[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.
____________________