[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.
____________________