[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 181 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H12371-H12380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2020, TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL 
                  GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 267, I call 
up the conference report on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). Pursuant to rule XXVIII, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 25, 1995, at page H10813.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to bring to the House today the 
conference report on H.R. 2020, fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill 
for the Department of Treasury, the Postal Service, the Executive 
Office of the President, the General Services Administration and other 
independent agencies.
  For discretionary programs under our control, the conference report 
is below the subcommittee's section 602(b) allocation by $67 million in 
outlays, below last year's spending by $646 million, below the 
President's request by $1.2 billion, and below the level passed by the 
House on July 19 by $243 million. With only 5 exceptions, every account 
in this appropriations bill is below last year's level. I think that 
this is another step toward a balanced budget.
  Mr. Speaker, over the past several weeks, as we have waited for the 
conferees to come to a resolution on the Istook-Simpson amendment, I 
have sensed an attitude of indifference on the part of many of my 
colleagues about the need to send this bill to the President quickly 
and in a form that he can readily sign.
  Granted, this bill does not have a strong constituency. Mr. Speaker, 
I tell you this about the Treasury appropriations bill. It is not a 
throwaway piece of legislation.
  This bill funds the nuts and bolts of Government for the General 
Services Administration, maintaining our Federal buildings and 
courthouses. It protects the integrity of our Nation's currency through 
the anticounterfeiting efforts of the Secret Service. It preserves our 
Nation's history through the National Archives. It provides for the 
protection of our President and other dignitaries. It funds programs 
that ensure our trade laws are properly enforced, that drugs are 
interdicted along our borders, and that our tax laws are implemented.
  Let there be no mistake about it. The programs funded here do touch 
the lives of each and every American.
  Yesterday the Government shut down, including the programs funded in 
this appropriations measure. Without 

[[Page H12372]]
swift action to put the 190,000 Federal employees supported by this 
bill back to work, we will soon experience long delays at ports of 
entry, no one will be around to answer questions on the phones at IRS, 
there will be limited resources to process monthly Treasury checks, and 
we could easily have delays in getting out Social Security, disability 
and pension benefits for veterans, and checks for Federal retirees. We 
place the President and Presidential candidates in danger and we make 
it even easier for traffickers to get drugs into this country. We 
basically help organized crime launder money. I do not think any of us 
want to do any of these.
  There are other consequences in not passing this bill, including a 
risk of losing a number of significant initiatives that we have fought 
long and hard for: A reversal of the administration's policy on funding 
abortions through the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program; a 
restriction on new courthouse construction starts; a pay freeze for 
Members of Congress, for judges and heads of agencies; and a 
restriction on the President's ability to bail out foreign currencies.
  We terminate two agencies and seven agency functions, saving $135 
million over the next 5 years. Most importantly of all, we have 
deficit reduction of the 646 million in real U.S. taxpayers' dollars.

  Mr. Speaker, this bill was not an easy one to put together. The 
Senate 602(b) allocation was below the one we had in the House and 
there was a great deal of work that had to be done to bring these two 
measures together.
  I would like to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer], for working with us on this package. As was stated during 
the debate on the rule, there are things in it that neither one of us 
like, but that is the way Government works. We have had the opportunity 
to get together to exchange ideas in an honest, forthright manner and 
have tried to pick out what we hope is the best of all those ideas. I 
would like to send my appreciations to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer] and to all of our staff who have worked very hard on this.
  When this whole debate started and we were ready to go to the floor, 
I was 56 years old. I have aged a year since then, because that was 
September 20, and on the 27th, I ticked off another year on the 
calendar. So this has been a year in my life that we are waiting to get 
this bill on the floor, although it is 63 days if you actually look at 
the calendar. It is long overdue that we move this bill along. I think 
there is a right time and a right place for everything. For the 1996 
Treasury appropriations bill, the time certainly is now, today, here on 
this floor.
  I urge my colleagues to move this bill forward and vote ``aye'' on 
the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I add the following data for the Record):

[[Page H12373]]
  TH15NO95.000
  


[[Page H12374]]
  TH15NO95.001
  


[[Page H12375]]
  TH15NO95.002
  

  
[[Page H12376]]

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House 
today the conference report on H.R. 2020, the fiscal year 1996 
appropriations bill for the Department of Treasury, the Postal Service, 
the Executive Office of the President, the General Services 
Administration and other independent agencies.
  For discretionary programs under our control, the conference report 
is below the subcommittee's section 602(b) allocation by $67 million in 
outlays, below last years spending by $646 million, below the 
President's request by $1.2 billion and below the level passed by the 
House on July 19 by $243 million. With only five exceptions, every 
account in this appropriations bill is below last years level. This is 
another step that we have to take toward a balanced budget.
  Mr. Speaker, over the past several weeks, as we have waited for the 
conferees to come to a resolution on the Istook-Simpson amendment, I 
have sensed an attitude of indifference on the part of many of my 
colleagues about the need to send this bill to the President quickly 
and in a form that he can sign.
  Granted, this bill doesn't have a strong constituency. But, Mr. 
Speaker, I will tell you this about the Treasury appropriations bill. 
It isn't a throw away piece of legislation.
  This bill funds the nuts and bolts of government through the General 
Services Administration, maintaining our Federal buildings and 
courthouses. It protects the integrity of our Nation's currency through 
the anti-counterfeiting efforts of the Secret Service. It preserves our 
Nation's history through the National Archives. It provides for the 
protection of our President and other dignitaries. It funds programs 
that ensure our trade laws are properly enforced, that drugs are 
interdicted along our borders, and that our tax laws are implemented.
  Let there be no mistake about it. The programs funded here touch the 
lives of all Americans.
  Yesterday, the Government shut down, including the programs funded in 
this appropriations measure. Without swift action to put the 190,000 
Federal employees supported by this bill back to work, we will soon 
experience long delays at ports of entry; no one will be around to 
answer the phones at IRS, and there will be limited resources to 
process monthly Treasury checks. We could easily have delays in getting 
out Social Security, disability and pension benefits for veterans, and 
checks for Federal retirees. We place the President and Presidential 
candidates in danger. We make it even easier for traffickers to get 
drugs into this country. We help organized crime launder money.
  There are other consequences of not passing this bill, including a 
risk of losing a number of significant initiatives that we have fought 
long and hard for:
  A reversal of the Administrations policy on funding abortions through 
the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program; a restriction on new 
Courthouse construction starts; a pay freeze for members, Judges, and 
heads of agencies; a restriction on the President's ability to bail out 
foreign currencies; and deficit reduction of $646 million.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to move this bill along. There is a right time 
and place for everything. For the 1996 Treasury appropriations bill, 
the time is now. I urge my colleagues to move this bill forward and 
vote aye on the conference report.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                    general services administration

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to expand on language 
included in the House report to accompany the fiscal year 1996 Treasury 
appropriations bill. The report language requiring GSA to develop a 
plan to implement a commercial broker function should be expanded to 
include commercial leasing, property management, and asset management.


                     tribute to jeanne kochniarczk

  Before we finish, I would like to extend my personal thanks to Jeanne 
Kochniarczk, who joined my committee staff earlier this year while they 
were short-handed. Jeanne played a key behind the scenes role in 
keeping the office together. She remained consistently professional, 
even when nobody would have blamed her for letting the long hours, fast 
pace and often short tempers get the better of her. I and all of my 
staff wish Jeanne good luck and godspeed as she returns to the Treasury 
Department.


       statute of limitations under the fair labor standards act

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments regarding one of the 
most difficult issues addressed by the conferees this year--
modifications to the statute of limitations under the Fair Labor 
Standards Act.
  Let me begin with history. The Fair Labor Standards Act allows all 
employees the right to sue their employers for up to 2 years back pay 
for violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  The General Accounting Office in 1978 made a mistake and established 
regulations stating that Federal employees can get up to 6 years back 
pay for overtime claims under this act--three times more than people 
working for Chrysler or GM. This GAO ruling incorrect--the law states 
that everyone would only be entitled to 2 years--the error remained 
undetected for a long time because there were no suits under this 
statute for 16 years. Once suits were filed, GAO found and corrected 
its mistake.
  The 103d Congress reversed GAO, and passed a law allowing Federal 
workers to get up to 6 years back pay. The problem is that this act 
will cost as much as $460 million--nearly the entire Secret Service 
budget.
  The conferees were faced with a choice--either pay hundreds of 
millions for work done many years ago and fire four or five thousand 
employees or give the Federal workers the same rights as their private 
sector counterparts.
  This is not a partisan issue. At the administration's request, we 
included language providing for the same treatment for public and 
private workers. We agreed, not just because it costs a lot of money, 
but because it is fair.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me make a comment generally. There has 
been a lot of talk on this floor during the course of the consideration 
of the continuing resolution about keeping this Government going and 
balancing the budget.
  I have observed that I am for doing that, and have voted for a 
constitutional amendment to require that and budgets which carried out 
that policy.
  The fact of the matter is, though, that those of us on the Committee 
on Appropriations ought to honestly let all our colleagues know and 
ought to reiterate that, in general, the consideration of the 
appropriation bills is not about balancing the budget.
  The reason for that is America has gone from, in 1953, spending 18 
percent of its gross domestic product on discretionary spending--that 
is what we do in the Committee on Appropriations, we make decisions on 
where to spend money, in defense, and on the domestic side--to today 
when in America we spend less than 8 percent of our gross domestic 
product on discretionary spending. That is a significant reduction. We 
now spend less than half of what we used to spend on discretionary 
spending.
  Therefore, when we bring appropriation bills to the floor, it is not 
necessarily about balancing the budget but making a determination as to 
where we apply that discretionary spending to most appropriately serve 
the American public.
  The chairman of this committee is one of our most responsible 
Members. He is a person with whom I enjoy working. He and I do not 
always agree, but Americans would be pleased with the fact that he and 
I always respect one another's point of view and try to work so that we 
get a consensus.
  I am going to talk about this bill because there are aspects of it 
that I oppose, and very frankly, if the question on the passage of this 
bill was simply do you like it or do you not like it, I probably would 
vote ``no.'' But that is not the question. We are at a time when we 
need to make a decision.
  In a body that represents 435 different districts in America, there 
is no surprise that there are differences of opinion within the 
Republican Party and within the Democratic Party, as well as between 
the Democratic and Republican Parties, on the priorities. 
Notwithstanding that, however, there comes a time when you have to make 
decisions and you have to move forward, realizing that in a democracy 
compromise is absolutely essential if we are to move forward.
  I think the American public expects us to do that. As the chairman 
has noted, this bill covers 193,000 Federal employees. The failure to 
pass this bill in a timely fashion, that is, by September 30, 1995, 
resulted yesterday in approximately 95,000 to 100,000 of those people 
being sent home.
  We are going to pay them. The President has said that, the Speaker 
has said that, the majority leader has said that. The Democratic 
leaders in the Senate and the House have also said that. We are going 
to pay them. However, they are not working today on behalf of the 
American public. That is a result of our failure. Collectively and 
individually.
  This bill moves us a step forward in doing our business, in passing 
appropriation bills to fund those services 

[[Page H12377]]
which this Congress has made a determination as the elected 
representatives of the American public are necessary and proper to 
serve the people of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report being brought to us today is a 
mixed blessing. On one hand, if we act quickly and send this bill to 
the President almost 200,000 Government workers will be assured of 
continuation of their jobs--because signing of the bill will take the 
agency out of the continuing resolution fight.
  On the other hand, this bill does not meet the need to responsibly 
operate the U.S. Government.
  The bill before us provides $11.3 billion in discretionary funding 
for the Treasury Department, Postal operations, and other agencies. 
This funding is $187 million below the amount appropriated last year--
about a 1-percent cut. The bill is $2 billion below the 
administration's request.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference on this bill was essentially completed on 
September 13--63 days ago.
  I think it is unfortunate that one issue has held up this bill for 2 
months and has resulted in almost 100,000 employees being laid off 
during this Government shutdown.
  The Istook-Ehrlich amendment restricting free speech for nonprofits 
has delayed this bill for 63 days despite the fact that it is 
legislative and does not belong on this bill.
  This conference report includes no language on this subject but I 
want to point out that current law already prohibits the use of Federal 
funds for lobbying.
  The conference was able to restore funds for a number of important 
programs, including the Council of Economic Advisers. The funding 
provided for tax systems modernization is adequate to meet the 
administration's objectives.
  However, I remain quite concerned about cuts in the Internal Revenue 
Service which receives only $6.4 billion, far less than the $8.1 
billion requested by the administration. I am especially concerned 
about the impact on tax compliance initiative that is actually a 
revenue raiser.
  Funding for the GSA and OPM is also inadequate in this conference 
report and I am very disappointed that we could not, in a bipartisan 
fashion, approve the President's full request for the Executive Office 
of the President.
  I am also concerned that the bill contains language restricting the 
ability of Government employees to decide on the type of health 
insurance coverage they wish to purchase.
  Finally, I want to express my concern that the bill is silent on the 
issue of Federal pay and, actually repeals a provision we added last 
year to guarantee fair compensation to criminal investigators and 
others covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  If it were not for the necessity of providing for a full year 
appropriations for agencies included in this bill, I would not be 
supporting this bill.
  However, I commend Chairman Lightfoot for doing the best he could 
with a very limited allocation and I urge adoption of the conference 
report.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to the comments of the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] on the issue with the IRS. When the bill left 
the House, as far as tax compliance is concerned, we had reached an 
agreement to spread that out over a few more years. If was taken out 
when it got into the other body.
  The whole tax compliance issue, in my opinion, ties in with the whole 
issue with tax systems modernization, which has been somewhat of an 
ongoing battle with the IRS, being kept under a very critical eye by 
the General Accounting Office. Quite frankly, there has been some very 
strong criticism of the manner in which the IRS has been moving forward 
with TSM. It is one of those things, which came first, the chicken or 
the egg. It is difficult to enforce compliance if you do not know who 
you are going to enforce it upon. That is one of the basic problems 
with the IRS using technology that was modern in the 1960's or maybe 
the early 1970's.
  One of the efforts we tried earlier, which because of objections from 
the Committee on Ways and Means we could not undertake, was the collect 
between $300 to $400 billion in uncollected taxes and put that money 
toward the TSM. That did not work because Ways and Means obviously 
wants to see any tax revenue go into the General Fund without any 
earmarking. But I think this is an ongoing situation that we will 
continue to have until or if the underlying tax law that IRS is 
required to enforce is changed, but we are not here to debate that.
  We hear people talk about a flat tax. What they really want is a 
simpler tax. Be that as it may, we have the responsibility of making 
sure that the IRS has the capabilities to take care of what they are 
charged to do.
  Obviously, compliance is extremely important to all of us. We have 
heard a lot of figures from IRS. If they get an appropriated dollar, 
they get so many dollars back in revenue. Obviously, those are very 
difficult figures to prove. But as we move down this road, I would hope 
that we will see a closer tie between compliance and modernization.
  One of the things that we have extracted is an agreement with the IRS 
to fence off a portion of their TSM money this year until they come 
forward with a plan for modernization that the General Accounting 
Office says is doable and fits 640's idea of how it should be done 
correctly.
  I think we are making some good progress in that direction. Again, 
that is one issue the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and I happen 
to share the same opinion on, as far as the compliance issue is 
concerned. But as we mentioned earlier, legislation is about 
compromise, and the other body decided they did not want that, and they 
prevailed on that particular issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I was not going to go into this in detail, 
but I think it is appropriate, because I have a great deal of concern 
about this issue of the appropriate funding level of the Internal 
Revenue Service, which is, by the way, the largest single item in this 
particular budget.
  I have concern, which is expressed in a document that I received from 
the Internal Revenue Service when I asked them what will be the result 
of the underfunding that is included in this bill. And their response 
was as follows: First of all, they may have to furlough all employees 
for between 3 and 8 days at some time during the fiscal year. This 
would affect over 100,000 employees and is equal to reducing IRS by 
2,000 FTE's, full-time-equivalent employees. Said differently, this 
translates into a loss of over half a million workdays.
  Now, there are some people who would say is that not great, we will 
get those people off on the sidelines. But, again, to the extent that 
the IRS does not have the ability to do its job correctly, those who 
honestly respond and pay their taxes, have their taxes withdrawn on a 
weekly or monthly or biweekly basis, depending upon how they are paid, 
will pay the taxes that are due. However, to the extent that those who 
are missed or do not cooperate and honestly respond to their 
obligations, to the extent that they do not pay, the rest of us have to 
pay more, so that this not only affects collections, but it affects 
very much the fairness of the system.
  In terms of tax compliance, we had a bipartisan agreement, 
Republicans, Democrats, the President, the Congress, the Office of 
Management and Budget, the fiscal arm of the President, the 
Congressional Budget Office, the fiscal arm of the Congress, everyone 
agreed that if we put $405 million per year into tax compliance for 5 
years, a total of approximately $2 billion, it would result in 
additional collections of approximately $10 billion, a five-to-one 
payoff.
  However, because of the constraints that confront us on our 602(b) 
allocation, we do not have that money to spend. As a result, IRS says 
that revenues collected by the IRS endorsement function are projected 
to drop from $31.1 billion in fiscal year 1995, that is simply the 
extra money collected by appropriate enforcement resulting in 
appropriate tax compliance, drop from $31.1 billion this fiscal year to 
27.5 billion in the next fiscal year, because of 

[[Page H12378]]
the reduction in enforcement and compliance, an estimated decrease of 
$3.6 billion.
  Said another way, Mr. Speaker, we are cutting approximately $405 
million from compliance, and that is going to cost us $3.6 billion. 
Now, it does not take much of a mathematician to see that that may be a 
penny-wise and pound-foolish savings, a hackneyed phrase, but one I 
think is applicable at this time.
  In addition, they are going to examine less returns. The percent of 
all tax returns examined, a major source for identifying unreported 
taxes, would fall from 1.63 percent in fiscal year 1995, to 1.29 
percent. Now, because of that fall, less people will feel that they 
need to honestly meet their obligations, and, therefore, not doing so 
will result in a loss of revenue and a decrease in compliance.
  Last, unfortunately, as a result of the reductions in this bill, they 
are going to be able to answer fewer taxpayer phone calls. One of the 
things our committee has tried to do is provide for the additional 
response and timely response and accurate response to those we ask to 
fill out the tax forms and pay their taxes. Quite obviously, we owe it 
to them to make it as easy as possible. We know it is difficult. We 
know it is time-consuming. This effort has been to try to make it a 
little easier for our taxpayers.

  Up to 1 million fewer phone calls from taxpayers needing information 
will be answered because of the fact that we have reduced the resources 
here.
  Mr. Speaker, as you can tell, I am worried about the ability of the 
IRS to do that which we expect, unrelated to, as the chairman has so 
correctly stated, whatever system you have. And if you make it a very 
simple system, then you can perhaps lay off a lot of people. I 
understand that. But under the system that we now have or are going to 
have in the foreseeable year, the resources allocated are insufficient 
to do the job properly.
  I am hopeful that in the coming year, it will not result, as it did 
back in 1988, in a backlog in Philadelphia or other regional centers, 
where taxpayers become extremely distressed because they do not get 
their answers in a timely fashion, they do not get their refunds in a 
timely fashion. If that happens, I am sure we will hear about it.
  But in any event, Mr. Speaker, I note that the two gentlemen from 
California are here, and we are prepared to proceed with the colloquy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley].
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to enter into 
a colloquy with the gentleman from Iowa, Chairman Lightfoot, the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Dooley, and the gentleman from Maryland, 
Mr. Hoyer, if I may.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Courthouse in Fresno is currently at its full 
capacity and requires extensive modifications to meet seismic, fire, 
and security standards. Moreover, Fresno is the fastest growing city in 
America, has the largest population per judgeship of any U.S. judicial 
district, and faces an explosion in federally filed claims. We need a 
new courthouse and have been working to obtain approval for the past 
few years. I understand that there is no funding provided for the 
courthouse in this year's Treasury, Postal appropriations bill, and I 
realize the dramatic spending reductions we all must make to work 
toward a balanced budget.
  I do want to let my colleague, Mr. Lightfoot, know, however, of 
actions taken in Fresno in response to directions from his subcommittee 
last year. The fiscal year 1995 Treasury, Postal appropriations 
conference report contained language that acknowledged the beginning of 
the site selection process for a Federal courthouse in Fresno, and 
directed GSA to locate the site in the downtown area of Fresno.

                              {time}  1400

  I am pleased to report that not only did we locate a site in the 
downtown area, but that the city of Fresno is committing to donate the 
site. In addition, the city has offered to complete all site 
preparation and build public parking for the courthouse.
  I would also ask that the chairman also consider that the GSA has 
completed a facility study showing the need for the courthouse, 
accepted an environmental impact study, and has selected an architect 
for the site. This agreement will save the taxpayers about $5 million.
  I urge the subcommittee to make this project a top priority next year 
in light of our compliance with the chairman's directive and also their 
effort to reduce Federal spending.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Radanovich] that I am pleased to learn of the progress 
that he has made with the courthouse project in Fresno. I want to 
commend the GSA, the district court, and the city of Fresno for their 
compliance with the intent of Congress, and obviously encourage them to 
continue in that direction.
  This subcommittee, I will assure the gentleman, will carefully review 
this project on our next round of court construction proposals. And as 
a personal note, this is the type of cooperation, I think, that we need 
to see all over the country as we work together with Federal and State 
and city governmental authorities to put worthwhile projects in place 
at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer.
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to let the chairman know that I 
would also like to endorse the Fresno courthouse project, and mention 
that it was the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] who offered the 
language included in last year's appropriations bill.
  I want to thank him for that effort, as it has resulted in an 
excellent site for the courthouse that will enhance our efforts to 
revitalize downtown Fresno.
  As my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich] 
stated, it will also realize substantial savings to our taxpayers.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. I 
appreciate the kind comments. And I also want to express my 
congratulations for the agreement that GSA and the court were able to 
work out with the city of Fresno. The gentleman can be assured I will 
also do my part to see that this project receives very serious 
consideration in subcommittee deliberations next year.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say that there is one additional issue that I would like to reference.
  The chairman brought it up in his bill. It has been a contentious 
issue for years. I have a strong feeling about it and would be remiss 
if I did not mention it.
  The Federal employee health benefit plan is one of the best employee 
plans in the Nation. In fact, it is a model for many. It is a plan 
which provides for health care coverage for our employees, retirees, 
and their dependents. It is a plan that they contribute to and the 
Federal Government, as the employer, also contributes to.
  It has been my contention over the years that this is a part of the 
employee's compensation package and that when the Federal Government 
pays 72 percent of the average premium, it does so as a part of the 
compensation package of the Federal employee. To that extent, I believe 
it is like salary; and, therefore, is the property of the employee. 
Others, however, take the position, no, that money is the money of the 
Federal Government; and, therefore, they object to that money being 
spent on any health benefit plan that might include abortion services 
within its framework.
  Now, currently, Mr. Speaker, there are about half of the policies 
that cover such services, and they can be obtained, as any other policy 
can be, at the option of the employee. It is the employee's choice, not 
the employer's choice, as to what coverage the employee wants to 
secure.
  This bill limits this coverage, as was done, frankly, in the 1980s 
and the early 1990s, and precludes any of our Federal employees from 
purchasing a policy that has abortion services other than to save the 
life of the mother or for a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. 
Quite frankly, when the bill left 

[[Page H12379]]
the House, it was only for the life of the mother. The Senate added 
rape and incest, which I think was an appropriate addition, and I am 
pleased that the conference agreed to that.
  Nevertheless, I want to make it clear that, although I will support 
this bill, I oppose this provision because I think it places, 
inappropriately, a restriction on the use of the employee's money in 
the guise that it is restricting the application of the Federal 
Government's money.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I 
appreciate the support of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] on 
the bill.
  The abortion provision is one that the gentleman from Maryland and I 
have had a bit of disagreement on. I nevertheless supported the bill 
last year, and he is supporting the bill this year, and I think it is 
symptomatic of the spirit of cooperation and the willingness to work 
together to try to move very important pieces of legislation.
  As we have both stated, this bill has to move. We need to get Federal 
employees back behind their desks and at their guard posts along the 
borders. Particularly with the world we face today, we certainly cannot 
let down in the law enforcement officers from Customs and Secret 
Service and other agencies funded through this bill.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would thank all the staff that have done 
an excellent job. Seth and Terry, on the minority side; Betsy, Dan, 
Michelle, Bill, Jenny back in the office, and Jeanne, who worked with 
us through a good bit of this while Jenny was giving birth to a new 
member of her family. The staff does an outstanding job and without 
their efforts we just would not get it done.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman raised a point about the border 
guards, and I think most of them are probably essential employees. It 
occurs to me, however, that both of us have discussed this and we have 
had what, I think, is somewhat an unfortunate incident; not only having 
employees being told to go home, but the implication that they are not 
essential.
  I think the American public should know that essential is a technical 
term which simply means that the employees who are necessary for the 
defense of the Nation or public safety or immediate health are 
determined to be, under the law, employees that we can keep on board, 
even though funding authorization has not been approved.
  Frankly, I perceive all of our Federal employees as essential. That 
is to say they are important to carry out functions adopted by this 
Congress and carried out by the executive department. I think we ought 
to make that comment to all of them, so that some of them do not 
believe that the tasks they perform are not important. They are 
critically important even though they may not be in the category that 
if they are not on the job public safety and life and health may be 
jeopardized.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his 
leadership on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's interpretation of the word 
``essential'' and would concur with the assessment of such.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 374, 
nays 52, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 797]

                               YEAS--374

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--52

     Andrews
     Boehlert
     Chenoweth
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Dellums
     Duncan
     Engel
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Funderburk
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     LaHood
     Maloney
     Martinez
     McDermott
     McIntosh
     Meyers
     Miller (CA)
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Olver
     Owens
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stump
     Taylor (MS)
     Torkildsen
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Fields (LA)
     Foley
     Houghton
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1431

  Mr. HINCHEY, Mrs. CHENOWETH, and Messrs. RUSH, NADLER, HORN, 
FUNDERBURK, and OLVER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. SERRANO, DEUTSCH, CLAY, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. GEJDENSON, and Mr. 
HASTINGS of Florida changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.'' 

[[Page H12380]]

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). Pursuant to House Resolution 
267, a motion that the House insist on its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 132 is adopted.

                          ____________________