[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 116 (Tuesday, July 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7092-H7099]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 190 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2020.

                              {time}  1140


                     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 consideration of the bill (H.R. 
2020) making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the U.S. 
Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain 
independent agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, 
and for other purposes, with Mr. Dreier in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] and the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] will each be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].
  (Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present H.R. 2020, a 
bill making appropriations for the Department of Treasury, the 
Executive Office of the President, General Services Administration, and 
various independent agencies for fiscal year 1996. The bill being 
considered today was given a very appropriate number, H.R. 2020.
                              {time}  1145

  We call it a bill with vision, starting with a strong vision for a 
future free of debt and deficits. This bill cuts $403 million in real 
spending from 1995 enacted levels, and that is 3 percent less than last 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, a couple of points I would like to make about the 
spending portion of the bill that I think may be of interest to some 
Members.
  There are claims that this bill is over 1995 by $401 million in 
budget authority. That number has been shown in various charts and 
reflects a comparison of H.R. 2020 to 1995 assuming enactment of the 
rescission supplemental. The reason this number looks so high is quite 
simple. H.R. 1944 includes a rescission of $580 million from GSA's 
Federal Building Fund. As the number for 1995 comes down, the number 
for 1996 simply looks bigger.
  The fact is, the bill is actually a cut in outlays, and that is a 
real cut in spending by about $403 million. There seems to be a lack of 
understanding or misunderstanding about the difference between budget 
authority and outlays among some of our colleagues, particularly some 
of our newer Members. The fact is, outlays are the money that is spent. 
It is quite simple. If you can cut outlays, you cut actual spending. We 
are cutting $403 million in actual spending; these are dollars that 
will not be spent. That is the number that counts in deficit reduction, 
not budget authority, because budget authority is simply authority to 
spend the money. Until you spend it, it does not really count for 
anything.
  As a result, I would like to remind my colleagues the bill is within 
its section 602(b) allocation in both budget authority and outlays and 
there are no Budget Act points of order against consideration of the 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I will insert a table in the Record that compares the 
bill by account to the amounts appropriated in 1995 and the amounts 
requested by the President. I would urge my colleagues to look at this 
chart because, if they review it, I think they will see that each 
proposed spending level by program is below the 1995 level in every 
single instance, except for crimes, parts of IRS, and law enforcement 
activities.
  I also would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer], and members of our
 subcommittee, for their work in helping us put this package together. 
I think it is important to note that about 90 percent of our budget was 
off limits. We could not touch it because it supports salaries and 
fixed expenses. We had to make our contributions to deficit reduction 
using only 10 percent of our allocation. The 602(b) number that we 
received was a tough one, and we had to make some tough decisions in 
the process. I think that will be reflected in the bill if people will 
take time to study and go through it.

  Again I would like to thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] 
as well as the other subcommittee Members for their cooperation, and 
also the great work our staff has done in working through this very 
difficult bill.
  As reported, H.R. 2020 also has a vision of change for programs that 
are under our jurisdiction. One that requires agencies and activities 
to tighten their belts, to think better and smarter, and to use their 
resources more wisely. That vision includes the Executive Office of the 
President.

[[Page H 7093]]

  Mr. Chairman, this is not a partisan measure, despite some attempts 
being made to label it so. We have had a lot of years of runaway 
spending in this body, and, as a result, everyone has shared in the 
wealth over the years. Unfortunately, that has brought us to the point 
we are at today, where everyone is going to have to share in the pain 
of cutting back. That includes the Executive Office of the President as 
well.
  The facts speak for themselves. We held 42 hearings over a three 
month period, including a week's interruption. We heard from 174 
witnesses, including members of the administration, the private sector, 
and Members of Congress. Everyone was given an opportunity to justify 
their requests for resources in the upcoming fiscal year.
  I would also say that, today, Members have had more than adequate 
time to take a look at what is in our package. After subcommittee 
markup, it laid out there for almost a week. I shared it with Mr. Hoyer 
and our colleagues on the minority side several days before we went to 
subcommittee markup. The full committee markup has been available now 
for over a week. And if people are running in here at the last minute, 
I would say maybe we should take a look at some of the staff work that 
is not being done by Members on both sides who are calling at the last
 minute saying ``We didn't know this.'' There is no excuse. It has been 
out there a long time and there has been enough time for people to take 
a look at it.

  In preparing this package, we scrubbed the numbers, we looked at what 
was being requested, we looked at agency accomplishments, their goals, 
and their plans for the future because that is an important part of the 
process. We separated out programs that were merely those that were 
wanted from programs that were truly needed. After doing that, we sat 
down and wrote the bill.
  First and foremost, H.R. 2020 outright terminates agencies and 
programs that have outlived their usefulness, that produce work that 
can be accomplished by others parts of the government or private 
sector, or simply have a place in a leaner and stronger government.
  In many cases we found duplication. Where we found duplication, one 
of those duplicates departed. We successfully terminated four agencies 
as a result of that process, for first year savings of $7.7 million and 
5-year savings of $40.8 million. Those four agencies are gone, nada, 
zero. They are zeroed out. They don't exist anymore. There is nothing 
partisan about it. Not even the termination of the Council of Economic 
Advisers.
  Mr. Chairman, to my critics who claim that we are being partisan, I 
would simply say, think again. As we prepared the bill, I did not sit 
down and ponder what would be a strong partisan statement. I do not 
view myself as a partisan individual. I spent my time a bit more 
constructively, and simply produced and pondered on what could be and 
should be good Government. Then we sat down and made the mark.
  I will challenge my critics who say this bill goes too far as we 
debate H.R. 2020 here today on the floor. Ironically, H.R. 2020 is also 
being criticized by those who believe it does not go far enough.
  That is right. On the first hand we are being criticized for going 
too far, and on the second hand, the measure is being criticized for 
not going far enough. We have a lot of people angry, so that probably 
tells us we probably have a pretty good bill. If we have everyone upset 
on all sides, it may be because we are in the mode of making cuts.
  But to our critics who say we have not gone far enough, I would 
simply say to them, stop and think. We need to be smart about the 
process.
  This is a first step in a multiyear process, the bill we will 
consider today. We have taken programs, we have merged their 
activities, and started a serious downsizing. Rome was not built in a 
day, nor did it burn down in a day. I think it took 3 or 4, if I recall 
history correctly, and the Federal Government cannot stop in its tracks 
overnight.
  It is a big train, and it has been moving for a lot of years, and it 
cannot be stopped simply by throwing a brick wall up in front of it. If 
we are going to avoid a crash, what we have to do is apply the brakes 
in a very slow, a very deliberate, and a very positive manner, to bring 
this runaway freight train under control.
  I remind my colleagues that the programs and accounts funded in this 
bill serve specific constituencies and meet specific statutory 
requirements. Public law requires us to do and fund certain activities, 
the very activities that are funded in this bill.
  I would caution my colleagues who think this bill does not go far 
enough. Not all of our vision for change can be achieved in a year or a 
single appropriations bill. It takes longer than that. We have, I 
think, some well thought out plans to achieve a balanced budget over a 
period of 7 years, and you have to go about that in a very deliberate 
fashion. This is step one out of six more steps to go in order to get 
there.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the measure. This measure, with 
20/20 vision, a healthy vision for agencies under our jurisdiction, and 
a bill with a vision for a future free of deficits for our children and 
our grandchildren.
  I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the primary rule that we applied in 
looking at everything that was in this particular package was the 
notion that there is a great difference between wanting something and 
actually needing it. In a case where it was determined that an item was 
merely wanted, it has been downsized or terminated. In a case where it 
is a need item, we looked very carefully at the needs. In some cases 
there are slight increases, particularly in the area of the Secret 
Service, which is faced with an election cycle with security at the 
Olympics that are coming up at Atlanta. We tried to use some common 
sense in putting this thing together, and I very strongly urge my 
colleagues to support the package.

[[Page H 7094]]
TH18JY95.000



[[Page H 7095]]
TH18JY95.001



[[Page H 7096]]
TH18JY95.002



[[Page H 7097]]

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, before I speak about the specifics of the bill, I want 
to pay tribute to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot]. This is his 
first year as chairman of the committee. As I said on a number of 
occasions, I would not have planned that he be chairman of the 
committee, because it means, of course, that I am not chairman of the 
committee. But if we had to have a new chairman and I was going to be 
replaced, I am very thankful that it was the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. 
Lightfoot].
  The gentleman is one of our finest Members, he is a conscientious, 
effective leader on his side of the aisle, and he is first an American 
who cares about the efficiency and effectiveness of the application of 
the tax dollars of our citizens. He is a pleasure to work with, and I 
congratulate him for the work he has done to date. He has cooperated 
with the minority side and with me individually each step of the way, 
and I would like to thank him for that.
  I particularly want to thank the staff, some of whom have been with 
the committee, and I want to say that they have also cooperated very 
closely with me individually and other members of the minority side of 
the committee, and with our staffs. That cooperation, I think, has 
helped the confidence that each of us have in dealing with one another. 
We have not agreed on every issue, but we are working cooperatively 
together.
  Having said that, Mr. Chairman, let me make an observation that I 
make almost every time I start to talk on an appropriations bill. The 
American public and our colleagues need to understand that we have a 
financial problem at the Federal level. We have a deficit that must be 
dealt with. We have a deficit that has been growing. We have a deficit 
that is crowding out capital funds for economic expansion. I am a 
supporter of the balance budget amendment, because I believe we need an 
extrinsic constraint which will force us and, yes, force the American 
public to make tough choices.
  Having said that, Mr. Chairman, it is important for us to realize 
that the expansion of Federal expenditures has not, and I underline has 
not, occurred in the discretionary spending items over which the 
Committee on Appropriations has
 jurisdiction. In point of fact, as we have pointed out on a number of 
occasions, the Committee on Appropriations has appropriated less money 
than the Presidents have asked for since 1981, and, indeed, even before 
that. But particularly in the administrations of Mr. Reagan and Mr. 
Bush, Presidents Reagan and Bush, we appropriated about $100 million 
less than they asked for.

  It was not that the appropriation process got out of hand that led to 
the substantial operating deficits during the last decade. The fact of 
the matter is entitlements have grown exponentially. The fact of the 
matter is that we have not come to grips with that, and if we do not 
come to grips with it, very frankly, we are going to crowd out all 
discretionary spending, all investment spending, all of the 
decisionmaking process in which we involve ourselves annually as to 
where to apply the resources of our Nation.
  In point of fact, Mr. Speaker, since 1953 until today, we have gone 
from spending approximately 18 percent of our Gross Domestic Product in 
discretionary spending, making decisions where to invest on defense and 
on the domestic side, to where now less than 8 percent of our GDP at 
the Federal level is spent on discretionary spending between defense 
and nondefense discretionary spending.

                              {time}  1200

  Why do I make that preface? Because we are going to have on the floor 
perhaps an amendment to cut this million dollars or $10 million or $20 
million. That is significant money, of course. But the fact of the 
matter is, it will not solve the deficit. And it is not the reason the 
deficit grew, notwithstanding what the National Taxpayers Union says on 
the voting on these individual, sometimes small and sometimes 
significant, dollar amendments.
  The Treasury, Postal bill, Mr. Chairman, has been a hard bill to put 
together for fiscal year 1996. Based on the deck we have been dealt, 
however, with our 602(b) allocation, it is an inadequate allocation to 
fund the priorities and responsibilities in this bill for law 
enforcement, for tax collection and for other matters.
  In addition to law enforcement and revenue collection, the Customs is 
also in this bill, and every American is worried about the integrity of 
our borders. Every American is worried about the commerce and the 
stealing of jobs from the U.S. workers. Customs plays a critical role 
in that, and they are being sorely tested in terms of the resources
 that have been made available to them in this bill.

  Within the limited resources of which I have just spoken, however, I 
think the chairman and the committee have tried to do the best job 
possible in funding the allocations of the agencies under this bill. 
The $23.2 billion provided in the bill is about $322 million below the 
amount we appropriated last year and $1.8 billion below the amount 
requested by the administration; in other words, almost 10 percent 
below what the administration requested. And I might say, of course, 
this bill is divided about half discretionary spending, half on the 
mandatory side in terms of Federal retirement and Federal employment 
health benefits.
  On the positive side, Customs and law enforcement have been funded 
pretty much at the administration's request. The IRS tax system 
modernization has been accommodated under the administration's new 
estimate for fiscal year 1996. The committee bill also includes funding 
for tax systems modernization at the Internal Revenue Service. This 
broad effort to update all aspects of IRS's computer and processing 
systems is, Mr. Chairman, a very high priority for our country.
  On the negative side, we have not been able to proceed with the 
funding of the IRS tax enforcement program off budget and, therefore, 
have had to spread the program over 7 years, a decision with which I 
did not agree, do not agree now and which will cost us money.
  Mr. Chairman, you will recall that last year we unanimously in a 
bipartisan fashion had agreement that we would fund the tax enforcement 
program off budget. Why? It was a $2 billion, 5-year initiative that 
would gain us over $9 billion, in other words a $4 return for every 
dollar invested. CBO, OMB and the Congress agreed that it made sense to 
put that off budget in light of the fact it was a money maker, not a 
money loser.
  However, we have not done that this year. In fairness to the 
chairman, however, the administration suggested that we put it on 
budget. Now, to the extent that it does appropriately and accurately 
reflect expenditures, that made sense. On the other hand, it forced the 
chairman and the committee to stretch this program over 7 years, and 
that will cost us revenues and make it difficult to administer at the 
Treasury Department.
  Mr. Chairman, those are some of the more positive aspects. 
Unfortunately, I and this side of the aisle are very concerned about 
some aspects of this bill. I believe that there are a number of 
political decisions. I know the chairman disagrees with that. He says 
these are economic decisions, fiscal decisions, but I believe we are 
making some political decisions in this bill which are wrong. The 
elimination of the Council of Economic Advisors, every head of the 
Council of Economic Advisors, an institution which advises the 
President on macroeconomic issues, an institution which everybody that 
I have talked to says is one of the more objective, outside-of-
government advisory groups that we have in Government to advise the 
President on macro- and micro-economic issues, this is critically 
important. The President, every day, needs to confront issues which are 
impacted by his information and perception of what the macroeconomic 
and microeconomic impacts are of decisions to be made by the White 
House.
  It is wrong to eliminate this agency in the way it was done. There 
were no hearings. Now, I want to say that we cut the Administrative 
Conference of the United States the same way. I though we were 
incorrect and we changed that decision. But the fact of 

[[Page H 7098]]
the matter is there were no hearings which were directed at elimination 
of this agency. And every head, Republican and Democrat, for the last 
two decades opposes this provision.
  The most recent former administration head of the Council of Economic 
Advisors, Michael Boskin, has written a letter opposing this provision, 
as have Charlie Schultze and Herb Stein, CEA directors under President 
Nixon and President Carter.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, we have cut the White House office. We 
have not cut it a great deal, but significantly enough to adversely 
affect the ability of the White House to run its shop. I will discuss 
this later in the bill, but this is wrong.
  In fact, from 1981 to 1992, under a Democratic House and for the last 
6 years of that period, under a Democratic Senate, we essentially 
accepted the White House's request. For the last 2 years this President 
has been subjected to cuts from the Republican side not based upon the 
finances of the office but based upon, in my opinion, the intent to 
impact adversely the political independence of the President of the 
United States to make policy judgment
 as he or she sees fit.

  Mr. Chairman, that is wrong. There is not going to be an amendment 
offered, I understand, which will affect the transportation of the 
White House. But there are too frequently now folks who are willing to 
undermine the historical, two-century comity between the President and 
the legislative branch in the Congress, where the President says to the 
legislature, you pass your budget, and I will pass mine. Neither will 
impact the other because both of us have to go to the American public.
  I am not talking about the executive departments. I am talking about 
the White House office. The Office of Management and Budget, and other 
executive branch offices were cut. I think that is unfortunate. We 
oppose that.
  All reflect an initiative that is politically aimed at the President. 
The Committee on Appropriations has honored presidential requests, as I 
have said, in the last period of time that I have been on the 
committee. I have opposed cuts to President Reagan and President Bush's 
budget for exactly that reason.
  Also, Mr. Chairman, there are cuts to the Federal Election 
Commission. The inclusion of language restricting the choices for 
Federal health insurance which we will oppose. They take on a political 
tone that I do not think is helpful for the bipartisan nature of this 
bill. I also believe that the elimination of the Advisory Commission on 
Intergovernmental Relations will interfere, Mr. Chairman, with the 
executive branch's responsibility to monitor unfunded mandates.
  The irony of this bill is we eliminate the Administrative Conference 
on Intergovernmental Relations, the Commission on Intergovernmental 
Relations for the purposes of saving $1.4 million. We then provide in 
this bill a committee provision, protected under the rule language, 
which provides for an advisory committee on the mandates which we have 
just eliminated another agency to do. In other words, on the one hand 
we are going to have money spent, $300-some-odd thousands to accomplish 
the purpose of an agency that we are now doing away with. It simply 
does not makes sense, in my opinion.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the full Committee on Appropriations 
took out a provision which was very foolishly included by the 
Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government at 
markup that
 would have provided background checks for rich felons so that they 
could have received approval to have their guns back. We had 
information at the subcommittee and the full committee that we brought 
out where you had murderers reapplying for reinstatement of their 
privileges to have a gun and they were approved. That made no sense. No 
taxpayer is asking me to spend their money to make sure that criminals 
get their guns back. That does not make sense, and I am pleased that 
the chairman saw fit at the full committee to offer language to 
reinstate language included in our bill in 1992. That language was good 
then, it is good now. And I am pleased that the chairman put it back 
in.

  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that neither the President nor 
the committee has provided the full 5.9 percent increase that the Civil 
Service is due as employment cost index and locality pay increases 
under the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act. This was an act 
signed by President Bush in 1990. It tried to provide and did provide 
for a rational way to compare the private sector and the public sector 
and to make sure that our work force would be competitive and would be 
comparable to the private sector. Unfortunately, the President has only 
provided 2.4 percent in his recommendation. The bill is silent on this 
issue. And unless the President provides for a higher sum come August, 
next month, that will be limited to 2.4 percent.
  I will be discussing with the President, and I know others will, as 
to the distribution of that 2.4 percent between comparability 
adjustment and locality pay, but is it very unfortunate that we are 
going to be falling further behind the private sector in pay 
comparability as a result of the actions of the President and of this 
committee.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I hope that the provisions that detract 
from the positive side of the bill can be changed on the floor and 
during the full legislative consideration of the bill. Again, I thank 
the chairman for all of his cooperation and inclusion in the work of 
this committee. I look forward to working with him as we consider the 
individual titles of this bill.
   Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would respond very briefly and thank the gentleman from Maryland 
for his kind words. When neither of us were chairman on this 
subcommittee, we started to forge a working relationship and that has 
continued through both of us having the opportunity to serve as 
chairman of the subcommittee.
  Quite frankly, there are certain things that we have agreed to 
disagree upon and that is what this whole business is all about.
  We both realize it is important that we get this spending bill 
through. It has to go through. We have to do it in a manner that I 
think has some common sense. Again, I appreciate his kind words and his 
cooperation as well.
  Mr. Chairman, one of those areas that we agree to disagree on is the 
Council of Economic Advisers. We in effect cut the offices of the White 
House about 1.8 percent. I would just call to our colleagues' attention 
that through the legislative branch appropriation that went through the 
House, we cut our own budgets there about 8 percent. It is just part of 
the sharing concept, I think that is necessary as we move toward a 
balanced budget in 7 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
2020, the FY 1996 Treasury Postal Service, and General Government 
Appropriations Act. I particularly would like to commend the chairman 
of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations 
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] and his 
colleagues for their efforts in crafting this important legislation.
  The bill contains $75.641 million in continued funding for a vitally 
important project in my district on Long Island, the Central Islip 
Federal Courthouse. I deeply appreciate the willingness of Chairman 
Lightfoot and the other members of the subcommittee in working with me 
to meet this essential need. First announced by the General Services 
Administration [GSA] in 1991, the Central Islip Courthouse was designed 
to solve the problems of the only ``space emergency'' in our nation 
declared by the U.S. Judicial Conference. That ``space emergency'' for 
the Eastern District of New York, was first declared in 1989 and 
renewed in 1992. These declarations are unique in that these are the 
only times the Judicial Conference has ever taken such an action.
  Without the completion of the Central Islip Federal Courthouse, 
eastern Long Island's 2.5 million people will continue to have to 
tolerate what has been described as a ``security nightmare,'' with 
Federal judges facing the heaviest case load in its history while 
enduring dangerous, inefficient, costly temporary facilities scattered 
in five rented locations.

[[Page H 7099]]

  Unlike some other federal courthouse projects, the cost per square 
foot of the Central Islip Courthouse is well below the GSA average for 
similar projects. The courthouse will be cost effective, saving 
taxpayers huge amounts now paid for rent.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and sufficient funding for 
the timely completion of the Central Islip Federal Courthouse.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2020, the 
Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations bill, 
but my enthusiasm for it is tempered by the cuts in valuable programs 
this legislation proposes.
  As a former member of this subcommittee, I feel that the agencies 
that are funded by this legislation are extremely important to our 
government. Agencies like the Treasury Department, and its component 
divisions such as the Customs Service, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco 
and Firearms, the IRS, the Secret Service and others are extremely 
important to the efficient functioning of our federal government. This 
legislation also funds the Executive Office of the President, a portion 
of the Postal Service, and some independent agencies such as the 
Federal Election Commission, the Federal Labor Relations Commission, 
the General Services Administration and others.
  Because of the importance of all of the above, I am extremely 
disheartened by some of the cuts this bill makes to some of these 
agencies. For example, the bill proposes to eliminate the Council of 
Economic Advisers. The Council has served presidents of both parties 
for the past 50 years. This group provides long-term economic advice to 
the President that is both impartial and apolitical. This kind of 
advice is increasingly important during a time when economic advice a 
president gets is usually laced with political undertones.
  I am also bothered by the reductions made to the Federal Election 
Commission [FEC] in an upcoming presidential election year. The $2.5 
million reduction made to the FEC combined with an earmark of $1.5 
million for computer modernization will interfere with the ability of 
FEC to carry out its duties and ensure the integrity of the upcoming 
elections. This is not the only agency that suffers a reduction in its 
budget. Other agencies take significant cuts to their budgets that will 
affect their ability to carry out their functions.
  This bill is also silent on Federal pay. Neither the President nor 
the Committee has provided the full 5.9 percent increase that the Civil 
Service is due as employment cost index and locality pay increases 
under the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act. Since 1981, Federal 
employees have lost more than $163 billion in pay and benefits that 
they were scheduled to receive.
  The 2.4 percent raise recommended by the President, which is adopted 
by this bill, is not fully funded. Even further, this is less than half 
of the raise owed to Federal workers under existing law. Agencies not 
involved in law enforcement are forced to absorb the additional cost of 
the pay increase from their program budgets. This unwise policy results 
in a hidden 2.4 percent cut in programs at agencies that are already 
facing severe budget constraints.
  Another provision that bothers me directed toward Federal employees 
is the majority's decision to reinstate a provision in the bill which 
restricts a Federal employee's choice of a health care insurance plan 
by prohibiting ``Federal funds'' from being used to purchase a policy 
which provides coverage for pregnancy termination, except in instances 
where the life of the mother is at risk.
  Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman, that there are no Federal funds used 
for the purchasing of health care coverage for Federal employees. The 
compensation of Federal employees is in the form of salary, health care 
benefits and retirement benefits. Like private sector employees, they 
can use their compensation as they see fit. Federal workers choose a 
health insurance plan and a portion of that is paid for with their 
health coverage benefit. There are no ``Federal funds'' involved when a 
Federal employee decides what to do with his/her salary. The choice of 
policies is the employee's alone. The reasoning of the Committee that 
it is the employer's right to restrict the scope of coverage for legal 
medical services is wrong.
  This tampering with the rights of Federal employees is wrong because 
they are one of our Nation's greatest assets. They are important to my 
congressional district where they number approximately 13,000 persons. 
Federal employees are among the finest, most honorable workers in this 
country. Yet, in this House, many insist on perpetuating an attitude of 
hostility toward Federal employees. They call them lazy bureaucrats, 
government vultures or worthless do-nothing Federal employees. This is 
wrong, Mr. Chairman, and it must be stopped. It should not take an 
incident like the Oklahoma bombing to change the minds of many in this 
country with regards to Federal employees.
  While I have thus far focused on items I have not liked in this 
legislation, it does not have some good points. For one, the bill funds 
the Customs Service at a level that exceeds the President's request. I 
feel this is important because the Customs Service has a difficult job 
as the Nation's principal border agency. Customs' responsibilities run 
the gamut from fighting the scourge of illegal drug trafficking to 
assessing and collecting duties and tariffs. I would also like to 
mention that the Customs Service section of the report included items 
of importance to my congressional district. For instance, there is 
language supporting: additional Customs inspectors for El Paso, Texas, 
unified port management, and drug interdiction technologies such as 
cargo x-ray systems and FLIR's for UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters.
  The report also includes $560,000 for security improvements to the El 
Paso Federal Building. Other items of interest to my congressional 
district include report language supporting the Gang Resistance 
Education and Training Program, the Southwest Border High Intensity 
Drug Trafficking Area, and Operation Alliance.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the leadership of 
Chairman Lightfoot. Throughout our hearings and deliberations, the 
Chairman was very fair and amenable by allowing of minority views and 
consideration. I am very grateful for his policy of ``opening up'' the 
hearings to questioning after allotted time for testimony had expired. 
The other members of the subcommittee, are also to be complemented for 
their diligence in pursuing the issues under the subcommittee's 
jurisdiction. I also would like to thank the staff of both sides for 
the hard work they displayed in putting together this legislation. They 
worked many long hours to put together the final product we are 
debating today.
   Mr. Chairman, I will support H.R. 2020, but it is my hope that some 
of the troubling provisions I have mentioned will be moderated by the 
Senate and we can settle those differences in conference.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Watts of Oklahoma) 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. 
2020) 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, 
1996, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________