[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7615-H7637]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 475 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3756.

                              {time}  1709


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
3756) making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the U.S. 
Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain 
independent agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, 
and for other purposes, with Mr. Dreier in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] and the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present H.R. 3756, the fiscal year 1997 
Treasury Appropriations bill. As reported, this bill achieves deficit 
savings of $513 million from the 1996 enacted levels. Combined with 
savings from last year's bill, the Treasury-Postal Subcommittee has 
saved the American taxpayers $1.2 billion since January of 1995. I 
believe this is a record that we all can be very proud of.
  I am also pleased to report to my colleagues that although there were 
significant objections to this bill from the Committee on Ways and 
Means and from members of the Task Force on National Drug Policy, we 
have been able to work through these issues. While we cannot, at this 
stage, address all the objections raised by the Committee on Ways and 
Means, I am committed to working out the differences as we move toward 
conference with the Senate.
  With regard to the IRS for fiscal year 1997, the subcommittee 
proposes several bold initiatives. Let there be no mistake about it. 
This is a tough bill for the IRS. But for 8 years, the IRS has been 
struggling to get on track a $20 billion computer 
modernization program. They have spent approximately $4 billion to 
date, and while there are some modest successes, we do not have 4 
billion dollars' worth of goods that work. In my mind, the American 
taxpayer has been getting ripped off.

  For the past 60 years, the IRS has had its budget cut only once, and 
that was last year when I took over as chairman of this subcommittee. 
We nicked them by a big 2 percent and told them to get the TSM project 
on track. Unfortunately, IRS did not heed this advice. They proceeded 
as if it were business as usual. Not surprisingly, last month the 
subcommittee got yet another report on TSM that said, as currently 
structured, TSM is doomed to fail.
  So this year we've taken the bull by the horns. This bill takes IRS 
out of the business of building its own computer modernization system 
and puts that system in the hands of people who build these systems for 
a living, the private sector.
  I recognize this is a dramatic departure from where we are today, and 
I know that the bill cuts IRS funding by 11 percent and that, at a 
minimum, 2,000 IRS employees may lose their jobs. But in my mind there 
is simply no other way to get this program on track. IRS has proven to 
us time and time again that they simply cannot get this program up and 
running.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot of concerns about this bill that it 
is so dramatic, that it is going to affect the tax filing season next 
year, that we're shutting off funding for electronic filing, that we 
seriously impair the IRS' ability to perform its core responsibilities. 
Well, that is simply not true.
  In a few moments, I suspect my distinguished friend and colleague, 
the ranking member of the subcommittee, will stand up and read to you a 
letter written by the Committee on Ways and Means as well as letters 
from the administration that, in a nutshell, suggest IRS will come to a 
screeching halt under this bill. Some have also suggested this bill is 
outright irresponsible. Well, if I may use an old Iowa saying, 
horsefeathers.
  I too would like to share some facts with my colleagues.
  Last week the GAO issued a report on its audit of IRS' financial 
statements. I think my colleagues, as well as the American public, 
should pay particular attention to this. GAO could not provide an 
opinion on IRS' financial statements because the IRS could not back up 
major portions of these statements, and when they did, the information 
was wrong. That is amazing.

  The GAO could not verify that IRS' own internal record keeping is 
accurate. GAO also found that the total revenue collected and tax 
refunds paid could not be verified, that the amounts reported, various 
types of taxes collected, could not be verified, and that IRS' $3 
billion in nonpayroll operating expenses could not be verified.
  The bottom line, IRS' weakness in internal controls, means we cannot 
verify compliance with laws governing the use of budget authority. That 
is right. We cannot verify that IRS is using the dollars that we give 
them in accordance with the law.
  This is not something new. It has been going on for some time. But to 
me this is significant. GAO has been identifying these weaknesses for 
years. They made 59 recommendations aimed at solving these financial 
management problems. To date, the IRS has completed 17 of these 
recommendations. We gave IRS $7.3 billion last year and IRS cannot 
verify how they are spending the taxpayers' dollars.
  So, as I hear complaints about how the funding levels proposed for 
the IRS are too low and the taxpayers will not be able to file their 
taxes this year, I can only say this: I do not buy it for a minute and 
my colleagues and the American public should not either.

                              {time}  1715

  These are the facts. The IRS cannot justify their appropriations 
because they cannot reconcile their expenditures. That means that they 
cannot balance their own checkbook. Their records do not allow them to 
do it. IRS requires every single taxpayer to justify every dime on 
their tax return when they are audited, and yet the IRS cannot do it 
for themselves. I think taxpayers should be outraged at this incredible 
double standard and they should demand accountability from the IRS.
  The funding levels proposed for IRS are not irresponsible. What is 
irresponsible is giving them everything they ask for without the 
appropriate justifications and backup. We view that as our job. If we 
are going to give you the money, you tell us why you need it and how 
you are going to use it.
  So the message to the IRS is simply this. Come sit at the table with 
me as we prepare to go to conference with the Senate. Sit down and show 
me how and why and where you need this $7.3 billion next year. Show me 
what you plan to buy, what you plan to spend, and what you plan to 
change in this failing $8 billion computer modernization program. I 
am willing to negotiate and compromise, but not until the numbers are 
scrubbed and they are backed up with supportable facts.

  Just as the IRS demands that the American taxpayer justify every 
penny on their tax returns, I am demanding the IRS justify every penny 
of their appropriation. It is only fair. To do anything else would be 
totally irresponsible.
  I am optimistic IRS will heed the message. The days of automatic 
increases are over, but until the IRS can justify their budget, we 
should not give them a blank check. Instead, we fund the programs that 
work. We increase funding for the various law enforcement programs 
under our jurisdiction by $410 million from the 1996 levels. We are 
providing in this bill $24 million for the ATF to investigate church 
fires, provide $65 million for Customs to get tough along our borders 
and stop drugs from coming in and reaching our children. We provide 
$4.2 million for investigations of missing and exploited children, 
including funds to establish aggressive investigations of child 
pornography.

[[Page H7616]]

  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill for Americans. We achieve deficit 
savings of $513 million, we demand accountability from a failing $8 
billion computer program, and we start an aggressive campaign against 
drugs coming in along our borders. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, before turning to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer] for his comments, let me say a brief word in appreciation of the 
fine work that the staff has done. Jennifer Mummert, Dan Cantu, Betsy 
Phillips, Bill Deere and our subcommittee clerk, Michelle Mrdeza on the 
majority side, and Seith Statler and Pat Schlueter on the minority side 
have put in a lot of time and a lot of hard work to get us here today. 
It has been a tough bill to put together. I asked the subcommittee to 
take us in a new direction this year. They have done so and, in my 
opinion, in a thoroughly professional manner. I would also like to 
thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for working with us on 
the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 18 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, before launching into a statement on the Treasury-
Postal appropriations, I want to pay tribute to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], the chairman of the 
subcommittee. As all of us know, he is running for the Senate and will 
not be with us next year in the House. I would like to thank him and 
the staff for the diligent work that they have done on this bill.
  I also want to reiterate what I said in committee. I want to thank 
the chairman and the committee for the openness with which they have 
dealt with us on the legislation before us, particularly as it relates 
to preceding the initial subcommittee markup. I appreciate it and it 
was helpful.
  Mr. Chairman, the Treasury-Postal bill has been a hard bill to put 
together for fiscal year 1997, based in part on the deck we have been 
dealt by the budget resolution and the committee's 602(b) allocation, 
or more plainly, the money that we were given by the full Committee on 
Appropriations to carry out our responsibilities.
  For fiscal year 1997, the 602(b) allocation requires an overall 
reduction of $130 million in budget authority and a half a billion 
dollars in outlays from the 1996 appropriation level, a half a billion 
dollars below what was a very tight budget in 1996. We simply do not 
have enough money to fund all the requirements of this bill. Once 
again, there is another illustration of why we should have adopted the 
coalition budget.
  Overall, this bill provides $11.1 billion in discretionary funding, 
which is about $130 billion below the amount we appropriated last year 
and $1.7 billion below the amount requested by the administration.
  On the good side, Mr. Chairman, within the limit of resources 
available, this committee's commitment to law enforcement is evident. 
Funding for law enforcement agencies totals $3.5 billion, an increase 
of $408 million, or 14 percent, over the 1996 levels and $155 million 
above the administration's request.
  We have funded law enforcement initiatives, including $800,000 for 
the Treasury Recipient Integrity Program, the TRIP Program, the Secret 
Service Program to stop fraud in benefit payments so that the 
beneficiaries are protected and the taxpayer is protected; $12 million 
supplemental this year and $12 million in 1997 to help ATF stop arson 
at American churches and do research on arson; continued full funding 
for Hill Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, HIDTA's, and the addition of 
three new HIDTA's; $28 million for Custom's Operation Gateway to cut 
drug traffic through the Caribbean; $300,000 for FINCEN, the Financial 
Crimes Enforcement Network, a critically important agency to enhance 
interaction and effectiveness between law enforcement agencies to stop 
money laundering and the use of billions of dollars for criminal 
enterprise and the profits of criminal enterprise.
  Programs like these provide a secure environment for the vast 
majority of Americans who are law-abiding citizens. Ongoing initiatives 
like HIDTA and the Gang Resistance Education and Training Program, the 
GREAT Program, make our streets safer for those who would work at 
school and at home. Just as ATF and the Secret Service provide vital 
protection in communities across the country, the Customs Service 
secures our borders from those who would seek to bring harm to our 
citizens, especially from the ongoing threat of illegal drugs.
  In addition to law enforcement, this bill fully funds the Archives 
and OPM and includes very limited buyout authorities for Customs, ATF, 
and the IRS. I should note that this buyout authority must be 
significantly adjusted if it is to save the taxpayers money in avoiding 
RIF's, as GAO has indicated.
  On the negative side, these increases in law enforcement have been 
made at the expense of the Internal Revenue Service, a critically 
important agency when it comes to deficit reduction and funding every 
priority of this Government. This bill cuts over $800 million from the 
amounts IRS needs just to maintain current levels of taxpayer service 
and revenue collection. Overall funding cuts to IRS would result in a 
decrease of some 7,500 FTE's and, to the extent these reductions cannot 
be accomplished by October 1, even more FTE's would have to be cut.
  The reductions in this bill to the IRS are so unwise that the 
Committee on Ways and Means concluded in its June 26, 1996 letter to 
Chairman Livingston that this bill will not work for the IRS.
  Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the bill will impair the IRS' ability to 
perform its core responsibilities. Its cuts to information systems will 
endanger IRS' ability to collect taxes and process returns in 1997 as 
well as provide efficient customer services to the Nation's taxpayers.
  These budget cuts could create a very significant risk that 
substantial Federal revenues could be lost, thereby exacerbating our 
Federal budget deficit problems. That comes from the letter signed by 
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Archer, and the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut, Mrs. Johnson, not by a Democrat, not by Steny Hoyer, a 
ranking Member, but by the Republican oversight leaders of this House.
  Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the bill will impair the IRS's ability to 
perform its core responsibilities; cuts in information systems will 
hurt their ability to collect taxes and process returns in 1997, as 
well as provide efficient customer services to the Nation's taxpayers. 
We all lament when our taxpayers complain that they do not get speedy 
response. They cannot get such response if the ability to do so is not 
funded.
  These budget cuts could, and I think will, pose a risk of creating a 
very significant risk that substantial Federal revenues could be lost, 
thereby exacerbating our Federal budget deficit problems.
  Mr. Chairman, this third conclusion of the Committee on Ways and 
Means should not, cannot be ignored by those Members of this House who 
take deficit reduction seriously. In other words, supporting this bill 
with its cuts to the IRS means you are putting at risk a balanced 
budget.
  The problem is really very simple. This bill cuts IRS funding and 
staffing so much that it will not be able to collect the revenue that 
the rest of the Government depends upon and that deficit reduction 
depends upon.
  If this bill were to become law, the 1997 filing season would be 
impacted adversely with taxpayer services jeopardized, revenue losses 
of over $1 billion would occur, adding to the Federal deficit, and IRS' 
computer modernization efforts would be crippled, leading to 
significant problems in the near future.
  Not only does this bill halt the compliance initiative found to 
enhance revenues so successfully in prior years, but it cuts into the 
base funding of IRS' tax enforcement program, reducing tax law 
enforcement to $44.7 million below the current level, and would result 
in an estimated annual revenue loss of well over $640 million. Cuts 
like this will cost, not save, money in the long run.
  With respect to TSM, let me call attention to the provisions of the 
June 26 letter, which says, and I would quote, ``We strongly oppose a 
number of TSM management actions recommended by the subcommittee, in 
particular the fencing of all TSM funds, until the IRS establishes a 
restructured contractual arrangement with the private sector to develop 
and deliver effective TSM programs.''

[[Page H7617]]

  They do so because on page 5 of that letter, Mr. Chairman, they say 
``The IRS on TSM is clearly moving in the right direction.'' In other 
words, what the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], 
and the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui] are saying is that from 
1988, under President Reagan, from 1989 to 1992 under President Bush, 
from 1993 to 1996 under President Clinton, there were very substantial 
problems in the tax systems modernization program. I agree with that. 
Our committee agrees with that.
  Our committee has taken action to try to correct that, and in fact we 
have been heard because the Treasury Department, under Secretary Rubin, 
has taken action to ensure that TSM is done and done right.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, we do not have an alternative but to do tax 
systems modernization as we look into the next century. The committee 
clearly believes, again I say not the Democrats looking at a Democratic 
administration, but the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] in their letter clearly 
says, ``The IRS is clearly moving in the right direction.'' Therefore, 
this action is a dollar short and a day late because we have gotten a 
handle on the program.

                              {time}  1730

  But it does make, I suppose, for good debate.
  This bill would, in addition, Mr. Chairman, set aside $26 million of 
IRS's limited funds to double the scope of the current pilot project on 
using private collection agencies to collect overdue taxes. I 
personally believe that, until the results of the first project are 
complete, this $26 million would be better spent in IRS telephone 
collection systems which could generate an additional $665 million in 
revenue.
  This bill, in addition, cuts in half funding for tax systems 
modernization and ties the hands of the Treasury Department such that 
even the operational projects that GAO believes should be funded are 
halted. I am pleased that we are going to speak to that issue, and I 
want to say that the chairman, as he said in his opening statement, has 
been very willing to discuss problems that might exist and to indicate 
a willingness to look at these and try to correct them.
  I think that is a very positive step and it does not surprise me, 
because that has been the Chairman's continuing pattern throughout my 
relationship with him. He is a person who wants to make sense and to do 
the right thing.
  The bill zero funds, in addition, the automated underreporter 
document matching systems, which will result in the loss of jobs for 88 
people, a savings of $9.4 million in budget costs, but the potential 
loss of a billion dollars. Saving $9.4 million and putting at risk a 
billion dollars does not seem to me to make common sense.
  Zero funding of the electronic filing operating systems that were 
used by over 14,000,000 taxpayers in 1996 will cost 251 people their 
jobs and set back all filing to pen and paper operations. Zero funding 
for corporate files on line will make resolving taxpayer inquiries much 
more difficult. I do not think that is what we want to do for our 
taxpayers.
  Zero funding for the print systems that generate millions of taxpayer 
notices each year would create chaos, frankly, in the revenue system. 
Even the Detroit computing center, which processes all currency 
transaction reports and administration information, would be zero 
funded as well.
  The committee has simply gone too far, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, 
in its zeal to punish the IRS for its lack of success with tax systems 
modernization. We all recognize that this broad effort to update all 
aspects of IRS' computer and processing systems, known as TSM, is a 
high priority that is critical as the agency prepares for the 21st 
century. We are also concerned about the lack of results from IRS' 
efforts on TSM.

  TSM has had problems for many years, through three administrations, 
as I previously said. I am glad that Secretary Rubin agrees that we are 
on the right track and that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] 
agrees with the Secretary.
  The Committee on Ways and means, as I quoted before, on page 5 of its 
letter said, and I quote, ``We believe it makes little sense, at a time 
when the IRS is finally making progress in its efforts to implement 
necessary changes in its TSM management processes, to hamstring the 
IRS's ability to complete its task.''
  My colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, the 
majority side of the aisle, the Committee on Ways and Means leadership, 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] say we strongly encourage the Committee on 
Appropriations to delete the funding restrictions on TSM and allow 
responsibility for execution of problems by micromanaging the 
Department and using DOD as a procurement agent for all TSM 
contractors.
  The fact of the matter is neither the Department of Defense nor the 
Committee on Ways and Means nor the Treasury Department nor IRS agree 
with that proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the bill's restrictive TSM language, as 
does the Committee on Ways and Means. The IRS is not, Mr. Chairman, and 
never has been and probably never will be a popular agency. We all know 
that. but it has a job that must be done, and this bill does not 
provide the IRS with adequate tools to accomplish its mission. It is a 
pyrrhic position, I believe, to stand and say we want to cut the 
deficit, cut spending, but to cut IRS spending to the extent that the 
deficit will be made higher.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, moving on to the Postal Service, I 
am disappointed we are not fulfilling our agreement with the U.S. 
Postal Service which we agreed to some years ago and fully funding what 
we owe them. Now, it is a very small portion of the postal budget, but 
we ought to meet our own responsibilities. We are not doing it in this 
bill.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill unduly restricts the operations of 
our newly invigorated office of National Drug Control Policy. I know my 
friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], has discussed this 
with the chairman and will be speaking to this issue.

  The President has appointed, in my opinion, a true leader in Gen. 
Barry McCaffrey. Here is a man who began his distinguished career as a 
17-year-old cadet at West Point and retired from active duty as the 
most highly decorated officer and the youngest four-star general in the 
U.S. Army. Most recently he was the commander in chief of the U.S. 
military's Southern Command, from which a lot of our drugs come, where 
he saw firsthand the efforts of all U.S. agencies involved in 
counternarcotics.
  As President Clinton said when he announced General McCaffrey's 
nomination, ``I am asking that he lead our Nation's battle against 
drugs at home and abroad.'' To succeed, Mr. Chairman, he needs a force 
far larger than he has ever commanded before. He needs all of us. Every 
one of us has to play a role.
  I believe we ought to give General McCaffrey the staff he needs and 
the opportunity to lead this Nation in our battle against drugs.
  The good news is I understand that we are going to be doing that and 
I will certainly support that.
  The bill before us demonstrates the continuing balance between 
personal and governmental responsibility. Yes, we each must pay taxes 
to the IRS, but, in turn, we expect good service and timely refund 
checks. The committee's bill cuts so much from IRS that I question 
whether or not the IRS can meet its basic responsibility as does the 
gentleman from Texas, Chairman Archer.
  On a much more macro level, every American must be involved in 
stopping gang violence, ending illegal drug use, and halting the 
burning of churches, black and white. Yet this bill reminds us that 
Government can and does play a role in many of these important fights. 
Those that choose to level criticism on the Government and on those 
they call bureaucrats ought to review the important work and incredible 
accomplishments of the men and women that work at the Department of the 
Treasury and other agencies included in this bill.

[[Page H7618]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] so that we may enter into a 
colloquy.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Iowa. I want to clarify the purpose of 
the gentleman's amendment.
  Does the gentleman intend to provide sufficient resources for the 
Office of National Drug Council Policy to hire a staff of 154, 
including 30 military detailees?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, the answer 
is yes.
  This amendment will provide for full funding of the President's 
request for a staff of 154. I think it is important that the director 
of ONDCP have enough people, and of the right kind, to fight the war on 
drugs.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman 
knows, I object to the second part of the amendment, which would 
prevent ONDCP from spending $2.5 million until the House and Senate 
Committee on Appropriations and ONDCP reach agreement on a revised 
staffing plan.
  At what point would the gentleman from Iowa propose to lift that 
restriction?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. If the gentleman will continue yielding, as the 
gentleman knows, I support the mission of ONDCP. I believe that General 
McCaffrey has made great strides in turning around an agency that has 
been long neglected by the Clinton administration.
  I want to be clear my concern is not with the leadership of ONDCP or 
with its mission but with the draft staffing plan that funds too many 
support staff at the expense of people who can actually coordinate the 
war on drugs and evaluate programs. I think we owe it to the taxpayer 
to ensure that ONDCP gives us the biggest bang for the buck, so to 
speak.
  Let me also say to the gentleman that ONDCP has already made some 
important strides in addressing our concerns over its staffing plan 
since the subcommittee initially marked up this bill. I fully expect we 
will have an acceptable staffing plan before we begin the House-Senate 
conference on this legislation. Once we have that agreement, it is my 
intention to withdraw a provision restricting the use of the funds from 
the bill at conference.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, we all support the $1 million allocated 
for the State Model Drug Law Conferences. We understand the gentleman 
is open to considering in conference where this funding may be most 
appropriately obtained to ensure the implementation of an aggressive 
antidrug strategy.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my concerns with the 
strong language contained in the committee report regarding the ONDCP 
staffing levels and the ONDCP in general. I would hope the gentleman's 
intent is to reverse this language in the conference report once he has 
agreement on a staffing plan, and I understand that everyone is 
committed to reaching swift agreement on that plan.

  Many of us have strong expectations that this will happen very soon 
and the monies will be released by the time this bill goes to 
conference.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT Again, the gentleman from Illinois is correct. Once we 
have agreement, the strong language will no longer apply. At that time 
I will recommend to the conference committee that it be reversed. I 
fully expect and wish to drop the harsh report language in conference, 
and also to drop all restrictions on spending so ONDCP, under its new 
and more effective leadership, has our strong support for its mission 
and has the resources necessary to reduce drug abuse in this country.
  I would also like to compliment the gentleman from Illinois for his 
hard work on this issue.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa 
yielding on this and, as always, for his hard work and diligence and 
excellent craftsmanship.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, may we have the time remaining on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 12 minutes 
remaining and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] has 18\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] to discuss his concerns about the 
post office in Dalton, GA.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman just mentioned, I 
rise to engage the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee in a 
colloquy with regard to the postal facility in Dalton, GA.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the gentleman's attention again the 
consideration of the situation in the postal facility in Dalton, GA. 
Dalton has become recognized internationally as the home of the carpet 
industry. As a result, tremendous growth in recent years has placed an 
enormous burden on the local post office. Traffic along South Thorton 
Avenue is often congested due to the overwhelming number of consumers 
that are lacking adequate parking spaces there.
  Automobile accidents have become a weekly occurrence. Not only is 
parking limited but also are the post office boxes. Currently, there is 
an unacceptable number of citizens and businesses on waiting lists that 
are in need of postal boxes.
  Much has changed in Dalton, GA, since 1966 when this postal facility 
was established. I would appreciate the committee's support in urging 
the U.S. Postal Service to consider building a new postal facility that 
provides safe, accessible, postal services which meet the needs of the 
Dalton community.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern and 
also that the citizens of Dalton are in need of a new post office. 
Although this appropriations bill does not fund the construction of new 
post offices, the committee supports the proposed project and 
encourages the Postal Service to continue working with the residents of 
Dalton to ensure that a new postal facility is constructed.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], a distinguished member of our committee.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  I rise in support of this appropriations measure, Mr. Chairman. The 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] has taken on some exceedingly 
difficult tasks. I know there has been a lot of work by all the members 
of the subcommittee. I appreciate the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], formerly chairman of the subcommittee.
  This has been a most difficult measure, especially because of the 
situation regarding the Internal Revenue Service, Mr. Chairman. The 
IRS, as a body, is one about which we all make jokes. We talk about the 
problems it inflicts upon us. We do not like it. We mail in checks to 
it. We do not like how much we have to send. Yet we realize that people 
that work within the service are frequently our friends and neighbors, 
people with whom our kids go to church. I am sorry, people with whom 
our kids go to school, people with whom we go to church, or should be.
  But it is an agency with a great many problems. Especially the 
chairman and the members of the subcommittee have made a quite 
difficult decision with not providing some $700 million or so that the 
IRS said it wanted to help in upgrading its computer systems.
  This has been a multiyear project, Mr. Chairman. It has already 
involved spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, but the 
system is not working properly. It is not designed. There is not an 
overall plan. The IRS does not have sufficient expertise. It has not 
delegated responsibility to contractors and vendors who had that 
expertise.
  As a result, we have had hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars 
wasted. Until the IRS is in control of that situation and has it moving 
on target, where it can provide better services to the taxpayers, where 
it can give the efficiency, the up-to-date information

[[Page H7619]]

that taxpayers expect and deserve regarding the payment of their taxes, 
until that time we should not be giving the IRS the leeway which it 
desires. So the money that is in this bill is fenced. There are 
hundreds of employees in the Internal Revenue Service that will no 
longer be employed upon that project. Some may find work elsewhere 
within the agency. Others will not.
  It is a difficult decision. The subcommittee, however, has come down 
with a decision that it must be done because we cannot countenance the 
continued waste of taxpayers' money through the inefficiency of 
the IRS. Especially the higher the tax rates have become in recent 
years, the more natural opposition there is for taxpayers to comply 
voluntarily with the tax laws.

  Therefore, if we expect the taxpayers to submit their money to the 
Federal Government, we had better be making sure that that money is 
properly spent, especially within the agency that collects it.
  I applaud the chairman for his efforts on this. I know there will be 
further revisions to how we are handling that as the process moves 
through the House and the Senate.
  Especially, Mr. Chairman, within the context of this overall bill, we 
realize the importance of holding the line in reducing Federal 
spending. I wish that I could say that this bill overall represents an 
actual reduction in overall spending. Within the context of a $23 
billion spending measure, the increase from last year's authorized 
spending is $51 million. Frankly, it would not even be that were it not 
for mandatory payments to Federal retirement accounts. If we left out 
the Federal retirements, we would actually have an $80 million 
reduction in this bill from last year's spending.
  So it is certainly holding the line and we wanted to be able to go 
even further so that when taxpayers have to send in their hard-earned 
money, at least they will recognize that somebody here is trying to 
make sure that it does more good for them.
  I ask Members' support of the bill.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 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, the provisions in the Treasury-Postal 
fiscal year 1997 appropriations bill directly impact my constituents. I 
represent tens of thousands of Federal employees, many of whom work at 
the Treasury Department, IRS, U.S. Customs Service, Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms, Secret Service, Postal Service, General Services 
Administration, and Executive Office of the President--all funded by 
the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. This bill affects all of our 
constituents--America's taxpayers--in many ways. While this bill 
contains many provisions that will improve the way in which the 
Government operates, it also contains some very troubling cuts to the 
IRS and restrictions on a woman's right to choose.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the IRS cuts contained in this bill. 
This legislation appropriates $776 million less for the Internal 
Revenue Service than the fiscal year 1996 appropriation. Most of these 
reductions are in the IRS information systems account; it is cut by 29 
percent from last year's appropriation. This legislation will restrict 
the expenditure of virtually all IRS tax systems modernization [TSM] 
funding and will require the IRS to immediately eliminate all but 150 
of its 2,016 tax systems modernization employees--all from the D.C. 
area. These TSM employees' knowledge and expertise are critical to the 
success of the TSM system. The bill provides that the Defense 
Department will contract out the tax systems modernization functions, 
despite the fact that DOD does not want this function and would need to 
hire and train new employees. Furthermore, the buyout authority in this 
bill will provide little or no benefit for TSM employees because they 
will lose their jobs immediately upon enactment of this bill. This bill 
is devastating to my constituents who are employed by the IRS, but the 
real losers are the taxpayers who will become increasingly frustrated 
in dealing with the IRS if it does not have the resources to operate 
efficiently and correct its flaws.
  This bill also calls for an additional $26 million to be appropriated 
to private contractors for a second debt collection pilot program. Last 
year's Treasury-Postal appropriations bill called for a $13 million 
pilot project to assess private debt collectors' ability to protect 
taxpayers privacy and fairness. This project has only been operating 
for just over a month, and it is far too early to assess its success. 
The Ways and Means Committee opposes appropriating this $26 million for 
a second pilot project before we can evaluate this year's project. 
Before we invest additional tax dollars in contracting out programs, 
existing programs should be carefully analyzed.
  Despite these serious concerns, I want to commend Mr. Lightfoot for 
addressing the year 2000 computer issue.
  The year 2000 is rapidly approaching and the next millennium is 
expected to be a time of great change. Unfortunately, a vast majority 
of our Nation's computer systems are not equipped to handle the simple 
change of date initiated by the turn of the century. Most of the 
computer software in use today employ two-digit date fields. 
Consequently, at the turn of the century, computer software will be 
unable to differentiate between the years 1900 and 2000. If this 
software problem is not addressed promptly, it will render the vast 
majority of date sensitive computer information unusable.
  I am pleased that Chairman Lightfoot has agreed to my recommendation 
and included language on the year 2000 problem in the report to 
accompany H.R. 3756, the Treasury, Postal Service Appropriations Act 
for fiscal year 1997. The report language directs the Office of 
Management and Budget to assess the risk Government computer systems 
are facing from the turn of the century. OMB is required to survey all 
Federal Government agencies and submit a report to Congress which 
first, includes a cost estimate to ensure software code date fields are 
converted by the year 2000; second, delineates a planned strategy to 
ensure that all information technology, as defined by the Information 
Technology Management Reform Act of 1996, purchased by an agency will 
operate in 2000 without technical modifications; and third, outlines a 
timetable for implementation of the planned strategy. The report will 
be submitted to the House Committee on Appropriations, House Committee 
on Government Reform and Oversight, and the House Science Committee no 
later than November 1, 1996.
  As chairwoman of the Technology Subcommittee of the House Science 
Committee, I convened a hearing on the year 2000 computer problem on 
May 14, 1996. At that hearing, computer expert, Peter DeJager, 
testified that it will cost the Federal Government $30 billion to 
correct the year 2000 problem in all of its computer systems. He also 
indicated in his testimony that each agency will have to review every 
line of its software code, a process that could take years to complete.
  The deadline, January 1, 2000, connot be postponed. If Federal 
Government computer systems are not corrected by that time, our 
national security and Federal services affecting the well-being of 
millions of individuals will be jeopardized. The Department of Defense 
has testified that a majority of its weapons systems depend on date-
sensitive computer software that must be upgraded. In addition, the 
Social Security Administration, Veterans' Administration, Department of 
Health and Human Services, and Agriculture Department all use date-
sensitive computer software to provide benefits. These computer 
programs must be corrected before the end of the century or vital 
services will be disrupted.
  The Treasury, Postal Service Appropriations Act requires Federal 
agencies to develop a comprehensive plan to address the problem and 
ensure that a solution will be in place by January 1, 2000. I commend 
Chairman Lightfoot and the members of the Appropriations Committee for 
their cooperation in addressing the year 2000 problem.
  The Federal Government is only one piece of the puzzle. This fall, I 
intend to convene a second hearing on the impact of the year 2000 on 
State government and private sector computer systems. Estimates to 
correct the year 2000 problem in the private sector alone are as high 
as $600 billion. While the challenge ahead is daunting, Chairman 
Lightfoot has taken a significant first step in addressing the year 
2000 computer dilemma.
  This legislation makes important improvements in the way the 
Government operates. It enhances taxpayer rights through an IRS 
training program. It closes a loophole to prevent felons from applying 
to the BATF in order to have their right to own a firearm restored. 
This bill provides up to $500,000 to reimburse former White House 
Travel Office employees for any attorney fees they incurred in 
defending themselves against false allegations made at

[[Page H7620]]

the time they were fired. It also bans the use of funds by the 
Executive Office of the President to request any FBI investigation 
report unless that individual gives his or her consent or when such a 
request is required for national security reasons.
  This legislation includes buyouts for IRS, BATF, and the U.S. Customs 
Service to facilitate downsizing. Federal employee buyouts have been 
the subject of many hearings in the Civil Service subcommittee on which 
I serve. If properly administered, buyouts can help ease the pain of 
downsizing for both employees and their agencies, and I strongly 
support the inclusion of this buyout authority. It is important, 
however, that employees have enough time to make informed choices based 
on both their personal situation and the agency's situation and that 
employees who are retirement eligible may also take buyouts. I will be 
supporting an amendment that will allow employees to use the buyout 
authority through March 31, 1997.
  Despite the important additions to this year's Treasury-Postal bill 
that I have mentioned, I regret the inclusion of the draconian cuts to 
the IRS. I fear they have damaged an important piece of legislation 
with many critical provisions.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Crime.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  I want to use this opportunity, first of all, to congratulate the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] on a good product that he has 
produced here today that we are considering. From the standpoint of the 
law enforcement end of this and that which I deal with a great deal 
over on the authorizing side, I believe that this is a very, very 
commendable bill.
  The bill increases law enforcement programs, as I understand it, by 
some $410 million over fiscal year 1996, specifically for drug 
interdiction, tracing explosives, combating illegal interstate gun 
trafficking, fighting child pornography, and gang-related activities.
  The bill also provides an additional $24 million to supplement the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms' investigation of the recent 
church arsons. Overall, the bill provides $23.2 billion in budget 
authority for the Treasury Department, Postal Service, and other 
government operations. It is $1.6 billion less than the President 
requested, but $51.5 million more than last year.
  The bottom line is that in this big humongous piece of legislation 
that deals with this sector of appropriations that is under the 
subcommittee presenting this bill, we have got a really good shake for 
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and those that are under 
Treasury that have a connection with law enforcement. Those agencies 
are vital agencies to the protection of the American citizenry. We have 
seen in recent weeks how vital those are.
  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has the responsibility 
for all of the arson work in this country, for all of the explosive 
concerns that we have, for all of the gun issues that are so volatile 
out there in the countryside. While they can be a very controversial 
agency and we have had times when we have criticized them for their 
actions in certain instances, such as Waco and Ruby Ridge, the truth of 
the matter is that day in and day out they are a law enforcement agency 
protecting public safety, and they need the support of this Congress. 
They need the resources that are involved in the very items that I 
named a moment ago that this bill would provide for them.
  In addition to that, I know that Mr. Lightfoot has worked hard with 
the court systems as well and, to the degree it is under his 
jurisdiction, he has supported it. I am very glad to be here to urge 
adoption of this bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Visclosky], a member of the subcommittee.
  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  I want to draw particular attention to one provision of the bill that 
I strongly support, and that is the inclusion of $24 million for the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to expand their ongoing 
investigation of the recent wave of church burnings occurring across 
the United States. Since January of last year, 36 African-American 
churches have been burned to the ground by arsons. These burnings have 
destroyed important sources of American history and left small rural 
communities gripped by an epidemic of terror and fear unknown since the 
days when marauding Klansmen destroyed lives and property at will.
  I am saddened to witness a climate in which many of America's most 
sacred institutions can be subjected to such abuse. Currently an 
estimated 1,000 Federal and State investigators are involved in the 
ongoing investigations, and ATF alone is spending more than $1 million 
a month for these investigations.
  I applaud Chairman Lightfoot for the leadership he has shown in his 
decision to include $24 million for ATF to expend in their 
investigations of these arsons. I also applaud his decision to create a 
joint Treasury-Justice Department task force whose investigation will 
be national in scope.
  This action by the chairman compliments legislation recently signed 
into law by the President, the Church Arson Prevention Act.
  These new laws make it easier for Federal authorities to investigate 
crimes against places of worship and broadens jurisdictional authority 
in church arson cases. I applaud the new law, but I feel the action 
taken by the committee is of immediate importance. Clearly funds for 
additional personnel and resources will ultimately prove to be the 
difference between success and failure in the investigations.
  This Congress must send a strong message that hate and intolerance 
will no longer be tolerated in any sector of our society.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also be remiss if I did not commend the 
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], for 
his outstanding service to his country and to this institution. The 
chairman and I are classmates, and he is a gentleman in every sense of 
the word. And I think Charles Dickens, in ``A Christmas Carol,'' said 
it best, he is as a good a friend, as good a master and as good a man 
as this institution has ever known.
  His dedication to his family has never been in doubt, and his 
dedication to his country has never been questioned.
  Every night I tell my two sons to have happy dreams and a good life. 
As you continue your life and career, I hope that you may live your 
dream. As you continue your very good life, good luck, my friend.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer] for yielding this time to me. I appreciate the gentleman's work 
and the work of the chairman of the committee and wish to say as well 
that on this side of the aisle we will miss the chairman as he retires 
from the Congress.
  We are at the end of the toughest year in memory for Federal 
employees and for Federal agencies. It can only get better, and I know 
this has been a tough bill to work on, in part for that reason. I would 
like to call the attention of the House to a few issues that give me 
particular concern.
  The Office of National Drug Control Policy now has a new director, 
and then we tie his hands. At the very least it seems to me as he 
deserves the right to start without staff reductions. On that side of 
the aisle a major issue has been made of the increase in some sectors 
of drug use, especially among young people. The way to send a message 
we are serious about curtailing that use would be to allow the Office 
of National Drug Control Policy to proceed without undue cuts.
  There is no time to waste on this issue. It is enveloping us again; 
it rises, it falls, it rises again.
  I also regret that there has been competition for funding between the 
IRS

[[Page H7621]]

and the Treasury, the IRS making money, the Treasury making peace. I 
commend the committee that there is $24 million in this bill for the 
ATF to combat torching of churches. I appreciate, and I am sure America 
appreciates, the sensitivity of the subcommittee on this matter.
  But there is a false tradeoff here. If we are going to lay off 
thousands upon thousands of IRS employees--and that could happen--who 
can make money and therefore reduce the deficit, we are making false 
choices. We have cut into not only the compliance initiative, but the 
existing operations of the IRS, an unwise decision if ever there was 
one. This is no time to slow up on collecting revenue.
  I just want to say a word about the Postal Service because the story 
there has been the story of broken promises since we have spun the 
Service off. I do regret that the Workman's Compensation matter remains 
unresolved. We promised the former Post Office employees that that 
matter would be dealt with by this body, not by the new Service.
  It reminds me of the unfunded pension liability issue in the District 
of Columbia. We now are fully funding pensions, but the House has 
transferred to the city unfunded pension liability from when the city 
was on its watch. We are doing the same thing to the Postal Service. In 
this jurisdiction the ranking member knows that we have had difficult 
problems with Service. We do not need to have the Postal Service take 
that money out of services.
  Finally, we are once again here with no Federal funding for abortions 
for Federal employees who happen to be women. We are talking about a 
million women of reproductive age. We have done the same thing to 
military women and to women in the Federal service, alone among 
American women. We choose them out for special insult. They are bunched 
only with the women of the District of Columbia, poor women, who cannot 
have abortions paid for by our own funds.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] for his fine words and glad I had a few minutes 
to gather my composure to say that, and also the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate myself with the 
words previously of the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mr. Morella], my 
friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], and my colleague from 
the District of Columbia in talking about some of the cuts that are 
going to be felt by the IRS central office this year, the cuts in the 
TSM information systems.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] from the Committee on Ways and 
Means has written the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
writing about the inadvisability of these cuts. As someone who has 
served for many years in local government, we found out many ways the 
best way to get revenue is the taxpayers who owe the money is to insure 
that they pay it. This Congress, the previous Congress, embarked on a 
very ambitious way to go about collecting this, and it was reversed 
last year, and now we are cutting back even further the IRS central 
headquarters in the way we are going to go about collecting these taxes 
that are due.
  The best thing we should do before we start raising taxes from other 
people and looking around for other cuts is to make sure the people who 
owe the revenue pay it, and that is all this system does.
  Now, it has had some problems from time to time, but I think the 
chairman's words in this case are very, very well chosen. The gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Archer] encourages the Committee on Appropriations to 
restore funding of the important TSM information systems and the 
nonsystems collection, so on that part of this bill I hope we can amend 
it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to vote against this 
bill. I do not think it is a responsible bill in a number of areas. The 
one that disturbs me the most is one that is clearly not even penny 
wise and pound foolish; it is even penny foolish and pound unwise, if 
there is such an expression. I cannot imagine why we would cut so 
deeply in the IRS operations.
  As my colleagues know, from the time of Jesus Christ, tax collectors 
have been beaten up on. Nobody likes tax collectors. They have one of 
the worst jobs in the world. But when we compare our tax collection 
system with any other country, we do a better job. We collect a higher 
proportion of revenue. We do it in a far less corrupt way than any 
other country, and the fact is there is no corruption in the Internal 
Revenue Service. These are good, professional people.
  We ought not be eliminating 7,500 full-time permanent people, and 
this idea to take the tax system's modernization program and give it to 
the Defense Department? The Defense Department has written us a letter. 
Here is the Undersecretary of Defense. He does not want it. He says we 
cannot operate this, we do not collect taxes, we do not know what we 
would be doing. In fact, it says if we were to implement the direction 
that was given us, it is very unlikely to be successful. And yet this 
bill gives this tax system modernization responsibility to the 
Department of Defense. No, thank you; I am sure that is not what the 
taxpayers want, and the taxpayers do not want cuts that are going to 
result in a billion dollars less revenue, because that is what the 
estimate would be. It will increase the Federal budget deficit by a 
billion dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, as the previous speaker, the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Davis] said, ``You know the first thing we ought to do is to 
collect the revenue that is due us.'' How can we do that by cutting 
back on the Internal Revenue Service?
  This is not a good bill; it is not a responsible bill. It think we 
ought to give more consideration to the American taxpayer than this 
bill does.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] for a colloquy.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the 
subcommittee, Mr. Lightfoot, in a colloquy.
  I want to thank the gentleman for crafting a bill which addresses 
some of the most urgent infrastructure needs in the U.S. Court system. 
Under the legislation before us today, $540 million is available for 
constructing and acquiring Federal buildings, one of which is the Las 
Vegas, NV, U.S. Courthouse.
  I am sure the gentleman is aware of the urgent need for a new 
courthouse in Las Vegas, NV. My congressional district is by far the 
fastest growing urban area in the Nation. The existing court facilities 
are unable to meet the caseload resulting from this growth. Recognizing 
the needs of the Nevada courts, the Judicial Conference of the United 
States has listed the Las Vegas Courthouse as its fifth highest 
priority in fiscal 1997.
  Last year, in the House version of the fiscal 1996 Treasury-Postal 
appropriations bill, $38.4 million was provided to begin construction 
of a new U.S. Courthouse in Las Vegas. However, due to negotiations 
involving the acquisition of land from the city of Las Vegas, the 
General Services Administration reported that the project would not be 
eligible to proceed until early fiscal 1997, and therefore, would not 
require an appropriation in fiscal 1996. Accordingly, House and Senate 
conferees agreed to postpone an appropriation in fiscal 1996. In lieu 
of funding, conferees agreed to language clarifying that the Las Vegas 
Courthouse is ``one of the highest priorities in fiscal year 1997'' and 
directing GSA to continue to proceed with design work. In an effort to 
move this project along, the city of Las Vegas has since taken the step 
of donating a construction site to the Federal Government.
  In essence, the construction of the Las Vegas Courthouse is awaiting 
an appropriation in fiscal 1997 and action by the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee.
  At this time, I wanted to clarify if it is the gentleman's intent to 
work on behalf of the Las Vegas U.S. Courthouse, consistent with last 
year's conference report language, during conference committee 
negotiations with the other body.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H7622]]

  Mr. ENSIGN. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, it would be my intent to continue 
working on behalf of the Las Vegas, NV, courthouse because it is a high 
priority project. GSA and the courts have identified the need for this 
building, and I personally believe we should move forward with its 
construction. I also appreciate the gentleman's efforts in getting the 
city of Las Vegas to donate a construction site for this building. This 
will help reduce the overall cost of construction, and something that 
we should see more of, I think, the combination of Federal and local 
cooperation on these kinds of projects.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support of 
courts in southern Nevada.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this debate as we open consideration of the 
Treasury-Postal bill has centered on the Internal Revenue Service. We 
have done well by law enforcement, and I support them. We have done 
well by some other portions of the bill, and I am appreciative of the 
fact that we did not have the conflict which was political, in my 
opinion, last year with reference to the operations of the President of 
the United States, the White House, which we fund. I think that is 
appropriate in the comity between the legislative and executive 
branches.
  Mr. Chairman, we have focused on IRS because it is central to the 
operations of government. We have come together as a people to perform 
certain functions. We argue about those functions. That is the purpose 
of this body and the body across the way, the Congress of the United 
States sent here to make determinations as to how this Government ought 
to be operated and what it ought to do.
  In the process, we have taxed ourselves, we have said we will commit 
a certain portion of our resources to public efforts. All societies do 
that, and all societies have arguments about how much those taxes ought 
to be and what ought to be the purposes for which they are spent.
  But I say to my colleagues, if you are a proponent of education, this 
bill puts your objective at risk. I say to my colleagues, if you are a 
proponent of the defense of this Nation, this bill puts that at risk. I 
say to my colleagues, if you are in favor of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation having the resources to carry out its responsibilities to 
fight crime and make America a safer, better place in which to live, 
this bill puts that objective at risk.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not catalog the endless number of priority 
projects and purposes in the 12 other appropriation bills which are 
overwhelmingly supported not only by the Members of this House but by 
the American public. But in order to accomplish those objectives, and I 
know my friend, the chairman, is a strong supporter of a strong 
defense. I supported, as he did, increasing substantially the dollars 
for defense over the President's budget. But if we are going to do 
that, if we are going to meet our responsibilities to this generation 
and generations yet to come, it will be because we fairly and 
efficiently and effectively collect revenues to accomplish those 
purposes.

                              {time}  1815

  This bill puts that at risk. That is not, as I said earlier, the 
gentleman from Maryland, Steny Hoyer, alone saying that. That is not 
Steny Hoyer who, like my colleagues from the Washington metropolitan 
area, represents a lot of the people who will be fired because of the 
lack of resources in this bill.
  It is the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Archer], not perceived to be a liberal left-wing 
Democrat who wants to throw money at problems, saying that this bill 
will not work, this bill puts at risk deficit reduction, this bill does 
not allow the IRS to function as it is required to by law. That is the 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Archer], and the chairwoman, the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Mrs. Johnson], speaking. I hope my colleagues will oppose this bill.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] is recognized 
for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, before we get into the debate further on 
the bill, there are a couple of things that were said earlier I would 
like to correct. Our friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], 
left the House with impression that the Department of Defense would be 
operating the tax systems modernization program. That is not correct.
  What we are asking the Department of Defense to do is merely write 
the contract for putting together tax systems modernization. In no way, 
shape, or form would we have the Department of Defense involved in tax 
collection. That just does not make sense. We would not do it. This is 
a very complex system that has to be developed. We were trying to keep 
from reinventing the wheel. We looked at the various government 
agencies that have expertise with writing big contracts, and the 
Department of Defense rose to the top. Basically, DOD would be hired to 
only write the contract. The management of TSM would be retained at all 
times within the IRS.
  Additionally, as the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] said, and I 
agree, there are not any major political disagreements in this bill as 
it relates to ideologies between parties. We do have a difference of 
opinion on what the bill will or will not do. I personally do not feel 
funding levels in this bill will jeopardize our tax collecting 
capabilities. Those particular accounts have been funded at the 
President's request or above for the most part, and our whole intent 
here is to get tax systems modernization on line and doing what it 
should do.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we have focused on IRS. As has been 
mentioned, there are other things in the bill on which there seems to 
be a good deal of agreement, particularly the beefing up we have done 
in the law enforcement area as it relates to drugs, missing and 
exploited children, the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
  We have, since becoming chairman, made requirements of agencies, if 
they are going to buy something, we have to have a justification for 
that. The FEC has provided us justification on a new computer system 
they are interested in. We have fenced a little money from the White 
House for a computer system they are asking for because we do not have 
that justification yet, but I think that is just doing our job and 
protecting the taxpayers' dollars. We are sent here to do that. If 
somebody wants something, let them justify it to us. All of us 
certainly have to do that in our private lives. If you are going to 
borrow money for a car, the banker wants to know why; how are you going 
to pay for it, and when are you going to pay it back? I do not think 
the IRS should be exempt from that kind of thinking as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is a tough bill, but we are in tough times. 
We have saved something in the neighborhood of over $1 billion if we 
pass this bill, combining the fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 
Treasury-Postal bills together. I certainly would urge my colleagues to 
support its final passage.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the textile 
enforcement initiative contained in the Treasury-Postal Service 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997.
  This bill includes $18 million earmarked to the Customs Service for 
enforcement of textile and apparel trade laws, along with other trade 
enforcement measures. Customs is to use these funds to pay for 186 
full-time-equivalent employees, 100 of whom are dedicated to the 
enforcement of textile and apparel trade laws. Both the fiscal year 
1995 and fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills contained the same 
textile enforcement initiative.
  This funding keeps faith with a pledge the Clinton administration 
made to 12 Representatives 2 years ago. We asked the President to 
commit these resources because textile and apparel trade restrictions 
seem to be honored more in the breach than in the enforcement. Customs 
has estimated that as much as $4 billion in textile/apparel imports may 
enter this country each year illegally, as a result of transshipping. 
This is a multibillion dollar problem which may mean a loss of up to 
100,000 textile and apparel jobs.
  President Clinton pledged in a letter of November 16, 1993, that 
Customs will hire 50 additional employees to work exclusively, to the 
extent practical on non-NAFTA textile enforcement and 50 employees to 
work on

[[Page H7623]]

NAFTA-related textile enforcement. The President also pledged that 
Customs' commercial program, associated with both the enforcement of 
NAFTA and other textile an apparel enforcement, ``will be held harmless 
from our governmentwide effort to reduce employment levels.''
  The Government Operation's Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer and 
Monetary Affairs, which I chaired in the last Congress, held hearings 
to assess Customs' resources to deal with the textile transshipment 
problem, and to enforce in particular NAFTA's rule of origin with 
respect to textile and apparel products. Our hearing record showed that 
as many as 33.5 million textile articles are transshipped to this 
country each year. Our record also showed that Customs needs more 
manpower and resources to combat effectively this sort of fraud and 
evasion. With inadequate resources to police existing laws, Customs can 
hardly be expected to take on this additional burden. That is why this 
initiative is so important.
  I am, aware of the tight funding constraints in which the 
Appropriations Committee operated this year. But I believe that the 
committee has made a wise long-term investment. If past experience is 
any guide, this small increment of extra money will more than pay for 
itself in additional tariffs, fees, penalties, and other revenues for 
the Government. I wish to compliment both Chairman Lightfoot and 
ranking Democrat Hoyer for their foresight in supporting the 
initiative.
  These extra resources will not put an end to the problems of evasion, 
circumvention, and transshipment in textile and apparel trade, but they 
will help. I urge support for this initiative.
  All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The amendment printed in part 1 of House Report 104-671 is adopted.
  Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to 
consider the amendments printed in part 2 of the report. Each amendment 
may be considered only in the order printed, may be offered only by a 
Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided, and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.
  During consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chair may 
accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that 
he has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. 
Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to not less than 5 
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed 
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device 
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by 
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be 
less than 15 minutes.
  After the reading of the final lines of the bill, a motion that the 
Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill to the House with such 
amendments as may have been adopted shall, if offered by the majority 
leader or a designee, have precedence over a motion to amend.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Treasury 
     Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive 
     Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other 
     purposes, namely:

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in House Report 104-671.


                   amendment offered by mr. lightfoot

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 1.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Lightfoot: On page 39, line 
     8 through line 10, strike the phrase ``and of which 
     $1,268,000 shall be obligated for drug prevention public 
     service announcements, and''
       On page 39, line 18, insert after the colon: ``Provided 
     further, That $2,500,000 of the funds available for the 
     salaries and expenses of the Office of National Drug Control 
     Policy may not be obligated until the Director reaches 
     agreement with the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations on a final fiscal year 1997 organizational 
     plan:''

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 475, the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that we are talking about restores a 
total of $2,268,000 for salaries and expenses of the Office of National 
Drug Control Policy, which would be sufficient to come up to the 154 
FTE proposed by the President.
  It deletes funding for drug prevention public service announcements, 
it shifts $1 million in funding for conference on model State drug laws 
from salaries and expenses to the Counter-drug Technology Assessment 
Center. It fences $2.5 million of the amounts available for salaries 
and expenses pending receipt of an acceptable 1997 organizational plan, 
which the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] and I have discussed 
earlier. I am also proposing this amendment to reflect some of the 
progress we have made with the drug czar's office in the past 5 years.
  As many Members were aware, I was very disappointed with the drug 
czar's first organization chart. It kind of looked like empire 
building, to be quite blunt about it. It had a lot of boxes on it and a 
lot of names, and it really did not make a lot of sense. As many 
Members are aware, I was very disappointed with the chart and there 
were too many highly paid special assistants, executive secretaries, 
deputy office directors, and in my opinion not enough people doing the 
basic work of the drug czar's office. To me that was a recipe for an 
institution that would spend a lot of time making itself look good but 
will not get any real work done.
  My goal has been to replace $80,000 correspondence specialists with 
$80,000 law enforcement officers and researchers. In that area I think 
we have made very good progress. The drug czar has worked hard to 
address my concerns. He submitted several revised plans, and each one 
was better, and they continue to get better. There is less overlap. 
There are more people in positions that count, fighting drugs on the 
street. There is less overhead. I would like to compliment General 
McCaffrey for his efforts in that area, and I think we are certainly 
headed in the right direction.
  In fact, last week staff sat down with the drug czar's very able 
chief of staff to go over specific concerns of our committee. The 
meeting was very constructive, and just as the drug czar is committed 
to addressing our concerns, I am committed to helping him in any way 
possible to come up with a staffing structure that will work the best 
for him. We are not there yet, and that is why I have included language 
that holds back some money until we have a plan that is acceptable to 
all of us, both the drug czar and the Congress.
  We all win with this amendment. The drug czar gets the money he needs 
to build his office. The American taxpayer gets the assurance that they 
need that their money will be used effectively and efficiently to fight 
the war on drugs.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank everyone who has worked 
very hard to make this come together. We all, I think, have the same 
goal in mind, and now we have ironed out a lot of the differences that 
were there, and some misunderstandings that were there. I think we are 
on the right track. I would urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member who wishes to speak in opposition to 
the amendment?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I ask 
unanimous consent to control half the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of this amendment, as I just said. I 
think it is a recognition by the committee, which I support, of the 
appropriateness of the organization being constructed by General 
McCaffrey. I would say to my

[[Page H7624]]

friend, the chairman, that the Office of National Drug Control Policy, 
created by the Congress for the purposes of overseeing and coordinating 
our fight against drugs, is a critically important office. The scourge 
of drugs that invades our community and undermines the health of our 
people and puts at risk our children is a very high priority for the 
country to combat, and, if at all possible, eliminate.
  I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Iowa, that he 
misperceives, I think, what the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
is all about. In his comments with reference to the personnel here, he 
suggests that we have a lot of people who are not policy people. 
Perhaps he believes this is top-heavy, as I think one of his 
contentions was.
  But we must remember what this office is. This adds $2.5 million, but 
Mr. Chairman, we spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $11 billion to 
$13 billion on the drug fighting program in America. I do not have the 
figure off the of my head, but it is billions and billions and billions 
of dollars, and thousands and thousands and thousands of people.
  We knew that Justice, with the DEA, we knew that Treasury, with 
Customs, ATF, other law enforcement agencies, including even Secret 
Service, FINCEN on money laundering, FBI back in Justice, the Health 
and Human Services agency in terms of drug rehabilitation and other 
efforts to try to combat the demand side of this cancer that afflicts 
America, we knew there were an awful lot of agencies involved in this 
fight against drugs. The drug office, the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy, was created to oversee and organize this battle.
  The 154 people is a drop in the bucket, an infinitesimal amount of 
the number of people who are engaged in this battle against drugs.
  I said in my opening statement that General McCaffrey could not have 
been, in my opinion, a better selection by the President of the United 
States, President Clinton. The organizational structure that he 
presented to the committee and to all of us was one that said ``I want 
to get a handle on what we are doing'', for exactly the reason that he 
was selected, because he is used to being the head of an effort to 
combat an enemy that would destroy us, and to bring together the 
disparate elements into a unified, victorious, successful force.
  I suggest to my friend, the chairman, that is what this is about. I 
am very pleased, as I said, Mr. Chairman, that the chairman of the 
subcommittee's amendment will effect the adoption of General 
McCaffrey's proposal. I think that was good policy when it was 
proposed. I think it is good policy now. I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to 
join the chairman, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], in the 
support of General McCaffrey's proposal.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa. 
[Mr. Lightfoot].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 104-671.


                 amendment no. 2 offered by mr. metcalf

  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 2.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Metcalf: Page 118, after 
     line 16, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 637. For purposes of each provision of law amended by 
     section 704(a)(2) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 U.S.C. 
     5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, 
     United States Code, shall be considered to have taken effect 
     in fiscal year 1997 in the rates of basic pay for the 
     statutory pay systems.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 475, the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Metcalf] and a Member opposed will each control 15 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] will control 15 
minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am joined by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] 
and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther] in a bipartisan proposal 
to freeze the pay of the Members of Congress.

                              {time}  1830

  As my colleagues are aware, the cost-of-living adjustment for 
Congress is a permanent law and it will take place automatically. 
Without our amendment, Members of Congress will receive more than a 
$3,000 raise.
  The Metcalf-Tiahrt-Luther amendment is exactly the same as the 
amendment passed last year. It will freeze the pay of the Members of 
Congress, the Vice President, Members of the Cabinet, Federal judges, 
and senior administrative heads in the Executive Schedule pay levels 1 
through 5.
  It is my understanding that the individuals covered in this amendment 
make more than $100,000 a year. In fact, Members of Congress, as we 
know, make $133,600 per year.
  We all know that there are unique financial demands made on Members 
of Congress. We have to maintain a place to stay in the Nation's 
Capital and a residence in our home State. But many American families 
have to make do with a far smaller salary.
  It is our No. 1 job to save this Nation from bankruptcy by balancing 
the budget. I believe that Members of Congress should not get any pay 
raise, at least until the budget is balanced.
  We are working hard to save money wherever we can. This pay freeze 
will save $7 million the first year and $10 million every year 
thereafter. This is $47 million in savings by the year 2001 just from 
this 1 year's pay freeze, even if it is not next year. Frankly, we must 
do this during this Nation's budget crisis. Congress must lead by 
example.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment and with great regret that the very distinguished gentleman 
from Washington chose to come forward with this amendment.
  We gave up honoraria a number of years ago because, in fact, that was 
a practice that had escaped reason and common sense. In an effort to 
make an even trade, because Members were always reluctant to vote for 
pay raises, it was deemed that we would get a smaller increase from 
time to time, a smaller COLA, than would the general Federal employee. 
However, at least from time to time, we would expect to get an 
increase.
  The fact is that that plan broke down. Members of Congress have not 
gotten a raise in fiscal year 1994 or in the calendar year 1994 or in 
the calendar year 1995 and now again in the calendar year 1996. In 
fact, adding it up, going back to the years 1970 to date, we see that 
the Federal employees got a total of 221.4 percent in pay raises, 
inclusive of pay raises in the last 3 years; Federal retirees got a pay 
raise of 305.6 percent since 1970, inclusive of pay raises in those 
last 3 years; and the Social Security recipients got a total of 393.9 
almost 394 percent, inclusive of those for the last 3 years. The 
Members of Congress since that time are among the lowest increase. They 
got a 214.4-percent increase, which is well below most of the others.

  Members' pay is $133,600, compared to a Supreme Court Associate 
Justice, who makes $164,100. A U.S. Cabinet Secretary makes $148,400; 
the county executive of Fairfax County, Virginia makes $145,916; the 
superintendent of schools of Dade County, FL, makes $220,400; the 
superintendent of schools in Los Angeles makes $141,271; the Federal 
Reserve Regional President in Chicago makes $193,000; various CEO's of 
various companies make anywhere from $600,000 to $800,000 to a few 
million dollars.
  The chief administrator, Riverside County, CA, makes $149,406; the 
fire chief of Los Angeles County makes $144,000; the city manager of 
Dallas, TX, makes $150,165. Members of Congress are, whether you like 
it or not, the board of directors of the United States of America and 
again we make $133,600.

[[Page H7625]]

  Some people say, ``That is too much. They haven't been doing their 
job.'' I would suggest in the last year and a half we have saved $80 
billion in the discretionary appropriations process. We are doing our 
job.
  The deficit is now the lowest it has been in 10 or 20 years. We are 
doing our job. Inflation is low. The stock market is not doing great 
the last couple of weeks, but otherwise it has been on a perpetual 
increase.
  We are doing our job. The American people do not complain when 
Michael Jordon gets paid $25 million for the next year or Juwan Howard 
gets between $95 and $125 million over the next 7 years, but they do 
complain when Members of Congress try to seek a pay raise in excess of 
$133,600.
  I would suggest that in view of all these statistics, Members of 
Congress are not overpaid. Members of Congress give up the prime years 
of their lives to come here. They run for office. It is a competitive 
job. They could do other things. And, yes, they do it primarily because 
they are interested in public service. Most Members of Congress, be 
they Democrat or Republican or conservative or liberal, believe in 
serving the people that elected them. Otherwise they would not be here.
  But there is an increasing problem. With the continuing attitude that 
Members of Congress do not deserve raises. We are finding that more and 
more well qualified people who cannot afford to run for office or hold 
office are declining to do so. Increasingly, in the Senate, I think 
that now 75 percent of the Members are worth in excess of $1 million; 
and increasingly in this House, perhaps anywhere from 30 to 50 percent 
of the Members are worth in excess of $1 million. When the day comes 
that we cannot have an average man on the street holding himself up for 
public office, get elected and serve, and we can only have millionaires 
serve in this body, America will be a poorer place for it.
  I urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], who presented the 
pay raise with me at the Rules Committee meeting.
  (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Metcalf] for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, last year Congress acted to freeze the salaries of 
Members of Congress by disallowing the automatic pay raise. The 
Metcalf-Tiahrt amendment would continue this freeze for an additional 
year.
  The message of our amendment sends to the American people is simple 
and straightforward. This Congress has decided to deal with pay raises 
in the open and in the light of day. Even though this amendment will 
save over $7 million next year alone, it is less about saving money for 
the American taxpayer than it is about doing the right thing. This 
issue should be conducted in an up or down vote in the open. The 
American people deserve no less than that.
  When this country has a $5 trillion debt and when we are struggling 
to balance the Federal budget, I do not believe it is prudent for this 
Congress or high-ranking Government officials within the administration 
to accept a pay raise.
  We have repeatedly asked the American people to tighten their belts 
and help us balance the budget. We all know we must lead by example and 
prove that we are here to serve the people and make America better. 
This Congress has already demonstrated its commitment to integrity and 
maintaining the trust of the American people. Congressional reform is a 
top priority, from adopting strong internal reforms to enacting 
lobbying reform and taking up campaign finance later this week. This 
Congress has done more to return openness and honesty to this 
institution than any other Congress in recent history.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not a man of much wealth, I am not a mean-spirited 
millionaire trying to pull a ploy on the Members of Congress. This job 
is not about a paycheck for me. I am here to serve the people in the 
Fourth District of Kansas. They want a balanced budget and a bright 
future for their kids. Until we are able to achieve that, I cannot ask 
them for a raise.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to act and maintain that 
commitment, to balance the budget first by voting for this amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I understand the gentleman's premise with respect to 
Members of Congress. I do not agree with it, but I understand the 
premise. How does the gentleman justify freezing judges and SES's in 
the same process, however?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I believe we all have a commitment to balance the budget, 
even those in the administration.
  Mr. HOYER. The judges are not in the administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, if I had the time I would ask for a parliamentary rule 
as to whether or not I can by unanimous consent call for a division of 
the question, but it counts against my time so I am not going to do 
that.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. HOYER. Does a parliamentary inquiry count against the time that 
is allotted to a speaker?
  The CHAIRMAN. It does if the gentleman has yielded on his time for 
that inquiry.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] controls 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I am in the uncomfortable position of 
supporting part of the amendment and opposing another part.
  The gentleman from Maryland in his little colloquy just a moment ago 
indicated that there is a difference between raises requested for 
Members of Congress, the Cabinet and for judicial raises, and that is 
the honest truth. Members of Congress and the members of the Cabinet 
are passing through the Nation's capital, as it were, in their life's 
work. They are passing through for the short time that they have been 
elected or appointed to their respective positions. So we can justify 
no cost-of-living arrangement for these individuals. But the judges are 
appointed for life and they serve in a continuous fashion, not subject 
to the whim of the electorate, and their life's work is involved on the 
bench on a daily basis.
  In short, the question as to judicial raises is totally different 
from that for congressional raises and for Cabinet raises. They 
deserve, the judges do, a confidence and a reliance on an increase in 
the cost of living so that they can continue their work on the bench 
unimpeded by the yearly annual budget fights that will or will not, 
depending on the whims of the Congress, yield a cost-of-living 
arrangement for the judges.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, following up on the point that the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania made, is it possible under the rule to 
separate the issue and allow the Federal judges to have a raise while 
denying the COLA to Members of the Congress?
  The CHAIRMAN. The rule adopted by the House states that this was 
handled separately, but it is not possible for the gentleman from 
Mississippi to make that request in Committee of the Whole. The 
amendment of the gentleman from Washington is not divisible or 
amendable.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, is it possible for the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Metcalf], the chief proponent of the amendment, to 
himself ask for unanimous consent to divide the question?
  The CHAIRMAN. The author of the amendment could make the request to 
modify the amendment.
  Mr. GEKAS. Does the author of the amendment, seeing some of the 
sentiment----
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania seek a 
parliamentary inquiry?

[[Page H7626]]

  Mr. GEKAS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The parliamentary inquiry is, How can I 
pose the question to the gentleman from Washington?
  The CHAIRMAN. That would be during debate time. The Chair has to 
recognize the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. GEKAS. Parliamentary inquiry. Through the Chair I could not ask 
the gentleman from Washington if he would entertain thoughts of asking 
unanimous consent on his own to divide the question?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time for debate on this amendment is controlled by 
the rule and the gentleman from Washington and the gentleman from 
Maryland control the time.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I do not choose to divide the question.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my Democratic colleague, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther], who joined in the bipartisan 
effort.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a cosponsor of this 
bipartisan amendment to prevent an automatic increase in the salaries 
of Members of Congress and top executive and judicial branch personnel.
  Last year the House overwhelmingly voted in favor of an identical 
measure and I believe we should do so again to avoid allowing our own 
pay to increase as we reduce spending in other areas of the Federal 
Government.
  Under current law, each Member of Congress receives an automatic 
cost-of-living adjustment, or pay raise, each year. That provision was 
part of an agreement to end the old system of Members accepting 
honoraria.

                              {time}  1845

  I respect the thoughtful efforts of House Members at that time to 
clean up Congress and to ensure a fair level of compensation for 
Members. But much has changed since the Ethics Reform Act was passed in 
1989. Our national debt is now $5 trillion, and we must take strong 
action to reach a balanced budget in order to secure a sound future for 
our children and our grandchildren.
  As we debate our spending priorities, I believe everything must be on 
the table for discussion. Congress cannot and must not exempt itself 
from the tough choices we need to make as a nation. If we in Congress 
would benefit through a series of automatic pay increases while at the 
same time we ask the rest of our country to suffer reductions in 
Government spending, we will lost credibility with America's taxpayers 
and voters.
  I recognize that, over time, compensation must be sufficient to 
encourage the best possible citizens to serve in the U.S. Congress, but 
this Congress has only just begun the important job of making the tough 
decisions necessary for the future of our country. We have not 
accomplished enough this session to justify a pay raise.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the strongest aspects of the American tradition 
has been the willingness of our entire country to step up and share the 
sacrifice during the times of emergency or need. At this time, our 
national debt endangers opportunities of future generations. I believe 
supporting this amendment will demonstrate our intent to lead by 
example and ask of ourselves what we ask of others.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Wicker], a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Maryland for 
yielding me the time. I certainly intend to support the amendment of 
the gentleman from Washington.
  I simply rise for the purpose of echoing what the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] said earlier, that it is a shame that the 
Federal judges must be linked to the cost of living proposal with 
regard to Members of this Congress. Members of Congress are responsible 
for legislation dealing with the Federal debt. The same can be said for 
the President and the Vice President. We are all in this battle. The 
deficit has nothing to do with Federal judges. So we have a situation 
where their salaries are held hostage to our salaries.
  I think the vast majority of Americans agree with the comments made 
by my colleague from Washington and my colleague from Minnesota. I 
think the vast majority of House Members will vote with them, as I 
will. I would simply just submit that it is a shame that under the rule 
we cannot divide the question, go ahead and give a raise to Federal 
judges. We have districts where the U.S. attorney makes more than the 
judge, the public defender makes more than the judge, the clerk makes 
more than the judge. It is just a shame that we cannot raise their 
salaries because they deserve it.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Deal], my good friend, who also testified at the Committee 
on Rules to protect this amendment from a point of order.
  (Mr. DEAL of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think the ultimate mandate of 
this Congress has been to try to balance the budget. I commend the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and all of those others who 
have made Herculean efforts in that regard. We have done so in this 
body by reducing our staffs by a third. We have made other efforts.
  I would support this amendment. I remind my colleagues that no one 
who is affected by this amendment is an indentured servant. There are 
choices that all of us have the right to make. I would urge the 
adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf] has 
8\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. We 
cannot allow this automatic pay raise to take effect. I want to 
recognize and thank all the people that have done so much to work hard 
to move us towards balancing the budget. But this amendment and this 
issue is not about pay and it is not about the salary, it is about 
leadership.
  We must balance the budget, and we must lead by example. If we accept 
the pay increase, it will be interpreted that we have given up on 
balancing the budget or, worse yet, that we can afford and we can cut 
other things but we cannot cut Congress or we cannot deal with 
ourselves or our own salary. People are going to follow much more our 
actions over our words, and they are going to see what our deeds say 
versus what our words act.
  We have worked very long and hard in this Congress to balance the 
budget, and it is important to do that. We stay on the glide path to 
balance the budget over a period of 7 years. Let us stay on that and 
show the commitment to the American people that we have by this action 
of leadership. It is an important action for us as Members at this time 
when we have crushing debt on our Nation that we say to our future and 
we say to our children we are going to deal with this and we are going 
to lead by example.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no more vexing an issue for any public figure 
than voting on his or her own salary. There have been many comments 
that we ought to do this on the record, we ought to do it not in 
secret. In point of fact, if those who were debating this had bothered 
to look at the record, we did exactly that in the Pay Reform Act of 
1989. We changed the law and said, for a raise, we have to vote in the 
public's view. And, in point of fact, I tell my friends, all of the 
freshmen who were not here and who have spoken on this bill, the House 
of Representatives did in fact vote on the record during the daytime 
with full public scrutiny on the issue of pay reform for Members. Now, 
I will not speak about the other body of what they did.
  In the course of the reform, we said this makes no sense. What made 
no sense? We would go, as we are proposing to do today, 4, 5, 6, 7 
years with no raise. So what happened? The same thing that would happen 
in everybody's family in America, whatever they were making. They would 
say: Hey, dad or mom, you know, groceries are getting more expensive, 
cars are more expensive. Our car is 6 years old, we have to replace it. 
Hey, the rent has gone up or the mortgage has gone up. We want to buy 
another house because our family

[[Page H7627]]

is expanding, all sorts of things. As the cost of living goes up, your 
resources are squeezed if you freeze them.

  So we said it was not automatic, I tell my friend from Washington 
State. We said specifically, Congress gets no raise if the fellow 
Federal employees did not get a raise. There was no justification, we 
said, for Members of Congress taking a raise if Federal employees did 
not get a raise. But if they got a raise and only if they got a raise, 
then we would take a cost of living less a half a point, less than the 
cost of living. That was hailed by Common Cause and other groups around 
the country as a step forward in rationalizing a way to affect the pay 
of Members of Congress.
  Yes, a vexing issue for those of us in public life, and every one of 
us who gets up and says cost of living is justified for Federal 
employees, for judges, for SES's and, yes, even for Members of Congress 
are subject obviously to 30-second ads. It is a sexy political issue, 
we all know that. I am sure that the gentlemen who raised it are going 
to make it very clear to their constituents how they did this.
  There has been a lot of talk about cutting the deficit. All right, 
for the first time in history, we have cut the deficit 4 years running. 
For the first time in may be not history, for the first time in this 
century, 4 years running, the deficit is down and is now half what it 
was just 4 years ago.
  So, very frankly, we are on the right track, we are doing the right 
thing. We are performing our duties as we were sent here to do.
  If we do what the gentleman suggests and, Mr. Chairman, everybody 
knows we are going to do what the gentleman suggests so everybody can 
go home and beat their chests and say, I was against raising my pay.
  Let me tell you what is going to happen. A year from now or 2 years 
from now or 3 years from now, Members of Congress are going to get 
together and say, you know, for 5 or 6 or 7 years we have been zero, 
and we ought to raise it by $10,000.
  We have done that before for exactly the same reason. Eleven out of 
20 years it was frozen, just as we are doing now; and what happened? 
The American public said: What do you mean you are raising your salary 
by $10,000? They understand cost-of-living adjustment. Social Security 
recipients understand that, veteran retirees understand that.

  I do not know that the gentleman is opposed to those. They understand 
cost-of-living adjustments. What they do not understand, properly so, 
and what we tried to avoid was large raises that gave the public the 
impression that we thought we ought to get more than somebody else, so 
we keyed it to Federal employees and we keyed it to cost-of-living 
increases.
  That is what we should have done, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this amendment with little hope that that will occur.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Chabot].
  (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
to freeze COLA pay for Members of Congress. When I ran for Congress, I 
pledged to do my best to bring Federal spending under control, to 
balance the budget, and to support tax relief for working families. 
This new majority in Congress has made progress but because of 
President Clinton's vetoes we still have a long way to go.
  Accepting a cost-of-living pay increase at this time, I believe, 
would send the wrong message to the American taxpayers. Until we 
complete the job that we were elected to do, we have no business 
talking about pay raises. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has the right 
to close on this amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my very distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies and the leader of 
reform efforts in Congress.
  (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague 
yielding me the time for just a moment.
  I must say that the courage my colleague is demonstrating here is 
very important for the House to note. I am not surprised that our new 
Members are here opposing even a cost-of-living adjustment, for they 
have not been through the process of compromise and very, very 
difficult effort that was put together to make sense out of Members 
having to vote one way or another on their own pay. But I can tell my 
colleagues what they do not realize is that they really are cutting off 
the future opportunity of their families to have a decent standard of 
living over a significant period of time as they serve in the House.
  Above and beyond that, I think it is very fundamental for us all to 
understand this is a leadership issue. The gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Livingston] rose and spoke on this issue on the floor, the only 
Member of the leadership. The members need from time to time to be 
protected against themselves. Indeed, even the author of this amendment 
did not know the other day that we had not had a cost-of-living 
adjustment for 4 years in a row with this amendment. He was unaware of 
the impact that this is already having upon families across the place.
  Indeed we are leaving the House to people who are either born with a 
silver spoon in their mouth and they have got their own millions or 
people who could not get better jobs in the first place. That is not 
the direction the House needs to go in. I urge the Members to vote no 
on this amendment.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as we talk about reforming 
Congress, we need to reflect back on all the reforms we have already 
conducted this year. When we first took office in January 1995, we 
passed the Congressional Accountability Act. We applied 11 laws of the 
land on Congress, from OSHA, to the Wage and Hour, to the Civil Rights 
Act.

                              {time}  1900

  After that we went about cutting the costs of Congress, really 
reforming the way we do business. We cut over 10 percent of the budget 
of Congress, real costs in our spending. We privatized functions. We 
got rid of 25 committees, we cut committee staff by one-third.
  After we did that we changed the procedures of running Congress. We 
opened up Congress so we are not a closed institution. We got rid of 
proxy voting. Then we passed a gift ban, basically a total ban on gifts 
in Congress. And now we have passed lobby reform.
  This is the most reform-minded Congress that we have had in 
generations, and I am proud to be part of all the reforms taking place 
in this Congress.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong 
opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Coble].
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, some years ago a Federal judge appeared 
before our House Committee on the Judiciary and he said he was earning 
less money than any of his classmates from law school. I said, Judge, 
why do you not resign your job from the bench and start practicing law? 
My suggestion, Mr. Chairman, did not appeal to him.
  My point is very simple, Mr. Chairman. I represent people in my 
district who earn 25, 30, $35,000 a year and they are barely making it. 
Now, if we, on the other hand, tonight extend a generous cost of living 
allowance to the Vice President, to the Executive Schedule levels 1 
through 5, to the members of the Federal Judiciary to the Members of 
Congress, I think it would be an obvious slap in the faces of these 
people who are barely hanging on.
  Now, all of us knew what the pay way when we signed on, Members of 
Congress and Federal judges as well. The time to address the matter of 
COLAs is not this night, and it is not on this floor.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].

[[Page H7628]]

  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment of the gentleman from Washington and the Tiahrt amendment.
  I want to point out that today's debate is a little ironic, since 
many of us who support freezing our pay and have never, never voted for 
a congressional pay raise are the very ones being wrongfully attacked 
in the big labor television ads' claim that we voted to raise our pay.
  In fact, I can think of nothing that typifies the previous Democratic 
Congresses more than the fact that they wrote themselves into a law, a 
law which automatically annually increases their pay. As a matter of 
principle, this body should not be giving itself a pay raise until we 
have balanced the budget. Moms and dads at home, businesses do not 
write themselves into their budgets automatic pay raises if their books 
are out of balance. This Congress should not either. We should set the 
example.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues vote to pass this 
amendment and lead by doing the right thing.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is something that I think 
the American public has wanted to open up in the light of day. It does 
include members of the administration, the judicial branch, as well as 
Members of Congress.
  They were all tied together because I think there was a commitment 
that was desired by the America public that we all work for a balanced 
budget; that we do not pass on to the next generation the type of debt 
that this country has incurred, over $5 trillion.
  It is going to take a considerable amount of time to pay this off. So 
until we get that accomplished, get on the glidepath, get to a balanced 
budget, we should make a commitment as Members of Congress that should 
include all of the upper branches of this Government, including the 
judicial branch, to focus on getting this accomplished, balancing the 
budget, restoring the hope for the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that is why this has been grouped together and 
why it will stay together.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire who is entitled to close 
this debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], representing 
the committee position, is entitled to close debate.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by attempting to put this amendment 
in perspective. At 3:30 this afternoon the national debt of the United 
States was $5,155,309,827,707.59. The debt owed per person is $19,400. 
I have to point out that this figure is already outdated because it 
increases every few seconds.
  I know the savings achieved by freezing the congressional pay and the 
judges and the administrative officers is only a drop in the bucket of 
our staggering national debt. I know that we have tried hard to make 
progress in reducing the deficit and we have done some work on that. We 
have won some and we have lost some, but we have an awful long ways to 
go.
  I think that the opposition just does not feel to the depth that I 
feel that we have a real emergency in balancing this budget and we have 
to take very definite action.
  As we prioritize our spending and make the tough choices that affect 
millions and millions of American people, Members of Congress should 
stand shoulder to shoulder with those people and share the burden.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time for Congress to lead by example. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert], my good friend and one of the senior Members of 
this House.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, as I rise in opposition to this 
amendment, I would say to my colleagues that this is just pandering to 
base instincts. Quite frankly, what we should learn from the lessons of 
the past is that we should treat ourselves and treat judges and 
Cabinet-level and senior executive service members and other high-level 
officials of the Government the same way we treat the custodians of the 
building, the custodians of every other building. We should have the 
same cost of living adjustments on a regular basis as they do.
  What we do, we defer it year after year after year, thinking we are 
appealing to everybody, and then we say we are going to play catch-up 
ball and we propose 15- or 20-percent increases and everybody gets 
upset about it and rightly so. This is an ill-advised amendment. We 
have already saved $53 billion in spending, $53 billion in a year and a 
half in this Congress. That is movement in the correct direction.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Let me tell my colleagues what I think the American public 
appreciates: Honesty and candor. I have been on this committee since 
1983. I cannot tell my friends how many hundreds of Members have come 
to me to say I cannot vote for it but I sure need that cost of living 
adjustment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
one of the most respected Members in this House.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that extravagant 
introduction.
  I just want to say we do no service to the people of America, we do 
no service to the quality of justice or the quality of government by 
treating everybody with the same flagellation, the same masochism that 
we treat ourselves with.
  If we want good people to administer justice, we have to stop 
penalizing them. This is the fifth year they will not even have a cost 
of living. We can do what we want to us, take away our bathroom 
privileges, but for God sakes, we should at least give a cost of living 
increase to the judges and the Cabinet.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, 10 
seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, honesty and candor will be appreciated by the American 
public.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Metcalf-Tiahrt-
Luther amendment which will freeze the cost-of-living adjustment [COLA] 
for members of this body, judicial branch, and senior executive branch 
officials.
  When we, as Members of Congress, make more than three-fourths of this 
country's workforce, there is absolutely no reason to give ourselves a 
raise. We took the first steps towards a fiscally sound Nation last 
fall by passing a budget that would bring us into balance in 7 years. I 
believe we can and should show the American people that we mean 
business by voting to hold our own salaries at 1993 levels. As we ask 
all other Federal departments to tighten their belts, we should do our 
part by not accepting this COLA.
  I just cannot see, nor can I justify, giving myself a raise in the 
midst of a $5 trillion national debt. Voting to freeze our pay at 1993 
levels will have a direct effect on the debt because it will lower our 
pension burden on the American taxpayer.
  Members of this body, Mr. Chairman, voted in 1989 to give themselves 
this COLA. Had I been a Member of Congress at that time I would not 
have supported a pay raise then and I will not support a pay raise now.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Metcalf 
amendment to freeze the pay of Members of Congress. I ran for Congress 
because I was upset with the direction our Nation was heading. Year 
after year, Congress has continued to run up large annual budget 
deficits, causing our national debt to explode--now more than $5 
trillion.
  We cannot continue to rob from our children and our children's 
children to pay for wasteful government spending. All of us must make 
sacrifices if we are going to balance the budget. Today, families are 
working harder and longer, with more of their earnings going toward 
paying taxes. I do not believe the cost-of-living adjustment for 
Members of Congress should be put on autopilot.
  I support the Metcalf amendment because it is a necessary measure and 
I urge my colleagues to do the same. The only concern I have with the 
Metcalf amendment is that it freezes the cost-of-living adjustment 
[COLA] for the judiciary. I am an original cosponsor of legislation--
H.R. 2701--which would separate out the judicial pay process from the 
issue of pay raises for members of Congress or pay raises for Members 
of the executive branch.

[[Page H7629]]

The salaries of our Nation's Federal judges should not be a political 
issue and should not be included in this amendment. Federal judges are 
lifetime employees and should be treated the same as career Federal 
employees when it comes to COLA adjustments. It is my hope that as this 
legislation moves forward, it can be amended by taking that part out 
concerning the judicial pay process. This Congress should act on H.R. 
2701, which was introduced by my colleague, Representative Roger 
Wicker, as soon as possible.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because it is the 
right thing to do and it is supported by the American people. Along 
with most Americans, my constituents agree that the pay raise Congress 
gave itself earlier this decade was wrong and any increase at this time 
would also be wrong. If Congress wants to give itself a pay raise or a 
COLA increase it should be voted on out in the open and in front of the 
American people.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I am distressed to vote in such a way 
that would deny U.S. Federal judges the COLA's that I believe that they 
deserve. Unfortunately, because judges have been lumped together with 
politicians on Capitol Hill, I have no other choice but to vote for the 
measure lest I appear to be self-serving. It is my hope that Federal 
judges' pay will be separated from politicians' pay scales in the 
future.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Metcalf-Luther 
amendment to deny Members of Congress a cost-of-living adjustment. 
Given our current deficit, I do not believe that this is the 
appropriate time for Members to receive a pay raise.
  I am concerned, however, that this amendment will keep Federal judges 
from receiving a cost-of-living adjustment. I do not think that it is 
appropriate for the salaries of Federal judges to be tied to the 
salaries of Members of Congress.
  This Nation has the premier justice system in the world. We rely on 
judges to make some of the most important decisions in our democracy--
decisions that determine the reach of our Constitution, and decisions 
that are literally a matter of life or death.
  Given the fact that judges sit at the pinnacle of our justice system, 
it is outrageous that judicial salaries are held back by congressional 
politics. Judicial salaries are completely overshadowed by salaries in 
the private sector. Many of our judges are forced to take a sizable pay 
cut to serve on the bench. Many other highly qualified individuals walk 
away from public service because the financial sacrifice is too great. 
Our Nation is the poorer for that loss.
  I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2701, a bill that will separate judicial 
salaries from congressional salaries and will put in place an automatic 
annual increase for judges. Our Federal judges deserve no less. After 
all, they are the keepers of our democracy.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 475, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf] 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House 
Report 104-671.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. GUTKNECHT

  Mr. GUTKNECHT. 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. Gutknecht: Page 118, after line 
     16, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 637. (a) For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``political appointee'' means any individual who--
       (1) is employed in a position listed in sections 5312 
     through 5316 of title 5, United States Code (relating to the 
     Executive Schedule);
       (2) is a limited term appointee, limited emergency 
     appointee, or noncareer appointee in the Senior Executive 
     Service, as defined under section 3132(a) (5), (6), and (7) 
     of title 5, United States Code, respectively; or
       (3) is employed in a position in the executive branch of 
     the Government under schedule C of subpart C of part 213 of 
     title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
       (b) The President, acting through the Office of Management 
     and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management, shall take 
     such actions as necessary (including reduction-in-force 
     actions under procedures consistent with those established 
     under section 3595 of title 5, United States Code) to ensure 
     that the number of political appointees shall not, during any 
     fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1997, exceed a 
     total of 2,300 (determined on a full-time equivalent basis).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 475, the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the members of the Committee on 
Rules for their work as well as the members of the subcommittee for 
bringing to the floor, I think, a good bill, but today I want to offer 
an amendment which I hope will make this bill even better, perhaps what 
I would describe as a perfecting amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today with my friend and colleague from 
Minnesota to offer a fairly simple amendment to this bill. Our 
amendment would place a cap of 2,300 on the number of executive branch 
political appointees that can be named. This figure would be down from 
approximately 2,800 now, but has been even higher in past 
administrations.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a new idea. In fact, the Vice President of 
the United States made a similar suggestion in his National Performance 
Review. And the National Commission on the Public Service called for an 
even lower cap of 2,000 political appointees. Furthermore, Citizens 
Against Government Waste and the Concord Coalition have endorsed this 
proposal, and we have gathered broad bipartisan support within this 
House.
  But Mr. Speaker, most importantly, a savings resulting from this cap 
has already been assumed in the Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Resolution 
Conference Report. A similar suggestion was made in last year's budget 
resolution as well. Our amendment would simply follow through on this 
language.
  Some interesting facts--in 1960, there were 17 layers of management 
at the top of the Federal Government; by 1992, there were 32. During 
that period, the number of senior executives and political appointees 
grew from 451 to 2,393--a 430 percent increase. Now ask yourselves, Is 
the Federal Government more responsive--more responsible--more 
efficient?
  Mr. Chairman, report after report shows that greater quantities of 
such political appointees does not bring about a more responsive 
government, but actually confuses the communication channels and adds 
unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. We can make important progress 
toward balancing the Federal Budget by eliminating a few hundred of 
these positions, which average $86,000 per year in salary.
  The public believes that our Government is too large. This amendment 
begins to address this situation. This is not a drastic reduction, but 
a good first step toward operating a leaner and more efficient 
government. Last year we here in Congress reduced our staffs by a 
third, and many private-sector businesses have eliminated bureaucratic 
layers in the last several years to become more responsive and 
effective in a very competitive economic environment. It seems only 
right that we should suggest the executive branch do the same, and it's 
my guess that any President can get along just fine with 2,300 
political appointees.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment. This is a good 
amendment. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and let me tell 
my colleagues why, basically. There are 2 million Federal employees. 
They work essentially from administration to administration. Every 
President, every administration will tell any one of us that one of the 
problems they have is making the Government work to its policies.

                              {time}  1915

  That is understandable, understandable from the standpoint of those 
who

[[Page H7630]]

have been there, who want to consistently follow the policies they have 
been following. And the frustration of getting the government to 
conform to the policies of the President is also understandable.
  Now, the political appointees are committed to the President of the 
United States, whoever he might be, to carry out the policies of the 
administration. Frankly, that is what the electorate expects. Now, to 
pretend that political appointees are not necessary or that we can cut 
them down to an ever-increasing smaller number is to simply take from 
our Presidents the ability to effect their policies.
  Now, George Bush in 1992, had 3,290 political appointees or 1,000 
more than this amendment affects. President Clinton has less appointees 
than President Bush, not by a whole lot, 3,147, 150 or 5 percent less 
than President Bush had. Those folks are for the purposes of ensuring 
the President of the United States with the ability to carry out 
policy.
  When the people vote for President in 1992 or 1996, they expect their 
President to be able to effect the policies in concert or in 
cooperation with and in concert with the Congress. Political appointees 
are not good or bad. They are necessary. They are essential in a 
democratic system for a democratically elected official to carry out 
their policies.
  On the other hand, in the 1930's, we said, look, 100-percent 
patronage is wrong. It is debilitating. It leads to very bad policies. 
So we adopted a Civil Service system. Actually, we had adopted it long 
before that, about, I suppose, in the latter part of the last century. 
And we said, we are going to give to the overwhelming majority of 
employees Civil Service protection, because what we ask them to do is 
not to make policy but to carry it out in a ministerial function. Some 
of them obviously are very high level and they obviously have decisions 
to make. But the fact of the matter is, they are professional 
employees, expected by their government to carry out the policies of 
Republicans and Democrats irrespective of administrations. I suggest to 
my colleagues that they do just that.
  This amendment undermines the ability of a President to effect 
policies and is, therefore, wrong. I will speak to it again.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther].
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I am joining with my colleague, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht], in offering this amendment to 
reduce and cap the number of political appointees in the executive 
branch at 2,300 effective September 30, 1997. The term ``political 
appointee'' refers to those employees of the Federal Government who are 
appointed by the President, some with and some without confirmation by 
the Senate, and to certain policy advisors hired at lower levels.
  It includes Cabinet secretaries, agency heads, and other executive 
schedule employees at the very top ranks of Government. It includes 
managers and supervisors who are noncareer members of the Senior 
Executive Service, and it includes confidential aides and policy 
advisors who are referred to as schedule C employees.
  In a recently published book titled ``Thickening Government,'' the 
Federal Government and the diffusion of accountability, author Paul 
Light reports a startling 430 percent increase in the number of 
political appointees and senior executives in Federal Government from 
1960 to 1992.
  While the number of political appointees rose significantly from 200 
in 1940 to 500 in 1960, it mushroomed from 500 in 1960 to 3,200 in 
1992. In the most recent 12 years between 1980 and 1992, the number of 
political appointees rose over three times as fast as the total number 
of executive branch employees.
  Our amendment's primary intent is to reduce the number of lower level 
political appointees, known as schedule C appointees, who represent 
nearly half of the current number of political appointees. Our 
amendment is estimated to save American taxpayers between $228 million 
and $363 million over 5 years. This amendment is consistent with the 
recommendation of the Vice President's National Performance Review, 
which called for reductions in the number of Federal managers and 
supervisors
  It is also consistent with the work of the National Commission on the 
Public Service, chaired by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul 
Volcker, which stated in its 1989 report that the growing number of 
Presidential appointees may actually undermine effective Presidential 
control of the executive branch.
  For this reason, the Volcker commission recommended limiting the 
number of political appointees to 2,000. The other body included a 
similar amendment in last year's bill, although it was dropped in 
conference. The authors plan to offer that amendment again this year.
  The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] and I have sponsored a 
bill in this body to limit the number of political appointees, and we 
have a number of Democrat and Republican cosponsors.
  I want to stress that both in the other body and here this amendment 
is a bipartisan effort to get our fiscal house in order. It recognizes 
that the sacrifices required to meet our collective goal of balancing 
the Federal budget must begin at the top and be spread among all levels 
of Government. My colleagues, please join us in supporting this 
amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the National Performance Review, which was referred to 
by the previous speaker, specifically does not do what he says it does. 
Yes, they have effectively accomplished the desired effect of reducing 
the cost of Government while providing quality higher services. The 
proposed amendment singles out only political appointees. Many of these 
appointees, by the way, are only mid-level or junior staffers. The 
National Performance Review plan instead focuses on all employees by 
removing layers of management.
  Political appointees, as I said earlier, play a critical role in 
carrying out policy. The proposed cap would limit political appointees 
to 2,300. President Clinton has created the National Performance Review 
to promote Federal Government that works better and costs less. But if 
you cut the folks committed to that objective, you are going to do 
less, not cost less.
  Presidents Reagan and Bush saw an increase of 67,000 in the Federal 
work force while Clinton, let me indicate to my colleague, under 
President Bush and President Reagan, 67,000 additional employees. Under 
President Clinton, 225,000 fewer employees.
  This small nick is political, not policy. It undermines policy. The 
last time the levels of Federal employment were this low was during the 
Kennedy administration. So this is not an issue about reducing numbers 
of employees. This is an issue about reducing the accountability of the 
administration to the American people for the carrying out of policy 
through people it puts in place to oversee policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would reject this amendment. If 
the gentlemen are sincere, then I think that we ought to ask the White 
House and perhaps even the Republican candidate for President, whoever 
that might be after the convention, what do you think are the 
appropriate levels so that you can carry out your policies? It seems to 
me than and only then will we have an ability to make a substantive, 
appropriate judgment. I do not know that any such study, maybe the 
sponsors came up with 2,300 out of some study or some management 
knowledge that I do not have. Maybe they would like to tell me where 
2,300 came from.
  Apparently not.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
  (Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I cosponsored the Political 
Appointee Reduction Act, now being offered as an amendment, because I 
support reducing the size of our Federal Government. This amendment 
will reduce the size of ``The Plum Book'' and

[[Page H7631]]

rightly so. I know everyone here is familiar with the Plum Book. It is 
published by the Government Printing Office and lists all of the 
positions available throughout the executive branch which are filled by 
Presidential and department or agency head appointment. The Plum Book 
which list all executive positions available, which are filled by 
President or agency head, used to be the size of the Johnson County KS, 
phone book. Now it is the size of the Manhattan phone book.
  Although some progress has been made in reducing executive branch 
employment. Most of these reductions have been made in the Department 
of Defense a result of base closings, reduced funding, and so forth.
  As we make the necessary reductions throughout the Federal 
Government, we should look beyond reducing the number of midlevel 
managers and support staff. Reductions should also be made at the top 
levels--and that is what this amendment will do.
  In December 1991, there were approximately 1,975 full time political 
appointee positions. In the past 4 years that number has grown to 
2,800, growth of 40 percent. Ironically, this growth has occurred at a 
time when we are all committed to reducing the cost and size of 
Government. This amendment caps the number of political appointee 
positions at 2,300, which still represents an increase over 1991. I 
urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Luther-Gutknecht amendment. 
Last year, I introduced H.R. 1671, which would have capped the number 
of political appointees at 2,000 and would have saved $36 million. Vice 
President Gore's National Performance Review recommended putting a cap 
on the number of political appointees, as did one of its predecessors, 
the Volcker commission.
  Neither of those commissions set an actual cap number, but I believe 
the amendment before us today of 2,300 is a very reasonable compromise. 
I urge my colleagues today to think about how we can save money so that 
we can make sure that the money that the taxpayers send us is spent 
properly.
  I would urge that they join with Citizens Against Government Waste to 
cut out wasteful bureaucracy and save the taxpayer money. I support 
this very commonsense amendment.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that the genesis of 
this number is the fact that we reduced our staffs by one-third. We 
think this is a corresponding number.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment. As was just mentioned by my colleague from Minnesota, around 
this place we reduced committee staff by one-third. The very first day 
of Congress, the first thing we did is we said, we are going to get by 
on less. Our Nation is $5 trillion in debt. The Federal checkbook is 
$150 billion overdrawn; that is, we are spending $150 billion more than 
we are taking in.
  Congress acted. They reduced committee staff by one-third on the 
first day, and now it is time to take the next step. This is not going 
to solve all our budget problems, but it is certainly a good step in 
the right direction.

                              {time}  1930

  There is no reason we need 2,800 political appointees returning 
around here. They can certainly get by on 2,300 political appointees, 
and I am glad the gentleman from Minnesota drafted this because, if I 
had drafted it, we would have reduced this number even further.
  I would like to point out that the House Committee on the Budget, on 
which I am a member, recommended this reduction from 2,800 to 2,300, so 
the House Committee on the Budget has made this recommendation. Last 
year the Senate made this recommendation by unanimous consent. The 
Senate was actually ahead of us on this, and there is no excuse for us 
not going ahead and following that lead.
  So I strongly support this amendment. I would add that Vice President 
Gore's National Performance Review also suggested capping the number of 
political appointees. Citizens Against Government Waste, Concord 
Coalition, my colleagues, virtually everybody in this city knows that 
we can survive with 500 fewer political appointees in the executive 
branch in this city.
  I strongly support this amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have already said what I have to say on this, and let 
me say it one more time for just a minute.
  The Federal Government has about 2 million civilian employees. We are 
bringing that down. It is going to be about 1.9 million, 1.8 million 
when we finish. That is to serve the 270 million Americans, Federal 
level.
  Contrary to the demagoguery that goes on, the growth in government 
has not occurred at the Federal level. It has occurred in the State and 
local government since the 1960's. That is where the real growth in 
government has occurred. The Federal Government has been relatively 
stable, and, as I said, we are currently at about 1960 levels.
  So this is not a question of an exploding work force. This is a 
question, my colleagues in the House, as to whether or not this 
administration or any administration will have sufficient numbers of 
people to place in the 13 agencies of government and the departments of 
government and the other agencies and independent organizations, not in 
this country alone, but around the world, who will be there to carry 
out administration policy.

  Now, George Bush, as I said, had almost 3,300, 3,297 I think it was. 
I do not have it right in front of me. But this President has 150 less, 
or about 5 percent less than President Bush.
  This amendment reduce that another thousand, essentially, and 
contrary to what some of the speakers said and the previous speaker, 
``Oh, well, the government can operate.'' Of course it can operate and 
will operate. The irony, I tell my friends on the majority side of the 
aisle, is that they are constantly concerned that Federal employees are 
not carrying out policies they believe are appropriate. If that is the 
case, then this is opposite of the objective they want to seek and that 
they talk about.
  Now this affects both administrations. We are going to have a new 
administration next year. I believe my President is going to win; they 
believe their candidate is going to win. This is not a partisan issue. 
This is whether either of the candidates have the ability to function 
effectively as the principal policymakers in America.
  That is what this is all about, and I suggest to my colleagues that I 
do not know that 3,297 is a correct number or that 3,290, or that 3,147 
is a correct number. That is the number we budget for: 3,290 was under 
President Bush, 3,147 under President Clinton; both of them have about 
the same complement of people.
  Now, the President has reduced 225,000 people, which is a good 
number, and therefore he has less people, 150 less than he has 
overseeing the implementation of his policy. I have said that a hundred 
times. I do not know that it is going to make any more effect.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope--this was never considered in committee, 
never debated, no testimony on it, no independent analysis as to 
whether the numbers proposed or some other number was appropriate. In 
light of that, I would ask that we reject this amendment.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gutknecht amendment 
which saves taxpayers $211 million.
  Mr. Chairman, each child born last year will owe approximately 
$187,000 in debt because of Congress' excessive spending. The national 
debt already exceeds $5 trillion.
  The amendment currently before us requires the Federal Government to 
share in the burden of deficit reduction. For too long, the Federal 
Government turned to the pockets of taxpayers to fund excessive and 
wasteful spending.
  Now, the Federal Government must look to itself. Deficit reduction 
begins at home and the Congress must reign in wasteful Government 
spending. Over my 5 years in Congress, I have not spent $565,000 of my 
office funds.
  We have also demonstrated our commitment to deficit reduction by 
reducing Federal spending by $43 billion last year. We continue

[[Page H7632]]

our efforts this year by doing more with less. We continue to review 
each and every Federal program for its efficiency and effectiveness and 
explore alternatives to get the most out of each tax dollar.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 475, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Gutknecht] will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                  TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                          Departmental Offices


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Departmental Offices 
     including operation and maintenance of the Treasury Building 
     and Annex; hire of passenger motor vehicles; maintenance, 
     repairs, and improvements of, and purchase of commercial 
     insurance policies for, real properties leased or owned 
     overseas, when necessary for the performance of official 
     business; not to exceed $2,900,000 for official travel 
     expenses; not to exceed $150,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses; not to exceed $258,000 for 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential nature, to be 
     allocated and expended under the direction of the Secretary 
     of the Treasury and to be accounted for solely on his 
     certificate; $108,447,000: Provided, That up to $500,000 
     shall be made available to implement section 528 of this Act.

                         Automation Enhancement


                      including transfer of funds

       For the development and acquisition of automatic data 
     processing equipment, software, and services for the 
     Department of the Treasury, $27,100,000, of which $15,000,000 
     shall be available to the United States Customs Service for 
     the Automated Commercial Environment project, and of which 
     $5,600,000 shall be available to the United States Customs 
     Service for the International Trade Data System. Provided, 
     That these funds shall remain available until September 30, 
     1999: Provided further, That these funds shall be transferred 
     to accounts and in amounts as necessary to satisfy the 
     requirements of the Department's offices, bureaus, and other 
     organizations: Provided further, That this transfer authority 
     shall be in addition to any other transfer authority provided 
     in this Act: Provided further, That none of the funds shall 
     be used to support or supplement Internal Revenue Service 
     appropriations for Information Systems and Tax Systems 
     Modernization: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     available for the Automated Commercial Environment or the 
     International Trade Data System may be obligated without the 
     advance approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.

Office of Inspector General and Internal Audit of the Internal Revenue 
                                Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     and the internal audit functions of the Internal Revenue 
     Service, $135,925,000; of which, $28,689,000 shall be made 
     available for the necessary expenses of the Office of 
     Inspector General in carrying out the provisions of the 
     Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, not to exceed 
     $2,000,000 for official travel expenses; including hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; and not to exceed $100,000 for 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential nature, to be 
     allocated and expended under the direction of the Inspector 
     General of the Treasury; and of which $106,606,000 shall be 
     available for the internal audit functions of the Internal 
     Revenue Service: Provided, That the chief of internal audit 
     for the Internal Revenue Service shall report directly to the 
     Deputy Secretary of the Treasury.

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman in a colloquy with regard 
to items contained in the bill which affect the Internal Revenue 
Service.
  I want to take this opportunity though to commend Chairman Lightfoot 
for his hard work and diligent efforts to provide effective oversight 
of the IRS. With an annual budget of $7.3 billion, the IRS consumes 
nearly 60 percent of all of the funding under his subcommittee's 
jurisdiction and touches the lives of Americans more directly than any 
other Federal agency. I appreciate the chairman's dedication to making 
the IRS a more effective and efficient agency, and to improve the IRS's 
accountability in its handling of the massive tax systems modernization 
program.
  Having said that, there are a number of provisions in this bill which 
give me cause for concern, and I hope that the gentleman can clarify 
several points for me.
  First, I note that there is a large reduction made to the account 
which funds IRS Information Systems. While much of this is to the TSM 
Program, there appears to be a significant reduction to Legacy systems 
which are needed to support IRS returns processing and compliance 
functions. Total funding for non-TSM information systems appears to be 
$179.2 million below fiscal year 1996 operating levels. I am concerned 
that reductions of this magnitude could have a negative effect on the 
IRS's ability to efficiently manage the 1997 return filing season. What 
is the rationale behind reducing this account?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, under the subcommittee's assumptions, we 
believe there will be sufficient funds provided for all of the IRS' 
current computer systems. Our bill assumes significant savings in this 
account, for instance, by reducing funds for travel, supply costs, and 
telephone costs. I also note that, since the bill reduces IRS 
employment by over 2,000 TSM employees, we assume this will save $149 
million next year. These savings are applied to operating IRS computer 
systems, so our cuts are made to salary and overhead costs, not to 
computer systems.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that 
the bill's funding for Information Systems rests on the assumption that 
significant salary and overhead savings can be achieved next year, but 
I am concerned that it will be very difficult to actually realize those 
savings within the fiscal year. If this concern is verified as the bill 
moves forward, can the gentleman assure me that he will work in 
conference to restore full funding for IRS's operational computer 
systems?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. If the gentlelady will yield, let me assure her that 
in the event that there are some Legacy systems which are funded below 
the level that IRS may need to operate them in the upcoming year, I am 
committed to increasing this number as the bill moves through 
conference with the Senate.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman for that 
clarification. I also have several concerns about provisions in the 
bill relating to the Tax Systems Modernization Program. We all agree 
that the IRS has not adequately managed this program and that changes 
are needed to ensure that TSM is successful. However, the bill contains 
language fencing off all TSM funds until IRS establishes a restructured 
contractual arrangement with the private sector to deliver the balance 
of the program. Included within the fenced-off funds is nearly $170 
million for currently operational TSM systems, such as Telefile and 
Electronic Fraud Detection. Since it is unlikely that these contractual 
arrangements will be in place by the beginning of the fiscal year, I am 
concerned that the fencing off language could have the effect of 
prohibiting IRS from using these operational TSM systems for some 
period of time next year.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. If the gentlelady would yield, I want to assure her 
that this was not the subcommittee's intention. The fencing off 
language was included to ensure that IRS does not spend any more funds 
to continue development of TSM systems in-house. Assuming that IRS is 
able to provide us with a concrete list of those TSM systems which are 
up and running, we will clarify that the fencing off language will not 
affect funding for operational TSM systems.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Reclaiming my time, I very much 
appreciate that clarification. I am also concerned about the provision 
to transfer TSM procurement activities, including responsibility for 
writing the request for proposal to the Department of Defense. I 
question whether it will be helpful, at this point in the process, to 
put responsibility for contracting out TSM in the hands of DOD 
employees who have not had any previous experience with IRS computer 
systems or the agency's business needs.
  While I agree with the gentleman that IRS' long-term track record on

[[Page H7633]]

TSM has not been good, the new management structure put into place by 
IRS and the Department of the Treasury has come a long way toward 
addressing the TSM problems that the gentleman has brought to light in 
his oversight of this program.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. If the gentlewoman will yield, I agree that the new 
management structure is a step in the right direction. However, I am 
convinced that IRS does not have the in-house technical capability to 
complete the development and delivery of a successful TSM. The proposal 
to transfer writing of the RFP and other contract award activities to 
the Department of Defense was intended to demonstrate the depth of 
congressional intent that IRS must get out of the business of 
developing TSM and turn it over to experts in the private sector who 
develop computer systems for a living.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. 
Johnson] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Lightfoot, and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Johnson 
of Connecticut was allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I also believe IRS does not have the 
technical expertise to write the RFP and award the contract in the 
necessary time frame. However, we do not want to burden the Department 
of Defense with work that does not directly benefit national defense. 
As the bill moves through conference, I would be happy to work with 
Treasury and the IRS to address the issue of who should be responsible 
for writing the restructured RFP. While I am determined that IRS should 
be out of the business of writing the new contract, I am certainly 
ready and willing to negotiate on who has the best technical expertise 
to do the job.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman for his willingness to be flexible on this issue. My final 
point is with regard to provisions in the bill relating to tax debt 
collections. The bill transfers $13 million from the IRS to Treasury to 
initiate a second private sector debt collection program, and provides 
an additional $13 million for continuation of the current private debt 
collection IRS initiative established by the fiscal year 1996 Treasury, 
Postal Service, and General Government appropriation.
  As my colleague knows, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, 
which I chair, recently held a hearing earlier to explore the idea of 
using private firms to assist in collecting Federal tax debts. I 
supported the program you initiated last year so we can determine 
whether privatizing some tax debt collection functions is a good 
business decision for the Federal Government.
  I also applaud the gentleman for the language he included last year 
to guarantee that taxpayers rights are fully protected under the 1996 
program.

                              {time}  1945

  The private contractors who were recently awarded contracts under the 
program are subject to the disclosure laws: The Privacy Act, the 
Taxpayer Bill of Rights, and applicable sections of the Fair Debt 
Collection Practices Act.
  However, I do want to emphasize my belief that the use of private 
collection firms to collect Federal tax debts is something that needs 
to be fully and fairly tested before the program is greatly expanded. 
under current law, private contractors cannot be compensated out of the 
proceeds of amounts they assist in collecting, so the pilot is being 
conducted using appropriated funds.
  Since this does not allow for the most efficient test of the 
effectiveness of private contractors, the Committee on Ways and Means 
is in the process of developing legislation which we hope to be able to 
consider in the near future to allow IRS to expand the use of private 
collection firms and test alternative compensation arrangements that 
are not permissible under present law.
  Thus, I urge the gentleman to drop the $13 million that the bill 
transfers from IRS to Treasury to initiate a second private sector debt 
collection program.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to 
yield, I am very pleased to learn that the Committee on Ways and Means 
is developing legislation relating to private debt collection. I share 
the gentlewoman's goal of doing what is necessary to determine whether 
privatizing some tax collection functions is a good business decision.
  As the Treasury appropriations bill moves through conference with the 
Senate, I am committed to addressing the gentlewoman's concerns 
regarding the second private sector debt collection program.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
his clarification on these important issues.
  While I remain concerned about the adequacy of funding levels 
provided for the IRS, I recognize the challenges the gentleman faced in 
putting this bill together, and I am satisfied by the chairman's 
commitment that he will address these issues in conference with the 
Senate. I commend Chairman Lightfoot for his responsiveness and 
willingness to listen to the concerns of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.


            Amendment offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut

  Mrs. JOHNSON OF Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut: Page 4, 
     beginning on line 1, strike ``and Internal Audit of the 
     Internal Revenue Service.''
       Page 4, line 5, strike ``and the internal'' and all that 
     follows through ``Inspector General'' on line 8.
       Page 4, line 14, strike ``and of which'' and all that 
     follows through line 19, and insert ``$29,319,000.''.
       Page 20, line 23, strike ``$1,616,379,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,722,985,00''.

  The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Lightfoot] rise?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remainder of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record, and 
open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of title I is as follows:

                 Office of Professional Responsibility


                         salaries and expenses

                      including transfer of funds

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Professional 
     Responsibility, including purchase and hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles, up to $3,000,000, to be derived through 
     transfer from the United States Customs Service, salaries and 
     expenses appropriation: Provided, That none of the funds 
     shall be obligated without the advance approval of the House 
     and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

          Treasury Buildings and Annex Repair and Restoration


                      including transfer of funds

       For the repair, alteration, and improvement of the Treasury 
     Building and Annex, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
     Firearms National Laboratory Center and the Fire 
     Investigation Research and Development Center, and the Rowley 
     Secret Service Training Center, $22,892,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That funds for the Bureau 
     of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms National Laboratory Center 
     and the Fire Investigation Research and Development Center 
     and the Rowley Secret Service Training Center shall not be 
     available until a prospectus authorizing such facilities is 
     approved by the House Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure: Provided further, That funds previously made 
     available under this title for the Secret Service 
     Headquarter's building shall be transferred to the Secret 
     Service Acquisition, Construction, Improvement and Related 
     Expenses appropriation.

                  Financial Crimes Enforcement Network


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Financial Crimes Enforcement 
     Network, including hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel 
     expenses of non-Federal law enforcement personnel to attend 
     meetings concerned with financial intelligence activities, 
     law enforcement, and financial regulation; not to exceed 
     $14,000 for official reception and representation expenses; 
     and for assistance to Federal law enforcement agencies, with 
     or without reimbursement; $22,387,000: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Director of 
     the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network may procure up to 
     $500,000 in specialized, unique, or novel automatic data 
     processing equipment, ancillary equipment, software, 
     services, and related resources from commercial vendors 
     without regard to otherwise applicable procurement laws and 
     regulations and without full and open competition, utilizing 
     procedures best suited under the circumstances of the 
     procurement to efficiently fulfill the agency's requirements: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated in this account may 
     be used to procure personal services contracts.

[[Page H7634]]

               Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund

       For necessary expenses of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed 
     $7,500,000 shall be made available for the development of a 
     Federal wireless communication system, to be derived from 
     deposits in the Fund: Provided, That the Secretary of the 
     Treasury is authorized to receive all unavailable collections 
     transferred from the Special Forfeiture Fund established by 
     section 6073 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 
     1509) by the Director of the Office of Drug Control Policy as 
     a deposit into the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (31 U.S.C. 
     9703(a)).

                    Violent Crime Reduction Programs


                      including transfer of funds

       For activities authorized by Public Law 103-322, to remain 
     available until expended, which shall be derived from the 
     Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, as follows:
       (a) As authorized by section 190001(e), $89,800,000, of 
     which $15,005,000 shall be available to the United States 
     Customs Service; of which $47,624,000 shall be available to 
     the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, of which 
     $2,500,000 shall be available for administering the Gang 
     Resistance Education and Training program, of which 
     $3,662,000 shall be available for ballistics technologies, 
     and of which $41,462,000 shall be available to enhance 
     training and purchase equipment and services; of which 
     $5,971,000 shall be available to the Secretary as authorized 
     by section 732 of Public Law 104-132; of which $1,000,000 
     shall be available to the Financial Crimes Enforcement 
     Network; of which $20,200,000 shall be available to the 
     United States Secret Service, of which no less than 
     $1,000,000 shall be available for a grant for activities 
     related to the investigations of missing and exploited 
     children.
       (b) As authorized by section 32401, $7,200,000, for 
     disbursement through grants, cooperative agreements or 
     contracts, to local governments for Gang Resistance Education 
     and Training: Provided, That notwithstanding sections 32401 
     and 310001, such funds shall be allocated only to the 
     affected State and local law enforcement and prevention 
     organizations participating in such projects.

                        Treasury Franchise Fund

       There is hereby established in the Treasury a franchise 
     fund pilot, as authorized by section 403 of Public Law 103-
     356, to be available as provided in such section for expenses 
     and equipment necessary for the maintenance and operation of 
     such financial and administrative support services as the 
     Secretary determines may be performed more advantageously as 
     central services: Provided, That any inventories, equipment, 
     and other assets pertaining to the services to be provided by 
     such fund, either on hand or on order, less the related 
     liabilities or unpaid obligations, and any appropriations 
     made for the purpose of providing capital, shall be used to 
     capitalize such fund: Provided further, That such fund shall 
     be reimbursed or credited with the payments, including 
     advanced payments, from applicable appropriations and funds 
     available to the Department and other Federal agencies for 
     which such administrative and financial services are 
     performed, at rates which will recover all expenses of 
     operation, including accrued leave, depreciation of fund 
     plant and equipment, amortization of Automatic Data 
     Processing (ADP) software and systems, and an amount 
     necessary to maintain a reasonable operating reserve, as 
     determined by the Secretary: Provided further, That such fund 
     shall provide services on a competitive basis: Provided 
     further, That an amount not to exceed 4 percent of the total 
     annual income to such fund may be retained in the fund for 
     fiscal year 1997 and each fiscal year thereafter, to remain 
     available until expended, to be used for the acquisition of 
     capital equipment and for the improvement and implementation 
     of Treasury financial management, ADP, and other support 
     systems: Provided further, That no later than 30 days after 
     the end of each fiscal year, amounts in excess of this 
     reserve limitation shall be deposited as miscellaneous 
     receipts in the Treasury: Provided further, That such 
     franchise fund pilot shall terminate pursuant to section 
     403(f) of Public Law 103-356.

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center, as a bureau of the Department of the 
     Treasury, including materials and support costs of Federal 
     law enforcement basic training; purchase (not to exceed 52 
     for police-type use, without regard to the general purchase 
     price limitation) and hire of passenger motor vehicles; for 
     expenses for student athletic and related activities; 
     uniforms without regard to the general purchase price 
     limitation for the current fiscal year; the conducting of and 
     participating in firearms matches and presentation of awards; 
     for public awareness and enhancing community support of law 
     enforcement training; not to exceed $9,500 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; room and board for 
     student interns; and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; 
     $51,681,000, of which $9,423,000 for materials and support 
     costs of Federal law enforcement basic training shall remain 
     available until September 30, 1999: Provided, That the Center 
     is authorized to accept and use gifts of property, both real 
     and personal, and to accept services, for authorized 
     purposes, including funding of a gift of intrinsic value 
     which shall be awarded annually by the Director of the Center 
     to the outstanding student who graduated from a basic 
     training program at the Center during the previous fiscal 
     year, which shall be funded only by gifts received through 
     the Center's gift authority: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, students 
     attending training at any Federal Law Enforcement Training 
     Center site shall reside in on-Center or Center-provided 
     housing, insofar as available and in accordance with Center 
     policy: Provided further, That funds appropriated in this 
     account shall be available for training United States Postal 
     Service law enforcement personnel and Postal police officers, 
     at the discretion of the Director; State and local government 
     law enforcement training on a space-available basis; training 
     of foreign law enforcement officials on a space-available 
     basis with reimbursement of actual costs to this 
     appropriation; training of private sector security officials 
     on a space-available basis with reimbursement of actual costs 
     to this appropriation; and travel expenses of non-Federal 
     personnel to attend course development meetings and training 
     at the Center: Provided further, That the Center is 
     authorized to obligate funds in anticipation of 
     reimbursements from agencies receiving training at the 
     Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, except that total 
     obligations at the end of the fiscal year shall not exceed 
     total budgetary resources available at the end of the fiscal 
     year: Provided further, That the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center is authorized to provide short term medical 
     services for students undergoing training at the Center.

     acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

       For expansion of the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
     Center, for acquisition of necessary additional real property 
     and facilities, and for ongoing maintenance, facility 
     improvements, and related expenses, $18,884,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                      Financial Management Service

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Financial Management Service, 
     $191,799,000, of which not to exceed $14,277,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for systems modernization 
     initiatives. In addition, $90,000, to be derived from the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund, to reimburse the Service for 
     administrative and personnel expenses for financial 
     management of the Fund, as authorized by section 1012 of 
     Public Law 101-380: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available for systems modernization initiatives may not be 
     obligated until the Commissioner of the Financial Management 
     Service has submitted, and the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House and Senate have approved, a report that 
     identifies, evaluates, and prioritizes all computer systems 
     investments planned for fiscal year 1997, a milestone 
     schedule for the development and implementation of all 
     projects included in the systems investment plan, and a 
     systems architecture plan.

                Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
     and Firearms, including purchase of not to exceed 650 
     vehicles for police-type use for replacement only and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; hire of aircraft; and services of 
     expert witnesses at such rates as may be determined by the 
     Director; for payment of per diem and/or subsistence 
     allowances to employees where an assignment to the National 
     Response Team during the investigation of a bombing or arson 
     incident requires an employee to work 16 hours or more per 
     day or to remain overnight at his or her post of duty; not to 
     exceed $12,500 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; for training of State and local law enforcement 
     agencies with or without reimbursement, including training in 
     connection with the training and acquisition of canines for 
     explosives and fire accelerants detection; provision of 
     laboratory assistance to State and local agencies, with or 
     without reimbursement; $389,982,000, of which $12,011,000, to 
     remain available until expended, shall be available for arson 
     investigations, with priority assigned to any arson involving 
     religious institutions; which not to exceed $1,000,000 shall 
     be available for the payment of attorneys' fees as provided 
     by 18 U.S.C. 924(d)(2); and of which $1,000,000 shall be 
     available for the equipping of any vessel, vehicle, 
     equipment, or aircraft available for official use by a State 
     or local law enforcement agency if the conveyance will be 
     used in drug-related joint law enforcement operations with 
     the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and for the 
     payment of overtime salaries, travel, fuel, training, 
     equipment, and other similar costs of State and local law 
     enforcement officers that are incurred in joint operations 
     with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms: Provided, 
     That no funds made available by this or any other Act may be 
     used to transfer the functions, missions, or activities of 
     the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to other agencies 
     or Departments in the fiscal year ending on September 30, 
     1997: Provided further, That no funds appropriated herein 
     shall be available for salaries or administrative expenses in 
     connection with consolidating or centralizing, within the 
     Department of the Treasury, the records, or any portion 
     thereof, of acquisition and disposition of firearms

[[Page H7635]]

     maintained by Federal firearms licensees: Provided further, 
     That no funds appropriated herein shall be used to pay 
     administrative expenses or the compensation of any officer or 
     employee of the United States to implement an amendment or 
     amendments to 27 CFR 178.118 or to change the definition of 
     ``Curios or relics'' in 27 CFR 178.11 or remove any item from 
     ATF Publication 5300.11 as it existed on January 1, 1994: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated herein 
     shall be available to investigate or act upon applications 
     for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 
     925(c) and the inability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
     and Firearms to process or act upon such applications for 
     felons convicted of a violent crime, firearms violations, or 
     drug-related crimes shall not be subject to judicial review: 
     Provided further, That such funds shall be available to 
     investigate and act upon applications filed by corporations 
     for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 
     925(c): Provided further, That no funds in this Act may be 
     used to provide ballistics imaging equipment to State or 
     local authorities who have obtained similar equipment through 
     a Federal grant or subsidy: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, all aircraft 
     owned and operated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
     Firearms shall be transferred to the United States Customs 
     Service: Provided further, That no funds under this heading 
     shall be available to conduct a reduction in force: Provided 
     further, That no funds available for separation incentive 
     payments as authorized by section 525 of this Act may be 
     obligated without the advance approval of the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That 
     no funds under this Act may be used to electronically 
     retrieve information gathered pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(4) 
     by name or any personal identification code.

                     United States Customs Service


                         salaries and expenses

                      including transfer of funds

       For necessary expenses of the United States Customs 
     Service, including purchase of up to 1,000 motor vehicles of 
     which 960 are for replacement only, including 990 for police-
     type use and commercial operations; hire of motor vehicles; 
     contracting with individuals for personal services abroad; 
     not to exceed $20,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses; and awards of compensation to 
     informers, as authorized by any Act enforced by the United 
     States Customs Service; $1,489,224,000; of which $65,000,000 
     shall be available until expended for Operation Hardline; of 
     which $28,000,000 shall be available until expended for 
     expenses associated with Operation Gateway; of which up to 
     $3,000,000 shall be available for transfer to the Office of 
     Professional Responsibility; and of which such sums as become 
     available in the Customs User Fee Account, except sums 
     subject to section 13031(f)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(3)), 
     shall be derived from that Account; of the total, not to 
     exceed $150,000 shall be available for payment for rental 
     space in connection with preclearance operations, and not to 
     exceed $4,000,000 shall be available until expended for 
     research and not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be available 
     until expended for conducting special operations pursuant to 
     19 U.S.C. 2081 and up to $6,000,000 shall be available until 
     expended for the procurement of automation infrastructure 
     items, including hardware, software, and installation: 
     Provided, That uniforms may be purchased without regard to 
     the general purchase price limitation for the current fiscal 
     year: Provided further, That the United States Custom Service 
     shall implement the General Aviation Telephonic Entry program 
     within 30 days of enactment of this Act: Provided further, 
     That no funds under this heading shall be available to 
     conduct a reduction in force: Provided further, That no funds 
     available for separation incentive payments as authorized by 
     section 525 of this Act may be obligated without the advance 
     approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That the Spirit of St. 
     Louis Airport in St. Louis County, Missouri, shall be 
     designated a port of entry: Provided further, that no funds 
     under this Act may be used to provide less than 30 days 
     public notice for any change in apparel regulations.

    operation and maintenance, air and marine interdiction programs

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of marine vessels, aircraft, and 
     other related equipment of the Air and Marine Programs, 
     including operational training and mission-related travel, 
     and rental payments for facilities occupied by the air or 
     marine interdiction and demand reduction programs, the 
     operations of which include: the interdiction of narcotics 
     and other goods; the provision of support to Customs and 
     other Federal, State, and local agencies in the enforcement 
     or administration of laws enforced by the Customs Service; 
     and, at the discretion of the Commissioner of Customs, the 
     provision of assistance to Federal, State, and local agencies 
     in other law enforcement and emergency humanitarian efforts; 
     $83,363,000, which shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That no aircraft or other related equipment, with 
     the exception of aircraft which is one of a kind and has been 
     identified as excess to Customs requirements and aircraft 
     which has been damaged beyond repair, shall be transferred to 
     any other Federal agency, Department, or office outside of 
     the Department of the Treasury, during fiscal year 1997 
     without the prior approval of the House and Senate Committees 
     on Appropriations.


                      Air Interdiction Procurement

       For the purchase and restoration of aircraft, marine 
     vessels and air surveillance equipment for the Customs air 
     and marine interdiction programs, $28,000,000: Provided, That 
     such resources shall not be available until September 30, 
     1997, and shall remain available until expended.

                   customs services at small airports


                  (to be derived from fees collected)

       Such sums as may be necessary for expenses for the 
     provision of Customs services at certain small airports or 
     other facilities when authorized by law and designated by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, including expenditures for the 
     salary and expenses of individuals employed to provide such 
     services, to be derived from fees collected by the Secretary 
     pursuant to section 236 of Public Law 98-573 for each of 
     these airports or other facilities when authorized by law and 
     designated by the Secretary, and to remain available until 
     expended.

                   harbor maintenance fee collection

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

                       Bureau of the Public Debt

                     administering the public debt

       For necessary expenses connected with any public-debt 
     issues of the United States; $169,735,000: Provided, That the 
     sum appropriated herein from the General Fund for fiscal year 
     1997 shall be reduced by not more than $4,400,000 as 
     definitive security issue fees and Treasury Direct Investor 
     Account Maintenance fees are collected, so as to result in a 
     final fiscal year 1997 appropriation from the General Fund 
     estimated at $165,335,000.

                        Internal Revenue Service

                 processing, assistance, and management

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service, not 
     otherwise provided for; including processing tax returns; 
     revenue accounting; providing assistance to taxpayers, 
     management services, and inspection; including purchase (not 
     to exceed 150 for replacement only for police-type use) and 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)); and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may 
     be determined by the Commissioner; $1,616,379,000, of which 
     up to $3,700,000 shall be for the Tax Counseling for the 
     Elderly Program, and of which not to exceed $25,000 shall be 
     for official reception and representation expenses.

                          tax law enforcement

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for 
     determining and establishing tax liabilities; tax and 
     enforcement litigation; technical rulings; examining employee 
     plans and exempt organizations; investigation and enforcement 
     activities; securing unfiled tax returns; collecting unpaid 
     accounts; statistics of income and compliance research; the 
     purchase (for police-type use, not to exceed 850), and hire 
     of passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)); and services 
     as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may be 
     determined by the Commissioner; $4,052,586,000.


                          information systems

                      including transfer of funds

       For necessary expenses for data processing and 
     telecommunications support for Internal Revenue Service 
     activities, including tax systems modernization (modernized 
     developmental systems), modernized operational systems, 
     services and compliance, and support systems; the hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)); and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may be 
     determined by the Commissioner; $1,077,450,000, of which 
     $424,500,000 shall be available for tax systems modernization 
     program activities: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available for tax systems modernization shall be available 
     until the Internal Revenue Service establishes a restructured 
     contractual relationship with a commercial sector company to 
     manage, integrate, test, and implement all portions of the 
     tax systems modernization program, except that funds up to 
     $59,100,000 may be used to support a Government Program 
     Management Office, not to exceed a total staffing of 50 
     individuals, and other necessary Program Management 
     activities: Provided further, That none of the funds made 
     available for tax systems modernization may be used by the 
     Internal Revenue Service to carry out activities associated 
     with the development of a request for proposal and contract 
     award, except that funds shall be available for the sharing 
     of data and information and general oversight of the process 
     by the Associate Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service 
     for Modernization, and such funds as may be necessary shall 
     be transferred to the Department of Defense which will 
     conduct all technical activities associated with the 
     development of a request for proposal and contract award: 
     Provided further, That none of these funds may be used to 
     support in excess of 150 full-time equivalent positions in 
     support of tax systems modernization: Provided further, That 
     these funds shall remain available until September 30, 1999.

[[Page H7636]]

                          information systems


                              (Rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading for Tax 
     Systems Modernization in Public Law 104-52, $100,000,000 are 
     rescinded, in Public Law 103-329, $51,685,000 are rescinded, 
     in Public Law 102-393, $2,421,000 are rescinded, and in 
     Public Law 102-141, $20,341,000 are rescinded.


          administrative provisions--internal revenue service

       Section 101. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation 
     made available in this Act to the Internal Revenue Service 
     may be transferred to any other Internal Revenue Service 
     appropriation upon the advance approval of the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 102. The Internal Revenue Service shall maintain a 
     training program to insure that Internal Revenue Service 
     employees are trained in taxpayers' rights, in dealing 
     courteously with the taxpayers, and in cross-cultural 
     relations.
       Sec. 103. The funds provided in this Act for the Internal 
     Revenue Service shall be used to provide as a minimum, the 
     fiscal year 1995 level of service, staffing, and funding for 
     Taxpayer Services.
       Sec. 104. No funds available in this Act to the Internal 
     Revenue Service for separation incentive payments as 
     authorized by section 525 of this Act may be obligated 
     without the advance approval of the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations.

                      United States Secret Service

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Secret Service, 
     including purchase (not to exceed 702 vehicles for police-
     type use, of which 665 shall be for replacement only), and 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire of aircraft; training 
     and assistance requested by State and local governments, 
     which may be provided without reimbursement; services of 
     expert witnesses at such rates as may be determined by the 
     Director; rental of buildings in the District of Columbia, 
     and fencing, lighting, guard booths, and other facilities on 
     private or other property not in Government ownership or 
     control, as may be necessary to perform protective functions; 
     for payment of per diem and/or subsistence allowances to 
     employees where a protective assignment during the actual day 
     or days of the visit of a protectee require an employee to 
     work 16 hours per day or to remain overnight at his or her 
     post of duty; the conducting of and participating in firearms 
     matches; presentation of awards; and for travel of Secret 
     Service employees on protective missions without regard to 
     the limitations on such expenditures in this or any other 
     Act: Provided, That approval is obtained in advance from the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations; for repairs, 
     alterations, and minor construction at the James J. Rowley 
     Secret Service Training Center; for research and development; 
     for making grants to conduct behavioral research in support 
     of protective research and operations; not to exceed $20,000 
     for official reception and representation expenses; not to 
     exceed $50,000 to provide technical assistance and equipment 
     to foreign law enforcement organizations in counterfeit 
     investigations; for payment in advance for commercial 
     accommodations as may be necessary to perform protective 
     functions; and for uniforms without regard to the general 
     purchase price limitation for the current fiscal year: 
     Provided further, That 3 U.S.C. 203(a) is amended by deleting 
     ``but not exceeding twelve hundred in number''; $528,368,000, 
     of which $1,200,000 shall be available as a grant for 
     activities related to the investigations of missing and 
     exploited children: Provided further, That resources made 
     available as a grant for activities related to the 
     investigations of missing and exploited children shall not be 
     available until September 30, 1997, and shall remain 
     available until expended.


      acquisition, construction, improvement, and related expenses

       For necessary expenses of construction, repair, alteration, 
     and improvement of facilities, $31,298,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That funds previously 
     provided under the title, ``Treasury Buildings and Annex 
     Repair and Restoration,'' for the Secret Service's 
     Headquarters Building, shall be transferred to this account.

             General Provisions--Department of the Treasury

       Section 111. Any obligation or expenditure by the Secretary 
     in connection with law enforcement activities of a Federal 
     agency or a Department of the Treasury law enforcement 
     organization in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9703(g)(4)(B) from 
     unobligated balances remaining in the Fund on September 30, 
     1997, shall be made in compliance with the reprogramming 
     guidelines contained in the House and Senate reports 
     accompanying this Act.
       Sec. 112. Appropriations to the Treasury Department in this 
     Act shall be available for uniforms or allowances therefor, 
     as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901), including maintenance, 
     repairs, and cleaning; purchase of insurance for official 
     motor vehicles operated in foreign countries; purchase of 
     motor vehicles without regard to the general purchase price 
     limitations for vehicles purchased and used overseas for the 
     current fiscal year; entering into contracts with the 
     Department of State for the furnishing of health and medical 
     services to employees and their dependents serving in foreign 
     countries; and services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 113. None of the funds appropriated by this title 
     shall be used in connection with the collection of any 
     underpayment of any tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 unless the conduct of officers and employees of the 
     Internal Revenue Service in connection with such collection, 
     including any private sector employees under contract to the 
     Internal Revenue Service, compiles with subsection (a) of 
     section 805 (relating to communications in connection with 
     debt collection), and section 806 (relating to harassment or 
     abuse), of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1692).
       Sec. 114. The Internal Revenue Service shall institute 
     policies and procedures which will safeguard the 
     confidentiality of taxpayer information.
       Sec. 115. The funds provided to the Bureau of Alcohol 
     Tobacco and Firearms for fiscal year 1997 in this Act for the 
     enforcement of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act shall 
     be expended in a manner so as not to diminish enforcement 
     efforts with respect to section 105 of the Federal Alcohol 
     Administration Act.
       Sec. 116. Paragraph (3)(C) of section 9703(g) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking in the third sentence ``and at the end of 
     each fiscal year thereafter'';
       (2) by inserting in lieu thereof ``1994, 1995, and 1996''; 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``At 
     the end of fiscal year 1997, and at the end of each fiscal 
     year thereafter, the Secretary shall reserve any amounts that 
     are required to be retained in the Fund to ensure the 
     availability of amounts in the subsequent fiscal year for 
     purposes authorized under subsection (a).''
       Sec. 117. Of the funds available to the Internal Revenue 
     Service, $13,000,000 shall be made available to continue the 
     private sector debt collection program which was initiated in 
     fiscal year 1996 and $13,000,000 shall be transferred to the 
     Departmental Offices appropriation to initiate a new private 
     sector debt collection program: Provided, That the transfer 
     provided herein shall be in addition to any other transfer 
     authority contained in this Act.


priority placement, job placement, retraining, and counseling programs 
for u.s. treasury department employees affected by a reduction in force

       Sec. 118. (a) Definitions.--
       (1) For the purposes of this section, the term ``agency'' 
     means the United States Department of the Treasury.
       (2) For the purposes of this section, the term ``eligible 
     employee'' means any employee of the agency who--
       (A) is scheduled to be separated from service due to a 
     reduction in force under--
       (i) regulations prescribed under section 3502 of title 5, 
     United States Code; or
       (ii) procedures established under section 3595 of title 5, 
     United States Code; or
       (B) is separated from service due to such a reduction in 
     force, but does not include--
       (i) an employee separated from service for cause on charges 
     of misconduct or delinquency; or
       (ii) an employee who, at the time of separation, meets the 
     age and service requirements for an immediate annuity under 
     subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (b) Priority Placement Program.--Not later than 30 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the U.S. 
     Department of the Treasury shall establish a priority 
     placement program for eligible employees.
       (c) The priority placement program established under 
     subsection (b) shall include provisions under which a vacant 
     position shall not be filled by the appointment or transfer 
     of any individual from outside of the agency if--
       (1) there is then available any eligible employee who 
     applies for the position within 30 days of the agency issuing 
     a job announcement and is qualified (or can be trained or 
     retrained to become qualified within 90 days of assuming the 
     position) for the position; and
       (2) the position is within the same commuting area as the 
     eligible employee's last-held position or residence.
       (d) Job Placement and Counseling Services.--The head of the 
     agency may establish a program to provide job placement and 
     counseling services to eligible employees and their families.
       (1) Types of services.--A program established under 
     subsection (d) may include, is not limited to, such services 
     as--
       (A) career and personal counseling;
       (B) training and job search skills; and
       (C) job placement assistance, including assistance provided 
     through cooperative arrangements with State and local 
     employment services offices.
       (e) Referral of Eligible Employees to Private Sector 
     Contractors.--Any contract related to the Internal Revenue 
     Services' Tax Systems Modernization program shall contain a 
     provision requiring that the contractor, in hiring employees 
     for the performance of the contract, shall obtain referrals 
     of eligible employees, who consent to such referral, from the 
     priority placement or job placement programs established 
     under this section.
       This title may be cited as the ``Treasury Department 
     Appropriations Act, 1997''.

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
LaHood]

[[Page H7637]]

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. 3756) making 
appropriations for the Treasury Department, the U.S. Postal Service, 
the Executive Office of the President, and certain independent 
agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other 
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 475, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________