[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 85 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5307-H5315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4104, TREASURY AND GENERAL
GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 485 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 485
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4104) 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, 1999, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for
failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI or clause 7
of rule XXI are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
The amendments printed in part 1 of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of
the Whole. Points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI
are waived except as follows: page 104, line 14, through page
106, line 12. The amendments printed in part 2 of the report
of the Committee on Rules may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in
the reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the
amendments printed in the report are waived. During
consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6
of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1)
postpone until a time during further consideration in the
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time
for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows
another electronic vote without intervening business,
provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the
first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
{time} 1115
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. McInnis) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of
debate only.
Madam Speaker, this is an open rule that waives points of order
against consideration of the bill for failing to comply with clause
2(l)6 of rule XI requiring a 3-day layover of the committee report, or
clause 7 of rule XXI, requiring printed hearings and reports to be
available for 3 days prior to the consideration of general
appropriation bills.
House Resolution 485 provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally
divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Madam Speaker, House Resolution 485 also provides that the amendments
printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
the resolution be considered as adopted in the House and in the
Committee of the Whole House.
[[Page H5308]]
House Resolution 485 waives points of order against provisions in the
bill, as amended, which do not comply with clause 2 of rule XXI
prohibiting unauthorized or legislative appropriations in a general
appropriations bill, and clause 6 of rule XXI, prohibiting
reappropriations in a general appropriations bill, except as specified
by the rule.
Additionally, Madam Speaker, House Resolution 485 waives all points
of order against the amendments printed in part 2 of the Committee on
Rules report, and provides that such amendments shall be offered only
by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for the time period specified in the report, equally
divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a
division of the question.
Furthermore, this rule provides for priority in recognition for those
amendments that are preprinted in the Congressional Record, and
provides that the chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone
recorded votes on any amendment and that the chairman may reduce voting
time on postponed questions to 5 minutes, provided that the voting time
on the first in a series of questions is not less than 15 minutes.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for
amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the House
with such amendments as may have been adopted.
Finally, Madam Speaker, the rule provides 1 motion to recommit, with
or without instructions. This rule was reported out by the Committee on
Rules by voice vote.
Madam Speaker, the underlying legislation, which makes the
appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal
Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain Independent
Agencies for fiscal year 1999, is important legislation.
Nearly 90 percent of the activities funded under this bill are
devoted to the salaries and expenses of approximately 163,000 employees
who are responsible for administering programs such as drug
interdiction, presidential protection, violent crime reduction, and
Federal financial management.
Additionally, H.R. 4104 provides $1.8 billion for drug-related
activities, including a $195 million national media campaign targeting
youth drug use, and doubles the funding for the Drug-Free Communities
Act of 1997. I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I reluctantly oppose this rule, because I would like
to support it very much. It is an open rule, and it gives all Members
of the House an opportunity to offer amendments that are germane and
otherwise in compliance with House rules.
I also think that the underlying bill, for the most part, is fair and
worthy of support. It provides $13.2 billion in discretionary budget
authority, which is a slight increase from last year's bill. It funds
most programs at the levels requested, levels that will adequately
support the programs and services covered by the bill.
But one major exception, however, is the Federal Election Commission,
which is funded significantly below the level necessary for the FEC to
do its job properly and effectively. Furthermore, authorizing language
imposing term limits for the Commission's staff director and general
counsel will also hamstring the FEC's ability to do its work in a fair
and impartial manner.
The rule protects from a point of order critical legislative language
to implement a new, fair, and reasonable pay system to adequately
compensate Federal firefighters for overtime. Such a provision is
necessary because of the unique and unusual pay system for these brave
men and women. Currently, there is a pay inequity between the Federal
firefighters and their municipal and civil service counterparts.
I strongly support this language and its protection in the rule. The
measure has 153 bipartisan cosponsors, and is supported by the
administration. We are currently experiencing devastating fires in
Florida, and must ensure that those who risk their lives fighting fires
are compensated fairly for their brave efforts.
I am disappointed that the rule did not protect from a point of order
another provision in the bill to address a pay problem for Federal
employees. We passed a bill to create a fairer pay system by a margin
of 383 to 30, and President Bush signed it into law in 1990.
Unfortunately, the bill lacked a definition of what constitutes an
economic crisis, and without that definition, the new system will not
be implemented.
Language in this bill would fix the problem, but unfortunately, the
rule does not protect the language from a point of order. It is
regrettable that efforts to reform Federal employees' pay continues to
be ignored.
The bill contains and the rule protects a provision requiring all
Federal health plans to provide prescription contraceptive coverage to
Federal workers. Certainly anyone interested in reducing unintended
pregnancies should support that language.
Having said all that, Madam Speaker, I would like to take a minute to
address my concern with the rule and why I must oppose it. The bill
reported out of the Committee on Appropriations contained $2.25 billion
to deal with an enormous computer problem that threatens to bring the
country's computers to a halt when the campagne corks pop for the year
2000. It is called Y2K, in the popular language, which is a small name
for what is going to be a huge problem.
If left unchecked, this could result in major chaos and confusion
throughout the country, ranging from serious threats to our national
security, a crash in the stock market, failure of our Air Traffic
Control system, and the inability to process Social Security checks, or
any others, on time. And if it is not fixed on time, the two places I
am told not to be are on an airplane or a patient in a hospital at
midnight, December 31, 1999.
Experts on the so-called ``millennium bug'' have been warning us for
years about this impending doom, and they have worked hard to warn the
public, but they are frustrated by the lack of a timely response. It is
up to us in Congress to step up to the plate and make certain that this
matter gets the attention and financial support that it desperately
needs. That is why we are elected, to take responsibility for the well-
being of our people and our Nation.
The Committee on Appropriations, to their credit, did just this by
putting emergency funding in this bill and the defense bill for the Y2K
situation. But my Republican colleagues have decided that this can
wait. They have decided to remove the emergency funds from both these
bills.
This has the potential to be a crisis of major proportions, and it
will not go away. We are wasting precious time with our finger-pointing
and partisan squabbling. We need to get money in the pipeline
immediately to begin addressing this extraordinarily complex and
dangerous situation.
They said, we will do it later in another bill, but we do not see
another bill on the schedule to address this major problem. After the
House finishes its business today, we will adjourn for a 2-week recess.
Madam Speaker, I do not know do not know a lot about computers, but I
do get the feeling that we do not have a lot of time to fix this
problem. Every day we lose attempting to address the situation counts
dearly. We are playing with fire by not dealing with the Y2K matter
immediately.
I hope for all of our sakes that our colleagues are genuine in their
promise to make this a top priority. This should not be a political
issue, because we are failing in our duty to our constituents and our
Nation if we do not act responsibly and take action immediately. It is
far too important, not just in our country but worldwide as well. We
must act now.
Because of this self-executing provision to remove this critical
funding, I must oppose this rule, and I urge Members to join me in
voting no on the rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
[[Page H5309]]
Madam Speaker, I would just note at the very beginning of this
conversation on the rule that my colleague, the gentlewoman from New
York, makes the statement that this Y2K problem should not be
political, but preceding that statement, the three paragraphs before,
it was 100 percent political.
So I ask her, do not make the kind of statement that this should not
be political when the gentlewoman talks like that. She is trying to
make it political. The fact is, the money is going to be there. We are
going to appropriate the money. I will make it political: The
administration should have been addressing this a year and a half ago.
They have not been doing it, and now the bell is beginning to toll. We
realize we have a problem there.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend,
the gentleman from the State of Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado. On
exactly that note, I just happened to walk in here and hear some
phenomenal statements.
The fact is that this Congress is facing up to the funding demands
for the Y2K problem. We are in the process of providing appropriations
for them, even though, and I want to stress this, even though the
administration has not requested enough money for the Y2K problem. We
have been telling them, look, it is a big problem, for a long time.
OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, has basically ignored it.
They have taken the attitude, oh, we will worry about it manana; it is
some ephemeral thing, let the Wizard of Oz take care of it.
We cannot afford to do that anymore. The fact is, the administration
has not been realistic. The Vice President, Vice President Gore, has
been the head of technology, the guru of technology, for the last 5 to
7 years, and has not paid a bit of attention to Y2K. Somebody walked up
to him recently and said, what about Y2K? And he said, ``I don't do
Y2K,'' because it is too complex, evidently.
All I will say, we do not have a request from the President within
his budget for any money to handle the emergencies that this Congress
is going to have to handle within the coming months for Y2K, but we are
going to step up to the plate, anyway. We are doing that within the
appropriations process. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the
time.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman has had to say. We
should know that while they have not asked for that, the Vice President
has been very busy preparing for his telephone tax, the Gore tax, which
goes in effect here in just a couple of days. I hope the consumers out
there note that.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me.
Madam Speaker, I want to first of all respond to my chairman and my
friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), as well as to
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis).
The fact of the matter is that this administration did make a request
that over $1 billion specifically be included in a $3.5 billion
emergency request for Bosnia and for Y2K, so the representation that
this administration did not address it is simply wrong. I hope it is
wrong because of a lack of information, as opposed to an intent to
mislead. I am sure the latter is not true. But it is nevertheless
wrong. This administration has addressed this problem.
Now, as the private sector has experienced, the Federal Government
has also experienced an emergency situation, an emergency that both in
the public and private sector has grown exponentially, where the
private sector, like the public sector, has experienced a growing scope
of the problem and a growing expense to solving the problem.
There is no option to solving the problem, period. As has been said,
no one wants to be on an airplane when FAA's computers decide that they
cannot function because they have not contemplated the change of
centuries.
I will tell the Members, Mr. Speaker, previous administrations and
this administration have purchased a lot of information technology, as
the private sector has purchased information technology, that does not
contemplate the change of century. This is a great surprise to all of
us, of course, that the century is changing.
But having said that, there is a reasonable explanation, of course.
There was, in my opinion, a pennywise and pound-foolish, perhaps,
judgment that was made in previous administrations, and as recently,
perhaps, as this administration, which purchased technology which did
not contemplate this change, knowing full well that there was
absolutely no alternative but to solve this problem.
There is a lot of protestation on that side of the aisle, but in
point of fact, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations went to the Speaker and it was agreed, it was agreed
between the Speaker and the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, to do exactly what this committee recommended, to do
exactly what the Committee on National Security yesterday had
recommended, and that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha)
talked about. That was to fund a solution to this emergency,
unavoidable expenditure that confronts us.
{time} 1130
And so the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations, in conversation with the Speaker, agreed
to recommend this. And the Republicans and Democrats in the Committee
on Appropriations voted these bills out.
But lo and behold, there are some who would say, no, this is not an
emergency, we will wait; just like with the BESTEA bill, that we are
going to fund this at a later date. Ways and means to be announced.
Vote with us now on faith.
Madam Speaker, we ought not to do that. We ought to reject this rule
and we ought to go back to the drawing board. And, frankly, the Speaker
and the chairman of the committee ought to again come to their
conference and say the responsible thing to do is to make sure that we
solve this problem, that we confront it honestly and we do it now. Now,
if at some point in time later we want to fund that, we can do it.
Nothing precludes that. The only thing that we are doing now is
delaying the decision. We should not do that.
Madam Speaker, I regret that. And I want to say that the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), chairman of my subcommittee, and I agree on
this. He believed this ought to be. I did not put it in. We do not have
the votes on my subcommittee to put this in. It is 7-to-4 when we vote
from a partisan standpoint and there was no dispute in the
subcommittee, either from the seven Republicans or the four Democrats.
So I lament the fact that there has been some change because some
Members of the Republican Conference felt this was not the way they
wanted to proceed. That was not reflective of the Republican leadership
of the Committee on Appropriations, nor for a period of time, at least,
reflective of the Republican leadership of this House, including the
Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I may speak at some greater length as well on this
rule, because it is not just the Y2K problem that I think is
unfortunate. And I want to say to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
McInnis), I do not think the Committee on Rules made this
determination, and I understand that as well.
Not that he would have disagreed with the solution that was effected;
I do not mean to imply that. But I understand this decision was made by
the leadership and not per se by the Committee on Rules, although the
Committee on Rules obviously implemented in its rule that decision. So
I do not quarrel with the Committee on Rules. I want to make that
clear. What I quarrel with is the decision having been made to retreat
from responsibly and immediately confronting this emergency situation.
Madam Speaker, I may also at some future time talk about the rule
itself. I think, unfortunately, the rule did not do some of the things
I think it should have. Other Members will discuss that,
[[Page H5310]]
and perhaps in concluding a couple of minute remarks I will discuss
those items as well.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
McInnis) for the generous amount of time he has yielded to me.
Madam Speaker, I want to rise today to support the rule and also to
speak briefly about an amendment that I will offer to strike an
amendment that was brought up in the full Committee on Appropriations
last week and passed by a very narrow margin, a 28-to-26 vote.
The result of this amendment is that we are going to impose a Federal
mandate on all insurance companies that contract with the Federal
Employees Health Benefits. This Federal mandate that is now going to be
imposed on health care coverage will cover all prescription
contraceptive devices that are FDA approved.
This coverage is already available as an option for health care
coverage for government workers, but today this bill mandates coverage
which includes the following FDA approved drugs and devices: The pill,
diaphragm, IUDs, Norplant, Depo-Provera and the Morning-After abortion
bill. And some day it could include the latest abortion pill, RU-486.
Madam Speaker, it is important that Members understand that my
amendment will not deny any Federal employee the opportunity to receive
a full range of contraceptive devices currently allowed by the FDA. All
my amendment will do is allow the Federal employees to continue the
freedom that they now enjoy to choose the type of coverage that best
meets their family's needs.
According to the Office of Personnel Management, every health care
provider for Federal employees currently provides full prescription
coverage for the pill, the predominant method of choice for women of
childbearing age in this country. Furthermore, over 75 percent of all
Federal employees currently have coverage which includes all FDA
approved methods.
The only health care plans which specifically do not cover any
contraceptive devices are Catholic health care plans, which are formed
for that specific purpose for reasons of conscience. In other words, 10
percent of the Federal employees who do not have contraceptive coverage
do so by choice. So, ironically, those who demand freedom of choice
have, through this language, limited the choice through the current
language.
Under the language the Catholic Federal employees will no longer have
a choice. Instead, Catholics and others will be forced to choose
between receiving no health care benefits or health care insurance or
belong to a plan which provides services which they believe are wrong.
This past Monday, The Washington Post reported incorrectly that the
CBO had determined that this Federal mandate would not cost additional
Federal funds. However, the CBO has reversed their decision and has
determined that there will be costs associated with this new mandate.
Once again we learn there is no free lunch.
Madam Speaker, when this bill comes to the floor, we will hear
advocates of this provision argue that this mandate is about providing
``parity between the coverage of family planning services and the
coverages of other types of basic medical care in private insurance
policies.'' Yet by their very nature, we know that contraceptives are
elective and not medically necessary. This is what choice and freedom
is all about, allowing the consumer to choose the health plan that best
serves their needs.
We will also hear the proponents say that this mandate is about a
woman's right to choose. Unfortunately, this mandate has nothing to do
about choice and everything to do about forcing Federal employees to
pay for services they may not need or want, with the result being
higher priced health insurance for every Federal employee.
The bottom line is this mandate limits consumer choice. It provides
nothing that is not already available to every Federal employee. If we
adopt this provision and vote down my amendment, Congress will be
saying to Federal employees, ``We know what you want, and we know what
you need, and you have no choice because we are going to provide it to
you.'' And, Madam Speaker, the American public is going to get stuck
with the bill, as are Federal workers.
In addition to the CBO stating that this is a mandate that will cost
additional money, so has the Health Insurance Association of America in
a letter to the gentleman from New York (Chairman Solomon).
Madam Speaker, I have listed reasons why we should support my
amendment, and regrettably what we have is language that says there is
one size that fits all. It is a Federal mandate.
I would also like to recognize in closing that this provision was
legislation on an appropriations bill, which goes against our normal
rules and it is not supported by the proper authorizing committee.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I think we have a serious problem facing us
in this House. I see frankly what appears to be the politics of
intimidation being practiced on a broad scale.
First of all, we have seen the majority leadership try to intimidate
the Congressional Budget Office into bending their numbers so that
their budget estimates more neatly fit the political desires of the
Republican majority in the Congress. That controversy is well-known. It
has been reported in the newspapers.
We also have the politics of intimidation being practiced against the
Federal Election Commission. We have the majority party trying to turn
the Federal Election Commission, which is supposed to be the watchdog
that keeps every politician honest, what they are trying to do in this
bill is to say to the legal counsel of the commission, ``If you are not
careful, if you do not soft pedal what you are doing, if you do not
play kissy-face with both parties, then one party is going to be able
to block you from reappointment.''
That is going to turn the Federal Election Commission into being even
a less effective defender of the public interest than it is today.
Then we have an effort to intimidate the General Accounting Office.
There was an amendment that a number of Members on that side of the
aisle sought to have made in order to change the appointment of the
Comptroller General from the President, where it has traditionally
been, to the Congress, again because they wanted to send a message to
the GAO that they did not like some of the investigations that the GAO
was conducting.
Madam Speaker, now we have seen the Republicans who know the most
about this computer problem, the Republicans on the Committee on
Appropriations, the Republicans who are supposed to know the most about
this problem, we have seen them bring to the House their recommendation
that we include in the Defense bill and in the Treasury-Post Office
bill the money that is needed so that this country does not have a
range of super problems when our computers go out in the year 2000 and
shut down our ability to send Social Security checks, shut down our
ability to make certain this country is adequately defended militarily.
Yet what is happening? Now what is happening is, on the Defense bill
yesterday and on this bill today, we now have a new call by the
Republican leadership which says, ``Take the money out, boys.'' And we
do not see a single Republican who took the action that was necessary
in the first place now coming to the floor to defend their original
actions, and wonder why.
And then I notice an article in Roll Call which says, in the June 22
edition, quote, ``House Speaker Newt Gingrich was one of the first
Republicans to sign a petition demanding that the congressional
Republicans punish high-ranking GOP Members who team with Democrats on
certain votes.''
Now that sounds like intimidation to me. I am wondering whether that
does not in fact explain why many of the Republicans who are the most
knowledgeable on this issue, and know that this money ought to be in
this bill to solve this computer problem, I am wondering if that does
not explain why
[[Page H5311]]
they are not coming here to the floor. I am wondering whether the
thought police in this town are winning the argument once again.
The fact is this is the most serious mechanical problem faced by the
government. I do not want to be around when Russians watching their
computers in the year 2000 see their computers go blank and wonder
whether America was responsible. I want to know whether they are going
to understand that this is simply because of a computer accident. And I
want them not to believe that somehow there is some game going on that
requires them to urge that somebody push some buttons.
Madam Speaker, this is a very serious problem for our defense
posture. It is a very serious problem for every person in America who
expects the FAA to be able to regulate air traffic.
{time} 1145
I, for the life of me, cannot see why this money is being taken out
of this bill.
Some Members say: ``well, it ought to be offset.'' I think it is the
height of arrogance for Members of Congress to assume that God ought to
have to comply with the budget process. There are going to be natural
disasters that are emergencies, whether Republican or Democratic
Members of Congress like it or not. And there are going to be other
actions that are taken, such as computer companies screwing up
computers which they sell to the government, which require us to take
action without following the niceties of the Budget Act.
With all due respect, the nice, neat, green eyeshade accounting
principles that govern the budget process are not nearly as important
to this country as knowing that we can deliver quality service, deliver
people's Social Security checks on time, protect the military interests
of the United States effectively and do all the other things the
government is supposed to do with the aid of these technological
machines.
I think the gentleman from Maryland is exactly right. This rule is
wrong. It ought to be defeated.
There are a number of things in the rule that I think are reasonable,
but this is certainly not one of them. If we are interested in solving
problems rather than having more political posturing, we will vote this
rule down and allow the Republican majority on the Committee on
Appropriations, who did the right thing the first time, to do what they
know is right.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I should point out to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who
has probably the most partisan remarks we have heard yet this morning,
not out of habit, but, again, we are trying to pass this open rule on a
nonpartisan basis, and we protected one of the gentleman's amendments.
He fails to mention that.
Second of all, anytime someone seems to question the position of the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), it seems to elevate itself from a
question to a level of intimidation. It is not intimidation. It is part
of the checks and balances. Members ought to ask questions around here.
He is not immune from those kind of questions.
Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe), who is our in-house expert who can talk with some substance
about the Y2K problem.
Mr. KOLBE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I want to say that I rise in support of this Rule, open rule for the
consideration of H.R. 4104, which is the fiscal year 1999 Treasury and
general government appropriations bill.
I want to pay tribute to the Committee on Rules for crafting a Rule
that I think is fair to everyone. I want to pay tribute to my ranking
member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for the good work that
he has done on the bill, and I will have more to say on that when we
come to the consideration of the legislation.
I listened with interest to the debate that we had on the Rule
yesterday on the National Security appropriations bill, and I have
listened today to the debate that we have had, particularly the remarks
of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
I think they have the facts wrong here. The rhetoric is nothing more
than an attempt to shift the blame for the vulnerable state of the
Federal computer systems and put it in the laps of the Republican
Congress. I think that if there is blame, and I think there is some, I
think it rests very clearly with the Administration.
Let us be clear about this. Our bill included $2.25 billion for the
unanticipated emergency requirements of ensuring Federal information
technology systems will be compliant with the requirements of the Year
2000. By the rule, that will be taken out. The fact that it is going to
move in a separate vehicle, in my opinion, is really a nonissue. The
money is going to get to the Federal agencies. It is going to get there
in a timely fashion. There is no one on either side of the aisle that
does not understand that we have to have the money to make sure our
Federal agencies are ready--whether we are talking about defense with
its mission-critical issues, or whether we are talking about the FAA
with its mission-critical issues, or whether we are talking about the
Social Security Administration and the Financial Management
Administration to make sure that the checks go out on time and the
bills get paid on time, or whether we are talking about something as
simple as the Congress to make sure the elevators move on January 1,
2000. We all understand that we have to do this. We are going to make
sure that the money is there.
The fact is, the Administration has consistently low-balled the true
costs of the fiscal year 2000 efforts. In May of 1997, the
Administration told us it would cost $2.8 billion governmentwide to
make Federal information systems compliant for the year 2000. The
estimate has been rapidly going up. They now tell us it is going to
cost $5 billion. The reality is the Administration does not really know
how much it will cost. And that may be fair. We do not really know. But
they have not been aggressive enough, in my opinion, in their
oversight. And that is part of the reason we do not know the cost; they
have not been aggressive enough in their assessment of agency progress
on this issue.
Governmentwide, the Administration has requested only $1.3 billion in
fiscal year 1999 for the Y2K issue. They are asking agencies to absorb
the cost within their regular appropriations. Now we are told that $1.3
billion just is not going to cut it. We know that the Department of
Treasury is working on a budget amendment and anticipates that they
will need an additional $100 million. I know that because Treasury
comes under the purview of my subcommittee.
For the Department of Treasury, the Administration has been asking
for Y2K money bit by bit; the fiscal year 1998 supplemental included
$174 million. This was on top of the $419 million made available
through the regular appropriation bill.
The Administration has displayed what I think is a real lack of
urgency and attention to this issue. This should not be a partisan
issue. I do not intend to make it a partisan issue. I want to knock
somebody over the head to get their attention down there and make sure
that we are giving this issue the kind of attention that it needs. It
is not being given the attention that it needs.
Up until the appointment of a Y2K coordinator in February of this
year, 22 months prior to the time that the drop-dead date occurs, there
has been no centralized Federal management structure in place to
coordinate policy and oversight across agencies. There has been no
coordinated management of this issue despite the fact that some
agencies, going back as far as the Social Security Administration in
1989, recognized the seriousness of this problem and began to put some
effort in to addressing it. But there has been no centralized, no
coordinated effort. There will be other speakers who can speak even
more directly to this, such as the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs.
Morella) who has been very engaged in the oversight of this critical
issue.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is, Republicans have acknowledged that Y2K is a
true emergency. We are being up front. We are declaring it just as
that. We are
[[Page H5312]]
going to put it into a supplemental appropriations bill. And whether we
offset it or whether we do not offset it is a decision that can be made
by this body and by the Senate at a later time. There are those who
will argue it ought to be offset, that agencies should have seen this
coming. They should have provided enough contingency funding for this.
They should reduce other things. There are others who say this is a
one-time shot, it is a true emergency, and it really should be paid for
with the budget surplus.
There are good arguments on both sides. That is something that this
body can debate and we can decide upon. But it is appropriate that we
do it in a supplemental appropriation bill.
So we are not going to appropriate the money bit by bit. We need to
provide this money up front and make it available as soon as possible.
That means it has to be made available at the beginning of the next
fiscal year. I believe that is the responsible way to proceed, and I
believe that putting it into a separate supplemental emergency
appropriation bill is the right way to go.
I support this rule which in every other way. I think, it meets the
needs of all the Members on both sides of the aisle in terms of
protecting legislative items that are in H.R. 4104 and giving
opportunities to offer amendments.
I support this rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member on the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, let us talk about who is being partisan.
The fact is that when there was a vote in the committee to take this
money out, 16 Republicans correctly voted against it, a majority. We
are simply asking that we stick to that position on this vote.
Secondly, I would point out, if you want to attack the
administration, if you look at their budget on page 253, you will see
that in addition to the $1.2 billion which the administration asked for
on an agency-by-agency basis to deal with this problem, the
administration also has $3.25 billion set aside for contingencies, a
major piece of which was supposed to be to deal with additional
computer problems.
I would point out that also the subcommittee, the leadership of the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) cut $400 million from the specific
agencies in his bill because he was going to be providing the $2.5
billion in another way. Now you are going to have both of those numbers
gone. That leaves this country naked in dealing with this problem.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
(Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule.
My intention today is not to in any way delay the implementation of
this rule, because it is a good rule, and we should adopt it to get to
the issue. However, I want to fire a warning shot across the bow of
this bill because if, indeed, Customs does not do their statutory
requirement, and that is exercise the law on the Canadian softwood
lumber agreement, I intend to solicit the assistance of the Forestry
2000 Task Force members, which there are over 100 of us in this
Congress, to vote against the final passage of this bill unless Customs
does what they are supposed to do under the law.
We negotiated a free trade agreement with Canada. The Canadians found
a loophole in a rule that Customs implemented. Since that time Customs
has recognized their error and has published a revocation of that rule,
an explanation of it.
What the Canadians are doing now, even though they have an agreement
and a quota of Canadian lumber coming to the United States, they found
if they drill a pinhole in a piece of lumber, that it gives them the
authority to ship as much lumber to this country as they want to
because of a ruling, not a treaty, but because of a ruling by Customs
which Customs admits is wrong, yet refuses to implement their own
revocation of the decision that they made.
This is costing American lumber companies a million dollars a day.
During this recess we are going on, it is going to cost $15 million. So
while the rest of the country is experiencing a great economic
prosperity, the lumber mills are just about to the position where they
are going to have to close because of this unfair situation that is
taking place.
My mission here today is to tell this committee, to tell this House
and to tell Customs, if they do not implement the provisions according
to the law, if they do not implement it by the time this bill comes to
the floor, then I am going to encourage my colleagues to vote against
this entire bill because this is an atrocity that has been placed upon
people in Arizona. When George Wallace ran for President he said he
wanted to stand up for the people of America. Well, I am here today
standing up for the people of Alabama and also for the people of
Arizona and for the people of Kansas and the people all over this
country who are experiencing an unfair situation simply because Customs
will not obey the law.
I want to support this bill. It has many good provisions in it. I
want to support Customs because they do a lot of good things. But we
have a few bureaucrats that are holding up the ability of American
lumber manufacturers to be able to continue to survive in this period
of prosperity.
I hope Members will pass this rule today, but I am here to tell my
colleagues, if the bill comes up today or if it comes up the day we get
back, I intend to filibuster this thing by using the five-minute rule,
getting the 100-plus members of the Forestry 2000 Task Force to indeed
support me in the effort.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. I
believe I have 11 minutes remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentlewoman is correct.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time the
gentleman from Colorado has remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis)
has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1200
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
Madam Speaker, there has been a suggestion that the administration
did not exercise its responsibilities with respect to the Y2K problem.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out that that
included the total of about almost $5 billion for emergency and
contingency spending in their budget, that $1.2 billion was
specifically requested for Y2K, and that another $3.25 billion was
requested for Bosnia contingency spending and also Y2K.
That is not described, so neither I nor anybody else can specifically
say what figure one can apply. But the fact is the administration, as
all governments and all private sectors, has been working this issue
very hard.
But the issue is not who is to blame: Did the Reagan administration
or the Bush administration or the Clinton administration purchase
incorrect hardware or software. In fact, we had a hearing before the
Committee on House Oversight that the new leadership, Republican
leadership, came in and bought some new computerware in 1995, which is
outdated. We are going to have to replace them. That is because
technology is moving very quickly.
This is not to blame anybody. It is to say that that decision is in
error, recognized in error yesterday before the committee in testimony
by the administrator. With no criticism of that, we need to move on to
make sure that, technologically, we can handle our information systems
properly.
The fact of the matter is, the point we are making on this rule is
that we have some 40 days, 40 legislative days left. We have not done
much in this Congress to date. Everybody observes that. We have 40 days
left. This country is confronted with an emergency. Everybody
recognizes that on both sides of the aisle. There is no dispute about
that. There is an emergency.
The dispute is whether we delay confronting that emergency. The
Committee on Appropriations said no. The
[[Page H5313]]
Subcommittee on the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government
said no.
Let us address it now. Let us deal with this issue now. Let us
responsibly say we are going to fund the solution and not delay. That
is what this dispute is about.
You can go all you want and say, oh, well, it was the other guys,
point fingers, and it was somebody yesterday or the day before or the
day before that that caused this problem. What you cannot, however, say
is that there is not an absolutely essential need for us to respond.
My distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe)
said, well, we can delay and we can decide later in a supplemental as
to how we pay for it or we do not pay for it, whether it is emergency
or not. That sounds good, but all of us know that the longer this is
delayed, the longer agencies cannot plan for dollars available, the
more problematic becomes the solution. As the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Gephardt) likes to quote Ed Harris as saying in Apollo 13, ``In
this instance, failure is not an option.''
This rule puts at risk solving this problem. It does not preclude it.
I understand that. But it puts it at risk unnecessarily. This is an
emergency. Far too often, frankly, in the last 3 years we have found
emergencies by tornado, by flood, by other devices; and we have delayed
the solution to the detriment of those who were injured. We ought not
to do that in this instance.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, first of all, I would note to the
gentleman, hang around until 5 o'clock this evening, and we are going
to pass the IRS reform which is the most major piece of reform. We are
doing something today. It is going to be a very significant day.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland
(Mrs. Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the
time.
Madam Speaker, I just wanted to set the record straight. I wanted to
set the record straight in terms of the fact that we all know that on
January 1 in the year 2000, we will launch the mother of all computer
glitches which we hope will be remedied.
Congress, I want to affirm to my friends, Congress has been working
on this problem for over 2 years in a bipartisan way. I chair the
Subcommittee on Technology of the Committee on Science. The gentleman
from California (Mr. Horn) chairs the appropriate subcommittee of the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
We have alerted our other colleagues who chair and who are ranking
members of other committees to have hearings. We have had more than 26
hearings on this one issue.
Let me suggest that it was in February of 1997 that the estimate of
remedying the Year 2000 computer glitch was estimated at $2.3 billion
for its entirety. It has now gone up to, in May of this year, it has
gone up to $5 billion. I would submit that even that is not going to be
enough.
We heard debate yesterday about why it was not in the DOD bill, today
why it is not in Treasury-postal. It is because we know, by virtue of
the hearings that we have had, by virtue of the quarterly reports we
have required from agencies where they give a national strategy and
milestones, now we are going to require monthly, we know that this
money is going to be requested of each agency. We want to put it
together so we can look at a supplemental appropriation for the Y2K
problem.
Please do not think it will be delayed. It cannot be delayed. It will
be part of the appropriations process. But we are putting it all
together.
I just want to point out again how it has escalated, why there is the
need for it, and the fact that Congress has put into the bills, and
Treasury-postal has been a wonderful opportunity for us to, through the
years, put within that bill the requirement that we have a national
strategy and the requirement that agencies will respond to and that no
information technology can be purchased if it is not totally compliant.
So I and the administration are aware of the problem, although we had
to go to them to come out with an Executive order, to use the bully
pulpit, and I think more can be done, and to appoint a Year 2000 czar.
John Koskinen is working very hard. Sally Katzen is the vice chair.
We must move together. The American people demand it. All of our
utilities, all of our agencies, the interoperability concept make it
all so very important.
But, please, I want the American people to know that Congress has
been working on this issue. We will have enough money to solve it. We
have been in the lead in terms of making sure that it is remedied.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me,
and I certainly am not going to use the balance of the time that
remains.
The gentlewoman from Maryland is correct. Everybody has observed that
this problem is coming. She also made, I think, a very valid point. The
cost of the solution has escalated over the last 12 months, and I would
say even over the last few months.
My point that I made before is this has happened in the private
sector and the public sector. The reason for that is that the scope of
the problem was not contemplated. There are computers in almost
everything we use, including our automobile as we drive down the
street, which apparently also has this glitch built into a number of
the chips that control many of the systems in the automobiles. That is
how complicated this system is.
The Committee on Appropriations, I say to my friend from Maryland,
did contemplate that. We have taken, as the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) said, $400 million out of the IRS. I say to my friend, the
gentleman from Colorado, who got up and said we are going to pass an
IRS reform bill today, it is an IRS reform bill with some tax
provisions in it which are going to change the Tax Code. We are going
to have to have computers amended. It is the same thing we do, on the
one hand, we say reform; but on the other hand, we complicate the code.
But that aside, I will tell my friend, the gentleman from Colorado,
if we do not do this emergency fix of the Y2K problem, IRS reform bill
or not, IRS is going to crash in 2000, period. Then there will be no
funds to do anything in the Federal Government, whether it is emergency
or nonemergency, defense or domestic, Social Security, or Medicare.
All of those are going to come crashing down around America's head.
They will not want to hear, very frankly, oh, well, we delayed. We
washed our hands and said we are going to do it later. If it was going
to be done later, it should have been done. We have heard a lot about
later.
The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), the Speaker, all
agreed some weeks ago that this was going to be an emergency and that
we needed to fund it through emergency funding. They recommended that.
The committee adopted that.
As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out, there were
only 16 members of a 54 member committee that did not vote for that.
Think of that. That is a pretty overwhelming bipartisan determination
by the Committee on Appropriations that has the responsibility to make
sure that we address this emergency to fund it.
We are now retreating from this; not retreating from it in the
Committee on Appropriations. The Committee on Rules took it upon itself
to strike it from the defense bill.
This is not a liberal/conservative issue. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) was up here on behalf of defense, one of the
strongest advocates of defense in this Nation, saying this was a
problem. He urged that we defeat the last bill specifically for that
reason.
I am urging that we defeat this rule for the same reason that the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) urged that we defeat the
defense bill rule. I do not think we are going to do that. I understand
that. I think the other side of the aisle has determined in a unanimous
way that they are going to vote for this rule.
There is nothing I can do about that other than bring to my
colleagues' attention that this does, in fact, place at risk solving
what is one of the most
[[Page H5314]]
critical problems confronting our government today, was recognized as
an emergency, is an emergency.
The gentlewoman from Maryland and I agree it is an emergency. We have
got to address it. Lamenting the fact, however, that we have today said
that we are going to pass IRS reform, but we are going to delay to some
other day solving the emergency situation of the computer glitches that
will occur in the Year 2000, thus placing at risk the very IRS reform
procedures that we are going to adopt later today.
I urge the House to reject this rule so that the Committee on Rules
can go back, there can be a reconsideration, calmer and cooler heads
can prevail, and then we can move ahead with solving this Y2K problem.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, especially in consideration of the remarks made by the
gentleman over there who, at times, tends to drift from substance to
partisanship.
Nobody on the Republican side said we ought to do this later. We
heard from the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). We heard from the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). There are a lot of people
over here who have a pretty good understanding of this issue and who
are focusing a lot of resources on that.
The difference between you and the difference between me is the
gentleman wants to do it; we want to do it right. That is exactly what
is going to occur here.
No one is saying do not fund this thing. We heard the chairman, or if
you did not hear the chairman from the Committee on Appropriations, the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), he was here, he addressed
that issue.
I take issue with the fact that my colleagues stand up here and say,
well, Republicans want to do this later. They do not realize it is an
emergency. You would have to have fallen off the swing twice on your
head to figure out this is not important. Clearly, it is important.
Clearly, we have an understanding of the Year 2000.
I am not sure the administration understands the importance of this.
But in these Chambers, I think both sides understand the importance of
this, and that is why it is receiving the priority. It is going to get
the funding. It is getting the kind of attention it needs. We have some
of our very best minds, as reflected by the gentlewoman from Maryland
(Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) working on
this.
So the gentleman is out of line, in my opinion, when he says, well,
we are waiting till later. Again, the difference between that side of
the aisle, the Democrats who want to do it, and this side of the aisle,
is that we want to do it right. Madam Chairman, I urge the passage of
the rule.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, this rule protects from a point of
order a provision that would remove the U.S. Postal Service as the
American representative to the Universal Postal Union and substitute
the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). The Universal Postal Union
oversees the functioning of the international mail system.
Without the special protection of this rule, the provision violates
the House rule against legislating in an appropriations bill. I believe
the Rules Committee was wrong in granting a waiver for this ill-advised
provision.
The USTR does not want the job and is not qualified for the job. The
USTR fears that the new responsibilities would interfere with its
principal mission of administering U.S. trade policies.
The State Department believes that the U.S. Postal Service is the
proper agency to represent the United States because only the Postal
Service has the necessary specialized expertise in mail operations.
Mr. Gilman, the chairman of the House International Relations
Committee, has concerns about the change because the USTR is not able
to manage the new responsibility.
This provision is opposed by major businesses which depend on the
mail system such as L.L. Bean, the J.C. Penney Company, Land's End, the
Magazine Publishers of America, the Direct Marketing Association,
Hammacher Schlemmer, and the Parcel Shippers Association.
It is opposed by the National Association of Letter Carriers,
National Rural Letter Carriers Association, National Association of
Postal Supervisors, National Association of Postmasters of the United
States, National League of Postmasters, and American Postal Workers
Union.
In fact, there is a question as to whether the Universal Postal Union
would even accept the USTR as a member, since the regulations of the
Universal Postal Union require representatives to be a ``qualified
official of the Postal Administration'' of the member country and
representatives to the organization's governing body must be
``competent in postal matters.''
For the benefit of my colleagues, I submit for the Record a letter
from Susan G. Esserman, Acting U.S. Trade Representative; a statement
from the State Department; a letter from Benjamin A. Gilman, chairman
of the House International Relations Committee; and a statement from
the Coalition in Support of International Trade and Competition.
Executive Office of the President, the United States
Trade Representative,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert Livingston,
Chairman, House Appropriations Committee,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter states our disappointment
with the approval yesterday of an amendment which would
transfer responsibilities from the U.S. Postal Service to the
U.S. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to
represent the United States at meetings of the Universal
Postal Union (UPU). We continue to oppose this amendment.
Our view is that assuming this responsibility would be a
very substantial undertaking for our small agency, whose
major activity is to formulate trade policy and negotiating
strategies and to represent the United States in trade
negotiations. The entire staff of the agency is about 180,
including clerical and support staff.
USTR has no expertise in postal administration and lacks
the capability of dealing with operational aspects of the
international exchange of mail and the setting of rates for
international mail and settlement rates with other countries
for the carriage of unequal volumes of mail. I understand the
UPU handles a wide range of issues related to international
mail, such as security, mail fraud, hazardous materials, and
financial management. These matters are well outside USTR's
expertise.
USTR's Service unit, which would have to assume this
function, is preparing to engage in major new international
trade negotiations that are of great importance to all U.S.
services industries, including the delivery services
industry. These rapidly approaching negotiations will occur
in the World Trade Organization, bilaterally with the
European Union, in the Free Trade Area of the Americas
negotiation and in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
forum. To meet these responsibilities, USTR will be required
to pull away resources from preparations and involvement in
these broader services negotiations affecting $258 billion in
exports in services.
Please feel free to contact me if I can be of further
assistance.
Sincerely,
Susan G. Esserman,
Acting.
State Department Position on Northup Draft Amendment to the Treasury/
Postal Appropriations Bill
background
The United States Postal Service (USPS) represents the
United States on subjects relating to international mail
services, and ensures that our obligations under
international treaties and conventions are carried out. The
USPS is authorized by law (39 U.S.C. 407) to negotiate and
conclude postal treaties or conventions with the consent of
the President. The Postal Service currently heads U.S.
government delegations to meetings of the Universal Postal
Union (UPU), which oversees the functioning of the
international mail system, and fills the post of U.S.
Representative. The State Department actively participates in
these delegations. The Department of State and the USPS work
together closely to ensure coordination between policies on
international postal issues and our broader foreign policy
goals.
department of state position
As the only U.S. entity with the necessary specialized
expertise in all aspects of international and domestic mail
operations, the USPS is the proper agency to represent the
United States in negotiating and concluding international
conventions and treaties on postal matters.
UPU practice and regulations virtually mandate USPS
leadership on U.S. delegations. UPU regulations require that
any Representative to the UPU Postal Operations Council be a
``qualified official of the Postal Administration'' of the
member country. Similarly, Representatives to the UPU Council
of Administration, the organization's governing body, must be
``competent in postal matters.'' In practice, all other UPU
member country delegations to UPU bodies are headed by postal
officials from the member countries.
Responsibility for the conduct of international postal
services and UPU representation would be misplaced with the
Department of State or with any other federal agency. The
Department of State conducts United States foreign policy.
The UPU is a specialized agency of the United Nations
responsible for coordinating the exchange of mail between all
of the countries of the world; it is not a foreign policy
body as such.
The State Department does not have the detailed subject
expertise nor the substantial
[[Page H5315]]
personnel and support resources required to properly
represent U.S. interests in the UPU. A look at the agenda of
the April 1998 UPU Postal Operations Council--which included,
inter alia, postal security, philately development, the
direct mail advisory board, postal accounting, quality of
service, and terminal dues sessions--underlines the fact that
the USPS is the only U.S. entity capable of adequately
representing U.S. interests with regard to the full range of
UPU agenda items.
Finally, we note that the requirement in proposed Section
407 (a) raises serious constitutional concerns. The
negotiation and conclusion of treaties and international
agreements, including the content of such instruments, is a
Constitutional responsibility vested solely in the President,
and is therefore an area in which Congress may not intrude.
level playing field
Without resorting to new legislation, mechanisms exist to
ensure that government and private sector interests are
factored into any policies, or conventions on international
mail services. State, Commerce, USTR and the Postal Service
participate in an interagency process which can examine
competing demands and make decisions based on maximum benefit
to all parties, including private mail carriers.
USPS hosts meetings with representatives of the private
sector to brief on UPU activities and get industry input for
its policy formation (the most recent of these meetings was
held on April 14, 1998) and State, Commerce, USTR and USPS
participate in the interagency process when needed to discuss
international mail issues.
summary
The Department of State believes the U.S. Postal Service is
the most appropriate representative for the United States
government in the Universal Postal Union, and it appears to
us that sufficient mechanisms exist currently to ensure
coordination of U.S. policy and the interests of other US
government agencies and private industry under USPS
leadership.
House of Representatives, Committee on International
Relations,
Washington, DC, June 22, 1998.
Hon. Jerry Solomon,
Chairman, Rules Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Jerry: I am writing regarding the Treasury Postal
Appropriations bill for FY99. The bill contains an amendment
offered by Representative Northup that revises how
international postal service negotiations are conducted.
I have strong concerns about this provision, and the
assigning the USTR with the broad responsibility for ``the
formulation, coordination, and oversight of foreign policy
related to international postal services . . .''. The USTR is
not responsible for the conduct of US foreign policy.
Moreover, this provision would dramatically change the way in
which postal issues are managed in international fora and
raises questions as to the rules governing the Universal
Postal Union. It is my understanding that the UPU Postal
Operations Council requires that a representative be a
qualified official of the Postal Administration. The
governing body of the UPU Council of Administration requires
the representative to be competent in postal matters. This
raises the question as to whether the USTR has the capacity
to manage this new portfolio.
I would urge the Rules Committee not to waive points of
order with respect to this provision.
With best wishes.
Sincerely,
Benjamin A. Gilman,
Chairman.
Coalition in Support of Inter-
national Trade and Competition,
June 23, 1998.
To the Members of the Committee on Rules:
The members of the COALITION IN SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL
TRADE AND COMPETITION, listed below, strongly urge the
Committee on Rules not to waive points of order against the
amendment on International Postal and adopted by the
Committee on Appropriations, Arrangements offered by Rep. Ann
Northup included in the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill
under consideration today as well as any changes to the
amendment Rep. Northup desires to make.
The amendment would place all international postal
negotiations and representation under the U.S. Trade
Representative rather than the Postal Service. The USTR has
opposed this amendment, and we believe that passage could be
very harmful to our international postal services and the
business that use them.
Advertising Mail Marketing Association, Washington, DC.
American Postal Workers Union, Washington, DC.
Ballard Designs, Atlanta, GA.
L.L. Bean, Freeport, ME.
Current, Inc., Colorado Springs, CO.
Damark International, Inc., Minneapolis, MN.
The Direct Marketing Association, Washington, DC.
Fingerhut Companies, Inc., Minnetonka, MN.
Frontgate, Lebanon, OH.
Garnet Hill, Lebanon, NH.
Hammacher Schlemmer, Chicago, IL.
J.C. Penney Company, Plano, TX.
Land's End, Dodgeville, WI.
Magazine Publishers of America, Washington, DC.
Mail Order Association of America, Washington, DC.
National Association of Letter Carriers, Washington, DC.
National Association of Postal Supervisors, Alexandria, VA.
National Association of Postmasters of the United States,
Alexandria, VA.
National League of Postmasters, Alexandria, VA.
National Retail Federation, Washington, DC.
National Rural Letter Carriers Association, Arlington, VA.
Parcel Shippers Association, Washington, DC.
Performance Data TransUnion Corporation, Chicago, IL.
Territory Ahead, Santa Barbara, CA., TravelSmith, Novato,
CA.
Whispering Pines, Fairfield, CT.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. Emerrson)
announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further
proceedings on this resolution will be postponed until later today.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________