[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.

                          ____________________