, I do accept this. As he knows, and he and I have had
considerable discussions, I have considerable concerns about the
substance of his amendment, which was adopted in Committee. He did win
that fair and square.
This amendment has no real effect because it only effects funds in
this bill

[[Page H5710]]

dealing with the Postal Service. It simply maintains its place for the
conference. But I do have real concerns about the substance of the
amendment, and the gentleman knows that. But I accept this amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as a proponent of the United States Postal Service it
would be, I think, unseemly to oppose sending a message, and I will
not.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Saxton

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Saxton:
Page 109, after line 24, add the following:
Sec. 648. (a) Exception to Immunity From Attachment or
Execution.--Section 1610 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end of the following new subsection:
``(f)(1)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
including but not limited to section 208(f) of the State
Department Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. 4308(f), and
except as provided in subparagraph (B), any property with
respect to which financial transactions are prohibited or
regulated pursuant to section 5(b) of the Trading with the
Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 5(b)), section 620(a) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2370(a)), sections
202 and 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers
Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1702), or any other proclamation, order,
regulation, or license issued pursuant thereto, shall be
subject to execution or attachment in aid of execution of any
judgment relating to a claim for which a foreign state
(including any agency or instrumentality of such State) is
not immune under section 1605(a)(7).
``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply if, at the time the
property is expropriated or seized by the foreign state, the
property has been held in title by a natural person or, if
held in trust, has been held for the benefit of a natural
person or persons.
``(2)(A) At the request of any party in whose favor a
judgment has been issued with respect to a claim for which
the foreign state is not immune under section 1605(a)(7), the
Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of State shall
fully, promptly, and effectively assist any judgment creditor
or any court that has issued any such judgment in
identifying, locating, and executing against the property of
that foreign state or any agency or instrumentality of such
State.
``(B) In providing such assistance, the Secretaries--
``(i) may provide such information to the court under seal;
and
``(ii) shall provide the information in a manner sufficient
to allow the court to direct the United States Marshall's
office to promptly and effectively execute against that
property.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1606 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after ``punitive
damages'' the following: ``, except in any action under
section 1605(a)(7) or 1610(f)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) shall apply to any claim for which a foreign state is
not immune under section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, United
States Code, arising before, on, or after the date of
enactment of this Act.

{time} 1915

Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is clearly legislation on an
appropriation bill. It violates the same rule that I referred to so
many times today. While this may be a meritorious issue, it needs to be
dealt with in conference by Members who understand it, and it does not
fit the rule under which we are operating today.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members who wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, would it be in order for me to request the
gentleman to reserve a point of order in order that the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and I, who offer this amendment together,
might at least have the opportunity to explain the provisions of the
amendment?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, under ordinary
circumstances I would agree with that, but we have gone on this bill
for most of the day. We still have another bill tonight. Many Members
are going to be home. We are still going to be here dealing with
legislation until the wee hours. Under the circumstances, I feel
constrained to insist on my point of order.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, we can deal with it in a very short order
tonight or, having talked to leadership about this, we can go into a
series of hearings on this measure to try and determine why it is that
the administration is taking a position against the American people and
in favor of the government Iran.
Mr. OBEY. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members who wish to be heard on the
point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey directly
amends existing law. As such, the amendment constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
Are there further amendments to the bill?
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I would have offered, which I would
have done in a more substantive way, is an amendment which is intended
to correct a grave injustice that is being carried out by this
administration.
Mr. Chairman, on April 9, 1995, a terrorist act took place against an
American family in which an American lady died in Israel. Her name was
Alisa Flatow. She was an American student studying in Israel. She was
riding in a bus on a holiday in Israel. This wonderful lady is no
longer with us.
This is the vehicle in which she road. Hardly recognizable as a
vehicle of mass transit today.
The Flatow family came to me and to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pascrell) and to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and to
others and asked for help, because the American statute that governs
the activities of the Federal courts did not permit the latitude for
them to seek redress in court.
Due to the great cooperation of the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary and the chairman of the Committee on International Affairs,
we changed the statute to give the Flatow family the ability to sue.
Subsequently they did, and subsequently the Federal district court here
in Washington granted them a judgment in the amount of $247 million
against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
That was step one. It was important, but it was step one. And it said
to the Islamic Republic of Iran, if you commit acts of terrorism, there
is a price to pay. The Flatow family went back to court to perfect
their judgment, identified three Iranian-owned properties in
Washington, D.C. owned by the Iranian government, began to perfect the
judgment and get liens against the properties. And along came our own
State Department and our own Treasury and said to the judge, stop. You
cannot perfect this judgment in the form of liens against those
properties because there is another statute that gives us the ability
to stop you and we will.
And so this administration, in acting against the Flatow family and
for the government of Iran, is standing in the way of the will of this
body, which just a year or so ago amended the statute to give the
Flatow family the ability to sue, and is protecting the assets of the
State sponsor, proven in court to be the State sponsor of the death of
Alisa Flatow.
Now, the amendment, Mr. Chairman, that I would have offered would
have quietly taken care of this whole deal. As a matter of fact, the
Senate has already made it part of their Treasury, Postal
appropriations bill. And for the life of me, I cannot imagine why the
minority ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations would want
to side with the administration on the side of Iran against the Flatow
family in complete and utter defiance of the law that this body passed
and the President of the United States signed known as the Effective
Death Penalty and Anti-terrorism Act.
If it seems as though I am unappreciative of the treatment that we
have received here tonight, it is so. I believe this administration is
creating a grave injustice, and to some extent, at least by the actions
of the minority member, that injustice has been carried through here in
this body tonight.

[[Page H5711]]

I will have more to say on this in the days ahead.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, when I looked at the government's response to this
particular case in July of 1998, where lawyers for the Department of
State and the Treasury advised the court that the government would file
motions to quash each of the writs of attachment, we must rise against
the injustice.
In April of 1995, Alisa Flatow, who was then a student at Brandeis
University, from my district of West Orange, New Jersey took a semester
off to study at Jerusalem Seminary. She was driving on a bus, riding on
a bus in the Gaza strip when a militant suicide bomber drove a van
loaded with explosives into the side of the crowded vehicle. Sadly,
Alisa and eight other innocent people were killed by this act of
terrorism.
Alisa was a woman of great character, both in life and in death. And
those who received her organs can attest to the kind of generous woman
she was. Her heart was transplanted to a 56-year-old man who had been
waiting more than a year for one. Her liver was donated to a 23-year-
old man. Her lungs, her pancreas, her kidneys to four different
patients. Her corneas were donated to an eye bank.
We will not forget Alisa Flatow or the struggle and trauma her family
have gone through as a result of this heinous act. State-sponsored
terrorism cannot be tolerated. Not just in words we speak, but in
action. That is what the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) was
talking about. It simply requires that the Secretary of the Treasury
help victims locate assets of the Nation that sponsored the terrorist
act, whomever they are. It entitles victims to seize property so that
they can be liquidated in order to pay any judgments issued by a U.S.
court, and we have a judgment here, do we not? We have a judgment.
The measure is a good first step we took in 1996. We need to build
upon it so we can wage a real war on terrorism, not just of words.
In 1997, we passed another law that allowed victims of terrorism or
their families to sue for punitive damages, another step, another
action taken; not just words.
We heard the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) speak about the
rule that Iran must pay $247.5 million. Frankly, I would say to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) I am not interested on this side
of the aisle in kowtowing and boot licking those people who we think
some day will be our friends while they tolerate acts of terrorism and
do not do anything about it. Frankly, I am not interested in that. I am
interested in now, to send a clear message to the administration, to
the courts, to our friends and those who are not our friends, that we
mean business.
These are our citizens. These are our brothers and sisters. These are
our relatives we are talking about here.
This amendment, whatever form it takes, and it will take form, will
allow the Flatows to seize Iranian property, as the courts have
decided.
Those nations who sponsor terrorism must know that if they are found
guilty in a U.S. court, their assets will be liquidated in order to
serve justice.
Mr. Chairman, let justice be served today.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, since the proponents of an amendment that is not even
before us choose to discuss why they want to offer it, I want to
explain with all due respect why I objected to their offering it in
violation of House rules.
The story that they tell is a very disconcerting one, and there is
not a member of this body who would not like to do something about it,
but the fact is that this proposal has already been added to the Senate
bill. That means the opportunity to deal with this issue will be fully
present in conference and that means that there is no need to have it
added to this bill in the House in order to have this problem
considered.
There is a serious problem, however, if we had chosen to add it in
the House. It would have then been in both bills. It would not have
been subject to conference, and the problem is that there are
significant national security problems associated with providing this
amendment.
I would point out, for instance, that in a letter from the
administration, the letter indicates that this amendment would
substantially undermine the President's ability to use such assets as
leverage when economic sanctions are being used to modify the behavior
of a foreign state or in negotiations with that state. It said, for
instance, that if private claims were allowed to execute judgments
ahead of these assets, the President would be deprived of their use as
leverage to gain concessions from the North Koreans in the negotiating
process, because in their judgment this amendment does not just apply
to Iran. It applies to all kinds of other countries, including Cuba.
The administration also points out that the Supreme Court has
recognized the importance of the administration retaining this
authority in states. Quote, ``Such blocking orders permit the President
to maintain the foreign assets at his disposal for use in negotiating
the resolution of a declared national emergency.''

{time} 1930

They also point out that with respect to Cuba there are 5,911 claims
totaling $1.9 billion, but there are only $148.3 million in Cuban
government assets available to justify those claims. This proposal
would contribute to a first-come, first-serve approach, which would not
be equitable to those people who are left out.
So I would say that despite the distressing story that these
gentlemen are telling tonight, the responsible thing to do, since this
is already in the Senate bill, is to simply deal with it in conference,
when we will have an opportunity to measure whether or not the
administration's claims are in the national interest or not, and
whether or not it is wise to proceed to do what the gentlemen want to
do or whether we ought to do something else.
That is why I objected, because I think that is the most responsible
way to deal with it. I defy any other Member of this House to tell me
whether they have sufficient information to deal with all of the legal
questions involved in this issue. Obviously, they do not. And given
that fact, this is the time-honored way that we have to make certain
that if we make a foreign policy decision, we make it in a considered
way.
Besides that, I would simply point out that if the gentleman did have
an urgent request, he could have gone to the Committee on Rules and
asked the Committee on Rules to make this amendment in order under
House rules. It is not in order under House rules, and I did not vote
for the rule today, which made a lot of other legitimate issues beyond
the ability of this House to deal with at this point.
So for those reasons, I did the responsible thing and I make no
apology for it.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague for deferring to me,
and I just wanted to rise in support of what the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Saxton) was attempting to do. I very much regret that we
will not have an opportunity to have his amendment on the floor.
I listened intently to my friend from Wisconsin saying that it is in
the Senate bill and, therefore, we will have ample opportunity in the
conference to debate that. I would hope that in the conference we would
have ample opportunity and that we would adopt the Senate version and
bring it back to this floor with the Senate version so that the Flatows
can get what is rightfully due to them.
I am, frankly, not impressed with the language that this would
undermine the President's ability to use the assets as leverage. This
is the same sort of gobbledygook we hear all the time from many
different administrations or from the State Department whenever they
want to throw cold water on an idea. They always say it somehow
undermines the ability to have the President do this or that, or
undermines the ability of anybody to do anything.
We are the United States Congress and we make policy. We decide what
is right. And I certainly think that it is right that the Flatows, who
have gotten a judgment, I mean absolutely they

[[Page H5712]]

have gotten a judgment, this is not some theoretical thing that has
happened, they have gotten a judgment, and it is a disgrace that
somebody would prevent them from getting the judgment fulfilled.
As was pointed out by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), we
changed the law so that the Flatows would have the right to sue. We did
that. They sued and they won. There are three Iranian owned properties
in D.C. And I do not want to hear State Department gobbledygook or any
kind of gobbledygook. I want to deal in the real world. The real world
is that there was a terrible injustice that happened.
We say we are against state-sponsored terrorism. This is a chance to
put our money where our mouths are. It is all very nice to talk about
platitudes and just say things, but here is where we can make a
concrete difference. So I do support my colleague, the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), in his amendment and what he is trying to do.
And I want to commend him for doing it, because it takes a lot of
courage to do this, and he is doing the right thing.
I would hope that when we sit down with the Senate at the conference
and iron this out, that on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and
Republicans, we will agree that that Senate language ought to be in so
that the Flatows can go after that judgment and go after the Iranian
owned properties. We should not be protecting the Iranians. This
Congress has spoken a number of times in terms of Iranian assets and
the types of things that the Iranians have been doing, and there is no
way that we should condone this kind of nonsense.
So, again, I do not want to hear gobbledygook, I do not want to hear
nonsense, I do not want to hear about undermining the President's
ability. We are the Congress. We have the ability to pass laws and say
what is right, and we are not undermining anyone if we are saying
simply that a judgment has been declared and these people have the
right to exercise that judgment, which they won based on the right to
sue, which we in the Congress gave them.
So, again, I hope that on both sides of the aisle we can agree that
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), and what he is trying to
do, should prevail if the Senate language is in, and I hope we will all
agree to it.
Legislating on an appropriation bill. We hear that all the time, and
all of us know, on both sides of the aisle, that there is a lot of
legislating on appropriation bills. Sometimes we look the other way and
everyone is quiet and nobody says anything, and other times, when we
want to use that to get legislation out, to get language out, we use
it. It is very, very selective. It is not very uniform. And as far as I
am concerned, it is a bunch of nonsense. So we ought to put it back in
after we negotiate with the Senate so that the Flatows can get their
justice. And I want to commend my friend New Jersey for bringing this
to the floor.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I want to say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), and the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Engel), and others who have worked on this case, that this is
a compelling case. There is no doubt about it. And I have spent
substantial time talking about it. I have in turned talked with the
Treasury Department about it tonight very briefly, and not fully, but I
want to say that we are all agreed that this is a compelling case. And
although the language is not finally in the Senate yet, it is in the
committee reported bill.
There are some other issues involved. However, I am hopeful, and I
have talked to the chairman about this, I am hopeful that we can, as
the gentleman from New York said, and the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pascrell) said, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton)
said, resolve this so that the family, who has been grievously injured,
will have redress of that grievance. And I look forward to working with
the gentlemen from New Jersey over the next few weeks and the gentleman
from New York and the chairman toward that end.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I also rise with my colleagues to again discuss the
fact that we are unified in our bipartisan support in opposition to
state-sponsored terrorism. It is consistent with the Anti-terrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, as amended by the Foreign Service
Immunities Act, that we move ahead and make sure the verdict in favor
of the Flatow family moves forward.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just take a minute to say that the
arguments brought forward by the ranking member relative to
negotiations and relative to equity to perhaps other future litigants
are nice to talk about but have very little real meaning in this
situation.
With regard to negotiations by the administration, the administration
never was negotiating for these families. The negotiations that have
been taking place may have some other broader meaning, but they have
nothing whatsoever to do with the law we passed nor with the families
that have been affected by terrorist actions.
With regard to equity, unfortunately, in our system of jurisprudence,
as various types of cases come forward, whether they be bankruptcy or
other types of liability cases, there are people who choose to enter
into litigation early and there are people who do not. And those who
enter into litigation early, in our court system, are granted awards.
And perhaps assets are used up and are, therefore, not available to
others. So there is nothing unusual about this.
I would just like to conclude by saying this issue is not going to go
away. And I am speaking, yes, in terms of the Flatow case, but I am
also speaking in terms of the statute we passed which this State
Department is not enforcing and, in fact, is standing in the way of the
courts who wish to enforce it.
At the earliest opportunity, I intend to introduce a freestanding
bill to take care of this problem. I obviously intend to work with
Senator Lautenberg from the other body and Senator Stevens, who agree
with our position and have included it in their appropriation bill. And
I intend to take whatever other actions we may deem as necessary and
appropriate to affect the action that is just and due the Flatow
family.
In addition to that, I would just conclude by making one final point.
Terrorists operate around this world, and there is seldom a price to
pay. I thought in 1996, when we passed this law, we took a step in the
right direction in creating a price to pay. Whether it is the Khobar
Towers, explosions that occur in England or France or in the Middle
East or in this country, terrorists walk away scot-free in most
instances. This is a tool for us to use as a civilized society to
prevent acts of terrorism by letting would-be terrorists know that
there is a price to pay.
I regret deeply that the administration is standing in the way of the
law we passed and not permitting it to work. And I regret just as
deeply that we have not been able to affect a step in the direction of
correcting that inequity here tonight.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Morella

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 6 offered by Mrs. Morella:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) An Executive agency which provides or proposes
to provide child care services for Federal employees may use
appropriated funds (otherwise available to such agency for
salaries) to provide child care, in a Federal or leased
facility, or through contract, for civilian employees of such
agency.
(b) Amounts so provided with respect to any such facility
or contractor shall be applied to improve the affordability
of child care for lower income Federal employees using or
seeking to use the child care services offered by such
facility or contractor.
(c) The Office of Personnel Management shall, within 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act, issue
regulations necessary to carry out this section.
(d) For purposes of this section, the term ``Executive
agency'' has the meaning given such term by section 105 of
title 5, United States Code, but does not include the General
Accounting Office.

[[Page H5713]]

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, this amendment
is clearly, again, legislating on an appropriation bill, and I am
reluctant to do so, but I do not feel that I have any choice under the
same rule I cited many times today on legislating on an appropriation
bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist on making his point of order
at this time?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the point of order, but,
again, we are going to be a long time tonight. And if we are going to
spend hours debating amendments that the majority has helped make
nongermane in the first place, I do not see much sense in it. So I
would reserve for 5 minutes a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
The gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) is recognized for 5
minutes in support of her amendment.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully note that when we talk
about debating issues, I have waited 6 hours because I think this is
important, this particular amendment, which is at the desk. It is very
simple and I would like to explain it. It would allow agencies to use
their own salary, their own expense accounts, to help Federal employees
pay for child care.
I have worked with the Office of Personnel Management to develop this
legislation, and I have been requested to do that because several
agencies, including the Social Security Administration, the Department
of Justice, the Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel
Management, have requested such authority from OPM. OPM cannot grant
this authority so we must legislate this very simple change.
Now, this amendment does not require any additional appropriation. It
would be up to individual agencies to determine whether or not to use
funds from their salary and expense appropriations to help to provide
child care. Agencies, and not the employees, would make payments to
child care providers to help lower-income Federal employees pay for
their child care.

{time} 1945

Such child care benefits are already being provided to military
employees with a separate line item, which is more than what my
amendment would provide.
The Department of Defense, one of the agencies seeking such authority
to help its employees with child care costs, has pointed out that they
can provide child care benefits to their military employees but not the
civil servant working side by side with them.
Many Federal employees are caught in a serious child care crunch. A
recent study showed that one-quarter of all Federal workers had
children under the age of 6 that need care at some time during the
workday. And during a recent hearing in the subcommittee of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), testimony revealed that some
Federal child care facilities charge up to $10,000 or more per child
per year. Many Federal employees just cannot afford that kind of
quality child care, and yet the demands we make on them are enormous.
So by giving the agencies simply the flexibility to help their
workers meet their child care needs, we will be encouraging family-
friendly workplaces and higher productivity. I hope that that will not
be ruled out or order.
This is an amendment that has been approved by the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Civil Service as well as the chairman of the Committee
on Government Reform and Oversight. I went to both of them. They both
feel that this is an appropriate opportunity to simply put in an
authority that is so important.
Decisions have been made today about what is in order and what is not
in order. To me this is a very simple, noncontroversial amendment that
is very important, that really is going to help in this country with
the productivity of our Federal employees. I hope that we not rule it
out of order.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Morella amendment.
I think it is a worthy cause to give our Federal employees the
opportunity to use funds that have not been depleted in our Federal
budgets, to use it for tuition, for day-care, for our Federal employees
who find it very difficult on many occasions to find credible day-care
facilities. And I think that this is an outstanding method for helping
our Federal employees, and I want to urge my colleagues to support it.
I hope the chair will not rule it out of order.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment proposed by my
colleague, the gentlelady from Maryland, Ms. Morella. This amendment
allows funds appropriated to executive, legislative, or judicial
agencies which provide child care, to establish a tuition subsidy
program for Federal employees whose dependents are enrolled in child
care.
I have been working on a legislation that would require Federal child
care centers to at least meet the standards of the State in which they
are located. Representative Morella's amendment is a significant step
in the positive direction toward increasing the availability of quality
child care for Federal employees.
If the already appropriated funds are not fully depleted, there is no
better way to use the excess money than in assistance for Federal
employees. Many Federal employees find themselves in a difficult
situation when it comes to finding affordable day care, especially when
some Federal child care centers charge up to $10,000 or more per child
per year. Many categories of workers simply cannot afford to send their
children to an accredited center and this puts their children at
serious risk.
There have been too many incidents of injury and death due to
inadequate child care. A subsidy program would allow the dependents of
Federal employees to be in a safe, affordable environment in accredited
centers, while staying within the financial parameters established by
the already appropriated funds.
The Department of Defense already has a similar program. Military
employees are provided child care benefits, but the civil employees
working beside them cannot receive these same benefits. We should
provide a model for private industry by enabling our Federal agencies
to assist their employees with the evergrowing costs of child care.
This amendment will send a clear message to families, businesses, and
day care providers across the country that we are committed to
protecting our children and providing them with safe, affordable, and
quality day care. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the
Morella amendment.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Gilman) has been here all afternoon also because he
feels this is such an important amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) insist on
his point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
I am sure that there are some people who are being hoisted on their
own petard when they insist on points of order only to subsequently
realize that there are some things that they really want added to an
appropriation bill and are not able to add due to the same point of
order problem.
The gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), however, voted against
the restrictive rule on this bill and I know has consistently supported
child care, I doubt she has ever voted to cut child care. And I
strongly agree with the intent of this amendment. I think we should
allow Federal agencies the discretion to use their administrative
expense money to provide child care for their employees.
Between 1975 and 1994, over the last 20 years, the number of women in
the labor force with children under the age of 6 increased from 39
percent to 60 percent. And more than half of all the children in this
country under 1 year of age and more than 12 million children under the
age of 5 are regularly in the care of someone other than their parents.
Think about that. Most of the children in this country under 1 year of
age do not have their parent at home because their parents need to be
in the workforce.

A recent study shows that one out of every four Federal employees
needs child care daily. Access to quality, affordable child care has
become a number one issue for many parents across the country,
including Federal employees. As a responsible employer, the Federal
Government should be working to improve access to, and the
affordability of, child care for its employees.
In Congress, we have been working to find ways to encourage private
businesses to do just that. If we look at our

[[Page H5714]]

own record, we are doing a pretty good job. There are 1,400 private-
employer-provided child care centers throughout the United States. But,
by comparison, the Department of Defense has 850 centers for its
enlisted employees, another 200 more for DOD civilian employees. But we
can do much better by allowing all Federal agencies to provide child
care assistance to all their employees.
In exchange for being a responsible employer, we have the added bonus
of increased productivity because available child care will decrease
the number of missed work hours that are lost due to child care crises.
We also have the lure of quality, affordable child care that we can use
in acquiring and retaining the best possible employees to work for our
Federal Government.
DOD has been successful in providing sliding-scale fee care on
location to parent employees. But other Federal agencies have been
strictly prohibited from funding such a program even by simply
providing an on-site facility with electricity and furnishings. They
are prohibited.
That is the reason for this amendment. The Morella amendment would
not force agencies to provide child care but would allow agencies to
use their own administrative funds at their own discretion to provide
care or tuition assistance. Because the amendment does not require an
additional appropriation, it does not impact the budget at all.
In addition, any profits that a facility might be able to acquire
could be used to make child care more affordable for lower-income
employees. Over the past several years, we have made tough choices,
along with great progress, in cutting Federal expenditures and
achieving fiscal responsibility in the budget. But along with this
responsibility, we have asked the private sector to do their part in
being responsible citizens, particularly as employers, by providing
benefits such as health care and child care to their employees.
It is time for the Federal Government to step up to our
responsibility as employers by allowing Federal agencies the discretion
to provide child care to their employees. And, for that reason, this is
a good amendment, and I would hope that we could find a way to make it
in order to allow Federal agencies to exercise their discretion for the
benefit not only of their employees but for all the people who will be
better served by their Federal employees.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) insist on
his point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, and
I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I would very much like to support this amendment. I
happen to agree with the substance of it. And I very much would like to
have had a rule on this bill today which would have allowed us to
consider many issues that were in the interest of the country to
consider.
The rule that was adopted today on this bill eliminated our ability
to deal with one of the most serious emergencies we have had
domestically in a long time, the computer problem in the year 2000,
which threatens the ability of the Government to deliver Social
Security checks, Medicare checks, veterans checks to millions of
deserving and entitled Americans.
The rule that was adopted by the majority today is a lousy way to do
business. It meant that 80 percent of the dollars in this bill were
made vulnerable to points of order. It meant that we could not consider
in a fair way the amendment that the committee had adopted on a
bipartisan basis on family planning.
Every Member has an amendment which they think is so important it
ought to be an exception to the rule. But I would simply say to my
friends on the majority side of the aisle, when you live by the sword,
you die by the sword.
It just seems to me that it is not fair, after the majority has
imposed on this House a rule which has precluded us from dealing with
many serious issues that should have been dealt with today, it is not
fair for Members to then get up and say, oh, but I have one that should
be made an exception.
Now, I wish I could support this amendment, but the fact is that,
under the rule adopted by the majority, this amendment violates the
rules of the House. And I would say that at the same time that this
offers token support for expanded child care, the majority has largely
ignored the President's entire child care initiative, which would have
greatly expanded the affordability and the quality of child care for
all working families, not just Federal employees.
The Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education,
the majority in that subcommittee, did not provide any of the
President's funds requested to improve child care quality under the
child care block grant program. They funded only one-quarter of the
Head Start slots of the President's requested program. And they level-
funded the child care development block grant, despite the fact that
only one in eight eligible children are served.

So, I take a back seat to no one in my concern about child care. But
if I am to be consistent, I have to apply the rules to all Members. I
did not make this rule. I asked the House not to adopt it. But they
did, and now it seems to me they have no choice but to live with the
consequences.
Even in the United States Congress, people need to occasionally have
to live with the consequences of their own actions. And while I
recognize that the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) did not
vote for that ill-advised rule, it was imposed on us by her party.
And under those circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I do make a point of
order against this amendment. I continue to reserve the point of order
momentarily.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a good amendment. I wish that it were
in order, and I would vote for it. And I wish perhaps that we were not
going to object. But we are. And I understand the ranking member's
position. I, too, was adamantly opposed to this rule.
I am concerned, as I know the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs.
Morella) is concerned, that we are designating salaries as the funding
source here because we are squeezing salaries. And the gentlewoman from
Maryland and I regretted that we lost a very important part of this
bill as a result of an objection from one of the Members, over her
objection and mine.
But we need to pursue this issue. We need to make sure that the
Federal Government, as the gentleman from Virginia and the gentlewoman
from Maryland have pointed out, is in fact a model employer.
My district is, I do not know the most but one of the most child-
care-dependent districts in America because we have a lot of parents
with a number of children who are either a single mother working or a
single dad working or both parents working, so that child care is a
necessity. And, of course, the Federal Government is the largest
employer in our area.
So this is a critical necessity, not a luxury, not an optional
requirement for families not just in this area but around the country.
So that I congratulate the initiative that has been shown here, regret
that I cannot vote for it at this point in time and hope that we will
be able to support it and have it on the floor as soon as possible, and
certainly we will support it at that time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I regrettably, but nonetheless, continue to
reserve my point of order.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. Let me just say that
one of the most important parts of raising my two sons to become
productive young men was the ability to find affordable and quality
child care. But let me tell my colleagues, it was very, very difficult
to find such services. The waiting lists were too long. The child care
facilities were so far away from school or work, and the costs were
barely affordable.

{time} 2000

Now this was in the 1960s and in the 1970s. Here we are in 1998, and
rather than improving the availability of child care, it has become
very, very difficult because, of course, wages have not kept up with
inflation. We still have not figured out a way to ensure good and
affordable child care for our Nation's children.

[[Page H5715]]

It is a truism and a cliche, but nevertheless it is an universal
truth, that our children are our future. Treat them well, treat them
with love, attention and respect, and they have an excellent chance to
become solid citizens of tomorrow.
When we abandon our children to inadequate and substandard child care
because we cannot obtain or pay for the appropriate care, we
disadvantage and even incapacitate young people. We also run the high
probable risk that we raise adults who have little commitment to their
parents and to their society.
It is a persistent national problem that continuing low wages,
especially for child-bearing-age women, coupled with understandably
high cost of child care, quality child care, produces a terrible
dilemma within which mothers and fathers are too often caught. In 1996,
62 percent of mothers with young children were in the work force; in
1990 it was 58 percent; in 1980 it was 47 percent; in 1970 it was 32
percent, and these numbers will continue to grow. But reliable
professional teachers and nurturers of young children are not available
for the substandard wages that we pay our child care providers, nor
should they be.
So this amendment is a significant step that we can take to really
help begin to alleviate this pressing need. It is an all-around winner.
It matches the willingness of the Social Security Administration, the
Department of Justice, the Department of Defense and the Office of
Personnel Management to use their salary and expense accounts to help
Federal employees to pay for child care. It is very simple.
So I ask my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to vote yes on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Morella amendment to the FY 99
Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. I commend the gentlewoman from
Maryland, Representative Morella, for her efforts here today in
assisting our Nation's Federal employees with the high cost of quality
child care. Although the amendment has been stripped on a point of
order I hope that the final version of the bill will contain the
childcare provisions.
Currently, child care costs for the average family can range between
$4,000 and $10,000 a year--the same amount as college tuition at some
public universities. In fact, some Federal child care facilities charge
up to $10,000 or more per child per year. Most Federal employees simply
cannot afford child care at these high prices.
The Morella amendment would allow Federal agencies to make payments
to child care providers to help lower income Federal employees meet
their child care needs. Since it is the decision of the individual
agency to determine whether to use funds from their salary and expense
accounts, this amendment does not require any additional appropriation.
These same child care benefits are already being provided to military
employees.
While finding affordable, quality daycare is a basic concern and
serious dilemma for most working families, it is of special concern to
Federal employees, who often work in service to the public for low pay
and long or unusual hours. I urge my colleagues to vote ``Yes'' on the
Morella amendment.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, the Denver Federal Center is situated
comfortably at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, about one-half hour
away from downtown Denver, Colorado. Roughly 5,500 federal employees
are employed at this facility, many of whom are raising small children.
The Morella amendment would make a simple but profound change in the
lives of these individuals--it would make quality child care for their
children more affordable.
The amendment before us today would permit the Office of Personnel
Management to redraw its regulations so that all federal agencies could
use existing funds to subsidize child care costs for federal employees.
In the case of this amendment, a little would truly go a long way.
Lower-income employees all around the country could get the necessary
assistance to seek out and pay for local area child care programs. At a
time when child care costs often exceed $10,000 per child per year, and
at a time when employers are fast becoming aware that good child care
means higher productivity on the job, this amendment is good
government. By passing this measure, we not only recognize the
importance of quality child care to the positive development of our
children, but we also encourage productive, family-friendly government.
This amendment does not legislate new child care programs or require
new appropriations. It is simply an opportunity for Congress to make a
straight-forward, administrative change to government practice. It's a
small, but important change.

point of order

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, for the fifth time, I think, now, I
regrettably renew my objection and simply make the point of order
against this provision on the same grounds that I have raised all day,
that it is legislation on an appropriation bill, it is not in order
under House rules and, therefore, should not be before us.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members wishing to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair will rule.
The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella)
places new duties on the Office of Personnel Management that are not
contemplated in existing law. As such, the amendment does constitute
legislating in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.

amendment offered by Mr. Manzullo

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Manzullo:
Page 109, after line 24, insert the following new section:

SEC. 648. INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO HOPE
SCHOLARSHIP AND LIFETIME LEARNING TAX CREDITS.

(a) Prohibition on Use of Funds.--None of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available under this Act may
be used to enforce section 6050S of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to returns relating to higher education
tuition and related expenses).
(b) Waiver of Liability.--
(1) In general.--No person shall be liable under part II of
subchapter B of chapter 68 of such Code (relating to failure
to comply with certain information reporting requirements)
for failing to file an information return or payee statement
required by section 6050S of such Code.
(2) Period of applicability.--Paragraph (1) shall apply
only with respect to information returns and payee statements
required to be filed after September 30, 1998, and before
October 1, 1999.

Mr. MANZULLO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I will take my 5 minutes and then
withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Treasury
appropriations bill that would simply delay for 1 year the
implementation of the reporting requirements related to the HOPE
Scholarship and lifetime learning credits. There is a strong need to
pass this amendment.
As part of last year's Taxpayers Relief Act, Congress rightfully
included the HOPE Scholarship and lifetime learning tax credits. These
credits represent an opportunity to expand much needed access to higher
education. By helping make college more affordable for eligible
students, the tax credits lower the burden on families sending children
to school. But while students apply to receive this tuition assistance,
the new law unfortunately imposes costly reporting requirements on
colleges and universities.
What do these reporting requirements entail? Colleges and
universities and trade schools, 7,000 in number across this country,
must collect the name, address, Social Security number of the student.
However, under the new reporting requirements colleges and universities
must now collect and report to the IRS for each student, regardless of
whether the student takes advantage of the credit, the name, address
and Social Security numbers of anyone claiming the student as a
dependent for tax purposes; the name, address and employer
identification number of the educational institution; contact name and
phone number; whether the student was in attendance at least half the
time for any academic period beginning in 1998; the gross amount of
tuition the student is expected to cover in a calendar year from any
other source except tuition remission; and whether the student has
completed 2 years of schooling prior to January 1 of 1998.

This is very disheartening. This is a very costly unfunded mandate
that has been placed upon our 7,000 trade colleges, community colleges
and universities in this country.

[[Page H5716]]

We have stipulated that schools must collect all sorts of very
personal information, not only for students that want the credit, but
on all students. We have been working with six national organizations
that represent these 7,000 higher learning institutions, and it is
expected that this unfunded mandate by Congress will cost these higher
institutions upwards of $150 million to implement alone. Public and
private higher education institution in Illinois will have to spend $18
million. Northern Illinois University will pay 200,000. The college
community system of California has 107 schools and 2\1/2\ million
students, and their unfunded mandate share is $20 million a year.
Now the Senate passed a form of relief, holding back many of the
reporting requirements for at least a year. However, Mr. Chairman, the
reporting requirements are still going to require a tremendous amount
of money to be spend by the universities in this country. These
institutions enroll 23 million students with expenditures that exceed
$200 billion a year.
Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do here is to simply make
available to the IRS a form similar to the child dependent care expense
form for 1040 filers. It is called Schedule 2 that is formed on 1040 A,
and what this does, it says the taxpayer that claims the credit has the
onus of responsibility to fill in the documentation necessary as
opposed to this horrible mandate that is placed upon our 7,000 schools.
I have a letter here from the Eastern Connecticut State University
talking about how much it is going to cost; from the Allegany College
of Maryland; and the letter I have also, Northern Arizona
University; McHenry County College; and a letter from John LaTourette
of Northern Illinois University where he says, ``Let the schools be in
the business of educating students as opposed to being in the business
of furnishing IRS different types of information.''

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman. I know he is
going to withdraw this amendment, and I know it is subject, as well as
he knows, to a point of order.
But I know he has done a lot of work on that. He and I have discussed
the concerns that University of Maryland system has with respect to
this matter, and I thank the gentleman for all the work he has done on
this and look forward to looking at this with him. I am sure that the
distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut who chairs the committee, I
suppose, that has jurisdiction over this will also be looking at this
closely, and I look forward to working with the gentleman on that.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words. I, too, would like to comment on the
gentleman's proposal.
It is appropriate that it be struck at this time, but I appreciate
the seriousness of his concern, the amount of research he has done on
this issue and the significant problems that our universities could
face if this legislation is implemented poorly. However, it is also
true that this Congress is going to inject $40 billion through the HOPE
Scholarship credit and the lifetime learning credit into our
universities and colleges and other educational institutions, and
indeed we do have to be sure that that money does go for the cost of
education.
I have had a number of discussions with the gentleman now about this,
and, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on
Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction over the Tax Code and works
closely with the IRS on many issues, we will look forward to working
closely with him and the universities to straighten out these problems.
I believe we can do it without legislation.
We did put some clear direction in the conference report on the IRS
reform bill, but we will be tracking it very carefully with the
gentleman and using the input and the ideas that he has had to make
sure that the process is as simple as it can be and yet assure the
accountability for the expenditure of what is going to be billions and
billions of dollars in support of an educated America.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Manzullo) is withdrawn.

sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 498, proceedings will not
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order: the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the amendment offered by the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hefner), the amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

amendment offered by ms. delauro

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 17-minute vote followed by three 5-
minute votes.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 239, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 288]

AYES--183

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Foley
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kolbe
Lantos
Lazio
Lee
Levin
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
White
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOES--239

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle

[[Page H5717]]

Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Clayton
Filner
Ford
Gonzalez
Hill
John
Kennelly
Lewis (GA)
McNulty
Ortiz
Parker
Roybal-Allard

{time} 2032

The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:

Mr. Filner for, with Mr. Ortiz against.
Mrs. Kennelly of Connecticut for, with Mr. Hill against.

Messrs. QUINN, OBERSTAR and McDADE changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. THOMAS and Mr. POMEROY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
the result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 498, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. OBEY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I state a parliamentary inquiry so that no
Member is mousetrapped on the next vote.
Is the next vote the vote on the Hefner amendment, and would a vote
for the Hefner amendment eliminate the cap on congressional pay, and
would a vote against the Hefner amendment prevent the congressional
COLA from proceeding?
The CHAIRMAN. That is not a parliamentary inquiry, but the Chair will
state that the Hefner amendment strikes section 628.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefner

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Hefner), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 79,
noes 342, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No 289]

AYES--79

Ackerman
Berman
Boehlert
Burton
Campbell
Cannon
Clay
Conyers
Cubin
Delahunt
DeLay
Dingell
Dixon
Doolittle
Engel
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Furse
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hunter
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kim
King (NY)
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Livingston
Manton
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller (CA)
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Owens
Packard
Paxon
Payne
Pelosi
Porter
Rahall
Rangel
Riggs
Ros-Lehtinen
Sabo
Schaefer, Dan
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Stark
Stokes
Thomas
Towns
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Wynn
Yates

NOES--342

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (KS)
Morella
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Oxley
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

[[Page H5718]]

NOT VOTING--13

Clayton
Filner
Ford
Gonzalez
Hill
John
Kennelly
Lewis (GA)
McNulty
Myrick
Ortiz
Parker
Roybal-Allard

{time} 2042

Mr. McINTYRE and Mr. DICKEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

amendment offered by mrs. lowey

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224,
noes 198, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 290]

AYES--224

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Calvert
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klug
Kolbe
Lampson
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Riggs
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOES--198

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Forbes
Fossella
Gekas
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Pappas
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Redmond
Regula
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Clayton
Filner
Ford
Gonzalez
Hill
John
Kennelly
Lewis (GA)
McNulty
Ortiz
Parker
Roybal-Allard

{time} 2052

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Filner for, with Mr. Ortiz against.

Messrs. MOAKLEY, GALLEGLY, and EHRLICH changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

amendment no. 16 offered by mr. sanders

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 16 offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a five-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195,
noes 226, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 291]

AYES--195

Aderholt
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Bass
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Bono
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Carson
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Collins
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Emerson
English
Ensign
Evans
Everett
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Kucinich
LaHood
Largent
Lee
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McGovern
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKinney
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (CA)
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nadler
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Owens
Pappas
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Radanovich
Rangel
Regula
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu

[[Page H5719]]

Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--226

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Archer
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Combest
Coyne
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Neal
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Reyes
Riggs
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Sabo
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (OR)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Stokes
Stump
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Vento
Walsh
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
White
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--13

Clayton
Filner
Ford
Gonzalez
Hill
John
Kennelly
Lewis (GA)
McNulty
Ortiz
Parker
Roybal-Allard
Waters

{time} 2101

Messrs. MOLLOHAN, WELLER, YOUNG of Alaska, and CHRISTENSEN, Mrs.
LINDA SMITH of Washington, Mr. HOBSON, and Ms. LEE changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

amendment offered by mr. smith of new jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
Add at the end of the bill:
Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, no funds in this
Act may be used to require any contract to include a term for
coverage of abortifacients.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) reserves a
point of order.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, due to the lateness of the
hour, I do not intend on taking the full 5 minutes.
Let me make it very clear that part of the problem with the Lowey
amendment was that it did not define contraception. Many of us have
been concerned that the pro-abortion lobby and the pro-abortion
organizations over the years have tried to fudge the line of
demarcation between fertilization post- and pre-fertilization. Many of
the chemicals, many of the devices that are now employed that are
permitted under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program do indeed
result in many abortions, newly created human lives that are not
permitted to implant in their mother's womb.
In a nutshell, my amendment is designed to clarify that if we are
indeed going to force all of the Federal providers of medical care, the
HMOs and all the providers as a condition of receiving reimbursement
for all of their prescriptions, whether it be for penicillin or any
other drug, that they have, to provide ``a provision for contraceptive
coverage'', let us at least make it clear that the gentlelady's
language excludes abortion-inducing chemicals. That is what my
amendment very simply seeks to do.
Earlier in the day we pointed out during the debate, that while RU-
486 isn't legal and, hopefully, never will be there are officials of
Planned Parenthood who are already talking about it as a morning after
pill. RU486 is baby pesticide and destroys life, the newly created
life, somewhere along the line up to the 7th week. This is a Federal
funding of early abortion but many Members of Congress remain
uninformed of that fact. I say with regret, that safe abortifacients
like IUDs can be provided by the health care providers under the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The question is should they
be forced to. This says no one is going to be forced to do it. It is a
conscience type amendment. Still the plain language of Mrs. Lowey's
amendment only stipulates ``a provision for contraceptive coverage''--a
much, much, weaker version than the amendment she offered in her
Appropriations Committee. Clearly, under her amendment, if a plan
merely provided condoms or birth control pills, that would satisfy the
obligation created by the amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman clarify for me and for
others, when he says to include ``a term for coverage,'' what does that
phrase mean?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for asking the
question. It says very simply that a health care plan would not have to
include those devices and chemicals that may have the effect of an
abortifacient. Under my amendment it will not be mandatory. it will not
be forced upon the HMOs and upon the health care providers even though
the language of Mrs. Lowey's amendment require only ``a provision for
contraceptive coverage'' to satisfy the requirement.
Mr. HOYER. Am I correct then that the amendment means, ``a term for
coverage'' would mean the term that refers to the abortifacients?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If I understand the gentleman's question
that is correct.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his clarification.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) insist on
his point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise
to engage the gentleman from New Jersey in a colloquy.
I would like to ask the gentleman to define further his amendment.
Based upon the information that we have, the FDA has approved five
methods of contraception. This is the established definition of
contraception. It has nothing to do with RU-486 although,
unfortunately, there were some letters sent out saying it did. RU-486
is not included among the five methods of contraception. It has nothing
to do with abortion. There have been debates that have been going on
among us, in the country, about when does life begin.
This takes some serious discussion, and I am sure that we can have
some serious debates about this issue, but today what we are talking
about very simply is the five established methods of contraception that
have been improved by the FDA, nothing to do with abortion, nothing to
do with RU-486.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If the gentlewoman would yield, let me just
ask the gentlewoman, because this will help me in responding, her
definition of contraception. Is it before fertilization occurs or is it
before implantation in the uterus?

Mrs. LOWEY. I am sorry. Will the gentleman repeat?

[[Page H5720]]

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Part of the problem we have with the
gentlewoman's first amendment, as well as the amendment that was
offered and just passed, is a definitional one. How do you define
contraception? How do define pregnancy?
For some, it is implantation. For some, it is fertilization.
Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Contraception by definition should mean
before a new life has come into being. There are many who want to blue
that line and say that chemicals affect the implementation or even
after that.
Mrs. LOWEY. If I may reclaim my time, could the gentleman explain
whether this includes the pill?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. This will have to be determined. There is a
body of evidence suggesting that IUDs, for example, may have the
impact, and many women are unaware of this, may have the impact of
preventing implantation.
What my amendment says, that is still permissible under Federal
Employees Health Benefit Program but not mandated.
Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, if I might ask the gentleman, I
believe in response to my question as to whether the pill would be
included, since the pill is one of the five methods of approving
contraception from the FDA, you seem to be questioning this and I would
ask the gentleman, if you are not sure whether the pill is an
established method of contraception, what would the plans determine?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Let me just respond that there are several
schools of thought as to what the operation is as to what actually
occurs.
Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, would the gentleman consider the IUD
a form of contraception? This is and approved method of contraception.
Or would you consider the IUD as abortifacient?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Let me make it very clear there has to be a
determination made, and maybe it is about time, with all of the
resources at our disposal, we really came to a firm conclusion as to
how some of these chemicals and how the IUD actually works, because,
again, even Planned Parenthood and others will say on their web page
that one of the consequences of the IUD may indeed be preventative of
implantation .
Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, does the gentleman include the
diaphragm as a form of contraception?
Mrs. SMith of New Jersey. No. As far as I know, that is not included.
Mrs. LOWEY. I seems to me the gentleman has questions about the pill,
questions about the diaphragm, questions abut the IUD, and I assume the
gentleman has questions about Depo--Provera and Norplant.
Let me say this, there are five established methods of contraception.
If the gentleman supports the amendment to not cover abortion, then you
are saying that contraception cannot be covered; no method of
contraception can be covered.

{time} 2115

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Not at all. Right now the HMOs, and all of
the health care providers under the Federal Employees Health Benefits
program, if they choose, can provide any of those methods that you
mentioned, from IUDs to Depo-Provera. What your amendment, or what the
thrust of your original amendment was to force them to do it.
Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, I just want to make it clear to my
colleague that the gentleman from New Jersey, it appears to me from
your statement, is trying to make every method of contraception an
abortifacient; is that correct?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Not at all, and that is putting words in my
mouth, and I think that is unfortunate.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Lowey was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, if I can make it clear, I think it is very
important, my colleagues, that we realize what the gentleman is
attempting to achieve with this amendment. He is stating that there is
no form of contraception that may not be considered an abortifacient
and, therefore, the American women have to understand----
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If the gentlewoman will yield, I did not say
that at all.
Mrs. LOWEY. No, I will not yield. I will not yield. That the American
people who are listening to this debate have to understand that this
Congress wants to tell women that all forms of contraception are
abortifacients and they cannot be considered.
I would like to make that point again. The majority of American women
do support the use of contraceptives. These are very personal
decisions, we understand that, and each person has to make it for
themselves. But the majority of American women understands that.
Now, it seems to me from this discussion, that the gentleman from New
Jersey is saying to every woman who may take a birth control pill or
use another one of the five accepted methods of contraception that they
are abortionists.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Not at all.
Mrs. LOWEY. I think it is important to clarify what we are talking
about because the FDA has approved five methods of contraception.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the amendment of the
gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey to
explain his amendment and to answer any questions he may have.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear to my
colleagues that birth control pills and diaphragms are not
abortifacients. IUDs and post-coital pills have the capability of that.
That is where there has been very little conversation, especially with
women, as to what might be happening when they think they are
preventing fertilization when, indeed, implantation is what is being
prevented.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is confusion about
this issue, and if I may, from my experience, please lend some of that
to our body, one; and, number two, also relay that I had a conversation
with the gentlewoman from New York, and I do understand what her
intention is and I do understand the intention of the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith). She has an honorable request. She won that in
her committee, and it should be honored in that way.
But let me clarify for this body that, in fact, the diaphragm is not
an abortifacient; that oral contraceptives are not an abortifacient;
that morning-after pills, in fact, are; that IUDs are, in fact,
abortifacients.
Now, there is not a medical question about how they work, and there
is not a medical question about how oral contraceptives work. Their
intention is to prevent ovulation or to prevent penetration of a sperm.
That is not an abortifacient. And there is no question in the medical
community about how they work.
So I would ask this body that if, in fact, we feel we want to make a
decision based on what the request of gentlewoman from New York really
is, that we supply oral contraceptives to women in this country, that
we accept the Smith amendment to that, and we can qualify and solve
this problem and this will go through. If, in fact, not, then we will
see we will have an extended debate on whether or not the bill will
make it.
An honorable amendment was brought forth in the committee. An
honorable amendment to the gentlewoman's amendment is now offered. The
clarity cannot be any clearer than what I have stated. The Smith
amendment does not limit oral contraceptives, it only limits those
things that are considered abortifacients.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I think that Members have
to be very sensitive to what my colleague from New Jersey is attempting
to do here today.
Is there no limit to my colleague's willingness to impose his concept
of

[[Page H5721]]

when life begins on others? Conception is a process. Fertilization of
the egg is part of that process. But if that fertilized egg does not
get implanted, it does not grow. And so on throughout the course of
pregnancy.
For those who do not believe that life begins upon fertilization, but
believes, in fact, that that fertilized egg has to be implanted, the
gentleman is imposing his judgment as to when life begins on that
person and, in so doing, denying them what might be the safest means of
contraception available to them.
Some women cannot take the pill. It is too disruptive to them. Some
women depend on intrauterine devices and other such contracptives. When
we get to the point where we have the courage to do more research in
contraception, we will have many other options to offer women so that
they can have safe contraception.
For us to make the decision that that woman must choose a means of
contraception that reflects any one individual's determination as to
when in that process of conception life actually begins is a level of
intrusion into conscience, into independence, into freedom that,
frankly, I have never witnessed. Even the issue of being for or against
abortion is a different issue than we debate here tonight. We have
never, ever intruded to this depth.
When I talk to my friends who are obstetricians, because all my
colleagues know my husband is a retired obstetrician, how the pills
work is not simple. In some women they have one effect, and they may
have first effects and secondary effects. They prevent ovulation in
general but not absolutely. And if there is a fertilization while on
the pill, the pill prevents implantation.
So this is a complex process. And for us to imagine here tonight that
it is either right or proper or possible for the gentleman to impose
his determination on others at this level is extraordinary. As a
Republican who believes that government should stay out of our lives, I
oppose this amendment with everything in me. And I would ask my
colleagues, those who are pro life--and I honor that position. And I
would say that the pro-life members of our Nation have changed the
issue of abortion over these years. People take it far more seriously.
It is not as casual. They have made an enormous difference for the good
in our Nation. But that does not make it right for them to step, then,
into this level and try to make definitions that, frankly, are not
nearly so simple as my friend and respected colleague, the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), implies.
The lines are not clear. They are not simple. I would ask my
colleague to respect that we are a Nation founded on the belief that we
should have freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, and this
amendment deeply, deeply compromises those liberties.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198,
noes 222, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 292]

AYES--198

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Forbes
Fossella
Gekas
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Packard
Pappas
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Redmond
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--222

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Calvert
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klug
Kolbe
Lampson
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--14

Clayton
Filner
Ford
Gonzalez
Hill
John
Kennelly
Lewis (GA)
McDade
McIntosh
McNulty
Ortiz
Parker
Roybal-Allard

{time} 2145

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Ortiz for, with Mr. Filner against.

Mr. THOMAS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BALLENGER and Mr. COBURN changed their votes from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

This Act may be cited as the ``Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999''.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, in the last four years I can't
count the number of

[[Page H5722]]

times I have been here on the House floor voting on bills, amendments,
appropriations riders, and every possible vehicle for so-called anti-
abortion legislation. The reality is, every member of Congress is anti-
abortion. Every member of Congress wants to make abortion less
necessary and eventually unnecessary. By improving access to affordable
contraception, the Lowey amendment is an excellent way to achieve this
goal.
As a founding co-chair of the Congressional Prevention Caucus, I am a
strong proponent of using preventive methods to improve the length and
quality of human life and also to reduce the skyrocketing costs of
health care. On average, women spend 68% more on health care costs than
men. Much of these additional costs can be attributed to reproductive
health care costs. The use of contraception can help to reduce these
costs for women by preventing unplanned pregnancy, an expensive and
potentially life threatening condition.
Opponents of this amendment argue that 81% of FEHB plans already
cover at least one form of contraception and that women federal
employees already have a choice of plans. The one form is generally
oral hormonal contraception known as ``the pill.'' Oral contraceptives
are one of the five most common forms of contraceptive but it is not
always recommended to some women who experience negative side effects
or may be a higher risk of breast cancer or stroke. Alternatives should
be accessible to women who decide in consultation with their doctor
that it is a safer option. Ten percent of plans cover no forms of
contraception at all.
Regardless of the percentage of plans that cover this option and
don't cover that option, contraception should be considered basic
health care for women of reproductive age. As employers, we have a
responsibility to choose what kind of health care we want to provide
for our employees. We should be providing this basic preventive care
and not forcing our employees to choose a plan that may not be the best
plan for them because none of the other plans provide contraceptive
coverage.
Furthermore, if we are denying federal employees coverage of abortion
services in their health plans, as we have since 1995, it would be
hypocritical not to make methods to prevent the necessity of abortion
as accessible as possible to federal employees. Contraception is a
proven method in reducing the number of abortions. A recent study of
the use of contraception in the former Soviet republics shows that
preventing pregnancy with contraception reduces the number of
abortions. In Kazakstan for example, abortion rates have fallen by more
than 40% since the change in contraception policy by the government and
widespread access to contraception was implemented.
As adversaries of the ``abortion issue'' continue to disagree over
pro-choice, pro-life semantics, we should be working together on
policies that we can agree reduce the necessity of abortion. I urge my
colleagues to work together where we can on this terribly divisive
issue by supporting the Lowey amendment to provide comprehensive
contraceptive health care coverage for federal employees.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
Treasury Postal Appropriations bill. In this bill, there is funding for
courthouse projects across the country, and I thank Chairman Kolbe and
Ranking Member, Congressman Hoyer, for their great leadership in this
issue.
The situation of aging courthouses across this nation must not be
tolerated any longer. We must ensure a safe and fair judicial process
for all Americans. I am very familiar with older courthouses,
particularly the ones in Jacksonville and Orlando, which I represent.
In addition to not having the space to properly handle the increasing
judicial caseload, these older courthouses have serious security risks
for judges, juries, and litigants. Often times judges must pass through
corridors with prisoners and defendants lined up along the walls.
Additionally, these older courthouses do not have the necessary
security measures that they should have in the this day and age.
This is a very serious situation, and I am glad that we have the
leadership here to recognize it and address it.
We must keep the judicial branch of government viable, particularly,
as we task it with more federal laws and caseloads. I thank my
colleagues from Maryland and Arizona for their commitment to this
issue, and urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dreier, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4104) making
appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal
Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain Independent
Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 498, he reported the bill back
to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. UPTON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, is this the appropriate time to offer a
tobacco amendment?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is definitely out of order.
The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Without objection, there will be a vote on H.R. 3731 immediately
following this vote.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 17-minute vote followed by a
5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 203, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 293]

YEAS--218

Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sandlin
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schumer
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--203

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baker
Baldacci
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo

[[Page H5723]]

Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hostettler
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lantos
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schaffer, Bob
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn

NOT VOTING--14

Clayton
Filner
Ford
Gonzalez
Hill
John
Kennelly
Lewis (GA)
McDade
McNulty
Ortiz
Parker
Roybal-Allard
Yates

{time} 2216

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Ortiz for, with Mr. Filner against.

Messrs. EVANS, LEVIN, McINTYRE, GEPHARDT, HINOJOSA, Mrs. MEEK of
Florida, Ms. FURSE, Messrs. CUMMINGS, STRICKLAND, MORAN of Virginia,
Ms. BROWN of Florida, Messrs. TANNER, HEFNER, SPRATT, CLEMENT, CARDIN
and WYNN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. PITTS, SAM JOHNSON of Texas, BACHUS, CUNNINGHAM, COLLINS,
HYDE, SOLOMON, SOUDER, EVERETT, REDMOND, BURTON of Indiana, KING,
HOEKSTRA, CHRISTENSEN, ENSIGN, BILIRAKIS, METCALF, LaHOOD, BUYER,
FOSSELLA, HUNTER, PORTMAN, HALL of Texas, Mrs. CHENOWETH, Messrs. RYUN,
LEWIS of Kentucky, CHABOT, WELDON of Pennsylvania, DAN SCHAEFER of
Colorado, SCARBOROUGH, ROGAN, SHADEGG, CRAPO, STEARNS, CANNON, RILEY,
McINTOSH and Mr. CANADY of Florida changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________