[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 117 (Wednesday, July 19, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7186-H7239]
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 in the House in the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2020.

                              {time}  1035


                     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. 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, with Mr. Dreier in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, July 
18, 1995, pending was amendment No. 6 offered by the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], and title V was open for amendment at any point.
  Pursuant to the order of the Committee of that day, further debate on 
that amendment and all amendments thereto will be limited to 80 
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer] and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] 
is detained in full committee. In order to facilitate the debate, we 
have an agreement with the minority side that I would yield time to the 
gentlewoman to present her debate and they will yield that time back to 
us after the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] arrives.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Velazquez].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is this time yielded from the majority or is this time 
taken from the side of the minority?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, it is yielded from the majority's time 
with the understanding the minority is going to yield an equivalent 
amount of time back out of theirs so we still end up with the division 
we agreed on yesterday.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York. [Ms. Velazquez] is 
recognized for 4 minutes.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment. A far-right, self-righteous minority in this Chamber has 
inserted a repulsive, antiwomen provision into this bill. I implore my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me and the majority of 
the American people in rejecting paternalistic measures such as these.
  Some million hard-working, public-minded women currently serve their 
Federal Government in every State of this Union. They often work under 
difficult circumstance, and usually for modest pay. Radical zealots in 
this Congress would now single out these women for discrimination.
  No matter that two-thirds of private fee-for-service plans provide 
the full range of reproductive health services.
  No matter that 70 percent of HMO's provide abortion coverage.
  No matter that the majority of the people of this Nation support a 
woman's right to choose.
  These self-appointed morality police would nevertheless deny over 1 
million women their constitutional right to choose.
  The supporters of this extreme provision may argue that they do not 
require a woman to bring their pregnancies to term--at least not yet. 
They would merely refuse to fund abortions under the Federal Employees' 
Health Benefits Program.
  For many women, that is a distinction without substance. This 
antiwomen ban has no place in this appropriations measure. It signals a 
return to a very recent, shameless decade when this Government presumed 
to substitute its reproductive judgments for those of mature adult 
females and their health care professionals.
  It is also a first, giant step backward toward the grim, not-to-
distant past when back alley abortions were common horrors.
  I urge my colleagues not to turn back the clock. Support this 
amendment, and preserve every woman's right to control her health, and 
her body, and exercise her sound judgment.
                              {time}  1040

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Lightfoot] such time as was used by the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver], a former member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding the 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hoyer amendment.
  The right to choose is the law of this land. It is constitutionally 
protected.
  Eliminating this right for one group of women--just because they 
happen to work for the Federal Government--is discrimination.
  Under present law, a Federal employee who opposes abortion can choose 
1 of the 345 plans which does not cover abortion.
  But under the bill before us, no Federal employee is allowed the 
option of a plan which covers abortion.
  Women in the Federal service should not be singled out and given no 
choice.
  We must support the right of all women to choose. We must support the 
Hoyer amendment.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Nadler].
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which 
would remove from this bill dangerous language that once again strikes 
out at women. The language we are seeking to remove today says that 
women who work for the Federal Government--women who have made a 
commitment to public service--should not have the same rights offered 
to women working elsewhere.
  Mr. Chairman, women in this Nation have a constitutionally protected 
right to choose whether to have an abortion. This is the law of the 
land.
  But some Members of this House, realizing that the vast majority of 
the American people support a woman's constitutionally protected right 
to choose, are trying to do away with this fundamental right bit by 
bit, woman by woman.
  We must not allow this to happen.
  Because abortion is a legal medical procedure, most major health 
plans provide coverage for women who choose to have an abortion. 
Private insurance companies recognize that their female customers are 
perfectly capable of making this deeply personal choice without 
interference.
  Do we think that our moral judgment is superior to that of the 
thousands of women serving our communities and our Nation? What do we 
know that major insurance companies, U.S. corporations, and the 
majority of our constituents do not know?
  It is time to get off the high horse, to quit playing political games 
with the rights of women and to respect the moral judgment of the women 
we represent. I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong 
opposition to the Hoyer amendment, and I urge Members to realize that 
this is a pro-abortion amendment and would provide and facilitate 
abortion on demand. It would force taxpayers to underwrite the cost of 
abortions, and premium payers would also have to pay for abortions as 
well.
  Mr. Chairman, let me remind Members that we contribute as taxpayers, 

[[Page H 7187]]
  we contribute 70 percent, a little over 70 percent, of the funding to 
the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. Not only that, even if it 
was not a taxpayer-funded issue, by providing this money we are also 
facilitating, by providing this authority which would be precluded by 
the underlying language, we are facilitating the demise and the 
destruction of unborn children.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman, because as I 
have said yesterday, he is a very close friend of mine, I have great 
respect for his integrity, and I want to say I think what the gentleman 
has just said is the gravamen of this debate, and is absolutely 
correct. This is not a taxpayer funding issue.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it is a 
taxpayer-funding issue but it also provides and facilitates abortion by 
granting this authority to the HMO's and other providers of health care 
under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield for 
1 additional second, and I will yield him 30 seconds, so I am not 
eating into his time, does the gentleman know that CBO does not score 
this either way?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, that is an accounting deal. We 
are talking about U.S. taxpayer dollars, mine, the gentleman's, going 
into a fund that then is doled out as part of the Federal Employees 
Health Benefits Program. Yes, there is a contribution made by the 
employee, roughly 30 percent, but there is also a 70-percent 
contribution made by the Federal Government, we as taxpayers, and then 
there are the premium payers. I myself, my wife and I, got out of 
Kaiser because they were providing abortions. We were providing 
premiums, so then both as taxpayer and as premium payer, we were 
contributing to abortion at Kaiser. We got out of it because we were so 
upset with the killing of unborn children at Kaiser Permanente.
  Mr. HOYER. I understand the gentleman's view.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. At the National Prayer Breakfast last year, 
Mother Teresa addressed thousands of political leaders, including the 
President of the United States, Bill Clinton. It seems to me no one can 
listen to Mother Teresa and not be moved to believe that this small, 
frail, and humble woman, in her stands a very powerful message of peace 
and hope and of love. She looked directly at the President of the 
United States and said, ``Please don't kill the child. I want the 
child,'' she went on. ``We are fighting abortion with adoption, by care 
of the mother and adoption of her baby.'' Mother Teresa said, ``The 
greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war 
against the child, a direct killing of an
 innocent child.''

  She also went on to point out during her very lengthy comments that 
``there is a linkage between abortion and other forms of violence. Any 
country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but 
to use violence to get what they want.'' That is why ``the greatest 
destroyer of love and peace,'' according to Mother Teresa, and I fully 
agree, ``the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.''
  Mr. Chairman, abortion is violence. I tried yesterday to point out to 
some of my colleagues the we need to strip away all of the euphemisms, 
all of the cover and the cloaking that is done, all of the clever 
marketing that is done by the abortion industry to conceal the 
compelling reality, the awesome and gruesome reality of abortion on 
demand.
  Mr. Chairman, abortion methods include dismembering innocent children 
with razor blades and suction devices or injections of chemical poisons 
that are designed to kill the child. There is more research being done 
by some of the pharmaceutical companies to find stronger and more 
lethal doses, not healing, not chemicals that will provide healing for 
children, but those that will do the deed more efficiently by killing 
the unborn child.
  Abortion on demand, and this, the Hoyer amendment, facilities 
abortion on demand, treats pregnancy as a sexually transmitted disease, 
as a tumor, a wart, a piece of trash to be destroyed. Yet, if any one 
of us have ever watched an unborn child's image on an ultrasound or a 
sonogram screen, you cannot help but be awed by the miracle of human 
life, by the preciousness of a child's being, and moved to pity by the 
helplessness and the vulnerability of that child. To see an unborn 
child turning and twisting, kicking and sucking his or her thumb while 
still in utero, it shatters the myth that the abortion industry so 
cleverly markets that we are merely removing some tissue or the 
products of conception, or some of the other dehumanizing words used to 
describe the unborn child. Peel away the euphemisms that sanitize 
abortion, and the cruelty to children and their mothers becomes readily 
apparent to anyone with an open mind.
  Mr. Chairman, I have worked for 15 years as a Member of Congress on 
human rights. I worked with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] on 
the Helsinki Commission, I am chairman of that commission, for 
religious freedom, trying to get dissidents out of prisons. I have been 
all over Europe, the People's Republic of China and other captive 
nations, but I would submit that the human rights issue of our time is 
the unborn child, the protection of those children, boys and girls who 
are routinely killed, some 4,000 each and every day in this country, 
and many millions more around the globe.
  Before this amendment was in place, the U.S. Government paid for 
17,000 abortions under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. 
Then the Congress wisely moved in and said ``No, we ought not to be 
doing that. We ought to be protecting life, not taking it,'' and the 
language went in and was renewed each and every year during the 1980's 
and the 1990's, and we stopped this facilitation and funding of 
abortion on demand.
  Seventeen thousand children, that is a lot of kids, a lot of boys and 
girls who will not be playing basketball or soccer or baseball or any 
other sport or any other kind of activity because their lives have been 
snuffed out.
  Government ought to care for the innocent and weak. This amendment is 
antichild. I urge rejection of it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
Maryland, for yielding time to me. He has fought long and hard on this 
issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know that we are ever going to permanently 
resolve it. I want to say to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith], I admire his deep-seated, sincere, emotional commitment on 
this issue. I wish that more people in this country felt as strongly 
about such an important issue as the gentleman from New Jersey does. In 
many ways, yes, it is a human rights issue.
  However, I think the real issue that we have to face is who makes the 
decision. It is not really a matter of my trying to dissuade the 
gentleman from his strongly held views on abortion. I could not do 
that, because I do not particularly disagree with the gentleman from 
New Jersey. However, I would suggest that it is not up to him to make 
that decision for millions of women in this country, particularly those 
who are covered by the Federal employees health benefits plan.
  We have already increased the retirement contribution, we have made 
sure that any Federal employee now has reason to feel insecure about 
their job, we have cut 272,900 positions, we have reduced their 
retirement benefits at the end, when they are ready to retire, and we 
are now capping their health insurance subsidy that the Federal 
Government provides, so it is a much worse plan than they would get in 
a large corporation.
  Now we are saying that any woman and family who is employed by the 
Federal Government is going to be discriminated against in terms of 
their ability to make a decision with regard to the most personal, 
private, difficult medical conflicts that will occur in their lives. We 
are going to make that decision for them. There are 78 million women 
who have this coverage in the private sector, but because we control 
the Federal employees health benefits plan, we are going to take away 
this decision from women who work for our Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, the American Medical Association looked at this 
extensively. It is the doctors who we should consult 

[[Page H 7188]]
when we make this decision. They came up with the conclusion that when 
you deny insurance coverage, invariably it leads to very serious 
complications, it causes women to have to delay an abortion when they 
would want to do it immediately, before a fetus is formed, but they 
look around for money to pay for the procedure, and then they have a 
procedure after the fetus is much further along, which is certainly not 
what the gentleman from New Jersey or his colleagues would want to 
happen. It also endangers the life of the woman having the procedure. 
That is wrong.
  What we are trying to do in imposing our moral decisions on all the 
women who are covered by the Federal employees health benefits plan is 
wrong. We have no right to be doing this. There is a woman in my 
district, a Federal employee, she has two children. She got pregnant a 
third time. She had amniocentesis. It turns out that the fetus had Tay 
Sachs disease. She knew that that fetus, once born, was not going to 
live very long. Its spine would not be formed, it was going to have any 
number of diseases. Its brain probably would not be functioning. It 
would only suffer after being brought into this world.
  She had to make a very difficult decision, because she is a very 
moral person, as all the people that we are talking about denying this 
coverage to are moral people trying to do the right thing. She felt it 
was in the best interests of that life within her body and of her 
family, to have an abortion. She did not want to have it. But it was 
the most responsible thing to do. Now, the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith] and others would make that decision for her. She will no 
longer have that option. That option is foreclosed to her. That is 
wrong.
  The view of the gentleman from New Jersey on abortion is not 
necessarily wrong. But it is wrong to be so intolerant of people who 
have different views. To impose one's moral decisions like that on 
others, just because we have the power of the purse, is wrong. We 
should not be doing it to Federal employees. We should not be doing it 
to women. We should be trusting women to make their own moral decisions 
on such profoundly important matters that will affect their bodies, 
their lives, and their families. I urge the Members, please do not 
include this in the bill, and support the amendment of the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from the great State of Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], 
chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, which is a 
job nobody wants.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Iowa, for this opportunity to address the House on what 
I think is a very, very important issue.
  I rise in strong support of the Hoyer amendment. Mr. Chairman, this 
is not about abortion, this is about equality. This is about personal 
responsibility. I am a Republican because I believe in personal 
responsibility. I believe in choice in health benefits, choice in 
education, work, responsibility. This is not like the Medicaid issue, 
where people can argue that this is 100 percent taxpayer dollars, and 
therefore, we have a right to say what those dollars ought to be spent 
on. These are wages. This is earned income.
  Just as I believe every public employee can deal with spending their 
own earned income responsibly, I believe they can make responsible 
choices about what health benefit plan they want to participate in, as 
long as the Federal Government provides them with a significant series 
of choices of health benefit plans, and indeed, about half of the 
Federal health benefits plan include abortion and about half do not.
  We are doing the responsible thing. We are providing our Federal 
employees the right to make the choice to invest in the health benefit 
plan that they choose to invest in as a result of the work they are 
putting in. This is part of their earned benefit. Therefore, this is 
not a Medicaid problem, this is an employee problem.
  Let us look at the consequences of reaching into the benefit 
structure and Congress determining how that benefit structure ought to 
be shaped because there are public dollars involved. If Members vote 
against this amendment, the next step will be that this Congress will 
reach into every American's benefit plan, because there is not an 
American in this Nation whose benefit plan is not subsidized with tax 
dollars. We spend $80 billion every single year allowing employers to 
deduct the cost of health benefits. There is not a health benefit plan 
in America that is not publicly subsidized.
  However, those benefit plans that are part of wage structures, where 
people have earned the right to have salary and benefit, those benefit 
plans ought to be treated differently than our involvement in Medicaid 
and ought not to be compromised by this body. Every employee ought to 
have the right to the full range of legal medical procedures without 
regard to whether their salary is paid or their health benefits plan is 
subsidized with public tax dollars. I urge strong support for the Hoyer 
amendment. Let us differentiate this from the larger debate.
                              {time}  1100

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hoyer 
amendment to H.R. 2020.
  Mr. Chairman, today the Republican leadership is making yet another 
attempt to chip away at a woman's right to choose--the right to choose 
an abortion.
  A few weeks ago, military women who are stationed overseas lost their 
right to use their own money for a safe and legal abortion in a 
military hospital.
  Now, this appropriations bill will deny women who are Federal 
employees from receiving safe and legal abortions through their own 
insurance plans.
  Who's next? I'll tell you who is next--poor women; rape victims; 
incest victims; women whose lives depend on access to safe and legal 
abortions. Mark my words, they are next.
  Mr. Chairman, under the Republican majority, the right of American 
women to make their own decisions about their reproductive health is 
threatened every day. We cannot stand by and watch the rights of 
American women be violated.
  I strongly, strongly urge my colleagues to stand up now, before it is 
too late, before the right to choose rings hollow for most American 
women. Stand up for the women who devote their lives to service in the 
Federal Government. Stand up for those women who look to us, Members of 
Congress, to protect their right to choose. Vote ``yes'' on the Hoyer 
amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, the new regime in Congress seized power 
last year, claiming that the Democrats were out of touch. These 
Americans wanted Government out of their lives.
  But, Mr. Chairman, what the new leadership is doing to a woman's 
right to choose is proof of just how out of touch the new regime is. 
The Supreme Court will not allow Congress to outlaw abortions directly, 
so we are faced with a proposal to prevent Federal employees from 
purchasing health insurance that covers abortion services.
  We hear over and over again that Americans want Government off their 
backs. Yet today we are faced with this incredibly intrusive vision of 
Government. Denying abortion services to Federal employees is another 
knife attack on a woman's right to choose in America.
  Mr. Chairman, an overwhelming majority of Americans support the right 
to choose. The erosion of that right in the 104th Congress defies the 
national will. It proves that the far right's championing of individual 
liberty rings hollow. I warn my Republican colleagues, make good on 
your own rhetoric. Support individual liberty. Protect a woman's right 
to choose.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], who can play football all by himself.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa, I think, 
for that athletic observation.

[[Page H 7189]]

  Again we see and rejoice in the fact, Mr. Chairman, that good people 
can disagree on a variety of issues. Certainly there is disagreement on 
this issue this morning.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Hoyer amendment. As we observe, 
there is an important and oftentimes divisive debate in this country 
about the morality of abortion and the sanctity of human life. It is my 
strong conviction that elective abortion is the taking of innocent 
life.
  This amendment, however, goes far beyond the question of the legality 
of abortion. The Hoyer amendment seeks to make abortion a taxpayer-
subsidized entitlement by allowing Federal employee health plans to 
provide abortion.
  Currently, 72 percent of Federal employee health care premiums are 
paid by the Federal Government. It is my belief that Congress has no 
right to forcibly compel taxpayers, many of whom share my strong 
beliefs of the rights of the unborn, to pay for elective abortions.
  Elective abortion is not health care. The Supreme Court has ruled 
that ``abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures 
because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of human 
life.'' That finding was in 1980.
  I urge my colleagues, especially those with whom I have a 
philosophical disagreement on this issue, do not make elective abortion 
a federally funded entitlement. For that reason I would ask my 
colleagues to join with me in opposition and ultimately to defeat the 
Hoyer amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the American public must be saying, ``I cannot 
believe this issue is back. They settled it last Congress. They settled 
it in that Congress consistent with the views of the American public. 
What is it doing back?''
  A woman's right to choose should not depend on the vicissitudes of 
who is in charge. But it would appear that is the case for Federal 
employees. Mr. Chairman, this is not an issue about abortion. This is 
about discrimination. This issue is about discrimination in medical 
services directed at millions of Federal employees.
  The other side would not have the nerve to raise this issue unless 
they characterized the funds involved as Federal funds. That is a 
transparent mischaracterization. Ask employees at IBM and AT&T whether 
the share of compensation that they pay for their medical is IBM's or 
is theirs. Don't insult Federal employees by saying to them that money 
they have earned, their own compensation, nevertheless still belongs to 
the Federal Government and is Federal funds.
  Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about Medicaid. These are people who 
work every day, and buy their own health care. Federal employees are 
not on welfare. It is not up to you to tell them what to spend their 
health care money for. They can buy any other pregnancy-related 
service.
  We are talking about 1.2 million women of reproductive age who happen 
to work for the Federal Government, and for that reason incur 
discrimination in health care. That is an abomination. You can only do 
it because you can reach your own employees and you cannot reach 
private sector employees.
  How often does an American have to go outside of her own already 
paid-for health care plan to get medical care? Perhaps you have to go 
outside of your own health care plan to get a facelift. That is not 
what this delicate procedure is about.
  Mr. Chairman, Federal employees have had enough. They are going 
through the most severe downsizing in history. They do not know whether 
they will get their pay raises and locality pay. They are called 
bureaucrats derisively, when they are risking their lives as FBI 
agents, or inspecting meat to make sure we do not risk out lives. You 
get them at work. Please do not get them in the bedroom. Stop the 
discrimination against Federal employees.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, it is wrong for taxpayers to be 
forced to pay for Federal employees' abortions, but that is just what 
is happening today.
  The work of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], the chairman, on 
H.R. 2020 will change that, and it is about time.
  Few would disagree that abortion is one of the most divisive issues 
in our Nation.
  So why do the people of this country, many of whom believe abortion 
is wrong, have to help pay for a Federal employee to have an abortion?
  The Lightfoot language would not apply when the mother's life is in 
danger. It would simply keep taxpayers from subsidizing abortion on 
demand for Federal employees.
  Abortion advocates will call this a radical idea. I suggest that the 
only radical part of this debate is the current system, where people 
who believe life is sacred and are forced to subsidize the death of 
innocent children.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate has been had over and over again as we have 
heard this morning. It is an attempt again to make the women of America 
second-class citizens and the women who work for the Federal Government 
third class.
  It is beyond belief to me that you would say that we are using 
taxpayers' money, when what we are saying is that we are using the 
salaries of women who work legitimately for a living. There is not any 
other string that you put on a Federal employee's salary. Why in the 
world could you tell women what they can do with theirs?
  We do not have any right, and we have no business prohibiting Federal 
employees' health care plans from offering coverage for legal abortion 
services to women just because they work for the Federal Government. 
Federal employees work hard for their salaries and benefits.
  We ask a lot of the Federal employees. As the Government continues to 
downsize, we are asking even more. Right now, as far as pensions are 
concerned, they are going to be paying more and getting less.
  Some of the Federal employees, like park rangers, people who work in 
parts of the American West, workers in the Murrah Building in Oklahoma 
City, face injury and death on the job. Do they not at least deserve a 
health benefits plan that is comparable to those offered in the private 
sector?
  Two-thirds of all private insurers cover abortion and an even higher 
percentage of HMO's do. Why should Federal employees be treated like 
third-class citizens?
  The argument that the ban on FEHBP coverage of abortions simply keeps 
Federal tax dollars from being used to pay for coverage is 
disingenuous. The Federal employee benefits are not Federal handouts. 
They are part of a Federal employee's wages and compensation.
  I do not believe that employees of private businesses would stand for 
it one minute if their employer told them how to spend their salaries. 
Federal employees should get the same rights and respect.
  Some opponents of this amendment want to use the ban on abortion 
coverage as one more advance in the fight against the right of American 
women to make their own personal choice on the abortion issue. I 
respect the right to oppose abortion. I urge support for the Hoyer 
amendment.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
the boot heel of Missouri, Cape Girardeau [Mr. Emerson].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from the show me State is recognized for 
3\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hoyer amendment. The 
Federal Government should not be in the business of funding abortions, 
nor should 

[[Page H 7190]]
taxpayers be forced to underwrite the cost of abortions for Federal 
employees.
  The Federal Government currently contributes approximately 72 percent 
of the money toward the purchase of health insurance for its employees. 
Thus, taxpayers do provide a majority share of the funds to purchase 
health insurance for the Federal civilian work force.
  If this amendment were adopted, the American taxpayers would be 
forced to underwrite the cost of abortion for Federal employees. In 
addition to taxpayer funds paying for abortions, premiums contributed 
by conscientiously opposed Federal employees will also be used to 
subsidize abortion on demand.
  Abortion is not just another form of routine health care. In 
upholding the Hyde amendment, the Supreme Court has said that the 
Government can distinguish between abortion and other medical 
procedures.
  I was glad to see the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, in 
her discussion of the subject, at least distinguish between the 
efficacy of a facelift and that of an abortion, but a lot of people put 
them in the same bag. The court said abortion is inherently different 
from other medical procedures because no other procedure involves the 
purposeful termination of potential life.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Missouri for 
yielding. I know that there are strong feelings on this issue, but the 
gentleman keeps saying subsidizing the abortion. The Federal employee, 
of course, gets a compensation package. The CBO has said there is no 
difference in the cost to the Federal Government with or without this. 
It is a choice of the employee of what policy they choose. The Federal 
Government does not buy the policy.
  So my question to the gentleman is, the gentleman from New Jersey 
said this facilitates. I understand that and I think that is a valid 
point. All I am saying, and all that we are saying, is that the Federal 
employee has a compensation package. They have the opportunity to spend 
that. Whether this is in or out, there is no additional or less cost to 
the taxpayer. That is my point.
  Mr. EMERSON. I understand the gentleman's point, but obviously I 
agree with the answer of the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOYER. On the facilitation.
  Mr. EMERSON. I might also say, going a point further, we are talking 
about the most fundamental right, which is the right to life and the 
right to life should not be an elective choice. It is an entirely 
different thing.
  Many of us in this body see it in an entirely different context than 
that being advanced by the gentleman from Maryland.
  I agree that there is a very different, very fundamental different 
point of view here as to what an abortion constitutes and whether or 
not it should be permitted. It is very fundamental.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I think the point whether or not CBO scores 
it or not is irrelevant. We are talking about a very huge investment of 
Federal dollars into an employee program that I am a part of, and 
perhaps every Member of this Congress, over which we have jurisdiction.
  OPM has made it very clear, their general counsel year in and year 
out, that we can limit or we can provide, if the body so chose, to 
provide abortion on demand. We have that capability. It seems that 
where we can save even one life, we ought to step in on behalf of that 
individual, especially when we are facilitating it by tax dollars.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer] for putting forth this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I look in front 
of me and I see Federal workers. No matter now raucous we get in this 
House, no matter how difficult the debate is, the Federal workers that 
I am looking at stay calm and make sure that our bills are complete, 
say what they are supposed to, and that every vote that is cast is 
recorded correctly.
  Federal workers work hard. Federal workers run the Washington 
Monument. They run our National Parks. They staff our local Social 
Security offices, our veterans hospitals and your local soil 
conservation office, and they work hard and do good work. They work 
long hours. And as we have seen, obviously, Federal workers are called 
upon to risk their lives for the United States of America.
  So why then, at this point in time, are we going to treat Federal 
workers as second class citizens? We are trying to deny health care 
coverage commonly available to almost everybody else in this country. 
Why should a Federal worker be held hostage to a political battle of 
wills that we know will take place and will continue to take place?
  The answer is they should not be. The answer is we have always been 
proud in this country of our Federal workers. In other countries there 
has been problems with workers for the country, because you have to 
give a bribe. We never had that because we treat our Federal workers 
fairly and with respect.
  In Communist countries, we found out when the Soviet Union fell what 
was happening with their workers. They were taking advantage of the 
people. Never in the United States of America does this type of thing 
happen, because the United States of America treats its Federal workers 
with respect and fairness.
  Mr. Chairman, if we start to pick away at that, to discriminate 
against a Federal worker, where does it end? I thank the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for this amendment. This amendment says we treat 
Federal workers differently. That is wrong. That is absolutely wrong. 
Mr. Chairman, this amendment should win and I thank the gentleman for 
putting it forth.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hoyer 
amendment. As a Republican, as a mother of three and as a grandmother, 
I support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I am saying today that if the Hoyer amendment fails, we 
are saying to Federal employees who are the victims of rape and incest 
that they do not have the same rights to choice and health insurance 
coverage as other citizens, even those who under present law are 
covered through Medicaid.
  In other words, the Federal employees are third class citizens. I 
repeat, not even in cases of rape and incest can Federal employees 
exercise this right to health insurance under this legislation.
  The illogic of this position held by many of my idealogically 
conservative colleagues is very clear to me. The same people who want 
to get the long arm of the Federal Government out of their lives, and 
are proposing to repeal all sorts of Government regulations on health 
and safety, would put the Government in control of this profound 
personal and moral decision.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not even be debating this. This decision 
should be left to the woman involved, after consultation with her 
family, her physician, and her religious counselor.
  The long arm of the Federal Government should not mandate such a 
profound moral decision.
  Mr. Chairman, I want my colleagues to know that all the Hoyer 
amendment does is maintain the law as it is currently written and allow 
women the access to abortion in cases of rape and incest, not just when 
the life of the mother is in danger.
  I do not think that is too much to ask. That is what we do under 
Medicaid coverage. Let us vote ``yes'' on the Hoyer amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hoyer 
amendment to strike the language that prohibits Federal employees from 
choosing health care plans that include abortion services.

[[Page H 7191]]

  This is the latest in a series of assaults on a woman's right to 
choose. The consequence of this assault, like the others being pursued 
through the appropriations process, is to leave women's rights under 
Roe versus Wade hollow--effectively to repeal those rights without 
directly reversing the Supreme Court's decision.
  Earlier this spring, the House passed a ban on privately-funded 
abortions in military hospitals overseas. Then came the provision 
preventing international family planning organizations from using their 
own funds to provide abortions. Now the assault continues with a ban on 
abortion services for Federal employees.
  One ban after another--choice opponents are on their way to rolling 
back a woman's right to choose.
  This is a discriminatory change from current policy. Choice opponents 
in the Congress are now singling out Federal employees to restrict a 
constitutional right. This is not about Federal funding--employees' own 
salaries are being withheld. It is about infringing upon employees' 
rights to bargain for their own benefits.
  Congress has no place obstructing private insurance companies from 
offering services that are necessary to women's health. At least two-
thirds of private health insurance plans currently include coverage for 
abortions.
  Prohibiting Federal employees from choosing insurance plans that 
offer abortion services endangers their health. The question for our 
House colleagues is whether they can justify limiting Federal 
employees' constitutionally-protected rights and limiting their health 
care options simply because these women receive benefits through the 
Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. I strongly believe we cannot.
  Today's vote is part of a larger agenda to roll back a woman's right 
to choose without directly reversing Roe versus Wade. This provision 
hurts Federal employees, and I urge my colleagues to vote for equal 
rights and health services for Federal employees and their dependents.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from the State of Washington [Mrs. Smith], a new Member of our body.
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I was in my office listening 
to this debate, and it always gets really confusing, because it comes 
back to the fact that we are always hearing the argument: It takes a 
woman's choice away.
  This does nothing, nothing, the current bill, with the woman's right 
to choose. Women can still choose to terminate the life of their unborn 
baby. They can still terminate the life of their unborn baby clear 
through, in many States, the day before the birth as long as the woman 
decides she does not want that baby to take the first breath.
  In another bill we will be discussing late term abortions, but that 
is not the issue here. The issue here today is whether or not American 
taxpayers, through their tax dollars, should fund a very controversial 
issue of taking away the life of a baby through the performance of an 
abortion. Abortion just means taking away the baby's life and deciding 
that baby will not grow up to be an adult.
  Mr. Chairman, these folks still can use their adequate public 
salaries to buy this procedure from any doctor who will perform it 
throughout the 9 months of the baby's life, the first 9 months of the 
baby's life. It just says that people of conscience, including public 
employees, do not have to have their hard-earned dollars used for this 
procedure.
  I think one thing that is clear in this controversial issue in 
America is that Americans do not believe their tax dollars should be 
used for taking a baby's life. Whether they believe that should be 
legal or not, they do not support taxpayer-funded abortions.
  The bill as it came out of committee just says we will go on with the 
will of the people and we will not use the taxpayers' money to fund 
abortions. Very simply put: vote against this amendment. You will 
guarantee a woman's right to choose.
  We are not talking about poor women. We are talking about public 
employees who are substantially, in many cases, and in most cases 
funded through salaries and should they want to choose to terminate the 
life of their baby, they can do it from their own money and not the 
taxpayers'. Vote no on this amendment and yes on the bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 40 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hoyer 
antidiscrimination amendment because that is what this amendment is 
about; discrimination against young women who serve this country as 
public employees.
  We are talking about the young park ranger who is the victim of rape. 
We are talking about the young nurse at a VA hospital who is the victim 
of incest. And what does this appropriations bill say to those young 
women? You cannot have the health care procedure that you and your 
physician think you should be able to have. That is discrimination, 
pure and simple.
  We know that some 70 percent of the health maintenance organizations 
and the vast majority of private insurance companies in this country 
provide to those in the private sector the right to choose the 
procedure that they and their doctor think is appropriate.
  But this bill, which fortunately the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer] has come forward and attempted to amend through an 
antidiscrimination provision, says do not consult your doctor, do not 
consult your family, do not consult with your minister or your rabbi, 
talk to your Member of Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, that is outrageous. It involves the government in the 
most private of decisions that a young woman might choose to make, and 
that is wrong and that is discrimination against one group of our 
population, and that is the young women who serve this country so ably 
in public service.
  Health care benefits are only a form of compensation. They are just 
like salary. What is the next thing going to be? The same kind of 
extremist views coming to the floor of this Congress and saying not in 
the future, not in the future do we want our Federal employees to spend 
their wages to get an abortion?
  That is the same thing that is being done here. A form of 
compensation is being cut off from these young women, and the next step 
is to tell them how they are going to spend their Federal wages because 
those are tax dollars also, and yet they would be permissible under the 
current bill, but not under the next step.
  This provision is harmful to women's health in this country. It 
suggests they cannot follow their physician's direction. It is unfair 
treatment. It has nothing to do with tax dollars being spent. It has 
everything to do with discrimination and the rights of young women.

                              {time}  1130

  We hear plenty these days from the political commentators about angry 
white men. I would say it is time to hear a little more about angry 
young women of all ethnic origins who should be angry about having this 
personal decision interfered with by this Congress.
  Support this Hoyer antidiscrimination amendment.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the always 
calm and quiet gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Well I am a happy warrior Mr. Chairman, and I am in the 
minority. The world is 53 percent female, and I am not a WASP. I am a 
white Celtic Catholic, although I associate with mostly WASP's in this 
House of both genders.
  But as a minority male, 47 percent on the globe, let me set history 
straight here a little bit. People speak about Roe-Wade on the other 
side of the aisle and a few on this side with reverence. Roe-Wade was a 
fraud. Roe, Norma McCovey, has never had an abortion. She has three 
daughters around this country. Each one, she wanted to kill them singly 
at the time. She never did succeed, thanks, to in the last case, the 
laws of Texas, and her daughters are all estranged from her, and they 
say, ``When you are through fighting drugs and/or alcohol, mother, will 
you stop telling the world you wished you had killed us, and then we 
will reconcile with you.'' That is the Norma McCovey story.
  Roe-Wade is Dred Scott.
  Now, for those of you who have, and I understand this, we have got to 
be 

[[Page H 7192]]
civilized in this debate, for those of you that see slavery as the God-
awful demonic thing it was, beating and stealing the sweat off the brow 
of people throughout their whole life and breaking up families, if you 
cannot equate that with killing them, lynching them in the womb, then, 
of course, we have a basic disagreement.
  The thing you say about choice is if a prospective mother, and my 
daughter-in-law is now pregnant with our 10th grandchild in the second 
month; this is when most abortions happen. She is looking forward to 
movement and quickening. This will be her third and Sally's and my 10th 
grandchild. I have lived through five of my own and now a 10th, with 
daughters and son and granddaughters and grandsons, I mean, daughter-
in-law and sons-in-law, we are talking about life here.
  If a woman says, ``I am going to have the baby,'' she suddenly 
becomes pro-life. If they choose death, then that is what the pro-
choice thing is. It is death or life, and if this is an extremist 
position, well, I feel your pain because we are going to win this.
  It is a funding issue, and those of us who equate it with slavery, 
who equate it with death, who equate it with flattening a brainwave 
with sucking brain
 tissue out, the thing that drives some of you crazy in subcommittee, 
and it will soon be on the floor as it was on the Senate floor, the 
partial birth abortion, where you take brain tissue out and kill the 
child in the birth channel, that is going to be a heck of debate later 
in this year; for those of you that do not equate it with snuffing out 
a life, every abortion stops a beating heart. I feel sorry for you 
because we are in the majority now. On stopping abortions for Federal 
workers in uniform in military hospitals, I remind you the vote was 230 
to 196.

  So, when George Bush broke his tax pledge, which had nothing to do 
with this issue, nine seats shifted in the House, and then a daughter 
replaced the father. That made 10 votes shift on this issue by sheer 
terrible coincidence; that was 20 up, 20 down. We shifted to the pro-
abortion or pro-choice, if you want to use that term, side. Now, with 
every pro-lifer at the gubernatorial, Senate and House level winning in 
the country and 40 pro-abortion either retiring or most of them were 
defeated, it shifted. 230 was not on funding. This is on funding. Watch 
us go up to 240.
  I repeat, I feel your pain. We will win Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Hoyer amendment to the fiscal year 1996 Treasury Postal appropriations 
bill. Once again, legislation before this Congress threatens women's 
health and a woman's right to choose--a right guaranteed by the 
Constitution.
  This is an issue of fairness. Women who work for the Federal 
Government deserve the same quality of care that women in private 
sector America enjoy. Furthermore, Federal employees should be allowed 
to use their health insurance to pay for a legal medical procedure.
  Federal employees, like their counterparts in the private sector, 
currently can choose a health care plan that provides coverage for 
reproductive health services. Two-thirds of private health care plans 
provide such coverage for their beneficiaries. The Hoyer amendment 
preserves that right for the 1 million women enrolled in the Federal 
Employee Health Benefits Program.
  Earlier this year, this House voted to prohibit servicewomen 
stationed oversees from using their own personal funds to obtain 
abortion services at military hospitals. This bill extends this 
discrimination another step by singling out women just because they 
work for the Federal Government.
  It is clear that some in this Congress want to take away the right to 
choose for all women. To those who wish to overturn Roe versus Wade, I 
say have the courage of your convictions and schedule a vote to do so. 
This stealth campaign against a woman's right to choose--a right 
guaranteed by law--is deliberate and it's wrong.
  American women have the right to choose. The Hoyer amendment simply 
reaffirms this right for the million women who work for the Federal 
Government. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht], another member of our outstanding freshman 
class.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  You know, this is a very difficult, divisive issue, and I think there 
are strong opinions on both sides.
  I respect the people on both sides of this issue. I happen to believe 
that life is a sacred gift from Almighty God, and I do believe that we 
have a moral responsibility to stand up and speak out on the things we 
believe deeply in.
  But having respect for that, I understand there are differences, but 
there is no difference on this, and that is that 72 percent of the 
funds, of the money that goes toward the purchase of health insurance, 
comes from the taxpayers of the United States of America. And it is 
interesting because that 72 percent represents about what you 
consistently see in the national polls of the American people that say 
that whether you believe abortion should be legal or illegal, over 70 
percent believe that Federal funds should not be paid, used to pay for 
them.
  So the issue here today is not necessarily whether you are for 
abortion or whether you are against abortion, whether you believe life 
is sacred or whether you believe it is not sacred. The issue is: Are we 
going to be used to pay for them?
  I think I speak on behalf of the majority of the people in my 
district; I know I speak for the majority of all American people, 
whatever they happen to believe on that other issue, that taxpayers' 
funds should not be used to pay for them, and that is the issue before 
us today. That is the issue we are going to vote on in a few minutes, 
and that is why I hope that my colleagues will join me in opposing the 
Hoyer amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], who has been such an 
outstanding spokesperson for human rights and civil rights in this 
country.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
yielding, and I rise proudly in support of his amendment. The gentleman 
from Maryland is absolutely correct.
  One of the prior gentlemen, speaking on the other side, says, ``We 
will win, we will win.'' Well, guess what, women will lose. American 
women will lose if this amendment does not pass.
  Why? You hear on the other side people saying, well, conscience, 
conscience, that we do not want Federal taxpayers, who are paying 
Federal employees to have to have any of their money go for any of 
these benefits. Well, if you really want to apply that, then people who 
do not think the Pentagon should be spending so much money for B-2 
bombers should not have to pay their taxes for that percentage, or 
people who do not believe in blood transfusions should not allow 
Federal employees to be able to get that done with their health care 
insurance, and on and on and on.
  Is it is not interesting we do not apply this theory of conscience or 
anything to anything other than women? When it comes to women, we 
cannot dictate enough to them in this body, and this 104th Congress is 
ripping up Roe versus Wade every way it can.
  It is saying to Federal employees, if we do not pass this amendment, 
If you are raped, if one of your children is the subject of incest, if 
you become pregnant and the pregnancy goes amiss and your health is in 
danger, oh, sure, you can get health treatment for it, but, guess what, 
you pay. You pay. You cannot have the health care coverage that the 
Supreme Court says you are entitled to. You are not given the same 
rights as people in the private sector.
  I do not know when we are going to decide that we can lower the boom 
enough on women. When you look at the beginning of this century, women 
finally walked into first-class citizenship after working very hard to 
get that vote. We will soon be celebrating their having had that vote 
for 75 years, and let me tell you, if this Congress keeps doing what it 
is doing, we are going to finally learn how to use that vote and say to 
people we insist on 

[[Page H 7193]]
being treated the same as any other citizen and are tired of this.
  Vote for the Hoyer amendment.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I have come to the floor today to 
express my strong opposition to the gentleman from Maryland's amendment 
to strike the very reasonable provision in this appropriations bill to 
restrict abortion coverage in the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
Program.
  We have heard arguments that the prohibition to deny abortion 
insurance coverage to Federal employees would mean that Congress would 
violate a woman's right to choose an abortion. This is simply 
incorrect. Individuals who wish to purchase abortion insurance coverage 
are free to do so in the marketplace and individuals who wish to end 
the life of their unborn child can also do so, but at their own cost. 
Americans should not be required to subsidize abortion on demand.
  We are responsible for how we spend every tax dollar that the Federal 
Government collects from the American taxpayer. And from these tax 
dollars, the Federal Government currently contributes approximately 72 
percent of the money toward the purchase of health insurance for its 
employees. Thus, taxpayers pay a majority of the funds to purchase 
health insurance for the Federal civilian work force.
  This plan is not like any other health plan. This is the health 
benefits plan for the employees of the Federal Government and 
therefore, the American taxpayer needs to be considered as it is their 
money we are spending. This is not about discrimination, this is not 
about a woman's right to choose. This is about protecting American 
taxpayers from paying for something that violates their very core 
values and beliefs.
  I firmly believe that killing an unborn child cannot be compared to 
every other medical procedure. Unfortunately, ending a pregnancy by an 
elective abortion may be an option that is available to every woman in 
this country. This fact does not in any way require that the American 
taxpayer be forced to finance these morally objectionable procedures. 
This is not health care. I would contend that this is anything but and 
I urge you to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hoyer 
amendment.
  I wish colleagues will listen carefully to this.
  It gets a little complicated. Basically, if we do not speak up 
against this, the Hoyer amendment is going to delete two paragraphs 
within the bill, which will allow abortion on demand.
  The Federal Government pays a portion of the Federal employee 
benefits program; the premium that we all pay, the Government pays a 
portion of it. Nine million Federal Government employees, their 
dependents and retirees are covered under this plan.
  Should the American taxpayers have an interest in the health care 
coverage of Federal employees? Absolutely. You bet. Most Americans, 
even if they can accept the idea of abortions, do not want to pay for 
them. Asking anyone to subsidize abortions is offensive enough; asking 
the American taxpayers, whose hard-earned labor pays for the Government 
employees' salary to underwrite elective abortions is just plain wrong.
  I ask all of my colleagues, regardless of what position you are on 
this, we cannot strike those two paragraphs, because then we will have 
abortion on demand in the employee's Federal benefit health program.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the gentleman, the 
chairman of the subcommittee, yielding this time to me, and I certainly 
appreciate the leadership that has come from the ranking minority 
member of that subcommittee for his leadership with regard to this 
amendment which I think is so important.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not understand why we are doing this. With regard 
to Federal employees we are downsizing, we are increasing their 
retirement fees that they will be paying, and now we are taking away 
something else that has been part of their benefits package, their 
opportunity to choose for their health care.
  Currently two-thirds of private fee-for-service plans and 70 percent 
of health maintenance organizations provide this abortion coverage. To 
not allow the FEHBP to provide this health service is harmful to 
women's health, and it discriminates against women and, certainly, 
Federal employees.
  The Federal Employees Health Benefit Plans should be comparable to 
those that are offered in the private sector which, as I mentioned, 
overwhelmingly provide the full range of reproductive health services. 
They are part of the total compensation package earned by Federal and 
postal employees and thus should cover the full health needs of the 
employee. Arbitrarily banning any benefit effectively reduces earned 
wages.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a promise made; it should be a promise that is 
kept.
  The inequity of this measure is magnified by the fact that the 
Federal health care plan pays for other pregnancy-related services. If 
the funding ban goes into effect again, the approximately 1.2 million 
women of reproductive age who rely on the FEHB program must either pay 
with their own private funds or continue with an unintended pregnancy 
of major dimensions. The restriction would be put in place despite the 
fact that Federal workers do have a portion of their health premiums 
deducted out of their own paychecks.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask this body to be sensible and to vote for the 
Hoyer amendment.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
the great State of Illinois [Mr. Hyde], our good friend and colleague.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I just wish to weigh in as strongly as I can 
with great respect to my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer], in opposition to his amendment. If abortion is a good thing, or 
even a neutral benign thing, and one really believes that, then, as my 
colleagues know, they should support Mr. Hoyer's amendment. But if they 
believe that abortion is the purposeful killing of an unborn child, a 
little life that is on its way to enjoying citizenship, then it is 
wrong. It is a rejection, a repudiation, of the notion that one should 
be responsible for one's acts. It is an act not of compassion and of 
love, but of selfishness and coldness, and abortions are just a bad 
thing.
  Mr. Chairman, that is my conviction. I do not take a gun to anybody's 
head and say, ``You have to think as I think,'' but I would appeal to 
the common sense and the logic of people who realize that abortion is 
really so abhorrent that we hardly use the word. We use ``pro choice.'' 
We use ``reproductive rights.'' We use all sorts of euphemisms to avoid 
confronting the fact that abortion is the deliberate killing of a life 
that has begun and a mother who should be the natural protector of her 
child suddenly its adversary.
  Mr. Chairman, I resent that if my money is paying for this 
extermination of this pregnancy. It is not a termination. All 
pregnancies terminate at the end of 9 months, but this is an 
extermination of a little life that has begun and is entitled in simple 
justice to at least have that right to life, which is an endowment 
which the Creator, according to our Declaration of Independence, 
respected.
  Now I say to my colleagues, 72 percent of the costs for these 
premiums is Federal money, your money and my money, and people say, 
``Get the Government out of the bedroom.'' Well, get the Government out 
of our pockets paying for this heinous activity called abortion.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan [Ms. Rivers].

[[Page H 7194]]

  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, this is a difficult debate, and, as has 
been correctly pointed out, the majority of Americans do not like 
abortion, but what is equally important to point out is that even a 
greater majority of Americans do not want the Government to make these 
kinds of decisions for American families.
  I had an opportunity to make this decision. I was a mother at 18 
under circumstances that were not optimal, but I made the decision that 
many people on the other side would want to see me make. I kept my 
baby. But the choice was much harder, much more difficult, and the life 
that it created was of a degree that I could have never anticipated. I 
had never guessed that I would find my self in a job market without 
skills, that I would be without health insurance, that I would not be 
able to buy a home, that I would get my education in a piecemeal way. 
That is what an early pregnancy means in real-life terms, and that is 
why it is important to let each and every family involved make these 
decisions for themselves.
  I would never, having lived through it, force that kind of a decision 
on another human being. But the question here today is whether or not 
we will take away a perfectly legal and constitutionally protected 
choice for 1 million women simply because they work for the Federal 
Government. Whether or not we will allow the good burghers who populate 
Congress to decide the private decisions of American families, nothing 
could be so antithetical to the individual freedoms that the majority 
in this House preach in every other arena we discuss. They talk about 
returning to traditional values; well, let's go back to one that is 
basic to America: ``Mind your own business.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to inform the Committee that the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining and 
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 7 minutes and 50 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentlewoman's remarks 
which are common argument against our position, that we should ``mind 
our own business,'' that brings up a most interesting question:
  Whose business is it when a member, tiny little member, of the human 
family is about to be killed? Is it anybody's business? Is it a matter 
of privacy only between the doctor and the pregnant woman, or is 
society involved?
  I would remind the gentlewoman of the words of the great English 
poet, John Donne, who said ``Every man's death diminishes me for I am 
involved in mankind.''
  Does society have any responsibility for the taking of an innocent 
human life? Mr. Chairman, she obviously says, ``No, turn your back, 
walk away,'' and I say, oh, no, we have a responsibility toward fellow 
human beings to protect them in the most basic right, which is the 
right to life.
  I have seen animals protect their young with a compassion and 
tenderness that is very instructive. I have seen a crocodile scoop up 
eggs and carry them down to the waterside with a gentleness that was 
almost poetic, and then,
 when I think of the abortion mills, or reproductive health clinics, 
pardon me, churning out death, it is more than ironic. I say government 
exists to protect the weak from the strong, and the gentlewoman's 
party, political party, more than my party, has always been for the 
ones that are left out, left behind, the forgotten ones, but they sure 
ignore the unborn, and I take pride in the fact that my party looks to 
the unborn and will protect that unborn when the mother becomes its 
deadly adversary.

  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Ms. RIVERS. One of the issues that I see take place on a regular 
basis or strategy----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] has 
expired.
  Mr. HYDE. The gentlewoman from Michigan can get time, Mr. Chairman, 
and we can have our colloquy.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 50 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, the strategy that I see going on here is 
one that is used regularly, which is to argue this debate as if this 
decision will decide whether or not this choice will be available to 
American women. I say to the gentleman, ``You have lost that 
argument.''
  Mr. HYDE. So. far.
  Ms. RIVERS. The Constitution makes it very clear. This is about who 
will decide for 100 million women who work for the Federal Government 
whether it should be families involved making a decision within the law 
of the land or people here who want to operate in very paternalistic, 
intrusive, invasive ways in basic decisions. That is where we differ. 
That is what this issue is not, whether this should or should not 
happen. It is who should make the decision under the law, and I 
suggest, and the gentleman argues eloquently in every other area, that 
the Government is not the best entity to make these decisions.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman let me say something? 
Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. RIVERS. I yield exactly the amount of time the gentleman yielded 
to me, which I think was about 8 seconds.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I think Roe versus Wade ranks right us there 
with Dred Scott as a terrible decision.
  Ms. RIVERS. And the gentleman has the right to that opinion.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask or I want to respond to 
the gentlewoman from Michigan when she said it is the law of the land. 
I want to read to her what the Supreme Court of the United States has 
said, that Government can distinguish between abortion and, quote, 
other medical procedures. In upholding the Hyde amendment the Court 
said, quote, abortion is inherently different from other medical 
procedures because no other procedure involves the purposeful 
termination of a potential life.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. I see the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde] leaving the room, and I just want to say to the distinguished 
gentleman that I have great respect for the gentleman. We work together 
on many issues. In fact, on my committee I have been a strong advocate 
for the Adoption Opportunities Act, and I do think we have to encourage 
those who choose to have a child, and we want to help those mothers and 
those families protect that child and take care of that child, and that 
is why I am such a strong supporter and I have always advocated funding 
for that act. I just want to comment on a few things the gentleman said 
when we talked about the fact that we believe abortion is a good thing.
  I am a mother of three beautiful grown children. I have been married 
for 34 years. I try to teach my children, and I hope some day I will 
have grandchildren, and, yes, I agree with the gentleman, to teach 
responsibility, to teach responsibility for one's own actions. I think 
we agree on that. But I do not think anybody in this room, or any woman 
I know who had to face that very difficult decision, would say that 
abortion is a good thing. When a woman has to make the very difficult 
decision with her religious counselor, her family, her doctor, or with 
whom she chooses to make that decision, it is very difficult.
  My distinguished colleagues, are we going to say to people who are 
victims of rape, ``Victims of rape, you have to carry that rapist's 
child''? Are we going to say to victims of incest, to Federal employees 
who are victims of incest, ``You have to carry that person's child''? 
That seems to me to be uncommon indecency.
  So I would like to say it is unfair for us to treat Federal employees 
with discrimination, and, in fact, why should we be taking women 
backward?
                              {time}  1200

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. 

[[Page H 7195]]

  Mr. Chairman, obviously this is a difficult debate. The gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Lowey], who just spoke, made comments as far as 
what a woman faces, and I am sure those are difficult. But I stand here 
today as a product of an orphanage, and someone did not make the 
decision to have me terminated when I was a fetus, as the law describes 
it.
  So I think there is a lot more to this than just what one individual 
thinks. In fact, personally, to my knowledge, there has only been one 
Immaculate Conception, and I think in this whole issue of unwanted 
pregnancies, we have too long overlooked the responsibility that the 
man has in the process as well. I think that is something that we 
should address. This is not the place to do it here today, but I 
believe it is part of the problem.
  What we did with our subcommittee language was basically take the 
bill back to language that has existed for nearly 10 years, starting 
back in 1985. We are talking about an elective procedure, an abortion. 
It is as elective as getting a facelift, it as elective as getting a 
hair transplant.
  We heard the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] refer to it a moment 
ago as a health care benefit. I have a little difficulty putting this 
kind of a procedure under a definition as a health care benefit. We 
look at a health care benefit as something to cure disease. It is a way 
to pay for cutting out a cancer. It is a way to repair someone that has 
been damaged in a car wreck or by abuse on our city streets, which 
brings me to an interesting point as it relates to abortion.
  Under the law of the land, if a pregnant woman is en route to an 
abortionist to have an abortion and is involved in a car accident and 
the child she is carrying is killed as a result of that accident, the 
individual responsible for driving the other car is charged with 
murder. However, had she been allowed to continue that trip to the 
abortionist, it would have been considered a health care procedure.
  Now, there is something very wrong with that picture. That is why I 
have stayed out of what is a very emotional debate, because it is 
difficult not to get emotional when you get into this. But I think 
because it is such a controversial issue, that the
 majority of the taxpayers, including those who believe that having an 
abortion is the right way to go, believe we just should not be using 
any Federal money to promote, to pay for the process.

  I know there are a lot of emotional debates that can be made on 
either side of the argument. But, again, I would just ask my colleagues 
to look at this from the perspective as it is in our bill, as purely a 
funding issue we are talking about, and not the merits of it, and would 
again urge a no vote on the amendment of the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise on this issue as a father, and I want to point 
out that there has been a lot of emotional debate here. Let us stick to 
the facts. The facts are stated on page 63 of the bill, line 22. They 
say, no funds appropriated by this act shall be available to pay with 
any health care plan, any health care plan.
  Now, in the Federal Government we go to the private sector and we ask 
the private sector to offer health care plans to our employees. Mr. 
Chairman, in the State of California that you and I represent, 
companies like Aetna, Cigna, Foundation Health Care, HealthNet, Blue 
Cross and Blue Shield, Met Life, Kaiser, and Maxicare, on and on, all 
offer health care plans not only to Federal employees, but to the 6,000 
governments that exist in California, all those local governments, 
school governments, fire departments, water districts, all of those 
people that have public employees who are also paid by the taxes that 
pay the Federal Government.
  So this issue before us is not the emotional one that you have been 
hearing debated. It is a contract issue, and it is a discriminatory 
issue. It essentially says, and this gets back to my point as a father, 
I buy a plan for my family. My daughter, 16, 17 years old, just became 
17 years old, if she visits me here in Washington, gets raped in 
Washington, what this plan says is the health care plan I buy cannot 
cover the medical emergency procedures she would need to terminate a 
pregnancy caused by rape.
  That is absurd. That is discriminatory. It does not just discriminate 
against women, it discriminates against fathers. It discriminates 
against people who give their life to come work for the Federal 
Government. And if this were really what you wanted to do, then you 
would prohibit States, you would prohibit local governments, you would 
prohibit everybody in the public sector from having such plans. Mr. 
Chairman, I urge the support of the Hoyer amendment and reject the 
bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a debate, and we have talked about an 
emotional, wrenching issue. Previously, the gentlewoman from Michigan 
[Ms. Rivers] said we have a legal medical procedure. You can refer to 
it however you want. It depends upon your perspective. This is not a 
taxpayer's issue. CBO says we will pay the same thing for insurance 
policies with or without this coverage. Our contribution will be the 
same. The taxpayer will not be asked to pay one additional nickel.
  Yes, the taxpayer pays for the Federal health benefit, but the 
taxpayer also pays for the salary. Who rises here to say that a Federal 
employee may not spend their salary money as they see fit on legal 
objectives in this country? Who here rises to say that?
  Apparently, Mr. Chairman, nobody rises to say that.
  The fact of the matter is, employees, as I said at the beginning of 
this debate, have a compensation package. It is composed of three 
parts: Salary, health benefits, and retirement. Who rises here to say 
that the retirement of a Federal employee, because it comes, obviously, 
from taxpayers and the Federal Treasury, cannot be spent except in the 
way that we tell them to do on legal objectives?
  That is what this issue is about, the denigration of Federal 
employees as employees and as citizens of this country. That is what 
this debate is all about, Mr. Chairman.
  The issue of abortion would be raised if we precluded that from being 
purchased by anybody, Federal employees or others. But that is not what 
this issue says. It says if a Federal employee is raped or becomes 
pregnant as a result of incest, that their health care policy cannot 
cover that. Who here rises to say that that is a policy that we ought 
to pursue?
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we could step back from the passion 
of this issue, of the strongly held convictions and what I believe to 
be absolutely justifiable perspectives that Members on both sides of 
this issue have. It is a difficult issue for Government to deal with.
  But I think it is not a difficult issue to say that Federal employees 
will be in the same position as
 every other American when they purchase a health care policy. Their 
employer will pay a portion of the premium, they will pay a portion of 
the premium, and they will select a policy of their choice.

  I would hope that we would expunge this language from the bill.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, to close debate, I yield the balance of 
my time to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, why all these abortion votes 
and debates on appropriations bills? It is precisely because unless we 
affirmatively and explicitly prohibit funding for abortion in a myriad 
of Federal programs, like the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
Program, abortion will be paid for with tax funds. The simple fact of 
the matter is that the abortion industry is like a lamprey, a leech, 
draining taxpayer funds from the Federal Treasury unless specific 
language precludes its use.
  The underlying bill language offered by the gentleman from Iowa, 
Chairman Lightfoot, halts the flow of taxpayer funds for this program, 
and I congratulate him for his courage and very sensitivity to women 
and children in doing this.

[[Page H 7196]]

  Two earlier speakers suggested that this debate is not about 
abortion, but surely it is. However, that line of argument has been 
used in the past when the Hyde amendment was up, it was about economic 
equity for poor women vis-a-vis rich women. When the D.C. bill came up, 
it was the home rule question. When the DOD bill comes up, it is 
military health care.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about abortion. Prior to its 
inclusion back in the early 1980's, the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program paid for 17,000 abortions. That is a lot of children 
who have died.
  Mr. Chairman, children are not property. Children are not objects. I 
applaud the feminists when they say women should not be treated as 
objects. But where is the consistency when the pro-abortion feminists 
turn around and say unborn children can be reduced to per sona non 
grata, to someone who can be killed, boys and girls, at will?
  The Hoyer amendment would fund the deed of abortion, and that is why 
I think it is so crucial to realize that we are part of that. We are 
actually paying for the deed if Members were to support the Hoyer 
amendment. And the abortion methods are gruesome, literal dismemberment 
of an unborn child, chemical poisoning of children, injections of 
poisons. Not injections of medicines that are designed to safeguard, 
help, and nurture the child, but poisons that have only one intent--
destroy the baby, bring on labor, and produce that child.
  Some years ago I met a young lady, my wife and I, by the name of 
Nancy Jo Mann, that is her real name, from Iowa. She had a perfectly 
legal abortion at 5\1/2\ months. She talked about it at great length 
before a House committee. She said, ``Once they put the saline in, 
there is no way to reverse it. For the next hour and a half, I felt my 
daughter thrash around violently while she was being choked, poisoned, 
burned, and suffocated to death. I did not know any of this was going 
to happen. I remember telling my baby, I didn't want to do this. I 
wished that she could live, and yet she was dying. And I remember her 
very last kick on her left side. She had no strength left. I tried to 
imagine us dying that kind of death, a pillow put over us, suffocating. 
In 4 minutes we would pass out. We would have the fight of passing out. 
It took her an hour and a half to die.''
  The Hoyer amendment, make no mistake about it, will fund chemical 
poisonings like the one that killed Nancy Jo Mann's baby. That is what 
this is all about, funding the deed. I urge rejection.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, we had a bill on this House floor just a 
month ago that discriminated against women who are serving in our 
military by denying them the full range of medical services at military 
hospitals overseas. Now we have another bill before us that 
discriminates against our women Federal employees.
  Women serving the Federal Government deserve the same civil rights as 
the vast majority of American women whose private insurance plans cover 
the full range of reproductive health services.
  This Treasury/Postal Service appropriations bill contains a 
discriminatory policy that represents another step in the anti-choice 
campaign to take away health insurance coverage for abortion for all 
women. With this bill, anti-choice Members of Congress are attempting 
to deny comprehensive insurance coverage to more than 1 million women 
who work for the Federal Government.
  Men who work for the Federal Government are able to get the medical 
services they need. Unfortunately, this bill treats women like second-
class citizens.
  Singling out abortion for exclusion from health care plans that cover 
other reproductive health care is harmful to women's health and 
discriminates against women in public service.
  I urge the House to reverse this unfair and unwise decision and move 
women forward, not down the road to the back alleys.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I support the Hoyer amendment.
  While I oppose Federal funding of abortion, I strongly take issue 
with the argument that this bill, in fact includes Federal funding. The 
benefits package offered to Federal employees is the compensation that 
they received for public service. If we follow the same logic used by 
those opposed to this amendment, this Congress will soon be dictating 
how Federal employees spend their paychecks, because their paychecks 
are--of course--Federal funding. Voting against this amendment will set 
a dangerous precedent of congressional encroachment into the personal 
lives of this Nation's employees. Next, we will be mandating that 
Federal employees buy only domestic consumer goods, or deny them the 
option of sending their children to private or parochial schools. These 
edicts are as ridiculous as the one embodied in this bill.
  Frankly, I am shocked that the bill's language does not even include 
a caveat for victims of rape and incest. Where is the language embodied 
in the current Hyde amendment? It is absolutely unconscionable that 
this bill does not provide coverage for those who were forced against 
their will to engage in sexual intercourse. I thank Chairman Lightfoot 
for expressing the same concern, but I don't feel this House should 
just leave this issue up to the Conference Committee. Victims of rape 
and incest deserve the same coverage that beneficiaries of Federal 
entitlement programs. It is a fundamental matter of fairness.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Packard/
Dornan amendment to HR 2020, the Treasury, Postal Service, and General 
Government Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1996, and in strong 
support of the Lightfoot substitute amendment. The Packard/Dornan 
amendment, in seeking to redress a few well-publicized abuses in a few 
isolated Federal employee training programs, employs a shotgun approach 
that would preclude Federal employees from receiving potentially 
lifesaving information regarding the transmission of HIV/AIDS.
  HIV/AIDS is the leading killer of Americans age 25-44. Under the 
Federal Work Place HIV/AIDS Education Initiative, Federal employees are 
provided with accurate and comprehensive information on how HIV/AIDS 
is, and equally important in the work place, is not transmitted. This 
vitally important initiative is protected under the Lightfoot 
substitute amendment; it is eviscerated under the Packard/Dornan 
amendment.
  Supporters of the Packard/Dornan amendment would lead people to 
believe that the Federal Government, in offering such HIV/AIDS 
training, is acting in an extreme or unusual manner. This is not the 
case. HIV/AIDS prevention and education training is supported by the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Red Cross. 
Likewise, a sizable number of Fortune 500 companies such as AETNA Life 
Insurance Company, RJR Nabisco, Eastman Kodak, IBM and employ HIV/AIDS 
training in their work places.
  I urge my colleagues' strong opposition to the Packard/Dornan 
amendment and ardent support for the Lightfoot substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the unanimous consent agreement, all time has 
expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 235, not voting 11, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 526]

                               AYES--188

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard

[[Page H 7197]]

     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     White
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--235

     Allard
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Andrews
     Armey
     Bryant (TX)
     Collins (MI)
     Crane
     Ford
     Hastert
     Moakley
     Myers
     Reynolds
     Stark

                              {time}  1236

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Andrews for, with Mr. Armey against.

  Mr. MARKEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 526, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to engage the 
chairman of the committee in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, as we know, the Congress has doubled the IRS' budget 
over the past 10 years, and the agency has actually increased its 
employment by 20 percent. Yet there are grave concerns that it remains 
inefficient, mistake-ridden, and is not up to present commercial 
practices that are being used in private commercial industry today. Few 
Americans can really say they are impressed by the IRS and that they 
believe that the agency deserves the raises it has received in recent 
years.
  In fact, on February 16, 1995, the GAO testified before the 
gentleman's Committee on Appropriations during a hearing on the IRS' 
tax system modernization program. The GAO outlined many fundamental 
problems that would prevent the IRS from implementing that TSM, the tax 
system modernization system.
  Among the glaring problems that were found out are a lack of 
sufficient technical and management expertise and skills to implement 
it, an inability to take into account changes during the development of 
TSM, and a lack of development priorities, performance measures, or 
technical guidelines.
  My understanding is that our budget does in fact cut certain aspects 
of the IRS' budget for the next year, including some of the more 
invidious, invasive, and frankly, very difficult regulatory processes 
that they use to torment Americans. Yet, we are increasing the tax 
processing area of the budget.
  What I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, from the chairman, is what 
exactly is he doing to make sure that the IRS is not going to abuse the 
trust that we are putting in them with respect to improving their tax 
processing methods?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOKE. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, one of the provisions that the gentleman will 
find within the bill relates to tax system modernization. I would even 
suggest that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has been 
interested in this issue as well. What we are basically doing, we are 
fencing off any money to be used for TSM until the IRS implements a 
specific plan that follows the recommendations of the General 
Accounting Office, which has been very critical of the past actions of 
IRS, and until such time as that plan is submitted with GAO approval, 
that money is fenced off. They will not get it this year, so it is off 
limits until they comply.
  I also, when we meet with our Senate counterparts, will carry the 
gentleman's concerns as well as a lot of the other's with us to that 
particular meeting, and hopefully keep their feet to the fire until we 
get the bang for the buck, so to speak.
  Mr. HOKE. If I can continue with one other line of thinking, Mr. 
Chairman, and I thank the gentleman for his input on that, another area 
that is of a great deal of concern to Members and particularly to me 
has
 to do with collections, and what we are doing in that area. We have, I 
believe, a great deal to learn from what other local and State 
municipalities have done in this area around the country. The fact is 
that we have, as I understand it, over $100 billion in uncollected 
funds. It seems to me that the IRS has exemplified a kind of a top-down 
buldgeon approach to its collection efforts, as opposed to the sorts of 
efforts that have been very effective in the private sector.

  What are we doing here in the Congress to deal with that problem, and 
are we doing anything that is going to get into privatizing the 
collection process so that we are not using this kind of overwrought 
and heavy-handed Federal and law enforcement type of approach?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, in the area 
of tax collections the figure is closer to $400 billion, rather than 
$100 billion, which could make a huge hole in the deficit, if we could 
collect that fund. Quite frankly, the tax systems modernization problem 
feeds into the problem of not collecting the taxes, because the IRS is 
working with 1950's and 1960's technology out of cardboard boxes, so it 
all works together.
  Mr. HOKE. People who when handling the House Finance Office were also 
advising the IRS, would the gentleman say?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I am not sure of that connection, but what we are 
providing in the bill is a pilot project wherein we will allow private 
collectors to go after some of these legitimately owed taxes, but with 
all the protections that are necessary to protect the taxpayers and the 
taxpayers' bill of rights, so there is plenty of protection there.

[[Page H 7198]]

  Mr. HOKE. I am glad to hear that, and I thank the gentleman for the 
colloquy.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to enter 
into colloquy with the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, would section 528 of the bill, I would ask the 
chairman, alter the current definition of training in chapter 41 of 
title V in the United States Code? I ask, because this definition 
places emphasis on training which will improve individual and 
organizational performance and assist in achieving the agency's mission 
and performance goals.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I would like to inform the gentlewoman that it would 
not, Mr. Chairman. I share her concerns. I think it is important that 
agencies continue to use their strategic plans and missions as a 
framework for conducting their training.
  Mrs. MORELLA. I am pleased to hear that, and I thank the gentleman.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to engage in 
a colloquy with the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern that the Committee on 
Appropriations has failed to fund the IRS compliance initiative. The 
House bill calls for a $139 million cut. According to the IRS, this 
would result in a loss of 8,000 to 10,000 FTE's.

                              {time}  1245

  Last year Congress approved a 5-year initiative at a cost of $405 
million annually to hire 5,000 compliance personnel at IRS. The IRS 
predicted that this initiative would bring in $9.2 billion in revenue 
that would otherwise go uncollected. The IRS has hired or in many cases 
reassigned the personnel, and CBO and GAO have indicated that the 
revenue projection targets are on track.
  If this compliance initiative is not fully funded this year, IRS 
employees may have to be RIF'd and revenue owed the U.S. Government 
will go uncollected. Such shortsightedness would not be tolerated in 
the private sector, and should be rejected by us as well.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentlewoman will yield, I want to tell the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia that I share her concerns.
  Ms. NORTON. I understand that when the bill goes to conference, the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] hopes to provide some additional 
funding for this program.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentlewoman will yield further, very definitely I 
will seek additional funding for this program. I plan to work with the 
administration officials, with the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], 
the chairman, and the House and Senate conferees in increasing the 
funding for this initiative.
  As the gentlewoman has observed, by cutting the funding for this 
initiative and stretching it out, we will collect less funds. The 
reason last year we put this off-budget was because CBO and, in a 
bipartisan fashion, the Committee on the Budget agreed that this was a 
moneymaker, not a moneyloser, so that if we do not invest these funds, 
we will lose in terms of collections.
  I share the gentlewoman's view and I will be pursuing that objective 
in conference.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to title V?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title VI.
  The text of title VI is as follows:
              TITLE VI--GOVERNMENTWIDE GENERAL PROVISIONS

                Departments, Agencies, and Corporations

       Section  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 1996 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 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.
       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 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 five 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.
       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. 5922-24.
       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, or (5) South Vietnamese, Cambodian, and 
     Laotian refugees paroled in the United States after January 
     1, 1975, or (6) nationals of the People's Republic of China 
     that qualify 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 one 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, the 
     Republic of the Philippines or to nationals of those 
     countries allied with the United States in the 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 sixty 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 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 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 

[[Page H 7199]]
     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.
       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.
       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.
       Sec. 611. Any department or agency to which the 
     Administrator of General Services has delegated the authority 
     to operate, maintain or repair any building or facility 
     pursuant to section 205(d) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, shall retain 
     that portion of the GSA rental payment available for 
     operation, maintenance or repair of the building or facility, 
     as determined by the Administrator, and expend such funds 
     directly for the operation, maintenance or repair of the 
     building or facility. Any funds retained under this section 
     shall remain available until expended for such purposes.
       Sec. 612. Pursuant to section 1415 of the Act of July 15, 
     1952 (66 Stat. 662), foreign credits (including currencies) 
     owed to or owned by the United States may be used by Federal 
     agencies for any purpose for which appropriations are made 
     for the current fiscal year (including the carrying out of 
     Acts requiring or authorizing the use of such credits), only 
     when reimbursement therefor is made to the Treasury from 
     applicable appropriations of the agency concerned: Provided, 
     That such credits received as exchanged allowances or 
     proceeds of sales of personal property may be used in whole 
     or part payment for acquisition of similar items, to the 
     extent and in the manner authorized by law, without 
     reimbursement to the Treasury.
       Sec. 613. No part of any appropriation contained in this or 
     any other Act shall be available for interagency financing of 
     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.
       Sec. 614. 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, 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. 615. 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. 616. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     and except as otherwise provided in this section, no part of 
     any of the funds appropriated for the fiscal year ending on 
     September 30, 1996, 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 617 of the Treasury, Postal 
     Service and General Government Appropriations Act, 1995, 
     until the normal effective date of the applicable wage survey 
     adjustment that is to take effect in fiscal year 1996, in an 
     amount that exceeds the rate payable for the applicable grade 
     and step of the applicable wage schedule in accordance with 
     such section 617; and
       (2) during the period consisting of the remainder of fiscal 
     year 1996, 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 
     1996 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 1996 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 1995 
     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, 1995, 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, 1995, 
     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, 1995.
       (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. 617. 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 of the House and Senate. For the purposes of 
     this section, the word ``office'' shall include 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.
       Sec. 618. 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 House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Sec. 619. (a) No amount of any grant made by a Federal 
     agency shall be used to finance the acquisition of goods or 
     services (including construction services) unless the 
     recipient of the grant agrees, as a condition for the receipt 
     of such grant, to--
       (1) specify in any announcement of the awarding of the 
     contract for the procurement of the goods and services 
     involved (including construction services) the amount of 
     Federal funds that will be used to finance the acquisition; 
     and
       (2) express the amount announced pursuant to paragraph (1) 
     as a percentage of the total costs of the planned 
     acquisition.
       (b) The requirements of subsection (a) shall not apply to a 
     procurement for goods or services (including construction 
     services) that has an aggregate value of less than $500,000.
       Sec. 620. Notwithstanding section 1346 of title 31, United 
     States Code, funds made available for fiscal year 1996 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 Numbered 12472 (April 3, 1984).
       Sec. 621. Notwithstanding any provisions of this or any 
     other Act, during the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, 
     and hereafter, any department, division, bureau, or office 
     may use funds appropriated by this or any other Act to 
     install telephone lines, and necessary equipment, and to pay 
     monthly charges, in any private residence or private 
     apartment of an employee who has been authorized to work at 
     home in accordance with guidelines issued by the Office of 
     Personnel Management: Provided, That the head of the 
     department, division, bureau, or office certifies that 
     adequate safeguards against private misuse exist, and that 
     the service is necessary for direct support of the agency's 
     mission.
       Sec. 622. (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 

[[Page H 7200]]
     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.
       Sec. 623. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any 
     other Act for fiscal year 1996 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. 624. 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 designee(s), persons providing 
     assistance to the President for official purposes, or other 
     individuals so designated by the President.
       Sec. 625. Notwithstanding any provision of law, the 
     President, or his designee, must 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.
       Sec. 626. (a) Beginning in fiscal year 1996 and thereafter, 
     for each Federal agency, except the Department of Defense 
     (which has separate authority), an amount equal to 50 percent 
     of--
       (1) the amount of each utility rebate received by the 
     agency for energy efficiency and water conservation measures, 
     which the agency has implemented; and
       (2) the amount of the agency's share of the measured energy 
     savings resulting from energy-savings performance contracts
     may be retained and credited to accounts that fund energy and 
     water conservation activities at the agency's facilities, and 
     shall remain available until expended for additional specific 
     energy efficiency or water conservation projects or 
     activities, including improvements and retrofits, facility 
     surveys, additional or improved utility metering, and 
     employee training and awareness programs, as authorized by 
     section 152(f) of the Energy Policy Act (Public Law 102-486).
       (b) The remaining 50 percent of each rebate, and the 
     remaining 50 percent of the amount of the agency's share of 
     savings from energy-savings performance contracts, shall be 
     transferred to the General Fund of the Treasury at the end of 
     the fiscal year in which received.
       Sec. 627. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there 
     is hereby established a Commission which shall be known as 
     the ``Commission on Federal Mandates'' (hereafter referred to 
     as the ``Commission''): Provided, That the Commission shall 
     be composed of nine Members appointed from individuals who 
     possess extensive leadership experience in and knowledge of 
     State, local, and tribal governments and intergovernmental 
     relations, including State and local elected officials, as 
     follows: (1) three Members appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives, in consultation with the minority 
     leader of the House of Representatives; (2) three Members 
     appointed by the majority leader of the Senate, in 
     consultation with the minority leader of the Senate: and (3) 
     three Members appointed by the President: Provided further, 
     That appointments may be made under this section without 
     regard to section 5311(b) of title 5, United States Code: 
     Provided further, That in general, each member of the 
     Commission shall be appointed for the life of the Commission 
     and a vacancy in the Commission shall be filled in the manner 
     in which the original appointment was made: Provided further, 
     That (1) Members of the Commission shall serve without pay; 
     (2) Members of the Commission who are full-time officers or 
     employees of the United States may not receive additional 
     pay, allowances or benefits by reason of their service on the 
     Commission; and (3) Each Member of the Commission may receive 
     travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, 
     in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code: Provided further, That the Commission shall 
     convene its first meeting by not later than 15 days after the 
     date of the completion of appointment of the Members of the 
     Commission: Provided further, That the Commission shall 
     report on Federal mandates as specified in sections 302 (a), 
     (c), (d), (e), and (f) of Public Law 104-4: Provided further, 
     That the Commission shall have all authorities specified 
     under section 303 of Public Law 104-4: Provided further, That 
     the term ``Federal mandate'' shall have the same meaning as 
     specified in section 305 of Public Law 104-4, notwithstanding 
     sections 3 and 4 of that law: Provided further, That the 
     Commission shall terminate 90 days after making the final 
     report identified above.
                    amendment offered by mr. duncan

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Duncan: Page 84, after line 17, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 628. The amounts otherwise provided in this Act under 
     the heading ``General Services Administration--Federal 
     Buildings Fund--Limitations on Availability of Revenue'' for 
     the following purposes are each reduced by $65,764,000:
       (1) Aggregate amount available from the Fund.
       (2) Total amount available from the Fund for construction 
     of additional projects.
       (3) Amount available for new construction, Maryland, 
     Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Food and Drug 
     Administration, Phase II.
       (4) Amount in excess of which revenues and collections 
     accruing to the Fund shall remain in the Fund.

  Mr. DUNCAN (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 
Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes, with the 
time being equally divided between the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Duncan] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] 
will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that will strike $65 
million from the General Services Administration for the purchase of 
100 acres of land and for the design and new construction, or at least 
the beginning thereof, of yet another building for the Food and Drug 
Administration.
  The Citizens for a Sound Economy have strongly endorsed this 
amendment in a letter that I sent to all of my colleagues yesterday. 
This amendment is also endorsed by the National Taxpayers Union. The 
Citizens Against Government Waste so strongly opposes this project that 
they have announced that they will score this amendment as a key vote 
for their 1995 congressional ratings.
  I serve, Mr. Chairman, on the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and 
Economic Development, and we did not authorize this building. It has 
never been in front of our subcommittee.
  The main point I want to emphasize is, this could turn out to be a 
very, very expensive project. Not only will this amendment save $65 
million now, but it will also help stop what potentially could involve
 over $1 billion for a project in Maryland which has been referred to 
as a Taj Mahal complex.

  In 1990, the FDA requested appropriations for a new complex of 
buildings. The original cost estimates from the GSA and the FDA for 
these buildings was $1.3 billion. In response to great concern over 
lavish and excessive Federal construction, the GSA reduced this 
estimate to somewhere between $810 and $890 million.
  I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we are starting down a very slippery 
slope here. In a few years we could well be reading articles about the 
billion dollar FDA boondoggle, and Members would wonder how in the 
world we ever got into such a thing. Well, this is the start.

[[Page H 7201]]

  If we really want to save money, we need to put a stop to this 
project right now. The FDA already has 2.1 million total square feet of 
office space. The original plans for the new FDA complex of buildings 
called for 3.4 million square feet in size, a 1.3 million square 
footage increase, a 60-percent increase at a time when the entire 
Federal Government is supposed to be downsizing.
  Recognizing that so much change is going to take place at the FDA in 
the near future, and because this body viewed the original proposed FDA 
complex as excessive and wasteful, Congress wisely rescinded over $220 
million from their plan to build this complex in the rescissions bill. 
Now we come to the floor today to debate $65 million for a new building 
toward a defunded complex that is wasteful and fiscally irresponsible 
at a time when Congress is trying to downsize the Federal Government.
  This is $65 million, Mr. Chairman, on top of the $64 million that was 
left in the rescissions bill to complete the construction of facilities 
for a brand new FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine, also in Prince 
Georges County. We have already left in one $64 million, and now here 
we are with another $65 million.
  There have never been hearings held on this building in the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure. A prospectus has never been 
submitted to tell us how big the building will be, how much it will 
cost or even the exact location. This project can turn out to be a 
very, very expensive item. I strongly believe that any new construction 
should be gone over with a fine-toothed comb before it is approved, but 
it has not been done in this case.
  A series of hearings has been held in the Committee on Commerce 
addressing some of these very serious problems. Later this summer, the 
Committee on Commerce is planning to debate an FDA reform bill that 
should fundamentally reform the way this agency operates. I understand 
that our colleagues in the Senate are working on a legislative package 
to reform the agency, as well.
  The FDA's workload and mission could change substantially if FDA 
reform is enacted as expected. The taxpayer, though, could be stuck 
with some new and expensive buildings in Maryland, without an agency to 
fill them, if the agency is downsized and reformed and its mission is 
changed.
  At a time when the Federal Government is downsizing, you would think 
that all agencies would be decreasing their requests. This request 
should outrage every taxpayer in America.
  The FDA should be greatly reformed. It should be greatly downsized. 
It should stay where it is, certainly until a thorough review of the 
agency can be done. With the national debt approaching $5 trillion, Mr. 
Chairman, we should not be spending exorbitant amounts of money like 
this to build plush headquarters for FDA bureaucrats.
  I know, Mr. Chairman, that our gigantic unelected Federal bureaucracy 
is by far the most powerful branch of our Federal Government. They get 
most of what they want. In the end they will probably get all of these 
new buildings. But this is one time we should stand up for the 
taxpayers, Mr. Chairman, and we should stand up to the bureaucrats and 
we should say ``no'' for this proposed new construction. I urge passage 
of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilchrest to the Amendment Offered by Mr. 
                                 Duncan

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest to the amendment offered 
     by Mr. Duncan: In the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
     amendment, add at the end the following:
       The preceding provisions shall not apply if a prospectus 
     has been approved pursuant to the Public Buildings Act of 
     1959 for the project described in clause (3).

  Mr. GILCHREST (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment to the amendment be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] will have 
to get time from the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] or the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] under the unanimous-consent 
agreement.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman from Tennessee is 
trying to do and I understand why he is trying to do it. I believe that 
my amendment will serve the gentleman's goals, but I do not believe 
that we should kill the FDA consolidation program at this point because 
that in the long run will cost much more money.
  My amendment will prohibit any outlays from the Public Buildings Fund 
until such time as a prospectus for the FDA project is passed. I am 
aware that the Committee on Commerce intends to exercise its oversight 
functions over the FDA, and that the committee may decide to change FDA 
in such a manner that the campus consolidation will no longer be 
necessary.
  As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic 
Development, I would have no intention of scheduling a markup on such a 
prospectus until the Committee on Commerce has had time to review the 
FDA consolidation. The gentleman from Tennessee, who is a member of the 
subcommittee, will have ample opportunity to make himself heard on this 
subject and on the effect of the prospectus.
  As the gentleman knows, our subcommittee and the full committee have 
decided to get tough on public buildings. We have already established a 
moratorium on courthouse construction and we will be looking at the 
cost of construction on other projects.
  If the prospectus for the FDA project in Maryland indicates that we 
are building a Taj Mahal, then I will work with the gentleman to modify 
the prospectus or to outright kill the project. But if we want FDA to 
function more efficiently, and I think we all want that to happen, then 
it makes sense to consolidate its functions.
  We have all heard complaints about how long it takes for the FDA to 
process an application. Is it any surprise that an agency which is 
scattered over 22 separate locations is inefficient? If we do not 
consolidate the FDA, then we will continue to waste money on aging and 
inadequate leased space. Here is something else: The Federal Government 
will save money if we own the land and own the building instead of 
continuing to lease inefficient buildings and costly space.
  The other thing is, there is a strong possibility that we will save, 
if we continue to move forward, large sums of money with the base 
closing of White Oak, a naval facility in Maryland. The FDA 
consolidation can move most if not all of these new buildings to the 
White Oak area, which is what the FDA is looking for, 150 acres.
  White Oak will save us millions of dollars, and we will own the land 
if we move forward now.
  I agree with the gentleman, while the FDA consolidation is 
technically authorized, it is wrong that our subcommittee has never 
been given the opportunity to exercise its oversight of public 
buildings and grounds on this project.
  If the Duncan amendment goes through, if it is successful, the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will never be able to 
rule on a prospectus for the FDA.
  I promise the gentleman from Tennessee that our subcommittee will 
exercise rigorous oversight of the project and that the Committee on 
Commerce will have a chance to exercise their oversight as well.
  I encourage people to vote for the amendment to the amendment.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I understand that we are supposed to debate 
both my amendment and the Gilchrest amendment at the same time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Bunning].
  (Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Duncan amendment to eliminate 

[[Page H 7202]]
the funding for Kessler's Clarksburg castle. The FDA lacks many things 
but it does not lack office space.
  Testimony before the Treasury/Postal Subcommittee clearly indicated 
that the FDA does not need a new campus to carry out its mission.
  Accordingly to the testimony, the FDA has added 23 new buildings to 
its inventory since 1987. But the FDA argues that it needs more new 
facilities to further inter-center communication.
  Give me a break. Maybe David Kessler hasn't heard of the Internet but 
Congress has already provided the FDA with state-of-the-art computers 
that allow its scientists to talk with each other on the net.
  The fact of the matter is that Dr. Kessler is the stereotypical out-
of control Washington bureaucrat who is certain that he knows better 
how to spend the taxpayers' money than they do. After all, he has been 
dubbed ``The National Nanny''.
  The FDA even used the stereotypical studies to decide that they 
absolutely had to have this campus.
  FDA turned down a 400-acre site near Rockville which already has a 
Metro station and it rejected a similar-size site near the FDA 
headquarters in Germantown.
  Their studies showed that the cost would be between $300 million and 
$500 million of the taxpayers' dollars and now the cost has grown to 
$810 million.
  To paraphrase Lady Margaret Thatcher: David Kessler has the 
bureaucrat's disease; he has run out of other people's money to spend.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, this is real money that Dr. Kessler wants. And, 
it comes out of the pockets of the hard-working American taxpayer.
  Fortunately, the Appropriations Committee did not fully fund the cost 
of this project; it provided only the seed money.
  But, to the extent that it is funded at all, the more likely it is 
that we will ultimately end up paying the full inflated cost for this 
boondoggle.
  We all know the routine. Make the initial investment and then it 
becomes impossible to stop the project even if it isn't justified.
  Once we start, we have to keep spending under the guise of protecting 
our investment.
  In Washington logic, even if we don't need Kessler's castle, it would 
be a waste of money to stop the project after we have purchased land, 
drawn up plans and maybe even broken ground.
  Outside of Washington they think differently. They call this type of 
foolishness by its real name: waste, throwing good money after bad.
  I for one don't buy the Washington logic. We need to practice a 
little common sense around here.
  Unfortunately, the Kessler-led FDA has not been accused of committing 
common sense on this project.
  Any funding of Kessler's castle just does not make sense.
  As Dr. Edward Hudgins, the director of regulatory studies at the Cato 
institute, said in his testimony before the Appropriations Committee:

       The further the plans proceed for this new FDA facility, 
     the tighter fiscal waste and bad policies will be locked into 
     place, even if cuts and reforms are called for.

  Let's do the smart thing. Vote to eliminate funding for Kessler's 
castle. Support the Duncan amendment.
                              {time}  1300

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gilchrest amendment to the 
Duncan amendment. Mr. Gilchrest is the chair of the subcommittee that 
has jurisdiction over this project. The gentleman said that it was 
technically authorized. I do not know what ``technically'' is, but it 
is authorized, but it has not had a prospectus. I support the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Let me say something about the Taxpayers Union, let me say something 
about waste to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], my friend. 
The fact of the matter is that this consolidation was approved by the 
Bush administration, proposed by an appointee of President Bush's 
administration, not by Democrats.
  Mr. Chairman, I support their proposal and I would ask the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] to listen to this, because I believe the 
gentleman from Tennessee must know that this proposal, long-term, saves 
the taxpayers at least a billion dollars.
  The fact of the matter is that this consolidation is bringing 
together two components. This money deals with the component I suggest 
to my friends from Tennessee and Kentucky, that is not controversial. 
The testimony that the gentleman referred to before our committee by C. 
Boyden Gray, the former counsel to the previous Republican 
administration, said that this matter was not controversial. The Cato 
Institute also said that. Why? Because it is the drug component with 
which this money really does not deal that is the controversy.
  The food component was determined to be in Prince George's County 
because of its proximity to the Beltsville Agricultural Research 
Center, the premier agricultural research center in the world. And it 
made sense to put in proximity the food research scientists and the 
food safety scientists and so that is what they proposed.
  What the Gilchrest amendment says is, Mr. Duncan's point was made, 
our committee ought to look at this. I agree with Mr. Gilchrest. That 
is correct.
  But let there be no mistake, the Taxpayers Union may score this and 
they will be wrong. They will be wrong because to consolidate FDA saves 
at least, over the next 30 years, at least $1 billion. This is a 
savings. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Gilchrest amendment and 
against the Duncan amendment.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr].
  (Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, like the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], 
I would like to consolidate FDA, but I would like to do it in a 
different way; through reducing the number of employees in an agency 
that is a misguided agency. It has grown well beyond its established 
limits under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. It is 
unconscionable that we would consider funding $64 million toward a new 
building to encourage continued growth of an agency that brags about 
the fact that it is ``getting new regulations out faster than ever 
before.''
  Under Commissioner Kessler, the FDA has all but abandoned its core 
mission, the timely approval of drugs and medical devices. Earlier this 
year they admitted to a congressional subcommittee that they are still 
sitting on food additive petitions filed as early as March of 1971, for 
reasons nobody knows. The law requires that these petitions must be 
reviewed in 180 days or less.
  The FDA is requesting additional user fees and funding dollars. At 
the same time, their average drug approval time is an outrageous 14.8 
years. Many medical devices take more than twice as long to approve in 
the United States then in the United Kingdom--hardly a country known 
for unsafe product approvals.
  The FDA's funding has increased by 237 percent since 1970. Their 
employment levels have increased by 106 percent. Meanwhile, in the past 
5 years the review of 510(k) device applications takes 156 percent 
longer yet the number of applications they have received has only 
increased by 12 percent.
  So how is Dr. Kessler spending the taxpayer's money? He is seizing 
orange juice clearly labeled as made from concentrate, just because its 
brand name included the word ``fresh.'' He has also sent his inspectors 
to lead police on a raid against sellers of vitamins and health food 
supplements. He has conducted a campaign against letting doctors and 
researchers know how drugs might be used for treatments not 
specifically mentioned on the label.
  At a time when we are addressing the need for comprehensive reform 
and overhaul of the FDA, it seems inconsistent and irresponsible to 
even consider appropriating funds for a new FDA building. This is an 
agency that needs to be reigned in--not build up. Let's wait to see 
what the new and improved FDA looks like after we pass comprehensive 
reform legislation before we spend $64 million on a new FDA building.
  I urge strong support of the Duncan amendment, Mr. Chairman, don't 
encourage the FDA to live any larger.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].

[[Page H 7203]]

  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to concur with and support the 
Gilchrest amendment to Duncan. I think it makes good sense.
  Here is what we know. No. 1, leasing space is expensive. This 
proposal by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] could cost us 
almost $2 billion more than the proposal that we have before us. By 
obtaining space, we actually save money.
  Second, FDA does a lot of important functions. Now, I have heard the 
term ``bureaucrat'' thrown around with derision. I take exception to 
that, because these are scientists that perform vital functions. And 
while apparently some of my colleagues have a real problem with Dr. 
Kessler, I would submit that the consumers are very interested in 
maintaining a high quality FDA.
  This consolidation makes sense. There have been revisions to reduce 
the cost. There is now a new option in Montgomery County to consider 
the White Oak facility previously owned by the Navy. That would further 
reduce costs. We have reduced the acreage in this proposal. We have 
reduced the square footage in this proposal. We have reduced the total 
dollar cost. We can do this efficiently and save the taxpayers money.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Boehner], the distinguished chairman of our conference.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me say that on November 8, the 
American people said pretty clearly that they want this new Congress to 
reduce the size, scope, and cost of Government here in Washington, DC.
  At a time when we are going to do that, we have been doing it all 
year and we are going to keep doing it, why do we want to invest more 
money in building facilities that are, frankly, never going to be used?
  We are not going to need some of these buildings here in town. As we 
go through this downsizing over the next couple of years, we will have 
ample room for the FDA, what is left of it, to be consolidated in some 
other empty buildings. We should not be investing money in buildings we 
are never going to use.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], a medical doctor.
  (Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. I think 
the FDA is an example of a Government agency totally out of control, 
with lack of responsiveness to the oversight functions of Congress. We 
do not get appropriate answers. We do not get answers to the questions 
we ask when we inquire of them, and I am part of a faction, a group of 
new freshmen who plan to see a completely different FDA in the next 2 
or 3 years.
  It is ridiculous to spend money on a building that we are never going 
to allow the FDA to occupy, and I stand to oppose this. I think it is 
important that we look at what the FDA is going to look like after this 
time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The building that the doctor refers to, with all due respect to the 
doctor, there is not a ``the building.'' There is, I think, a real 
controversy, and the gentlewoman from Maryland will perhaps discuss 
this, about a building that was proposed in Montgomery County. Most of 
this money does not go there. Most of this money goes to a building for 
the food component of FDA.
  I would hope that my colleagues would get their facts straight before 
opposing the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for 
this time to speak on behalf of his amendment and say with all due 
respect to my friend from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] that, no, now is not the 
time for a prospectus.
  You see, Mr. Chairman, there has been a long period of time where 
prudent study could have been done of this building. And just to 
amplify what my friend from Tennessee said, the prospectus was never 
done during the course of this time to answer the most basic questions: 
How big this building was going to be; how much it would cost or even 
the exact location. Today we are hearing some information on this, and 
then we heard all about consolidation.
  My other friend from Maryland talked about the fact that it might 
save a billion dollars over the next 30 years. Mr. Chairman, we have 
had funding estimates on this consolidation. They have ranged from $500 
million to $1.3 billion. The cost is now estimated at $810 million. Mr. 
Chairman, let me emphasize the word ``estimated.'' We do not know. The 
cost will probably go higher.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time for the FDA to perform its core mission. It 
does not need any further facilities. Yes to Duncan, no to Gilchrest.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend from Arizona, that may sound 
good, but it is not accurate, and I would be glad to discuss it with 
the gentleman. The fact of the matter is this is a Bush administration-
Reagan administration initiative. So we understand one another, this is 
a previous Republican administration initiative. The fact of the matter 
is, this figure has gone up and down under both administrations.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Duncan 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the FDA is having a terrible time just taking care of 
its business. Drugs and lifesaving devices take longer to be approved 
than they did 30 years ago. I think it is time to support taxpayers for 
a change. You know, people have died because they could not outwait the 
FDA.
  Now we have before us a $65 million appropriation for a new FDA 
campus. Even more frightening, the latest estimate for the 
consolidation of this fine agency has risen from $388 million to more 
than $800 million.
  The FDA has already added two dozen new buildings since 1987. Its 
budget has risen about $600 million to nearly $800 million.
  My colleagues have supplied plenty of other details about this agency 
run amok. There are plenty of them.
  Mr. Chairman, the size, cost, and intrusiveness of big government is 
finally beginning to shrink. People will soon be able to keep more of 
their own money. Now is not the time to reward an incompetent, 
arrogant, agency with a brandnew 500-acre campus.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  You know, I care about the taxpayers and, frankly, if you care about 
the taxpayers, you are going to vote for the Gilchrest amendment, 
simple as that.
  Food and Drug Administration has a unique and a vital mission. The 
FDA regulates products which impact virtually every aspect of our lives 
from cosmetics to canned vegetables to lifesaving drugs. It oversees 
the Nation's blood supply, monitors over-the-counter painkillers, tests 
products from pocket-sized pacemakers to $2 million imaging scanners.
  Currently, my friends, FDA is scattered over 37 buildings in 13 
separate locations in Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties and in 
Washington. It leads to great inefficiencies.
  Also, many of the lab facilities are unsafe and antiquated. As a 
matter of fact, there have been a series of stories years ago on this 
which indicated some very dilapidated labs, even rat-infested, that 
would not pass OSHA reform measures. This is where these tests are 
taking place.
  I want you to know this consolidation is a long time in coming, much 
longer than many of the Members who are in this House of 
Representatives, because, frankly, it started in 1989, when there was a 
consolidation feasibility study which indicated the need for 
consolidation, and then it went on. The Revitalization Act did an 
authorization, and in 1991 the decision was 

[[Page H 7204]]
made to do it on two campuses, Prince Georges County and Montgomery 
County.
  What it indicated is the site in Prince Georges County would be the 
center for veterinary medicine, research facilities that already began 
construction, and it would be the center for food safety and applied 
nutrition. In Montgomery County would be the center for drug evaluation 
and research, devices and radiological health, the center for biologics 
evaluation and research, and the office of the Commissioner, very 
modest.
  I want you to know, my friends, that actually the plan of FDA and GSA 
would actually save taxpayers in excess of $3 billion to $4 billion 
over a 30-year period, making the investment in new facilities a very 
sound economic choice. It will provide the appropriate laboratory 
space, modestly presented for these efficiencies to take place.
  The management of the agency staff and programs will be less 
complicated. Resources will be easier to manage. Centralization 
functions, such as warehousing, libraries, EDP equipment, animal care, 
et cetera, will save money, greatly improve efficiency.
  Ground has already been broken for Prince Georges County. The 
Montgomery County plan is intact. It will save money. It is going to 
help with what is most needed, and that is the Food and Drug 
Administration able to make these decisions.
  One final point is: I do understand there is concern of those who 
called for FDA reform saying there is a belief the agency should be 
less burdensome, et cetera. These need to be addressed, but not here. 
We are talking about consolidation of the equipment.
                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Tennessee have the 
right to close on his amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. No; the gentleman from Maryland has the right to close 
because he is representing the committee's position.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], chairman of the authorizing 
committee.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I would like to give an analogy here as to what we are doing and 
people saying we are saving money or we are not saving money. Try to 
imagine that you have a 1965 Chevrolet pickup, eight cylinders, that 
you are renting, you are leasing. You do not own it. It is 1995, and 
you are having all kinds of problems. You are running on seven 
cylinders instead of eight cylinders, you have bald tires, you have a 
leaky engine with oil, and you name it, and you are going to keep it 
and you think you are going to save money with fuel and repairs. It 
does not work that way.
  The FDA is operating out of buildings that were old chicken houses. 
They are operating in 22 different facilities that are breaking down.
  If we want to save money, if we want to do something about the 
scatter of buildings, then it is time that we consolidate it in a 
state-of-the-art facility rather than use the 22 old buildings.
  I would encourage people to understand that if we continue the way we 
are going now, we are throwing good money after bad. We are wasting 
taxpayers' dollars.
  If we want to save tax dollars, then we ought to let the authorizing 
committee decide whether or not FDA's program is good, not run this 
thing through the appropriations. Let us do it in the authorizing 
committee.
  If we want a food advocate petition to go through faster, we need the 
consolidation. If we want medical applications processed faster, we 
want a new consolidation. If we want to own the property that costs 
less rather than continue to lease property which costs more, we need 
to consolidate. Think about the 1965 Chevrolet pickup and a new one.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Lightfoot], the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  You hate to get into the middle of one of these where you are in it 
between two friends who have very legitimate disagreement over 
something. I share many of the concerns expressed by my colleagues over 
FDA. I think FDA has overreached and has done a lot of things it should 
not do. It has become an extreme burden, especially to small businesses 
in labeling. We can go on and on. That is an issue, that is a policy 
issue.
  There is a difference here. This is the Appropriations Committee. We 
deal with dollars, and it ought to be settled, I think, in the 
authorizing committee.
  The language offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], 
quite frankly, goes along with the policy that we have adopted in this 
committee. Nothing is in the bill that is not authorized or subject to 
authorization. If it never gets authorized, it does not happen, which I 
think puts a little bit of honesty back into the system.
  I support my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] and 
his proposal in principle and what he is trying to do, and will 
certainly work with him in any way possible to downsize, scale back, 
diminish FDA, but at this juncture I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, the remainder of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we have had groups from all over this 
Nation, such as the National Taxpayers Union, the Citizens Against 
Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy, all come out strongly 
in favor of my amendment. I am pleased we have had speakers from all 
over this Nation speak in favor of my amendment.
  I have noticed that the only real speakers in favor of the project 
have been from Maryland, because I believe this is purely pork for 
Maryland.
  People would be shocked, Mr. Chairman, if they knew we were approving 
buildings that we do not have prospectuses for, we have not held 
hearings on, we do not know the total square footage, we do not know 
the exact cost, we do not even know the exact location.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], 
and I have great respect for my friend, the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Gilchrest], but this amendment is a strategy, a device, a 
subterfuge designed to ensure this building is built.
  My amendment would save $65 million. It would stop this project in 
its tracks. It would do something for a change for the taxpayers.
  The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] said it would mean the 
building could never be built. That is not true. The building could be 
built when we can afford it. With a $5 trillion national debt, we 
cannot afford this building.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Gilchrest amendment and a ``yes'' vote on 
my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized to close 
debate.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, we have limitation on debate. I have 2\1/2\ 
minutes left. Is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOYER. We have a limitation. If a subsequent amendment were to be 
offered after the determination of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] would there be debate time?
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the unanimous-consent agreement there would be no 
time remaining for debate.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  I am not going to comment on the courthouse in Tennessee that was in 
this bill under my chairmanship. I know the gentleman from Tennessee 
would not want to talk about that pork.
  This was a Reagan-Bush initiative. It was an initiative to save 
money, to consolidate, to cut lease costs, as the gentleman says, to 
buy a new car that is not costing you a lot of money, that you own, not 
lease.

[[Page H 7205]]

  The Gilchrest amendment speaks to the substance of making sure the 
authorizing committee controlled by the majority party, the 
Republicans, makes a determination that this building is a correct 
initiative, and what the Gilchrest amendment says is that no money is 
going to be spent unless a prospectus is approved.
  Ladies and gentlemen of this House, you ought not strike this money, 
because if you do, the Taxpayers Union, the Citizens Against Waste, and 
all of those groups are going to end up seeing that this is going to 
cost the taxpayers they allegedly are trying to protect more money out 
of their pockets.
  The reason the Reagan and Bush Administrations, under whom the FDA, 
by the way, did all of these awful things, suggested this was to save 
money, make it more efficient. If you eliminate it, fine, we do not 
build the building, because the committee will not approve the 
prospectus.
  Vote for the Gilchrest amendment. It makes sense for the taxpayer, 
and it makes sense for good government and the safety of the American 
public.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve that time. I have no further 
debate on the Gilchrest amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time?
  Mr. HOYER. No. We have an amendment pending to the Duncan amendment. 
We have time limitation. I have a minute left to go.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves the balance of his time.
  Mr. HOYER. I would move the previous question.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is not in order in the Committee of the Whole to 
move the previous question.
  The Chair will put the question on the Gilchrest amendment.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
                             recorded vote

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII, the Chair will reduce 
to 5 minutes the time for a recorded vote, if ordered, on the Duncan 
amendment without intervening debate or business.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 240, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 527]

                               AYES--185

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Archer
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--240

     Allard
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (F L)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Andrews
     Armey
     Bryant (TX)
     Collins (MI)
     Crane
     Ford
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Volkmer

                              {time}  1349

  Messrs. TANNER, PACKARD, FAWELL, MINGE, McINNIS, BONO, CONDIT, and 
ALLARD, Mrs. ROUKEMA, and Ms. DANNER changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. SKEEN and Mr. LEWIS of California changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 1 minute of 
time remaining for debate on the Duncan amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The Chairman, I appreciate that the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the chairman of the subcommittee voted for the 
Gilchrest amendment. That, I think, made sense, and made this 
appropriation subject to a prospectus. But it is clear that the level 
of hostility directed at the Food and Drug Administration is very high. 
There is a high level of hostility, suspicion and lack of trust in the 
FDA.
  But, Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not save money. If you at some 
point in time strike all the FDA, then obviously we will not proceed on 
this. But the fact of the matter is, this is a savings amendment. This 
money is in here for the food component essentially, not the drug 
component, which is the most controversial, but this is for the food 
component of FDA. Located in proximity to the BARC, the 

[[Page H 7206]]
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center; the synergy of those 
scientists has been put together. It makes sense. But I understand we 
are not talking about that. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] were voting for 
that, but it is clear we are not doing that. I would urge the rejection 
of the Duncan amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 278, 
noes 146, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 528]

                               AYES--278

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--146

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Davis
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Armey
     Bryant (TX)
     Collins (MI)
     Cox
     Crane
     Ford
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Seastrand
     Volkmer

                              {time}  1411

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Armey for, with Mr. Moakley against.

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title VI?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Treasury, Postal Service, 
     and General Government Appropriations Act, 1996''.


                    amendment offered by mr. packard

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Packard:
       Page 84, after line 17, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 628. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be obligated or expended for any employee training when it is 
     made known to the Federal official having authority to 
     obligate or expend such funds that such employee training--
       (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 evaluations;
       (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.

  Mr. PACKARD (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 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and any amendments thereto close in 40 minutes, the 
time to be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] will be 
recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson] 
will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an extremely important amendment.
  My amendment prohibits funding for all nontechnical Federal employee 
training.
  Under the pretense of promoting diversity and AIDS awareness, the 
administration has been sponsoring mandatory training sessions that go 
far beyond employees' professional responsibilities. These sessions 
promote a 

[[Page H 7207]]
very controversial cultural agenda in a manner that many people 
consider offensive.
  It is highly inappropriate for the Federal Government to use 
taxpayers' money to subject Federal employees to attacks on religious 
teachings and other forms of social engineering.
  The Clinton administration forces Federal workers to submit to some 
of the most offensive training I have ever seen. This administration-
mandated instruction includes such things as cult indoctrination into 
``new age'' religious beliefs and how-to sessions on condom use and sex 
techniques.
  I first became aware of this kind of training 2 months ago during 
Transportation Subcommittee hearings into FAA training. Frankly, their 
testimony was among the most disturbing I have ever heard in all my 
years in Congress. Employee after employee recounted horrifying 
incident after incident.
  Let me give you a sense of what I heard. One FAA employee explained 
how he was forced to walk through a gauntlet of his female coworkers. 
Trainers compelled the females to grope their male coworker's private 
parts. Horrified, the FAA employees asked their trainers why they had 
to endure such a humiliating experience. The instructors told the male 
FAA employee, ``Now you know what it is like to be sexually harassed.''
  If that does not shock you, listen to this story. One FAA employee 
testified how she was forced to strip to her underwear and tie herself 
to a male colleague--also clad only in his underwear. They remained 
this way for at least 24 hours. They had to shower together, sleep 
together, and use toilet facilities together--all this while tied 
together, undressed.

                              {time}  1415

  I looked into the matter and found a variety of appalling training 
regimens Federal employees must endure. For instance, the Clinton 
administration mandates AIDS and HIV training, which includes topics 
ranging from anal sex for birth control methods, how-to lessons on 
things like condoms, sex techniques, and even the proper way to clean 
needles in order to shoot up intravenous drugs. Why the Government is 
involved in teaching people how to use illicit drugs and how to be 
involved in aberrant sex techniques is beyond me.
  What is worse, if an employee refuses to take the training, or 
complains about certain techniques and aspects of the training, it 
jeopardizes their jobs or their job promotion. It reflects negatively 
on their job evaluation files.
  My amendment puts an end to all this lunacy. I urge my colleagues to 
support my efforts to protect Federal workers and ensure that taxpayer 
dollars fund only those things vital to the functionings of Government 
and to the workplace. I think most hard-working American taxpayers 
would agree that training Federal employees to use illegal drugs or to 
use condoms properly or to have sex techniques taught to them in forced 
and required training mechanisms is absolutely wrong. If President 
Clinton is going to require all Federal employees to take training, it 
had better be job related and noncontroversial.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
   amendment offered by mr. hobson as a substitute for the amendment 
                         offered by mr. packard

  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for 
the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hobson as a substitute to the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Packard: Page 84, after line 17, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 628. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be obligated or expended for any employee training when it is 
     made known to the Federal official having authority to 
     obligate or expend such funds that such employee training--
       (1) does not upgrade employee productivity and 
     effectiveness;
       (2) does not meet identified needs for knowledge, skills, 
     and abilities bearing upon the performance of official 
     duties;
       (3) is inappropriate to the workplace;
       (4) is designed to change participants' personal values or 
     lifestyle outside the workplace;
       (5) does not require prior employee notification of the 
     content and methods to be used in the training and written 
     end of course evaluations; or
       (6) does not provide an acceptable alternative for those 
     employees articulating a religious or moral objection to 
     participating in an HIV/AIDS training program.

  Mr. HOBSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment be 
considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson] is recognized for 
20 minutes.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my substitute amendment would require that any Federal 
training be, first, related to employee productivity and effectiveness; 
second, be appropriate for the workplace; third, provide advanced 
notification of the content and methods to be used in the training; and 
fourth, grant employees an opt-out if they raise religious or moral 
reasons for the training. The Packard-Dornan amendment reacts to 
methods and abuses in training programs that I agree with, but I think 
it goes too far.
  It is so restrictive that it results in incomplete information being 
presented Federal employees that they need. One person could kill an 
entire program. Let me be clear that my substitute addresses these 
legitimate concerns about abuse in training programs and prevents them 
in the future. However, instead of prohibiting certain types of 
information, my substitute allows it, provided that it meets certain 
strict qualifications. First, it must be workplace specific, and second 
it must improve the effectiveness of the Federal employees, two 
requirements which should be the centerpiece of any Federal training 
programs.
  In the Ohio Senate I sponsored a bill that established a lot of 
health care protocols for treating persons who were affected with the 
AIDS virus. A big part of that piece of legislation was education. I 
believe education is very necessary in the prevention of the 
transmission of certain diseases. From this experience, though, I also 
learned and understand the intense emotion that surrounds this issue, 
but this is a health issue that we need to discuss and not hide from.
  Just because there has been abuse in training programs, we should not 
use that as leverage to penalize people by not allowing appropriate 
education. We should not use that as leverage to withhold training, and 
we should not use that as leverage to prevent health care education.
  I think the pendulum is swinging too far, certainly. Training abuses 
were part of a pendulum that swung too far in the wrong direction. I 
think the Packard-Dornan amendment swung too far in the other 
direction. I think my substitute stakes out a responsive middle ground 
tradition. Let us not narrow training programs so far that important 
information is prohibited, but let us narrow them, one, so they are 
workplace specific and, two, improve the effectiveness of Federal 
employees.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment permits training to prevent the 
transmission of AIDS and HIV virus. It does virtually all the things 
that the substitute wants to do, except that my amendment prevents the 
very sensitive and very, very objectionable, to many people, parts of 
the training that gets into the details of sex education and condom 
education and a variety of other issues that I think should have no 
place as required government-mandated training.
  The substitute allows people to opt-out if they have objections to 
the training, but that is not adequate. My amendment prevents the 
objectionable part of the training, whereas the substitute literally 
perpetuates the objectionable training. There has been very similar 
language in the existing law as what is in the substitute as it relates 
to AIDS and HIV.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Visclosky], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hobson 
substitute and in opposition to the Packard amendment. HIV-AIDS is now 

[[Page H 7208]]
the leading killer of Americans ages 23 to 44, who are the core of our 
work force. Employees' fears about contracting HIV and working with 
HIV-positive employees undermine productivity in the workplace. That is 
why companies like RJR Nabisco and IBM provide AIDS education for their 
employees. However, the Packard amendment would essentially shut down 
AIDS education in the Federal Government. Under the Packard amendment, 
a single employee who found AIDS education to be offensive could shut 
down the program for all employees.
  I do not think any employee should have to sit through training they 
find offensive. That is why I support the Hobson substitute, which 
allows employees with a moral or religious objection to any training to 
receive an alternative which is acceptable to them.
  The Packard amendment limits HIV-AIDS training to the medical 
implications of HIV-AIDS and the workplace rights of HIV-positive 
employees. That means that educators cannot provide medically accurate, 
appropriate information about how HIV is and is not transmitted.
  Under the Packard amendment, all educators could do is to tell people 
the medical implications of HIV, how sick they will be if they catch 
the disease, and tell them not to discriminate against people with HIV. 
The effect of the amendment is to create more fear and discrimination 
and not less. If an employee asks ``Can I get AIDS from a telephone? 
Can I get AIDS from a hug? If my co-worker is bleeding to death, how 
can I help without getting sick?'' the Packard amendment would prohibit 
AIDS educators from answering these specific questions.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, that is 
really not true. My amendment does not prohibit instructions on how to 
avoid the transmission and the acquiring of AIDS or HIV. It allows all 
of that kind of training, but it does not permit the very sensitive 
part of training, such as how to put on a condom.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. My understanding is if an employee objects based on 
the curricula that is involved and the trainer that is involved, he 
essentially shuts down that process.
  Mr. PACKARD. Only for that one employee. The training still goes on, 
but that employee can walk out. History has shown that would be a black 
mark on that employee's record.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, talking about 
sexually transmitted diseases is never easy or comfortable, but this is 
a sexually transmitted disease. We cannot provide accurate information 
about this epidemic and how it is spread if we leave that information 
out. Properly trained experts can present that information.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], our majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Packard amendment, 
and in very strong opposition to the amendment of my good friend, the 
gentleman from Ohio. I am going to try to explain why. I understand the 
intent of the gentleman from Ohio, but I think what he is doing is 
keeping the status quo, because as I read his amendment, nothing really 
changes in what we are trying to get at.
  The Packard amendment would prohibit taxpayer dollars from being 
spent on shocking and offensive so-called non-technical employee 
training programs. I am appalled, not only at what we are forcing 
Federal employees to engage in, but that these outrageous activities 
are being funded by the hard-earned tax dollars of our constituents.
  As the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] has explained, this 
issue arose during hearings of the Subcommittee on Transportation of 
the Committee on Appropriations, of which I am a member. FAA employees 
testified about how they were forced to walk through large groups of 
female coworkers who were instructed to grope and fondle the 
participants. The unbelievable justification for these activities by 
the FAA was that this was a method to show men how it felt to be 
sexually harassed.
  Another FAA employee testified about how, during a training session, 
she and her colleagues were forced to strip to their underwear and tie 
themselves to a coworker of the opposite sex for periods exceeding 24 
hours. They were forced to eat, sleep, bathe, and use toilet facilities 
while tied together.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe there are any Members of this body 
that could support these kinds of activities, much less go home and 
tell their constituents that they voted to spend their money for this 
damaging and ill-conceived program. This amendment, the Packard 
amendment, will also address the so-called AIDS-HIV awareness training 
that the Clinton administration mandates on all Federal employees, 
where they are forced to endure how-to sessions regarding condoms, 
sexual techniques, and devices.
  Let me just read what the administration's rules are for AIDS 
instruction, and what they tell their trainers. They tell their 
trainers to avoid certain terms, such as--outrageous things, terms such 
as ``husband and wife''; avoid such terms as ``homosexual men,'' 
``promiscuous,'' ``sexual preference,'' and ``addict.'' The trainers 
are to deflect homophobic comments during a training session, saying, 
``there is some division of opinion on that point.''
  Trainers are to watch out for troublemakers among the pupils. A 
Federal worker who takes an intransigent point of view, in their words, 
on condom distribution in schools, or needle distribution, is pegged as 
a partisan. A heckler is someone who expresses disbelief, disgust, or 
scoffs at content and process. I am quoting from the manual.
  Mr. Chairman, what does this have to do with Federal workers doing 
their job? One Federal worker recently recounted how she was offended 
when an instructor of one of these training sessions began talking 
about her grandmother's likely sex practices. This is going on in our 
Federal Government right now. A Defense Department employee who walked 
out of a session said:

       I do not believe I should sit next to a female and be told 
     how to do intercourse. I do not want to be in mixed company 
     and talk about a lifestyle I'm not involved in, that I do not 
     approve of. I do not care to be instructed by Big Brother in 
     things that I avoid.

  If we do not defeat the Hobson amendment, we will never get the 
opportunity to vote for the Packard amendment. With all due respect to 
my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, his amendment does not change the 
status quo in any significant way. We need to stop these kinds of 
politically correct nonsense. We need to vote against the Hobson 
amendment and for the Packard amendment.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi], a member of the committee.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I particularly want to thank him for his leadership in bringing 
this very intelligent approach and solution to the problem to the 
floor.
  I certainly identify with the concerns that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard] has expressed. We all do. It sounds 
ridiculous. It is hard to imagine how the Bush administration could 
have mandated those activities in the FAA that were referenced in Mr. 
Packard's remarks. I say that because some of the examples that he used 
have nothing to do, absolutely nothing to do with the AIDS education 
program. That is, indeed, part of the Clinton administration initiative 
on prevention in order to make people more aware of how AIDS is 
transmitted, and to end discrimination in the workplace to people 
affected by HIV-AIDS.

                              {time}  1430

  The Hobson amendment, which was originally authored by the gentleman 
from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] but is being carried today by the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Hobson], differs from the Packard language in a very 
substantial way. It is a substitute on how AIDS education is addressed.
  The Packard amendment would not allow information that is appropriate 
to be presented on how HIV is transmitted and how it is not 
transmitted. 

[[Page H 7209]]
It is really a gag rule. In fact, in answer to one question that we had 
about what would be the answer to an employee who wanted more 
information about how AIDS is transmitted, the answer is, ``We are 
going to give him or her an 800 number to call.''
  Under the Hobson substitute, all employees must be notified of the 
content and methods to be used in any training, including AIDS 
training. If the individual employee articulates a moral or religious 
objection, then the agency is required to offer an alternative to the 
training program which is acceptable to the employee.
  The Hobson approach is far more reasonable than a total ban on HIV 
information. It addresses the problem without ending a program which 
has contributed to the prevention of AIDS.
  Mr. Chairman, our colleagues, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] in 
particular, have addressed our taxpayers' money being spent. The best 
taxpayers' dollars that can be spent should be spent on AIDS 
prevention.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hobson 
amendment. I have great respect for the gentleman from Ohio and his 
skills as a legislator, but let me point out to my colleagues, first of 
all that we need to understand a little background on this amendment.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] sits on the Subcommittee 
on Transportation where there were hearings on this matter. Mr. Packard 
did not come to his understanding by accident or because of some 
political pressure or some special interest groups came up to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard]. His legislation came about 
because he had a strong emotional feeling, a mental feeling, about this 
after listening to the hearings in the Subcommittee on Transportation.
  This identical language that he has offered has already passed the 
Subcommittee on Transportation. He thought the Subcommittee on 
Transportation would be voted on first. But, no, we have got Treasury 
and Postal first so now we are talking about it and it is being amended 
by Mr. Hobson.
  How long has the Hobson amendment been in the offing and studied? The 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] says it started with the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot]. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Lightfoot] did not want to do it. Then we had the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. He did not want to do it. Then we had the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson]. He wanted to do it.
  The thought that went into their amendment does not compare with the 
amount of thought that has gone into the amendment of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Packard]. Others have talked about it in certain 
ways, but the bottom line is there has been an abuse by the FAA in 
instructing people on new age and human potential philosophy which has 
disturbed all of us.
  If we go about amending the Packard amendment with the Hobson, we are 
going to change it--Mr. Packard's amendment--whole intent. I urge my 
colleagues to think about the history of this amendment, that basically 
it is the same amendment that came forward in the Transportation 
Subcommittee and was agreed on completely. It is in the transportation 
bill now. But now we have a last-minute effort by the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hobson] to amend it. He is amending it in a way that is not 
appropriate or in a suitable way that reflect what were the results 
from the hearings.
  I urge defeat of the Hobson amendment.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hobson amendment 
to H.R. 2020 and to commend the gentleman from Ohio for his efforts to 
reform and maintain AIDS education programs in the Federal workplace. 
Similar educational programs have effectively educated Federal 
employees on the prevention of HIV transmission and the accommodation 
of people with AIDS in the workplace. It is important to note that 
similar programs have been successfully utilized by major corporations 
in the private sector such as. IBM, RJR Nabisco, and Eastman Kodak.
  I understand that this type of education may cause some Government 
employees to confront issues that may make them uncomfortable. However, 
I believe that the Hobson amendment provides safeguards which will 
allow Government employers to disseminate information required to 
manage the situation where a fellow employee is struck with this tragic 
disease, while providing safeguards requiring that the educational 
program directly relate to job performance and productivity. In 
addition, this amendment addresses the religious and moral concerns of 
individual employees who raise objection to this type of training by 
requiring the Government employer to provide an alternative program 
which is acceptable to that individual employee. Accordingly, Mr. 
Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Hobson amendment.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment of my good friend, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson], is nice, it is very nice, but it does 
not get the job done.
  It is designed, and you can tell by the groups supporting it--he may 
not be aware of this--it is designed to have gigantic loopholes in it 
that you can drive a Mack truck through.
  Everybody on this side and a handful on my side are saying this is 
the Packard-Dornan amendment that Hobson is supposed to wipe out. No, 
it is not. Mine was tougher than the amendment of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard] by three words, ``in the workplace.''
  There should only be taxpayer dollars spent, and that is all the 
people watching this Chamber, Mr. Chairman, about a million and a 
quarter, and a full gallery watching what is going to happen to their 
tax dollars.
  Teaching people about colored condoms and sex toys and filthy talk 
out there in every single Federal position across this country, about 
stuff that does not happen in the workplace? I did not know people had 
sex in the workplace. They are not supposed to.
 They are not supposed to. And we are not supposed to be spending 
taxpayers' dollars lecturing people about what they do in their private 
time.

  It is supposed to be about sensitivity to people who are HIV 
positive, that you are not going to get it at the water cooler, by a 
handshake, by a hug. You treat them with respect and decency. There but 
for the grace of God goes someone I love or maybe even precious to me.
  I am not against this training, but we should not be teaching 
bisexuality is normal to every other lifestyle, and here is how you 
switch-hit and go AC/DC. You do not do that stuff on taxpayer money in 
the workplace.
  If Packard had been perfected the way I testified by rules, but 
forgot to have it pre-published the day before, it would have said no 
taxpayer money to teach anybody off the job, eating up thousands of 
man-hours paid for by the taxpayer--excuse me, person-hours--and 
teaching them about things that have nothing to do with safety or 
sensitivity in the workplace.
  I hope in conference we will add, and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Packard] agrees, the words ``in the workplace.'' Dornan was the 
right way to go. Packard is 99 percent there. We should get in the 
words ``in the workplace.''
  Hobson is well-meaning, nice, but has gigantic loopholes. That is why 
you are going to see people who support homosexuality--and pardon me 
for smiling, bisexuality, what is that? Nobody even knows what 
bisexuality is. It used to be called lust and not caring who you are 
with if the lights are out.
  No, we are way off base wasting taxpayers' dollars on this issue. I 
do not mind teaching some sensitivity about scary plagues sweeping 
across, not the land, but pandemic, raging out of control worldwide. I 
say defeat Hobson, support Packard, and perfect it with 3 words: ``In 
the workplace.''
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].

[[Page H 7210]]

  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson] and in strong 
opposition to the Packard amendment.
  The Hobson amendment is a clear and practical approach to the HIV/
AIDS prevention training and other government-wide training 
initiatives. It would allow for the delivery of highly effective 
training which benefits the organization and its workers while not 
compromising the beliefs and values of employees.
  In that, it contrasts the amendment of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Packard], which would limit access to HIV/AIDS awareness training, 
even to those employees who wish to attend the training. The Packard 
amendment would render the AIDS training initiative useless, would put 
an entire work force and their children at risk. My understanding is 
that the Packard amendment would prevent discussions of how HIV/AIDS is 
transmitted.
  I ask, if you attended an HIV/AIDS awareness training course, and you 
left not knowing how HIV/AIDS is transmitted and whether you were at 
risk, what would you think of the training? You would think it was 
ineffective and irresponsible, and you would be right, particularly in 
light of the fact that so many young Americans are dying in the prime 
of their lives.
  I could give statistics that AIDS is the principal cause of death for 
Americans between 25 and 44 years of age, and approximately 50 percent 
of permanent full-time civil servants are in this age group. The 
workplace where most adults, including young adults, spend time every 
day is a logical point of access for prevention education to a 
significant proportion of the Federal work force.
  The Hobson amendment would protect the principles of HIV/AIDS 
education and personnel management outlined by President Reagan. 
President Reagan understood that you cannot separate AIDS issues from 
organizational performance and bottom-line results. President Reagan 
encouraged American businesses to examine and consider adopting 
education and personnel management policies addressing AIDS.
  Business leaders have embraced that recommendation, not just because 
it was the right thing to do but because it also made business sense.
  We had a hearing in my Subcommittee on Civil Service where we had 
representatives from the business community who commented on how 
effective good HIV/AIDS training is for morale, for productivity, for 
the well-being of Americans.
  I ask for support of the Hobson amendment.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hobson substitute and in 
opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Packard] and supported by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dornan].
  The Packard-Dornan amendment tells Federal employees that there is a 
killer out there but that the Federal Government is not going to let 
them learn how to stop it. Right now, with AIDS being in the crisis it 
is, if you want to talk about prevention of AIDS, you have to talk 
about condoms, and you should give employees the right to learn about 
condoms if they wish to.
  The Hobson amendment allows any employee to opt out of training and 
also requires advance notice of what is going to be mentioned in that 
training program, so those members or those employees who have an 
objection on moral or religions grounds can opt out of any training 
program under the Hobson amendment.
  It has been proven that HIV/AIDS prevention programs save lives and 
that the American people overwhelmingly support these programs. A 
recent poll showed that 72 percent of Republican voters would support 
maintaining or even increasing funding for AIDS prevention and 
education.
  These programs are so widely supported because nearly every American 
family can somehow relate to the tragedy of losing a friend, a loved 
one or a child. AIDS kills without regard to gender, age, race, or 
life-style. Beyond the enormous human tragedy involved, AIDS education 
is also cost-effective and practical. Would we rather spend a small 
amount of money now on prevention programs or much more later on costly 
medical bills?
  Vote ``no'' on the Packard-Dornan amendment and vote ``yes'' on the 
Hobson substitute.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that there is a lot of 
misapprehension and misunderstanding about what this amendment does.
  First, I would point out to some of the speakers after they have 
spoken that we do have the ``inappropriate in the workplace'' language.
  If Members will read the Packard amendment, I believe the Packard 
amendment leaves out the ability to discuss how the AIDS virus is 
transmitted, and I think this is a very important discussion that 
should go on.

                              {time}  1445

  I agree with the fact that under the Bush administration, and under 
this administration, there appear to have been inappropriate training 
sessions. These should not have been approved and should not have gone 
on and I do not disagree with that at all.
  But I think we should not get away from the appropriate way to take 
care of that. I think we should allow these people to have these and to 
stay in them if they want to stay in them.
  I think, on the other hand, if they do not want to go, then they do 
not have to go. And if they do not want to go, they should not be able 
to kill the program for everybody else that wants to go.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], chairman of the Committee on Transportation of 
Infrastructure, the committee that heard the first experiences on this 
issue.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hobson amendment. 
It is vague. It cannot be implemented, and the Hobson amendment puts 
great pressure on the Federal employee, and as a former Federal 
employee, we ought not put this pressure on them.
  Let me tell my colleagues, put this back where it was. We had 
hearings. There was New Age training going on in the Department of 
Interior. Let me tell my colleagues what the hearings said.
  One person came before us, we had Federal employees, they said, ``I 
thought the topics unusual and the confrontations between students and 
the trainers somewhat unsettling, particularly in the use of abusive 
language and obscenities directed toward the students.'' He, the 
instructor, mentioned that 66 percent of psychotherapy patients are 
Catholics or Jews; that religion was fear-inducing and repressive. He 
characterized religion as more farfetched than the Flat Earth Society.
  He discussed the arrogance of Christianity. He said that evil exists 
only as a function of the mind. Another one talked about post-traumatic 
stress that she went through. It has ruined their life and they have 
had to leave because of this training.
  An air traffic controller, a person said he was forced to walk 
through a gauntlet of females, not unlike the Navy's Tailhook scandal, 
where he was groped and partially undressed by a group of females. He 
described how this affected his life. Listen to this. This is what the 
man said that Federal training did to him.
  He said, ``During the next few weeks, I would wake up in the middle 
of the night to find my wife sobbing. She became depressed and bitter. 
She would tell me she knew that I had done nothing wrong, but it was 
obvious that she didn't look at me in the same way. Our marriage had 
started to suffer as a result. She began to see a psychiatrist,'' his 
wife. And then, ``Things are still no better. We both feel that our 
marriage still suffers as a result of the FAA training.''
  The stories went on. And what the Packard language does, it says that 


[[Page H 7211]]
this will not go on anymore. And, second, in the area of AIDS let me 
make it clear, the Packard language would permit the understanding of 
AIDS.
  I think there ought to be that type of language. I think there ought 
to be training. I think there ought to be education. We should explain 
to somebody that if somebody has AIDS, that is okay. We can sit next to 
them. We can talk to them. We can touch them. We can be friends. This 
is not the way that it has been explained that I heard.
  The hearings that we held, and if you watched them on Nightline, and 
if you read the IG reports, it pitted person against person. It 
devalued a man and woman's religion. No Federal funding, no Federal 
funding, no taxpayer dollar ought to be why we destroy a man and a wife 
and their religion whereby people have to go and get psychiatric care. 
Read the IG report.
   Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Hobson amendment. I know the 
gentleman from Ohio is a good Member. If he could have sat through 
these hearings, and heard how this has destroyed people's lives, and it 
happened under the Bush administration too, as well as sometimes under 
the Clinton administration. I strongly support the gentleman and I 
salute the gentleman for offering the amendment.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, during the Reagan and Bush administration 
is when, of course, this occurred. I just wanted to make clear that 
nobody on the committee, and you did hold extensive hearings in the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of what happened at FAA 
during that era, nobody on the committee, Republican or Democrat, 
countenanced that kind of training.
  But I think it is very clear, if the gentleman would permit me a 
moment to just say we think, on our side of the aisle and I hope on 
yours, that education about HIV is extremely important. A lot of us 
understand that AIDS happens to be the leading killer now of all 
Americans between the ages of 25 and 44. Every 17 minutes an American 
dies of AIDS.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we could still have the 
training that the gentleman from Texas said, and I think it is 
appropriate that we have it, under the Packard amendment. I hope the 
Packard amendment will stay in, otherwise we will just destroy these 
Federal employees and it is inappropriate that we do it.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the Hobson amendment is a very sensible 
amendment. I want to commend him, and I also want to commend my good 
friend from California [Mr. Packard]. The gentleman is a fine man and a 
fine Member, but his amendment is a bad one.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that this is not a new issue. 
The question of handling of awareness meetings and courses of that sort 
did not begin with President Clinton. As a matter of fact, it took 
place first under Mr. Bush in 1990.
  That program was clearly and patently offensive. It also was granted 
on some rather sweetheart terms. It was terminated by this 
administration, and the individual at NTSB who started it went on a 
sabbatical. It would have been more appropriate that he had left the 
Federal service in its entirety, but that was not the case. In any 
event, the practices about which I complained when I was Chairman of 
the oversight subcommittee were brought to a halt, and they are no 
longer practiced.
  The big differences between the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio and the gentleman from California are, and there is only one, 
and that is whether you can explain to Federal employees in an 
intelligently run and responsible program what are the causes of HIV. 
Under the amendment offered by my good friend from California, you 
cannot do that.
  Now, if you will look at what goes on in Europe and in other 
countries around the world, they have recognized that dealing with HIV 
is something that can be dealt with only by education. And you have to 
talk about some nasty things to explain to people how they expose 
themselves to an absolutely incurable and hopelessly fatal disease.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to recognize that the 
amendment offered by my friend from California is offered about 4 years 
late.
               preferential motion offered by mr. dingell

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Dingell moves that the Committee rise and report the 
     bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
     enacting clause be stricken.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, it is time that we recognize that this 
country should join the rest of the world in an intelligent effort to 
alert our people to not only the peril of AIDS, which is the largest 
killer now of young Americans up to the age of 45, but is also a 
hopeless, fatal, and incurable disease.
  I would urge my colleagues to recognize that there is no vaccine. All 
the billions that we have spent on it will do nothing. The only defense 
at this moment which this country possesses against that is education.
  Education is not pretty, because you have to talk about some pretty 
ugly, nasty things. But they are things which have to be discussed if 
we are going to prevent and to reduce the threat of AIDS to Americans 
of all races, of all creeds, of all colors, and of all ages, because, 
remember, it is incurable, it is fatal, and people are going to die of 
it and the number of people who are going to be exposed is going to 
continue to grow.
  Now, if that does not concern you, then contemplate, if you please, 
the situation which is going to exist under the current state of 
affairs with regard to the incredible economic costs that it is going 
to impose upon this country, upon industry, upon the health care 
system, and upon everything else that we depend upon for the economic 
well-being of this country.
  I would point out to you that it can break Medicare and Medicaid. It 
can break Blue Cross and Blue Shield. It can break the private health 
insurance plans, and it can break the employer-operated plans.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would preclude the Federal Government 
from participating in that by banning the instruction in what might 
cause AIDS.
  Now, to come back to the whole question that is before us, the only 
basic difference between the two amendments, the amendment offered by 
my dear friend from California and the amendment offered by my dear 
friend from Ohio, is the AIDS instruction and prevention of AIDS cannot 
be conducted under the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard] but can be offered under the amendment which 
is offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson].
  That is strong enough argument alone for defeating the amendment that 
is offered by my dear friend from California. But I would have the 
committee know something else, and that is the question here is not has 
Clinton gone wild and begun to have some kind of wild employee 
awareness programs and programs of that sort taught and enforced 
against an unruly band of Federal employees.
  That was done under the Bush administration. It is not done under 
this administration. It was terminated in this administration in 1993. 
It was one of the first acts that was done by President Clinton in 
response to complaints that were raised by the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations and the Committee on Commerce.
  I like my good friend from California. He is one of the best Members 
we have around here and I respect him more than I can tell, but the 
fact of the matter is his amendment is a bad one and it ought not to be 
adopted.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is one which 
accomplishes all of the purposes. If there are abuses here, and I 
discern none and I have watched them very closely since President 
Clinton terminated the Bush program, if there are abuses or if they are 
likely to recur, they can be dealt with under the amendment that is 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio.

[[Page H 7212]]

  Given that, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to recognize if 
abuses are in existence, they ought to be dealt with, and they can be 
dealt with, even though they do not exist at that time, under the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
  But the gentleman from California, perhaps through some drafting 
misfortune, has given an amendment that says that your cannot conduct 
any instructional program which will warn or which will reach about the 
perils and how to avoid them of AIDS and all of the evils that are 
associated with that.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell] has set out the case extremely well. In all the hearings we 
have had over the years about the AIDS epidemic, we have come to one 
clear conclusion. We ought to be honest with the American people, give 
out the facts that are scientifically based and let people know the 
information.
  Now, if someone as an employee is squeamish, as I understand the 
substitute amendment by the gentleman from Ohio, they need not be 
participating in these instructions. They ought to make the decision. 
Government should not be squeamish in giving honest facts to the 
people.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to vacate my 
preferential motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, do I get 5 minutes on his motion?
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman objects, he is entitled to 5 minutes 
in opposition to the motion.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Packard] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chair of the full Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have heard the arguments on the other 
side in favor of the amendment by the gentleman from Ohio.
  I would just like to say that I think that the argument is far more 
eloquent and emotional than it is factual. But I have looked at both 
amendments, and I ascertain that the amendment by the gentleman from 
California permits AIDS training, AIDS awareness sessions, but seeks 
strictly to prohibit Federal funds going for training that involves 
these gauntlets that have been performed by some Federal agencies and 
departments in the last several months, in which Federal employees are 
called to sessions whether they wish to go or not, instructed and 
embarrassed and perhaps even touched and fondled for causes that not 
only do not concern them, but in some instances violate their religious 
principles, violate their moral beliefs, and are contrary to their 
fundamental outlook on life.
                              {time}  1500

  Now, it strikes me as absolute common sense to adopt the gentleman 
from California's amendment and to reject any modification, any 
watering down of that amendment, which, in fact, is what the amendment, 
the well-intentioned amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio, in 
my estimation, seeks to accomplish.
  I might also say that there have been statements on the floor that 
this is an attempt to be honest with the American people. Look, folks 
whether you like it or not, the whole subject of AIDS escapes honesty 
with the American people. I am not seeking to get into an area from 
which I cannot extract myself, but the fact is AIDS is a communicable 
disease. Yet it is not treated like any other communicable disease in 
modern times. It is capable of being passed from one human being to 
another, and we do not attempt to deal with it as we do other diseases. 
That has to be faced up to, if you are going to be totally honest with 
the American people; you have to understand how AIDS is transmitted 
through blood or otherwise.
  I think the entire medical community has to reexamine how we deal 
with AIDS. I do not have the magic bullet. I do not have a way to 
resolve the question. I certainly do not have a cure for AIDS. I wish I 
did. I wish that this Nation did. But this Congress is appropriating 
massive amounts of money for the purposes of seeking, of finding that 
cure, to eliminate the suffering and the pain and the anguish and the 
death that results as this disease gets passed from one AIDS patient to 
another.
  Now, that being said, we have to also understand that hysteria and 
emotionalism simply is not the answer to this problem.
  Let us deal with it forthrightly and not force our Federal employees 
to do things they should not be doing.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me the time.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by our friend, the 
gentleman from Ohio, for a number of reasons.
  But, No. 1, Mr. Chairman, here we go again, taking a question of 
grave medical concern and turning it into a question of political 
concern. Is AIDS a terrible disease? Yes. Should people have education 
on the disease? Yes.
  But what is reasonable and what is rational and what is appropriate, 
that is the question we confront today. Why not quite simply, Mr. 
Chairman, have pamphlets, pamphlets for Federal employees that they may 
read at their desks  in their work stations with numbers to 
call if they have more questions?  Is  that  not  a  
reasonable and rational  way to deal with the 
problem, or does it presume that Federal 
employees are illiterate and somehow that is inappropriate? No, it is 
commonsensical. That is what we have to do here to, yes, get out the 
information, disseminate that information, but not transform a dread 
disease into a vehicle for training in the workplace that is altogether 
inappropriate.
  Much has been said about the mandate of November 8. Some have called 
it a revolution. I never tire of saying, ``Call it a revolution if you 
will, but understand this, it is a revolution built on what is 
reasonable and what is rational.''
  The amendment by my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio, is the 
wrong approach.
  ``No'' on Hobson, ``yes'' on Packard, common sense and proper 
education is the proper role in the Federal workplace to deal with this 
dread disease.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] unless the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell] chooses to withdraw his motion.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, the gentleman 
has made some good points under his motion, and I ask the gentleman, in 
the----
  Mr. PACKARD. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  Mr. HOYER. I believe the gentleman from California spoke under his 
reservation, and if that is what we continue to do----
  The CHAIRMAN. No, the gentleman is mistaken. The gentleman from 
California had 5 minutes to speak in opposition to the motion.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Hobson amendment and 
in opposition to the Packard amendment.
  First of all, let me speak to the Packard amendment. But, ladies and 

[[Page H 7213]]
  gentlemen, I want to speak to all of these made-known amendments. What 
the Packard amendment says is that none of the funds made available in 
this act may be obligated or expended for any employee training when it 
is made known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or 
expend such funds that such employee training, et cetera, et cetera, 
made known by whom? Somebody on the street who calls up the official 
and says, ``Hey, this training is inappropriate?''
  Under the ruling of the parliamentarian, ladies and gentlemen of the 
House, you ought to understand this, you cannot offer such amendment if 
it requires the Federal official to take any affirmative action. You 
cannot impose additional duties, which means that the Federal official 
has no ability to even decide whether this is some crazy person making 
it known to them.
  The fact of the matter is this is a wrong process. This procedure 
makes no sense, and we ought to stop it.
  Now, this is consistent with previous parliamentary rulings. But I 
would suggest to my friends on the majority side we ought to stop this 
by rule, because it makes no sense. What if an amendment passed saying, 
as to the Secretary of Defense, none of the funds appropriated in this 
bill can be expended if it is made known to the Secretary of Defense 
that the funds are being inappropriately used against the citizens of 
``X'' country? What does ``inappropriately'' mean and ``made known''? 
By whom?
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], I defy you or anybody 
else to tell me: ``Made known'' by whom? Anybody with any 
responsibility? Anybody with any brains? Anybody with any knowledge? It 
does not say. We do not care, apparently. Just ``made known,'' by 
anybody who may pick up the phone and call and say, ``Hey, this is a 
problem,'' or some employee disgruntled with the Secretary or the 
official who wants to disrupt the process, fax them, send them a note, 
whatever? This is irrational.
  That does not mean that the House will not do it. I understand that. 
But it is irrational.
  The Hobson amendment tries to come to grips with a very serious 
problem in a serious way. That is why I rise to support the Hobson 
amendment, because what we have, as the gentleman from Michigan 
indicated, is a very serious problem, and we ought to solve it in a 
serious way.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes, the balance 
of my time.
  First of all, under my amendment, the course must be workplace-
specific, it must improve the effectiveness of the Federal employees. I 
do not want to lose sight of that. That is, I think, a common ground 
that needs to be addressed here.
  What I think is also important is that in the opt-out provision, each 
individual that wants to can opt out without killing the program for 
the rest of the people who may wish to get the training.
  I think the Packard amendment is deficient in the fact that it does 
not allow the training or the understanding of how this disease is 
transmitted. I think that is a very important message that needs to be 
sent across this country to save people's lives.
  This is a design to treat all people the same, and it is designed to 
try to save lives. It is trying to get to the people that need the 
appropriate training.
  I do not believe that the Packard amendment, however well meaning it 
is, does that. I think I agree with those who say that there have been 
wrong programs in this and wrong things have been done, and I applaud 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] for trying to get at that, 
and I voted for his original amendment.
  But after looking at it, I thought it was deficient and this was a 
better way to go about it, and that is why I put up this amendment with 
this type of language in it so that we can save people's lives and see 
that they get the appropriate training.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, 
which I believe is 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Let me just very succinctly now say what is in my amendment and what 
I think is deficient in the Hobson substitute.
  The technical and health risks can still be included in the training 
in my amendment. Transmission and the spread of AIDS will remain in the 
training program. My amendment does not preclude that. The workplace 
risks and rights can still be included in the training.
  What we do not think is appropriate AIDS training is how to use drug 
needles so that we can use illicit drugs more easily, how to put 
condoms on, how to have sex and the techniques of sex, and so forth. I 
do not believe that that is necessary for adult workers, Federal 
workers. These are not the role of the Federal Government.
  A vote for the Hobson amendment will prevent a vote to stop bizarre 
training. There will not be a vote on the Packard amendment if the 
Hobson amendment passes.
  We think the Members of Congress should have a vote on the Packard 
amendment, and we urge a strong ``no'' vote on the Hobson amendment and 
a ``yes'' vote on the Packard language.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson] as a substitute for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
                             recorded vote

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII, the Chair will reduce 
to 5 minutes the time for a recorded vote, if ordered, on the Packard 
amendment, without intervening debate or business.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201, 
noes 223, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 529]

                               AYES--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates

                               NOES--223

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady

[[Page H 7214]]

     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bryant (TX)
     Collins (MI)
     Crane
     Fazio
     Ford
     Matsui
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Rush
     Wynn

                              {time}  1533

  Messrs. STUMP, HOLDEN, FOLEY, HALL of Ohio, and DAVIS, and Mrs. 
LINCOLN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HINCHEY, HORN, and SMITH of Michigan changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was 
rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 283, 
noes 138, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 530]

                               AYES--283

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--138

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bryant (TX)
     Collins (MI)
     Crane
     Fazio
     Flake
     Ford
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Moakley
     Oxley
     Reynolds
     Rush
     Wynn

                              {time}  1542

  Mr. KLINK and Mrs. KELLY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, because of my attendance at an engagement off 
the Hill today I was unavailable to cast my vote for rollcall Nos. 529 
and 530.
  Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on the Hobson 
substitute amendment, rollcall No. 529, and I would have voted ``nay'' 
on the Packard amendment, rollcall No. 530, to H.R. 2020, Treasury-
Postal Service-General Government appropriations for fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we had a needless blowup here Thursday night for a 
variety of reasons, which I am not going to go into. I would very much 
like to see that not happen again. But if we are going to have 
outrageous pieces of garbage like this peddled by individual Members of 
this House at the door 

[[Page H 7215]]
which smear the reputation of individual Members, then I think we ought 
to have a rule that requires every Member who circulates something like 
this to have their name on the sheet.
  We just had an amendment offered by a Republican, the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hobson], a distinguished and honorable Member of this House, 
and yet the scandal sheet that was distributed at the door reads, 
``Defeat the Hoyer substitute; Hoyer equals illegal drug use; Hoyer 
equals sex training; Hoyer equals new age cult training; Hoyer equals 
condom training; Hoyer equals religious indoctrination.''

                              {time}  1545

  These are five dirty lies. I want to know which Member of the House 
takes responsibility for bringing this garbage to the House floor. We 
have to treat each other with respect. It would be kind of nice if at 
least you had the right name on the sheet. I would also suggest that 
there is not a single Member of this House who would want to see the 
things happen that this sheet allegedly describes.
  Whoever did this ought to be ashamed of themselves.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


                    amendment offered by mr. sanders

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Amendment No. 12. Page 84, after line 17, insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 628. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used for salaries or expenses of any employee, including any 
     employee of the Executive Office of the President, in 
     connection with the obligation or expenditure of funds in the 
     exchange stabilization fund.

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 60 minutes and 
that the time be equally divided between the gentleman from Vermont 
[Mr. Sanders] and a Member in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I object. There are a lot of Members who 
have waited about 7 months to discuss this issue and have never had 
that opportunity. I do not want to deny any Member the opportunity to 
speak on it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman compromise on an 
hour and 15 minutes?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, an hour and 20 minutes.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on 
this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 1 hour and 20 
minutes, the time to be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] will be 
recognized for 40 minutes, and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] 
will be recognized for 40 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a simple and straightforward amendment which 
should be supported by progressives, by conservatives, by moderates and 
everybody else.
  It should, in fact, be supported by every Member of Congress who is 
concerned about the proper separation of powers as defined by our 
Constitution and who cares about fiscal responsibility.
  This amendment prevents the President of the United States, Bill 
Clinton, or any future President, from appropriating money from the 
Exchange Stabilization Fund to bail out Mexico or any other country 
without the approval of Congress.
  In January of this year, the President announced that he felt it 
necessary to bail out the Mexican economy as a result of the 
devaluation of the peso. He initially indicated that he wanted 
congressional approval for his bailout and, in fact, won early support 
from congressional leaders of both parties. However, it soon became 
clear to the administration that they did not have the support for this 
bailout from a majority of the Members of Congress or from the American 
people. Poll after poll showed overwhelming
 opposition to the bailout, and more and more Members of Congress, 
Republicans, Democrats and the Independent, voiced disapproval of the 
bailout.

  Mr. Chairman, understanding that he did not have the votes in 
Congress to go forward with this proposal, President Clinton acted 
unilaterally and provided Mexico with a minimum of $20 billion in loans 
and loan guarantees, $20 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not about the wisdom or the folly of 
President Clinton's action in January or how successful or unsuccessful 
it might have been. That is an important discussion but not the main 
focus of my amendment.
  This amendment deals with one fundamental issue, one fundamental 
issue, and that is whether the Congress of the United States accepts 
its responsibility under the Constitution to appropriate funds or 
whether it will continue to abdicate that responsibility to the 
executive branch. That is the issue under discussion.
  If Members of this body support the $20 billion loan and loan 
guarantee program developed by the President for Mexico, they have 
every right to get on this floor to fight for that funding and to win a 
majority of the Members. Maybe they can and maybe they cannot. I do not 
know. But I do know that it is cowardly, irresponsible and probably 
unconstitutional for the Congress to abdicate its responsibility on 
this issue and not vote on the matter.
  Mr. Chairman, during the last several weeks, we have been having 
heated debates on the floor of the House about whether to appropriate 
$2 million for this program or $20 million for that project. Debates 
have gone on hour after hour, and some of them have been extremely 
heated. In every case, the final decision was made by a vote in this 
body in which every Member participated, and that is the way it is 
supposed to be.
  Mr. Chairman, how can we spend hour after hour debating a $5 million 
appropriation but not have any debate, not have any votes when we are 
talking about putting at risk $20 billion of taxpayer money as was the 
case with the bailout for Mexico? How can we ask our constituents back 
home to put up all of this money when we have not cast a vote on it?
  It seems to me to be absurd that we have dozens and dozens of votes 
for small appropriations but no vote for a $20 billion appropriation 
which puts at risk so much of our taxpayers money.
  I might add for the Members that if they think this issue is past 
history, they are wrong. The Treasury Department has already indicated, 
in a public hearing, that there is a possibility that they may be back 
for more money for the Mexican bailout in fiscal year 1996. Will the 
Congress cop again? Or will we have the guts to accept our 
responsibility?
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation should be supported in a bipartisan 
fashion, and I am delighted that we will have Members from both parties 
speaking in support of this amendment. This amendment should also not 
be considered as an attack on President Clinton, because it will apply 
to all presidents from here on in.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield myself 
half of my time, 20 minutes, to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer], and I ask that he may control that 20 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  On behalf of our side, I would like to offer an apology to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] over the incident that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] brought to the floor. I totally 
agree with Mr. Obey. It was totally uncalled for, and that sort of 
thing should not happen in this House.
  I do not know who did it, but I would offer my apologies to Mr. Hoyer 
in lieu of anyone else.

[[Page H 7216]]

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman.
  My colleagues, the issues with which we deal are emotional. There are 
a lot of strong feelings on both sides of the issues. We are different 
parties and sometimes antagonistic to one another's interests, and we 
are protagonists in debate. But the distribution of materials which are 
false, which are misleading and, in this case, totally inaccurate in 
undermining of the comity that we ought to have in this body.
  I try to treat every person in this body with respect. In return, I 
expect to be treated with respect. I do not think I need to say more, 
but to want to say that the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] is one 
of those Members who I most respect and for whom I have a great deal of 
affection. I very much appreciate his comments.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Leach].
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would begin by saying I have the deepest 
respect for my distinguished friend from Vermont. This is a very 
profound issue. There will be bipartisan support. There is also going 
to be bipartisan opposition.
  Here let me express some of my concerns about the amendment of the 
gentleman. In the abstract, all of us are concerned about one or 
another Federal program or agency. For some it might be national 
security. For others agriculture, health care or the arts. That does 
not mean it is appropriate for Congress to single out parts of agencies 
in this kind of hamstringing way. The precedent that is established in 
this kind of approach is very troubling for this body to manage.
  But in the specific, and much more importantly, the gentleman from 
Vermont and others in both parties evidenced such powerful opposition 
to the Mexican initiative that was considered in February and January 
and March that it became a factor in this House refusing to deal with 
the issue. And so this House looks at this issue from the perspective 
of refusing to deal rather than having taken an active position of 
either consent or opposition.
  I may have differed with the gentleman then and now. But, with the 
understanding that bad news could always break out at any time, it is 
clear that to date the Mexican initiative appears to be working. The 
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, for instance, testified this 
morning before the committee that both the gentleman from Vermont and I 
sit on, that it is working maximally. This Member believes it has 
probably moved from a 60- to 70-percent likelihood of success to an 80- 
to 90-percent likelihood of success.
                              {time}  1600

  Indeed, from an American perspective, the embarrassment could be that 
we will be making a great deal of money on the loans and loan 
commitments we have made, with our lending charges being almost twice 
the cost of borrowing from the Federal Treasury. Here, let me stress, 
not only, if the program works, will we be making money, but we will be 
avoiding socially diversive consequences in the country of Mexico, 
which could have precipitated massive flows of illegal immigrants which 
would have been costly to the United States taxpayer and to our own 
system of governance.
  The irony is that this amendment, as it is brought before this body, 
disallows the United States of America from using the Exchange 
Stabilization Fund to defend the dollar. The irony also is that we 
might be precluded from actually receiving a profit on the risk we have 
taken with the Mexican initiative. Both of these are counterproductive 
circumstances.
  Those are not the only ironies that are troubling, Mr. Chairman. For 
a Congress that favors, presumably, stability in the world, we by this 
approach would be introducing a new, massive element of instability in 
exchange rates. For a Congress that wants to be cohesive, we make it 
very difficult to be credible if we attempt to seek punitive actions 
against those responsible for policy the leadership of this Congress 
signed off on. By the leadership, I mean the leadership of both 
parties.
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize we have an honest difference of opinion on 
the Mexican policy, but this approach has the effect of standing as 
much as a vote of no confidence against the Speaker and the majority 
leader and minority leader as it does the President of the United 
States.
  Mr. Chairman, let me also stress that if we look at the Mexican 
issue, it strikes me this administration gets pretty good marks for how 
it handled the crisis once it developed. The marks, if one is taking a 
historical perspective, if one is bent on criticizing the 
administration, that are less than good relate to the reasons that the 
crisis was precipitated in the first place. On those grounds, the 
administration, particularly in 1994, could come under a reasonable 
criticism. However, for what has been done in 1995, in my judgment, 
there is an excellent chance this will be considered one of the great 
successes, not failures, of this administration.
  Let me also say that I think it is important to look to the future. 
As we look to the future, it is self-apparent that the international 
community did not have at its disposal the right kinds of equipment and 
capacities to deal with a crisis of this nature. We marshalled, 
maximally, a $50 billion worldwide system of support, 40 percent of 
which came from the United States.
  It is clear that this war for economic stability in Mexico stretched 
the resources of the international community. We do not have the 
capacity to fight in tandem two stabilization wars, or three or four of 
similar magnitude. The challenge for this body is, instead of sniping 
at a past decision--which in my belief represented an act of 
extraordinary courage from a President reeling with weakness, from this 
Congress which was new, and from a presidency in Mexico which was also 
new and that responded collectively with surprising wisdom; the 
challenge for this body is to develop ways for the international 
community to share in the kinds of obligations that come into place 
when this kind of crisis emerges in the future.
  Instead of sniping, what we ought to be looking at are constructive 
efforts to improve both international law and international 
institutions to take the burden off the publics of individual 
countries. While the risk in the Mexican initiative was put 
disproportionately on the United States public, it looks, at this 
point, as if it was well merited and as if it is going to produce a 
profit.
  Mr. Chairman, I would only say to my distinguished colleague from 
Iowa, this amendment should, respectfully, be defeated.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio, Ms. Marcy Kaptur.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I want to rise in very strong support of the Sanders amendment.
  To my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], I would say 
what is going on has nothing to do with sniping, it has nothing to do 
with a new President, nothing to do with a new leadership in the 
Congress. It has everything to do with the establishment of precedent 
in a republic that is over 200 years old.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] for 
forcing us to meet our constitutional responsibilities. If any Member 
believes it is wrong that the Government of the United States, by the 
agreement of perhaps six men, decided to send billions of dollars to 
Mexico to bail out their investments, without a vote of Congress, 
without a vote of Congress, if members believe that was wrong, as I do, 
they will support the Sanders amendment.
  The backdoor use of an obscure fund in the Treasury called the 
Economic Stabilization Fund, a fund that the Clinton administration 
essentially raided, with the collusion of about four leaders in this 
House and a few over in the Senate, is unprecedented in both magnitude 
of the dollars involved, the purposes for which the fund was originally 
established several decades ago, and also the duration and risk 
attached to what has been done.
  Mr. Chairman, I really respect my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa, 
as a staunch defender of our Constitution. Thus, it surprises me a bit 
to hear him 

[[Page H 7217]]
argue in the way he has argued this afternoon. Our country has never 
extended loans to a foreign country on a medium- or long-term basis 
from this fund, never $20 billion and more of commitment. This 
particular commitment was 20 times as large as any prior use of this 
fund. Never has it been the will of this Congress to provide the 
executive branch with unlimited authority of this sort.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would only make one modest point. I think 
several of the points of the gentlewoman are correct. On the point of 
precedent, though, I would say that the fund was set up for this 
purpose. It has been used for this purpose in the past, but never at 
this magnitude. The magnitude is unprecedented. That is the 
unprecedented point. However, the legal authority is there. We have 
carefully reviewed that legal authority, so as a constitutional issue, 
I would beg to differ with the gentlelady.
  Ms. KAPTUR. If I might reclaim my time from the gentleman, Mr. 
Chairman, this is where the nub of the argument really lies, in terms 
of the Constitution. When this fund was established, the purpose was to 
prop up the dollar, not the peso, but the purpose of the fund was for 
short-term currency exchanges, not medium-term loans, not long-term 
loans, for another government, for another government to refinance its 
investors, those people that had speculated in that market.
  I think that the gentleman, being a party to the agreement, obviously 
would want to defend it, but I think that when we have a backdoor form 
of foreign aid, this is not healthy. This is not healthy for our
 country, it is not healthy for the confidence of Members here, nor of 
the America people. We should have a debate.

  Mr. Chairman, what is so troubling about this particular matter is we 
have never been allowed to have a full debate on the floor of this 
Congress. It has been bottled up by the committees of jurisdiction. Our 
efforts to get discharge petitions signed have been very interesting to 
watch, to move this bill to the floor in other forms, but I think the 
gentleman's point is incorrect. In fact, this fund was established to 
prop up the dollar, not any foreign currency.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
the gentlewoman is precisely correct on what the fund was set up to do 
under original law, but the law was changed in 1977 under the Gold 
Reserve Act. It was precisely changed to allow greater flexibility in 
usage of these funds, and they have been used for this purpose many 
times since 1977, with full concurrence of the Congress of the United 
States.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that historically the fund 
was never used either for this magnitude, this duration, or this 
purpose. What has happened during the 1980's, and this is why I call 
this a backdoor form of foreign aid, if this was necessary to prop up 
the political environment of this continent and of this hemisphere, 
then that is what the debate ought to be about, but the fact is we took 
over $20 billion of our taxpayers' money and put it at risk. It is 
still at risk.
  The long-term debt of Mexico, and if we look at what is happening 
with the internal dynamics of that country, with its private banks, 
with the loans that are owned by the private sector, this is not over, 
as my good friend knows, probably as well as anyone in this 
institution. This is not the way to do it. This is not the way to do 
it. I think the gentleman is creating a real paradox inside for Members 
who may wish to have an open debate on the merits of how we relate to 
Mexico, but I think this completely erodes that confidence.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me start out by saying that it would be nice if we 
could go back to a time where we could live within out borders, trade 
within our borders, our economy would remain within our borders, and we 
would not have to worry about what goes on in other countries. However, 
that time has long passed. The problem with this amendment is that it 
tries to take us back to where we cannot go. It guts our policy as a 
nation to intervene in the world currency markets, and in particular, 
to defend the dollar. That would be a big mistake. We must not tie the 
hands of any administration to protect the dollar.
  In the last 18 months we have seen dramatic drops in the value of the 
dollar, and we have seen some efforts where the dollar has starteed to 
stabilize. To do this today would undermine those efforts. Then the 
result would be a continuing fall of the dollar, a rise in interest 
rates, a rise in mortgage rates, and that would be detrimental to our 
economy, which I think would be contrary to what the proponents are 
trying to accomplish.
  Second of all, let us talk a little bit about Mexico. I do not 
disagree with the proponents wanting to come down and debate the issue 
of Mexico. I am more than willing to come down and debate it. However, 
let us talk about a couple of facts with regard to Mexico. No. 1, it is 
our third largest trading partner. Those facts will not change.
  No. 2, we know that exports are down to Mexico, in part because of 
the economic situation that has gone on there. However, we have to 
remember that if we had not taken care of the situation, that exports 
would have been way down in Mexico, and we would have had an economic 
collapse on our hands. There are 80 million people who live there. They 
are not going anywhere. They are not going to move anywhere. They are 
going to be there along the border, a 2,000-mile border with the United 
States, so we have no choice but to face up to the situation and deal 
with it.
  I would agree with the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services, that the policy does appear to be 
working. I would argue that the figures are not exactly correct, 
because it appears to this point that we have issued loan guarantees 
and Treasury swaps in the range of about $10.5 to $11 billion, not $20 
billion. However, the policy does appear to be working. Mexico has been 
able to reenter the capital markets, it has been able to have more 
capital inflow into the country, and that will work to our benefit.
  Let me address another issue that I think is a myth that has been out 
there. There are a lot who believe that our policy was geared primarily 
to the benefit of Wall Street investment bankers, but the fact of the 
matter is that over 50 percent of the bonds, the Mexican Treasury bonds 
which would have defaulted, were held by United States institutional 
investors. United States institutional investors are not one or two 
people who reside on Wall Street. They are pension funds, they are 
people like you and me, who invest in 401(k)'s and our savings and our 
retirement.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman speaking of the 
tesebonos?
  Mr. BENTSEN. Yes.
  Mr. COX of California. The gentleman is aware that the tesebonos were 
payable in pesos rather than in dollars. Why does the gentleman believe 
they would have defaulted?
  Mr. BENTSEN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I believe they would 
have defaulted if there was a collapse, if we had not stepped in, if we 
had allowed the Mexican economy to collapse. I think they would not 
have been able to make their payments.
  Mr. COX of California. If the gentleman will continue to yield, does 
the Mexican Government not have the sovereign capacity to issue pesos 
to repay their sovereign debt?
  Mr. BENTSEN. The Mexican Government does have the ability to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, let me finish my statement quickly by saying this 
amendment is misguided. I understand the gentlewoman's concern on the 
policy, and I would be glad to debate that, but this is a straitjacket 
on our policy to intervene in the currency markets, which any nation, 
particularly this Nation, should have the ability to do. It is a 
mercantilist policy. It is misguided.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  
[[Page H 7218]]

  Ms. KAPTUR. I will just say, that is exactly what we want. We want a 
debate on the merits of the policy and the precedent being established.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. BENTSEN. Reclaiming my time, that is fine, but let us not tie the 
hands of any administration to intervene in the currency markets to 
defend the dollar.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Let us do it under the law.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri [Ms. Danner].
  Ms. DANNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment 
to suspend funding for disbursing exchange stabilization funds to 
Mexico.
  Because I know everyone here is aware of the origins of the $48 
billion Mexican bailout package, I will not review it again. However, I 
want to be sure that we all remember that, despite the size of this 
bailout, Congress has never directly voted on whether or not to approve 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, while this amendment will not immediately cut off 
funding, it will show that Congress is unwilling to relinquish our 
control over the Nation's spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the House should also be aware that as the year 
has progressed, unappropriated money has continued to flow to Mexico. 
In fact, by late May, Mexico had already borrowed the maximum amount 
the Treasury Department allowed to be dispersed before July 1. On June 
29, Mexico announced they will draw down an additional $5.5 billion of 
the $10 billion which became available July 1. In addition, the United 
States backed IMF has loaned the Mexican Government $8 billion.
  Where has the bailout money gone? Well, of the $17 billion Mexico has 
borrowed through the bailout package, they have spent $6 billion to 
redeem dollar-denominated bonds, $3 billion to pay off other public 
debt, $4 billion to pay off dollar deposits withdrawn from Mexican 
banks and $2 billion to enable Mexican companies to redeem foreign 
debts.
  This money did not go to the Mexican people, it went to foreign 
investors who made a bad investment decision, and are now being spared 
the consequences because the United States taxpayer is paying for their 
mistakes.
  I know that this amendment will not bring back the money which has 
already gone to Mexico, and it will not immediately stop additional 
taxpayer dollars from flowing to Mexico. However, it will allow 
Congress to reclaim the constitutional role in controlling the spending 
of taxpayer's money for the next fiscal year, and that is certainly the 
least we can do.
  I urge all Members to support the Sanders amendment.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, listening to the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, I was very happy 
that he mentioned the facts, and gave an accurate description of what 
this fund is all about.
  What I am going to very respectfully and quite reluctantly have to 
explain is that this is no more, no less than Mexico bashing. We are 
still fighting NAFTA. We did not fight Canada. Oh, no. But are still 
arguing about Mexico.
  Let me give some facts. Mexico is not going to be swallowed by the 
ocean. It is going to be there forever. The border is not going to 
change, they will be our neighbors always. What we do with Mexico to 
stabilize the peso is for my side of the river, for the American side 
of the river. When the peso is weak for whatever reason, it is McAllen 
and San Antonio and Dallas and Houston that suffer.
  But what disturbs me the most is that in the debate on NAFTA, and I 
hate to go back to it, we got to a Mexico-bashing binge. I share blood 
with the Mexican people. And when you insult them, you insult me.
  They discussed the environmental issues, that Mexico would not 
fulfill the obligations incurred by NAFTA. I am going to put in the 
Record later a story about how United States companies are complaining 
how harshly Mexico is treating them about cleaning up the environment.
  United States companies are saying the Mexican Government has closed 
28 factories in the State of Tamaulipas, they have sanctioned about 80, 
but here we are still saying, ``Oh, they're not cleaning up the 
environment.''
  Mexicans have died for the United States of America. There is a Medal 
of Honor winner from Mexico. They are our brothers. They are our 
neighbors. They will not go away. They will not be swallowed by the 
ocean they will remain our southern border.
  Yes, we should correct, but I doubt that there is any--I do not know 
what word to use--integrity in any argument about the fund, when we 
know what motivates the problem with the fund and how much money that 
would go to Mexico.
  My side of the river is suffering. They are asking me, ``Can you get 
us SBA loans because we are losing all this business that is not coming 
from Mexico?''
  Mexico has been our stern ally politically, socially, and 
economically. Let me tell you, the best interests of the United States 
of America and our very national security demands a stable Mexico, 
socially, economically, politically.
  That is why we at times intervene in Mexican affairs, rightly or 
wrongly, to try and make them more equal to us. But the bottom line, my 
dear friends, is that we, the United States of America, took two-thirds 
of the territory of Mexico in a way that has yet to be explained: 
Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California. But now we are on an alien-
bashing binge, in California, in the Northeast, anything that does not 
look like us--blond, blue-eyed, tall.
  Would you believe I have Irish blood? I have Italian blood. My 
children have, through my wife, German blood. My family came when it 
was Spain, they lived there when it was Mexico, they lived there when 
it was Texas, they lived there when we were Confederates, but we are 
citizens of the United States of America and proud of it. But anyone 
who for any other reason than fact demeans the Mexican people, I 
resent, because I share blood with them.
  It is unfortunate that this issue has been brought up. I have no 
question about the seriousness of the gentleman who offered the 
amendment. But it is being used for all the other purposes.
  We hear, ``we want the Vietnamese out of California, we want the 
Salvadorans out of California, we do not want the Mexicans anymore, we 
want no aliens. They are getting into our political grounds, they are 
getting our social services, they are coming to get aid'' and so forth.
  Mr. Chairman, that should not be the issue. Every one that is here, 
with the exception of probably my dear good friend, the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], and Senator Campbell, everyone that is here, 
came, or their ancestors came, as aliens. You demean your ancestry when 
you now say, ``Oh, the aliens are taking over our country.'' My friends 
that is what we are all about.
  We should stick to the facts. But I cannot, because I see behind the 
eyes of the debate and the speaking of the debate. I see bashing 
Mexico. That is not correct. That is not proper. The best interests of 
the United States of America demand a stable Mexico. Anything that we 
do, the stabilizing of the Mexican peso was done for the States of 
Texas and Ohio and Indiana and all the people that sell in Mexico or 
sell to our Mexican friends who come to our country, specifically in 
the border States.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I wanted to 
ask the gentleman to yield to identify with him. We are fellow Texans 
and we have a very similar, almost identical background. I identify 
with him.
  Just to clarify the point that I have often and repeatedly said when 
I have been called an Hispanic, I say, ``No, I am not Hispanic, I am 
just a plain old Mexican.'' The fact that where we come from and what 
we identify with, and up in these sections of the country the history 
that is ignored, I thank the gentleman for recalling it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H 7219]]

  Mr. Chairman, the speech from the gentleman from Texas was very 
moving and interesting but totally irrelevant to what we are talking 
about right now. I bitterly resent the gentleman's suggestion that 
anyone here is Mexico bashing.
  The issue is whether the taxpayers of the United States were put at 
risk $20 billion without one word of discussion or one vote on the 
floor of the House. If the gentleman disagrees with me, then he should 
participate in that debate on the floor of the House. Maybe he will 
win. Maybe he will not. But that is the way democracy works and that is 
what the Constitution mandates.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 8\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Cox].
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time. I thank him for bringing this amendment to the 
floor. I am happy to rise in support of it.
  I would like to go through a little bit of what we have heard on the 
floor thus far and respond to it.
  First, my distinguished colleague from Iowa has said that Congress is 
to blame for refusing to deal with the issue of the Mexican bailout. I 
beg to differ. Along with my colleague, I worked on a task force 
appointed by the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point? The 
gentleman used my name.
  Mr. COX of California. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I said in the background of this debate was 
the failure of the Congress to act. I did not use the verb ``to 
blame.''
  Mr. COX of California. I do not know that I heard the gentleman say 
anything different than that. What I said was that I heard the 
gentleman to say that Congress refused to deal with the issue. I beg to 
differ. I do not believe that Congress is at fault for refusing to deal 
with this issue.
  As I was about to say, I served on a task force with the gentleman 
from Iowa and negotiated with the administration on their proposed 
legislation, on their proposed plan for what became the Mexican 
bailout. I worked with Larry Summers from the Department of the 
Treasury. We worked with representatives from the White House.
  It became clear after the legislation took shape that there was not 
much support for it in the House of Representatives or in the Senate. 
The response of the administration was, therefore, to pull the bill. 
That is why Congress did not have an opportunity to vote on it before 
anything else could happen, even though Congress at the behest of the 
Speaker and the majority leader in the Senate, and in very bipartisan 
fashion, this task force had Democrat and Republicans on it, were 
working to put together a proposal that could come to the floor.
  Before that could happen, the administration announced that they were 
going to seek to do this unilaterally without congressional 
authorization, that they were going to seek to commit $20 billion in 
U.S. resources unilaterally. That is what happened. It is not the case 
that Congress refused to deal with this issue. Rather, President 
Clinton pulled the bill because he did not have the votes. Those are 
the facts.
  Second, we have heard several people talk about the policy, whether 
or not it is working, whether or not it is a success. I would say, if I 
had more time, that there is much economic data to suggest that the 
conditions that have been imposed along with the loan guarantees by 
international organizations have done as much if not more harm than 
good to Mexico.
                              {time}  1630

  But we ought not be debating the policy. We had a chance, as members 
of the task force, to do that. We would have had a chance to do so on 
the floor the House and on the floor of the Senate, if there had been a 
vote, but that never happened.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COX of California. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am just puzzled by the 
gentleman's view of who controls the legislative schedule. If the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives wanted to present the bill, he 
could have presented it. Does the President have the right to pull any 
bill? Because if he does, if any time the President says, ``Pull the 
bill,'' the Speaker is going to comply, I will go get the list right 
now and we can be out of here for recess in about an hour.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] headed up the Democratic task 
force that was drafting the legislation that would have come to the 
floor, if the President had not acted unilaterally.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would 
continue to yield, if the Speaker had wanted it to come to the floor, 
it would have come to the floor. The gentleman should not make this a 
partisan issue, when it is not. There was a joint consultation. The 
suggestion that the President unilaterally can stop this House from 
acting on legislation that the Speaker wants to bring forward is 
nonsensical.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time and yielding 
no further, because I only have a finite amount, the rest of the story, 
which the gentleman from Massachusetts conveniently leaves out, is that 
we came back to the floor after the President unilaterally acted and 
deprived us of the opportunity to vote.
  The gentlewoman from Ohio was especially active in the Banking 
Committee drafting a resolution that I would be surprised if the 
gentleman from Massachusetts did not vote for. We did schedule a vote, 
although the President presented us with a fait accompli.
  We said, ``All right. At the very least provide us with documents. 
Show us what it is that you think justifies your acting unilaterally, 
because Congress does not intend simply to abandon its responsibility 
and give up the power of the purse.''
  There was a deadline that the President did not observe. He did not 
provide the documents in response to the overwhelming vote of this 
House. Perhaps somebody can tell me precisely what the vote was, but it 
was more than 300 of us who voted, out of 435, to require that by a 
date certain in March the President send up those documents.
  When the President did not do so, we acted again in Congress. We 
passed the Mexican Debt Disclosure Act. It was a statute signed into 
law by the President. He did not have any choice, even though he did 
not like it, because it was attached to the Defense supplemental 
appropriations bill. Under that statute he was required to turn over 
documents.
  That statute required that the President turn over all of the 
requested documents and that the President certify that all of those 
documents had been provided. The President has yet to make that 
certification, long after the deadline in the statute. The President, 
according to the opinion of the general counsel of the House of 
Representatives, is now violating the law in that respect.
  So, Mr. Chairman, do we have the right to come to the floor and say 
that even though some of us are strong supporters of Mexico. Some of us 
who live in California and share a border with Mexico believe that 
nothing is more important than our relationship with our closest 
neighbor in terms of our foreign trade, our international security and 
so on, that even though we support that relationship and believe very 
strongly in friendship with our Mexican neighbors, that we
 think before we give anyone $20 billion in U.S. resources, we ought to 
vote on it first in Congress.

  Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of Israel. We had a nationwide 
debate on whether to give $10 billion, half the amount, in loan 
guarantees to Israel. It was a tough vote. I voted in favor of it. Some 
Members voted against it, but that is the way these decisions should be 
made.
  Never in American history has $20 billion been extended through the 
Exchange Stabilization Fund, or any other piggy bank of the President 
of the United States, to some foreign government without the assent of 
Congress.
  What is our entire foreign aid budget this year? $11.5 billion. 
Roughly double that is the amount the President committed without 
checking with this Congress. The gentleman from Vermont would now have 
us vote on a very simple amendment and I would like to 

[[Page H 7220]]
refer to the text of that amendment, because it is different than 
described by some of the opponents.
  What it says is that we cannot spend appropriated moneys under this 
act on the Exchange Stabilization Fund if the purpose is to bolster a 
foreign currency. We can continue to do it without checking with 
Congress at all if the purpose of it is to defend the dollar in 
international exchange markets.
  So, yes, we could even use the Exchange Stabilization Fund to defend 
the foreign currency if the President would check with the Congress 
first. And for that reason, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for 
this amendment.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COX of California. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me ask a question. Does the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cox] think that it is proper for the U.S. 
Government to join with other central banks to intervene in the foreign 
currency markets to affect the price of other currency which will, 
therefore, affect the price of the dollar?
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, of course I agree. And this 
amendment is not about our central bank, which is the Federal Reserve. 
Let me respond. I only have a moment left. We are not talking about our 
central bank here. We are talking about the Exchange Stabilization 
Fund, which is set up by statute for the purpose of defending the 
dollar. It is clarified in the amendment by the gentleman from Vermont 
[Mr. Sanders] and I think it is a very sound amendment.
   Mr. Chairman, I am one who believes in energy in the executive. 
Before I served in Congress, I worked in the White House counsel's 
office. When Bill Clinton is in that White House, I want Bill Clinton 
to be a strong, energetic executive, because that is what America 
needs.
  I support executive powers. I support the line-item veto. I support 
repeal of the War Powers Resolution. I was down here a few days ago 
arguing in behalf of that. I support revising the 1974 Budget Act to 
put the President back in the process.
  But that is not what this is about. This is about the power of the 
purse, which under any reading of the Constitution belongs here in 
Congress. We are here on this vote to reclaim it. Vote ``yes'' on the 
Sanders amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first, with regard to 
stabilizing the currency, the notion that you stabilize one currency 
without looking at others is a little bit odd. As a matter of fact, my 
recollection is that when the Mexican crisis was averted, we can debate 
for how long, that was good for the dollar. The dollar was threatened 
by this. So as a matter of fact this did have the effect, I recall, of 
bolstering the dollar in the short term.
  I am opposed to the amendment. I think what the President did was 
reasonable. It has so far succeeded, compared to the alternative. 
People forget the eternal wisdom of one of the great commentators on 
the human condition, Henny Youngman: The important issue is always 
compared to what? Having not done this, and having had the collapse in 
Mexico that would have occurred, would have had very negative 
consequences.
  But I also want to address the rather extraordinary history that we 
just heard from the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], a member of 
the Republican leadership.
  We have been reading about the strong Speaker and the strong 
leadership. It now turns out that the Speaker of the House and the 
majority leader of the House and the Republican leadership will not 
bring a bill to the floor if the President does not want them to. No 
one knew that before.
  The Speaker, as I recall, supported what the President did. Now, I 
just read in the paper yesterday that the Speaker made a statement 
about Taiwan. Henry Kissinger called him up and he changed his mind. 
Did the Speaker change his mind? The Speaker supported this action of 
the President. Did Henry Kissinger call him and make him change his 
mind again? Maybe we will have to read tomorrow's New York Times.
  The notion that the President of the United States stopped this House 
from voting, when control of the legislative agenda is in the 
Republican hands, is nonsense. Did Senator Dole refuse to bring it to a 
vote in the Senate because of consideration for the President?
  Let us not debase this with that kind of partisanship. There was, in 
fact, joint consultation. It was one of the most bipartisan things that 
has been done all year. The chairman of the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services was
 taking a very responsible decision. People might agree or disagree. He 
was trying to work it out. I disagreed with him on some specifics, but 
there was joint bipartisan leadership consultation to do this.

  So the notion, particularly from a member of the Republican 
leadership, that this was a Democratic thing thwarted by the President 
is really not a useful way to debate this. It really does a disservice 
to the Speaker. Is the Speaker some helpless child? He is tied up 
somewhere and he could not bring this bill to the floor?
  If the Speaker wanted the bill to be brought to the floor, he could 
have brought it to the floor. I think the Speaker would have said this 
was as important as rhinoceroses and tigers, and he got a vote on 
rhinoceroses and tigers and he probably could have sneaked this one in. 
So, let us not have that kind of unfair 
mischaracterization.
  Now, as far as the legislation is concerned, it is relevant to the 
stabilization of our currency in the broadest sense. And I believe if 
my colleagues will go back and check, that the dollar, in fact, 
benefited from the announcement of this deal. And that, in fact, let me 
put it this way, if we learned tomorrow that this was falling apart and 
that Mexico was going to be in serious trouble, I do not think that 
would be good for the dollar. I think that, in fact, that would 
destabilize the dollar. So in the broader sense, this, I think was 
useful.
  These are difficult questions. I am not happy with the internal 
situation in Mexico. I was not ready to vote for the legislation, 
because I wanted more conditions dealing with labor rights in Mexico. 
But it is because of the interconnection of our economy and theirs that 
I wanted those.
  As, in fact, things deteriorate in other countries, that has a 
negative effect on us in two ways: A negative competitive effect, 
because an implosion standards there has a downward pull on standards 
here; and it means they do not buy as much.
  Given the difficult situation with bipartisan consultation, the 
President did, I think, something that was courageous and has worked 
well. But to have a member of the Republican leadership make that kind 
of partisan attack, inaccurately suggesting that the President somehow 
kidnaped the Speaker, kidnaped the majority leader, hornswoggled the 
Senate, and kept this from being voted on is simply wrong.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the other gentleman 
from Iowa [Mr. Leach]. There are only two of us.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished and good friend for 
yielding, and, as an aside, I want to thank him for his kind comments 
that related to the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey].
  Let me make one minor correction to the statement, virtually all of 
which I agreed with, of the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank]. The real power in the House on that issue rested with the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, not the President. The reason the Speaker 
did not bring a bill up was that we could not get majority support in 
either party, as symbolized by some of the concerns of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts.
  But I also think from a historical perspective, to be fair to the 
President, it is important to point out that a point was reached 4 
months ago in which the leadership, which was working on the issue, 
came to the conclusion that majority support was unlikely to be 
achieved on a timely basis and this information was conveyed to the 
President with the recommendation, given the significant diceyness of 
the day, that he act utilizing executive authority at that time.
  So the recommendation came on a timing basis from the Congress of the 


[[Page H 7221]]
United States, from the leadership of the Congress, recognizing that 
Members, like the gentleman from Vermont and the gentleman from 
California and the gentlewoman from Ohio did not support the 
legislation, and that Executive initiative that we believed, after 
careful legal review was legal and was constitutional, should be taken.
  But I want to make the distinction between ESF and certain 
appropriated programs. The Exchange Stabilization Fund was established, 
I believe, in 1934. The original appropriation, and my understanding is 
the only appropriation, was about $200 million.
  It now has resources of about $42 billion, which relate to earnings 
in the fund in interventions and defense of the dollar and other 
currencies. So we are talking about a fund that was built up 95-plus 
percent outside the appropriations process.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also stress that the Exchange Stabilization 
Fund allows us the capacity to quickly intervene. If we unilaterally 
disarm our capacity to defend the U.S. dollar, overnight we will 
precipitate a weakening of the dollar. In macroeconomic terms, this 
will cause a rising of interest rates, which will be to the 
disadvantage of the United States of America.
  I would also state that it will weaken the United States capacity to 
maintain a principal role as a major reserve currency. That role allows 
seniorage, which earns us a great deal of money every year and is also 
a stabilizing influence for American business. A gyrating dollar is not 
in the interest of the United States commerce.
  I would also stress that in many regards the Mexican crisis 
represents the first issue of a new financial order. In that crisis, in 
a bipartisan way, the President of the United States worked with the 
new leadership of another party in the Congress, and came up with an ad 
hoc bipartisan approach which also provoked bipartisan criticism.
  I would say to the gentlewoman from Ohio and the gentleman from 
Vermont that there are two parts of your argument I totally agree with. 
It would have been vastly preferable for Congress to have acted. It is 
also true that this is an unprecedented usage of these funds in terms 
of magnitude, although not in principle. Having said that, I personally 
believe the President of the United States is to be credited. The 
Speaker of the House is to be credited. The minority leader is to be 
credited with working to try to constructively come up with an 
arrangement which is legal--although with unprecedented aspects--and 
which fits the times.
  Mr. Chairman, nothing could be more ironic, that after what appears 
at an early stage to be an extraordinarily successful program, we were 
to undercut that program and at the same time, in the same way, weaken 
the capacity of the United States to work in traditional ways with the 
Exchange Stabilization Fund to defend the dollar in the future.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman used the term ``arrangement'' 
to describe what has occurred in our country on this particular issue. 
He said the reason a bill could not be brought up on the floor here is 
perhaps there would not have been a majority of votes.
  Would the gentleman agree this is not a parliamentary system, this is 
not a monarchy, this is a Democratic republic?
  Each of us does have a right to express our views and in this 
instance, yes, an arrangement was made by a handful of individuals in 
this Government, and we have not met our constitutional 
responsibilities. Would the gentleman agree this is not a parliamentary 
system or a monarchy?

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. LEACH. Certainly this is a constitutional arrangement. This 
arrangement was constitutional, although it would have been preferable 
for this body to have acted on its own, but the legal authority was 
there for the President to act.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BENTSEN. The distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Banking 
and Financial Services, the way this amendment is written, do you 
believe it would prohibit the Treasury Secretary from being able to 
intervene to support the dollar by buying or selling foreign 
currencies, whether it is the deutsche mark or the yen?
  Mr. LEACH. Without doubt, this is an amendment as written that has 
that effect, and it should be on those grounds alone, however one 
stands in the Mexican issue, defeated.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, perhaps a little review of the debate over 
the adoption of NAFTA would be in order at this point.
  There were many of us who stood on the floor and bitterly opposed the 
adoption of NAFTA, and one of the many points we made was that it was 
clear in the oligarchy that runs Mexico that they had artificially 
overvalued the peso in order to make them look a more attractive 
trading partner with more buying power.
  Now, we were wrong. We were wrong. I admit it. We said the peso was 
overvalued by 25 percent. The markets say the peso is at least 
overvalued by 40 percent, probably more, except the United States 
intervened in a bailout to save it.
  Now the free market would have found a value for the peso. This is 
free trade. Why do we not let free markets work? I suspect it is 
because of a whole heck of a lot of large investors on Wall Street. The 
50 percent that are institutional, are not institutional, whichever it 
is, had billions of dollars on the line. They had only been making 40 
and 50 percent interest.
  I can understand that the taxpayers should bail them out. These poor 
investors, 40, 50 percent interest. All my constituents are accustomed 
to getting that return in their savings account, and if their savings 
alone went down, they would expect to get bailed out if they had been 
getting 40 or 50 percent. Get all their capital back. Right? Right? No. 
Did not happen here. Should not happen there.
  We do not know who was invested in Mexico because Mexico will not 
tell us, and the United States government will not tell us. We are 
bailing them out with $20 billion of our taxpayers' money, and we are 
not entitled to get a list of the recipients.
  The New York Times had a really interesting graphic. They showed the 
flow of the money. The money went from the U.S. Treasury in Washington 
to the Federal depository institution in New York, and it went from 
there to the brokerage houses in New York, and it went from there 
offshore to the Bahamas into tax-free accounts.
  Who owns those tax-free accounts? Average Mexicans? Average 
Americans? People with their pension funds? No. Special interests, big 
investors, big-time Wall Street folks, international investors, and 
others. This is who we are bailing out.
  Nothing has changed. We had a Republican
   revolution. Nothing has changed. Nothing. Those same people are 
dictating the trade policy of this country, and when they could not jam 
a bill through the House of Representatives, even with the support of 
the Speaker of the House, they then pressured the administration and 
got them to cut a back room deal. And we still do not have the 
documents and the disclosure.

  What else would we spend $20 billion on without a vote, without the 
documents, without the disclosure, without knowing who the 
beneficiaries are? I do not think there is anything else that could go 
through this House.
  We spent hours debating the elevator operators' salary on this floor. 
$20 billion, colleagues. If you vote no on this amendment, there is one 
thing the people of your district will know. You have voted to endorse 
the back room deal, the bailout of Mexico.
  A vote no on this amendment is a vote to send the dough to Mexico 
with no accountability on the part of this House or on the part of the 
administration and no accountability to the taxpayers. Just remember 
that.
  If you vote yes, you are asking for accountability, and you are 
saying these sort of things should not happen without a vote of the 
elected representatives of the people.

[[Page H 7222]]

  We do not commit our taxpayers' funds to bail out big investors and 
foreign interests without the consent of the duly elected 
representatives of the United States, or we should not. Vote for this 
amendment. Vote no, and you are voting to endorse the bailout.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, with some reluctance, out of respect for the 
author, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I do not think, by the way, it is fair to say that he is bashing 
Mexico. I think that is, if I might say, very unfair. We ought to be 
able to talk on the floor of this House without saying that someone who 
disagrees with us is bashing this or that. I think reasonable people 
can differ.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, very respectfully, and I tried to be 
respectful, but it is always whenever anything related to Mexico is 
brought up, it is basically the same people. So what deduction can we 
get from that, regardless of the mainstream issue?
  I thank the gentleman, appreciate his comments.
  Mr. LEVIN. I just think we have to be careful about our deductions 
sometimes, and I am on the gentleman's side on this one, but I do not 
think the people who disagree with me are bashing Mexico. I was with 
them on NAFTA, and I was not bashing Mexico, and I would still vote 
against NAFTA if it came up today. I think the jury is out.
  But, look, this amendment is not a wise amendment. First of all, it 
is much too broad. It would prohibit, in essence, any use of the fund 
to bolster any foreign currency.
  Now, we have done that 90 times in the last decade, 90 times. Are we 
going to insist there be a congressional vote every time the fund is 
going to be used for stabilization? Now, this is 90 times to bolster a 
foreign currency. That is what I understand from Treasury.
  Now, this is not wise. Sometimes bolstering a foreign currency is in 
the advantage of the United States of America. It better be, or else we 
should not be bolstering that foreign currency.
  We should have bolstered the yen 15 years ago. We would have been 
much better off without a strong dollar.
  So this amendment is much, much too broad, and I think sometimes 
these broad swings are going to be misunderstood, and in this case, I 
think it would be.
  Let me also point out, this is not the use of $20 billion like 
foreign aid. This is a loan guarantee, in essence, and so no one should 
misunderstand that we appropriated $20 billion to go to Mexico. That is 
not what happened.
  Now, third, let me say just a word about what has happened in terms 
of Mexico and U.S. economic relationships.
  I am concerned about the trade imbalance that is growing, but if the 
Mexican economy had collapsed, if you want to put it this way, NAFTA 
might have turned out even worse. The trade imbalance could have become 
even more serious.
  It was important for the United States that the peso collapse be 
addressed. That is why we did it. And it was not only for a few small 
big investors. There were pension funds that had large-scale 
investments in Mexico. Average Joe and Jane Public had their money at 
stake here.
  So I say to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], it is useful to 
discuss this rather unusual case of using the ESF on a long-term basis. 
That is somewhat unique in its history. But taking the ax to the ESF is 
not a wise approach. Let us raise this problem. Let us do it in an 
intelligent, in an intelligible way. Let us not cut off our nose to 
spite our face. I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The gentleman from Vermont 
[Mr. Sanders] has 11 minutes remaining, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Lightfoot] has 2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer] has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I 
would hope that we would support the Sanders amendment because it does 
violate the relationship between this House and the people we represent 
and the President of the United States. When we make an expenditure of 
$20 billion, we ought to have the right to vote on it.
  The notion that somehow this is the instrument, these are the tools 
of the new financial order, is to suggest that we are the lender of 
last resort and there will be no risk for hot money on Wall Street. We 
cannot hide this problem behind the pension funds that were there. 
Maybe they should not have been there.
  The financial problems and the risk in the Mexican market were 
discussed in business journals across this country and across this 
world. If you read the Wall Street Journal, if you read Forbes, if you 
read Fortune, if you read Barrons, everybody was commenting on how 
fraudulent the system was in support of its peso many months before.
  The night that Mr. Greenspan came up here and Mr. Rubin and others, 
they said that this was a surprising development, and then when they 
laid out what happened, they said it was perfectly predictable.
  We ought to have some say in that. And the other part of this is, we 
ought to know who we are paying off.
  Orange County is going through serious problems. They are going 
through what potentially could be a bankruptcy, if not a full-blown 
bankruptcy. The fact of the matter is, they are negotiating with their 
creditors. A lot of this money was simply hot money that was looking 
for returns far beyond what they could expect. They stood to lose 70, 
80 percent of their investment had we not intervened.
  Could we have delayed the payoffs? Could we ask for time? Could we 
ask for terms? Could we have negotiated with the Fidelity people who 
overextended their investors into this operation? Could they wait like 
school districts are waiting in Orange County? Could they wait like 
water districts, like cities and counties are having to wait for 
payments?
  But we never got to a point of discussing that. We never had to make 
that because we do not know where the money went. That is the term. 
That is what you should be doing.
  People ask you all the time, ``Why don't you run it like a 
business?'' Nobody would have done this. Nobody would have handed out 
$20 billion with no terms and no disclosure, and we should not have 
allowed it to happen in the names of our constituents.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem with the Sanders amendment is that it 
really deals with the symptom. It is not a cure.
  It is a little bit like going to your doctor and saying you have got 
a hangnail, a sore toe, and he says, we are going to take your leg off 
above the knee. That really is not the answer to the problem, and that 
is certainly what we are doing here. Trying to take away the Economic 
Stabilization Fund or the operation of the Economic Stabilization Fund 
is certainly not the answer.
  I know it is argued that this is sending a message, we are trying to 
send a signal here, but this is not the right one. What I think this 
has demonstrated is that the institutions that we have are not working 
very well. The institutions that were developed at the time of Bretton 
Wood a generation and more ago are not working very well.
  The Economic Stabilization Fund was used in this instance, basically, 
as it was intended to be used, in a much larger degree than I think 
anybody had ever anticipated that it would.
  Should we in Congress have more control over that? Should we exercise 
more authority over that? That can reasonably be argued. But I think it 
cannot be argued, at least it has not in 

[[Page H 7223]]
any court been argued, that it was not within the law that Congress had 
passed. And I think what is abundantly clear is that the institutions 
we have today are not working in this age of electronic fund transfers 
where in a nanosecond money can be transferred around the world a dozen 
different times.
  Now, we have heard here on the floor a lot about bailing out big Wall 
Street investors. That is not the case. What is different about this 
financial crisis in Mexico that has never been replicated, we have 
never seen before in the world, is this is the first mutual fund crisis 
that we have seen.

                              {time}  1700

  Literally tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of 
investors are involved through mutual funds. It is not the case as it 
was in 1982 where one could go to the bank and say to the banks, ``You 
deal with this problem in Mexico.''
  So finally, Mr. Chairman, the question is, Is this working? Well, the 
jury is out; that has been said already here. But what is the 
alternative? Clearly what we are seeing in Mexico with the Mexico peso 
crisis was greater instability in financial markets all over the world 
from places as remote as South Africa, Thailand, and of course in our 
own hemisphere, in Argentina. A very critical problem was developing in 
Argentina. We needed, the world needed, to act, and we did not act 
unilaterally in this regard because our allies were involved in this as 
well.
  We acted, and we acted correctly. The solutions are not good, none of 
them were good at the time, but under the circumstances it is my view 
that it was the right choice. Now it is time for us, in a cool, 
detached way for the Banking Committee and the other relevant 
committees of this Congress, to take a look at what should be the long-
term solution. But, Mr. Chairman, the Sanders amendment is not the 
answer, and I hope this body will vote ``no.''
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stockman].
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think what we have done here is we have 
abdicated, we have abdicated our responsibility to the Constitution, 
and we should be ashamed in this body. We sit here and duck our 
responsibility. That is what we did here. We were given the job of 
controlling the money. That is where this comes from, from this body. 
But when it came time for our job to be voted upon, we slipped out and 
slithered out and allowed the administration to do it for us. That is 
wrong.
  Currently the banks in Mexico are under a great deal of financial 
strain, and they are predicting they may collapse, and the reason they 
are collapsing is because of the strings that were attached to this 
bailout.
  Let me repeat that. The banks are on the verge of collapsing in 
Mexico. They are charging these little campesino bankers, these little 
campesino people, 90 percent interest. That is not compassion. I do not 
think that is compassion. I do not think anybody in this body would 
consider that compassion. They cannot make those interest-rate payments 
because we up in this country are telling them, dictating to them, what 
banking rates they should be charged. So they cannot fulfill their 
obligations.
  Mr. Chairman, when they cannot fulfill their obligations, they cannot 
pay the banks, and when they cannot pay the banks, the banks do not 
collect the money, the banks will fall.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no financial expert that says the Mexican 
banks are in better status today than they were before the bailout. 
Those are facts that cannot be denied. All we have done is made a 
situation which was OK worse.
  We are fooling ourselves. We are just rolling this money over, and in 
a short time we will be at this same situation. Mark my words, we will 
be doing it again.
  I am for loan guarantees. I would have voted for loan guarantees for 
Israel, but we never had an opportunity to vote on that, and I am glad 
that the gentleman from Vermont has stuck up for the American taxpayer 
and has stuck up for the campesino in Mexico, and to sit here and say 
it is a racist thing or anything else is an outright lie. If anything, 
it is more compassion and more feeling.
  Mr. Chairman, those people have been under the boot of a very 
repressive government, and it is wrong for us to sit here in silence 
and duck our abilities. We were elected here to do something, and I 
think the gentleman from Vermont, I owe him a great deal. I say to the 
gentleman, ``You are wonderful, and I think that we need to support 
this amendment, and it is wrong for us to duck our responsibility, and 
thank you for bringing it to the floor so we can show exactly where we 
stand.''
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and let me sum up by saying nothing is more important in 
this debate than the integrity of our Constitution and meeting our 
constitutional responsibilities in this body. We have never had a 
chance to vote on the merits of this issue. The economic stabilization 
fund has never been used for this purpose.
  I say to my colleagues, You can try to slide around it, but the point 
is $20 billion is at risk, and we have not been able to vote on it, 20 
times more than that fund has ever been used for in the past only to 
defend the dollar, and now to prop up the currency of another 
government.
  A few years ago in the Committee on International Relations, and I 
commend my colleagues to read it, there was a magnificent hearing in 
which the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] talked about the dangers of this economic 
stabilization fund and the fact that we should not be permitting the 
kind of intended interventions that were being contemplated even back 
then but were not permitted in the case of Poland, and they said the 
money should be put on budget, we should not be doing back-door foreign 
aid through the economic stabilization fund. So Poland could not get 
help. It was discriminated against through that fund, but in this 
instance the policy was executed against the best wisdom of the highest 
ranking people at the U.S. Treasury Department. They advised against 
that years ago.
  So let me say to the gentleman from Vermont, I commend you on your 
amendment. No Member of Congress can hide under a rock on this one.
  Stand up for the Constitution. Stand up for our responsibilities. 
Support the Sanders amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Iowa have the right 
to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. HOYER. Do I have a right to be before him in the order? Is there 
a precedence of order in closing in light of the fact he and I agree? 
We are both representing the committee on obviously the majority and 
minority side.
  The CHAIRMAN. There is no prescribed way of proceeding here. It is at 
the discretion of the Chair.
  The Chair thinks, for the purpose of symmetry, that it would probably 
be better to allow the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] to precede 
the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], but there is no prescribed 
order.
  Mr. HOYER. I do not know whether the chairman of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services desires any further time as we end this 
debate. If he does, I would be willing to yield him some time.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's offer, but I do 
not.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, much has been said about the utilization of the 
economic stabilization fund recently by the President. It is clear that 
when we talk about constitutional responsibility, it does not mean that 
the Congress has to act in every instance. It is, I think, not accurate 
to say that, because the Congress has the ability or power to do 
something, that it must do something. In point of fact what we all know 
happened is a majority of the Congress decided that they would just as 
soon have 

[[Page H 7224]]
the President, in concert with the leadership of both parties in the 
House and the Senate, proceed to address this crisis.
  Now we do that on many occasions. We do it in committee when we know 
there could be amendments offered, but we decide not to offer 
amendments, or we decide not to bring bills to the floor. I suggest to 
my colleagues that in a fact that is what has happened in this 
instance.
  Now, as it relates to the amendment itself, I would reiterate that 
the amendment has the, I think, very sincere flaw, not because the 
gentleman wanted to have that flaw, but because from a parliamentary 
standpoint it was necessary for him to include the made-known language 
if his amendment was to be in order, but, my colleagues of the House, 
what does this mean that no funds can be spent for any employee, 
including any employee of the executive office, in connection with the 
obligation or expenditure of funds in the--stabilization fund when it 
is, quote, made known to the Federal official to whom such amounts are 
made available in this act that such obligations or expenditures is for 
the purpose of bolstering any, not Mexican, any, foreign currency?
  What does that mean? Does it mean that one Member out of 435 from the 
Congress can call up the Secretary of Treasury and say this is being 
used for the purposes of bolstering a foreign currency? And then 
preclude that official from taking further action because nothing in 
here says that the public official must be convinced that that is the 
fact. Why? Because if that report was required, the amendment would be 
out of order. Nothing in this amendment requires that the informer who 
makes it known needs to be credible or that the informer who makes this 
known need have any information whatsoever on this issue.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I would observe only that under 
the status quo, speaking of legal technicalities, the President of the 
United States was able to commit $20 billion in taxpayer resources and 
claimed to be doing so within the language of the law because they 
stretched it so far. I would prefer if the law were changed.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman begs the question. The 
amendment, the substance of the amendment, and the gentleman is a law 
professor, a very erudite individual, Member of this House; the 
amendment is simply frankly, in my opinion, unenforceable, or in the 
alternative, if enforceable, almost impossible to have any rational 
application of, because there is no, no standard or criteria in here as 
to the Secretary or other official having it made known on what basis 
of credibility information or status.
  So I would hope that this House in an amendment that could have very 
serious consequences, very serious consequences on which there has been 
no hearing, on which there has been this limited debate, would reject 
this amendment, not because my colleagues agree or disagree with what 
was done, not because my colleagues voted for or against NAFTA, not 
because my colleagues would vote for or against similar legislation in 
the future, and not because, as some would interpret, that they have a 
motivation to allow the President to do anything he wants, but on the 
sole criteria that this legislation is inappropriate on this bill and 
is a dangerous piece of legislation in this context.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. I say to my colleagues, ``This is going to be the vote 
on whether your support the bailout of Mexico.'' Make no bones about 
it. If you're against the bailout of Mexico, you should vote to support 
Mr. Sanders. You know time and time again we get on the House floor, 
and we say what is this amendment about. Let me just take a few moments 
to read the first two or three sentences of this amendment because too 
many people come on this floor and don't know that the amendment is 
about.
  Well, this is it:

       No amount made available in this Act may be used for the 
     salaries or expenses of any employee, including any employee 
     of the Executive Office of the President, in connection with 
     the obligation or expenditure of funds in the exchange 
     stabilization fund when it is made known to the Federal 
     official to whom such amounts are made available in this Act 
     that such obligations or expenditure is for the purpose of 
     bolstering any foreign currency.

  Now, my colleague from Maryland says where does he get the idea of 
Mexico. Read the bill. We did a $25 billion bailout of Mexico. So I am 
saying to the House, my colleague from Vermont is just trying in this 
small way to say, ``Let's have a vote on this floor on the bail out,'' 
Vote ``yes'' on the Sanders-Cox amendment.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment. Congress, 
as has been said today over and over again, has never given the 
opportunity to vote on the Mexican bailout. Leaders in this House 
simply knew that a majority of Members of Congress were troubled about 
the bailout, had questions that people did not want to answer, and the 
administration and people supporting NAFTA or supporting the Mexican 
bailout in this institution did not want to answer those questions. 
Congress, as you recall, a year-and-a-half or so ago barely passed 
NAFTA. The public opposition to this bailout was even greater than the 
public concern and opposition to NAFTA. The questions about the bailout 
ranged all over the board about what kind of collateral there was going 
to be, what happens if there is default, how much money is committed, 
why are we doing this bailout, who benefits from the bailout, do the 
Mexican people benefit, do the American people benefit, do people in 
Wall Street benefit, where are the benefits of this bailout? None of 
those questions was answered in this institution, in this body, because 
we never had a vote. A ``no'' vote, Mr. Chairman, on this Sanders 
amendment, is a stamp of approval for the bailout.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been told that this is a success that has 
bolstered the dollar. Actually, if you remember, the dollar reached 
record lows versus the German mark and the Japanese yen about a month 
and a half ago, and many of the pundits said that there were three 
reasons. First was NAFTA, second was our U.S. deficit, and third was 
our international deficit. But they emphasized NAFTA. They said, we 
have inextricably, through the bailout, linked the U.S. dollar to the 
peso, we have linked our currency to the currency controlled in secret 
by an oligarchy, one that has been known to profit and artificially 
benefit billionaires in its own country and oppress its own people. The 
standard of living of the people of Mexico has dropped 40 percent since 
December.
  This is not a success. It is simple. If you are against the Mexican 
bailout, vote yes on Sanders. If you want to implicitly or explicitly 
take the only opportunity you will be offered this year to vote on 
this, if you want to endorse the bailout, vote no.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, before closing, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], for a unanimous-
consent request.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, based on the fact that two Members, one from 
each side, have read an amendment that is not the amendment under 
consideration, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk read the 
amendment that is under consideration before this body.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders.
       Amendment No. 12: Page 84, after line 17, insert the 
     following new section:

[[Page H 7225]]

       Sec. 628. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used for salaries or expenses of any employee, including any 
     employee of the Executive Office of the President, in 
     connection with the obligation or expenditure of funds in the 
     exchange stabilization fund.
                             point of order

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that was given to the Chair 
reads differently than what the Clerk has read.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to inform the Committee that the 
amendment that was just reported by the Clerk is the only amendment 
that was provided to the desk.
  Mr. SANDERS. That is not correct, sir.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk has reported the amendment that was provided 
to the desk.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, we have a problem. We absolutely gave the 
amendment that was here to the Clerk.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
the amendment which was just reported by the Clerk and submit another 
amendment?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] be given the opportunity to withdraw the 
amendment that apparently is at the desk and substitute the amendment 
which reads after ``stabilization fund'', ``* * * when it is made known 
to the Federal official to whom such amounts are made available in this 
Act that such obligation or expenditure is for the purpose of 
bolstering any foreign currency.''
  Mr. Chairman, this will provide a degree of comity. The gentleman 
from Vermont clearly thought that was the amendment, and, very frankly, 
what he thinks was the amendment is what I have in front of me.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would only 
suggest that a moment be given to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. 
Sanders] to explain the meaning of his amendment. I have read both 
amendments. They have a similar objective and are dissimilarly flawed, 
but, nonetheless, flawed, but I think the gentleman ought to be given 
the right to explain the difference.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Vermont?
  There was no objection.
                    amendment offered by mr. sanders

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders: Page 84, after line 17, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 628. No amount made available in this Act may be used 
     for the salaries or expenses of any employee, including any 
     employee of the Executive Office of the President, in 
     connection with the obligation or expenditure of funds in the 
     exchange stabilization fund when it is made known to the 
     Federal official to whom such amounts are made available in 
     this Act that such obligation or expenditure is for the 
     purpose of bolstering any foreign currency.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining and is entitled to close the debate, and the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for my friend, the chairman of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Leach], and the other Members who have risen in opposition to this 
amendment. But in all due respect, what this amendment is about is one 
very, very simple fact. That is, whether the Members of the House of 
Representatives will exercise their constitutional responsibility and 
vote on issues of enormous consequence to the people of this country.
  It makes no sense that we debate endlessly on $1 million 
appropriations, and then absolve ourselves of the responsibility of 
debating and voting on legislation and on an appropriation that could 
cost the taxpayers of this country $20 billion.
  What this amendment is about is that when we go home, we will tell 
our constituents that we have the guts to deal with the tough issues; 
we will have the guts to say that if another bailout is requested, we 
vote it yes or we vote it no, but we did not duck the issue.
  So for all of those people in the House who think that we have got to 
stand up and be counted, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
Not because of the debate we have had here today; it has been an 
interesting debate. We have talked about a lot of different things. 
People are characterizing this as a vote on the Mexican bailout. It is 
anything but that.
  The reason that we oppose the amendment is quite simple. We do not 
have jurisdiction over this particular agency in this committee. We 
have not held any hearings on the subject. The exchange stabilization 
fund does not have an appropriation. It was first funded, I believe, 
back in 1934, I wasn't alive then, and it has lived off its own assets 
and interest ever since. In effect, this amendment stops the exchange 
dead in its tracks, and, as a result, I think we create some very 
perilous waters for this committee and for the country.
  The fact of the matter is, the law gives the Secretary of the 
Treasury the authority to operate the fund in any manner that he sees 
fit. Maybe that is too much authority. If it is, this is not the place 
to debate it.
  This is the Appropriations Committee. I do not know how many times we 
are going to have to say it to get it through people's minds, there is 
a difference between policy and appropriation. We do not do policy 
here. Maybe we did abuse it in the Mexican case. But the way to change 
this is to change the law, not to put a rider on an appropriations 
bill, another gimmick, that says the Congress really did not mean 
anything with the law that it already passed.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out that the purpose of this 
fund is to defend the value of the dollar in foreign exchange markets. 
If international investors hear that the United States cannot defend 
its own currency, there is a potential we could see the value of our 
own money fall. I do not believe we want that situation in place in our 
country today.
  I very strongly urge a no vote on the Sanders amendment, again, for 
the simple reason, it does not belong in this bill. We have no 
jurisdiction over it. There is not an appropriation for it. If you want 
to debate this issue, it needs to be taken up in the correct policy 
committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired under the unanimous consent 
agreement.
  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.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245, 
noes 183, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 531]

                               AYES--245

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley

[[Page H 7226]]

     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waldholtz
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--183

     Archer
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Coyne
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     King
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Richardson
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     White
     Williams
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bryant (TX)
     Collins (MI)
     Crane
     DeLay
     Moakley
     Reynolds
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois and Messrs. NUSSLE, HILLIARD, and FRANKS of 
Connecticut changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. MICA, PACKARD, TOWNS, and YOUNG of Alaska changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, in 
order to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. Chairman, the report on this bill, H.R. 2020, includes language 
that provides $7.5 million for antiterrorism activities for the Bureau 
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. I would ask the gentleman, does this 
include resources for activities to be authorized under the President's 
antiterrorism legislation that has not yet been brought to the House 
floor?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, the answer is absolutely not. The $7.5 
million in the bill is for the chemists, the investigators who 
specialize in explosives investigations working on the Oklahoma City 
bombing. As the gentlewoman is aware, that bombing occurred after the 
President submitted his budget.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, am I to understand that this colloquy 
will become part of the legislative history of this bill and clarifies 
the language of the report?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Absolutely, yes.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, am I correct that any changes to ATF's 
authorities are not within the jurisdiction of this Committee, and 
there are no such changes in this bill?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Again, the gentlewoman is absolutely correct.
                  amendment offered by mrs. chenoweth

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

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Chenoweth: Page 84, after line 
     17, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 628. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to provide bonuses or any other merit-based salary 
     increase for any employee of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
     and Firearms.

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes, and 
the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I do not 
think this is a particularly complicated amendment. I would suggest 
that we reduce the time to 10 minutes.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pending is the unanimous-consent request of the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] that 20 minutes of time be allotted 
for the Chenoweth amendment and all amendments thereto.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would just 
like to ask the gentleman from Iowa to clarify whether the 20-minute 
limitation, 10 minutes to a side, also applies to any amendments to 
this amendment.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman from Illinois 
that that is correct. That is why we wanted the 20 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I object, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] is recognized for 5 
minutes on her amendment.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides a strong 
statement about an agency that is now under investigation and going 
through hearings in the House because of the events at Waco and at Ruby 
Ridge in Idaho. It prevents any member of ATF from receiving any 
bonuses or salary rewards this year until the Waco and the Ruby Ridge 
and other investigations have been concluded.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I have looked at the gentlewoman's 
amendment and reviewed it, and have no objection to it. I am ready to 
accept the amendment.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the 
BATF has been involved in some activities, some very serious activities 


[[Page H 7227]]
that are of great concern to the American people. Among those is 
tolerating and promoting racism in their good old boys parties. They 
have bungled the Waco, TX, raid and the entrapment of Randy Weaver. 
They are accused of abusing the rights of ordinary Americans, and its 
own employees.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to take a hard look at this agency whose roots 
began in only 1791, but the purpose of this was simply to collect 
Federal taxes on distilled spirits. However, on July 1, 1972, the 
agency, formerly located within the IRS, became a separate bureau 
within the USDT. Although Ronald Reagan wanted to abolish the agency in 
the early 1980's, BATF not only survived, but received new legal 
responsibilities in the latter part of this decade, to the point that 
they had become one of the largest and one of the most invasive 
agencies in this Nation.
  I think we were all shocked to read in the Washington Times that the 
ATF got 22 planes to aid in surveillance. I may ask, when was the ATF 
authorized to do this activity? Mr. Chairman, these planes would have 
been equipped, and they also were modified to carry one sidewinder 
missile under each wing, a snake-eyed bomb, firebombs, and cluster 
bombs. Mr. Chairman, I ask, when did this agency receive this kind of 
authorization?
  I want to make it clear, and I agree with the chairman, the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], that there are very good cops in the 
BATF, but as Time magazine has pointed out in their cover page story, 
there is something deeply wrong in this agency, and I think the 
Congress needs to assure the American people that we are prepared to 
take decisive action.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I had two fundamental 
problems with the report language in this bill.

                              {time}  1800

  The first of those problems was I believe taken care of by the 
colloquy which made it very clear that to continue anti-terrorism 
activities that were initiated after the Oklahoma City bombing was 
meant to refer only to the involvement of ATF in the use of their 
experts in explosives in the continuing investigation of the Oklahoma 
City incident. This was not meant to authorize any other activity on 
the part of ATF.
  My second problem is addressed by this amendment. This amendment if 
one looks at it sends a relatively mild message that the Congress is 
less than enthusiastically happy with ATF leadership and Bureau 
performance. The death of over 20 innocent children at Waco and the 
recent Good Ol' Boy Roundup are just two reasons we need to send this 
message. Support the Chenoweth-Bartlett amendment. Send the message.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes with the 
time to be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the gentlewoman 
from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] will control 10 minutes of the time, and a 
Member in opposition to the amendment will control 10 minutes of the 
time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition and claim the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Chenoweth-
Bartlett amendment to cut this BATF funding. The fact is that the BATF 
is a law enforcement department within the Federal structure that has 
not had enough oversight over the term of its existence. We have the 
same problem with the BATF today that we had with the FBI in the 1960s.
  It can be seen in a spectrum of outcomes that have been very obvious 
on the front pages of the paper as well as outcomes that have not been 
so obvious. I want to talk about two of them.
  One is this probe of the conduct of agents that has been publicized 
in the Washington Post as well as in the Washington Times, in the New 
York Times, and every newspaper in the country.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOKE. I will not yield. I have a very short time. The gentleman 
has his own time. I will yield on the gentleman's time if he wants.
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman has more time on his side than we have.
  Mr. HOKE. I will not yield. I have 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an article that describes a Good Ol' Boys 
Roundup in rural Tennessee, that officials acknowledge that this was 
something that was done for members of the BATF.
  The fact is there is not enough oversight, there is not enough 
accountability. It is a bureau that needs to be reined in, it needs to 
be given a strong signal. That is exactly what this amendment does.
  Particularly I want to illustrate one other thing that happened in my 
district, in Parma, OH, not 3 weeks ago, where BATF surrounded a single 
house all night long, it cut off the electricity to all the surounding 
homes in that neighborhood, and finally because it had an insufficient 
search warrant, it completely abandoned what it was doing.
  It is a bungling agency that needs to be reined in.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I understand that there are 10 minutes 
allocated to each side. Does the 10 minutes on the side in favor of the 
amendment include the 6 minutes that they had previous to the allotment 
of the 10 minutes each?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to inform the gentleman that there was 
no unanimous-consent agreement during the first 6 minutes of debate. 
The unanimous-consent agreement was struck after consultation between 
the two sides.
  Mr. ENGEL. It hardly seems fair that one side should get 16 minutes 
and the other side 10 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous-consent agreement was 10 minutes per side 
as they proceeded.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to ask unanimous 
consent to modify the agreement so that each side could have the same 
amount of time?
  The CHAIRMAN. By unanimous consent, a modification to the agreement 
can take place.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I do not think anybody on our 
side would object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Has the gentleman completed his parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. ENGEL. Yes.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side would have the 
16 minutes; that the side in opposition would also have the additional 
6 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
would just like to make this comment. I believe that this side would 
not object to each side having an extra 5 or 10 minutes should they 
want to do that. But to use time that has already expired I think would 
be something that is not fair. I would not object and I do not think 
anybody on our side would object if they wanted an extra 5 minutes on 
each side. But to include time that has already been consumed I do not 
think would be acceptable.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Further reserving the right to object, I yield 
to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, we originally had asked for an agreement 
on 20 minutes. There was objection to that. As the Chair knows, we went 
ahead with the Chenoweth amendment 

[[Page H 7228]]
under the 5-minute rule. I believe the Chair said 6 minutes was 
consumed in that process while the objection was overcome on the other 
side.
  Mr. Chairman, how many minutes do we have left on both sides 
combined?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] has 8 
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 10 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has the 
right to close as he represents the committee position.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, if we could get a unanimous-consent 
agreement to give the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] an additional 
5 minutes, would that work to keep everybody happy? Then it is equal on 
both sides. We have already had 6 on our side. I am trying to get it 
equal on both sides. I am not playing the role of one side or the 
other. I want it equal.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, if the 
gentleman would make it 3 additional minutes that we would have. You 
had 6 additional minutes. If we just have 3 additional minutes.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I am sorry. Three minutes would make it correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] have 3 additional 
minutes?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, 
if you make it equal on both sides, I will not object. But if you are 
going to do that, I will object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have not come to the well before. I have spoken from 
there. I want to impress upon the Members, I think this is a very 
important and perfidious amendment.
  The House better come to its senses, those of us who are new and 
those of us who have been here. Ladies and gentleman of the House, this 
is serious business we are about. The American public sent us to do 
serious things. The American public expected of us responsibility. The 
American public expected us to think about what we are doing.
  It is quite obvious that we, yes, have a new group elected that wants 
to have a revolution and does not like certain agencies in the 
Government of the United States. I understand that. That is a fair 
thing to come to Washington with, and it is fair to act to do away with 
those agencies. But let me tell you what is not fair: to come and 
attack those people who have been working on behalf of the policies 
this Congress adopted.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] spoke earlier and made a totally 
inaccurate representation. He flashes around a paper. He would not 
yield to me. Yes, 6 to 12 AFT individuals. And he said it was for ATF. 
In fact the majority of people there were local law enforcement people 
from the South.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. No, I will not yield.
  Mr. HOKE. If you are going to attack me, you are not going to yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I did not attack you. I said you were wrong. There is a 
difference.
  Mr. HOKE. Will you yield?
  Mr. HOYER. No, I will not yield.
  Mr. HOKE. You will not yield even though you used my name?
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, regular order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland controls the time.
  Mr. HOYER. The fact is, if he will read the newspaper that he waved 
around, it said approximately 6 to 12 ATF folks, some Secret Service, 
some Customs, some DEA, and mostly local law enforcement officials from 
throughout the region.
  The fact of the matter is that I think some people did something 
wrong. They should not have done it. There are over 1,000 employees who 
will be affected by this amendment. In this amendment, we say none of 
the employees of ATF, none of the money may be used to provide bonuses 
or any other merit-based salary increase for any employee of the Bureau 
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
  Is there one person on this floor who can honestly say that one or 
two or three of the folks who work at BATF are not employees who are 
deserving of merit increases, of bonuses, of recognition for heroic 
action, just because there are some who do not act in the manner that 
we would want, or because the agency for which they work has a mission 
with which some of us or maybe many of us do not agree?
  Ladies and gentlemen of this House, this is an ax where a scalpel may 
be needed. Let us think about what we are doing. If you want to do away 
with ATF, you have that opportunity. That is the way it should be done, 
not to say to the employees who work at ATF, at our request, the 
overwhelming majority of whom are trying to do the best job they know 
how, that none of the funds in this bill can be used to give them a 
merit increase or a bonus for heroic behavior or any other behavior.
  Ladies and gentlemen of this House, as I said earlier, we have 
significant and strong differences of opinion, but that does not mean 
we need to act irrationally. I frankly was opposed to the last 
amendment because I thought the message that the sponsors wanted to 
send about the bailout of Mexico was affected by an amendment which may 
affect many, many nations and may affect the stabilization of our 
dollar and of other currencies. Another meat ax approach to important, 
serious issues.
  I ask the House to reject this amendment. In voting to reject this 
amendment, not to in any way be interpreted as sanctioning bad activity 
at ATF or adopting the premise that ATF is an agency that you want to 
support, but an action that says, ``I am a responsible Member of the 
House, of 435 people, who is going to support or oppose amendments or 
proposals based upon their merit and their impact and their 
accomplishment of objectives that I support.''
                              {time}  1815

  I ask every Member of this House to reject this amendment.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I could not put it 
any better. To me this amendment is simply an amendment, frankly, to 
pander to the militias and to pander to people who have loony 
conspiracy theories about Waco and the Weaver case in Idaho. I do not 
think we need to bash Federal employees.
  If there are Federal employees that did something wrong, then those 
Federal employees ought to be drummed out or prosecuted, but do not 
tarnish a whole group of people because there may be a few rotten 
apples. It is like saying if a Member of Congress does something wrong, 
does that cast negative views on all 435 Members of Congress? Why 
penalize people who were not there?
  The underlying attitude here of somehow conspiracy theories or 
somehow we have to pander to the militias I think is very, very 
dangerous. This is a dangerous amendment and it ought to be rejected.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                preferential motion offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves that the Committee rise and report the bill 
     back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
     clause be stricken.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that as one citizen of this 
country, I think there is a lot that is wrong in the BATF. I am also 
concerned about some of the things that have happened in the FBI.
  I think that just as I was outraged when anti-war demonstrators were 
treated in a way not consistent with their civil liberties during the 
Vietnam war, I am also outraged when individual citizens, it does not 
matter whether they belong to the militias or anything else, have their 
civil rights violated by any agency in today's America. I think we need 
to be equally outraged about that.
  But having said that, I simply want to read the language of this 
amendment. It says, ``None of the funds made 

[[Page H 7229]]
available by this act may be used to provide bonuses or any other 
merit-based salary increase for any employee of the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms.''
  What that really says is that if the general at the top of the agency 
screwed up, that it is the PFC at the bottom who pays the price. I did 
not know that was the kind of fairness meted out by the House of 
Representatives. I thought we could do better than that.
  What it says is that if a Member of Congress does something stupid, 
their employee should be penalized. An awful lot of employees would be 
penalized unjustly if we allowed that principle to govern.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that what this amendment does, 
clumsy as it is and misguided as it is, is it simply shoots the troops 
in the field for the mistakes of people running the agency.
  If there are mistakes in the agency, get them fixed. If there are 
mistakes by people higher up in the agency, correct them. Under this 
language, an individual employee could blow the whistle on their own 
agency for misconduct and they could not be rewarded by their 
government. Does anybody really think that makes sense? I doubt it. I 
hope not.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues what this 
amendment is all about. This amendment is inspired by the gun lobby, 
the National Rifle Association and their associate groups, which would 
like to see the BATF and its activities regulating criminal firearms 
trafficking disappear.
  This amendment is the kind of political effort which makes extremist 
militias stand up and cheer. This punishes the BATF, the very agency 
which closely monitors the activities of these extremist paramilitary 
groups. This amendment is disgraceful. And let me tell my colleagues, 
it is without precedent.
  When the Federal Bureau of Investigation was found guilty of 
discrimination in employment, did we decide then to sanction every 
agent of the FBI? No.
  When Operation Tailhook occurred to the shame and embarrassment of 
many in this Chamber and in the Pentagon, did we sanction all of the 
pilots serving in the U.S. Navy? No.
  When one CIA employee was found guilty of treason, did we decide to 
sanction every employee of the CIA? No, because simple elemental 
justice tells us that is wrong.
  The amendment by the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] says 
that every employee of BATF shall be punished, because some may have 
transgressed the law. Consider for a moment these employees, some 4,000 
strong, who literally put their lives on the line for every American 
family, every day, suppressing illegal gang activity, working on drug 
trafficking, trying to stop the criminal trafficking of firearms.
  This morning they got up and put on their uniforms and their vests 
and went out and put their lives on the line, I tell the gentlewoman 
from Idaho. And despite an act of heroism by one of them that might 
have saved someone's life, the gentlewoman is saying, unequivocally, no 
recognition, no bonus. Why? Because someone else in the agency offended 
her sense of justice or sensibility.
  That is so basically unfair, it really should not be considered 
seriously by this Chamber. If someone is guilty of wrongdoing in this 
agency, let them answer for it and let them pay the price. Do not 
punish all the employees in this agency.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member who rises in opposition to the motion 
of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]?
  The gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion, and 
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the motion and I 
think it is important that we understand what is happening procedurally 
in this debate. We are debating a motion to rise and to basically 
strike the enacting clause of the bill which would kill the bill. The 
real purpose of the motion, though, is to stop debate on this issue and 
to move us ahead without getting resolution of the question.
  It has been argued that we do not need to take this type of action to 
address the concerns about the ATF. What is not apparent, however, is 
that there were efforts to look at other parts of the bill which have 
been halted by not getting the kind of support that is necessary on the 
floor; efforts to look at the enforcement funding at the ATF; the kinds 
of issues that would be much more credible in terms of attacking the 
problems that many of us see with the handling of ATF issues around the 
country, but those efforts have been stopped.
  Certainly, it is possible that a better-crafted approach to this can 
happen, but this is this bill that we are talking about and this is the 
type of approach that we have been able to move forward on. I am sure 
that as we move forward on the debate on this bill, and on other bills, 
we can find more effective ways to do it. But this is an opportunity to 
send a message and to make a start in terms of telling the American 
public that we are now having debate, we are now having a hearing, and 
we are now looking at finding answers to questions about what happened 
at Waco and what happened at Ruby Ridge and what are we going to do in 
the future to deal with it?
  In this Congress, we use the vehicles we have to raise those issues 
and to make our points. I think we would all agree that as we address 
them, we will ultimately need to refine the approach that we take until 
it is pinpointed and it is effective. But today, this is the vehicle we 
have and this is the motion that we have and I think we ought to reject 
the motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] that we rise.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
motion.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The gentlewoman from Idaho is 
recognized.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stockman].
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that the other side, 
when I was running against the former chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, he stated, and I quote, ``Burning to death was too good for 
them. I prefer a slower method.''
  What do we have? Is there a threshold of conscience on the other side 
that we have found out now that there is racism rampant in the 
department? Where do we rise and say that this is wrong? Do we stay 
silent? Now it is coming out on ``Nightline'' and ``20/20,'' other news 
shows, other credible mainstream shows, saying ``What is going on? 
There is something wrong,''and they do not want to talk about it.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the other side should be ashamed. We need to 
talk about this and this motion to rise is a fraud and an unrealistic 
motion. We need to vote this motion down, but I ask the other side: At 
what point do you say we have to to stand up and say what is going on 
is wrong?
  I do not criticize the gentlemen that are in the front-lines. One of 
the boys that passed away, was shot at Waco, was a camp counselor just 
near my home; one mile. He died. But I think in his memory we need to 
preserve freedom. And freedom is what this country is about and we are 
being denied the access to discuss this issue by this cheap motion.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. 
Chenoweth] for yielding me time and welcome the opportunity to speak 
against the motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. The fact 
is, it is our constitutional prerogative to act at this juncture, 
because through the appropriations mechanism, we do have a chance to 
send a clear signal and to establish sound policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to fully associate myself with the comments of 
the gentleman from Idaho. Yes, the process can be reformed at some 
juncture, or 

[[Page H 7230]]
refined I should say, but this is our opportunity to say ``no'' to the 
mysterious new air force of the BATF; to take a serious look at what 
has transpired in recent days; and to say enough is enough. It is time 
to rein in this agency and we do it through the appropriations 
mechanism.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. The question is on the preferential motion of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of good friends on this side 
of the aisle, but yet I am in opposition to my friends today. I think 
as we step back and look, as the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] 
said, this is an ax. We need a scalpel. I think this is a shotgun. I 
think this is messy.
  I get mad at the USDA frequently, but does that mean that I think 
that the local ASCS officers should be penalized for those decisions? I 
get mad at the Post Office a lot. Should my personal mail carrier have 
his pay frozen because of what goes on in Washington? I get mad at the 
mayor. Do I want to penalize the clerk at city hall?
  That is what we are doing. We are talking about freezing the salary 
of secretaries, mechanics, janitorial personnel, for things that they 
have absolutely no control of.
  I have got problems with BATF. I have concerns about this air force; 
I think we should look into the 22 airplanes. I think an amendment to 
reduce their funding may be a good idea. Investigating the ``Good Ole 
Boys'' networks, that would be something good. Investigating Waco, that 
would be good. Investigating the Randy Weaver involvement, that is 
good.
  But what we are talking about doing is because of managerial 
decisions, we are going to penalize secretaries and mechanic's pay 
raises for the next year.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that this is only for 
merit pay and bonuses and the whole purpose is it will not freeze 
salaries.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming the time, if a secretary is on 
merit pay, he or she will not get a salary increase. And if they do a 
good job and are entitled for discretionary bonus, we are talking about 
none.
  I believe that what we should do is deal with BATF in a broader 
picture. Let us not get mad at them for what happened in Waco and then 
do the same thing in a different way on them here. Let us be a little 
more above the fray of what you are saying is their own management 
style. Let us go in there and say, ``Cut the funding.''
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this is not about the NRA or some militia 
group. This is about good behavior and bad behavior.
  When I go back into my district they say, In a free society, if you 
have some actions that you want to approve of, you reward it and if you 
have some actions you do not want to approve of, you do not reward it.
  We have some actions that we do not approve of. In fact, there are 
two agencies that the people in my district say they are afraid of. One 
is the IRS and the other is the ATF.

                              {time}  1830

  So when we are to reward good behavior, we should not do it by giving 
money for things that we do not agree with.
  Now, we have got the investigation going on about the good old boy 
retreat down in Tennessee and allegedly, allegedly it is anti-Semitic, 
it is sexist, it is racist, some romp in the woods. If that is true, 
then none of us should agree with it, none of us on both sides. We 
should disapprove of that type of activity, and all this is doing, it 
is not like we are starving the people out here at the ATF. In the last 
rescission, we added in an additional $34,823,000. We have been handing 
money over to them.
  What we are trying to do is send a message there is some kind of 
behavior, as a Congress, we do not approve of. It includes Waco, where 
we had over 80 people that were terminated by this government without a 
trial, without a judge, and without a jury, and we have the incidents 
in Ruby Ridge, where, again, a 14-year-old-boy, and Randy Weaver's 
wife, and I do not agree with him politically, I do not agree with him, 
but he does not deserve what he got; again, without a trial, without a 
judge, without a jury, human life was taken. We must not reward this 
type of behavior.
  I think this sends that message. It does not say there is a salary 
freeze; it says there is no merit increase. We are sending a message to 
them we are not going to reward this kind of behavior.
  So I think this is a good way for us to send this message to them. We 
certainly do not want to encourage anyone who disregards human life.
  I just encourage those of us to vote in favor of the amendment.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not perfect, and there 
will be other opportunities to approach this issue, but if I may quote 
the bard, ``The problem, dear Brutus, is not in the gentlewoman's 
amendment. It is in yourselves.''
  You should have had hearings on this in 1993. There was another 
disgrace.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we had 
hearings.
  Mr. DORNAN. No.
  Mr. HOYER. I do not have them here.
  Mr. DORNAN. Oh, no.
  Mr. HOYER. Oh, yes.
  Mr. DORNAN. Not the type of hearings we were asking for on our side.
  I reclaim my time.
  There was another issue where you had no hearings at all. That is 
similar, and that is the brutal death of 19 young Americans, our 
special ops and rangers, men in Somalia, no hearings, and that was in 
October. Back in April when this happened, there was so much lying and 
coverup and confusion, none of it excusing the atrocity and mass murder 
at Oklahoma City.
  I do not care about the militia, militias. Of 10 presidential 
candidates, only one was not spooked by that issue, me. I said, ``Get a 
life or join the Guard if you are young, or teach a Little League team 
or soccer team, if you are older.''
  I flew in the Guard with a Minuteman on the tail of my aircraft. I 
thought I was in the militia. That is how much I knew about militia. I 
thought it was the National Guard or the Air Guard.
  None of this has to do with them. It has to do with things like this 
photograph. Who is the ATF to run up a flag before the bodies of 24 
children are removed from the ashes? Some of them died choked to death 
on CS gas.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DORNAN. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. There has been a lot of reference made to news reports 
and so on. I said I was going to accept the gentlewoman's amendment. I 
am about to change my mind, because that is exactly the kind of garbage 
that is being distributed, the flag----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Would the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] yield me 
30 seconds?


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. How much time do we 
have on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
  Mr. DORNAN. You did not hear me. I asked a parliamentary inquiry. I 
asked how much time is on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland has 2 minutes remaining, 
and the gentlewoman from Idaho has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DORNAN. If my friends would like 30 seconds from that side, I 
would like 30 seconds from our side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who yields time?
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 additional seconds to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I will try 
and give some of it back.
  Mr. DORNAN. That was to me?
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  
[[Page H 7231]]

  Mr. DORNAN. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa, but do not take it 
all, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. The flags in that photograph, hold it up again, this 
is typical of what has been done. If you notice the picture is cut off 
right at the top of the American flag. Those flags were at half mast as 
a memorial to the Americans that died at Waco, the Texans that died 
there, and the ATF agents that died. That is not a celebration of 
victory, as you said.
  Mr. DORNAN. No; no. Reclaiming my time, there are four gold stars on 
there for the young agents sent to their death by the worst leadership 
I have seen in any agency, domestic agency, in recent history. My heart 
goes out to the four gold stars, not to the idiots who sent them into 
combat.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put it in perspective, 
because the Tailhook example was brought up on the other side and said 
that all members had not been chastised, and I would like Members to 
know that even as we sit here today, those members in the United States 
Navy that were commanders are still waiting after a year to be selected 
as captain because of Tailhook, and so they were chastised, and they 
were penalized. We took and fired the Secretary of the Navy, the chief 
of naval operations, two flag officers, and I want to tell Members on 
both sides, whatever the issue is, that all Navy people are not bad, 
all ATF agents are not bad, and I agree with that.
  But we need to send a message to the Navy, which we did, and I think 
we need to send a message not only to the AFT but to the committee that 
is holding the hearings to hurry these things through.
  When my daughter is bad, or daughters, I do not increase their 
allowance. Now, they can always prove themselves, but I would also ask, 
you know, the gentlemen on both sides of this issue that when we take a 
look at these kinds of issues, we do need to go after the people that 
are responsible, and I would say if you fire the Secretary of the Navy 
and you fire the chief of naval operations and all the other flag 
officers, then maybe you ought to look at the top, Janet Reno, who is 
responsible for this issue, and be consistent.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], the chairman.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] I think hit on a key 
issue we need to address. The top management in ATF tried to discipline 
people in Waco, and many of his decisions were overturned, and through 
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Federal Employees Protection Act, 
these agents were made to go back to the agency against the wishes of 
the Director.
  He currently is under a situation with an agent who he fired for 
behavior unbecoming a law enforcement officer, but yet through this 
hearings appeal panel board, he is forced to take this individual back, 
give him a gun and put him on the street. That issue has to be 
addressed. Management has to be able to function. They have to be able 
to weed out people that are not beneficial to the agency.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say this: 
That does not affect cost-of-living increases. It is only merit pay and 
bonuses, and the purpose of the amendment is to send a very strong 
signal to the BATF that we do not want innocent women and children or 
anybody else killed because somebody makes a big mistake, because they 
do not think these things out well.
  At Ruby Ridge and at Waco, Americans were killed unnecessarily 
because of bad judgment, because of mistakes that were made, and that 
needs to be changed. We need to send a very strong signal that that 
needs to be changed.
  No American should be killed by a Federal agent of any agency because 
of bad judgment, because they made a mistake and, therefore, signals 
have to be sent.
  I cannot understand why the BATF now has an Air Force. It makes no 
sense to me. Why do they have weapons of that type? That is for the 
military, not for the BATF.
  Let me say one more thing real quickly. At this good old boys network 
that my colleagues are concerned about racism, there are members of 
these agencies that they have on videotape with tee shirts depicting 
the Reverend Martin Luther King in gunsights' crosshairs, with black 
boys in hoods straddling across police cars. These are people from 
these agencies, the BATF. A signal needs to be sent that that kind of 
situation, that kind of thing should not be tolerated, and that is what 
this amendment is all about.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 60 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I am extremely impressed with the new-found 
consciousness about racism that is being displayed here this afternoon. 
I do not wish the actions of the ATF, which some of us are certainly 
going to deal with and must be dealt with, to be used as a shield for 
those who want to protect the actions of the militia and other kinds of 
things.
  I would say to this body that it does not make good sense to punish 
secretaries and mechanics, et cetera, et cetera, for the actions of a 
few, maybe at the top, and I do not want my colleagues to be fooled to 
think that some of us who work on this business of racism day in and 
day out are going to be fooled or sucked in on these kinds of 
arguments.
  I ask you to vote against this senseless amendment. It does not do 
any good to take away the bonuses of innocent people to get at what 
they care about, and I say let us deal with racism in a real way at 
some point in time on this floor.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, following some of these incidents, there were at least 
five hearings. We had days of hearings, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Lightfoot] and I. The fact of the matter is that the director resigned 
under pressure. The head of the law enforcement side of ATF, after 
Waco, resigned. The fact of the matter is they are gone. The agents to 
which the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] referred were 
disciplined. They are not in law enforcement.
  But the fact of the matter is this is painting with a very broad 
brush everyone who serves us, everyone whom we ask day in and day out 
to go out and risk their lives to make this country safer.
  Do some transgress? Yes. Rodney King was a transgression. But we did 
not damn the entire police force of Los Angeles nor cut their salaries 
because we knew it was critical for the safety of our streets and our 
country and our democracy that we maintain law and order in this 
country.
  Ladies and gentlemen, do not, with a broad brush damn everybody who 
serves this country so well.
  Reject the Chenoweth amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
                             recorded vote

  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 111, 
noes 317, not voting 6, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 532]

                               AYES--111

     Allard
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cubin
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kim
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (KY)
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Neumann

[[Page H 7232]]

     Ney
     Nussle
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Skelton
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--317

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TN)
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bryant (TX)
     Collins (MI)
     Crane
     Horn
     Moakley
     Reynolds

                              {time}  1903

  Mr. GOODLING changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. COBLE, COLLINS of Georgia, and BARR 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. ward

  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ward: Page 84, after line 17, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 628. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to issue any tax compliance certificate required 
     under section 6851(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     of any individual departing the United States, except when it 
     is made known to the Federal official having authority to 
     obligate or expend such funds that a system is in place to 
     collect taxes in the manner prescribed under the provisions 
     of H.R. 1535 (as introduced in the House of Representatives 
     on May 2, 1995), which provides tax rules on expatriation.

  Mr. WARD (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 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 25 minutes, with 
the time being equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, as we 
discussed between both sides, a 25 minute limit, it was my 
understanding that it was a 25-minute limit on this amendment. So I 
would not object to a 25-minute limit on the Ward amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from 
Iowa is that the 25-minute limit apply to the Ward amendment and all 
amendments thereto.
  Mr. WARD. Would the Chair restate that? I apologize to the gentleman 
from Iowa. I just want to make sure, if I may, that we have the full 
25-minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves the right to object and may 
proceed under his reservation.
  Mr. WARD. With that reservation, if we can have 25-minutes on this 
amendment and on the issue that this amendment represents. That is what 
I am looking for, that is what I thought we had, and that is what I 
would like.
  The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from 
Iowa was that 25-minutes be allowed on the Ward amendment and any 
amendments thereto.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on his reservation?
  Mr. WARD. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I do not know of any amendments to the Ward 
amendment. I do not know whether the Chairman does or not. But I would, 
if there are no amendments to it, then I would suggest that we agree 
with the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward] that we have 25 minutes on 
the Ward amendment. I do not know of any amendments, so I do not think 
it really affects the debate. Am I wrong? Are there amendments that the 
gentleman from Iowa knows of?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. If the gentleman would yield under his reservation, 
would the gentleman agree to the language of the Ward amendment and all 
amendments thereto and we go 30 minutes? That would give the gentleman 
25 minutes, and an extra 5 minutes if somebody wants to offer one.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield further, in my discussions 
with the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward], he wanted and asked for 25 
minutes on the Ward amendment. He was then concerned about any 
amendments. I said that I did not know of any amendments to the Ward 
amendment. There may be, but I do not know about them. If there are 
none, however, it seems to me that as a practical matter we can agree 
with the gentleman from Kentucky that it would be on the Ward 
amendment, because I do not think there are any other amendments.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WARD. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, could I suggest that we word the 
unanimous consent request to say that we would have 25 minutes of 
debate on the Ward amendment and an additional 5 minutes on any that 
might be added thereto, therefore protecting the 25 minutes?
  Mr. WARD. I would have no objection.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, then that would be the request, 25 
minutes on the Ward amendment and an additional 5 minutes on any 
amendments thereto.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

[[Page H 7233]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward], the author of 
the amendment, will be recognized for 12\1/2\ minutes, and a Member in 
opposition to the amendment will be recognized for 12\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would begin by thanking the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Lightfoot] for his understanding on the allocation of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about here, this amendment is to 
close the expatriate billionaire tax loophole, a loophole that we have 
tried one dozen times to close. Twelve times we have attempted in this 
body to deal with this issue, and 12 times we have been turned back. I 
do not know why. I do not know what the motives of our opponents could 
be behind turning this back. But I can tell you that it does not make 
sense for us not to close a loophole, to just clean up some language in 
the law.
  It is not a new tax. It is not changing anything but the 
effectiveness of the laws we have in place to close this loophole, to 
make it so that billionaires who renounce their citizenship pay their 
taxes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a group of people who have said no to America, 
who are turning their backs on this country. Why? To save on their tax 
liability. That is what we will be talking about.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member wishing to manage time in opposition 
to the Ward amendment?
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Ward amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] will be 
recognized for 12\1/2\ minutes.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Archer to the amendment offered by Mr. Ward

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Archer to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Ward: On lines 8-9, strike ``H.R. 1535 (as introduced in 
     the House of Representatives on May 2, 1995)'' and insert 
     ``H.R. 1812 (as reported by the Committee on Ways and Means 
     on June 16, 1995).

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, 5 minutes will 
be allotted to debate the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Archer].

                              {time}  1915


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman from Texas, the 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, has an amendment. I 
presume that is what is going to occur at the end of the 5 minutes?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will proceed with debate on the 
underlying amendment. That is the spirit of the unanimous-consent 
request that we have received.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the Chair for the fair interpretation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] is recognized for 
2\1/2\ minutes, and a Member in opposition to the amendment will be 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in his amendment, the gentleman from Kentucky refers to 
H.R. 1535, which was introduced by the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Gibbons. He and I both share the view 
that it is important to address the issue of expatriation for tax 
avoidance purposes. However, we differ in our views as to how best to 
do it.
  I have introduced legislation to prevent tax-motivated expatriation, 
H.R. 1812, which the Committee on Ways and Means has considered and 
reported favorably, rejecting Mr. Gibbons' approach, which is part of 
Mr. Ward's amendment. It is our intention to bring H.R. 1812 to the 
floor in the near future.
  H.R. 1812, as reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, is much 
tougher than the approach taken in H.R. 1535. The nonpartisan Joint 
Committee on Taxation has estimated that H.R. 1812 would raise $2.4 
billion for expatriates over the next 10 years, far more than the $800 
million that they estimate would be raised by the Gibbons bill, H.R. 
1535, which is referred to in the underlying Ward amendment.
  The approach of H.R. 1535 was considered by our committee and found 
to be unsatisfactory for numerous reasons, including reduced revenue, 
difficulty in enforcement, and questions of constitutionality.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to approve my perfecting amendment, 
which would substitute H.R. 1812, a tougher proposal than the 
underlying bill in the Ward amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member who wishes to control time in 
opposition to the Archer amendment?
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Archer amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward] is recognized 
for 2\1/2\ minutes in opposition to the Archer amendment.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I had come to the floor to speak in support of the Ward 
amendment to prohibit the use of funds for the issuance of so-called 
sailing certificates pursuant to section 6851(d)(1) of the Internal 
Revenue Code. As those who are listening understand, sailing 
certificates are simply a certification seeking to say that expatriates 
have complied with their obligations to the U.S. Government.
  Now before us we have the Archer amendment, which is an amendment to 
the Ward amendment. I would like to speak against that and have to 
oppose that, though Mr. Archer is my chairman. But this has come before 
the Committee on Ways and Means and a great deal of thought has been 
given to this situation.
  What the bottom line continues to be with the Archer proposal is that 
it is a loophole. The reasons for the opposition now that I stand to 
oppose the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], this country depends on 
the voluntary compliance of its citizens to collect its taxes. We are 
not arguing anywhere tonight about taxes are too high or we pay too 
many taxes. It is just how this Government is run, on the hard-earned 
taxes paid by its citizens.
  In that respect, we are unique in this world. This system has worked. 
The willingness of our citizens to continue to voluntarily comply with 
our tax laws is threatened when very, very wealthy individuals can 
avoid that responsibility.
  So to put it in the clearest language possible of why I am opposed to 
the Archer amendment to the amendment is this amendment to the 
amendment does not protect tax avoidance by expatriates who have 
patience. You just have to have patience.
  It does not prevent tax avoidance by expatriates who plan ahead. You 
can do that if you have the means and you have the attorneys and you 
have got the wherewithal. It does not prevent tax avoidance by 
expatriates who have foreign assets.
  So what we are talking about today is taking legislation that we have 
dealt with in the Committee on Ways and Means, and it simply requires 
millionaires to hire a higher priced lawyer and accountant to avoid 
paying their taxes.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation Report on Expatriates clearly states 
that proper tax-planning techniques can be used to avoid all taxation, 
if you are in the right place at the right time with the right means. 
The Committee on Ways and Means bill proscribes only.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas], a respected member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I invite you to go over to the Random House 
Dictionary of the English Language over here, and on page 322 look up 
the word chutzpa. It says: unmitigated effrontery or impudence; gall.

[[Page H 7234]]

  This amendment takes a bill that never got a recorded vote in 
committee and substitutes it, in essence, for a bill that passed the 
Committee on Ways and Means. That is gall. That is chutzpah. And it 
ain't going anywhere.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired. We will now proceed with debate 
on the underlying amendment by the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. Ward].
  The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I would, first, like to thank the gentleman 
for his compliment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. 
Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, if you are going to characterize this 
amendment in the fashion that the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Thomas] just did, I think you ought to take into account what is going 
to occur if it passes. It means that Benedict Arnold billionaires, and 
I do not know what page you will find Benedict Arnold, but perhaps some 
Member of the opposition can enlighten me. Benedict Arnold billionaires 
who wanted to abandon their United States citizenship are not going to 
be able to do it and get away with it and take their money with them.
  Now, that is the bottom line. If that is what we are being 
characterized, if our actions are being characterized in that manner as 
being chutzpahs, as having some gall, it seems to me the real gall is 
to think that someone can renounce their citizenship, can take their 
money with them, and we are supposed to treat them as if they were a 
refugee.
  I coined that phrase Benedict Arnold billionaires, and if this is 
going to be the thirteenth time we are going to be defeated on trying 
to get billionaires to pay their taxes, then let it be, and let the 
opprobrium fall on the opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to inform the Committee that the 
gentleman from Texas has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from Kentucky has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Hawaii has spoken several times on 
the floor with great emotion. If he wishes to implement a proposal that 
will correct the problem he is talking about, he should vote for the 
Archer amendment.
  The Archer amendment is far tougher, far stronger, and 
constitutional. It generates, as I said, $2.4 billion of revenue for 
the Treasury, whereas the bill that the gentleman is speaking for 
generates only $800 million. It clearly is a pansy approach to this 
problem compared to the Archer amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I have yet to talk to anyone in central 
Texas who can even imagine renouncing their citizenship in order to 
avoid paying their taxes, people who have earned their sustenance in 
this country, in the freedom of this country, who would then renounce 
their citizenship in order to get the maximum after-tax benefit from 
the sustenance of this country.
  There is a suggestion by my colleague from Texas that a way has been 
found to solve this problem. The way that has been found, according to 
the administration, is a way that leads to about $100 million in 
additional revenues, whereas the proposal that Mr. Ward advances and 
has been advanced by the ranking member, Mr. Gibbons, would yield $1.7 
billion over 5 years in additional revenues.
  I think, therefore, that the arguments that the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut has advanced, that the Archer amendment will only allow 
expatriates who are patient, who hire the best-priced advisors to 
continue what they have been doing in the past, has great merit.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], a respected member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, originally, I was going to oppose the Ward amendment 
for one reason. It does not belong on this appropriations bill. It 
deals with changing the Tax Code, and that is out in the jurisdiction 
of Mr. Archer's Committee on Ways and Means.
  I would also make the argument we would not even be having this 
debate if we had a Tax Code that was not so dilatory that it causes 
people to want to leave the country because the burden has become so 
high. But that is a debate for another day.
  If the Archer amendment is accepted, I would change my position and 
support the Ward amendment, because we have tried to work very closely 
with Mr. Archer in the Committee on Ways and Means whenever we are 
dealing with tax issues so that we did not get cross-jurisdictions.
  I think it is important that we have the input now of the chairman of 
that committee, and if the Archer amendment is accepted on the floor, 
then I would vote for the Ward amendment as amended.
  Again, original opposition was because it really does not belong on 
this bill. But since it is here, I think this would be a common sense 
way to deal with it.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Gibbons], the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, if the Archer amendment passes, I cannot 
support the Ward amendment. The Archer proposal was adopted, as I 
recall, in the Committee on Ways and Means on a party line vote. Every 
Democrat voted against it.
  I do not believe it will collect the money that it is advertised to 
collect. If you are going to collect any money from these billionaires 
that leave here, you have got to get it before they leave. If they get 
out of the country with their money, there is no way you are going to 
ever get it.
  Any first-year tax planner can tell you hundreds of ways around the 
Archer amendment, and it just will not work. I repeat, I do not want to 
be partisan about this, but the Archer amendment passed in the 
Committee on Ways and Means on a strictly partly line vote. It will not 
work.
  If you are going to get the money, you got to get it before they 
leave, and that is what our proposal does. If Archer is adopted, forget 
about Ward.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of the 
committee, the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Archer amendment.
  During the conference bill when we first heard about this expatriate 
situation, we were criticized by the other side of the aisle for not 
voting for this expatriate proposal when we had 15 minutes to read 
about it. We said it was wrong, we should take and be patient and have 
hearings on this, which I commend my chairman, Mr. Archer, for having.
  In these hearings, the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee pointed out 
that the bill that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] had brought 
forward would leave a loophole that if you inherited the money and then 
expatriated at that point, you could avoid paying all tax. So if there 
is a loophole, it is in Mr. Ward's amendment as currently stated under 
Mr. Gibbon's bill.
  So if you want to avoid the loophole for billionaires, the Archer 
amendment is the amendment to support, and I encourage my colleagues to 
support the Archer amendment.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I need to say now that is chutzpa squared. To say that we are adding 
a loophole is just absurd.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, let me read from the dissenting views of the 
minority on the Archer amendment so we are reminded.
  It does not prevent tax avoidance by expatriates who have patience. 
That means they can wait it out.
  It does not prevent tax avoidance by expatriates who plan ahead. They 
can plan and get out of this.
  It does not prevent tax avoidance by expatriates who have foreign 
assets.
  It does not prevent tax avoidance by expatriates who have U.S. assets 
with enough wealth to use the present loopholes.

[[Page H 7235]]

  It is not administrable.
  It does little to prevent avoidance of estate and gift taxes.
  The Archer amendment, more than anything else, pussyfoots on this 
issue. The Ward amendment would hit it directly. I urge support of the 
Ward amendment and that we vote against the Archer amendment.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, talk about circular arguments, the 
gentleman from Michigan just read the dissenting views. That is the 
Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means continuing to try to 
justify why H.R. 1535 is the bill that should be in front of us.
  As a matter of fact, the Democrats had so much confidence in H.R. 
1535 that they did not even ask for a rollcall vote. They refused to 
even put the votes up in committee. They went quietly. They went 
meekly. It was a reasonable effort on their part. We listened to 
Undersecretary Samuelson tell us that this administration had not 
pursued these people who were leaving. And let us get one thing 
straight, no one here is in favor of anyone renouncing their 
citizenship for purposes of avoiding taxes. No one here is in favor of 
that.
  The question is, how do you deal with the issue? You will recall 
earlier in the year, when my colleagues tried to rush to judgment on 
that issue and we said: Wait a minute. Let us ask the responsible 
people. Let us take it to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation 
and see if they can analyze ways in which we can go after these people, 
not to avoid going after these people but to really go after them.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation said: The approach by the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] on H.R. 1535 was fatally flawed. There is a 
loophole in the bill. When you come of age, if you have got the right 
tax lawyers, and these people have the money, when you have an election 
period there is a window of opportunity in which you can decide to cut 
out and lose judgment.
  There is no perfect mechanism. If there was a perfect mechanism, we 
would not have this issue on the floor. The reason I said the gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Ward] had an amendment that was full of chutzpah is 
very simple. He is trying to take a bill which was introduced, no 
recorded vote ever anywhere in any subcommittee or committee, and 
substitute that measure for the will of the Committee on Ways and Means 
on a recorded vote that passed H.R. 1812.
  The chairman of the committee wants to take the work product of the 
committee, passed by a recorded vote, a majority of the committee, and 
substitute it for the flawed work product that the Democrats would not 
even bring to a vote in the committee.
  It just seems to me that, when you take a look at the work product of 
the Joint Committee on Taxation, that produces more money, that closes 
more doors, that got a majority of votes, that that is the route to 
take. It makes no sense whatsoever to try to keep alive a flawed bill 
which did not even deserve a recorded vote by virtue of the Democrats 
in the committee. Frankly, I think we should take to heart the advice 
of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons]. Pass the Archer amendment 
and then in the words of Mr. Gibbons, the Ward amendment is not worth 
anything and we ought to vote it down.
  I say to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] that he is right. 
Pass the Archer amendment and then vote the Ward amendment down.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Hayes].
  Mr. ARCHER. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Hayes].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, my dad was born in the little town of 
Coushatta, LA, which never dreamed of having a millionaire, much less a 
billionaire. He was born there in 1909. So the time that he was a young 
man, and whose ambition was to go to college, that was short-circuited 
by a national Depression. And instead of being a kid with an education, 
he became a kid who carried the burden of educating his family. So the 
only dream he had left without the opportunity to go to college was to 
work hard and do well. And nobody could stop him from that.
  So by working hard and doing well, by the time in the 1960s, when 
Jack Kennedy was President, he was a 91 percent taxpayer. And never on 
any occasion at our dinner table did anyone ever suggest that you walk 
out on the country that gave him the opportunity to do that. Never on 
the day when only 9 cents of a tax dollar was left in his pocket did he 
remotely suggest that you leave the shores of this country for money.
  Now, the reason that I would give this admonition to those of my 
friends on this side of the aisle, as I stand here as someone who voted 
for 9\1/2\ of the 10 items in the Contract With America, but notice the 
term Contract With America. That is bilateral; you have got to give as 
well as get. And if all you are doing is worrying about how you avoid 
ever giving a dime, then you ought to get what you deserve, and that is 
the scorn of every other hard-working American who wants part of that 
dream.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I find myself more in agreement with the 
gentleman in the well than in disagreement.
  I would like to point out to the gentleman and ask him a simple 
question: If you had a bill that was trying to attack the same problem, 
one of them was scored as netting $800 million and the other was being 
scored as netting over $2 billion, which one do you think would have 
the most holes in it or the most loopholes? I am sure the gentleman 
would answer me, certainly the one for $800 million has a whole lot 
more loopholes than the one for over 2 billion.
  Do the gentleman agree with that?
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I do in part agree, but the problem is, my 
degree is in tax from Tulane University. I practiced law for really 
rich people who figured out how not to pay their taxes. I did a damn 
good job of it, but let me tell the gentleman something: I came to 
Congress for bigger and higher reasons. It is time to tell those folks, 
we want you to make more money, but we would kind of like you to stay 
around here and spend a little of it.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would say to the gentleman then that I am sure with that type of good 
common sense and legal background as he has that he will support the 
Archer substitute.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], distinguished ranking member of 
the committee.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I know we are in a very technical 
discussion, and I feel sorry for all the Members of Congress who have 
to listen to this. And this is an honest difference of opinion. The 
vote that has been referred to that was taken in the Committee on Ways 
and Means was a party line vote. Not a single Democrat voted for the 
Archer bill. We did not put up a substitute because we just get 
outvoted and slaughtered by the Republicans in the Committee on Ways 
and Means. There is no chance. We have never carried an amendment in 
the Committee on Ways and Means since this Congress that amounted to a 
tinker's whatever.
  And we have very professional staff. They tell us that the Archer 
amendment cannot work. All you have to do, if you have as much money as 
these people do, you do not have to make any tax moves. You have got 
plenty of income. And you wait for the 10 years to run out and then you 
cash in your chips.
  Plus we have to chase these people all over the world to find them 
and keep up with them. The only way you are ever going to collect any 
money out of them is, you have to get them before they leave. You have 
got to get 

[[Page H 7236]]
them before they leave or there is no way to collect any money out of 
them.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GIBBONS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, for 40 years the Democrats 
controlled the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I have heard that 
before, and I do not yield any further. I have heard that garbage for a 
long time.
  On a party line vote, the Archer bill was adopted. If they stick it 
on, the Ward amendment, kiss the Ward amendment goodbye. It is not 
worth a hoot with the Archer bill on there. The Archer bill, when it 
comes to the floor, will not collect any money.
  This is just a ploy. That is all it is. It is a big charade that they 
just put on over there. Their bill will not collect any money. If they 
stop and think about it, they will know that. But the bill that we had, 
we did not even bring it up. We have been rejected on party line votes 
time and time again on the Committee on Ways and Means. So If you adopt 
Archer, forget about the main amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward] has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward] is entitled 
to close the debate.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of amity in my feeling toward the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], the ranking Democrat on the 
committee. But his argument is simply that we should not go by the 
official estimators. The official estimators control this body.
  At times I do not agree with them. He is saying, they do not know 
what they are doing; pay no attention to them.
  All of what we must comply with to determine what we do toward the 
deficit is determined by these estimates. He does not want to believe 
them. That is certainly his prerogative. But the reality is, the 
official estimators say that the Archer amendment will produce $2.4 
billion and that the Gibbons proposal, which is part of the Ward 
amendment, will produce $800 million. They are the people that 
determine whether we have complied with the budget requirement or not. 
And they have examined this very carefully. They know that tax 
consultants will advise people who are recently the beneficiary of 
legacies of large amounts, now is the time to leave. Get out of here 
because you pay nothing under the Gibbons proposal.
  I do not believe that is what the people of this country want. I 
think they want something that will have teeth in it, that those who 
impartially score and estimate say will produce the greatest degree of 
success in this issue.
  He is correct, we all want to try to get at this issue. The gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] is correct; the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Ward] is correct. But I would submit to my colleagues that my amendment 
will do a better job.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, for the 
purposes of closing debate.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Members of this body who are 
watching in their offices and who are watching here in the Chamber, 
because you have truly had an opportunity to see a unique debate, a 
debate where the Republicans are arguing with the Democrats about their 
proposal raising more tax revenue than the Democrats. I guess we have 
seen everything. I guess we have seen it all. Because really what that 
revenue estimate issue is about is whether you take the estimates of 
the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Committee on Ways and Means, 
whether you take the estimates of the Department of Treasury, you will 
find a different estimate from everybody you ask for an estimate.
  What we are doing in this proposal is firmly and once and for all not 
creating new taxes, not increasing taxes, no. All we are doing is 
closing a very clear, specific, widely known tax loophole. That 
loophole is the expatriate billionaire tax loophole.
  What it says is that if you care so much about money that you are 
willing to turn your back and renounce your American citizenship, you 
get a tax break. To me the answer is simple. The result should be 
clear. And I ask my colleagues for a no vote on the Archer amendment to 
the Ward amendment and then a yes vote on the Ward amendment.
  Stand up. Be counted. Say that each of us should pay our fair share.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair may 
reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, 
on the underlying Ward amendment.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231, 
noes 193, not voting 10, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 533]

                               AYES--231

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--193

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr

[[Page H 7237]]

     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bryant (TX)
     Collins (MI)
     Crane
     de la Garza
     Jefferson
     Moakley
     Neal
     Reynolds
     Spence
     Studds

                              {time}  2005

  Mr. DIXON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. COMBEST changes his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the subcommittee chairman.
  I appreciate my colleagues' courtesy and I thank the Chair. I would 
ask that we address a concern involving the maintaining of 
competitivization in the U.S. Postal Service and would ask for a 
colloquy.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I would be pleased to engage the distinguished 
gentleman in a colloquy.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the distinguished 
subcommittee chairman has requested the General Accounting Office to 
compare the cost to the U.S. Postal Service of contracting for remote 
bar code service versus having the work done in-house.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. The distinguished gentleman from California is 
correct. I understand GAO will release its report in about 1 month.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I thank the chairman. I further understand that while 
the GAO is in the process of finalizing this report, the results will 
show that the Postal Service is potentially foregoing millions of 
dollars of savings by performing remote bar code service in-house 
rather than continuing to contract with the private sector.
  As the chairman well knows, the Postmaster General has been making 
the rounds on Capitol Hill over the past several months urging Congress 
for support for the changes in the Postal Reorganization Act that will 
make the Postal Service more businesslike. Yet, when it comes to the 
remote bar code system, the reason why I raise this issue is the 
estimated savings of contracting the bar code system was $4.3 billion 
over the next 15 years. The Postal Service continues to terminate the 
private sector role in this program and adds tens of thousands of civil 
service employees at the time of dismembering the system.
  Mr. Chairman, I obviously share your concern with the wasteful 
spending of the Postal Service, particularly when the bureaucratic 
civil service jobs are created at the direct expense of private sector 
companies. It is therefore my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that based 
on the GAO's cost comparison, you intend to proceed with an appropriate 
communication to the Postmaster General urging him to consider the 
possibility of suspending the transition of private sector remote code 
service contracts.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. I applaud the chairman's efforts to support greater levels 
of contracting out at the U.S. Postal Service. The chairman should be 
proud that his leadership on this issue is in direct harmony with the 
mandate of the 104th Congress: to shrink the Federal Government.
  I find it ironic that while on the one hand the Postal Service is 
asking for Congress' help to make the Service more businesslike, on the 
other hand is eliminating the private sector's role in an information 
technology program that was developed specifically for private sector 
operation.
  I urge the chairman to continue to pursue this line of inquiry with 
the Postal Service, and preserve the private sector's role in the RBCS 
program.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. If the gentleman will yield further, I would like to 
thank both the distinguished majority whip and distinguished gentleman 
from California for their thoughts on this important issue. I agree 
that it makes absolutely no sense for the Postal Service to spend 
hundreds of millions of dollars more to do work in-house that was 
designed to be contracted out.
  The Treasury-Postal Subcommittee will continue to monitor this issue 
closely and take all appropriate steps to ensure the continued 
involvement of the private sector in the bar coding program.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman for his 
encouraging words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  We are at the end of this bill.
                              {time}  2015

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we started this bill yesterday. In a relatively short 
period of time we considered the central portions of this appropriation 
bill. Today we have been on issues of importance, but frankly only in a 
few instances relating directly to the level of appropriations.
  I want to say to the chairman of the committee, as I said at the 
beginning, the chairman has been fair, he has been open, he has 
conducted himself in every way as a gentleman, and for my side of the 
aisle, not just for me as the ranking member or the minority members of 
the committee, but for our staff and for all Members on this side I 
want to tell the chairman we appreciate his handling of this bill.
  I further want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]. I 
think, while this has not necessarily been the most difficult bill, it 
has been a difficult one, and for our side of the aisle I want to tell 
him that I think he has been fair and presided with an equal hand. We 
appreciate that on our side of the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, I will, when we rise and come back, make a motion to 
recommit. I very much regret that I will not be able to support this 
bill. I am not going to debate at length my reasons for that. We have 
debated them here. I think we have inadequate resources to meet the 
responsibilities of law enforcement, and Customs, and some other areas, 
but it is not because of the chairman, in my opinion, who wanted to 
take that action. It is because we have squeezed the discretionary side 
of the budget very hard.
  My colleagues, I am for balancing the budget, but I am also investing 
in America. I am for having this country provide the opportunity for 
our children and for our grandchildren that is essential if they are to 
enjoy the kind of good life that we have.
  So, Mr. Chairman, regrettably I will be opposing final passage of 
this bill, but it is not because of any reason 

[[Page H 7238]]
other than the resources available to it were insufficient to allow 
Chairman Lightfoot and the committee, the subcommittee and full 
committee, to recommend to this House resources adequate to fund the 
priorities of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert at this point in 
the Record language concerning the Model State Drug Laws Conference:

                    Model State Drug Laws Conference

       Language in the ONDCP appropriation states that funds can 
     be used for participation in joint projects or in the 
     provision of services on matters of mutual interest with 
     nonprofit, research, or public organizations or agencies. 
     This language could include conferences held by Governors to 
     review Model State Drug laws proposed by the President's 
     Commission on Model State Drug laws.
   Mr. Chairman, I also want to add my thanks to Mr. Hoyer's to you for 
the great job you have done this afternoon and yesterday, and I thank 
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and members of our 
subcommittee, and Members on his side of the aisle who were able to 
get, I think, reasonable time agreements on many of these amendments 
that everyone wanted to speak to in order to allow everyone to have 
their say-so not 435 times, but maybe only 40 times, as is the nature 
of this group.
  I also would be very remiss if we did not pay tribute to the hard-
working staff who has really made all this happen. As most of us know, 
we end up getting the credit, but the staff does all the work. Michelle 
Mrdeza, who is one of the few female clerks, on her maiden voyage has 
done an outstanding job along with Betsy Phillips, Dan Cantu, Jeanne 
Kochniarczyk, who is with us. Jenny Mummert, who is gone right now, is 
a brand-new mother, who brought her offspring by the office the other 
day, and Bill Deere on my personal staff, Terry Peel on the majority 
staff, and Seth Statler on Mr. Hoyer's personal staff. They have been 
good people to work with. We have enjoyed the process, if one can enjoy 
that when they are doing something like that.
  In closing I would only like to say to our colleagues that I am sorry 
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] cannot support the bill, but we 
are $430 million in outlays under last year. This is a downpayment on 
balancing the budget. There is pain in the bill which probably is 
necessary in these times. We have difficult numbers to work with, and I 
think we have done probably the best job we can do.
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for $4.7 
million for the Federal courthouse project located in Fresno, CA. 
Because the Committee chose not to fund any new starts, this project 
did not receive any funding. However, I believe that the unique 
circumstances surrounding the Fresno Courthouse project merit further 
consideration by the Appropriations Committee. I am currently working 
with our Senators from California to ensure that funding is included in 
the Senate's Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, today there is a crisis in Fresno. The Fresno 
courthouse has fewer courtrooms than judges, and the court has 
projected that five more judges will be appointed within the next eight 
years. The Fresno Division of the Eastern District, which represents 
2.3 million persons, has the largest population per judgeship of any 
U.S. District, and the Bureau of Census ranks Fresno as first among the 
fastest growing cities in America. The court system cannot handle its 
current case load with its available resources, and the only solution 
is to build additional courtroom facilities.
  When the GSA began investigating the overcrowding problem several 
years ago, they sought to identify all available options. GSA came to 
the conclusion that it would be in the taxpayers best interest to build 
a new facility rather than renovate the current building or build an 
addition to the current building. The City of Fresno has taken a 
responsible approach to helping the crisis at the Fresno District 
Court. They have agreed to donate 4.5 acres in the downtown region, not 
far from the current courthouse's location. The agreement between 
Fresno and the GSA will save the taxpayers $4.7 million since 
purchasing the land will not be necessary.
  I would like to stress that this appropriation would be for the 
design phase only and not for land acquisition as was requested in the 
President's budget. In addition to donating the land, Fresno will also 
complete all site preparation, and will build 392 new public parking 
spaces around the project. The environmental impact study has been 
completed and the last public hearings have been held (without negative 
reaction). Because Fresno is willing, at this time, to donate the land 
for the courthouse project, we need to act quickly to codify this 
agreement. By appropriating funds for this project now, we can save 
taxpayers the cost of purchasing land in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, this is an unique situation. We 
have a demonstrated need for a new courthouse and we have the local 
government willing to assist this project thereby reducing the 
taxpayers burden to complete the Fresno Courthouse Project. This is the 
type of cooperative agreement the Federal Government ought to embrace, 
not discourage. By not appropriating funds for this project, we may not 
have the opportunity to enter into similar agreements in the future.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, under the rule the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose, and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Goodlatte) 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 purpose, had directed him to report the bill back to the 
House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment adopted by the Committee 
of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the 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.


                motion to recommit offered by mr. hoyer

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. HOYER. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Hoyer moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 2020, to the 
     Committee on Appropriations.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The motion to recommit was rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 211, not voting 7, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 534]

                               YEAS--216

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Costello
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Gutknecht
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth

[[Page H 7239]]

     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--211

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bryant (TX)
     Collins (MI)
     Crane
     Jefferson
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Studds

                              {time}  2042

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 535 on H.R. 1976 I 
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.'' 
I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record 
immediately following rollcall vote No. 535.

                          ____________________