[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8207-H8216]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2378, TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL 
                  GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, 
September 29, 1997, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 
2378) making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United 
States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and 
certain Independent Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1998 and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to the order of 
the House of Monday, September 29, 1997, the conference report is 
considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 29, 1997, at page H8137.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] and 
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].


                             General Leave

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
the conference report to accompany H.R. 2378, and that I may include 
tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the conference 
report on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government. This is a 
very good conference report and one which represents a great success on 
all sides. It provides $12.7 billion for agencies that come under this 
Subcommittee's jurisdiction and, for the first time in 3 years, an 
increase in funding. I would point out that it is in strict compliance 
with the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement.
  The actions taken by the conferees boost support for both drug and 
law enforcement programs. The bill puts us on track for a drug-free 
America by the

[[Page H8208]]

year 2001. In total, the conferees have recommended $3.9 billion, $737 
million over 1997, that is a 24-percent increase, for the Customs 
Service, ATF, the Secret Service, the Financial Crimes Enforcement 
Network, the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
  Specifically, let me just highlight a couple of the specific items in 
this bill in the area of law enforcement. Mr. Speaker, we provide $1.6 
billion for Customs to combat drugs that come in through our borders 
and to facilitate passenger and cargo processing. So both the 
interdiction and the processing of legitimate traffic across the border 
are accommodated. We provide an additional $8.4 million for the next 
stage of Operation Hardline, an initiative that was started years ago 
to harden our borders against drugs, and $4.5 million to equip Customs 
helicopters with night vision equipment.
  There is $195 million for the drug czar's anti-drug media campaign 
aimed at youth, $20 million more than the President had proposed. We 
believe this is a major step toward a comprehensive campaign for a 
drug-free America. There is $10 million for the recently authorized 
Drug Free Communities Act; $7.3 million for the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy's efforts to combat the dangers and growing problems of 
methamphetamine use in the U.S.; $13 million to provide counter drug 
technology assistance to State and local law enforcement; $159 million 
for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas that I know many Members 
are concerned about; and $5.2 million for ballistic imaging systems for 
State and local law enforcement.
  In other areas outside of purely law enforcement, we also continued 
the Committee on Appropriation's aggressive oversight of the IRS, 
prohibiting the IRS from spending more money on its computer 
modernization programs without congressional approval. By maintaining 
restrictions on the IRS's use of money absent a solid set of blueprints 
or an architectural plan for how that is going to be spent, the 
conference committee ensures that there is not going to be even 1 more 
year of wasteful spending on the computer systems for the Internal 
Revenue Service.
  The conferees also make year 2000 computer compliance a priority 
within the IRS, providing $377 million for Century Date Conversion 
efforts.
  The conferees also include requirements ensuring that IRS is in 
compliance with the Taxpayer Bill of Rights.
  Finally, the agreement ends taxpayer subsidy of political events at 
the White House. In conjunction with the White House, we have worked 
out language that includes a new accounting mechanism for the Executive 
Residence. The agreement requires not only that expenses of all 
political events be carefully tracked, but that all of these events be 
paid for up front so that taxpayers are not tagged with the cost of, 
even for 1 day, fronting the money for political events in the White 
House, no matter which party is in the White House.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this conference agreement. 
Not only are there no more free coffees at the White House, but the 
drug lords are not going to like this bill one bit. I think it is a 
bill that every Member of this body can support and support 
enthusiastically.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert the following:

[[Page H8209]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30SE97.002



[[Page H8210]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30SE97.003



[[Page H8211]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30SE97.004



[[Page H8212]]

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. The 
chairman has outlined well the provisions of this conference report. I 
think all of the Members on my side of the aisle, as well as all of the 
Members on the chairman's side of the aisle, can be pleased with the 
fact that this bill addresses significant law enforcement problems: 
fighting drugs, fighting crime, providing funds to the ONDCP to make 
sure that our young people know of the dangers of drugs, and convince 
them to stay off and to just say no, as Mrs. Reagan so aptly suggested.
  It also provides other funds for the IRS to make sure that we have a 
system that works. We have new people in place that are addressing the 
problems that the committee has seen and that the Congress has seen, 
and very frankly, I think this bill is a good bill that could be 
unanimously supported by the committee.
  I want to make a point to the chairman. I do not see the major 
chairman on the floor. I understand there is a colloquy, and I will 
wait perhaps and hopefully the gentleman from Louisiana, Chairman 
Livingston, will be on the floor. I understand he is on his way. I 
understand the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] has a colloquy to 
enter into.
  Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that I congratulate the gentleman for 
his work on this bill, I congratulate him on the bipartisan fashion in 
which he has worked toward fashioning a bill that I think is acceptable 
to all parties.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say, since I did not in my opening remarks, 
I would like to return the compliment to the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer]. It has been a great pleasure to work with him. We have not 
agreed on everything, by any means, but I think we have always worked 
in a spirit of constructive cooperation, of finding answers to the 
problems, and I think what we have is a bill that has such bipartisan 
support because of the work of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] 
and his staff, who I complimented when we considered the bill before. 
But I want to again compliment all the staff, the committee staff as 
well as the personal staffs on both sides of the aisle, for the work 
they have done.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Davis] for the purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, is it correct that in this bill 
Congress has increased the Office of Management and Budget's budget by 
$200,000 in order to help OMB facilitate their oversight and 
coordination of both new and ongoing statutory responsibilities, 
including the Congressional Review Act?
  Mr. KOLBE. That is correct.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this appropriated sum is 
significant because the House Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight has learned in hearings over the past year and a half that 
OIRA has not been implementing and coordinating the Congressional 
Review Act, despite its organizing statute and President Clinton's 
Executive order.
  To make the Congressional Review Act work, Congress and the agencies 
need OIRA'S expertise to coordinate agency input to the General 
Accounting Office on the new rules they promulgate. The Government 
Accounting Office has reported to us that they have been frustrated by 
OIRA's refusal to work with them in their role of helping Congress 
understand the impact of each major rule.
  I appreciate the chairman's leadership on this bill.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Davis] and the remarks that he has made. I look 
forward to working with him, and other Members who have expressed the 
same views on this issue, in the forthcoming year to ensure that the 
OMB dedicates the necessary resources to this and to other issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Cleveland, OH [Mr. Kucinich].
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, as a former local official, I know every dollar counts, 
and that local taxpayers are being asked to shoulder the ever-
increasing burden of services the Federal Government no longer 
provides. That is why I support a money-saving program for local and 
State governments, and why I now oppose the Treasury-Postal 
appropriation.
  The cooperative purchasing program, which Congress passed into law in 
1994, at section 1555 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, was 
designed to allow local and State governments, school districts and 
public hospitals, to purchase goods and services at a super discount 
off the Federal rate, saving local taxpayers hundreds of millions of 
dollars per year. Unfortunately, some have moved to take this 
particular program out of the conference report.
  Here is how the cooperative purchasing program is supposed to work. A 
school district has to purchase computers, chalkboards, and basic 
furniture. Thanks to the cooperative purchasing program, the school 
district could buy the supplies and services it needed directly from 
vendors at the discounted prices the GSA negotiated. The GSA, as we 
know, is a procurement agency for the government.
  These GSA-negotiated prices are often the lowest anywhere, allowing 
local taxpayers an opportunity to save money. Unfortunately, certain 
industry groups that benefit from government inefficiency would like 
nothing more than to have the law repealed. So the pharmaceutical 
industry wants to see the program repealed, because cooperative 
purchasing would entitle public hospitals and AIDS clinics to 
significant discounts on life-saving drugs. The medical equipment 
industry is also mobilizing against the discounts.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a way to reduce the cost of government. It is 
called the cooperative purchasing program. Today the House will keep 
this idea and the program alive by rejecting the conference committee 
report. Let us tell our constituents we want to keep local taxes low 
and we reject the repeal of the cooperative purchasing program.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Just briefly, 
obviously, that was an issue that there was strong feeling on, 
particularly in the Senate, and frankly it was impossible to prevail on 
that position from the House perspective.
  Mr. Speaker, I would enter into a colloquy with the distinguished 
chairman. The chairman and I have had long discussions and worked many 
years on the FEC. We differ in our perspectives in some respects, but 
we have come, I think, to what is a fair agreement on both sides, given 
the status of the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, am I correct that under the 
language that we have adopted with respect to FEC term limits, that 
there are two Republican vacancies currently and two Democratic 
vacancies? As I understand it, there are three pending nominations and 
one Republican that was withdrawn and one that will be made. Hopefully 
both the executive and the legislative will cooperate to make sure 
those nominations are made prior to December 31.
  It is our understanding that under those circumstances, they would 
then be able to be reappointed once after the initial appointment.
  Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, my friend, 
the gentleman from Maryland, is correct. As the gentleman knows, I have 
been a proponent of term limits for appointed members in the executive 
branch for some time, and especially on the Federal Election 
Commission.
  It now appears that we are in the final days of resolving this with 
the prospect that those term limits could be adopted for members on the 
Federal

[[Page H8213]]

Election Commission. In view of the fact that some members of the 
Commission have served for the duration of the Commission, since about 
1974, it just seemed to me that term limits are an appropriate remedy.
  That being the case, in order to get the bill signed without too much 
undue negotiation and/or a veto, I have agreed with the gentleman that 
we would make sure that any person currently on the Commission or any 
person who might be appointed to or nominated for an appointment to the 
Commission between now and December 31 of this year would not be 
subject to that term limit immediately, but would be able to be 
appointed for a subsequent term, and that would be their last term. 
Anybody nominated or appointed following December 31 of this year would 
in fact be subject to the one-term, one 6-year term limit, and would 
only be able to serve 6 years at the most.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for his comments. That is, indeed, my 
understanding, that the four vacancies, two Republicans and two 
Democrats that are pending now, three being nominated, one Republican 
to be nominated, they would be subject to these limits, to the extent 
that they could serve the term for which they are now nominated and one 
additional; that is, sitting members, now, could be reappointed for one 
term, but that all future commissioners would be limited to the one 
term.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. That is correct.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the chairman's clarification.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding 
time to me. I appreciate the gentleman's efforts that have gone into 
this.
  I join with my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich] in 
being very disappointed and expressing our disappointment in the fact 
that this bill has come back from conference that repeals the 
cooperative purchasing program, which was a program established under 
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act in the 103rd Congress.
  This act allows local governments to buy at a discount items off the 
GSA schedule that the Federal Government buys and at prices the Federal 
Government currently pays. This provision could have saved local 
governments, State and local governments tens of millions, perhaps 
hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
  Instead of passing this cost down to State and local taxpayers, the 
Senate, without holding one hearing, has decided to repeal this 
provision. I am particularly disappointed that the Group 70 schedule, a 
schedule with over 1,200 vendors, where over 90 percent of the vendors 
who applied to get on that schedule can get on, was discarded.
  This is going to cost State and local governments millions of 
dollars, perhaps billions of dollars over the next decade as they go to 
acquisitions of information technology, computers, and very complex 
procedures that take a lot of time to go out with a request for 
proposal, responses to the proposals, best and final.
  If they had been allowed to purchase under the Cooperative Purchasing 
Act, they could have purchased right off the GAO's schedule, could have 
defined exactly what they wanted, and it would have compressed the 
acquisition time in a significant manner, and literally would have 
saved millions of dollars.
  So I am very disappointed, as is the National Governors' Association, 
the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, 
the Conference of Mayors, and other State and local government 
organizations who have worked with this Congress over the last couple 
of years to try to help them bring savings to their taxpayers, as we 
are trying to do here at the Federal level.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand and appreciate the gentleman's position. As 
the gentleman knows, in fact, I share his position on this issue, and 
voted that way in committee before the bill was reported to the floor. 
As the gentleman well knows, I lost, and his position, as articulated 
now, lost as well. On a point of order it was struck, but the fact of 
the matter is the reality was that the majority of the conferees on the 
House side and the majority of the conferees on the Senate side were 
for doing what the Senate did.
  I will tell my friend, who I believe serves on the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, the real problem is the chairman of 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight did not demand that 
the jurisdiction of the committee be honored in this instance. Very 
frankly, this is an issue for the gentleman's committee. He is 
absolutely correct.
  I regret that the initial recommendation of the gentleman from 
Arizona, Chairman Kolbe, which was, back when we did the supplemental 
in March, to defer this issue to the gentleman's committee for action, 
did not in fact happen. I appreciate the gentleman's point.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter 
from the Vice President supporting my position.
  The letter referred to is as follows:


                                           The Vice President,

                                   Washington, September 23, 1997.
     Hon. Thomas M. Davis, III,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Tom: Thank you for your strong support for the use of 
     cooperative purchasing authority for state and local 
     governments. The Administration opposes repeal of this 
     authority in the Treasury-Postal Appropriations Act for 1998 
     and would support the House's position in conference.
       In 1993, as part of my work on reinventing government, I 
     recommended to the President that General Services 
     Administration be granted the authority to allow states and 
     localities to purchase items from the federal supply 
     schedules so they could enjoy the same advantageous prices 
     GSA is often able to negotiate under contracts it has set up 
     for the federal government's use. Used in appropriate 
     circumstances, this cooperative purchasing authority might 
     result in significant savings to the American taxpayer. 
     Congress agreed and in 1994, gave GSA cooperative purchasing 
     authority in the historic Federal Acquisition Streamlining 
     Act.
       It is surprising that efforts are underway to repeal this 
     authority without the benefit of congressional hearings or 
     other opportunities to assess the advantages of this program 
     for taxpayers. The General Accounting Office studied this 
     issue and concluded that the provision, if managed 
     effectively, would not harm the federal government. As a 
     result, the Administration opposes this attempt to repeal the 
     provision because it could deny state and local taxpayers the 
     opportunity to share in the savings the Federal Government is 
     able to negotiate as a large buyer of commercial items.
       However, if the repeal cannot be stricken in Conference, 
     the Administration is willing to work with the Congress on a 
     compromise to permit such purchases for a number of specified 
     product categories in demand by State and local governments 
     and whose affected producers have not objected. We would 
     further urge that this authority include a limited pilot 
     program for pharmaceuticals used to treat life-threatening 
     conditions, beginning with drugs used to treat HIV. We also 
     urge the retention of GSA's authority to make any of the 
     services it provides to Federal agencies available to a 
     qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or other severely 
     handicapped that is to provide a commodity or service to the 
     Federal Government under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act. GSA's 
     total collection of administrative fees will not increase by 
     more than the incremental increase in the cost of 
     administering the program.
       As a former county official, you appreciate more than most 
     that taxpayers do not make much distinction between the 
     federal, state, and local governments when they pay taxes. 
     They want the benefit of savings and efficiency, from 
     whatever level of government. If we do not work together to 
     make this happen, we will never be able to restore the 
     public's confidence in government. The cooperative purchasing 
     program is an important example of how we need to use common 
     sense to save tax dollars and do the right thing for all 
     Americans.
       Again, thank you for your leadership in this good fight.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                          Al Gore.

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia, 
and to all those who are concerned about this issue, the fact of the 
matter is, I am on their side and we lost. But I would urge the 
gentleman to look at the balance of the bill, because in terms of all 
of the rest of the bill, in terms of IRS, in terms of Customs, in terms 
of Secret Service, in terms of ATF, in terms of the White House, in 
terms of all of the other issues that this bill covers, it is

[[Page H8214]]

a very positive bill for many of the folks that the gentleman and I 
represent.
  I would urge the gentleman that this is really an issue that needs to 
be addressed in the gentleman's committee. It should not be in our 
committee, the gentleman is absolutely right. The fact of the matter is 
the majority believed that this should pass, and we did not have the 
votes to stop it. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Souder].
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the most felicity 
about this bill has been because our pay raise, our COLA increases, are 
tied to the salaries in this bill, because in actuality that is less of 
the amount of dollars than we are increasing the IRS. We as Republicans 
are going around the country right now criticizing the IRS, while we 
are increasing their dollars here. There are many reasons why we are 
doing it, but nevertheless, it is rather an inconsistent message.
  Furthermore, many Republicans went around the country criticizing the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and many gun owners around 
this country have been concerned about their abuses and civil rights 
abuses, yet we are not only not eliminating ATF, we are increasing ATF. 
I have great problems with this, as well as with the pay increase, and 
Members need to know that that is what is tied to this bill.
  The second major concern I have is the process. It was not that we 
were not aware that this bill had us tied to the pay increase, it was 
that there was no rule vote, so we could not object to the rule. The 
rule, because we could not object to a rule, it meant that we were not 
allowed to offer any amendment to stop the pay raise. Therefore, the 
only thing we could do the first time was to vote against this bill the 
first time it went through. We could not do a motion to recommit or a 
motion to instruct conferees, because that is left to the minority 
leadership, so we had a procedural vote.
  Once again, because it is a conference report, we cannot have a vote 
in this Congress on the pay raise. I think that is unfortunate. Thaere 
are a lot of Members, and I realize it is the will of this House, the 
majority of the Members favor a pay increase, but in fact this is 
another backdoor way to do it through, and it is unfortunate we did not 
have a straightforward vote.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Following up on the comments of the gentleman who has just spoken, 
this is not a back-door way to do anything. The amendment that the 
gentleman refers to, as I understand it, has been introduced in the 
form of a bill. It is in committee. It can be reported out. The fact of 
the matter is, we could add the amendment that the gentleman suggests 
to any bill being considered by this House. It is not germane on this 
bill because nothing in this bill deals with pay, as the gentleman 
knows. I presume he knows that. If he does not know it, I will inform 
him. Nothing in this bill deals with pay.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that our salary increases are 
tied to the increases of Federal employees?
  Mr. HOYER. To the extent that we cannot get any COLA adjustment if 
Federal employees do not get it, that is accurate. It is not included 
in this bill. No, sir. Nothing in this bill deals with the COLA's of 
Federal employees; nothing in this bill deals with the COLA's of 
Members; nothing, not one jot or tittle.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, if this would fail, would we get our 
increase?
  Mr. HOYER. Absolutely. If it would pass, we would get our increase.
  Mr. SOUDER. The gentleman is saying that our salaries go up 
regardless of what we do?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am saying to the gentleman that nothing in 
this bill will affect his salary one way or the other.
  Mr. SOUDER. Is it not true that this bill has historically, because 
it contains the salaries of Federal employees, the amendment to not 
have the pay raise, to eliminate the COLA is historically placed?
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, obviously salaries and 
expenses for Federal employees are in every bill that deals with every 
agency, as the gentleman knows.
  The gentleman is correct that this bill deals with the Office of 
Personnel Management. He is further correct that from time to time this 
bill has been used as a vehicle to stop the COLA adjustment. It could 
be effected in any bill, I tell the gentleman. So the gentleman's 
comments are as relevant to any bill that we consider as they are to 
this one.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, is 
it not true that the Senate had placed their amendment on this bill and 
if we did it on another bill, the Senate has not passed it, therefore 
it could die in conference or could be vetoed by the President if it is 
freestanding, but if you do it on an appropriations bill, that it is 
less likely to be vetoed, and, secondly, that we have had no precedent 
in any other bill that the Senate has ever put that amendment on?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I think we could make that observation. 
Obviously, the Senate receded in this instance, as the gentleman knows, 
I think wisely so. I would hope that this conference committee would 
pass based upon the merits of this bill.
  Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
would briefly like to respond to a couple of the other things that the 
gentleman from Indiana spoke about on the IRS.
  I am very pleased with what we did here with the IRS. There are three 
increases that are in here for, as the gentleman from Indiana spoke 
about. Yes, it is an increase for IRS; $377 million of that increase is 
for Y-2K, that is the Year 2000 Compliance, to make sure that the 
computers are able to handle the shift to the new millennium. I do not 
think there is anybody that believes that we should have the whole 
system crash and the IRS not be able to function after the year 2000. 
That is what this money is in there for. We have funded that 
completely.
  There is also $325 million for technology investment, what we used to 
call the tax system modernization where, we know, money was 
unfortunately frittered away in past years. So we have gone to a new 
system where now the money that we put aside for that is going to be 
fenced. We will not allow one dime of that to be spent until the 
committees, both the House and Senate, have seen the architectural plan 
for the spending of that money. There again, I think this is wise 
management and prudent spending.
  Finally, for another initiative that this body has said is 
extraordinarily important, the $138 million for the earned income tax 
compliance initiative. We heard during the debate recently on the 
budget about the tremendous abuse of the earned income tax credit. We 
put in $138 million to enhance compliance and to cut down on the fraud 
and abuse of the earned income tax credit.
  For all of those reasons, I think that the money that we have 
appropriated here, the increased money for the Internal Revenue 
Service, which, by the way, is still $204 million below the President's 
request, that that money that is in here is well spent. It has been 
carefully thought out. It has been worked out very carefully not only 
with the Internal Revenue Service, but also with the minority side, 
with the Senate, and I think that we have a very good handle on that 
money.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The fact of the matter is that I would hope that Members would 
concentrate on what this bill is, not what it is not, what it possibly 
could be, what could be added. There are a lot of great things that 
probably could be added to this bill that are not added to this bill. 
There are probably a lot of great things or bad things that this bill 
could preclude that it does not. But what it is, what this bill is that 
Members are going to consider is an excellent bill that does good and 
is bipartisan in nature. We all gave to reach agreement.

[[Page H8215]]

  I thank the chairman for his leadership and effort on this issue.


                        Request for Quorum Call

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Does the gentleman from 
Maryland move a call of the House? Under clause 6(e)(1) of rule XV, a 
point of no quorum is not in order at this point in the debate. Does 
the gentleman move a call of the House?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, could I be told how much 
time remains in the debate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 
17 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] has 18 
minutes remaining.


                     Request for Call of the House

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will withhold that motion. 
Under clause 6(e)(2) of rule XV, recognition for a motion for a call of 
the House is entirely in the discretion of the Chair.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to reiterate why Members ought to vote for this bill. The 
reason they ought to vote for this bill is because it does some things 
that are very important to average Americans, families in 
neighborhoods, in communities, concerned about the safety of their 
children, concerned about the safety of their families, concerned about 
the safety of their neighborhoods.
  It provides $3.9 billion for law enforcement efforts. Every Member in 
this House supports that kind of effort. The fact of the matter is, 
$1.6 billion of that money is for antidrug activities. We could all 
talk about making communities safe. We can go back to our town meetings 
and say, I want to keep America safe from drugs; I want to keep 
American kids off of drugs. But the fact of the matter is, this effort 
makes that happen. This is an important initiative.
  ONDCP, which is the organization that General McCaffrey heads up, as 
all of you know, the most decorated soldier in America, General 
McCaffrey heads up the ONDCP. He has organized an effort across the 
Government to make sure that we maximize our effort to make our 
communities safe. We provide for monies to go on television. We know 
that there is nothing that impacts young people in America like 
television.
  What this bill does is provide funds so that we can communicate with 
young people with reference to staying off drugs, as I said earlier, 
just saying no. That is a critically important effort. I would ask 
Members to focus on that. There are some of you who think this bill is 
not perfect. You are absolutely right, it not perfect, but it is a very 
important effort in trying to address the drug problem in America, safe 
communities in America.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the funding in this 
for the IRS. Is it true or not true that the funding for the IRS 
increases by a half a billion?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let me get that figure for the gentleman. 
Maybe the chairman has the exact figure.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I just covered this a moment ago. Let me 
tell the gentleman again what is in here. Although it is $204 million 
below what the President requested, we have three increases for the 
IRS.
  We have $377 million for Y-2K, year 2000 compliance, to make sure 
that the computers are compliant and that we will be able to process 
tax returns at the new millennium, which I do not know of any Member 
who thinks we should not be able to do in our Federal agencies.
  There is $325 million in this bill for technology investment. This 
was formerly called the tax system modernization program, but 
unfortunately that money was wasted, and we have now gone back and said 
that not one dime of this $325 million can be spent by the IRS until 
there is actually an architectural blueprint or a plan for how it is 
going to be used.
  Finally $138 million is in there for the earned income tax compliance 
initiative. We heard about this during the debate over the budget, the 
concerns about fraud and abuse of the EITC. I think it is a priority of 
this House that we have more compliance with the EITC. That is why we 
have it in here.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, so 
the overall figure is somewhere over a half a billion?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the answer to the gentleman's question is 
yes, but I would point out to the gentleman, the bill is over $200 
million below what the President felt necessary to fund the IRS. The 
committee cut that figure by over $200 million.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-- yeas 220, 
nays 207, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 474]

                               YEAS--220

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Archer
     Armey
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--207

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Brady
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch

[[Page H8216]]


     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Lazio
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wise

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Gonzalez
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Maloney (NY)
     Pastor
     Schiff
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1750

  Messrs. SHAYS, COOK, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BONO, McINTOSH, and BONILLA changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.

                          ____________________