[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.
____________________