[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 94 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5573-H5581]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 498 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4104.

                              {time}  2131


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Dreier in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) each will control 30 minutes.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HOYER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I do not know that anybody has made an 
announcement, but am I correct that the only thing we will be doing for 
the balance of the evening will be general debate? There will be no 
votes?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? I would be happy 
to respond to that.
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, yes, it is our intention to proceed through 
the hour of general debate, which will include a number of colloquies 
that we have, but not yet to open the bill at any point, not to begin 
the reading of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will anxiously look forward to a motion to 
rise and will certainly recognize a Member who might choose to make 
that proposal.
  Mr. HOYER. So, Mr. Chairman, the Members should know that they have 
no need to be here if they wanted to object or make any other 
suggestions in the body of the bill itself?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
any provisions dealing with the bill itself, amendments or motions to 
strike, would not be in order tonight because we will not begin the 
reading of the bill this evening.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his 
clarification.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, tonight I am pleased that we have gotten to the point 
where we are and that I can bring to the floor H.R. 4104 which is the 
fiscal year 1999 Treasury, Postal Service and General

[[Page H5574]]

Government appropriations bill. As reported, this bill provides $13.2 
billion in discretionary budget authority for the agencies under the 
subcommittee's jurisdiction, and this level of funding is consistent 
with the subcommittee's section 302(b) allocation.
  Mr. Chairman, I might note that the rule that we have just adopted, I 
realize, places in jeopardy large portions of this bill and many parts 
of the bill which include legislative provisions carefully crafted and 
agreed upon by the Members on both sides of the aisle. So I want to say 
that I believe the bill, as reported by the Committee on 
Appropriations, is an outstanding bill. It is one which every Member, I 
believe, on both sides of the aisle, can be very proud.
  The bill that we have here today is one that is very strong for law 
enforcement. It is tough on drugs. It supports our efforts to 
restructure and reform the way the Internal Revenue Service does 
business. It is supportive of much-needed new court space for our 
judicial system.
  First, in this area of law enforcement we continue our commitment to 
the drug and law enforcement efforts of the Department of Treasury as 
well as to the Office of National Drug Policy drug control policy 
headed by General McCaffrey. In total, we provide $3.6 billion for 
Treasury law enforcement efforts and $427 million for the activities 
and operations of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. As it 
specifically relates to drug efforts, the mark provides $1.8 billion. 
That is an increase of about 3 percent over the current fiscal year and 
approximately the same as the President has requested.
  Second, we continue to target resources to restructuring the IRS 
management, computer modernization and customer service; and, third, we 
end the moratorium on the Federal construction of courthouses, 
providing much-needed space and security for the judiciary to meet the 
demands of its increasing workloads.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues are very aware, this bill carries an 
emergency appropriation of $2.25 billion for ensuring that all Federal 
information systems are Year 2000 compliant. I cannot stress enough to 
my colleagues the emergency nature of this issue. The implications of 
an information systems crash on January 1 in the Year 2000 would be 
simply mind-boggling.
  Checks to senior citizens, to veterans, to financially-needy 
Americans will go unsent because the group responsible for getting 
these payments out, the Financial Management Service, may not be able 
to meet its deadline. The FMS, Financial Management Service, sends out 
63 million Federal payments each month. They pay 85 percent of the 
government's bills. Rail systems could come to a standstill with trains 
sitting idle on tracks because switches are locked in place. Major 
power grids could be thrown into a massive blackout because nuclear 
power plants have gone off line, have shut down for safety reasons. 
FAA's contingency plan for the year 2000, that is, in the event their 
computers go belly-up and they do not have their mission-critical 
systems compliant, their contingency plan is simply to reduce the 
number of flights by 60 percent.
  My colleagues, it is obvious that this kind of solution or this kind 
of problem is one we simply cannot afford.
  In OMB's last report to the Committee on Agency Progress in Meeting 
the Year 2000 Deadline we were told that only 40 percent of all 
critical mission systems in the Federal Government are compliant. That 
means that 60 percent are not. We are being told that 15 of the 24 
largest Federal agencies will fail to meet the January 1 deadline.
  Mr. Chairman, January 1, 2000, is not a date that we can slip. We 
cannot in this body, in this Congress, pass legislation which will 
postpone the beginning of the millennium, which will stop the clock in 
its tracks, so it is critical that agencies get the resources they need 
and that it gets them in a timely fashion. We cannot and we should not 
afford to play politics on this issue. We need to do everything 
possible to ensure that the agencies have the money they need and they 
have it when they need it, and regardless of the outcome of what 
happens on this bill, we must make sure that we take the steps, whether 
it is in this bill or a separate supplemental appropriation bill, to 
get that money to these agencies that is absolutely necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few general observations about several 
possible amendments to this bill. At this point, we have a list of some 
25 different colloquies, amendments and points of order. I suspect with 
the adoption of the rule that we have just had there will be many other 
points of order that will be made. Of these only seven, seven have 
anything to do with an appropriations matter, with the dollars that are 
in this bill. The rest are all legislative in nature.
  I appreciate and share the frustration that we all have when 
important legislative issues are not and cannot be addressed through 
the appropriate authorization process. But there is a reason that these 
provisions cannot and are not moved through the regular legislative 
process. They are controversial, and they are difficult issues. They 
require the thorough vetting of a committee hearing. They require the 
careful consideration of the authorizing committees which are 
established and constituted and staffed to consider that kind of 
legislation. Attaching these items to an appropriation bill does 
nothing to address the underlying controversy. In fact, it intensifies 
the debate and serves to threaten and derail the very important work of 
the Committee on Appropriations which is to make sure that our agencies 
have the funds they need to carry out the tasks that this Congress has 
given them through the authorizing legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today supports those critical 
operations for the Customs Service, the Internal Revenue Service, the 
Secret Service, the General Services Administration. We simply cannot 
afford to shut those agencies down in order to advance controversial 
legislative items.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me take just a moment to take this 
opportunity in this moment to express my sincere appreciation for the 
very hard work and the dedication of the distinguished ranking member 
of this subcommittee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and for 
his staff, Cory Alexander, Kim Weaver, Pat Schlueter. They have been 
absolutely invaluable as we moved this bill through the subcommittee, 
the full committee, and now to the House floor.
  And as I pay tribute to them, let me pay tribute to those staff 
members who are around me on this side of the aisle who have done such 
an outstanding and fantastic job: the clerk for our committee, Michelle 
Mrdeza; our other professional staff, Bob Schmidt, Jeff Ashford, Tammy 
Hughes; and our detailee from the Federal Government, from the Secret 
Service, Frank Larkin; and to my personal staff member, Jason Isaac; 
all of whom have toiled an incredible number of hours in order to get 
us where we are this evening.
  Mr. Chairman, without the cooperative work on both sides of the 
aisle, I do not think that we would have the bill that we have here 
this evening.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona is, in my opinion, one of 
the most decent, hard-working Members of the House, and he is 
continually. Because this is a difficult bill to handle, plays in very 
difficult situations, and I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona 
for his bipartisanship in handling this bill.
  I also want to join him in congratulating the staff at the beginning 
of my remarks. He mentioned, and I will mention them again because that 
deserves such: the Chief Clerk of our committee, Michele Mrdeza, with 
whom I have had the opportunity to work for 7 years now, Bob Schmidt, 
Jeff Ashford, Tammy Hughes, Frank Larkin and Jason Isaac who is, 
although not on the committee staff like Cory Alexander of my personal 
staff, of my leadership staff, a critical component of the 
consideration of this bill, and Pat Schlueter and Kim Weaver, who work 
respectively for the committee and for the Committee on Appropriations' 
associate staff.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by saying that this bill in many 
respects is a very good bill given the fiscal constraints that confront 
the Committee on Appropriations. This subcommittee's commitment of over 
$4 billion to

[[Page H5575]]

the Treasury's very important law enforcement activity is present in 
this bill. Almost one-third of the $13.2 billion in discretionary 
budget authority in this bill is targeted at law enforcement.
  I am pleased that the bill fully funds the President's request for 
the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative. The $27 million program is 
an important part of the administration's overall strategy to curb 
youth violence. This administration has been successful in presenting 
to the American public in its first term a program to reduce crime in 
America. The good news is they have been successful.

                              {time}  2145

  This bill will continue that progress. This bill funds antidrug 
activities totaling over $1.8 billion. Over $400 million is provided to 
the drug czar for a variety of drug-fighting efforts, including $162 
million for the very successful high-intensity drug trafficking areas.
  I am pleased that we are able to maintain IRS funding at a level that 
will enable Commissioner Rossotti to continue progress with reform.
  I want to speak briefly of the changes that had been effected in IRS. 
Secretary Rubin and Deputy Secretary Sommer should be given great 
credit for rescuing the failing tax system's modernization program. 
They provided the needed high-level oversight for IRS to make a sharp 
turn in this computer systems area. They appointed a new chief computer 
systems officer who, after months of intense work, released a blueprint 
for technology modernization. This multibillion dollar program is now 
on the right track and it has been put on the right track by a 
bipartisan effort of this Congress and by the leadership and through 
the leadership of Secretary Rubin and Secretary Sommer and members of 
the IRS staff.
  The appointment of Commissioner Rossotti was another clear change, 
Mr. Chairman, for IRS. Commissioner Rossotti is a tough-minded business 
manager. During his brief tenure, together with Secretary Rubin, IRS 
has improved customer service in a number of ways. Telephone access has 
been increased from 69 percent to 90 percent. Problem-solving days were 
instituted in all 33 IRS districts, allowing taxpayers to cut through 
the red tape and resolve difficult problems. National and local 
taxpayer advocates were established.
  In addition to Treasury, this bill, Mr. Chairman, funds many smaller 
agencies, including Archives, OPM, GSA, the Federal Elections 
Commission and the Executive Office of the President. We will be 
talking about those agencies as we proceed through the markup of this 
bill. They are critically important agencies of our government; and, 
for the most part, we have tried to fund them so that they can perform 
their responsibilities as appointed by this Congress through 
legislation and as is expected by the American public.
  For GSA, I am pleased that we are able to include money for 
absolutely essential courthouse construction projects. One of the 
reasons crime has gone down is because prosecutions are up, and we are 
processing criminals and letting them know that prosecution will be 
swift and sure. It is obvious that we need facilities to accomplish 
that objective.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) 
because he disciplined our committee to taking the priorities of the 
Judicial Conference and the General Services Administration. These are 
not political choices. These are choices by the experts who know the 
needs and the abilities of the GSA to perform the responsibilities 
assigned to them by this Congress.
  I remain concerned, however, about authorizing language for the FEC 
that would essentially establish term limits for the staff director and 
general counsel. I presume that will be struck, and I expect it to be 
struck.
  Finally, I am pleased that this bill contains special emphasis in 
funding for solving the century date change problems with computers 
government-wide. We talked about that in the consideration of the rule. 
I hope that it stays in this bill. The chairman has pointed out it is a 
critical need, and our committee has responded to that need, not just 
on behalf of the agencies in our bill but the agencies throughout 
government.
  As I pointed out in my opposition to the rule, which did not protect 
this, that was absolutely essential as we confront, as the chairman 
said, January 1 of the year 2000, because if we fail to solve this 
problem, not only will government shut down, not only will Medicare and 
Social Security be put at risk, not only will veterans benefits be put 
at risk, not only will the FAA, who controls our airplanes and our 
flight patterns and safety in the skies be at risk, but private 
commerce, which relies on the operations of government, will also be 
put at risk. I would hope, but do not expect, that we will protect that 
item.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank again the chairman and the staff for 
their work on this bill. We will see how it proceeds, and we will see 
what is left of the bill after the Members in this House or this House 
works its will on it within the framework of this unfortunate rule.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
for the purpose of a colloquy with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Arizona for this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman 
Kolbe), I would like to take a moment to thank you for your hard work 
on this Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government appropriations 
bill. In particular, I am very pleased the gentleman and his committee 
has seen fit to include report language that directs the White House 
Counsel's Office to clearly define the line between personal and 
official legal business in representation.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been examining this issue for many months now 
and have come to the conclusion that the White House Counsel's Office 
continues to use taxpayer funds to pay legal staff to work on the 
President's personal legal issues. I think this is clearly a misuse of 
taxpayer funds. That is why I introduced a sense of the House 
resolution this March that, along with the cosponsorship of 30 of my 
colleagues, sends a clear signal to the White House that the public 
will not stand for footing personal legal bills of its elected 
officials.
  Mr. Chairman, the White House Counsel's Office does not need 34 staff 
members, when previous Counsel's Office staff was limited to seven at 
most, and the American taxpayers should not be held accountable for 
$2.36 million in salaries for this legal work.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, first of all, I would 
like to commend my colleague from Arizona for the hard work that he has 
done on the research on this issue. Our subcommittee has spent a good 
deal of time in the past several months reviewing the operations of the 
Office of General Counsel in the White House. What we have learned is 
that, of the 34 full-time employees in this office, there are seven 
attorneys that are assigned to ongoing Congressional, Independent 
Counsel and Justice Department investigations.
  We all know that appropriations cannot be used to pay an employee's 
personal expenses. While we know that this is the case, the General 
Accounting Office has found that there may be some instances in which 
official and personal interests of a Federal employee may overlap. It 
appears this is precisely the case in the current investigations of the 
President.
  I agree with my colleague that a proper distinction needs to be made 
between these two very separate sources of legal business, and I was 
pleased to include report language to this effect in the Treasury, 
Postal Service, and General Government appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, the bill before us today calls 
for the counsel's office to write guidelines to ensure that ``no 
Federal funds are used for the private defense of the President.'' The 
gentleman and I agree on this issue, and I look forward to continuing 
to work with the gentleman on this and other issues to ensure that tax 
dollars are not used to pay the private legal expenses of the 
President.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I

[[Page H5576]]

would like to thank my colleague from Arizona for his continued support 
of this very important issue.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe), am I correct that our committee has made no finding that such 
funds have been used?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, our committee was not and we were not 
charged with making such a finding, that is correct.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member and former 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to congratulate the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his opening statement. I think 
it was a very thoughtful discussion of the procedural obligations of 
the House. I think the gentleman is a distinct credit to the House, and 
it is a privilege for me to serve with him. I think the gentleman tried 
to do the right thing on the subject that I am about to talk about.
  Mr. Chairman, our job as Members of Congress is, first of all, to 
define differences and then to try to find resolution to those 
differentials. There are a number of items in the appropriation bills 
which are always subject to being stricken on a point of order, but 
they are usually included because they are necessary to build the kind 
of consensus that one has to have to pass bills like this.
  The committee knew, for instance, that we had an emergency with 
government computers with the year 2000 problem that our computer 
manufacturers have tossed in our lap, and the committee tried to deal 
with that in a responsible way. But the rebels in the Republican caucus 
blew that agreement up, and so we had a rule which will allow that to 
be stricken.
  On the issue of contraception involving Federal employee insurance, 
again we had a bipartisan committee consensus on that issue, but the 
rebels in the Republican caucus did not like that, so they have blown 
up that agreement.
  I tried to make my earlier motion because I sought to prevent one 
Member from being able to strike the language in this bill that treats 
as an emergency the government-wide computer problems which we have. 
That motion was objected to.
  If the majority is insisting on striking that emergency provision and 
if the majority is insisting on striking of the Lowey language, then it 
seems to me that, in the interests of equity, I have no choice but to 
strike most of the language of the bill which is vulnerable to points 
of order, and I intend to do so as we move through the committee 
process. I take this time simply to notify the House of that so that 
they will understand why I will be striking a good many provisions, 
including a number of those that I happen to personally agree with.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before I yield for a colloquy, let me just say in 
response to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that I appreciate 
very much his kind words about our work on this bill, my work. 
Certainly he and his staff have been also very helpful in getting us 
where we are.
  Obviously, the statements that I made about the Y2K, I believe very 
strongly that we need them. My objection earlier to the gentleman's 
unanimous consent request was not because I do not believe that we 
should have this, but because I think it is my responsibility as the 
chairman of this subcommittee and managing this bill to preserve the 
rights of the House in what the rule that they just passed says, which 
is not to protect that. So I am still very hopeful we are going to have 
this issue resolved in the not-too-distant future.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for a colloquy.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, but 
rather than introducing it, I rise to engage the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Kolbe) in a colloquy. I would like to discuss with the gentleman 
from Arizona, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, provisions, issues, 
that are contained in his fiscal 1999 appropriations measure.
  In title 3 of the bill, there is funding for high-intensity drug 
trafficking areas. As the gentleman knows, the illegal drug trade has 
been a problem in the Dallas-Fort Worth area for quite some time. 
However, in the last 13 months, it has gotten progressively worse.
  Since 1997, 13 young people have died from heroin overdoses in Plano, 
which is an affluent subdivision of Dallas. From January to June 1997, 
Parkland Hospital in Dallas has had 311 cocaine overdoses, 44 heroin 
overdoses and 19 methamphetamine overdoses. I reiterate, this is just 
in one hospital in Dallas.
  Recently, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Dallas and the Drug 
Enforcement Administration announced the seizure of $11.7 million in 
heroin at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. It is clear that 
the DFW area has become a major trafficking point for international 
narcotics trafficking.
  According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, a region's 
designation as a HIDTA is the result of massive collection and analysis 
of various kinds of drug and law enforcement information. This 
information should demonstrate that increased resources can be brought 
to bear in a specific area and would result in progress being made in 
that area.
  In our discussions with the Office of Drug Policy Director, Barry 
McCaffrey, General McCaffrey, has indicated that he believes that 
resources should be brought to bear in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. This 
$5 million that we believe is necessary is something that we would like 
to ask to be designated as a result of these discussions and would ask 
that General McCaffrey designate this area as a HIDTA.

                              {time}  2200

  My good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas, (Mr. Sam 
Johnson) and I wanted to engage in some discussions about this.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join in this 
colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, as well as my friend 
and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). The 13 that 
died from heroin that the gentleman discussed came from Plano, which is 
the area that I represent, and the drug seizure at Dallas-Fort Worth 
Airport which was $11.7 million in heroin, amounts to only 2 percent of 
what goes through there in their estimation. They do not have the 
resources to address the problem, and that is why we are requesting the 
gentleman's help in securing the necessary funds to designate north 
Texas as a high-intensity drug area.
  Providing funds will give local law enforcement the necessary 
resources to fight the war on drugs. The gentleman knows what our 
position in Texas is relevant to the country of Mexico, and therefore, 
I think that the gentleman understands that our Dallas-north Texas area 
has become a funnel for that process, and Barry McCaffrey, as he 
indicated, does agree and informs us that he supports our efforts.
  The Senate has already earmarked $5 million for the creation of HIDTA 
in northeast Texas, and we hope that the gentleman will continue to 
work with us and support the Senate language in conference. I know that 
the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe) and I have had a discussion previously, and the gentleman 
indicated that perhaps the dollars were not there, but in conference, 
perhaps the gentleman and the Senate can find them.
  Parents and children of north Texas need this help, and we are really 
fighting a war there, and we need the essential weapon of the HIDTA in 
the Dallas area. I know for the people of our area that the gentleman 
will help us. We just cannot afford to lose one more child to the 
ravages of drugs.
  I thank the gentleman for allowing us to discuss it with the 
gentleman this evening.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank both of the gentlemen for the 
questions and the comments that they made. I am very aware of the work 
done by the

[[Page H5577]]

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, the HIDTAs, and the efforts that 
they make in order to cooperate with local law enforcement. I think 
they do make a difference, and I certainly understand from the eloquent 
statements tonight how critical the need is in the Dallas-Fort Worth 
area.
  It is my understanding that the director plans to designate the 
Dallas-Fort Worth area as a HIDTA, and this legislation, I can tell my 
colleagues that this legislation does provide adequate funding of the 
overall HIDTA account to fund the creation of another HIDTA in that 
area.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) 
and I both have worked very carefully with the chairman of the 
subcommittee, not only to enunciate what the problem has been in Dallas 
and Fort Worth, but also to receive his advice along the way in how to 
get this done.
  I have great respect and I want to thank the gentleman very much. I 
will tell the gentleman that the citizens of Dallas and Fort Worth, the 
police departments that will utilize this and the U.S. Attorney, we 
will spend the money very wisely. We have a great respect for the 
taxpayers who have provided this money, and we intend for our resources 
to be used very carefully. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to a 
distinguished member of our committee, the gentlewoman from South 
Florida (Mrs. Meek), the former State Senator and now a distinguished 
Member of our body.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Kolbe) my chairman of the subcommittee, and to my ranking member, 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), it has been a pleasure to 
serve on this subcommittee.
  First of all, the chairman has conducted the meetings with a 
professional acumen that is rarely seen in a body such as this. The 
ranking member has supported him and has helped us. We have worked as a 
group. It is not a partisan committee, it is a bipartisan committee 
where we work together on issues and we work toward the resolution of 
those issues.
  This is a very good bill. I support it. I would like my colleagues to 
support it. It is extremely important that attention be paid to the 
reduction of violent crime, and this subcommittee has seen to that, not 
only in its proceedings, but in all of its action in that committee.
  What effort is any better in a Congress than the reduction of crime 
and the saving of lives, and this committee has seen to that and has 
funded it.
  I am particularly interested in the gang resistance reduction program 
in that gangs are on the rise in our country, and we need more and more 
attention paid to them, and this subcommittee has done that. We have 
given the kind of support to investigations so that when something is 
discovered, that there is support for the findings.
  Most importantly, attention is being given to missing and exploited 
children. My colleagues may have heard of many instances in my Miami, 
Dade County, of children who have been missing and have yet to be 
found, and this committee is focusing on that, to strengthen the 
families and to try to give us some assurance that once there is a 
missing or a lost child, this committee has paid attention to that.
  The Customs Service, that is the highlight of an area that I 
represent, Miami. We are surrounded by water, and if it were not for 
the attention of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and this subcommittee, we would 
have many, many problems in Miami. They have steadily increased the 
number of Customs Service operators we have in Miami, and in south 
Florida we are extremely grateful for that. I could go on and on, 
telling my colleagues about the many things that this committee has 
focused on, but most of all, it is important to be a working Member of 
this committee and not be left out of decisions. That has not happened 
on this subcommittee.
  I want to congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for such 
professional acumen.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Erie, Pennsylvania (Mr. English) for the 
purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a privilege 
to engage the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), my 
friend, the subcommittee chairman, in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the subcommittee felt, 
understandably so, that they had to closely follow the recommendations 
of the Judicial Conference when deciding on courthouse priorities in 
this appropriation.
  As the gentleman is well aware, because we have discussed it at 
length, the Federal courthouse complex in my hometown of Erie, 
Pennsylvania, is badly in need of renovation and expansion. Repair and 
renovation of this courthouse is a strong community priority that 
enjoys active support by the Federal judges who work there, the GSA, as 
well as most of our local elected officials.
  Recognizing that the committee had severely limited funds to work 
with this year on new courthouse construction projects, does the 
chairman agree to consider this project for funding for the fiscal year 
2000 legislation?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's question and 
yielding to me to respond to him.
  Let me just say, first of all, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
has been extraordinarily eloquent and persistent on this issue, and he 
has made a case, I think a very strong case, not just to me, but I 
believe to the GSA, about the need for this in the gentleman's 
community, and his community is very fortunate to have the gentleman 
advocating on their behalf for this, I know, very important project for 
the gentleman's community. Let me just say the gentleman made me aware, 
and if I was not before, I am very aware now, for the need for 
renovation and expansion of the Erie Federal Courthouse that the 
gentleman brought to my attention both last year and again this year.
  As the gentleman points out, we did follow the priorities established 
by the Judicial Conference of the United States in this year's bill. 
Last year we did not have any courthouse construction, this year we do 
have some, and we have gone right down the list, funding as many as we 
can going straight down that list.
  It is my understanding that the Erie project is currently in the 
Judicial Conference's fiscal year 2001, not fiscal year 2000, 
construction program, but I will certainly continue to work with the 
gentleman on the gentleman's project as we attempt to continue funding 
priorities for new courthouse projects, and I hope that we can get 
additional funding next year to move as many projects forward as 
possible.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and 
I thank him for all of his efforts on our behalf, for his willingness 
to consider this project, and I look forward to supporting this 
appropriation and working with him in the future to make sure that the 
Erie project goes forward.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who has been such a hard 
worker on the Federal Election Commission and such an assistance to our 
committee in working on this issue.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, tomorrow I will raise a point of order against section 
511 of this bill. I had planned to offer an amendment to strike this 
language. However, the provision is not protected, and I will instead 
raise a point of order.
  The current version of this bill contains an unprecedented provision 
which makes Members of Congress micromanagers. It would essentially 
fire the general counsel and staff director of the Federal Elections 
Commission.
  Since when, Mr. Chairman, have Members of Congress gotten into the 
business of hiring and firing staff at the Federal Elections 
Commission? The Federal Elections Commission is a congressional 
campaign watchdog. How can Congress be put in charge of hiring and 
firing people who are supposed to be policing them? It is sort of like 
letting the inmates run the penitentiary.

[[Page H5578]]

  This is how it is being engineered: The FEC is a bipartisan 
commission made up of three Republicans and three Democrats. The 
Commissioners make all the final decisions: Salaries, decisions 
regarding who or what is investigated. It is all made on a bipartisan 
basis because four members must agree.
  The bill that is in front of us tonight and tomorrow would change all 
that. It would allow the general counsel and the staff director to be 
fired by just three Commissioners or by just one party.
  It was not long ago that the new majority tied the hands of the FEC 
financially by fencing their money, saying it could only be used for 
computers and not for investigations, which is what they needed. Now 
the new majority is attempting to tie the hands of the FEC politically. 
In other words, if one's party or big donor becomes a target of the 
FEC, the FEC and its staff will become the target.
  Unfortunately, I believe the pattern has already been set. The 
current FEC general counsel, Mr. Lawrence Noble, has served the agency 
with distinction for 11 years. During that time he has recommended 
investigations of anyone he believes may have violated election laws, 
Republicans, Democrats, Independents alike.
  However, because he is making sensible recommendations regarding an 
FEC ban on soft money and tightening the definition of ``independent 
expenditure,'' he has become the target of the GOP. Also, his 
investigations of GOPAC have been questioned.
  I must note quickly that these two recommendations are currently 
contained in the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. That, too, 
is a proposal that the leadership on the other side of the aisle has 
taken great creative pains to kill.
  Mr. Chairman, I have before me a recent editorial from the New York 
Times called ``Punishing Competence at the FEC.'' The text reads, 
``This change is nothing more than an attempt to install a do-nothing 
staff. Reform-minded members from both parties have a duty to oppose 
this vendetta.'' Vendetta.
  Mr. Chairman, we have enough on our plate to do; we should not be 
getting into the area of making personnel decisions at the Federal 
Election Commission, and I am relieved that this provision will be 
stricken tomorrow, and I hope that this is the last time that we will 
ever hear of such an ill-conceived, partisan, misguided idea as was put 
forward by the majority party.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
very distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), who has 
worked very hard on the reform of the Internal Revenue Service.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, no one opposed the rule under which we are working more 
strongly than did I. No one regrets more keenly that that rule passed. 
However, it gives us extraordinary latitude, extraordinary freedom, and 
with that freedom comes a good deal of responsibility. I would call on 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to exercise the power that 
this rule gives us individually in the interests of the people of this 
country.
  I lost that rule fight. Those who opposed it lost that rule fight in 
the good old-fashioned way democracy works. I would hope that no one in 
this House would raise a point of order against the funding for the 
IRS, whose very structure and organization we have worked hard to 
reform.
  I would hope we would not raise a point of order against the Customs; 
against the Financial Management Services, that pays all the bills in 
this country; the GSA, responsible for building courthouses, some of 
them so desperately needed to administer justice in this country.
  I know the passions that underlie some of the controversial sections 
of the bill, like that referred to by my colleague, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney) in the section regarding the FEC. There 
certainly will be some sections struck as this bill goes forward. But I 
would hope that none of us would use the latitude granted under this 
rule in a punitive, vindictive, or destructive manner.
  It is extremely important that this House be able to exercise freedom 
responsibly. We tell our constituents to do it, and we have to do it. 
So I would hope that we would be able, at the end of the day, to come 
out with a bill that does appropriately fund the many, many functions 
of government that are encompassed in this appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, as one who opposed the rule strongly, I ask my 
colleagues to not exercise the authority it grants except in a very, 
very narrow manner.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her very eloquent comments 
and remarks. I think they are remarks that I hope will be heeded by 
Members on both sides of the aisle.
  As the ranking member from the other side said a few moments ago, 
this has been a bill that has been carefully crafted, and I think has 
had the work in a bipartisan way of people on both sides of the aisle, 
so I would hope that we would not strike out, and it does not mean that 
we have agreed on everything, but I would hope that we do not get into 
a spirit of tit for tat, and we do not strike all the provisions of 
this bill.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means that has 
direct responsibility for the IRS, I have held the hearings on 
compliance on the year 2000 matters for all of those agencies under our 
jurisdiction, which is more than half the Federal Government.
  I believe that many, many, many people in our government are working 
extremely hard to assure that on January 1, 2000, we will be able to 
pay the bills, that there will be no interruption in government 
services, that Medicare will go well, Social Security will go well, 
contractors will get paid, defense will move forward.
  I think it is our obligation, while we may not all agree on how to 
fund this at this particular moment, to let this bill move forward. So 
my plea is not just to those who might want to eliminate any agency 
that is vulnerable to elimination under this rule, like those that I 
mentioned. It is also, for a second thought, by some on my side who are 
not satisfied with how we are funding the Y2K challenge.
  There are many rounds yet in the public discussion within this body 
and in the Senate as to how we satisfy that, so I think restraint on 
both sides of the aisle to move forward on this very important bill is 
a responsibility we share.
  Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. I certainly 
concur with them.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to simply comment and thank the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for her comments. 
Unfortunately, as she knows and we all know, the problem with the rule 
is that any one of 435 people can, under the rule, object and strike 
any matter in the bill that is not authorized, or is so-called 
legislation on an appropriation bill, which in many instances is 
absolutely essential to carry out objectives that are generally agreed 
upon.
  The problem with doing that, of course, is that acting reasonably is 
sometimes in the eye of the actor, and one of our 435 colleagues may 
well think they are acting very reasonably and responsibly by striking 
a matter that 434 of us do not. But under this rule, any one of us that 
sees something as a reasonable action to strike probably a majority of 
this bill can do so. That was and is the problem with this rule.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) in a colloquy. Before I do, I just want to 
associate myself with the remarks of the ranking member regarding the 
hard work and the

[[Page H5579]]

dedication by both staff on the minority and the majority side, as well 
as the kudos and praise that he proffered to the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask to engage the gentleman from Arizona in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to engage the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) in a colloquy.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I say to the Chairman, the gentleman from 
Arizona, as a former prosecutor, I have seen firsthand the devastating 
toll of illegal drugs on countless individuals, families and 
communities. As we strive to continue to reduce the demand for illegal 
narcotics, we must also do all we can to supply the men and women who 
patrol our borders with the tools they need to prevent drugs from 
reaching our shores.
  Today I rise in support of a new interdiction technology that could 
help law enforcement do its job. The innovative, sea-going Night Cat 
catamaran has outstanding fuel efficiency, remarkable speed, and 
superior handling and maneuvering capability, as well as a unique wave-
piercing engineering which addresses the problems of physical stress 
and injuries to crew members caused by vertical acceleration in choppy 
seas.
  These advances would provide a dramatic increase in our ability to 
outmaneuver smugglers and maintain control in high-speed pursuits. 
There is a long list of recent rave reviews from Federal, State, and 
local anti-smuggling officials.
  In extensive tests last September that were funded by the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy's Counterdrug Technology Assessment 
Center, and carried out by the Naval Surface Warfare Center and the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Night Cat outperformed other 
craft up to 150 percent larger. Its design has been formally endorsed 
by U.S. Customs, U.S. Border Patrol, the DEA, U.S. Coast Guard, Navy 
Seals, and the Naval Surface Warfare Center.
  Now it is time to help realize the potential of the prototype Night 
Cat catamaran. Congressional support, by providing an additional $2.5 
million, would allow research and development of a 40-foot vessel with 
night vision and stealth capability, and the manufacturing of two 
additional 27-foot vessels desperately needed in high-intensity drug 
traffic areas.
  Such vessels could be put to use to test this concept in an 
operational context before any additional funding might be sought. Too 
often the smugglers have the tactical edge. We owe our agents the most 
sophisticated and effective technology available for their safety and 
the success of their mission on our behalf.
  I recognize that the subcommittee has produced a bill within very 
tight budget constraints, and that this request comes very late in the 
appropriations process. I cannot at this time propose an amendment to 
transfer this funding from other activities included in this bill. 
Instead, I would hope to work with the committee to explore ways to 
work with this program as the bill proceeds to conference.
  Will the chairman agree to work in conference with the other body to 
find funding for the Night Cat pilot program?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for his efforts in this innovative and promising law 
enforcement technology program.
  The committee is highly concerned about the state of U.S. marine law 
enforcement, and the poor condition of the vessels and operational 
capabilities of the Custom Service's marine interdiction program. Our 
bill adds $1 million for the Customs marine interdiction program. That 
is a 20 percent increase over last year's level.
  While the Night Cat would be a major asset for the interdiction 
mission, many other issues, apart from procurement, have to be 
addressed in order to upgrade the condition of Customs marine 
enforcement.
  Scores of vessels are deteriorating or are in poor condition, sitting 
in drydock or otherwise languishing for lack of resources to operate or 
maintain them. Inadequate staffing and operational support is a 
continuing problem, as is the need for management to integrate 
operational intelligence, investigative efforts, and air assets far 
better than is currently the case.
  I would also expect to see efforts to secure funding through DOD 
channels. Nonetheless, test results do show the Night Cat could make a 
strong contribution to the interdiction effort along our vulnerable 
coastal areas. As the gentleman has indicated, it could be a useful 
military asset.
  With the understanding that we have to address a broad range of 
issues in supporting marine interdiction, I want to assure the 
gentleman from Massachusetts that we will work with him to explore ways 
in which we can support this program, this very useful program as we go 
to the conference.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich) for the purposes of entering into a 
colloquy.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with 
the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to enter into a colloquy with 
the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Arizona knows, 
the Violent Crime Coordinators Program was organized under Public Law 
103-322. This law provides that in the investigative component of the 
Department of Justice's Trigger Lock program, the violent crime 
coordinators work with local prosecutors, police departments, and the 
United States Attorney's Office to investigate armed career criminal 
cases and ensure that they are prosecuted to the full extent of the 
law.
  VCC's represent an important link in our law enforcement system, and 
have been successful in keeping our Nation's most violent repeat 
offenders off our streets by making sure that Federal mandatory 
extended sentences are implemented.
  VCC programs have been supported by groups on all sides of the gun 
debate as a way to increase the prosecution of violent crime. I know 
that the subcommittee has worked hard to craft a bill within a very 
limited budget. Unfortunately, no money was appropriated for this very 
important program in the House bill. I have been working with the 
subcommittee to find a way to provide $2 million for the program to 
bring it to cities like Chicago, as well as others.
  While I had initially intended to offer an amendment to transfer $2 
million from the General Services Administration's building operations 
account to fund this program, I am instead hoping to work with the 
subcommittee as the bill proceeds to conference to find a way to 
achieve this goal.
  Will the chairman agree to work in conference with the other body to 
find funding for the violent crime coordinator program?

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
thank the gentleman for his interest and for the strong support that he 
has given to this law enforcement issue.
  The committee has tried very hard to fund law enforcement priority 
programs that have been requested by the administration, and I would 
like to point out that we increased funding for the ATF by $16 million 
to a total of $28 million for the youth crime gun interdiction 
initiative that was requested by the President.
  In trying to accommodate all the requirements the committee needed to 
fund, it was not possible to increase the funding for support of the 
trigger lock investigative efforts. However, we believe that locking up 
violent career criminals is an important objective, and ATF can 
contribute significantly to that effort. I, therefore, want to assure 
the gentleman that we will work with him on ways to fund this 
requirement when we do get to a conference on this bill.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman. He 
is a great chairman. The ranking member is a great ranking member. Jeff 
Ashford from the gentleman's staff, Pat Schlueter from the ranking 
member's staff and Deanne Benos from my staff.

[[Page H5580]]

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I rise to say that in ending this general debate, we ought to, again, 
lament the fact that a large part of the work of this committee is, in 
my opinion, supported by the majority on both sides. It is unfortunate 
that we have gotten ourselves involved in a lot of political 
gamesmanship and that this rule will plunge us into seeing much of this 
bill stricken because, as I said, one person can do that.
  Furthermore, we will not really focus, I predict, during the course 
of the consideration of this bill, on the substance of this bill, which 
is funding critical law enforcement, critical tax collection and tax 
reform issues, critical building of facilities to confront the crime 
problem in America, critical programs to make sure that our elections 
are fair, that people who are running for election follow the rules and 
that we adequately fund those who we are assigned the purpose of 
overseeing those elections.
  It is unfortunate that as we consider this bill we will focus on the 
elimination of programs because they have not been authorized, through 
no fault of the Committee on Appropriations and perhaps even through no 
fault of the authorization committees, but the fact is they have not 
been authorized. So many of the programs that the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut referenced, which all of us know ultimately will be 
adopted, will be stricken from this bill. That is unfortunate, but the 
rule allows that.
  In closing, I want to again congratulate the chairman and thank the 
chairman, thank the staff on both sides of the aisle, thank the 
members, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) and the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) on my side, and the members on the 
other side for working together to try to adequately and appropriately 
fund agencies that are critical to the continued success of this 
country.
  We are fortunately experiencing one of the longest, most successful 
economic periods in the history of America. We clearly have not been 
the sole persons who have brought that about. In fact, what government 
has done has been only a portion and not the majority portion of that 
success.
  It has been the private sector, their innovation, their enterprise, 
their investment that have brought about this growth. But clearly, as I 
said in relationship to the Y2K problem, the agencies in this bill are 
critical partners in that success.
  This bill has a long way to go before it becomes law. We will work 
together with the chairman and with the Members of this committee in a 
bipartisan way to try to bring it to fruition successfully.
  I want to regret that and hope that the provision that the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) included in this bill and the 
Committee on Appropriations adopted providing for women in the Federal 
service to have access to contraceptive services to preclude unwanted 
pregnancies and, therefore, abortions, which everybody wants to do, 
will not be struck on a point of order and that at the very least we 
can consider that by majority vote in this House, which is not 
precluded by the rule, probably will not happen but is not precluded by 
the rule.
  I thank, again, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his 
leadership, his openness, and his positive attitude and actions as we 
consider this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his kind words and would echo 
them back to him and tell him that I appreciate very much his 
cooperation and the efforts that he has made this year and in the past 
year that I have been chairman of this subcommittee to help me craft a 
bill that I think has been a good bill and one that can be supported by 
a majority on both sides of the aisle.
  I come to this subcommittee with a lot less knowledge than the 
ranking member has of these agencies that are under the jurisdiction of 
this committee and he has been extraordinarily helpful. Again, I want 
to thank his staff and the staff that is with me on this side of the 
aisle for the work that they have done.
  Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member said, tonight is the calm before 
the storm. Tomorrow is not likely, when we take this bill up again, to 
be quite so easy in terms of the kinds of things that will happen to 
this bill tomorrow.
  As the gentlewoman from Connecticut said, I hope that Members will 
exercise as much restraint as possible, but as the gentleman from 
Maryland has pointed out, it takes only one Member out of 435 to strike 
most of the provisions of this bill, 80 percent of which, sadly, have 
not been authorized by the appropriate authorizing committees.
  So I would only say that if this is going to happen tomorrow, I will, 
although we will have to concede the point of order, I will vigorously 
object or urge Members not to make that point of order. I would do so 
now in a general fashion and will tomorrow at the time that they make 
these points of order.
  Nonetheless, I would note for my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle that there will be another day for this bill. We will have an 
opportunity in the conference committee with the Senate to craft, I 
think, again, a bill, using the work that we have already done in the 
subcommittee and the full committee, using that work to make sure that 
our priorities that have been expressed by this House through the 
committee process, as it should be done, that those priorities are 
included in the final bill which gets brought to the floor this fall in 
a conference report.
  I am confident that we will have a bill. I am confident we will have 
a bill that can be generally supported by Members on both sides of the 
aisle. I am confident we will have a bill that will deal with the 
priorities that we have established for law enforcement, for 
restructuring the Internal Revenue Service. I believe that those 
priorities will be dealt with.
  Mr. Chairman, I will say that while I believe that tomorrow may be a 
stormy day, the sun will come out on the other side of that day. And we 
will have legislation, we will have an appropriation that all of us can 
look with some pride on.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, this rule strikes the emergency funding 
appropriation related to the Year 2000 conversion of Federal 
information technology systems. I must protest this provision in the 
rule because of the severity and potential impact of the Year 2000 
problem.
  I'd like to commend the work of Representative Steve Horn who is the 
Chairman of the Government, Management, Information and Technology 
Subcommittee where I serve as ranking member. Mr. Horn has been a 
leader on the Y2k issue long before anyone else. I am pleased to be 
serving with him on the subcommittee on this issue.
  I'd also like to commend the Majority for paying special attention to 
the Y2k problem. However, I'm concerned that if we delay the emergency 
appropriations for Y2k that we will not be giving the agencies the 
support they need to solve this problem.
  Last month, the U.S. Postal Service released their first progress 
report on fixing the Y2k problem. The report was worrisome. Out of 335 
mission-critical systems, 210 need to be repaired, 59 need to be 
replaced, and only 54 were Year 2000 compliant. The Postal Service 
needs their emergency appropriations as soon as possible. Imagine the 
disservice we are doing to the American people and economy by not doing 
our best to make sure their mail is delivered in a timely manner once 
January 1, 2000 is here.
  At the Treasury, the Financial Management Service issues all the 
Social Security and other checks for the Government. Currently, they 
have 5 systems that have not been completely assessed to see if they 
are Year 2000-compliant. Renovation of these systems is critical if 
U.S. citizens are to receive their Social Security checks in the Year 
2000.
  The IRS is funded with this appropriations bill and currently has 93 
out of 243 information technology systems fixed. That leaves 150 
systems to be fixed before the year 2000. If the U.S. Government is 
unable to collect taxes on January 1, 2000, this could have serious 
consequences to the continued operation of the Government.
  The Customs Service Year 2000 effort is also funded under this bill. 
All three of Customs mission-critical systems need to be repaired and 
tested. One of them is the NCIC component of the Treasury Enforcement 
Communications System which is also used by the FBI. NCIC is the 
Federal criminal database. Not fixing these systems in a timely manner 
could affect the apprehension of smugglers come January 1, 2000.

[[Page H5581]]

  Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is funded under this bill and needs to 
replace several of their programs. The funds need to be there for them 
to assure that the ATF can enforce the law come January 1, 2000.
  Removing the emergency appropriations for Y2k from the Appropriations 
bill and setting up a separate emergency spending measure delays agency 
efforts at fixing the Y2k problem. Also, a separate emergency 
appropriations bill could contain unrelated objectionable amendments 
just as last year's flood relief bill did. Politicizing Y2k emergency 
funds this way trivializes the problem and threatens our readiness for 
the new millennium.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Sanders 
amendment to H.R. 4104 which prohibits financial loans, guarantees, or 
other obligations from the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) in the 
U.S. Treasury unless authorized by the U.S. Congress. Congress must 
have a say in how billions of taxpayer dollars are distributed 
worldwide. Under the current system, the administration is given a 
blank check--in the form of the ESF--to bailout failed economies in 
developing countries. This blank check, however, has been used to 
support irresponsible, and undemocratic international economic policy. 
Congress needs to gain leverage so that it can force the administration 
to abandon short-sighted goals and unequitable practices.
  The ESF has evolved from a fund with a specific mission to an 
unaccountable giant nourished by tax dollars. Created by President 
Roosevelt under the Gold Reserve Act, the ESF was intended to be used 
to stabilize the exchange value of the dollar. The billions of dollars 
recently taken from the fund to bailout Asian countries and the $12 
billion loan to Mexico in 1995 fall way outside of the realm of the 
ESF's original mission. A fund that no longer fulfills its original 
Congressional directive must be made accountable once again.
  In addition to serving a financial purpose, ESF loans symbolically 
demonstrate American support for regimes, such as the Mexican regime 
that was bailed out in 1995. Loans with such international political 
and economic significance should require more than just the 
Administration's backing. The ESF currently has no direct 
accountability to the American people.
  It is unwise for these funds to be distributed without Congressional 
approval. Each year on this floor we debate appropriations worth 
millions of dollars. We are shirking our responsibility to the American 
people by accepting unilateral executive appropriation of billions of 
dollars every year from the ESF to developing countries. Congress needs 
to be able to voice the American people's concerns over the use of the 
ESF.
  And Mr. Chairman, I have many concerns over the projects that the ESF 
is currently supporting. These concerns have a direct bearing on the 
lives of the hard-working people back in my district.
  ESF loans are part of an international tax and transfer cycle that 
rescues irresponsible risk-taking international banks at the expense of 
American and foreign middle and lower-income taxpayers. The short-term 
economic recovery promoted by ESF bailouts, not to mention U.S.-
subsidized IMF structural adjustment, ignores long-term economic and 
political instability. Instead of learning to make more sound 
investments, banks continue to take risks knowing that they have a 
safety net. As a result there is a cycle of debt and rescue, subsidized 
by U.S. taxpayers. It is outrageous for wealthy international 
financiers and industrial moguls in developing countries to be saved 
time and time again by the hard-working people of America.
  Congress needs to have the power to control the ESF so that lasting 
democratic regimes can be established and strengthened in countries 
benefiting from ESF funds. Under the present system, the ESF guarantees 
the solvency of insolvent institutions and unjust governments by 
continually bailing them out of crisis. The use of the ESF to support 
dictators in countries like Indonesia makes it obvious that Congress is 
needed to guarantee that the U.S. helps spread democracy and not 
corruption around the world.
  Mexico in 1995 is a case in point in the use of the ESF to support 
corruption. The Mexican government purchased more than $45 billion of 
bad debts from Mexican banks in 1995 with the aid of $12 billion in ESF 
loans. Despite promising to eventually hold borrowers liable for the 
debts, the government has permanently absorbed the debt burden, 
agreeing to rescue the very financial elites that control the 
government. The likely result is that the $45 billion will be directly 
transferred from Mexican and American taxpayers to the politically and 
economically elite in Mexico, accentuating the class divisions that 
plague that society. Congress must have the power to insure that ESF 
loans are not given to countries that perpetuate corrupt political and 
economic regimes, such as Mexico.
  ESF loans are part of a larger pattern of irresponsibly short-sighted 
international financial bailouts subsidized by U.S. taxpayers. 
Currently members can voice their feelings about funding for the IMF 
and other multilateral development banks. We deserve to also have our 
voice heard on the appropriation of billions of tax dollars to foreign 
countries through the ESF. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gilchrest) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dreier, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________