[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 17, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7682-H7711]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I rise in opposition to the Hoyer amendment. I want to say right up 
front that I appreciate, as always, the very gracious style of the 
gentleman who is offering the amendment and his attempts to keep this 
debate squarely on the merits and not let it get personal. I want to 
proceed in that vein as well. Let me speak from the heart about why I 
am opposing his amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, when I look at abortion, I cannot get past looking 
first and foremost at what the status of an unborn child really is. The 
scientific facts, and these are scientific facts, is that we are 
dealing with a life, no question, an unborn child is alive. It is a 
member of the human species. Not anything else. Has a genetic code, is 
completely separate from its parents. It seems to me that makes the 
unborn child a person, a human being. To say otherwise is to make 
personhood turn on standards of development, how developed a person is, 
which is a dangerous principle going into the law.
  I know the argument on the other side, an argument based on choice. 
It is a good argument when you are dealing with one person. But it just 
seems to me it is very circular, when you have to address the question 
how many people are involved in here. How many people's choices should 
be taken into account.
  That is why I am opposed to abortion and why I believe that as time 
goes on and as we present these facts to the American people, we will 
persuade them, and that is what we have to do, we have to persuade 
them. We cannot now, the Supreme Court has said, we cannot now prohibit 
this procedure, but we can still try and persuade. One of the ways that 
we can persuade is say, look, we do not want taxpayers funding the 
programs to have anything to do with this procedure. Whatever people 
can or cannot do under the Supreme Court decision is for themselves. We 
do not want to participate in this with Federal taxpayer dollars. That 
is all that the bill says, and I do not want the Hoyer amendment to 
take that out.
  You can argue fine questions about whose money this is. I would just 
say, Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect to my friend, the 
gentleman from Maryland, when you get down to fine questions, let us 
err on the side of life. Let us err on the side of saying, we do not 
want to have anything to do with this procedure and continue persuading 
the American people.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of the Hoyer 
amendment to strike the language that prohibits Federal employees from 
choosing health care plans that include abortion services.
  Let's be perfectly clear: the issue here is not Federal funding for 
abortions. It's about this Congress forcing its social agenda on the 
American people, and in this case a specific group of individuals: 
Federal workers. What's at stake here is the right of Federal employees 
to use their own money, compensation they have earned, to purchase the 
health plan of their choice. Congress has no business obstructing 
private insurance companies from offering services that are necessary 
for women's health. At least two-thirds of private health insurance 
plans currently include coverage for abortions. Those private sector 
employees who object to abortion have the freedom to purchase plans 
that do not cover such procedures. Federal employees should have the 
same right to make these personal decisions, and until Congress imposed 
this policy last year, they did.
  Mr. Chairman, this unreasonable restriction of the rights of Federal 
employees is just one more example of this Congress' fixation on 
divisive social issues. There are a host of real problems facing 
America today, from the threat of terrorism to the deteriorating 
quality of our public schools, which Congress can and should address 
immediately. Instead, we have met time and again to clash over the 
right of women to obtain legal abortions with their own funds.
  Mr. Chairman, this mother of four urges strong support for the Hoyer 
amendment to restore the freedom of Federal workers to purchase the 
health care policy of their choice. Let's shift the focus away from 
divisive social issues and onto the real problems facing our Nation.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just 
to respond briefly, just to say to my good friend and just to point out 
that this is indeed a Federal funding, U.S. taxpayer funding issue. I 
am dismayed at attempts to suggest otherwise.
  In 1995, 73 percent of the money that was expended toward the 
purchase of health insurance for the Federal employees came directly 
from the U.S. taxpayers. The remainder was picked up by the premium 
payers.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, what is the time remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 6\1/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey has 3\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I predict that historians will write books 
on this Congress. They will do that by writing about the majority's 
assault on reproductive choice. Twenty-one votes to compromise a 
woman's right to choose in just 1 year, that is why passage of this 
amendment is so important.
  Women in the Federal Government work very hard every day for our 
constituents. Indeed, they are our constituents. But they have had 
their reproductive health care options taken away from them for 
political posturing. That is wrong, that is unfair, and it undermines 
the fundamental protections of Roe versus Wade.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Aruments are routinely raised on this floor that the so-called right 
to choose is infringed any time the Government refuses to facilitate 
the practice of abortion on demand--even

[[Page H7683]]

when, like today--we are only talking about the Government's refusing 
to: fund, pay for, provide, however you want to say it--the practice of 
abortion on demand.
  At stake today is whether a Government-funded health care plan--that 
is health insurance for Government employees--must provide coverage for 
abortion when the life of the mother, rape, or incest are not at issue.
  Roe versus Wade extra-constitutionally prohibits the complete 
prohibition of abortion. I contend, however, that neither Roe versus 
Wade, nor its erroneous progeny, require Americans to use taxpayer-
provided funds for this terrible procedure.
  This is not health care and it does not have to be funded I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hoyer-Lowey 
amendment. The right to choose is constitutionally protected and has 
been so protected for over 23 years.
  Last year, Congress singled out one group of women, those who worked 
for the Federal Government, and denied them access to a health 
insurance plan that implements their constitutional right to choose. So 
what the majority is accomplishing in denying such health insurance 
coverage is to relegate a particular group of women, women who work for 
American, to a second-class status.
  That is discrimination, pure and simple. I urge my colleague to 
support the amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, women serving the Federal Government deserve 
the same civil rights as all American women, but with this bill the 
extreme antichoice Members of Congress want to deny the more than 1 
million women the right to comprehensive insurance coverage.
  I urge the House: Reverse this sad and unfair decision. This is a 
decision in this bill which harms women. I urge the support of the 
Hoyer amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself just 10 seconds 
to respond.
  Cheap shots like calling us extreme just do not have any place on 
this floor. If opposition to taxpayer funding of abortion is extreme 
then 72 percent of the American public, according to the CBS poll who 
are against Federal funding for abortion, our extremists. Virtually 
every poll where it is asked, people overwhelmingly say they do not 
want their tax dollars used to kill unborn babies.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, last winter I received a notice in the 
mail that my health insurance coverage, by law, would no longer cover 
abortion. It was one small notice in the mail but a giant step 
backwards for a woman's right to choose.
  As a Member of the other side of the aisle has said repeatedly, ``We 
intend to repeal choice procedure by procedure, little by little,'' and 
they are doing it. In this Congress they have passed 23 antichoice 
bills.
  With the Hoyer amendment, we are attempting to correct one. Support 
the Hoyer amendment.
  As a member of the new majority said, ``We intend to outlaw choice 
procedure by procedure.'' And they are doing it--so far, they've passed 
16 antichoice measures.
  We are trying, with the Hoyer amendment, to correct one tonight.
  Last winter, I received a notice in the mail that my health insurance 
coverage, by law, would no longer cover abortion. It was one small 
notice in the mail, but one giant step backward for a woman's right to 
choose.
  Federal employees can no longer purchase, with their own money, 
insurance coverage for abortion services.
  The Hoyer amendment, the Supreme Court, and the majority of the 
American people support choice--and they support Federal employees' 
right to choose--with their own money.
  Defeat this assault on personal freedom, Support the Hoyer amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I think what is important is 
we clarify what is being talked about. We have had the issue of 
conscience on this floor before from civil rights to war protesting. 
Choices are not being challenged here. Every woman still has a choice.
  But we take away the choice of the taxpayers when we make them pay 
for abortions. That is the issue: Should taxpayers subsidize abortions?
  The Supreme Court has said that government can distinguish amongst 
health care procedures, especially abortion because it is different. 
Other procedures protect life. Abortion terminates life.
  This bill does not challenge a woman's right to an abortion. It just 
says if she makes that choice, if I choose to terminate my child's 
life, that I have to pay for that and not those that do not agree with 
that choice pay for it.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, we reserve the balance of our 
time. We only have one speaker remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will inform the Committee that the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is entitled to close debate as the gentleman 
from the New Jersey is not on the committee.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hoyer amendment 
striking provisions which restrict funding for abortion coverage for 
the Federal employee health benefit plan. This language in the bill 
makes second class citizens of our Federal employees.
  I am going to submit my original statement for the record and address 
a couple of the points made by our colleagues in the course of the 
debate.
  This debate is not about abortion on demand. I do not know one Member 
of this body who supports abortion on demand.
  Second, when our colleagues on the other side say that this is about 
stopping a taxpayer subsidy of abortion because of the contribution 
that the Federal Government makes to the health care plan, I want to 
remind our colleagues that the Federal Government subsidizes every 
employer basic health care plan in America because it is a business 
expense for private employers.
  What is next? Do we move next from preventing Federal employees from 
having a right to full reproductive freedoms in their health care plan 
to preventing every working woman in America from having access to 
reproductive freedom because the argument will be made that the Federal 
Government is subsidizing it by giving a tax deduction to her employer.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Hoyer amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, Members on both sides have strongly held 
feelings about this issue, but consider this simple fact situation: A 
Federal employee who is a woman works late, goes to her car at night, 
is attacked and brutally raped. She goes home to her family and learns 
to her dismay several weeks later that she is pregnant. She, here 
doctor, her husband, and her family decide that terminating that 
pregnancy from that rape is the right thing to do.
  Because she is a Federal employee, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Smith] would deny her hospitalization insurance coverage for that 
abortion service.
  What the gentleman goes on to say is that virtually every other 
incident involved in abortion, rape, incest, he wants to make the 
decision. He wants to make the decision. He says this is about respect.
  I say to the gentleman from New Jersey, I do not believe that he is 
respecting the rights of these families to make the right decisions for 
their families. This is a decision that should be made by Federal 
employees, by their families and their doctors, not by their 
government.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] has not obviously read the 
bill. On page 73, section 519, the text stipulates exceptions for the 
life of the

[[Page H7684]]

mother, or the pregnancy is the result of an act of ``rape or incest.''
  So the argument Mr. Durbin is making isn't at issue and misses the 
mark by a mile. Please, next time read the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] 
has expired.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I just want to follow up on the previous 
exchange.
  Why should this women who is a Federal employee have to document that 
the pregnancy was a product of a rape?
  This is an invasion of the privacy of women; it is an attempt to 
limit a woman's access to reproductive freedom. That is the issue that 
is before the House today. Anything else is just a diversion. Reducing 
a woman's right to choose is the reality: Cutting back on a woman's 
right to choose. A women should not have to document the cause of the 
pregnancy.
  Mr. Chairman, our colleagues have never really caught on to that 
point as an invasion of privacy.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our 
time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] is 
recognized for 1 minute and 20 seconds.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, my friend, the hero of freedom in China, 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], has just contradicted 
herself inadvertently. She just described abortion on demand, and 
although we say there is no Member in this House that believes in 
abortion on demand, they all defend abortion on demand and want other 
people to pay for it.
  I can be dispassionate today because the vote on this last year 
without rape, incest was 188 to 235. So we will win today. But what 
amazes me is a simple little quote from scripture: ``What does it 
profit a man or a woman to gain the whole world or political power and 
suffer the loss of their soul?''
  I am looking at a list of 17 Catholics, at least in their bios, who 
called the Pope and Mother Teresa extremists, who call Billy Graham, 
who got our Congressional Gold Medal, who said we are a nation on the 
brink of self-destruction, they will vote for sodomy marriage and 
infanticide abortion and still put the word ``Catholic'' in their bio. 
Seventeen. And on this issue, it expands to about 30. Thank God, no 
Republicans.
  It is unbelievable the way we twist this issue on this debate. This 
Nation is opposed to most abortions, and they do not want Federal 
dollars to pay for something that although it has been constitutional 
on a phony decision based on a gang rape that never happened, most 
Americans see this as 32 million dead Americans in their mother's 
wombs.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman from California accused 
me of contradicting myself, I want to make the point that he did not 
clarify. That point is, yes, abortion on demand is not something we 
support in this House. Abortion on demand is not what is before the 
body today. Abortion on demand is abortion up until the ninth month. We 
are not talking about or supporting that. The gentleman knows it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is recognized 
for 1\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, clearly the issue that has been the focus of 
the debate is one of the most wrenching confronting America. Contrary 
to a representation made by the gentleman from California just now, the 
majority of Americans, as everybody on this floor knows, support the 
right to choose, even though they do not choose abortion themselves. 
The bottom line is they do not want the Government to interject itself 
in this issue between a woman and her doctor.
  Furthermore, everybody knows that almost every State does in fact 
control abortion on demand, as the Supreme Court allowed, and says in 
the second trimester and third trimester there will be constraints to 
protect both the life of the mother and the prospective child who is 
born. I support that.
  But the fact of the matter is, which the opponents of this amendment 
have not responded to and cannot respond to, that the salaries we pay 
to Federal employees are 100 percent Federal dollars, as is the 72 
percent, which is 100 percent of our contribution to the Federal 
Employee Health Benefit Plan.
  There is no difference between those dollars, except the opponents to 
my amendment try to make the point that somehow these are Federal 
dollars, while the salary dollars somehow are converted. I believe they 
are converted, but the next step clearly is to tell you you cannot 
spend your Federal salary, which, after all, comes 100 percent from the 
taxpayer, on the items that you choose. That is wrong. That is Big 
Brother. Support this amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge all my colleagues to 
support the Hoyer Lowey Morella amendment to strike this bill's 
provision that bans abortion services under Federal Employee Health 
Plans.
  Federal workers--like private sector employees--share the cost of 
health insurance coverage with their employer. It is an earned 
benefit--compensation for service delivered through hard work. By 
denying the full range of reproductive health care services, Federal 
workers and their dependents, are subjected to second-rate health 
care--inferior health care that could place the health of women in 
jeopardy.
  The bill before us represents the continuation of the majority's 
outrageous attack on women in this country.
  I say to opponents of this amendment, ``women are not the enemy''. I 
urge my colleagues to protect the health of the 1.2 million women who 
are covered under Federal health plans. Vote for the Hoyer-Lowey-
Morella amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which 
would remove from this bill dangerous language that once again strikes 
out at women. The language we are seeking to remove today says that 
women who work for the Federal Government--women who have made a 
commitment to public service--should not have the same rights afforded 
to women working elsewhere.
  Mr. Chairman, women in this Nation have a constitutionally protected 
right to choose whether to have an abortion. This is the law of the 
land.
  But some members of this House realizing that the vast majority of 
the American people support a woman's constitutionally protected right 
to choose, are trying to do away with this fundamental right bit by 
bit, woman by woman.
  We must not allow this to happen.
  Because abortion is a legal medical procedure, most major health 
plans provide coverage for women who choose to have an abortion. 
Private insurance companies recognize that their female customers are 
perfectly capable of making this deeply personal choice without 
interference.
  Do we think that our moral judgement is superior to that of the 
thousands of women serving our communities and our Nation? What do we 
know that major insurance companies, U.S. corporations, and the 
majority of our constituents don't know?
  It's time to get off the high horse, to quit playing games with the 
rights of women and to respect the moral judgement of the women we 
represent. I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 475, 
further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] will be postponed.


                    amendment offered by mr. solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. 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. Solomon: Page 119, after line 8, 
     insert the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay, draw, or transfer amounts out of accounts 
     numbered 20X8413, 20X6822.56, 20X6822.57, and 20X1099 at the 
     Financial Management Service, or pay the salary or expenses 
     of any officer or employee of the Department of the Treasury 
     approving or processing any such payment,

[[Page H7685]]

     drawing, or transfer when it is made known to the Federal 
     officer having authority to obligate or expend such fund 
     that--
       (1) the amounts are being paid, transferred, or otherwise 
     disbursed, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of 
     the Comptroller of the Currency or any officer or employee of 
     the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or to meet 
     expenses of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; 
     and
       (2) revisions to part V of title 12 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations, pursuant to the notice of proposed rulemaking 
     published by the Comptroller of the Currency in the Federal 
     Register or November 29, 1994, have, directly or indirectly, 
     taken affect or the Comptroller of the Currency is otherwise 
     permitting national banks or operating subsidiaries of 
     national banks to engage in activities in which national 
     banks are not permitted to engage as of July 16, 1996.

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 16, 
1996, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] will be recognized for 
5 minutes in support of his amendment, and a Member in opposition to 
the amendment will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. That is a fiscally responsible amendment, Mr. Chairman, 
to limit the funds of the Department of the Treasury's Financial 
Management Service for the purposes of processing funds through certain 
accounts. The Financial Management Service is the U.S. financial 
manager, central disburser, and collection agent.
  Many agencies process funds through accounts at the Treasury in this 
manner. The amount seeks to limit the ability of the controller of the 
currency to implement a rule for which there is no basis in current 
law. The amendment would limit funds in the bill from being used to 
draw further from the OCC's account at the Treasury if the OCC 
implements this proposed rule, which drastically exceeds its authority 
in the law. That is what this is all about.
  The 104th Congress has taken several important steps to curb the 
abuses of Federal regulators in Washington. That is really what this 
104th Congress has been all about. Our efforts have empowered the 
private sector and lessened the bureaucratic chokehold that unelected 
regulators have held over business for years.
  The amendment is in keeping with our efforts to curb overzealous 
regulators from abusing their powers. It stands to reason that the 
financial services sector of our vast economy deserves relief from such 
regulators as well. The amendment I offered would halt a proposed rule 
which financial experts on a bipartisan basis agree could potentially 
be disastrous for the health and safety of the Nation's financial 
services sector. Members better keep that in mind.
  Need I remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle of the 
enormous costs associated with the S&L debacle, which we are still 
grappling with today? Do we want to get ourselves back in another 
situation like that and have it bailed out by the taxpayer? The answer 
is no, no, no.
  No agency of the Government, through promulgating creative 
regulations, can eviscerate Congress' responsibility to act. The law in 
this area has, unfortunately, been written by the courts and by the 
regulators. This amendment represents a serious legislative solution to 
a complicated problem that the Congress has a responsibility to act on.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is supported by the NFIB, the National 
Federation of Independent Businesses, by the American Farm Bureau, by 
the National Homebuilders, and a whole slew of small businessmen across 
this country who do not want to be intimidated by banks, no matter how 
fair-minded they are. That is what this debate is all about. It is no 
cost to the taxpayer. I would urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment when it comes to a vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member who seeks to control time in 
opposition?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Maryland insist on his point of 
order?


                             point of order

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I do insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order that the 
amendment offered here is in violation of rule XXI, clause C of the 
rules, in that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. I would like 
to be heard on that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer] to speak on his point of order.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment I will substantively oppose 
as well, but on the rule itself, this is what is referred to as a 
``made known'' amendment. I suggest to the Chair that an amendment that 
changes legislation requiring a public officer to take some action is 
in fact legislation on an appropriation bill.
  There has been a ruling in 1809 on a similar amendment referencing 
``made known'' that that was in order because it was a simple 
limitation; that is, that none of the funds could be expended. But that 
ruling is that once it is made known to the Secretary, the simplistic, 
frankly, determination, in my opinion, is that the Secretary or the 
Comptroller of the Currency or any other official to whom such a 
limitation is directed will then have to make no judgment.
  The premise underlying the ruling is that irrespective of the truth 
or falsity of the fact being made known, which is, of course, the 
premise of the amendment, which says if something is the fact and is 
made known, that clearly is what this means, because to rule otherwise 
is to rule that no matter how specious the representation to the public 
official, that they will be therefore bound not to expend the funds 
because of having it made known, however irresponsible the source of 
the information might be.
  Therefore, I suggest to the Chair that this amendment and other 
amendments like it which seek to overcome the rule which precludes the 
legislation on an appropriations bill by I believe the specious 
representation, not in this amendment alone, I tell my friend, the 
gentleman from New York, and I am talking here to the process, not the 
substance of the gentleman's amendment, the specious representation 
that any responsible public official will not have to take any action 
subsequent to that fact being made known to them, is to adopt a premise 
which is untrue, and if true, would not be supported by anybody in this 
House or the Senate, or by the taxpayers of America.
  The reason I say the premise underlying the initial 1809 judgment is 
incorrect is that because of the 1809 judgment, any competitor could 
have called up the Secretary of the Treasury and lied flat out and said 
``I make it known to you that the facts included in this amendment are 
true.''
  Unless we are all crazy and want to simply devolve the responsibility 
to any citizen who may want to make known to somebody, the Director of 
FBI or the Attorney General or whoever, unless we want to adopt that 
premise, then this ruling should not be supported. I raise it on this 
issue simply because this is one of the famous ``made known'' 
amendments, not because of the substance.

  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the chairman and those with whom he 
counsels to adopt the much more reasonable premise that if you make 
known something to an elected official, or an appointed official who 
has responsibility for policy and responsibility for the administration 
of the public's money, that that official has it incumbent upon them, 
underlying the premise of this amendment, to determine the veracity, 
the substance, of that which is made known to them.
  As a result, it is an inevitable conclusion that that public official 
must take further action as a result of this amendment or they will act 
totally irresponsibility, which I suggest to the Members is a 
conclusion we ought not to draw.
  Therefore, once having adopted the premise that they do have to take 
some action to determine whether or not there is veracity in the fact 
being made known to them, that this amendment and others like it would 
fail as legislation on an appropriation bill, contrary to rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] wish to 
be heard in opposition to the point of order?

[[Page H7686]]

  Mr. SOLOMON. Yes, indeed, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized 
on the point of order.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my very good friend, and he 
is a very good friend, he and I have stood on this floor and defended 
the Federal workers of this Nation time and time again, and so I admire 
and respect him for it, but let me just say to him the ``made known'' 
doctrine has been ruled in order in this Chamber for as long as I can 
remember, and I have been here for 18 years; as long as the gentleman 
from Michigan, John Dingell, has been here, which is 30-some odd years 
we have made in order the ``made known'' doctrine.
  Mr. HOYER. Only Strom Thurmond has been here long enough to remember 
when this was ruled on.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Let me just say to the Members and to the chairman of 
the committee and the Chair, we have the power in this body and we have 
the responsibility in this body to limit the expenditure of taxpayer 
dollars. That is our constitutional right in this House of 
Representatives.
  This amendment does not require action, it prohibits action. 
Therefore, it is a limitation amendment which is allowed under this 
rule. The bill before the House contains funds for the Financial 
Management Service within the Department of the Treasury. The Financial 
Management Service is the U.S. Government's financial manager, central 
disburser, and collection agent, as well as its accountant and reporter 
of financial information.
  The Financial Management Service processes checks through certain 
numbered accounts which are listed in the amendment for the Government 
regulatory office the amendment addresses. Therefore, the limitation 
amendment I offer directly restricts the expenditure of funds in the 
bill. That is what the amendment does.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment is drafted as a proper limitation 
amendment. It conforms with the rules and the procedures of this House. 
The amendment clearly states that no part of the appropriation under 
consideration here by the House shall be used for a certain designated 
purpose. The purpose is explicit in this amendment.
  The amendment also does not impose additional duties on executive 
branch officials. That is where the gentleman is wrong. The amendment 
does not change existing law. The rules and precedents of the House 
indicate that as long as a limitation restricts the expenditure of 
Federal funds in the bill debated without changing existing law, the 
limitation, Mr. Chairman, is in order.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would ask a favorable ruling on this point 
of order.

                              {time}  1200

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman has said. I 
also understand that the gentleman refers to previous rulings. The 1809 
ruling I referred to myself in my comments. My point, I tell my friend 
from New York, and again I reiterate, I am not talking about the 
substance of this amendment. I am talking about the procedure, which I 
have always opposed--this is nothing new for the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]-- is that the gentleman proposes it is a simple 
limitation and that is in fact what the ruling has been. But it defies 
logic and good policy which is why I suggest that the ruling be 
reflected upon by those making the ruling.
  The logic that it defies, I tell my friend from New York, is that the 
official to whom a fact is made know has no responsibility before 
effecting the limitation to determine the accuracy of the fact being 
represented. It is my suggestion that therein lies the error of the 
1809 precedent and the judgments flowing from that precedent. As a 
result, Mr. Chairman, I would urge that the chairman find that this 
amendment is not consistent with rule XXI and that the previous 
precedents to the contrary should be specifically overruled.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] wish to 
be heard further on the point of order?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, in rebuttal. Again the 
gentleman's argument is about the made know doctrine. This Chair has 
ruled for as long as John Dingell has been a Congressman in this body, 
as I said before, in favor of making in order the made known doctrine. 
I ask for the similar ruling that has been ruled on so many times on 
this floor and ask for a ruling.
  The CHAIRMAN. It appears that the gentleman from Michigan is seeking 
to be recognized on the point of order but before he proceeds, the 
Chair wishes to inform the Committee that the precedent which has been 
mentioned was on March 21, 1908 and while a number of Members have 
pointed to the longevity of service of our colleagues, Members 
currently serving were not here in either 1809 or 1908.
  With that, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell] to speak to the point of order.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would observe that neither I nor Strom 
Thurmond were in this work at the time that the precedent was 
established.
  It is clear to me, however, this is a sound precedent by reason of 
the duration of its existence and the fact that it has been 
unchallenged during those periods of time.
  So having established that we have a sound and long-lived precedent 
that has served this body well, I believe it would be useful for us to 
adhere to that precedent. I would observe that the requirement here is 
that we are discussing a limitation on expenditures. The limitation 
comes into play not because the individual who must function under the 
limitation is required to do anything but simply because he has had 
matters brought to his attention. It imposes no duty on him other than 
to behave in conformity with the limitation when certain matters have 
been brought to his attention. The only requirement is that when 
information is brought to the attention of the officers who would be 
responsible for implementing the expenditure of these public moneys 
that they cannot then spend the money, a very sensible limitation and 
one which makes an extraordinary amount of sense. If the Chair will 
permit, I intend to yield to my distinguished friend from Maryland for 
whom I have enormous respect and affection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan may not yield. If there are 
other Members seeking to address the point of order, it is at the 
discretion of the Chair to recognize them.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce].


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, when arguing a point of order, we cannot 
debate the amendment, and we have to debate the point of order; is that 
correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Members who are speaking are addressing the point 
of order. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Let us make sure they stick to it. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I believe this will 
be a close call and it is a discretionary issue. I would hope that the 
manner in which the issue has been brought to the floor could have some 
weight in the Chair's determination.
  It is my understanding that in order to bring this amendment to the 
floor, it was necessary for, I believe the gentleman from New York, 
perhaps someone else, to come to the floor of the House of 
Representatives last night to seek unanimous consent to bring this up 
and that unanimous consent was given.
  First of all, is that understanding correct? Was unanimous consent 
given last night? I think it bears on the point of order.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman is incorrect.
  Mr. LaFALCE. No unanimous consent was given?
  The CHAIRMAN. Points of order were not waived under the unanimous-
consent request that was granted last evening.
  Mr. LaFALCE. The issue is not whether points of order were waived 
under the unanimous-consent request. The issue that I am posing to the 
Chair is, is this amendment on the floor now only because unanimous 
consent was granted last night?

[[Page H7687]]

  Mr. SOLOMON. No.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment could have been offered under the rule at 
the appropriate time whether unanimous consent had been requested or 
not.
  Mr. LaFALCE. I thank the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members seeking to be recognized on 
the point of order?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I support the point of order that my 
colleague from Maryland raises. Under the precedents of the House, 
obviously the limitation on appropriation is a very substantial power 
and a responsibility of Congress in terms of the purse strings. But the 
fact is that this amendment goes well beyond simply limiting funds. It 
intends to try to go into directly or indirectly controlling the 
Comptroller of the Currency's office with regard to activities that are 
ongoing and in place. I think there are constitutional questions with 
regard to the powers of the executive agencies and departments and 
there are questions of whether or not in fact the ongoing 
responsibilities can be exercised. So this is more than just simply a 
limitation in terms of new activities as it is being portrayed. I think 
that the ruling needs to differentiate and define the differences that 
exist here between a simple limitation and the breadth of activities 
that are expected to go on on an ongoing basis in terms of the 
discharge of the responsibilities of this regulator and this 
Comptroller's responsibility. I think that this amendment certainly is 
very expansive in terms of its use of this particular limitation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would join my colleague in asking the Chair to review 
this in light of the 1908 ruling.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] makes a point of order 
against the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York on the 
ground that it constitutes legislation in a general appropriation bill 
in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The amendment is in the form of a limitation. It imposes a negative 
restriction on funds in the pending bill. This restriction is operative 
when it is made known to the pertinent official that certain conditions 
exist.
  The precedents recognize the distinction between language that puts 
an official in the role of a passive recipient of information, on one 
hand, and language that puts an official in the role of a gatherer, 
developer, or judge of information, on the other. Two precedents 
illuminate this distinction.
  The first may be found in ``Deschler's Precedents'' at volume 8, 
chapter 26, section 53.5. It records that on June 17, 1977, the Chair 
ruled out as legislation an abortion-limitation amendment on the basis 
that it would require officials to make affirmative judgments about 
endangerment of a mother's life that were not required of them by law 
regardless of whether they might routinely make such judgments on their 
own initiative.
  The second precedent--one more analogous to the passive approach in 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York--is noted on page 
631 of the House Rules and Manual. This second precedent may be found 
in ``Cannon's Precedents'' at volume 7, section 1695. It records again 
as the Chair stated, that on March 21, 1908, an amendment denying the 
availability of funds in a general appropriation bill when it shall be 
made known that certain conditions exist was held in order as a proper 
limitation.
  A third, more recent ruling also is instructive. On August 1, 1989, 
the House was considering a general appropriation bill providing funds 
for the Department of Commerce. A motion to recommit the bill proposed 
an amendment prohibiting the expenditure of funds in the bill for 
census data where it is made known to the Secretary that such data 
includes a count of illegal aliens. The motion to recommit was ruled 
out on the ground that it proposed a limitation not specifically 
contained in existing law. In light of the distinction illuminated by 
the precedents of 1908 and 1977, this 1989 ruling properly turned on 
the form of the amendment rather than on an assertion that it changed 
existing law. This was again illustrated in the ruling of June 22, 
1995, on a proposed motion to recommit the legislative branch 
appropriations bill.
  Indeed, this acceptance of the earlier precedents is evident in a 
Parliamentarian's note published in ``Deschler's Precedents'' at volume 
8, chapter 26, section 59.19. That note records the events of December 
9, 1982, when the Committee of the Whole was considering a general 
appropriation bill. After a limitation reported in the bill was 
stricken as legislation because it imposed on Federal officials an 
ongoing responsibility to ascertain certain information, the manager of 
the bill offered an amendment to achieve the same result by language 
that, on its face, operated on a merely passive condition. In light of 
the earlier precedents, the amendment went unchallenged by point of 
order.
  Thus, under this recorded line of precedent, language restricting the 
availability of funds in a general appropriation bill may be a valid 
limitation if, rather than imposing new duties on an official or 
requiring new determinations of that official, the language simply and 
passively addresses the state of knowledge of the official.

  In the opinion of the Chair, the limitation posed by the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York--``when it is made known'' to 
the pertinent official that certain conditions exist--merely places the 
Federal official in the role of a passive recipient of information. 
Thus, to construe the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
as a proper limitation is consistent with both the precedent cited on 
page 631 of the manual and the ruling of June 17, 1977.
  The limitation in the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York applies solely to the appropriations covered by the bill and 
merely restricts their availability. It does not impose additional 
duties on--or require new determinations of--officials of the 
Government. Rather, it only passively addresses the state of their 
knowledge.
  The limitation therefore cannot be construed to change existing law.
  Accordingly, the Chair overrules the point of order.
  Who seeks time in opposition to the amendment?


                          parliamentar inquiry

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary inquiry is this is a 
limitation on an appropriation. Under the rules, would the committee 
have to defeat the motion to rise in order to offer this particular 
amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The bill has been considered read under the order of 
the House. Only the majority leader or his designee may move to rise 
and report, in order to foreclose a limitation amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry, persisting, is 
whether or not the motion in order to be offered on this particular 
subject matter, a limitation on appropriation, would require the 
committee to defeat the motion to rise to offer such limitation.
  The CHAIRMAN. If the motion to rise and report is not offered by the 
majority leader or his designee, then the limitation amendment can be 
offered.
  Who seeks time in opposition to the Solomon amendment?
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition, but I also rise 
for a unanimous-consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFALCE] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the Solomon amendment.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, on the unanimous consent request first.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his unanimous consent.
  Mr. LaFALCE. I wonder if we can extend the debate a bit. It was my 
understanding the unanimous consent agreed to last night was the 
unanimous consent with respect to three things: A, the specific 
amendments that could be offered; B, agreement that no amendments could 
be offered to those amendments; and C, time constraints.
  The time constraints, as I understand it, are simply 10 minutes, 5 on 
each side. Given the fact that this issue did not come to my attention 
until about

[[Page H7688]]

11:00 this morning and because it is a momentous issue, I would seek 
unanimous consent to at least have 20 minutes of debate, 10 minutes on 
each side.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman. On their 
reservation I would just say to the gentleman we are under tremendous 
time constraints on this legislation. We must move this bill. We must 
move the other appropriation bills. We have 85 singular pieces of 
legislation to come before this body by October 4. We will not even 
have time to deal with half of them and that is not doing the work of 
the body. We have discussed this and we took into consideration time 
limitations on all of the amendments, all of them, but others are 
limited to 10 minutes and I would have to object to the gentleman's 
request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York object to the request?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I object to the unanimous consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York objects to the unanimous 
consent of the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this limitation on the Comptroller is both a 
significant risk to the safety and soundness of our financial 
institutions and economic system in this country. For 15 months, it 
would dictate and hamstring the Comptroller of the Currency, someone 
that has primary responsibility of the regulation of national banks in 
this country, literally responsible for what is a dynamic and growing 
economic system in this country of extending credit and economic 
vitality.
  The only thing that the Comptroller of the Currency has been guilty 
of in this process is doing his job and being successful in terms of 
advocating before the courts of this Nation for his regulatory 
authority in a number of definitive decisions which in fact have 
provided for the national banks to continue the business of serving the 
needs of our Nation is consumers and commerce.
  As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the duplicity of this particular 
type of amendment is that the dual banking system would permit States 
to continue, State-regulated institutions would continue to, in fact, 
offer the same kind of power to State financial institutions.
  This amendment runs the risk of causing great harm to our economy for 
15 months when the Comptroller would be frozen in place unable to 
respond to a dynamic market and financial marketplace that can with 
literally days, spin out of control. This is a deeply flawed amendment 
foisted upon this House inappropriately without consultation and 
deliberation.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this measure.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] has 4 
minutes remaining.


                preferential motion offered by mr. wise

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DINGELL. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman has been recognized for 5 minutes on the 
preferential motion. I believe that there will be 5 minutes made 
available to the other side for a rebuttal to whatever statements might 
be made?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. One Member who wishes to 
speak in opposition to the preferential motion will be recognized.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to indicate strong interest 
in that matter.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will determine who will be controlling that 
time after the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] completes his 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, this motion to strike the enacting clause is 
an important motion.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like for the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon], who is the sponsor of the amendment to the bill, to 
please pay attention because this basically is addressed to him. If the 
gentleman from New York, will pay attention.
  Mr. WISE. This motion to strike the enacting clause is important 
because, as this bill is very important, there is a bill coming right 
after this welfare reform that is even more important. The concern that 
many of us have on this side of the aisle, and probably on both sides, 
is that an important area of welfare reform, the bipartisan 
alternative, the Castle-Tanner alternative may not be permitted to be 
offered as structured. Republicans and Democrats both recognize the 
importance of welfare reform and both sides want to get this bill to 
the floor today and tomorrow and to have it debated and voted on. The 
country demands it.
  But it should be pointed out, that the Republican budget resolution 
says that there should be 53 billion dollars' worth of savings from 
welfare reform. The Castle-Tanner alternative has 53 billion dollars' 
worth of savings. It meets that target. However, it is our 
understanding or perhaps lack of understanding that it may not be 
permitted to be offered at the $53 billion figure, that $60 billion or 
more may be required. That is moving the target, Mr. Chairman.
  So I have to take this motion to strike the enacting clause to alert 
members that many of us who are genuinely concerned may have to delay 
proceedings on this bill and other bills to make sure that the Castle-
Tanner alternative has that opportunity to be offered. It should be 
pointed out this is not to delay welfare reform, and in fact if we 
could get a clear, unequivocal statement from the Republican leadership 
that Castle-Tanner and the $53 billion target will be permitted to be 
offered as an alternative, we do not need to do these kinds of motions. 
But this is so important because we are talking here about a bipartisan 
alternative, Republicans and Democrats alike that have worked it out.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about offering an alternative that 
supports work over welfare. We are talking about wanting to offer an 
alternative that supports children much more than the leadership 
proposal. We are talking about moving welfare reform forward and, most 
significantly, we are talking about offering an alternative that meets 
the Republican budget conference report that passed this House that 
says $53 billion shall be achieved.
  So yes, we are going to vote today on striking the enacting clause. 
Our hope is, to the leadership, to the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules and to the Speaker and to the majority leader and others, our 
hope is that Members will send that clear, give us that clear, 
unequivocal statement now that Castle-Tanner will be in order in its 
form present, that $53 billion will be that figure and that we do not 
have to seek to delay.
  Let there be no mistake about it, this is not to delay the moving 
forward of welfare reform. Democrats, Republicans and the White House 
want that. It is about whether we are going to be permitted to offer an 
alternative that meets the Republican budget targets and yet at the 
same time has better work-to-welfare, work over welfare provisions, has 
better provisions for children, permits States to have more flexibility 
and permits States in case of recession to be able to deal with that.
  So Members should be alerted this is a one-time motion we hope, but 
if we do not receive that message then we will have to seek that delay, 
not to delay welfare reform but to delay until we are guaranteed that 
there will be a true bipartisan alternative permitted to be offered 
that meets the budget targets.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from California, who 
is a member of the Committee on

[[Page H7689]]

Rules, is paying some attention. I am sorry the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] is not, because what we are trying to advise, not only 
the gentlemen, but all members of this House, that if we are not given 
a substitute for the welfare bill, then I think they can see that 
things are going to slow down up here a little bit until we are able to 
offer our substitute for their welfare bill.
  Mr. WISE. I think it should be pointed out, as the gentleman says, 
that the delay is only so that we can offer a substitute that meets the 
Republican budget targets and has complied with every one of the 
Republican budget rules and we feel is a bipartisan alternative that is 
superior to the leadership proposal.
  Mr. VOLKMER. And we would not even have any more delay if the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] will just stand up and say as 
chairman of the Committee on Rules he would give it to us.
  Mr. WISE. We could probably skip this vote we are about to have on 
this basis alone.
  My hope is when Members are voting we will have a chance to talk 
about it some so we can move this welfare reform bill quickly to the 
floor, understanding that everyone wants to be able to vote on welfare 
reform. But we want to offer the Castle-Tanner bipartisan alternative 
that is far preferential to the leadership one.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member seeking time in opposition to the 
preferential motion?
  Mr. DINGELL. I rise in opposition to the preferential motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, normally I would be very supportive of 
motions to strike the enacting clause and things of that sort. At this 
particular time, however, I am compelled reluctantly to rise against it 
in sprite of the vast respect I have for the offerer, the distinguished 
gentleman from West Virginia.
  I would like to devote my attention to the question of the motion to 
strike the enacting clause. One of the reasons that adopting the motion 
to strike the enacting clause would be very bad is simply that that 
would leave us in the awkward position of being unable to devote our 
attention to the Solomon amendment, and I would like to address now the 
reasons that the Solomon amendment is so important to the business in 
which we are now engaged.
  I would like to address first what has been going on, Mr. Chairman. 
What Mr. Solomon seeks to do is to see to it that the status quo 
remains in place, because what is contemplated by the Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency is an illegal act wherein the Comptroller 
of the Currency proposes to go beyond the authority which he has under 
law. And I would like to quote a letter written in 1995 by the present 
chairman of the Banking Committee to the OCC in which the chairman had 
this observation to make:

       There is not a shred of statutory support for the notion 
     that a national bank is authorized to conduct activities in a 
     subsidiary that are not permissible for the national bank 
     itself.

  Now, at the appropriate time I will insert the whole of this letter 
in the Record, and what I am saying is that the chairman of the Banking 
Committee warned the Comptroller of the Currency that his action is 
illegal, in excess of his authority and beyond the powers that he is 
vested in under law. It is an act of some arrogance then on the part of 
the Comptroller to move forward.
  Now, what is the action of which my good friend from New York 
complains? That is that the Comptroller proposes to permit national 
bank operating subsidiaries to move forward into areas which are 
forbidden under the law, most specifically into stock underwriting and 
the sale of insurance. Now, I happen to think that banks and 
subsidiaries should have the authority to do certain other actions, 
including the sale of securities, including other activities which go 
beyond banking authority. But that should be defined by the statutory 
enactment of the Congress of the United States and not by the arrogance 
of the Comptroller of the United States.
  The practical effect of what he seeks to do is simply to allow a 
situation to go forward where a bank would find a citizen coming in for 
a mortgage or something of that kind and the banker, not all of them 
but some of them, would put their arm around the applicant and say now 
that we have agreed that we are going to give you your loan, but before 
you sign the papers, go down to the end of the hall and see Mr. Jones 
who handles our securities sales, or insurance sales, and all of the 
other activities. because we are a full-financial service firm. And the 
individual then would either go down there and agree to turn the 
entirety of his financial affairs over to the bank, or he would not get 
the loan.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an experience which the Congress has had 
before. It was in the 1920's, indeed in 1929, the crash, which was in 
good part brought about by the fact that banks were engaging in all 
kinds of financial activities without any sort of constraint.
  The purpose that the gentleman seeks to do is to simply see that if 
we are going to take the action of permitting the Comptroller of the 
Currency to get into the business of doing other things other than 
regulating banks and banks to do other than doing banking business, 
that the Congress will have a chance to look at it to see to it that it 
conforms with law and that it conforms with good public policy and that 
it does not upset some of the long-established precedents which have 
precluded banks from doing these kinds of things, for the very good 
reason that we found that serious abuses occur.
  I would tell my colleagues that banks are now moving into mutual 
funds and other things, and it has been found by inquiry after inquiry 
that banks are not telling the purchasers of these securities that 
these securities are not guaranteed by the Federal Government. Indeed, 
they are letting the purchasers of these securities walk out of the 
bank with the mutual fund operating under the assumption that in fact 
that mutual fund is guaranteed by Federal moneys.

         House of Representatives, Committee on Banking and 
           Financial Services,
                                    Washington, DC, April 5, 1995.
     Mr. Eugene A. Ludwig,
     Comptroller of the Currency,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Comptroller Ludwig: I am writing to express grave 
     concerns concerning your recent proposal to allow bank 
     subsidiaries to engage in activities legally impermissible 
     for banks themselves. Such an approach is not only highly 
     imprudent but contrary to existing law. There is not a shred 
     of statutory support for the notion that a national bank is 
     authorized to conduct activities in a subsidiary that are not 
     permissible for the national bank itself. If fact, it appears 
     that the OCC's new interpretation of the authority of 
     subsidiaries to conduct impermissible activities does not 
     comport with longstanding OCC practice and policy. (See 31 
     Fed. Reg. 11459 (Aug. 31, 1966), 48 Fed. Reg. 1732 (Jan. 14, 
     1983))
       Allowing a national bank or its subsidiary to engage in 
     risky non-banking activities would jeopardize the deposit 
     insurance system. Indeed, the news of the past weeks--the 
     failure of Barings, one of Britain's oldest financial 
     institutions--demonstrates the problematic nature of 
     conducting activities in a bank subsidiary and shows how 
     quickly an operating subsidiary can bring down a parent. 
     Likewise, from the perspective of recent American experience, 
     the OCC proposal would appear analogous to the direct 
     investment authority granted S&Ls in certain states in the 
     1980s, which had the effect of placing significant 
     uncontemplated liabilities on the deposit insurance system.
       In sum, I object to the OCC's judgement as well as its 
     legal interpretation. The latter concern is particularly 
     telling. No agency of government has the right through 
     promulgation of regulations to obviate law.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James A. Leach,
                                                         Chairman.

                              {time}  1230

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the preferential motion offered by 
the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 233, not voting 18, as follow

[[Page H7690]]

                             [Roll No. 319]

                               AYES--182

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--233

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

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bereuter
     Berman
     Browder
     de la Garza
     Ford
     Gephardt
     Goodling
     Hall (OH)
     Hayes
     Lincoln
     McDade
     McDermott
     Meehan
     Miller (CA)
     Slaughter
     White
     Wilson
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1249

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Berman for, with Mr. Bereuter against.

  Mr. PETRI and Mr. GORDON changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. SCHROEDER changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. LaFalce], has 4 minutes remaining.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, is it not true under the rule that the 
Chair has the right to roll votes and that there probably will not be a 
vote for another hour on the floor?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would advise all Members that 
recorded votes can be asked for but then postponed to a subsequent 
time.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] has 4 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has the right to 
close.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Cremeans], a member of the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services.
  (Mr. CREMEANS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CREMEANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Solomon amendment. I have spent the past year and a half on the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services making tough decisions and 
working tirelessly to hammer out a compromise on this powers issue. 
Unfortunately, that effort failed. Much-needed reforms of 40-year-old 
laws that govern the financial services industry were stopped by turf 
battle between banks and insurance agents.
  While I am disappointed, we were unable to reach a suitable 
compromise in this Congress; I accepted that fact. However, some do not 
accept that defeat and are trying to sneak legislation that limits the 
power of the office of the Comptroller of the Currency into this 
appropriations bill.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. There have been no 
hearings on this amendment. I did not hear about it until just a few 
hours ago as in the case with many other members of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services. The Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services as a committee of jurisdiction has met with all the parties 
interested in this legislation, including banks and insurance groups.


            modification of amendment offered by mr. solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer a 
modification.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification:
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Solomon's 
     Modification
       In the proposed paragraph (2) after ``engage in'' 
     ``insurance''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman going to reserve the 
entire 2\1/2\ minutes for one person in his closing argument, or are 
there going to be 5 individuals speaking subsequent? It is my 
understanding that only one person could speak and close; is that 
correct? If so, who would that person be?

[[Page H7691]]

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I will tell 
him that we have three speakers at this time.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, then if there are three speakers, I do not 
believe that he can reserve all his time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, is it permissible for somebody to say, all 
your speakers go first and then all my speakers will go last, or should 
there not be some rotation? That is why I said, while he has the right 
to close, he has the right to close with one speaker, not to have three 
Members speaking in closing.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons to oppose this amendment, both 
procedurally and substantively. Procedurally, for the past year and a 
half and for the past several decades, an attempt has been made to work 
out the controversy that has existed among different financial services 
players. The chairman of our committee has spent most of the past year 
and a half attempting to do that.
  This amendment, which did not come to my attention until about an 
hour and a half or so ago, just wipes away all those efforts to 
accommodate these competing concerns. It just sides with one special 
interest group without deliberation by the authorizing committee, 
without notice to the Members, without notice to the groups whatsoever. 
It is in the worst tradition of this Congress. It should be opposed, if 
for no other reason than for procedural grounds alone.
  Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaFALCE. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, my concern, beyond the 
procedural elements that have been referred to here just a moment ago, 
is the perceived effect of the amendment as I have read it.
  Although I understand the author's intention is to only limit the 
appropriation of funds from a particular area by Treasury to the 
Comptroller with regard to prohibition of new activities in insurance, 
the construction of the amendment, as I view it today, is to prohibit 
any new product, regardless of insurance or other wise, if it were not 
otherwise permitted by July 16 of this year. That was the reason for 
the unanimous consent request to modify.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield myself 15 seconds just to say that the 
unanimous-consent request would have added the world ``insurance'' 
would have brought it down to that specific issue, which should have 
satisfied the gentleman on the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services. It does all of the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services' members on this side of the aisle. And in conference we would 
move to do that if the gentleman continues to insist on his objection.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] very much for yielding this time to me.
  As my colleagues know, the OCC takes the position that under the 
National Bank Act that it will trump all existing State laws in terms 
of what consumer protections are given to those who are dealing with 
banks that are now selling insurance. Meanwhile, the insurance agents 
at the State level will still be under State law. So we have no 
guarantee, in other words, that we will have that national body of law 
State by State which has been put on the books in order to protect 
consumers.
  We must support the Solomon amendment to protect the consumers of 
this country.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, this is an anticonsumer amendment, this is 
an antisafety and soundness amendment, and that is why the 
administration opposes it so vigorous.
  I read from a letter dated today, July 17, 1996, from the Secretary 
of the Treasury, Robert Rubin:

       I write to express in the strongest terms the 
     Administration's opposition to this proposed amendment. Under 
     this amendment the OCC would not be able to continue its 
     essential function of overseeing the safety and soundness of 
     nearly 3,000 federally insured national banks as well as 
     administering antidiscrimination and fair lending laws 
     applicable to these institutions. If you are concerned about 
     safety and soundness, if you are concerned about our 
     antidiscrimination laws, if you are concerned about our fair 
     lending laws, you must oppose this amendment, as the 
     Administration strongly opposes it also.

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentleman from Minnesota.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] is 
recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, this is brought before us as a contest 
between the insurance agents and the banks. The truth of the matter is, 
of course, even if we could define the word insurance, which is, of 
course, itself a monumental task today, we would not, in essence, 
limit. In fact, the States will continue to be able to bribe State 
institutions with that particular power. And so the issue here goes 
well beyond, in fact, in terms of limiting the very activities that the 
Comptroller has to be able to accomplish.
  I understand the frustration, but this is the wrong answer. This 
amendment should be defeated.


            modification to amendment offered by mr. solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer a 
modification, which is at the desk, to solve the concerns of the 
previous speaker.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: In the 
     proposed paragraph (2) after ``engage in'' insert 
     ``insurance''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  Mr. LaFALCE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I earlier 
asked the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for a very simple 
request, the right to debate this important issue not for 10 minutes, 
but for 20 minutes. He objected to what I thought was a most reasonable 
request. There are a million and one imperfections with this amendment 
that have been offered, but I would like to offer amendments, too. The 
unanimous consent of yesterday would not have permitted any amendments, 
and now my colleague simply wants one that he thinks, as my colleagues 
know, would cosmetically improve it because of the fact he will only 
offer the one amendment, not countless others, because of the fact he 
objected to reasonable time for debate.
  I must object to this now.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy], a very, very respected Member of this body 
from the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  This question has been posed to the body in the debate as an issue 
between banks and insurance. I see it quite differently, and I think 
there are two driving issues at stake, legislative versus executive 
branch, Federal Government versus State government. First, legislative 
versus executive.
  We actually had a speaker on the other side of the aisle saying that 
in light of the inability of this body to resolve this question, what 
the heck, let a Federal bureaucrat do it, let the Office of Comptroller 
of the Currency singly decide what this body has been unable to 
resolve.
  That is not the way for us to walk away from the critical policy 
issues before this country. This is a very consequential policy issue. 
It must be decided in the legislative branch.
  Second, State versus Federal regulation.
  If the OCC would decide it, it would do so in a fashion preemptive of 
State laws. I used to administer State law in this area as the 
insurance Commissioner from North Dakota and the

[[Page H7692]]

president of the National Association of State Insurance commissioners. 
They deserve better than to be singly wiped out and preempted by the 
unchecked action of the Office of Comptroller of the Currency. The 
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has made it clear that his 
intention is to go in this area. That is why this amendment is so 
important.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sorry we have taken up so much time on this issue. 
On behalf of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and myself, we 
would urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. This is a States' rights 
issue. We want to protect the rights of States. We want to be able to 
move other bank regulatory relief legislation later on that is going to 
give badly needed relief to the banking institutions. It ought to be 
concentrating on the lending concepts as opposed to getting into other 
areas. I would urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to terminate all 
funding for the Office of Comptroller of the Currency [OCC] if the OCC 
permits national banks to engage in any type of new activity, or if 
proposed revisions to OCC regulations are finalized. This amendment 
represents an effort by some in the Republican leadership to achieve 
through an appropriations bill what they have failed to achieve through 
the normal legislative process. And there are very good reasons why all 
previous efforts to restrict the current authority of the Comptroller 
of the Currency have failed.
  This amendment should be seen as an effort by some Members of 
Congress to meet the demands of certain groups who want protection from 
the competitive forces of the financial services marketplace. Because 
national banks sell insurance--in competition with the insurance 
industry--some insurance interests see national banks as a threat and 
want to restrict their activities and thereby lessen competition.
  To achieve their aim, insurance interests are asking Members of 
Congress to cut off funding for the OCC when it exercises its authority 
under existing law. This would have the direct effect of terminating 
the OCC's authority under existing law to authorize powers for national 
banks that are incidental to banking. This would be likely to severely 
impact the ability of national banks to sell insurance, which has 
become an important part of their business.
  As the regulator of national banks, the responsibility of the 
Comptroller of the Currency is to supervise national banks, and to 
interpret Federal law affecting national banks. And that is exactly 
what the OCC is doing when it authorizes various activities for 
national banks that are deemed under the National Banking Act to be 
incidental to the business of banking. Federal banking law wisely 
anticipated that the banking regulators would need flexibility to 
expand the permissible activities of national banks in order to respond 
to developments in the financial services marketplace. Without such 
flexibility for the OCC to interpret existing law, national banks would 
be held in a static state, unable to respond to new consumer demands.
  This effort to terminate the existing authority of the Comptroller of 
the Currency to interpret Federal banking law would deprive consumers 
of the option of buying financial products from banks. It also 
represents a very real threat to the competitiveness, and ultimately 
the viability, of our national banking system. If national banks are 
not allowed to provide the financial services consumers demand in 
today's increasingly sophisticated marketplace, they will be unable to 
compete with other providers. This inability to compete would 
ultimately endanger the safety and soundness of our banking system. The 
earnings of national banks would decline, they would find it 
increasingly difficult to attract and maintain capital. To the degree 
our banks are weakened, taxpayers are potentially at risk.
  Therefore, it is in the interest not only of every consumer of 
financial services in this country, but of every taxpayer, to make sure 
that our national banks are able to compete fully in today's 
marketplace by offering the financial products consumers demand. 
Insurance products are a vital part of the financial products which all 
banks, including national banks, offer to consumers.
  I am confident that Congress will not allow our national banking 
system to be put at risk by those interests demanding legislation to 
protect them from competition. I urge a vote against this amendment.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Solomon 
amendment to prohibit the expenditure of funds by the Controller of the 
Currency to further expand bank powers.
  This body has labored for years to rewrite the ground rules that 
govern financial services in the Nation. And anyone that has been 
involved would agree that it is a minefield. Chairman Leach has spent 
hundreds of hours on this effort.
  The Solomon amendment would simply prohibit the Controller of the 
Currency from taking matters into his own hands and rewriting the rules 
in secrecy and without the benefit of public comment or scrutiny.
  Support the Solomon amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 475, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments?


            amendment offered by mrs. johnson of connecticut

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. 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 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 
     ``$1,722,985,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Tuesday, July 16, 1996, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] 
will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member in opposition will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  This amendment strikes language in title I of the bill which creates 
a joint account between the Department of the Treasury and the Internal 
Revenue Service to fund the internal audit investigation functions of 
the IRS and requires the IRS inspector to report to the deputy 
Secretary of the Treasury rather than to the IRS commissioner. The 
$106,606,000 in funding that the bill provides for IRS internal audit 
functions would instead remain in the IRS processing assistance and 
management account.
  My understanding is that this provision was included in the bill in 
response to concerns that the IRS inspector is subject to too much 
control by the IRS commissioner. It was intended to give the inspector 
more autonomy and independence.
  However, the Committee on Ways and Means is very concerned that this 
provision would actually impair rather than enhance the effectiveness 
of the inspector's internal audit investigation functions and increases 
the risk of politicizing the inspection service. We believe that the 
present management structure for the inspector should be retained, and 
I urge support of my amendment.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's 
amendment. The committee's recommendation to move IRS's internal audit 
functions from the IRS and Treasury Department was not meant in any way 
to imply lack of confidence in the work that this important group does. 
Instead the recommendation reflects our very serious concern that the 
IRS top management has been ignoring many of the reports that these 
good people have been putting together, and the whole purpose of the 
internal investigation within any agency, IRS in particular, is to 
identify problems and to fix them. That is why we have an IG. It is 
just that simple.
  Unfortunately, we have received evidence that would lead us to 
believe that the reports, particularly as they pertain to TSM, or tax 
system modernization, and other IRS operations, have been basically 
ignored. We are extremely concerned that the IRS's internal 
investigations have not had

[[Page H7693]]

their effective power that they should have and that their 
effectiveness has been diminished because of decisions made by top 
management basically to ignore the reports.
  So what we are trying to do was to, in our proposal, move the group 
over to main Treasury, is simply an attempt to put some openness and 
some accountability into the process.
  Now, that is why we did it.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. We did run into the same problem with 
the taxpayer service representatives and felt that they were saying 
about problems that the taxpayers were having with the IRS was not 
getting to us, and so we did add provisions in the taxpayers bill of 
rights to require direct reporting, and between now and conference we 
need to look at that mechanism. We have not been able to sort of clear 
that under the short timeframe we have been working on because of the 
nature of the inspector general's work and the police powers involved 
and so on and so forth, but we do need to assure that that information 
does get to the committees of oversight so that we can be certain that 
the agency is responding appropriately.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Having heard the gentlewoman's concerns, and it is 
obvious we are on the same song sheet, maybe saying it in a different 
verse, but nevertheless for the IG to be effective those reports have 
to be read, they have to be understood, and they have to be 
implemented, and that is the message we were trying to send to IRS, and 
I am very pleased that Ways and Means has similar concerns.
  As a result, I am going to urge people to support the gentlewoman's 
amendment. But I think we want to put everybody on notice that we are 
going to watch this, we are going to continue to monitor, and no more 
will we have IG reports go into the round file 13. People are going to 
act on them as they should. That is why we are paying people to do that 
kind of work, and that is what they are there for. The IG has been 
doing a good job. The reports have just been ignored.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I 
rise in strong support of her amendment, but more than that, Mr. 
Chairman, I rise to commend the gentlewoman, who is the Chair of the 
oversight committee. She, and, I might say, her staff as well, have 
done extraordinarily hard work on reviewing what is a large, critical 
agency in our Government to insure that the taxpayers' money is being 
spent well, that the objectives issued by the Committee on Ways and 
Means, passed by this Congress and supported by this subcommittee, the 
Committee on Appropriations, are in fact carried out, and she and I are 
speaking not only from the same hymnal, but from the same chapter and 
the same verse on this issue, and I congratulate her for her hard work 
and focus on this issue because I think the taxpayers will be benefited 
by it, and I thank her for her efforts.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] very much for those kind remarks.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. 
Johnson] has expired.
  Is there a Member who wishes to take time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I control the 5 
minutes in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I only need about 30 
seconds, and other people have been waiting a long time to pose their 
amendments, too, but I do want to say that I am very pleased that the 
subcommittee has listened carefully to our experience, and by sharing 
our knowledge of the agency I think we are going to have a very, very 
strong bill out of conference, and I appreciate the work that the 
subcommittee has done in looking at the major issues that concern us 
all like the implementation of TSM.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I again congratulate the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut, and I want to tell her how enthusiastic I am about her 
optimism about the strength of this bill as it emerges from conference 
and to tell her how much I look forward to working with her to 
accomplish that end.

                              {time}  1315

  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


                     amendment offered by mr. gekas

  Mr. GEKAS. 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. Gekas: Page 119, after line 8, add 
     the following new title:

              TITLE VIII--AUTOMATIC CONTINUING RESOLUTION

       Sec. 801. (a) Chapter 13 of title 31, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 1301 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 1311. Continuing appropriations

       ``(a)(1) If any regular appropriation bill for a fiscal 
     year does not become law prior to the beginning of such 
     fiscal year or a joint resolution making continuing 
     appropriations is not in effect, there is appropriated, out 
     of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and 
     out of applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and 
     funds, such sums as may be necessary to continue any project 
     or activity for which funds were provided in the preceding 
     fiscal year--
       ``(A) in the corresponding regular appropriation Act for 
     such preceding fiscal year; or
       ``(B) if the corresponding regular appropriation bill for 
     such preceding fiscal year did not become law, then in a 
     joint resolution making continuing appropriations for such 
     preceding fiscal year.
       ``(2) Appropriations and funds made available, and 
     authority granted, for a project or activity for any fiscal 
     year pursuant to this section shall be at a rate of 
     operations not in excess of the lower of--
       ``(A) the rate of operations provided for in the regular 
     appropriation Act providing for such project or activity for 
     the preceding fiscal year,
       ``(B) in the absence of such an Act, the rate of operations 
     provided for such project or activity pursuant to a joint 
     resolution making continuing appropriations for such 
     preceding fiscal year,
       ``(C) the rate of operations provided for in the House or 
     Senate passed appropriation bill for the fiscal year in 
     question, except that the lower of these two versions shall 
     be ignored for any project or activity for which there is a 
     budget request if no funding is provided for that project or 
     activity in either version.
       ``(D) the rate provided in the budget submission of the 
     President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States 
     Code, for the fiscal year in question, or
       ``(E) the annualized rate of operations provided for in the 
     most recently enacted joint resolution making continuing 
     appropriations for part of that fiscal year.
       ``(3) Appropriations and funds made available, and 
     authority granted, for any fiscal year pursuant to this 
     section for a project or activity shall be available for the 
     period beginning with the first day of a lapse in 
     appropriations and ending with the earlier of--
       ``(A) the date on which the applicable regular 
     appropriation bill for such fiscal year becomes law (whether 
     or not such law provides for such project or activity) or a 
     continuing resolution making appropriations becomes law, as 
     the case may be, or
       ``(B) the last day of such fiscal year.
       ``(b) An appropriation or funds made available, or 
     authority granted, for a project or activity for any fiscal 
     year pursuant to this section shall be subject to the terms 
     and conditions imposed with respect to the appropriation made 
     or funds made available for the preceding fiscal year, or 
     authority granted for such project or activity under current 
     law.
       ``(c) Appropriations and funds made available, and 
     authority granted, for any project or activity for any fiscal 
     year pursuant to this section shall cover all obligations or 
     expenditures incurred for such project or activity during the 
     portion of such fiscal year for which this section applies 
     to such project or activity.
       ``(d) Expenditures made for a project or activity for any 
     fiscal year pursuant to this section shall be charged to the 
     applicable appropriation, fund, or authorization whenever a 
     regular appropriation bill or a joint resolution making 
     continuing appropriations until the end of a fiscal year 
     providing for such project or activity for such period 
     becomes law.
       ``(e) No appropriation is made by this section for a fiscal 
     year for any project or activity for which there is no 
     authorization of appropriations for such fiscal year.

[[Page H7694]]

       ``(f) This section shall not apply to a project or activity 
     during a fiscal year if any other provision of law (other 
     than an authorization of appropriations)--
       ``(1) makes an appropriation, makes funds available, or 
     grants authority for such project or activity to continue for 
     such period, or
       ``(2) specifically provides that no appropriation shall be 
     made, no funds shall be made available, or no authority shall 
     be granted for such project or activity to continue for such 
     period.
       ``(g) For purposes of this section, the term `regular 
     appropriation bill' means any annual appropriation bill 
     making appropriations, otherwise making funds available, or 
     granting authority, for any of the following categories of 
     projects and activities:
       ``(1) Agriculture, rural development, and related agencies 
     programs.
       ``(2) The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
     judiciary, and related agencies.
       ``(3) The Department of Defense.
       ``(4) The government of the District of Columbia and other 
     activities chargeable in whole or in part against the 
     revenues of the District.
       ``(5) The Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
     and Education, and related agencies.
       ``(6) The Department of Housing and Urban Development, and 
     sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, 
     corporations, and offices.
       ``(7) Energy and water development.
       ``(8) Foreign assistance and related programs.
       ``(9) The Department of the Interior and related agencies.
       ``(10) Military construction.
       ``(11) The Department of Transportation and related 
     agencies.
       ``(12) The Treasury Department, the U.S. Postal Service, 
     the Executive Office of the President, and certain 
     independent agencies.
       ``(13) The legislative branch.''.
       (b) The analysis of chapter 13 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 1310 the following new item:

``1311. Continuing appropriations.''.

       The amendments made by this title shall apply with respect 
     to fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1996.

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation on an appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 16, 
1996, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] will be recognized 
for 5 minutes on his amendment and a Member opposed will be recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my bill is to bring about a 
miracle on Capitol Hill; that is, if implemented, we will end 
Government shutdowns forever. Is that a miracle or is it not, in view 
of what has happened in the recent past and in the past on many of the 
budget items that have come before us?
  We have not been able to seize the opportunity that I have been 
trying to present before the Committee on Rules and before this body in 
various ways, a means to end Government shutdowns.
  What it would do is simply allow that if, at the end of a fiscal 
year, September 30, no budget has been passed, or any 1 of the 13 
appropriations bills has not been passed, then automatically, by way of 
instant replay, the next day, October 1, there would go into effect 
last year's appropriations or the House bill, the House version 
recently passed, or the Senate version passed, or the President's 
budget proposal in that particular item. Whichever is the lowest figure 
would go automatically into effect; hence, no shutdown forever.
  And if a CR is passed, then the same thing would happen at the end of 
that CR period. The temporary funding that would end at x date would, 
if no new CR is produced, result in an instant replay of that CR.
  Do Members not see the beauty of it, that it means we never have to 
face the RIFing of employees, unpaid hours on Capitol Hill, disgust by 
the public, the whole host of dilemmas and problems we face when a 
Government shutdown is before us? This is a proposal whose time has 
really come. When I leave this Congress I am going to write a called 
``Miracle on Capitol Hill,'' and it will be 55 pages devoted to this.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a copy of my testimony before 
the House Budget Committee as an extension of remarks to further 
explain the amendment I propose to H.R. 3756, the Treasury, Postal 
Service, general government appropriations bill.

       On September 19, 1995 this committee joined with its Senate 
     counterpart and held a hearing on ``The Effects of a 
     Potential Government Shutdown''. I was not permitted to 
     testify at that hearing; however, Senator Snowe submitted my 
     testimony for the record. I come before you today to further 
     discuss this issue.
       You may be wondering how this relates to the stated 
     objective of this hearing. Simply put, I come before you with 
     a suggestion of how to save taxpayer dollars. I come before 
     you to point out a very blatant form of waste: the government 
     shutdown. A June '91 GAO report estimated that a 3-day 
     workweek shutdown could cost as much as $607 million dollars. 
     In fact, Republican National Committee used this figure to 
     point out the waste President Clinton committed by vetoing 
     the appropriations bills Congress sent him.
       As you set out to craft a balanced budget to insure the 
     economic health of this country, you have my complete support 
     and admiration. But before we cut someone else's wasteful 
     spending, we must look at our own! We took great strides in 
     controlling Congressional spending during the fiscal year '96 
     budget cycle by cutting committee staff and passing a 
     Legislative Branch Appropriations bill that helped move us 
     toward a balanced budget. I applaud these efforts and support 
     them. But these cuts are not enough!
       If the Federal government, more specifically, the Executive 
     and Legislative branch, cannot do the responsible thing and 
     complete appropriation bills on time, taxpayer dollars should 
     not be wasted. I have crafted a solution to this problem, a 
     piece of legislation I call ``Instant Replay''. I come before 
     you today to implore you to support my legislation and end 
     the threat of a government shutdown and the waste it causes.
       The solution I have devised to this problem is an automatic 
     continuing resolution which acts as a safety net. At any time 
     when the government would shutdown, my bill would keep the 
     government open and provide a very low level of funding by 
     which operations would continue. I have tried to carefully 
     craft this bill to provide for such a low level of funding 
     that the White House and the appropriators would have reason 
     to continue negotiating. I have also allowed a Continuing 
     Resolution to supersede my safety net. Therefore, if the 
     Budget negotiators want to craft their own spending formula, 
     they can.
       The true beauty in this legislation is that it shifts the 
     negotiating power from the status quo to reduced funding 
     levels. Under the current system the individual who is trying 
     to cut funding has an uphill battle. With my legislation in 
     place, lower funding levels would automatically occur if we 
     do nothing. Those fighting to keep money will have to enact 
     legislation. As we saw as part of the fiscal year '96 Budget 
     cycle, those of us who were trying to cut funding had an 
     uphill battle to pass legislation. I believe that my 
     legislation will help shift this balance of power and aid in 
     the effort to balance the budget.
       While you are considering ways to save taxpayer dollars, 
     balance the budget and reform the budget process, I hope you 
     will keep this problem and my legislation in mind. Chairman 
     Kasich, members of the committee, I thank you for your time 
     and attention.

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
would just briefly say that the chairman is correct in his point of 
order. I am glad that he reserved it.
  I rise to say that the gentleman's objective is one that I strongly 
support. I lamented last year's policy to shut down the Government and 
the consequences that it had. I think the gentleman's effort to 
preclude that from happening again is a very positive one for every 
American, not just the Federal employees or the Federal Government. I 
thank him for his efforts.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this. In fact, to 
speak to my side of the aisle, this would be one of the better things 
we could do. It is not uncommon for us to put legislation on an 
appropriations bill. This would be very important to institutionalize 
this.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] is exactly accurate. I 
have been a cosponsor of his bill and a supporter of it over many 
years. I would hope maybe something could be done, because had this 
been in effect last year, we would never have shut the Government down. 
It is a good bill, it is a good idea, and it is a time whose idea has 
come, not in the next Congress, but quite frankly in this Congress.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I would remind the gentleman and all the 
Members that the shutdowns that occurred before during the Democrat-
controlled Congress had the same effect, but they were not as prolonged 
as

[[Page H7695]]

some of the shutdowns we had this particular time. What I am trying to 
say is that I have presented this proposal to the Democrat-ruled 
Committee on Rules and to the Republican-ruled Committee on Rules. We 
have not had an opportunity to debate it on the floor. The time has 
come.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I also am a cosponsor of this 
legislation. It is very important. Let us remember what Santayana said: 
``Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it.''
  Having had these major shutdowns of Government, let us not repeat it. 
Let us remember who is being victimized: the Federal employees, the 
contractors, and all of the public who are denied services because 
those on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue cannot come together on what 
they were elected to do; namely, come out with a budget. We must not 
have this victimization. This is an excellent amendment. I commend the 
gentleman for it. I wholeheartedly support it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member who seeks time in opposition?
  If not, does the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] insist on his 
point of order?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I too would like a miracle on Capitol Hill, to finish 
this bill before the Social Security trust fund goes broke.
  Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because 
it proposes to change existing law, constitutes legislation on an 
appropriation bill, and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states, in pertinent part: ``No amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing law.'' On the 
face of it, the amendment proposes to make permanent changes to chapter 
13 of title XXXI of the United States Code. Therefore, it is 
legislation on an appropriations bill. I ask for a ruling from the 
Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] wish 
to be heard in opposition to the point of order?
  Mr. GEKAS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, it is legislation that I offered. There is 
no question about it, we all agree on that. What does it do to the 
current bill that is before us, which is an appropriations bill? It 
simply renews the ongoing projects and appropriations and activities 
that are embodied in this bill. It just serves to continue them. It 
does not bring in new forms of spending or new programs, or in any way 
impinge upon the vitality of and the purpose of the instant bill. All 
it does, in its best sense, is on a day that the appropriations cycle 
has ended by reason of failure to enact a new budget, that those 
appropriations embodied in this bill simply continue in their life.
  Mr. Chairman, we have seen some precedents, if the Chair pleases, to 
the effect that if a project or an activity is simply continued, that 
is not legislating anew on an appropriations bill. Therefore, I ask 
that the Chair rule that this is simply a mechanism for continuing the 
efficacy and the vitality of the underlying bill, not new legislation 
on a new purpose or new project or new activity. Nothing of the sort.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Lightfoot] makes a point of order that the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] violates clause 2 of rule 
XXI by legislating on a general appropriations bill.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania amends title 
XXXI of the United States Code to provide for an automatic continuing 
resolution in the event a regular appropriation bill fails to be 
enacted for any fiscal year. As stated by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, this amendment was introduced as a bill last year and 
referred to the Committee on Appropriations. The legislative 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations to report this matter 
to the House as a bill does not impair the application of clause 2(c) 
of rule XXI, which prohibits amendments changing existing law to 
general appropriation bills.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
  Are there further amendments?


                     Amendment offered by Mr. Wolf

  Mr. WOLF. 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. Wolf: in title V, insert the 
     following section:

     SEC. 525A. VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVES FOR EMPLOYEES OF 
                   THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL 
                   DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Authority.--The United States Agency for International 
     Development is authorized to offer voluntary separation 
     incentive payments to more than 100 of its employees in 
     accordance with section 525 of this Act.
       (b) Exception.--Section 525(a)(2)(A) of this Act shall not 
     apply to an employee of the United States Agency for 
     International Development who, upon separation and 
     application, would be eligible for an immediate annuity under 
     sections 8336(d)(2) and 8414(b)(1)(B) of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 16, 
1996, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] will be recognized for 5 
minutes, and a Member in opposition will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial amendment which 
would allow the U.S. Agency for International Development to offer 
involuntary separation payments to its employees in the remaining part 
of fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 to assist with its 
restructuring program. The amendment has been cleared by the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Committee on Appropriations, 
the Subcommittee on Civil Service of the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight, the minority, including the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer] and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]. It is 
noncontroversial. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, this noncontroversial and bipartisan amendment would 
allow the U.S. Agency for International Development to offer voluntary 
separation incentive payments to its employees in the remaining part of 
fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 to assist with its restructuring 
program.
  This amendment has been cleared by the Foreign Operations 
Appropriations Subcommittee, the Civil Service subcommittee, the 
minority, including Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Livingston.
  It is a noncontroversial amendment and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, this noncontroversial and bipartisan amendment pending 
before the committee would provide limited, short-term buyout authority 
for the U.S. Agency for International Development [USAID] to ameliorate 
the results of its ongoing reduction in force [RIF]. This is a good 
government amendment, it is good for the dedicated Federal employees at 
USAID, and it should become law.
  During the last 3 years, USAID has reduced its U.S. direct-hire staff 
by 18 percent, the third highest percentage in the Federal Government. 
This reduction has been accomplished through attrition. However, to 
further reduce its staff by 320 by the end of this fiscal year, USAID 
will have to involuntarily separate 200 employees through a RIF. RIF's 
are demoralizing to employees and are often a costly and inefficient 
way to reduce the size of an agency's work force. That is why this 
buyout authority is so important.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support this important amendment.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment. 
It adds the Agency for International Development to the three agencies 
eligible for buyouts under the bill.
  I would like to point out this is a significant extension of the 
buyout authority contained in the bill. When Congress last gave the 
administration buyout authority in 1994, the administration did not use 
it carefully, and allowed agencies to use buyouts without tying them to 
a careful restructuring plan. The result was, in some instances, that 
agencies offered buyouts to employees, then just turned around and 
hired someone else for that position.
  Our response this year on buyouts is to target them very carefully to 
allow

[[Page H7696]]

them only in instances in which we know that they are absolutely 
needed. It is easier to do for those agencies under our jurisdiction, 
such as IRS, Customs, and ATF. For that reason, I am hesitant to 
include an agency outside of our jurisdiction, but having said that, 
and having talked with the gentleman and others, we will accept the 
amendment. The gentleman believes that authority will not be abused by 
AID.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to add my very strong 
support. I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for accepting 
this amendment that is so critically important, because to do 
otherwise, 200 people would be RIFed from the Agency for International 
Development. I salute the offeror of the amendment and the acceptor of 
the amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment, notwithstanding my support of it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I 
appreciate the support of the amendment by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Lightfoot] as well. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and I and 
others have worked very hard to make sure that as we reduce the size of 
the Federal Government, which is a consensus, we have all agreed on 
that, and in fact as I said last night, the Federal Government is now 
and will be at the end of this year the smallest it has been since the 
Presidency of John Kennedy, smaller than either under Presidents Reagan 
or Bush, and that is a direction we have decided on together as a 
Congress to pursue with the administration. In fact, the administration 
proposed that procedure and objective and has supported it. We are 
going to reduce some 275,000 employees; perhaps even more with the 
budget cuts that have occurred.
  In that process, as employers, we ought to make that reduction in as 
sensitive, humane, and managerially sound way as possible. Buyouts do 
that, and that is why I support them. In fact, the GAO has pointed out 
that buyouts are cheaper than RIF's, because the RIF requirements 
impose certain costs which exceed the costs of the buyout. As a result 
of that, I think this is a wise policy from the taxpayers' standpoint, 
and policy consistent with the morale of those who carry out the duties 
assigned to them by the Government and by us. Therefore, I therefore 
rise in support of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


                     amendment offered by mr. hoyer

  Mr. HOYER. 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. Hoyer: Page 79, line 4, strike 
     ``February 1, 1997'' and insert ``March 31, 1997''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes and a Member in opposition will be recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment similar to that of the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] in that it extends buyouts by 60 
days, and that is all it does, the time in which the agencies would 
have to affect the buyout.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the chairman of the committee is in agreement 
with this, and I believe that the chairman of the subcommittee is not 
in opposition to this, as well.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. We have some 
concern that by extending the buyouts by 2 months, it gives a sense of 
false security to the people that are there. The more an agency waits 
to complete a buyout, the more it costs, and the more it costs, the 
less money the agency has and the more it needs to downsize. But we are 
optimistic we can address this concern.
  We have had discussions with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] 
and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], I believe, is also on board 
at this point in time, so I believe we are all in concert. With the 
blessings of the authorizing committee as well as ours, I am prepared 
to accept the amendment.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. Again I thank the chairman of the subcommittee also for the 
acknowledgment we have had that he will accept what I consider to be a 
very important amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1994, the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act 
provided Federal civilian agencies with the authority to offer 
voluntary separation incentives for a 1-year period that ended March 
31, 1995. These incentives helped to avoid involuntary separations and 
eased the number of RIF's necessary to meet the downsizing goal of 
272,000 FTE's.
  The buyouts contained in this legislation are particularly important 
because they are targeted to the IRS, BATF, and the U.S. Customs 
Service. Each face imminent FTE reductions, and this buyout authority 
will help ease the pain and avoid chaos. They have been carefully 
planned and reviewed; the director of the Office of Management and 
Budget must approve each plan, and the plan approval will ensure that 
any separation incentive is appropriately targeted within the agency. 
An agency's FTE number will be reduced by one for each employee of the 
agency who receives an incentive.
  I applaud the Appropriations Committee for including buyout authority 
in this bill, but I worry that one quarter is not enough. The last 
round lasted a full year. This amendment would simply extend the time 
by one quarter--from February 1, 1997 to March 31, 1997--so that 
agencies and employees can make informed decisions and fully explore 
their options as they leave public service. It is also critical that we 
allow retirement-eligible employees to take the buyouts. These 
employees are often the most willing to take buyouts, and precluding 
agencies from allowing them to use buyouts does not make strategic 
sense in targeted downsizing. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting the Hoyer amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would 
change the deadline by which Federal employee buyouts provided in this 
bill must be taken from February 1, 1997 to March 31, 1997.
  I understand that this amendment is acceptable to the chairman whom I 
want to commend for including buyout authority for three agencies: the 
IRS, ATF, and the Customs Service.
  There is no dispute that, when an agency is going to downsize beyond 
normal attrition, buyouts are a fair and cost effective alternative to 
involuntary reductions in force.
  They are also more reasonable for the Federal workers who are 
innocent victims of the budget battles here in Congress.
  Buyouts offer managers flexibility to decide who can be spared from 
what departments in contrast to RIF's which often cause the loss of the 
bright young people who represent the future of the organization.
  In a May 1996 report, the General Accounting Office found that the 5-
year savings from buyouts generally exceed those from RIF's except in 
the occasional case where RIF's are done without allowing employees to 
bump others with less tenure.
  GAO noted that when senior RIF'ed employees can bump lower level 
employees, using a buyout instead of a RIF typically saves an 
additional $60,000 over 5 years.

[[Page H7697]]

  More than 112,000 buyouts have been paid Governmentwide since 1993--
saving the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars.
  I was a leading proponent of those buyouts and I support continuing 
Governmentwide buyouts. In fact, I have joined Representative Wolf in 
introducing legislation that would allow some buyouts throughout the 
Government--H.R. 2751.
  So I believe the provisions in this bill are a step in the right 
direction. Regretfully, they are only a small step.
  Some of the limitations on who is eligible to take buyouts are, in my 
view, too restrictive. I will continue to talk with the chairman and 
others about that.
  Also, we offer the provisions to just a few agencies even though 
others throughout the Federal Government are downsizing.
  However, today I simply offer an amendment that extends the deadline 
for implementing buyouts by 2 months--from February 1 to March 31.
  This amendment, which lengthens the window for buyouts from 4 to 6 
months, makes buyouts a more viable tool for managers and employees 
alike.
  I believe the amendment has been cleared and I thank the chairman for 
his concern for the impact that budget reductions may have on employees 
at the IRS, the Customs Service, and ATF.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?


                    amendment offered by mr. salmon

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

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Salmon: Page 33, line 13, 
     insert after ``$40,193,000'' the following: ``(reduced by 
     $500,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 16, 
1996, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon] will be recognized for 5 
minutes in support of his amendment and a Member in opposition will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.


                             point of order

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognized the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, under the unanimous consent that was offered 
and agreed to, while the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon] does in 
fact have an amendment that is reserved for him for 10 minutes, it 
specifically refers to the White House Travel Office. This amendment, 
of course, is a reduction in the entire budget of the White House 
itself and I would suggest is not within the framework of the 
unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, it is virtually the same amendment that we 
submitted for the unanimous-consent request. I appeal to the Chair on 
that issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inquire of the gentleman if it does 
pertain to the White House Travel Office which is what the unanimous-
consent agreement as outlined would do.
  Mr. SALMON. Yes, it does. If I may be permitted to speak, I will 
explain how.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona may proceed.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, last year I introduced a piece of 
legislation that I think could have been dubbed the Personal 
Responsibility Act. We are going to be talking a lot about personal 
responsibility this week when we talk about welfare reform. I think 
most of us know that a couple of years ago there was a real problem 
within the White House Travel Office
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, are we proceeding on the point of order?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is attempting to hear argument on the point 
of order, on whether or not this amendment relates to the White House 
Travel Office which was part of the unanimous-consent agreement last 
night.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona may proceed.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, let me be as succinct as I possibly can. In 
a nutshell, all this amendment does is reduce within the administration 
and the Office of the White House the amount commensurate that we have 
already appropriated within the bill to compensate the seven people 
from the White House Travel Office that were, many of us believed, 
unlawfully terminated and vigorously pursued by the administration via 
the FBI. We already know the story. There is money in the bill to 
compensate these people. My proposal is simply that we get back to 
accountability and that the Office of the White House and the 
administration of the White House pay those moneys. Instead of 
appropriating new tax dollars to compensate those victims, that the 
money come out of already appropriated moneys and we get back to the 
concept of personal responsibility.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognized the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the Chairman will review the amendment 
that has been offered and on which unanimous consent was accorded, he 
will see that it has two sections, an A section and a B section. It 
refers to the payment of moneys to individuals who worked for the 
Travel Office.
  Specifically it says in section 301(a), ``If an individual whose 
employment in the White House Travel Office was terminated on May 19, 
1993, submits a claim under this subsection to the Secretary of the 
Treasury within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary shall pay to the individual an amount equal to legal fees 
and expenses incurred by the individual with respect to that 
termination.''

  It then goes on to say, ``For payments required under subsection (a), 
to be derived in equal amounts from funds made available in this title 
under the heading Compensation of the President and the White House 
Office--Salaries and Expenses and funds made available in this title 
under the heading Office of Administration, there are available to the 
Secretary of the Treasury up to $500,000.''
  Mr. Chairman, I submit that this amendment has very little 
relationship to the amendment on which the unanimous consent was 
accorded. The reason for that is that it provides for payment to no 
one. It relates to the reduction of no specific office, Office of 
Administration or other White House account. This deals generally with 
the White House account across the board. As a result, I think it is 
clearly inconsistent with what Members gave unanimous consent about. 
One has to do with a cut in the White House budget. One has to do with 
reimbursement of White House travel officers.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair, in attempting to rule on this point of 
order, would like to inquire of the gentleman from Arizona if the 
amount that he is proposing is specific to the White House Travel 
Office employees.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is very straightforward. It 
applies to the Office of Administration and the White House itself. 
However, in the unanimous-consent request, it simply stipulates that it 
must relate to the White House Travel Office which is a subcategory of 
the Office of Administration.
  What I am trying to accomplish, I am trying not to be redundant. 
Since there is already a proposal within the legislation itself to 
compensate the Travelgate victims, I am simply reducing the amount from 
the Office of Administration and the White House. They have full 
purview to go to the Office of Travel and take the money from there if 
they so desire. I see no inconsistency with the unanimous-consent 
request.
  The CHAIRMAN. In attempting to comply with the guidelines that have 
been outlined under the unanimous-consent agreement, the Chair is 
constrained to insist that it be very specific on the dollar level for 
the White House Travel Office.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the chair is about to rule that the 
amendment as offered is not consistent with the unanimous-consent 
agreement, then I would have no further comment. I simply was intending 
to rise to make the point that, if we cannot count on the fact that 
amendments that are going to be offered are those which are discussed 
prior to unanimous-consent agreements, then it is going to be 
impossible to get unanimous-consent agreements around here.

[[Page H7698]]

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, further on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, 
let me first of all say I believe the gentleman from Arizona is one of 
the Members of this body who has high integrity and good faith, and I 
understand that he offers this in good faith. However, the amendment 
that he originally offered on which the unanimous consent was given is 
subject to a point of order. He has attempted to correct that 
understandably by his amendment that he has now offered.
  The problem, Mr. Chairman, in answer to the question, did it deal 
specifically, the gentleman said, honestly, as I would have expected 
him to answer, no, it does not; and in fact it does not. In fact he 
offered it, however, to deal with the White House and the Office of 
Administration. It does not in fact, I tell the gentleman, deal with 
the Office of Administration. It deals with the White House budget per 
se in the section that he affects in terms of the line that he affects. 
As a result, Mr. Chairman, I think it is clearly inconsistent with the 
unanimous-consent request and therefore is not in order under that 
consent agreement.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule unless any other Members 
wish to be heard on the point of order.
  Does the gentleman from Arizona wish to be heard further?
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I would just simply like to say that we 
tried to accommodate all sides on this. Obviously, we did not want to 
be redundant. I believe that we have made a good-faith effort to make 
sure that we were consistent with the amendment that we offered 
yesterday that was adopted under unanimous consent. I believe that we 
have made every effort to do that. As the gentleman stipulated, it was 
completely in good faith. I would just appeal to the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The burden of establishing that the amendment relates 
to the White House Travel Office as required by the unanimous-consent 
order of the House of yesterday has not been carried by the gentleman 
from Arizona. That is the ruling of the Chair. The amendment is not in 
order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders: Page 119, after line 8, 
     insert the following new title:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available to pay any amount to, or to pay the 
     administrative expenses in connection with, any health plan 
     under the Federal employees health benefit program, when it 
     is made known to the Federal official having authority to 
     obligate or expend such funds that such health plan operates 
     a health care provider incentive plan that does not meet the 
     requirements of section 1876(i)(8)(A) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395mm(i)(8)(A)) for physician incentive plans 
     in contracts with eligible organizations under section 1876 
     of such Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 16, 
1996, the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] will be recognized for 
10 minutes in support of his amendment and a Member in opposition will 
be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], a cosponsor of this amendment, and I ask 
unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Vermont?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is substantively the same as an 
amendment No. 5 in the July 16, 1996, Congressional Record but it 
incorporates a technical change which I believe makes our intent 
clearer.
  The amendment that I am offering today with the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] along with the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Nadler] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] touches on an issue 
of enormous consequence to millions of Americans, especially given the 
rapid transmission we are experiencing from traditional health 
insurance to managed care and HMO's. We can all agree on the need to 
control health care costs. However, we must also ensure that health 
care decisions which affect our lives and our well-being are made by 
physicians using medical rationale and who have the best interests of 
their patients at heart and not by insurance companies who may be 
putting their drive for profits before the best interests of their 
patients. Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, we must preserve the 
fundamental core of successful health care, and, that is, the doctor-
patient relationship.
  When a patient walks into a doctor's office, he or she must be 100 
percent confident that the treatment that is being recommended comes 
from the doctor's best medical judgment and is not motivated by an 
insurance company's desire for greater profits.

                              {time}  1345

  A patient deserves to be told the full truth when going to a doctor 
and that is what this amendment is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is about looking at perspective and motivation and 
what our charge is as physicians as we look at health care in this 
country, and every physician, every provider, takes an oath to put 
patients and their well-being first.
  This amendment simply protects Federal employees the way we have 
protected Medicaid and Medicare patients by saying there cannot be a 
perverse incentive to not put the patient first, and it also states 
that in doing so, the well-being of the patient will be put first.
  This amendment is supported by over 123 provider groups. It is vastly 
supported by Members of the House. It is a start back down the road 
where physicians are asked to do the right thing, to not be placed in 
the position in a competitive environment where they sacrifice quality 
care for their own livelihood, and this amendment prohibits that in 
regard to Federal employees.
  It is my understanding that we may, in fact, have an acceptance of 
our amendment by the chairman of this subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control 10 
minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot]?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point I am very inclined to accept this 
amendment. I do not think any of us are in favor of HMO practices that 
cause shoddy medical care; we are all very much opposed to that. I have 
been dismayed to learn, for example, about situations where HMO's have 
caused a woman who has had a baby to leave just hours after the birth 
of the child. We had a daughter who just had a daughter a few months 
ago. It does not make sense at all to leave early.
  I think that the course of treatment for any given patient should be 
up to his or her doctor. They are the ones in the best position to make 
that determination.
  It is also a very difficult area in which to try and make law. Since 
1994, the Department of Health and Human Services has been tasked with 
developing a set of regulations, eliminating certain types of HMO 
incentives for Medicare and Medicaid. These regulations are still 
incomplete, and I do not think that we can solve here in 20 minutes 
what HHS has been trying to figure out for 2 years.
  I do not pretend to know the answers, either. I am not sure that any 
of us know what the real answers are. But what I do know is that we 
have not taken any time to deliberate a very complicated issue.
  This committee has held no hearings on it. The authorizing committee 
of jurisdiction learned about the matter yesterday. For now, be willing 
to accept the amendment. I think it is a

[[Page H7699]]

well-intended amendment. As we go to conference, we will continue to 
work and look at this amendment and its ramifications.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I subscribe to the remarks the gentleman 
just made.
  Obviously, this committee has not addressed this issue. Having said 
that, just as obviously the proponents of this amendment I think have a 
proposition with which all of us would agree, and do agree, and this is 
an issue which we are going to have to study between now and conference 
from a substantive standpoint.
  The chairman points out correctly that regulations in this area, vis-
a-vis Medicare and Medicaid, as I understand, have taken even longer 
than 1994 to date and antedate that by some time.
  Having said that, I think clearly the objective that the two 
gentlemen seek is an objective that is an important one and which I 
think all of us support.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I take a few moments to clarify the record. The 
Committee on Commerce has held hearings on this. We have had one 
hearing in which we had significant testimony where care was denied 
based on the perverse incentives to the physician, and I think it is 
just the start of hearings that we are going to have in this regard, 
and I would like that placed in the Record.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am very gratified to hear that this 
amendment is being accepted, at least for the time being.
  I want to say that the practice of physicians being offered 
incentives, positive incentives that if they deny a treatment, they get 
more money, and negative incentives, if they grant the treatment, they 
get less money, and this form of health care that is proliferating 
throughout this country has led, as the gentleman said, to many denials 
of health care where it was needed, and it also constitutes an 
institutionalized conflict of interest.
  If someone came to any Member of this body and said, ``Vote this way 
and I will pay you $1,000,'' we would call that a bribe, it would be 
against the law. But, in effect, what you have with many of these HMO's 
now is a practice where the insurance company comes to the doctor and 
says, ``If in all your patients this next week you do not refer more 
than ``X'' number to specialists or to have a test, a CAT scan, we will 
give you more money, and if you do, we will take away money from you.''
  So the doctor, when he looks at a patient and thinks, do I really 
need to? This patient has chest pains, whatever. Do I need to refer him 
to a cardiologist, has to think in the back of his or her mind, gee, I 
have already referred three people to a specialist this week. If I 
refer a fourth, it will cost me money. It is putting a direct conflict 
between the patient's interest, which the doctor is sworn to uphold, 
and the doctor's financial interest. That is an institutionalized 
conflict of interest.
  It is a fundamental problem and this amendment begins to address 
that, and I thank the body for accepting it.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I am so pleased that this being accepted 
today. I strongly support it. It is a very straightforward proposition. 
It protects the ability of doctors to give their patients the best 
medical advice and, after all, that is what doctors do, that is what 
they have historically done, and that is what the Hippocratic oath is 
all about.
  Make no mistake about it, the ideas of the bottom-line medicine that 
is being practiced in some circles is unconscionable. It cannot only 
lead to poor quality of care in many cases, as has been more recently 
annotated, it could be a matter of life and death.
  I thank the chairman for accepting this amendment and I thank the 
authors of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders-Coburn 
amendment to H.R. 3756, the fiscal year 1997 Treasury-Postal Service 
appropriations bill, which would prohibit any funds in this bill from 
paying any managed care network under the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Plan that offers physicians financial incentives to withhold 
medically necessary information from their patients.
  I hope that the House overwhelmingly approves this simple, 
straightforward proposition that seeks to protect the ability of 
doctors to give patients their best medical judgment on possible 
treatment options. That's what doctors have historically done. That is 
the meaning of the Hippocratic oath.
  Earlier this week, the Newark Star Ledger, New Jersey's largest daily 
newspaper, editorialized against the objectionable practice of some 
managed care networks for discouraging physicians from providing their 
patients with full information about their diagnosis and treatment 
options.
  The Star Ledger said, and I completely agree ``there is good reason 
to suspect arrangements that pay the doctor more for treating you less 
or for nodding in agreement when the treatment cooked-up by the health 
plan's computer goes against the doctor's best judgment.''
  Simply put: Doctors must be able to provide their patients with all 
available information and advice about treatment options. Anything else 
is completely unconscionable. This is bottom-line medicine and don't be 
misled--this could be a matter of life and death as has been more 
recently reported by reputable authorities.
  Too many HMO's today seek to undermine the sacred doctor-patient 
relationship by preventing physicians from providing patients with a 
full range of advice, because they are seeking to enhance the managed 
care network's bottom-line, at the direct expense of a patient's 
health. This can be a matter of life and death.
  Doctors in HMO's are frequently penalized by having their salaries 
either reduced, or withheld, by the health plan for advising patients 
to seek treatment from a specialist.
  This is wrong, and the Sanders-Coburn amendment is a modest attempt 
at protecting the right of physicians to give patients the best medical 
judgment.
  I urge my fellow Members of the House to join me in supporting this 
worthwhile amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise simply to make the point that I am 
against, and I want to make it clear, the form of this amendment 
unrelated to its substance, which I have already said I agree with. 
This made-known language, which I will make an additional point on in a 
future amendment, we should not pursue.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I rise in strong support of the Sanders-Coburn amendment.
  As most of my colleagues know, prior to coming to the House of 
Representatives, I was a practicing physician. I practiced for 6 years 
in the Army Medical Corps and then I went into private practice in 
Florida. One of the things that drew me to that medical practice with 
Melbourne Internal Medicine Associates, besides the beautiful climate 
and being there on the space coast, was the fact that the medical group 
I was asked to join was an extremely well run medical group.
  When I was interviewing with the physicians with that medical group, 
it was quite apparent to me that the key to their success was that they 
always put quality patient care first and financial considerations 
secondary. They were always looking out for the best interests of their 
patients and, indeed, I have to say that as I have traveled all over 
the country through my years and met thousands of physicians, that is 
always the key to success for any physician, no matter what his 
specialty is, that he is always watching out for the best interests of 
his patient.
  What I compliment the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] in introducing is an effort to 
combat what I believe is a perversion of the doctor-patient 
relationship where doctors suddenly have perverse financial interests 
to deny patients quality care and quality access to care, and this has 
a very, very far-reaching impact if we as a body here do not try to 
address this issue.
  The United States, as all Members know, is the world's leader in 
health

[[Page H7700]]

care. The rest of the nations of the world read our medical journals 
and they not only look to us for the specific science but they also 
look to us for leadership in the area of ethics, and this is an ethics 
of medicine issue. Each and every time a doctor sees a patient, he 
should be always looking out for the interests of his patients.
  Support the Sanders-Coburn amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we are all in agreement, those of us who have 
spoken, about what the issue here is, and it is not a complicated 
issue. What all of us believe is that when a patient walks into a 
doctor's office, we want to know that we are getting the best possible 
treatment that we can get and that there is not a perverse incentive 
being offered to the physician to give us less than the best quality 
care that can be offered.
  We do not want to believe that a physician can make more money by 
offering us lesser care. That is not what health care is supposed to be 
about and, most importantly, that is not what the doctor-patient 
relationship is supposed to be about. If there is any relationship 
built on trust in our society, it is supposed to be the doctor-patient 
relationship, and historically that has been the case.
  What this amendment does, it applies to Federal employees what 
already exists in law for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, and it 
says that there cannot be perverse incentives offered to physicians so 
that they do not provide Federal employees the best quality care 
available.
  I thank all of the cosponsors for this amendment and look forward to 
the body's support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   amendment offered by mr. kingston

  Mr. KINGSTON. 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. Kingston: Page 119, after line 8, 
     insert the following new title:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to issue, implement, administer, or enforce the 
     amendments to the Customs regulations pertaining to field 
     organization proposed by the United States Customs Service 
     and published in the Federal Register on June 17, 1996 (61 
     Fed. Reg. 30552-30553).


           modification to amendment offered by mr. kingston

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I also have a modification at the desk 
and I ask unanimous consent for the modification.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification of the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to Amendment offered by Mr. Kingston: In lieu 
     of the matter proposed to be inserted, on Page 16, line 19 of 
     the bill, after the dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston]?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 16, 
1996, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] will be recognized for 
4\1/2\ minutes in support of the amendment and a Member in opposition 
to the amendment will be recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say right now we are trying to address a 
problem that has occurred at the Sanford Airport in Florida and one 
that has developed as a result of that in Bangor, ME, and we have some 
private sector investors who have bargained to work in good faith with 
the U.S. Customs Service on that. It seems now there might be a 
problem, maybe of major miscommunication on it. We are trying to 
address that problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member who seeks time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. BALDACCI. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maine [Mr. Baldacci] is recognized 
for 4\1/2\ minutes to control time in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that Mr. Kingston has withdrawn his 
earlier amendment that was being put forward. The situation is, is that 
most of these airports that are ports of entries have established a 
threshold which says over this threshold, you are going to have to 
assess passengers $6.50 apiece. So all international airports are doing 
this that are over that and that are ports of entry.
  The particular airport in question is much more over that, an 
estimate of Customs is that 115,000, but yet it still not charging the 
higher fee and is able to market customers away from the other ports of 
entry, like Bangor, and take an unfair advantage in that particular 
situation, which has caused this situation with this amendment to 
develop.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to now working with the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston] and others, to have these discussions in regard 
to this particular issue. But that is the preceding issue of concern to 
people in Maine and all over the East Coast.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman from Maine 
and also the gentleman from Georgia for cooperating in this compromise.
  The gentleman from Georgia has private investors who have invested in 
an airport in my district and the gentleman from Maine has some 
problems with what Customs has interpreted in this situation, and I 
think that this is a good compromise. It is a placeholder and it allows 
us to deal with Customs. We do not want to cut their budget. What we 
want to do is get a proper resolution of this problem, and this is, in 
fact, a placeholder so that Maine, Georgia, and Florida can work this 
problem out. Hopefully we will not hurt Maine or the new airport in the 
Orlando-Sanford area.
  So I thank my colleagues for working out this compromise and support 
the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], and urge 
its adoption.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from the good 
Representative, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], and also the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Just to further reinforce, I agree with Customs' determination in its 
classification and the rules it is promulgating. I am not in 
disagreement with that, but I am looking forward to the discussion that 
should ensue with all people in regards to this particular matter. But 
I wanted to make that clear.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just want to say what I believe has happened from the investors' 
standpoint is, trying to encourage private investment and getting into 
an airport, they felt like they had a certain agreement with Customs 
and that Customs, in the later stages, changed the rules of the game on 
them.
  We had a sincere concern with the way Customs has apparently handled 
that, but the gentlemen from Maine, Mr. Baldacci and Mr. Longley, have 
brought up some excellent points in terms of the impact on Bangor's 
inconsistency with Customs, and so forth. So we are all working 
together to try to continue this dialogue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, point of clarification. The amendment we are 
voting on is the substitute which the

[[Page H7701]]

gentleman has offered for the language?
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment, as modified by unanimous consent.
  Mr. HOYER. Which is simply the $2 million reduction; am I correct?
  Mr. KINGSTON. That is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered 
by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


                   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 No. 2 offered by Mr. Gutknecht: Page 119, after 
     line 8, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 701. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by 1.9 percent.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 16, 
1996, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] will be recognized 
for 10 minutes in support of his amendment and a Member in opposition 
will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
  Could the gentleman clarify for us exactly which amendment? Is it 
amendment No. 7 or amendment No. 2?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. It is amendment No. 2.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman only has one amendment 
remaining. We have dealt with one of his amendments. He only had two. 
We dealt with the reduction of political appointees, and I believe the 
only amendment, this amendment, deals with the reduction of 1.9 percent 
across the board.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. The gentleman is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is still amendment No. 2.
  Mr. HOYER. I will agree with that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Gutknecht] for 10 minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I feel a little bit like the famous cartoon character 
Horton, who hatched the egg. Just to remind Members what this is all 
about, back when we passed the budget resolution the joint conference 
committee report with the Senate, this Congress did something which 
many of us felt was inappropriate and something that needed to be 
corrected.
  We literally agreed to increase spending by $4.1 billion more than we 
had agreed we would spend last year. Unfortunately, that budget 
resolution, the conference committee came back after we passed a couple 
of the budget bills previous to this.
  Now, I certainly do not want to cast any aspersions on the 
subcommittee chairman and the work of the Committee on Appropriations, 
but I think in terms of keeping faith with our promises last year and 
keeping faith with the American people and most importantly keeping 
faith with the American children, I think it is important that we do 
everything within our power to try to recover that fumble.
  What we did was we increased spending by $4.1 billion. So we sat 
down, some of us freshmen with our staff, and said how can we help 
recover that fumble. One of the ways we can do that is offer an 
amendment to every appropriation bill for the balance of the 
appropriation season that would cut discretionary spending 1.9 percent 
across the board.
  Now, 1.9 percent is not a huge cut. As a matter of fact, in this bill 
we are talking about total spending of $23 billion. Applying our 
formula, we are asking the full committee here to reduce spending $213 
million. Now, $213 million is a lot of money, but in terms of a 
percentage of the total spending in this bill it is less than 1 
percent. So applying the 1.9 percent formula just to the discretionary 
side of this appropriating bill cuts $213 million.
  The question we have to ask ourselves, and I think a legitimate 
question the American people should ask us, if we cannot cut 1 percent 
off the total spending in this bill, how in the world are we going to 
say to the American people that in 3 years we are going to be able to 
cut $47 billion in spending. The unvarnished truth is we may not be 
able to.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment, and I would appreciate 
my colleagues support.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member seeking time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Lightfoot] for 10 minutes.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As presented to the House, the Treasury-Postal bill achieves a 
deficit reduction of $513 million. That is since last year. The 
subcommittee has achieved a total of $1.2 billion in deficit reduction 
since January of last year, and we have done this by targeting specific 
programs, by terminating obsolete agencies and programs, and 
restructuring agencies and activities to create efficient and effective 
organizations.
  In all due respect to my good friend from Minnesota, I think his 
amendment is not well thought out because there are no policy 
assumptions. One of the problems with across the board cuts in any bill 
is that it just takes a swipe out of everything. You end up taking 
little nicks out of big programs that need big nicks and you take big 
nicks out of little programs that are struggling to get along and do 
things that we really need. There is no recognition that some of these 
agencies and programs we have already cut 20, 30, 40 percent. We have 
already cut them.
  My colleague should be aware that the amendment will mean cuts to 
basic law enforcement functions of the Department of the Treasury. As 
my colleague said, voting for this bill is just a simple little 1.9 
percent cut or 2 percent, if we want to round the figure off. If we 
want to vote for it, then that means we are going to vote to cut 
$228,000 out of the ATF's investigation on church fires. If we vote for 
the Gutknecht amendment, that means we are willing to take $80,000 out 
of the investigation for missing and exploited children, including 
child pornography. If we vote for his amendment, it means we are saying 
no to $1.3 million to go to the Customs Service for drug interdiction 
along the Southwest border. If we support this amendment, it means we 
are saying no to $532,000 for Customs' drug interdiction in the 
Caribbean. If we support this amendment, we are saying no to $662,000 
for the drug czar to set up his new office. And if we support this 
amendment, we are saying no to $2.1 million for the drug czar's efforts 
to fight drugs in high crime neighborhoods and districts.
  I think these cuts are unreasonable, particularly given the 
subcommittee's strong report on deficit reduction. As I said earlier, 
we have thought this out very closely. We have argued over these 
numbers, we have fought over them, we have cut every place we can cut. 
But I think the responsible way we get to balancing the budget is we 
evaluate each agency and each program on its merits and then we make 
the necessary cuts, and in some of these we have already cut as much as 
40 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to inquire of the gentleman from 
Minnesota if he would like to ask unanimous consent to withdraw his 
amendment and offer a different amendment?
  There has been some confusion up here at the desk over the two 
amendments that were offered and we have been informed that the 
gentleman wishes to offer another amendment.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Yes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and with all 
due respect.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has not propounded a unanimous consent 
request yet.
  Mr. HOYER. He responded ``yes'' to the Chair's asking for a unanimous 
consent on his behalf, it sounded to me like.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman have a request for the Chair?

[[Page H7702]]

  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all say, if I might, 
there was some confusion. There apparently is a different list. We were 
item No. 7, now we are item No. 2. In either event, I intend to offer 
my amendment to reduce expenditures across the board 1.9 percent. If 
that requires a unanimous consent request to withdraw this amendment, I 
would be happy to do that, but I do intend to offer the amendment in 
either event.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. I appreciate 
the Chair's advising all of us as to what the status is. Apparently, I 
do not know what amendment is pending at the desk. Would the Chair 
clarify and have the Clerk clarify what amendment is pending at the 
desk now?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the pending amendment, which is 
amendment No. 2.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Gutknecht of Minnesota: Page 
     119, after line 8, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 701. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by 1.9 percent.

  Mr. HOYER. That is a reduction, as I understand it, of 1.9 percent in 
discretionary funds; is it not?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, under my reservation of objection, I yield 
to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I would advise the gentleman that that 
is the amendment we have been debating for the last 4 minutes, yes.
  Mr. HOYER. Apparently, the Chair believes that that is not the 
amendment that was being debated. That is the amendment I thought it 
was.
  I am unclear what the Chair is asking and what the gentleman is 
asking in terms of a unanimous consent until such time as I understand 
what is going on.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will inform the committee that it was our 
understanding that staff had come to the desk and offered a different 
amendment and had asked that that amendment be considered. That was the 
understanding of the Chair.
  If that is not the case, we will proceed with debate of amendment No. 
2.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to 
yield.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, under my reservation of objection, I will be 
glad to continue to yield so we can straighten this out.

  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. Apparently, we had brought 
to the desk a modification of an original amendment. I was not sure if 
it was No. 2 or 7. If the Clerk would please make it clear which 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is amendment No. 2.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, on my list, amendment No. 2 or 7 is 
irrelevant. If the Chair says 1, 2, 3, we have not been going in order 
so it is somewhat confusing as to what 1, 2 and 3 is. If it is No. 2, 
we have done 8 before it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will inform the committee that both are 
across-the-board amendments. The difference is that they place the 
language at different points in the bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, before I give unanimous consent, I want to 
see both amendments, and I do not have both amendments in front of me.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman seek unanimous consent to withdraw 
the amendments? If not, we are proceeding with debate on amendment No. 
2.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can modify my request. What I 
would request of the Chair is that I be permitted to substitute 
amendment No. 7 for amendment No. 2, and I would request unanimous 
consent.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has asked unanimous consent. The 
gentleman from Maryland has reserved the right to object.
  Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object, I am looking at the text 
now.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. Chairman, I believe I have seen the two amendments the gentleman 
is talking about, but I wanted to make sure. One is at page 119 after 
line 8; one is at page 118 after line 16. Am I correct, however, that 
the substance, as a matter of fact, the exact verbiage of both is the 
same?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I believe that is correct.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, so that the only difference is where the 
gentleman places them in the bill.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation of objection, may 
I ask the gentleman, does he perceive any difference in the impact of 
the amendments as a result of the placement in one position or the 
other?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
I am afraid I do not know why, the reasons the staff recommended we 
change location.
  Mr. HOYER. I will tell the gentleman, I suffer from that problem all 
the time.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I think I can clear this up. My 
amendment is not intended to affect appropriations for fiscal year 
1996. That is the reason it has to be moved to the different location. 
We only want to affect discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 
1997.
  Mr. HOYER. So the amendment the gentleman wants to offer is the 
prospective amendment, and which amendment is that?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, we believe it is No. 1.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if that is the case, then, and No. 2 is 
pending, I would have, checking with my own staff, given my quick 
analysis, it seems to me that this is carrying out what we thought we 
were considering.
  If I can, however, before I withdraw my objection, the gentleman 
indicated he intends to offer the other amendment. Is there another 
amendment? Is this the last amendment that the gentleman from Minnesota 
is offering?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
I think I can honestly say, this will be the last 1.9 percent amendment 
on this bill, yes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, but does the gentleman have any other 
amendment on this bill?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. No, I have no other amendments.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Modification of amendment offered by Mr. Gutknecht: Page 
     118, after line 16, insert the following new section:
       Section 637. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by Titles I through VI of this Act that is not 
     required to be appropriated or otherwise made available by a 
     provision of law is hereby reduced by 1.9 percent.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] has 8 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] has 7\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa who knows me 
probably too well, he thinks.
  Mr. Chairman, now that we have decided which amendment is pending, I 
am opposed to it, I say to my friend from Minnesota. And very frankly, 
if we had decided the other amendment, I would have opposed it. The 
fact of the matter is, this bill spends too little money. Who says 
that? The Committee on Ways and Means says that.
  This bill has already cut $130 million below last year's. In the 
committee report, we assume the Federal employees in this bill as well 
as every other bill are going to get a 3-percent raise. I am for that. 
I think that is appropriate. We assume as well that there are going to 
be additional costs, as every business operator assumes.
  So that not only are we cutting $130 million below last year's 
appropriation, but we are cutting very substantially more below actual 
costs to do exactly the same services.
  Furthermore, as the Committee on Ways and Means has pointed out, they 
are very concerned that we have sufficient resources to carry out the

[[Page H7703]]

present responsibilities of the Internal Revenue Service under law. The 
Committee on Ways and Means has further said that they are very 
concerned about the IRS being able to service the taxpayers consistent 
with their responsibilities.
  Furthermore, the IRS has been cut $700 million plus dollars, three-
quarters of a billion dollars. The gentleman's amendment, as pointed 
out by the chairman, cuts across the board and makes no judgment as to 
whether or not an agency has been cut deeply, has been increased or has 
stayed the same. That is why these across-the-board amendments are so 
unwise. It is incumbent upon us to make judgments. Sometimes those 
judgments are hard judgments. We have to make a determination how much 
an agency needs, how necessary is an agency, how necessary are the 
functions that that agency carries out.
  I believe that the IRS is woefully underfunded under the provisions 
of this bill. But cutting them 1.9 percent, you simply exacerbate and 
make worse the problem confronting the Nation, not IRS, the Nation. 
Why? As the gentleman from Texas [Bill Archer] said in his letter of 
June 26 to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], he believes 
the cuts that currently exist, currently, even without this cut, 
according to the Committee on Ways and Means, that the Internal Revenue 
system is getting under this bill puts at risk deficit reduction. The 
irony of the gentleman's amendment is, the Committee on Ways and Means, 
not this side of the aisle, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], as well as the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui] and the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Gibbons], believe the present underfunding of IRS puts at risk 
deficit reduction. In point of fact, I believe this amendment, if 
adopted, would cost hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues 
and deficit reduction.

  I know that the gentleman offers this amendment sincerely, concerned 
as I am about the budget deficit. I am one of those who voted for a 
balanced budget amendment, as I think the gentleman knows. I believe we 
need to balance the budget. I voted for the coalition budget, which 
balanced the budget by 2002 and created $137 billion less debt. I hope 
that we defeat this amendment which would be costly to the taxpayers 
and the country.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Souder].
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to first congratulate the gentleman 
from Maryland, who is a very articulate spokesman for his constituents. 
And if I were a Federal worker who lived in his district, I would, too. 
I also believe he believes in his heart in the importance of the 
Federal Government, and I know he has been conscientious on other 
budget matters.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend's comments about me. 
But essentially, I was quoting Mr. Archer of Texas, the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, expressing his views, because I understand 
that some may believe I am subjective to protect Federal employees, 
which I am, that is why I quoted Mr. Archer of the gentleman's party 
and chair of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, the second point I was going to make is 
that on the 1.9 percent amendment, it has been very interesting, 
because if this was the only bill where we heard that a 1.9 percent 
across the board cut in this department would devastate a particular 
program or a department, it would be a little more believable. One 
point nine percent is not the total amount that comes out of the IRS. 
It comes out of many different subsections of this bill.
  It seems like we hear this week after week after week, that we cannot 
do 1.9 percent, that 1 week we are devastating Yosemite Park, the next 
week we are devastating the entire thing. It is 1.9 percent. If the 
committees, and with all due respect, they have worked hard to get the 
budgets down, but if the committees would have been committed to not 
having the deficit go up the second year, we would not have offered 
this amendment.
  This is a principled amendment. We came to Congress, and we talk 
about balancing the budget. We say we are trying to balance the budget. 
But the fact is the deficit goes up the second year. One point nine 
percent would change that. It would be nice to get some of that out of 
the entitlement programs, but since we cannot pass an entitlement bill, 
if we are not going to have the deficit come up, it has to come out of 
the discretionary programs. One point nine percent will not devastate 
the IRS; it will not devastate Yosemite Park.
  Week after week we hear reasons why these bills are going to 
devastate the entire thing. In fact, some of our Republicans are 
starting to sound like the Democrats sound on our original bills, and 
it has been very disconcerting to many of the freshman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
do not know how the gentleman voted but, of course, the Republican 
budget that passed----
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I voted against it.
  Mr. HOYER. Because the budget that his side of the aisle offered, of 
course, does exactly what he is concerned about.
  Mr. SOUDER. I will hope that many, as some have on the Democratic 
side who say that they are for balancing the budget, will vote with 
those of us who have been trying to promote the 1.9 percent, because a 
1.9 percent reduction on every appropriations bill will fix the bump 
up. It is a small bump up. We have been moving in the right direction, 
but the fact is the deficit goes up the second year we are here in 
Congress.
  As far as the IRS, I understand that you need to have dollars to 
correct it. I understand that. We are saying that if we prioritize 
correctly, for example, in addition to the supplemental appropriations 
for church burning investigations, ATF, the Alcohol, Tobacco, and 
Firearms, remained funded at the same level. I find it hard to believe 
that they cannot carry out their function at a 1.9 percent reduction. 
We could take more of that if there was a prioritization correctly.
  Also the same is true of the White House. They were able to give a 40 
percent raise to someone like former security director Craig 
Livingstone, who had no apparent qualifications for that position, 
according to a committee hearing we were just in. They could absorb a 
1.9 percent reduction. They have multiple pastry chefs at the White 
House, as well as the taxpayer funded database that we have been 
concerned about and concerned about the security systems. This 1.9 
percent would not have to come out of the IRS, but at this point on the 
floor we are systematically offering 1.9 percent across the board, of 
which part of that falls on the IRS, part of that falls to ATF and 
different things because of procedures.
  We are offering a philosophical statement that says 1.9 percent 
across the board. I personally would have had it categorized inside the 
appropriations bills and dealt with that, but this is our only way to 
express our frustration with this budget.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to respond briefly.
  I know it sounds good to say we are going to cut everything across 
the board. But, again, Members have got to remember, if they vote for 
this amendment to cut across the board, they have got constituents at 
home who they are going to have to answer to. Why did you take money 
out of the high-intensity drug traffic areas, why did you take money 
out of the drug czar office, which our leadership has asked that we put 
in, why did you take money out of missing and exploited children?
  Yes, we have pastry cooks and, yes, we have political appointees that 
get paid salaries which some of us may think are outrageous. But the 
other side of the coin is, every administration is supplied with a 
budget for their political appointees and how they use these people is 
up to them.
  We face the problem of addressing that particular issue as 
administrations change. That budget is there for one administration 
after the other. I

[[Page H7704]]

think that is where we get into some real problems.
  Again, I know my colleagues are well-intended. But we have cut $1.2 
billion out of this budget since January of last year. We have tried to 
do it in a responsible manner, in making those cuts where we can make 
them.
  Reference was made to ATF and the church fires. The money that we put 
into ATF and the church fires we took from the IRS. So if we are going 
to cut another 1.9 percent, that does not make a whole lot of sense 
either. The ATF is going to be downsized about 445 employees. So that 
agency is already taking cuts. As I mentioned earlier, most of these 
agencies have been cut 10, 15, 20, some as high as 40 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  (Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the chairman has done and 
his committee have done great work on this. But I want to change the 
perspective for a minute about what we are talking about.
  We are talking about two pennies, two pennies out of every dollar we 
spend in this and every other appropriation bill to try to preserve the 
pattern of getting a balanced budget, No. 1; No. 2, living up to the 
commitment that this Congress made a short 8 months ago.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Chairman, I would draw the analogy we are getting ready to see 
the Olympics. The Americans who trained for the Olympics, if their 
coaches and if their trainers had said, ``You cannot do any better,'' 
they are not going to compete well, but the fact is, everywhere in this 
Federal Government is fat, tons of fat, lots of places to save money, 
lots of places to become more efficient, lots of places to achieve 
economies of scale that have not been recognized and not been looked 
at.
  The fact is that it takes hard leadership to set that standard for 
the people who are going to spend this money, and what we would like to 
do is to say we recognize the tremendous efforts that have been moved 
in that direction. We just think that we can go further, and we would 
like for our colleagues to consider the 2 percent, 1.9 percent. Why? 
Children and grandchildren.
  Mr. Chairman, this deficit is not going to be $115 billion this year. 
There is another $65 billion on top of that recognized from the use of 
Social Security funds to fund the general obligations of this 
Government. So at the minimum it is $180 billion this year.
  I ask that my colleagues support this bill.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 2 
minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, at several points in this debate we 
heard about priorities, and I just want to make it clear we are not 
changing the priorities of this subcommittee, and we are not saying 
they did the wrong things, but what we are saying is, I think it is an 
old German expression, it maybe an old Iowa expression: ``Fool me once, 
shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,'' and if we look at the 
history of what has happened around this place and in this city over 
the last 10 or 15 years, we have one budget deal after another budget 
deal. We had Gramm-Rudman, we had this deal, there were promises made 
to the American people, and what they all amounted to was this: Manana, 
tomorrow, next year; we are going to fix it next year.
  But if we are going to balance the budget, it is not what we do next 
year that counts. It is what we do now, it is what we do every day, it 
is what we do on every appropriation bill.
  Now, I think those guys have done great work, and I admire the 
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on the Budget for all 
they have done. I do not serve on either on those committees, and a 
little over a month ago they brought a bill or the Committee on the 
Budget brought a bill to the floor, and I voted against it, and a bunch 
of my freshman colleagues voted against it because we began down that 
slippery slope once again saying, ``Well, the deficit is going to go up 
this year, but we'll fix it next year.'' We cannot cut 4.1 billion 
dollars' worth of spending in this appropriation bill, but in 3 years 
we will cut $47 billion.
  Now, maybe my colleagues believe that, maybe the American people 
believe that, but I have got to tell my colleagues as just one Member I 
have trouble believing that. And so it is what we do every day that 
counts. That is why this little 1.9-percent amendment is so important. 
It is about setting priorities that our colleagues set, it is accepting 
those priorities, but it is saying we are going to ask the 
bureaucracies at every level to find an extra 1.9-percent worth of fat 
in their budget, and I do not think there is a small business person, I 
do not think there is a farmer, I do not think there is a taxpayer in 
America who does not believe that we cannot find 1.9 percent worth of 
fat in every Federal bureaucracy.
  That is what this amendment is about. It is about keeping our word, 
it is about doing our work every single year and not saying manana, 
next year, next 3 years from now, then we are going to balance the 
budget.
  This is hard work, but the American taxpayers and the American 
families did not send us here to do what was easy. They sent us here to 
do what was hard; 1.9 percent is not too much to ask. It is about 
preserving the American dream for our kids. It is an important 
amendment. I would request a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the 
time.
  I say to my friend from Minnesota we are doing what is hard. A 1.9 
percent cut is a coward's way out. it is an easy way to do it. Oh, we 
just slash across the board. We do not care what happens, who gets 
hurt, who falls. The Committee has been doing the hard work. What do 
our colleagues not understand about $513 million less this year than 
last year? What do our colleagues not understand about $1.2 billion 
less than January 1995?
  We are on the glide slope to a balanced budget. It fits in with our 
budget resolution. We have a plan. We are trying to get there. And I 
resent the idea that someone who has not put in any work on this 
committee, knows nothing about the hours and hours of negotiations that 
have taken place, comes up and says are not doing our job.
  It is about time that we realized what we are doing here and quit 
this self-flagellation. We are headed toward a balanced budget. We have 
a budget resolution that will get us there. The Committee on 
Appropriations is spending the money or cutting back on the spending of 
the money in order to fit in with that budget resolution which will get 
us there over a period of time, in 6 or 7 years. We are not going at it 
willy-nilly. We are trying to use some responsibility in the way we go 
about it. We are trying to downsize government. We are. We cut out over 
200 programs. We will continue to cut more.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment just briefly.
  I tell my friend from Minnesota this is the easy work: 1.9 percent 
across the board is not a hard lift. What is a hard lift is telling 
people, ``You're not going to get as much money next year in Social 
Security or Federal retirement or on Medicare or Medicaid.'' I 
understand that. We have had that debate.
  That is the hard business. Why? Because, I tell my friend from 
Minnesota, we are spending less and less and less on discretionary 
spending in America every year.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, 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 demanded 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 CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?


                    amendment offered by ms. kaptur

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


[[Page H7705]]


       Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur: Page 119, insert the 
     following after line 8:

                  TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the United States Customs Service may be used to make, issue, 
     prescribe, take, implement, administer, or enforce any 
     determination, finding, rule, order, policy, or other action 
     relating to trade relations between the United States and the 
     People's Republic of China when it is made known to the 
     Federal official having authority to obligate or expend such 
     funds that such determination, finding, rule, order, policy, 
     or other action has the effect of allowing imports into the 
     United States of products of the People's Republic of China 
     that were mined, produced, or manufactured with the use of 
     prison, slave, or child labor.

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 16, 1996, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] will be recognized for 5 minutes, 
and a Member in opposition to the amendment will be recognized for 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, our amendment simply states that no funds 
made available to the United States Customs Service may be used to 
allow the importation of Chinese goods into the United States that were 
made with the use of prison, slave or child labor.
  Now, under a previous memorandum of understanding signed in August 
1992 between the United States and the People's Republic of China along 
with the statement of cooperation signed then 2 years later in 1994, 
the United States Customs Department is already directed to monitor and 
ban the importation of such goods, but we know that there is convincing 
evidence that the United States Customs Service has not been doing so 
and not following the law.
  Now, this amendment is very important because it reiterates the 
commitment of this Congress not to allow the importation into this 
marketplace of goods made with child, prison, or slave labor. We know 
that in China 5 to 50 million children are currently working under 
slave labor conditions in horrendous sweatshops. We also know that 80 
to 90 percent of convicts in China are placed in forced labor 
conditions in Laogai prison camps in the name of reeducation through 
labor, and there are plenty of publications available that describe 
what happens. In fact, some of our Members on both sides of the aisle 
have gone into these camps, even returning here at home with those gum 
shoes and other products that are sold into this marketplace which 
should not even be allowed over our borders.
  We know the latest Amnesty International report on China redocuments 
the fact that the government treats its own people with contempt, and 
in regard to prison labor we know that the Chinese Government and 
prison authorities have knowingly, knowingly sought to evade China's 
commitment to the two agreements we as a Nation signed with them. In 
fact, in our own State Department's 1995 country report on human rights 
practices it is stated, and I quote directly:

       Repeated delays in arranging prison labor site visits 
     called into question Chinese intentions regarding China's 
     commitments.

  Now, under our laws the United States Customs Department is already 
directed to monitor and enforce the prohibition of Chinese goods made 
under those specific conditions. There may be some questions with the 
reservation that was asked for, but I hope will be suspended when this 
is complete, that any impact on funds directed to the U.S. Customs 
Department and subsequent revenue collection activities would only be 
impacted under this amendment if there is evidence that Chinese goods 
made under these conditions are still being allowed into our 
marketplace.
  At present there is ostensibly no tariff revenue collected on Chinese 
goods made under these conditions because ostensibly the United States 
Customs Department should be complying with United States law.
  Now, let me add there are other points here, other egregious examples 
of where our United States-China trade relationship is off on the wrong 
foot and really fails to protect our national interests, and these are 
so compelling and so indisputable and so vital to address I wish there 
were a way to do it under this measure. But we are narrowly focusing 
our attention on just those goods made under those three conditions 
that we do not want into this country.
  But let me mention that we have a growing trade deficit with China, 
this year over $40 billion a year, lost jobs in this marketplace, lost 
revenues to our treasury and lost business to our exporters and 
manufacturers partly due to the lack of reciprocity between this market 
and the Chinese market where, under China MFN, we give China a 2-
percent tariff advantage in our marketplace. They only have to pay 2 
percent for their goods come in here. Yet they charge us 40-percent 
tariff rates on a whole range of products which I will be submitting to 
the record as evidence here. And also the dual exchange rate system 
that they operate that truly disadvantages our exporters and acts as a 
$15 billion tax in the form of tariffs due to this exchange rate 
differential on our manufacturers exporting into that market. And I 
will be submitting that evidence for the record of this very lopsided 
trading relationship that effectively discriminates severely against 
U.S. interests.
  But in terms of this amendment there can be no question that through 
China's use of prison, slave, and child labor they should not be able 
to make goods that then find their way into this marketplace, and it is 
the obligation of the United States Customs Service to enforce the laws 
of this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit the following information for the Record:

                    TABLE A3.1: AVERAGE TARIFF LEVELS                   
                              [In percent]                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Trade                
                  HS Chapter                      weighted    Unweighted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.............................................         34.7         44.4
1.............................................         24.8         42.7
2.............................................         18.8         27.4
3.............................................         18.6         40.1
4.............................................         23.2         35.1
5.............................................         60.1         66.2
6.............................................         71.1         79.9
7.............................................         18.9         27.6
8.............................................         32.2         34.1
9.............................................         42.6         48.9
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................         31.9         42.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:--These trade weighted tariff levels have been estimated using     
  first quarter import data for 1992 at the six-digit HS level, and     
  information on tariff rates at the nine-digit level of disaggregation,
  both provided by the Customs Directorate.                             
                                                                        
Source: Chinese Customs Directorate and staff estimates.                


                 TABLE A3.2: CHINA AVERAGE TARIFF RATES                 
                         [By SITC 2-digit codes]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Simple  Weighted            
                                    SITC     avg.     avg.    Difference
           Line number             Rev 2,   tariff   tariff     simple- 
                                  2 digit    rate     rate     weighted 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................        0     0.00      0.00        0.0 
2...............................        1    54.62     50.46        4.2 
3...............................        2    57.18     31.43       25.8 
4...............................        3    38.88     32.36        6.5 
5...............................        4    36.86      6.96       29.9 
6...............................        5    53.12     45.17        7.9 
7...............................        6    52.14     39.95       12.2 
8...............................        7    44.54     48.01       -3.5 
9...............................        8    22.33      6.84       15.5 
10..............................        9    65.40     73.15       -7.8 
11..............................       11   126.25     88.48       37.8 
12..............................       12   116.67    143.44      -26.8 
13..............................       21    36.53     15.69       20.8 
14..............................       22    46.56     50.15       -3.6 
15..............................       23    22.06     26.94       -4.9 
16..............................       24    11.84     14.96       -3.1 
17..............................       25     2.00      2.00        0.0 
18..............................       26    31.80     27.62        4.2 
19..............................       27    27.21     18.95        8.3 
20..............................       28     6.32      4.76        1.6 
21..............................       29    35.29     30.99        4.3 
22..............................       32    15.00     15.00        0.0 
23..............................       33    18.37     10.64        7.7 
24..............................       34    30.00     59.00      -29.0 
25..............................       41    41.25     36.17        5.1 
26..............................       42    29.12     25.83        3.3 
27..............................       43    46.00     45.35        0.7 
28..............................       51    19.59     18.71        0.9 
29..............................       52    21.26     21.51       -0.3 
30..............................       53    31.54     31.51        0.0 
31..............................       54    22.37     31.06       -8.7 
32..............................       55    85.35     50.22       35.1 
33..............................       56     5.38      5.05        0.3 
34..............................       57    39.33     30.15        9.2 
35..............................       58    33.37     32.09        1.3 
36..............................       59    30.38     32.62       -2.2 
37..............................       61    47.95     27.85       20.1 
38..............................       62    36.53     35.87        0.7 
39..............................       63    31.50     22.05        9.5 
40..............................       64    36.66     34.27        2.4 
41..............................       65    70.73     66.17        4.6 
42..............................       66    44.79     28.74       16.1 
43..............................       67    14.97     13.45        1.5 
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page H7706]]



                                            TABLE A3.3A: CHINA: STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION, IMPORTS AND EXPORTS                                            
                                                     [By two-digit SITC (revision 2) category, 1985]                                                    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              GVIO 1985  GVIO 1985   Imports    Exports   Share of                      
                                                                              (Current)  (Current)     1985       1985      GVIO     Imports/   Exports/
       Serial No.              SITC 2 code                  Label              (Y mil.)   ($ mil.)  (Current)  (Current)   1985 (%   GVIO (%)   GVIO (%)
                                                                                                     ($ mil.)   ($ mil.)   total)                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         0.....................  Live animals, chiefly for    .........  .........  .........  .........  ........  .........  .........
                                                  food.                                                                                                 
1......................  1.....................  Meat and preparations......     11,577      3,942        6.3      431.1       1.4        0.2       10.9
2......................  2.....................  Dairy products, birds' eggs      1,179        402       29.1       53.1       0.1        7.2       13.2
3......................  3.....................  Fish and preparations......      1,067        363       41.3      267.9       0.1       11.4       73.8
4......................  4.....................  Cercals and preparations...     26,443      9,004      902.7     1007.5       3.3       10.0       11.2
5......................  5.....................  Vegetables and fruit.......      4,011      1,366       47.5      781.6       0.5        3.5       57.2
6......................  6.....................  Sugar and preps, honey.....      8,119      2,765      263.1       74.1       1.0        9.5        2.7
7......................  7.....................  Coffee, tea, cocoa, spices.      3,407      1,160       38.5      484.7       0.4        3.3       35.7
8......................  8.....................  Feeding stuff for animals..      2,487        847       78.7      224.6       0.3        9.3       26.5
9......................  9.....................  Misc. edible products......      2,253        767       21.4       62.0       0.3        2.8        8.1
10.....................  11....................  Beverages..................     13,713      4,669       20.2       67.5       1.7        0.4        1.4
11.....................  12....................  Tobacco and manufactures...     20,226      6,887      173.3       32.9       2.5        2.5        0.5
                         21....................  Oilseeds and oleaginous      .........  .........  .........  .........  ........  .........  .........
                                                  fruit.                                                                                                
                         22....................  Hides, skins, furskins.....  .........  .........  .........  .........  ........  .........  .........
12.....................  23....................  Rubber, crude..............        371        126      205.5        3.5       0.0      162.5        2.8
13.....................  24....................  Cork and wood..............      8,069      2,748      812.5        8.9       1.0       29.6        0.3
14.....................  25....................  Pulp and waste paper.......         58         20      208.8        0.2       0.0     1056.8        1.2
15.....................  26....................  Textile fibers and waste...     18,589      6,330    1,031.8    1,076.6       2.3       16.3       17.0
16.....................  27....................  Crude fertilizer, minerals       5,173      1,762       51.4      250.3       0.6        2.9       14.2
                                                  nes.                                                                                                  
17.....................  28....................  Metalliferous ores, scrap..      3,640      1,239      520.7      214.8       0.4       42.0       17.3
18.....................  29....................  Crude animal, veg. mat nes.      4,662      1,588       91.4      377.0       0.6        5.8       23.7
19.....................  32....................  Coal, coke and briquettes..     24,393      8,306       59.7      328.4       3.0        0.7        4.0
20.....................  33....................  Petroleum and products.....     45,980     15,657       46.4    6,300.5       5.7        0.3       40.2
21.....................  34....................  Gas, natural and                 1,556        530        1.9        3.1       0.2        0.4        0.6
                                                  manufactured.                                                                                         
22.....................  35....................  Electric current...........     29,195      9,941       53.9        2.6       3.6        0.5        0.0
23.....................  41....................  Animal oils and fats.......  .........  .........  .........  .........  ........  .........  .........
24.....................  42....................  Fixed vegetable oil, fat...      6,813      2,320       83.4      125.5       0.8        3.6        5.4
25.....................  43....................  Processed animal veg oil,          197         67        2.8        0.9       0.0        4.1        1.4
                                                  etc..                                                                                                 
26.....................  51....................  Organic chemicals..........      8,974      3,056      648.9      291.7       1.1       21.2        9.5
27.....................  52....................  Inorganic chemicals........      9,067      3,088      298.5      270.3       1.1        9.7        8.8
28.....................  53....................  Dyes, tanning, color prod..      6,198      2,110      131.2       72.7       0.8        6.2        3.4
29.....................  54....................  Medicinal, pharm. products.      8,078      2,751       96.1      280.8       1.0        3.5       10.2
30.....................  55....................  Perfume, cleaning, etc.,         5,612      1,911       24.1      103.5       0.7        1.3        5.4
                                                  prd.                                                                                                  
31.....................  56....................  Fertilizers, manufactured..     13,223      4,503    1,375.6        1.7       1.6       30.5        0.0
32.....................  57....................  Explosives, pyrotech prod..        832        283        1.4      106.0       0.1        0.5       37.4
33.....................  58....................  Plastic materials, etc.....     11,705      3,986    1,346.4       39.1       1.4       33.8        1.0
34.....................  59....................  Chemical materials nes.....      7,446      2,536      236.3      114.8       0.9        9.3        4.5
35.....................  61....................  Lather, dressed fur, etc...      4,037      1,375      135.6       42.1       0.5        9.9        3.1
36.....................  62....................  Rubber manufactures nes....     10,646      3,625       14.1       48.7       1.3        0.4        1.3
37.....................  63....................  Wood, cork manufactures nes      2,639        898      244.5       23.9       0.3       27.2        2.7
38.....................  64....................  Paper, paperboard and mfr..     15,989      5,444      407.2      142.1       2.0        7.5        2.6
39.....................  65....................  Textile yarn, fabrics, etc.     97,651     33,252    1,502.3    3.051.7      12.0        4.5        9.2
40.....................  66....................  Nonmetal mineral mfs nes...     41,542     14,146      308.3      213.1       5.1        2.2        1.5
41.....................  67....................  Iron and steel.............     55,054     18,747    6,650.0      110.3       6.8       35.5        0.6
42.....................  68....................  Nonferrous metals..........     20,220      6,885    1,532.7      193.6       2.5       22.3        2.8
43.....................  69....................  Metal manufactures nes.....     21,021      7,158      328.5      400.0       2.6        4.6        5.6
44.....................  71....................  Power generating equipment.     15,154      5,160      302.0       46.3       1.9        5.9        0.9
45.....................  72....................  Machs for special               26.965      9,182    4,902.6      142.6       3.3       53.4        1.6
                                                  industries.                                                                                           
46.....................  73....................  Metalworking machinery.....     11,634      3,962      287.8       27.1       1.4        7.3        0.7
47.....................  74....................  General industrial              18,933      6,447      980.6       47.9       2.3       15.2        0.7
                                                  machinery nes.                                                                                        
48.....................  75....................  Office machines, adp.            1,532        522      956.6        9.8       0.2      183.4        1.9
                                                  equipment.                                                                                            
49.....................  76....................  Telecomm, sound equipment..     13,803      4,700    2,389.5       85.8       1.7       50.8        1.8
50.....................  77....................  Electric machinery nes,         36,746     12,513    1,249.4      111.4       4.5       10.9        0.9
                                                  etc..                                                                                                 
51.....................  78....................  Road vehicles..............     29,775     10.139    3,063.0       54.5       3.7       30.2        0.5
52.....................  79....................  Other transport equipment..      7,830      2,666    1,366.7      193.3       1.0       51.3        7.3
53.....................  81....................  Plumbing, heating, lighting      1,625        553       35.6       35.2       0.2        6.4        6.4
                                                  equipment.                                                                                            
54.....................  82....................  Furniture, parts thereof...      4,735      1,612       32.7       85.3       0.6        2.0        5.3
55.....................  83....................  Travel goods, handbags.....        860        293        2.5       79.0       0.1        0.9       27.0
56.....................  84....................  Clothing and accessories...     16,301      5,551       13.8     1935.9       2.0        0.2       34.9
57.....................  85....................  Footwear...................      9,801      3,337        7.0      242.3       1.2        0.2        7.3
58.....................  87....................  Precision instruments nes..      7,068      2,407      835.8       31.8       0.9       34.7        1.3
59.....................  88....................  Photo equ. optical goods,        3,950      1,345      371.0       60.3       0.5       27.6        4.5
                                                  etc..                                                                                                 
                         89....................  Misc manufactured goods nes     21,640      7,369      500.1      813.9       2.7        6.8       11.0
                         95....................  Not classified elsewhere...     21,640      7,369      500.1      813.9       2.7        6.8       11.0
                         97....................  Not classified elsewhere...  .........  .........  .........  .........  ........  .........  .........
                                                                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Total................    811,463    811,463   37,371.2   21,619.0     100.0                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: China Statistical Yearbook, 1991 p. 360 for 1990 data on GVIO, NVIO; China Industrial Census for 1985 date.                                     


                                                          TABLE A2.8: TRENDS IN EXCHANGE RATES                                                          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                       Real                    Nominal  
                                                                                           Weighted       Real      effective     Nominal     effective 
                                                                Offical      Secondary     exchange    effective     exchange    effective     exchange 
                        Year-quarter                           exchange     market rate    rate for     exchange       rate       exchange       rate   
                                                              rate (Yuan/    (Yuan/$)      exports        rate      (secondary      rate      (secondary
                                                                  $)                       (Yuan/$)    (official)    market)     (official)    market)  
                                                                                                        1980=10     (1980=10)     1980=10      1980=10  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1987-I.....................................................          3.72          5.25         4.39         4.05         2.87         5.41         3.84
1987-II....................................................          3.72          5.3          4.42         3.96         2.78         5.31         3.73
1987-III...................................................          3.72          5.46         4.49         4.07         2.78         5.44         3.71
1987-IV....................................................          3.72          5.61         4.55         3.97         2.78         5.24         3.48
1988-I.....................................................          3.72          5.7          4.59         3.97         2.64         5.17         3.38
1988-II....................................................          3.72          6.3          4.86         4.13         2.59         5.23         3.09
1988-III...................................................          3.72          6.6          4.99         4.67         2.44         5.60         3.16
1988-IV....................................................          3.72          6.65         5.01         4.72         2.63         5.48         3.07
1989-I.....................................................          3.72          6.65         5.01         4.95         2.64         5.67         3.17
1989-II....................................................          3.72          6.6          4.99         5.23         2.77         6.06         3.42
1989-III...................................................          3.72          6.55         4.97         5.24         2.95         6.36         3.61
1989-IV....................................................          3.89          5.9          4.77         4.86         2.98         6.16         4.07
1990-I.....................................................          4.72          5.91         5.24         3.93         3.21         5.26         4.20
1990-II....................................................          4.72          5.81         5.20         3.96         3.14         5.45         4.43
1990-III...................................................          4.72          5.8          5.20         3.70         3.22         5.27         4.39
1990-IV....................................................          4.97          5.7          5.29         3.33         3.08         4.84         4.24
1991-I.....................................................          5.22          5.8          5.68         3.19         2.92         4.75         4.33
1991-II....................................................          5.31          5.84         5.73         3.33         2.91         4.95         4.33
1991-III...................................................          5.36          5.87         5.77         3.30         3.03         4.93         4.51
1991-IV....................................................          5.39          5.87         5.77         3.15         3.02         4.79         4.36
1992-I.....................................................          5.46          5.95         5.85         3.12         2.87         4.80         4.37
1992-II....................................................          5.5           6.25         6.10         3.13         2.75         4.84         4.26
1992-III...................................................          5.5           7            6.70         3.07         2.46         4.76         3.81
1993-I.....................................................          5.73          8.41         7.87         3.16         3.17         4.88         3.35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: International Monetary Fund and Staff Estimates.                                                                                                


[[Page H7707]]




                             point of order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Maryland insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. HOYER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I reserved the point of order, and may 
I be recognized under my reservation?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland wishes to pursue his point 
of order and is recognized.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, previously on another amendment, the Solomon 
amendment, I raised the issue with respect to these, quote, ``made 
known'' amendments. Members are offering these made known amendments so 
that they comply with the rules. It is understandable.
  In this case I strongly agree with the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Kaptur], as she knows, and I have been very concerned about the 
practices of countries around the world, and specifically, of course, 
the People's Republic of China.
  However, the reason I reserved the point of order is to again make 
the point to the Members of the House to look at the language of this 
made known amendment: None of the funds made available in this act for 
the U.S. Custom Service may be used to make, issue, prescribe, take, 
implement, administer or enforce any determination, finding, rule, 
order, policy or other action relating to trade relations between the 
United States and the People's Republic of China when it is made known 
to the Federal official.
  Now, here we do not even know which Federal official it is.
  When it is made known to the Federal official having authority to 
obligate or expend such funds that such determination, finding, rule, 
order policy or other action has the effect of allowing imports into 
the United States of products of the People's Republic of China that 
were mined, produced or manufactured with the use of prison slave or 
child labor.
  I agree with that sentiment.

                              {time}  1445

  But let me suggest to the Members what it requires the Federal 
officials to do. The Federal official, first of all, has to make a 
determination--was it manufactured, mined, produced with prison, slave, 
or child labor? So the Federal official must do that, presumably, 
unless he simply or she simply takes at face value the representation 
of anybody, because the made-known amendments do not specify who it is, 
of anybody who calls up and says to that Federal official: Hey, guess 
what, your rule, regulation, or policy has the effect of accepting 
goods from China which are produced by slave or child labor.
  There is a problem with these made-known amendments. Is the Federal 
official to simply take that at face value no matter who picks up the 
phone and calls or writes? A competitor? Somebody who wants to 
undermine trade? Somebody who wants to attack the importer? Somebody 
who wants to attack the exporter in China? Who knows what the 
motivation might be of the party making known.
  I urge the Chair, I urge those making this determination to carefully 
consider the premise underlying the making in order of these 
amendments. I would say to the chairman, who is a distinguished member 
of the Committee on Rules and a leader on his side of the aisle and in 
this House on rules changes, that we need to carefully review what we 
are generating in this House, not as it relates to the substance of 
either the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] 
or the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], but in terms of what we 
are getting ourselves into in terms of a policy of telling to our 
Federal officials who are responsible for carrying out their duties and 
responsibilities. We are suggesting if somebody calls you up and makes 
it known to you, you cannot spend any money and you cannot pursue the 
objectives.
  I suggest that makes no sense. Therefore, I again respectfully 
suggest that the underlying rationale of the sustaining of this kind of 
amendment as consistent with the rules ought to be overturned.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair appreciates the recommendation of the 
gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I also rise on a point of order, a different 
point of order.
  I make a point of order against the amendment on the grounds that it 
cites clause 5(b) of rule XXI of the House, and ask that I be heard.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] is recognized on 
the point of order.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, clause 5(b) of rule XXI states that no 
amendment that includes a tax or a tariff measure may be considered in 
the House of Representatives to a bill that is reported from any 
committee that does not have jurisdiction.
  This amendment clearly contains a tariff measure. It is a tariff 
measure in the form of prohibiting the use of funds in the bill to 
enforce policies, regulations, rules, relating to trade relations 
between the United States and the People's Republic of China.
  The primary role of the Customs Service in regulating trade relations 
with China, in fact almost its only one, is to collect customs duties 
on imports from China. Therefore, this amendment has a direct and 
inevitable, let me repeat, inevitable effect on tariff revenues.
  To be somewhat more specific, first, Customs is the only Government 
agency directly responsible for collecting tariffs on imported 
products. Nobody else can do that. Second, the only source of funding 
for the Customs Service is through the appropriation bill. That is the 
act we are considering here today.
  Third, the United States currently engages in trade with China that 
involves dutiable goods. Nobody contests that.
  Fourth, the operation of this amendment would clearly affect and in 
some way would arrest the flow of goods. That is, when the Customs 
Service becomes aware of any imports from China of products using 
prison, slave, or child labor, even though they have no legal 
authority, perhaps, to deny them entry into the United States, when 
they become aware of it, then all funding relating to trade relations 
between the United States and China would cease. That means Customs has 
no ability, no funding, therefore no ability, to collect tariff 
revenues which are now being collected under current law due on the 
importation of goods that come from the People's Republic of China.
  That is why I would argue, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment has an 
inevitable, a direct, and irrefutable effect on revenues. Therefore, 
consequently, the amendment is a tariff measure subject to a point of 
order made under rule XXI, clause 5(b). In light of the fact the 
measure was not reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, which has 
jurisdiction on tariff measures, I believe this point of order applies, 
and I would urge the Chair to sustain the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any Members who wish to be heard in 
opposition to either the point of order of the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer] or the point of order of the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Kolbe]?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. I listened carefully to the gentleman's argument, Mr. 
Chairman, on the point of order. I must point out that the section that 
the gentleman refers to, I think, rule XXI, clause 5(b), this 
particular amendment that we are offering, which is not the one that 
was listed in the Congressional Digest this morning, is a different 
amendment.
  The reason that this does not violate that rule is simply because 
there is ostensibly no tariff revenue collected on these Chinese goods 
made under these conditions because the U.S. Customs Department should 
be complying with the law. In other words, these goods should not be 
coming over our shores, and, therefore, revenues should not be being 
collected on them.
  So this particular amendment is revenue-neutral, unlike, perhaps, 
another amendment that was being contemplated which might have been 
proper to raise a point of order against yesterday. This is a different 
amendment. Therefore, it does not have any revenue impact. It does not 
violate any jurisdiction of any other committee in this Chamber. It 
merely asks the Customs Service to enforce the laws that we have placed 
on them, but it does not have any revenue impact.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on the point of order.

[[Page H7708]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. If I might respond, Mr. Chairman, I am aware that the 
amendment that the gentlewoman from Ohio has offered is different, 
considerably different, I might say, than the one that was the subject 
of the unanimous-consent agreement yesterday.
  However, the point of order that I made was made against that 
amendment that was offered here today, not against the one that was 
being offered yesterday. I believe my point of order still applies, 
most particularly because prison slave and child labor are undefined 
here. Therefore, child labor is not subject to the legislation which 
the gentlewoman referred to.
  Therefore, if the simple statement is made, as the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] pointed out earlier that something is subject to 
this, then it would be made known, and therefore all funding would 
cease immediately to the Customs Service for its work in China. 
Therefore that would have an effect on tariffs.
  It is inevitable. It must have an effect. That is the whole point of 
the gentlewoman's amendment, to have that kind of effect. Therefore, it 
would have that effect. It has not been reported by the Committee on 
Ways and Means, and rule XXI clause 5(b) does apply.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] wish to be 
heard further on the point of order?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take a few seconds to say 
that if the Chair were to sustain the gentleman's point of order, it 
would mean that in that act, the Chair sanctions illegal goods coming 
into the United States with revenue being collected on those goods 
against the intent of our law. It would also mean that the U.S. Customs 
Service is breaking the law.
  Finally, it would mean that the question for the Member making the 
point of order is, what illegal goods are coming in and how much 
revenue is being collected? It is aimed at enforcing current law, which 
is well-defined in terms of prison labor, child labor, and slave labor. 
It is merely meant to send a very strong signal to the customs agency 
that it is time to enforce the laws on the books and the two memoranda 
of understanding and statements of cooperation with China.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inquire of the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer] if he insists on his point of order.
  Mr. HOYER. No, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order 
that has been propounded by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of order that the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio violates clause 5(b) of rule XXI 
prohibiting the consideration of an amendment carrying a tax or tariff 
measure to a bill reported by a committee not having that jurisdiction.
  The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio seeks to prohibit 
use of funds made available by the bill for the Customs Service to take 
any action relating to trade relations between the United States and 
the People's Republic of China when it is made known to the appropriate 
Federal official that such action would have a specified effect.
  Clause 5(b) of rule XXI provides a point of order against an 
amendment carrying a tax or tariff measure to a bill reported by a 
committee not having that jurisdiction. In determining whether a 
limitation on a general appropriation bill constitutes a tax or tariff 
measure proscribed by clause 5(b), the Chair must consider among other 
things whether the limitation would inevitably change revenue 
collections. As stated on page 655 of House Rules and Manual, the 
burden is on the Member making the point of order to show the 
inevitability of the tariff change.
  The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] would 
cause funding for the United States Customs Service for any action, 
including duties, rules, and policies relating to trade relations 
between the United States and the People's Republic of China, to cease 
when certain information becomes known to the official concerned.
  Taking notice of the fact that some of the dutiable goods mentioned 
by the gentlewoman from Ohio produced in the People's Republic of China 
currently enter the customs territory of the United States under 
existing law where tariffs are assessed by the Customs Service using 
funds in this bill, the Chair finds that the operation of the instant 
limitation would arrest the flow of certain dutiable imports. Thus, the 
amendment would inevitably affect revenue collections by the Customs 
Service.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained. Are there further 
amendments?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a further amendment at this 
point in time, but I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to enter 
into a colloquy with the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] and the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. mica].
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] move to 
strike the last word?
  Mr. HOYER. No, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to allow myself 
and the gentleman from Florida to enter into a colloquy with the 
chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under this request, does the gentleman from Maryland 
plan to control the time of debate?
  Mr. HOYER. No, sir. I would think that the chairman would control 
time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman form Florida [Mr. Mica] is recognized for 
5 minutes.


                             point of order

  Mr. HOYER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  the CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, is striking the last word in order under the 
unanimous-consent agreement?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman asked unanimous consent to strike the 
last word. There was no objection, and he was recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Fine, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with 
the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].
  Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about the practice of the Office 
of Personnel Management of turning over Federal employees' home 
addresses to labor organizations. This practice I believe is an 
egregious violation of the privacy of Federal employees.
  On April 17, 1996, OPM, the Office of Personnel Management, put into 
effect a proposal to give bargaining unit employees home addresses to 
the labor unions. This was instituted despite a 1994 Supreme Court 
decision that held in fact that the Privacy Act prohibited unions from 
obtaining the home addresses of Federal employees under the Freedom of 
Information Act.
  To get around the Supreme Court decision, OPM created what is called 
a routine use under the Privacy Act. Documents show that the 
administration lawyers developed this method of evading the Supreme 
Court's ruling in response to a request from the Vice President.
  In light of what I consider the improper and unjustified collection 
of FBI files of former White House Republican staffers and the release 
of employees' home addresses, it appears to me that this wholesale 
invasion of Federal employees' privacy is now becoming the 
administration's policy.
  Unfortunately, according to a letter sent to the president of the 
American Federation of Government Employees by the Director of Office 
of Management and Budget, Alice Rivlin, the administration in fact 
intends that all other agencies will be releasing the names and home 
addresses of bargaining unit employees.
  I commend the gentleman, the chairman, for his distinguished service, 
the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], and for including in the 
report language in this bill language that expresses his concern about 
the violation of Federal employees' privacy.
  However, I urge the gentleman to further address this issue in the 
conference committee in light of the seriousness of this practice. It 
may in fact

[[Page H7709]]

be necessary to include a statutory prohibition against this practice. 
I was prepared to offer an amendment today, and I am not going to do 
that because of the cooperation of the chairman. I would ask if he 
would be willing to consider proposing that statutory language be 
included in the conference committee.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, I am very 
deeply concerned about the policy of the Clinton administration to 
release the home addresses of employees of the Office of Personnel 
Management. I have included report language that directs OPM to 
explain, in writing, why it failed to provide any notification to the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  I appreciate the gentleman's concern, and shall be very pleased to 
further consider this issue in conference. I look forward to working 
with the gentleman on this very important matter.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his cooperation in 
this matter.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Maryland is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the chairman of the subcommittee concerning the Internal Revenue 
Service.
  Mr. Chairman, both the Secretary of Treasury and I believe that the 
funding levels provided in this bill for IRS, which are 11 percent 
below current spending, will adversely affect the 1997 filing season 
and may in some instances ultimately impede the collection of taxes. I 
know that this is not the chairman's intention. I also understand that 
the Senate has a higher spending allocation for the Treasury/Postal 
Subcommittee. In the event that the subcommittee receives a higher 
allocation when we go to conference with the Senate, can the chairman 
share his intentions regarding specific funding levels for IRS?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commit to the gentleman 
now that my intentions are to fully fund IRS at a level that would 
ensure not only a successful 1997 filing season but also an efficient 
and modernized IRS for the future. My goal all along has been simply to 
get the tax systems modernization program back on track. Unfortunately, 
that means taking some very dramatic steps. I understand the legitimate 
concerns of the gentleman from Maryland and am committed to scrubbing 
these numbers as we move toward conference with the Senate. I would 
also like to point out to the gentleman it was never the intention of 
the committee to hinder the 1997 filing season. The amounts provided in 
this bill for 1997 are based on numbers given to the committee by the 
administration and the IRS. But I can assure the gentleman we will work 
together to get the right numbers, ones that are built on a solid set 
of assumptions and are adequately justified. I am optimistic that my 
distinguished ranking member will be able to join me in this effort as 
we negotiate our bill with the Department of the Treasury.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for his remarks. I will be pleased to 
work with the chairman on this very important issue. I would also 
appreciate a bit more clarification regarding the operational 
components of the tax systems modernization program. As the bill is 
currently written, my concern is that some programs, such as electronic 
filing, will come to a standstill.
  What types of accommodations is the chairman willing to make as we 
conference this bill as it relates to the operational TSM programs?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. If the gentleman will yield further, it is not my 
intent to underfund either the current computer system referred to as 
``Legacy'' or the operational components of TSM. I can assure the 
gentleman that it is not my intention nor desire to stop successful TSM 
programs such as the electronic filing initiative developed by IRS. 
Unfortunately, IRS, has funded programs such as this together with TSM. 
It is my hope that IRS can give this subcommittee a solid definition of 
what is considered a legacy system, what is considered an operational 
TSM program, and what is considered a developmental TSM program. On 
that basis, we are prepared to fund those successful TSM programs that 
can be justified in the upcoming year.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his clarification, and I would 
like to work closely with the chairman on this issue as we have on so 
many others. I share his concerns that we need to develop a very solid 
and clear definition of what operational TSM is, what is developmental 
TSM, and what is considered a legacy system.

  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to have clarified the issue of 
contracting out of TSM and specifically putting the responsibility for 
a new contract into the hands of the Department of Defense. I cannot 
support, as the gentleman knows, this proposal. Can the gentleman share 
with me his intention as it relates to this issue?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. If the gentleman will yield further, I understand my 
colleague's concerns on this issue. We have very carefully listened to 
these points, as we discussed this in subcommittee and full committee. 
My point here is very simple. I am firmly committed to taking IRS out 
of the business of writing this very large contract. Quite frankly, I 
have not been convinced IRS is capable of managing a contract of this 
size. There is simply too much evidence to the contrary to ignore. 
Having said that, as I said in my opening statement, I invite Treasury 
to the table to begin negotiations with me on who should have 
responsibility for the contract. I am not wedded to this contract going 
to DOD. Again, I have listened to the gentleman's concerns. I believe 
that they are very legitimate. I am very clearly willing to negotiate 
on this point, but there is one point that I will not negotiate, and 
that is simply this: The IRS is out of the business of TSM contracting.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for that clarification.
  Mr. Chairman, I have one final point that needs clarification. The 
bill requires the IRS maintain taxpayer services at 1995 levels. I am 
concerned that this provision will require IRS to reopen walk-in 
taxpayer service centers rather than allow IRS to rely on more cost-
effective telephone service. Can the gentleman clarify his intent on 
this provision?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Lightfoot, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was 
allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I can assure the gentleman that this 
provision was carefully written so the IRS can apply it in the broadest 
way possible. In other words, should IRS feel it is better to provide 
taxpayer assistance through the telephone, they would simply be able to 
do so. The only point of this provision is to assure that taxpayers 
receive the same level of service that they did in 1995.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for those comments. I share many of 
the chairman's concerns as it relates to TSM as he knows, and we have 
worked together to make those concerns known to the Treasury Department 
and to the Internal Revenue Service. I believe we must take strong 
action to be sure this program is ultimately successful and gives us a 
tax administration system that is efficient and effective. I am 
committed to working with the chairman on these and other important 
issues as we move to conference with the Senate. Again I would 
reiterate my thanks to the chairman for these clarifications.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that in lieu of 
offering the last amendment I have listed that I be allowed to address 
the House for up to 10 minutes and to revise and extend my remarks.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?

[[Page H7710]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, let me start by commenting, as I have in the 
past, that all too often the American public sees on the floor of this 
House through C-SPAN or through other means the Members fighting in a 
way that appears that they are not at all conversing or trying to work 
constructively toward solving the problems that confront this country.
  One of the happy instances of my service in the House of 
Representatives is to serve both as chairman, with the gentleman from 
Iowa as ranking member, and now as ranking member with the gentleman 
from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] as the chairman.
  He is a constructive, positive participant in the legislative 
process. He is a man that tries to make common sense and to serve his 
constituents and the people of America as best he can. We have from 
time to time serious disagreements, and the happy news is that we have 
those disagreements as friends. I would hope that more Americans could 
see that happening so that they would have more confidence in their 
elected officials and in the process which sometimes they come to be 
frustrated with and lose faith in.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise because the chairman and I have had a 
significant disagreement, but in a constructive way. We have just had a 
colloquy which clearly indicates that the chairman and I are going to 
be working together to try to bridge those differences, to ensure the 
proper operations of the offices under our responsibility.
  The chairman and I have agreed on the law enforcement components and, 
very frankly, I think if we had more money, we would in some ways want 
to further enhance the law enforcement capabilities of the Treasury 
Department's law enforcement agencies. They do a critically important 
job, and I congratulate the chairman for his efforts in that regard.
  Mr. Chairman, as I raised in my opening statement, and I want to 
reiterate, I will be opposing this bill, notwithstanding the fact that 
I expect to work constructively with the chairman as we go to 
conference and in conference to hopefully bring a bill back to the 
House that we can both support and feel comfortable with.
  Mr. Chairman, I have referred to a number of items, but in closing 
this debate in opposition to the passage of this bill, let me raise 
some specific concerns again to remind the Members why I believe this 
bill does not do what it ought to do.
  First of all, I refer again to the letter of the Committee on Ways 
and means. I refer to the committee's letter because it comes from the 
Republican chairman, the chairman is of the majority party, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].
  Quite obviously, I want to make sure that folks know that there is a 
legitimate policy difference here, not simply a political difference. 
There may be political difference. There may be political differences 
but there is a genuine policy difference that is being discussed. That 
policy difference is whether this bill provides sufficient resources to 
allow the Internal Revenue Service to collect fairly and properly the 
revenues due under the existing tax system and provide the funds both 
to reduce the deficit and to fund very critical services.
  I see the chairman of the committee on Veterans' Affairs here. He 
cares deeply, as I do, about making sure that veterans' services, which 
we owe them and want to give them for their service to the country, are 
funded properly. If IRS does not collect any moneys, I tell my friend 
from Arizona [Mr. Stump], he will not nor will I have any money to 
support those objectives.
  Mr. Chairman, I have constructed a chart here to incorporate the 
letter of June 26, and I want to refer to three of its comments, 
because again in a bipartisan way, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Archer], the Republican chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
which as all the Members know, oversees the IRS and has the 
responsibility to make sure IRS is doing the proper thing, as we do on 
the Committee on Appropriations, but our particular responsibility is 
to fund those services.
  In the letter, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] says this: 
However, contrary to the assertion in the subcommittee's report that, 
``within the funds provided, the IRS should be able to accomplish its 
mission.''
  That was clearly the premise of the subcommittee because the chairman 
and the staff want to make sure the IRS can do its duties. But there is 
a significant disagreement. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] says, 
``We are very concerned that the funding levels in the subcommittee's 
mark will seriously impair the IRS's ability to perform its core 
responsibilities.''
  I tell my friends in the majority party, that is not some Democrat 
that is just an apologist for Government. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Archer] is not known as that. He is a responsible American who is 
chairman of a committee who says that he is concerned because their 
core responsibilities are important to all the people of America.
  The letter goes on to say, again signed by the gentleman from Texas, 
Mr. Archer and Nancy Johnson, the majority party's Chair of the 
Oversight Subcommittee, ``We are very concerned that the cuts proposed 
in funding for IRS Information Systems will seriously endanger the 
IRS's ability to perform its most important functions.''
  Again, they are saying you have not just cut the flesh, not just the 
muscle, you are down to bone in terms of the appropriate carrying out 
of the responsibilities. We ``will seriously endanger the IRS's ability 
to perform its most important functions, the timely processing of tax 
returns,'' and every American wants their tax return timely processed. 
Why? Because if they are due a refund, they want it as quickly as 
possible.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman, is saying, we 
are putting that at risk in this bill.
  He goes on to say, ``And the collection of taxes impose a collateral 
risk of impairing the IRS's ability to provide efficient customer 
services to the Nation's taxpayers.''

                              {time}  1515

  There is not a Member here that wants to, as is the fear of the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], undermine the efficient customer 
service to the Nation's taxpayers.
  Let me refer to one additional item that the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Archer] and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], as 
well as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Matsui], raise a concern about. We are also very 
concerned that some of the proposed budget cuts create a very 
significant risk. Hear me, my friends, hear the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Archer].
  The gentleman from Minnesota raised the issue about the deficit. The 
gentleman and I agree on that. Listen to what the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Archer], not the Democrats, the gentleman from Texas, who I would 
think the gentleman from Minnesota agrees is equally, if not more, 
concerned about the budget deficit than I am. He is certainly equally 
concerned. We are very concerned that some of the proposed budget cuts 
create a very significant risk that substantial Federal revenues could 
be lost, thereby exacerbating the Federal budget deficit problems. That 
is the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Archer, talking, not the gentleman 
from Maryland, Steny Hoyer. We have a serious responsibility to be 
honest with the American public, and we need to stand and say yes, we 
want to save money. As I have said before, I voted for a balanced 
budget amendment on two or three or four occasions and believe in it 
and continue to support it because we need to bring down the deficit.
  The good news in America today is that under President Clinton and 
the previous Congress and this Congress, we have brought the budget 
deficit down 4 years in a row. If you look at the graph, it is at its 
lowest point since it was since 1980, 15 years ago, and it is on a 
downward slope, and it is the first time, Mr. Chairman, that we have 
brought the deficit down 4 years in a row in this century. In 91 
previous years, 92 previous years, we had not accomplished that 
objective. In 1993, 1994 and 1996, we brought the deficit down 4 years 
in a row. We are on the right track.
  But what does the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Archer] say? The 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] says,

[[Page H7711]]

and the committee's leadership on both sides of the aisle agrees, we 
are concerned that the proposed budget cuts create a very significant 
risk that the budget deficit reduction effort will be undermined. Vote 
against this bill. Vote for deficit reduction and sound fiscal 
policies.

                          ____________________