[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 95 (Thursday, July 16, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5651-H5723]
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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4104.

                             {time}   1208


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, July 
15, 1998, all time for general debate had expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, at this point in the Record I will insert a 
table showing the details of this bill.
  The material referred to is as follows:

[[Page H5652]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JY98.001


[[Page H5653]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JY98.002



[[Page H5654]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JY98.003



[[Page H5655]]

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, 
through page 26, line 10, be considered as read, printed in the Record, 
and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I just want 
to make sure, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer) has an 
amendment on page 23, line 22, title I.
  Under my reservation, I yield to the chairman, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) simply to explain the consequences of his request.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, to explain, our intention here is to try to 
proceed in as orderly a fashion as possible with the rule that we 
adopted last night. Obviously, large sections of our bill are subject 
to points of order.
  What I would like to do is to try, rather than reading paragraph by 
paragraph, to do it one title at a time, in this case, because title II 
is only 2 pages, titles 1 and 2, Treasury and Post Office. It does not 
preclude any amendment from being offered at any time, I would add.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, under my reservation, I 
appreciate the gentleman's explanation. I would simply inform him, 
obviously, I will not object, but will inform him that if we can have 
discussions about after title II, subsequent to title II, starting with 
title II, if we can have a different procedure.
  Mr. KOLBE. Correct. We can have that discussion again.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the bill is open to page 26, line 
10.
  The text of the bill through page 26, line 10, is as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 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, namely:

                  TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                          Departmental Offices


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Departmental Offices 
     including operation and maintenance of the Treasury Buildings 
     and Annex; hire of passenger motor vehicles; maintenance, 
     repairs, and improvements of, and purchase of commercial 
     insurance policies for, real properties leased or owned 
     overseas, when necessary for the performance of official 
     business; not to exceed $2,900,000 for official travel 
     expenses; not to exceed $150,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses; not to exceed $258,000 for 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential nature, to be 
     allocated and expended under the direction of the Secretary 
     of the Treasury and to be accounted for solely on his 
     certificate; $122,889,000: Provided, That the Office of 
     Foreign Assets Control shall be funded at no less than 
     $5,517,000: Provided further, That of the funds provided 
     under this heading, $2,000,000 shall be available only for 
     the provision of compensation for losses incurred due to the 
     denial of entry into the United States of any firearms as 
     defined in section 921(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code 
     that (1) as of the date of the enactment of this Act, could 
     lawfully be manufactured and sold in the United States; (2) 
     that is of a type that was determined by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury on April 6, 1998, to be not importable into the 
     United States; and (3) as of February 10, 1998, was 
     conditionally released under bond to the importer by the 
     United States Customs Service. The losses compensated under 
     the preceding sentence shall be only for the cost of the 
     weapons and any shipping, transportation, duty, and storage 
     costs incurred by the importer, as determined by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury.

                 Office of Professional Responsibility


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Professional 
     Responsibility, including the purchase and hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles, $1,250,000.

                         Automation Enhancement


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the development and acquisition of automatic data 
     processing equipment, software, and services for the 
     Department of the Treasury, $31,190,000: Provided, That these 
     funds shall remain available until September 30, 2000: 
     Provided further, That these funds shall be transferred to 
     accounts and in amounts as necessary to satisfy the 
     requirements of the Department's offices, bureaus, and other 
     organizations: Provided further, That this transfer authority 
     shall be in addition to any other transfer authority provided 
     in this Act: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated shall be used to support or supplement Internal 
     Revenue Service appropriations for Information Systems: 
     Provided further, That no funds may be obligated for the 
     Automated Commercial Environment project until the 
     Commissioner of Customs has submitted to the Committees on 
     Appropriations an enterprise information systems architecture 
     plan for the U.S. Customs Service consistent with the 
     Treasury Information Systems Architecture Framework and 
     approved by the Treasury Investment Review Board.

                      Office of Inspector General


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, not to exceed $2,000,000 for official travel 
     expenses; including hire of passenger motor vehicles; and not 
     to exceed $100,000 for unforeseen emergencies of a 
     confidential nature, to be allocated and expended under the 
     direction of the Inspector General of the Treasury; 
     $30,678,000.

           Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration

       For the repair, alteration, and improvement of the Treasury 
     Building and Annex, $27,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That these funds shall not be available 
     for obligation until September 30, 1999.

                  Financial Crimes Enforcement Network


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Financial Crimes Enforcement 
     Network, including hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel 
     expenses of non-Federal law enforcement personnel to attend 
     meetings concerned with financial intelligence activities, 
     law enforcement, and financial regulation; not to exceed 
     $14,000 for official reception and representation expenses; 
     and for assistance to Federal law enforcement agencies, with 
     or without reimbursement; $24,000,000: Provided, That funds 
     appropriated in this account may be used to procure personal 
     services contracts.

                    Violent Crime Reduction Programs


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For activities authorized by Public Law 103-322, to remain 
     available until expended, which shall be derived from the 
     Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, as follows:
       (1) As authorized by section 190001(e), $122,000,000; of 
     which $3,000,000 shall be available to the Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco and Firearms for administering the Gang Resistance 
     Education and Training program; of which $14,528,000 shall be 
     available to the United States Secret Service, including 
     $6,700,000 for vehicle replacement, $5,000,000 for 
     investigations of counterfeiting, and $2,828,000 for forensic 
     and related support of investigations of missing and 
     exploited children, of which $828,000 shall be available not 
     earlier than September 30, 1999, as a grant for activities 
     related to the investigations of exploited children and shall 
     remain available until expended; of which $66,472,000 shall 
     be available for the United States Customs Service, including 
     $54,000,000 for narcotics detection technology, $9,500,000 
     for the passenger processing initiative, $972,000 for 
     construction of canopies for inspection of outbound vehicles 
     along the Southwest border, and $2,000,000 for the Customs 
     Cyber-Smuggling Center in support of the anti-child 
     pornography program; of which $14,000,000 shall be available 
     to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, including 
     $13,000,000 to the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center 
     to continue the program to transfer technology to State and 
     local law enforcement agencies, and $1,000,000 for Model 
     State Drug Law Conferences; and of which $24,000,000 shall be 
     available for Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement.
       (2) As authorized by section 32401, $10,000,000 to the 
     Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for disbursement 
     through grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts to local 
     governments for Gang Resistance Education and Training: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding sections 32401 and 310001, 
     such funds shall be allocated to State and local law 
     enforcement and prevention organizations.

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center, as a bureau of the Department of the 
     Treasury, including materials and support costs of Federal 
     law enforcement basic training; purchase (not to exceed 52 
     for police-type use, without regard to the general purchase 
     price limitation) and hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     uniforms without regard to the general purchase price 
     limitation for the current fiscal year; the conducting of and 
     participating in firearms matches and presentation of awards; 
     for public awareness and enhancing community support of law 
     enforcement training; not to exceed $9,500 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; $71,923,000, of which up to 
     $13,843,000 for materials and support costs of Federal law 
     enforcement basic training shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2001: Provided, That the Center is authorized 
     to accept and use gifts of property, both real and personal, 
     and to accept services, for authorized purposes, including 
     funding of a gift

[[Page H5656]]

     of intrinsic value which shall be awarded annually by the 
     Director of the Center to the outstanding student who 
     graduated from a basic training program at the Center during 
     the previous fiscal year, which shall be funded only by gifts 
     received through the Center's gift authority: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     students attending training at any Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center site shall reside in on-Center or Center-
     provided housing, insofar as available and in accordance with 
     Center policy: Provided further, That funds appropriated in 
     this account shall be available, at the discretion of the 
     Director, for the following: training United States Postal 
     Service law enforcement personnel and Postal police officers; 
     State and local government law enforcement training on a 
     space-available basis; training of foreign law enforcement 
     officials on a space-available basis with reimbursement of 
     actual costs to this appropriation, except that reimbursement 
     may be waived by the Secretary for law enforcement training 
     activities in foreign countries undertaken pursuant to 
     section 801 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty 
     Act of 1996, Public Law 104-32; training of private sector 
     security officials on a space-available basis with 
     reimbursement of actual costs to this appropriation; travel 
     expenses of non-Federal personnel to attend course 
     development meetings and training at the Center; for expenses 
     for student athletic and related activities; and room and 
     board for student interns: Provided further, That the Center 
     is authorized to obligate funds in anticipation of 
     reimbursements from agencies receiving training at the 
     Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, except that total 
     obligations at the end of the fiscal year shall not exceed 
     total budgetary resources available at the end of the fiscal 
     year: Provided further, That the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center is authorized to provide short-term medical 
     services for students undergoing training at the Center.


     acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

       For expansion of the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
     Center, for acquisition of necessary additional real property 
     and facilities, and for ongoing maintenance, facility 
     improvements, and related expenses, $28,360,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                      Interagency Law Enforcement


                 interagency crime and drug enforcement

       For expenses necessary for the detection and investigation 
     of individuals involved in organized crime drug trafficking, 
     including cooperative efforts with State and local law 
     enforcement, $51,900,000, of which $7,827,000 shall remain 
     available until expended.

                      Financial Management Service


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Financial Management Service, 
     $198,510,000, of which not to exceed $13,235,000 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2001 for information systems 
     modernization initiatives.

                Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
     and Firearms, including purchase of not to exceed 812 
     vehicles for police-type use, of which 650 shall be for 
     replacement only, and hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire 
     of aircraft; services of expert witnesses at such rates as 
     may be determined by the Director; for payment of per diem 
     and/or subsistence allowances to employees where a major 
     investigative assignment requires an employee to work 16 
     hours or more per day or to remain overnight at his or her 
     post of duty; not to exceed $20,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses; for training of State and local 
     law enforcement agencies with or without reimbursement, 
     including training in connection with the training and 
     acquisition of canines for explosives and fire accelerants 
     detection; and provision of laboratory assistance to State 
     and local agencies, with or without reimbursement; 
     $530,624,000; of which $2,206,000 shall not be available 
     until September 30, 1999; of which not to exceed $1,000,000 
     shall be available for the payment of attorneys' fees as 
     provided by 18 U.S.C. 924(d)(2); and of which $1,000,000 
     shall be available for the equipping of any vessel, vehicle, 
     equipment, or aircraft available for official use by a State 
     or local law enforcement agency if the conveyance will be 
     used in joint law enforcement operations with the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and for the payment of overtime 
     salaries, travel, fuel, training, equipment, supplies, and 
     other similar costs of State and local law enforcement 
     personnel, including sworn officers and support personnel, 
     that are incurred in joint operations with the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms: Provided, That no funds made 
     available by this or any other Act may be used to transfer 
     the functions, missions, or activities of the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to other agencies or 
     Departments in fiscal year 1999: Provided further, That no 
     funds appropriated herein shall be available for salaries or 
     administrative expenses in connection with consolidating or 
     centralizing, within the Department of the Treasury, the 
     records, or any portion thereof, of acquisition and 
     disposition of firearms maintained by Federal firearms 
     licensees: Provided further, That no funds appropriated 
     herein shall be used to pay administrative expenses or the 
     compensation of any officer or employee of the United States 
     to implement an amendment or amendments to 27 CFR 178.118 or 
     to change the definition of ``Curios or relics'' in 27 CFR 
     178.11 or remove any item from ATF Publication 5300.11 as it 
     existed on January 1, 1994: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated herein shall be available to 
     investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal 
     firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c): Provided 
     further, That such funds shall be available to investigate 
     and act upon applications filed by corporations for relief 
     from Federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c): 
     Provided further, That no funds in this Act may be used to 
     provide ballistics imaging equipment to any State or local 
     authority who has obtained similar equipment through a 
     Federal grant or subsidy unless the State or local authority 
     agrees to return that equipment or to repay that grant or 
     subsidy to the Federal Government: Provided further, That no 
     funds under this Act may be used to electronically retrieve 
     information gathered pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(4) by name 
     or any personal identification code.

                     United States Customs Service


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Customs 
     Service, including purchase and lease of up to 1,050 motor 
     vehicles of which 550 are for replacement only and of which 
     1,030 are for police-type use and commercial operations; hire 
     of motor vehicles; contracting with individuals for personal 
     services abroad; not to exceed $30,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses; and awards of compensation to 
     informers, as authorized by any Act enforced by the United 
     States Customs Service; $1,638,065,000, of which such sums as 
     become available in the Customs User Fee Account, except sums 
     subject to section 13031(f)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(3)), 
     shall be derived from that Account; of the total, not to 
     exceed $150,000 shall be available for payment for rental 
     space in connection with preclearance operations, not to 
     exceed $4,000,000 shall be available until expended for 
     research, not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be available until 
     expended for conducting special operations pursuant to 19 
     U.S.C. 2081, and up to $8,000,000 shall be available until 
     expended for the procurement of automation infrastructure 
     items, including hardware, software, and installation: 
     Provided further, That uniforms may be purchased without 
     regard to the general purchase price limitation for the 
     current fiscal year: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the fiscal year aggregate 
     overtime limitation prescribed in subsection 5(c)(1) of the 
     Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 261 and 267) shall be 
     $30,000: Provided further, That $7,000,000 of these funds 
     shall not be available for obligation until September 30, 
     1999.


    operation and maintenance, air and marine interdiction programs

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of marine vessels, aircraft, and 
     other related equipment of the Air and Marine Programs, 
     including operational training and mission-related travel, 
     and rental payments for facilities occupied by the air or 
     marine interdiction and demand reduction programs, the 
     operations of which include the following: the interdiction 
     of narcotics and other goods; the provision of support to 
     Customs and other Federal, State, and local agencies in the 
     enforcement or administration of laws enforced by the Customs 
     Service; and, at the discretion of the Commissioner of 
     Customs, the provision of assistance to Federal, State, and 
     local agencies in other law enforcement and emergency 
     humanitarian efforts; $100,688,000, which shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That no aircraft or other 
     related equipment, with the exception of aircraft which is 
     one of a kind and has been identified as excess to Customs 
     requirements and aircraft which has been damaged beyond 
     repair, shall be transferred to any other Federal agency, 
     department, or office outside of the Department of the 
     Treasury, during fiscal year 1999 without the prior approval 
     of the Committees on Appropriations.


                   harbor maintenance fee collection

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For administrative expenses related to the collection of 
     the Harbor Maintenance Fee, pursuant to Public Law 103-182, 
     $3,000,000, to be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
     Fund and to be transferred to and merged with the Customs 
     ``Salaries and Expenses'' account for such purposes.

                       Bureau of the Public Debt


                     Administering the Public Debt

       For necessary expenses connected with any public-debt 
     issues of the United States, $176,500,000, of which not to 
     exceed $2,500 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses, and of which not to exceed 
     $2,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2001 
     for information systems modernization initiatives: Provided, 
     That the sum appropriated herein from the General Fund for 
     fiscal year 1999 shall be reduced by not more than $4,400,000 
     as definitive security issue fees and Treasury Direct 
     Investor Account Maintenance fees are collected, so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 1999 appropriation from the 
     General Fund estimated at $172,100,000, and in addition, 
     $20,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust 
     Fund to reimburse the Bureau for administrative and personnel 
     expenses for financial management of the Fund, as authorized 
     by section

[[Page H5657]]

     102 of Public Law 101-380: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provisions of law, effective upon 
     enactment and thereafter, the Bureau of the Public Debt shall 
     be fully and directly reimbursed by the funds described in 
     section 104 of Public Law 101-136 (103 Stat. 789) for costs 
     and services performed by the Bureau in the administration of 
     such funds.

                        Internal Revenue Service


                 Processing, Assistance, and Management

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for 
     tax return processing; revenue accounting; tax law and 
     account assistance to taxpayers by telephone and 
     correspondence; programs to match information returns and tax 
     returns; management services; rent and utilities; and 
     inspection; including purchase (not to exceed 150 for 
     replacement only for police-type use) and hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)); and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may be 
     determined by the Commissioner; $3,025,013,000, of which up 
     to $3,700,000 shall be for the Tax Counseling for the Elderly 
     Program, and of which not to exceed $25,000 shall be for 
     official reception and representation expenses.


                          Tax Law Enforcement

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for 
     determining and establishing tax liabilities; providing 
     litigation support; issuing technical rulings; examining 
     employee plans and exempt organizations; conducting criminal 
     investigation and enforcement activities; securing unfiled 
     tax returns; collecting unpaid accounts; compiling statistics 
     of income; and conducting compliance research; including 
     purchase (for police-type use, not to exceed 850) and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)), and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may be 
     determined by the Commissioner; $3,164,189,000.


             Earned Income Tax Credit Compliance Initiative

       For funding essential earned income tax credit compliance 
     and error reduction initiatives pursuant to section 5702 of 
     the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33), 
     $143,000,000, of which not to exceed $10,000,000 may be used 
     to reimburse the Social Security Administration for the costs 
     of implementing section 1090 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 
     1997.


                          Information Systems

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for 
     information systems and telecommunications support, including 
     developmental information systems and operational information 
     systems; the hire of passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 
     1343(b)); and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at 
     such rates as may be determined by the Commissioner; 
     $1,224,032,000, which shall be available until September 30, 
     2000, and of which $125,000,000 shall be available only for 
     improvements to customer service and restructuring and reform 
     of the Internal Revenue Service.


                   Information Technology Investments

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service, 
     $210,000,000, to remain available until expended, for the 
     capital asset acquisition of information technology systems, 
     including management and related contractual costs of such 
     acquisition, and including contractual costs associated with 
     operations authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided, That none 
     of these funds is available for obligation until September 
     30, 1999: Provided further, That none of these funds shall be 
     obligated until the Internal Revenue Service and the 
     Department of the Treasury submit to Congress for approval, a 
     plan for expenditure that (1) implements the Internal Revenue 
     Service's Modernization Blueprint submitted to Congress on 
     May 15, 1997; (2) meets the information systems investment 
     guidelines established by the Office of Management and Budget 
     and in the fiscal year 1998 budget; (3) is reviewed and 
     approved by the Office of Management and Budget, the 
     Department of the Treasury's IRS Management Board, and is 
     reviewed by the General Accounting Office; (4) meets the 
     requirements of the May 15, 1997 Internal Revenue Service's 
     Systems Life Cycle program; and (5) is in compliance with 
     acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and systems 
     acquisition management practices of the Federal Government.


          administrative provisions--internal revenue service

       Section 101. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation 
     made available in this Act to the Internal Revenue Service 
     may be transferred to any other Internal Revenue Service 
     appropriation upon the advance approval of the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations.
        Sec. 102. The Internal Revenue Service shall maintain a 
     training program to ensure that Internal Revenue Service 
     employees are trained in taxpayers' rights, in dealing 
     courteously with the taxpayers, and in cross-cultural 
     relations.
        Sec. 103. The funds provided in this Act for the Internal 
     Revenue Service shall be used to provide, as a minimum, the 
     fiscal year 1995 level of service, staffing, and funding for 
     Taxpayer Services.
        Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated by this title 
     shall be used in connection with the collection of any 
     underpayment of any tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 unless the conduct of officers and employees of the 
     Internal Revenue Service in connection with such collection, 
     including any private sector employees under contract to the 
     Internal Revenue Service, complies with subsection (a) of 
     section 805 (relating to communications in connection with 
     debt collection), and section 806 (relating to harassment or 
     abuse), of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1692).
        Sec. 105. The Internal Revenue Service shall institute and 
     enforce policies and procedures which will safeguard the 
     confidentiality of taxpayer information.
        Sec. 106. Funds made available by this or any other Act to 
     the Internal Revenue Service shall be available for improved 
     facilities and increased manpower to provide sufficient and 
     effective 1-800 help line for taxpayers. The Commissioner 
     shall continue to make the improvement of the Internal 
     Revenue Service 1-800 help line service a priority and 
     allocate resources necessary to increase phone lines and 
     staff to improve the Internal Revenue Service 1-800 help line 
     service.

                      United States Secret Service


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Secret Service, 
     including purchase of not to exceed 739 vehicles for police-
     type use, of which 675 shall be for replacement only, and 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire of aircraft; training 
     and assistance requested by State and local governments, 
     which may be provided without reimbursement; services of 
     expert witnesses at such rates as may be determined by the 
     Director; rental of buildings in the District of Columbia, 
     and fencing, lighting, guard booths, and other facilities on 
     private or other property not in Government ownership or 
     control, as may be necessary to perform protective functions; 
     for payment of per diem and/or subsistence allowances to 
     employees where a protective assignment during the actual day 
     or days of the visit of a protectee require an employee to 
     work 16 hours per day or to remain overnight at his or her 
     post of duty; the conducting of and participating in firearms 
     matches; presentation of awards; for travel of Secret Service 
     employees on protective missions without regard to the 
     limitations on such expenditures in this or any other Act if 
     approval is obtained in advance from the Committees on 
     Appropriations; for repairs, alterations, and minor 
     construction at the James J. Rowley Secret Service Training 
     Center; for research and development; for making grants to 
     conduct behavioral research in support of protective research 
     and operations; not to exceed $20,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses; not to exceed $50,000 to provide 
     technical assistance and equipment to foreign law enforcement 
     organizations in counterfeit investigations; for payment in 
     advance for commercial accommodations as may be necessary to 
     perform protective functions; and for uniforms without regard 
     to the general purchase price limitation for the current 
     fiscal year; $594,657,000.


     acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

       For necessary expenses of construction, repair, alteration, 
     and improvement of facilities, $6,445,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

             General Provisions--Department of the Treasury

       Sec. 110. Any obligation or expenditure by the Secretary of 
     the Treasury in connection with law enforcement activities of 
     a Federal agency or a Department of the Treasury law 
     enforcement organization in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 
     9703(g)(4)(B) from unobligated balances remaining in the Fund 
     on September 30, 1998, shall be made in compliance with 
     reprogramming guidelines.
        Sec. 111. Appropriations to the Department of the Treasury 
     in this Act shall be available for uniforms or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901), including 
     maintenance, repairs, and cleaning; purchase of insurance for 
     official motor vehicles operated in foreign countries; 
     purchase of motor vehicles without regard to the general 
     purchase price limitations for vehicles purchased and used 
     overseas for the current fiscal year; entering into contracts 
     with the Department of State for the furnishing of health and 
     medical services to employees and their dependents serving in 
     foreign countries; and services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
        Sec. 112. The funds provided to the Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco and Firearms for fiscal year 1999 in this Act for the 
     enforcement of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act shall 
     be expended in a manner so as not to diminish enforcement 
     efforts with respect to section 105 of the Federal Alcohol 
     Administration Act.
        Sec. 113. Not to exceed 2 percent of any appropriations in 
     this Act made available to the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Bureau 
     of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, United States Customs 
     Service, and United States Secret Service may be transferred 
     between such appropriations upon the advance approval of the 
     Committees on Appropriations. No transfer may increase or 
     decrease any such appropriation by more than 2 percent.
       Sec. 114. Not to exceed 2 percent of any appropriations in 
     this Act made available to the Departmental Offices, Office 
     of Inspector General, Financial Management Service, and 
     Bureau of the Public Debt, may be transferred between such 
     appropriations upon the advance approval of the Committees on 
     Appropriations. No transfer may increase or decrease any such 
     appropriation by more than 2 percent.

[[Page H5658]]

       Sec. 115. The Secretary is authorized to promote the 
     benefits of and encourage the use of electronic tax 
     administration programs, as they become available, through 
     the use of mass communications and other means. Additionally, 
     the Secretary may implement procedures to pay appropriate 
     incentives to commercial concerns for electronic filing 
     services: Provided, That such payment may not be made unless 
     the electronic filing service is provided without charge to 
     the taxpayer whose return is so filed: Provided further, That 
     the Internal Revenue Service shall assure the security of all 
     electronic transmissions and the full protection of the 
     privacy of taxpayer data.
       Sec. 116. (a) The Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the 
     Department of the Treasury shall not award a contract for 
     Solicitation No. BEP-97-13 (TN) until such time as the 
     Committee on Banking and Financial Services and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives authorize 
     the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, in writing, to proceed 
     with the award of Solicitation No. BEP-97-13 (TN).
       (b) The Bureau of Engraving and Printing may extend the 
     distinctive currency paper ``bridge'' contract (TEP-97-10) up 
     to 6 (six) months beginning on the date the contract expires, 
     if, by such date, the Congress has not authorized the 
     awarding of a new contract or if the Congress takes action 
     based on the report submitted by the General Accounting 
     Office pursuant to section 9003(a) of Public Law 105-18. The 
     Bureau of Engraving and Printing must notify Congress prior 
     to taking any action with respect to the extension of TEP-97-
     10.

                        TITLE II--POSTAL SERVICE

                   Payment to the Postal Service Fund

       For payment to the Postal Service Fund for revenue forgone 
     on free and reduced rate mail, pursuant to subsections (c) 
     and (d) of section 2401 of title 39, United States Code, 
     $71,195,000: Provided, That mail for overseas voting and mail 
     for the blind shall continue to be free: Provided further, 
     That 6-day delivery and rural delivery of mail shall continue 
     at not less than the 1983 level: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds made available to the Postal Service by this Act 
     shall be used to implement any rule, regulation, or policy of 
     charging any officer or employee of any State or local child 
     support enforcement agency, or any individual participating 
     in a State or local program of child support enforcement, a 
     fee for information requested or provided concerning an 
     address of a postal customer: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds provided in this Act shall be used to consolidate 
     or close small rural and other small post offices in the 
     fiscal year ending on September 30, 1999.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there points of order against that portion of the 
bill?
  If not, are there any amendments?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Schumer

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Amendment offered by Mr. Schumer:
       Page 2, line 20, insert ``(reduced by $2,000,000)'' after 
     ``$122,889,000''.
       Page 2, line 23, insert ``(reduced by $2,000,000)'' after 
     ``$2,000,000''.
       Page 11, line 7, insert ``(increased by $2,000,000)'' after 
     ``$530,624,000''.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chair and ranking 
member for their courtesy in helping us bring this amendment forward.
  My amendment is simple, Mr. Chairman. Two million dollars was put 
into this bill for gun dealers who tried and failed to bring foreign-
made assault weapons into this country. My amendment gives that $2 
million to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms for more law 
enforcement.
  Just so everyone understands, in April the President signed an 
executive order banning the import of thousands of semiautomatic 
copycat assault weapons, weapons banned already here, made overseas, 
that the President said should not be allowed to be imported. These 
weapons are pictured right here. The President did the right thing. The 
President stood up to the gun lobby and kept thousands of the most 
lethal weapons off our streets. I saluted him then, and I salute him 
now.
  But buried in an en bloc amendment, an amendment considered 
noncontroversial, was a $2 million payoff to a handful of gun importers 
for 1,700 guns stopped at the border. That is a payoff, Mr. Chairman, 
of $1,000 a gun for guns that are advertised in a catalog for $250.
  Let us not quibble about the price, because, in my view, $1 is too 
much. Instead, let us talk about the gun dealers who we are bailing 
out. Let us talk about the gun dealers who skated on the edge of the 
law to get these copycat assault weapons into the country.
  Read this. Our last shipment of Bulgarian stock kits arrived just 
before the ban direct from Bulgaria. What are they trying to do? Skirt 
the ban.
  Now we are bailing them out. It is unbelievable. They knew what they 
were doing. They tested the assault weapons law. They tested the 
regulations. They imported the weapons that look and perform like AK-
47s but with minor cosmetic changes to try and skirt the ban. Very 
clever, very, very clever. But they were caught, and there was an 
outcry. And the President had the courage to act, and all of us were 
pleased. Except the NRA and some gun dealers who got stuck with some 
bad merchandise at the border.
  Now, unbelievably, Mr. Chairman, this Congress wants to pay them for 
their gamble. So many business people have made gambles on far more 
legitimate enterprises. We are not giving them more money, more money 
than they paid for these guns, but we are giving these gun dealers it. 
Shame, shame.
  I know what Members will say. They will say, well, the administration 
signed off on this. Well, I know the real story. Some in this body, the 
Republican leadership, have the President over a barrel. They threaten 
to overturn his executive order and flood our streets with assault 
weapons. Well, I say, let us call the bluff. I say, go ahead, offer an 
amendment to bring AK-47s into this country. I do not think anyone will 
do it.
  I do not think we want to let the secret out about how this Congress 
begs and grovels and appeases the gun lobby every chance they get.
  They may have the administration over a barrel, but they do not have 
us, the Members of this Congress, over a barrel. This is a gift. This 
is a welfare check. Do they want to do welfare reform? Start with the 
gun dealers.
  It is a payoff to those who intentionally, knowingly play to the 
fringes of the law. They do not deserve a taxpayer bailout. Reject this 
deal. If we have $2 million to spare, give it to our brave ATF 
officials who try to get the guns off the streets, instead of to the 
gun dealers who are trying to import these malicious weapons into our 
country.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I urge in the strongest possible terms this body to reject this 
amendment. The compensation provision that is included, the gentleman 
from New York referred to it as a stealth amendment and an en bloc 
amendment, it was hardly stealthy. It was worked on at great length by 
members of the subcommittee and the full committee with the 
administration.
  Let me quote from the administration's Statement of Administration 
Policy: The administration supports an amendment agreed to in committee 
that would provide up to $2 million of in-transit relief as 
compensation for actual losses incurred due to denial of entry of 
certain assault weapons affected by the determination of the Treasury 
Department on April 6, 1998.
  So let us make no mistake about this. This was agreed to as a 
compromise with the administration. The question here is not one of gun 
control. It is not one of gun safety. Those are not in dispute. There 
is no risk of flooding the United States with so-called assault 
weapons. The weapons that we are talking about are very few in number, 
and they are in the custody of the Treasury Department.
  For that matter, I think it is important to note that the weapons in 
question, every one of these weapons could be manufactured and sold 
domestically. If it is manufactured here in the United States, it can 
be manufactured and sold legally. We are talking about guns that are 
being brought in that were being imported, the same guns, and because 
of a change in the administration policy, they were en route, and now 
they cannot be sold in the United States.
  If anything ever comes to a more clear taking of property at the last 
moment, this is really about it. These were being imported legally into 
the United States and were blocked from being sold because they were en 
route. All that is being dealt with is those that are in transit. Let 
me just give my colleagues the facts here.
  On November 14 of last year, the President announced a temporary ban 
on the import of certain categories of rifles that were and they remain 
legal to possess and to manufacture here in the United States. There 
were a small number of American businesses who

[[Page H5659]]

complied with all the relevant laws and were fully entitled to import 
their goods, and they were left in the lurch. They could neither 
recover their goods, nor could they reexport them. Even had they done 
so, there is no foreign market for these specialized collectors' items.
  When, following the study announced by the President in November, the 
Treasury Department determined to make the ban permanent, these 
businesses were faced with, in some cases, a complete, a total 
financial loss. The committee believes that such action deprives 
citizens of their property without just compensation and this measure 
is designed to rectify that oversight. It is supported by the 
administration because it deals only with the compensation issue for 
these people who were legally bringing these guns in this country.
  This action does not present any risk of illegal weapons in the 
United States. It is only a few thousand weapons that are included in 
this provision. It is strictly limited to those weapons that are legal 
to manufacture and own here in the United States.
  It is specifically limited to those that are affected by the 
permanent ban. It is specifically limited to those that, as of February 
10, 1998, had been conditionally released under bond, under bond to the 
importers by the Customs Service. And all of these guns are going to 
remain in the possession of the Treasury Department, of the Customs 
Bureau.
  Third point I would like to make is, this provision does not affect 
the April 6 determination that this, that the ban on these weapons 
would indeed be permanent. I would note that there is a precedent for 
this kind of in-transit relief. In 1994, a previous embargo was placed 
on a larger quantity of imports of sporting arms from China, and they 
were compensated. It also would not repeal the April 6 executive order, 
as I have said, that makes the ban permanent.
  Mr. Chairman, this executive order by the President has caused 
hardship to U.S. importers who possess valid imported permits for 
legally importable categories of firearms. This would simply undo that 
action.
  It is supported by the administration. It would rectify that, and it 
is a simple matter of fairness. I urge my colleagues in the strongest 
possible terms to defeat this very, very unfair amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I think it is 
outrageous that this Congress is actually considering paying gun 
manufacturers millions of dollars because they were caught trying to 
evade the law and because the Treasury Department has seized the 
merchandise as contraband.
  I know we were told a few moments ago by the honorable gentleman that 
the poor gun makers, these merchants of death, they are not able to 
sell these deadly weapons in the country because the administration 
unfairly seized them without giving them proper notice so we have to 
compensate them.
  We should be punishing them for trying to sell these weapons in this 
country in the first place, for trying to evade the law. This 
Republican Congress cannot find a few million dollars for low income 
heating assistance in the Northeast, but it can find a few million 
dollars to pay these gun manufacturers.
  Now we are told that these gun manufacturers are innocent victims of 
the administration which put out this executive order and they did not 
know about it. Well, maybe. Let them sue in court. Is it our normal 
practice, is it our normal practice in this House that when the 
Treasury Department seizes contraband at the border and the owner of 
that contraband claims that he had a legal right to bring it in that we 
compensate them? Is that what we do?
  Or do we say to those people, go to court and make your case in front 
of a judge, an impartial magistrate? We have a system of justice in 
this country and if you can convince the judge that you were wronged, 
then there is compensation or the return of the contraband.
  No, it is not good enough for these gun makers. The NRA owns this 
House, so we have to pay them for it. We have to pay them for it 
instead of letting them go to court.
  I wish the administration had not been so cowardly in making this 
deal, because they were over a barrel and were threatened that this 
Congress would overturn the ban on the imports of copycat assault 
weapons. If I were in the administration, my advice would have been, 
let them try, make my day. I would love to see what the American people 
think in November of a Congress that overturns, that passes a special 
law to say, let the foreign gun makers import their merchandise that 
they cannot sell in their own countries here. Let them import the 
copycat assault weapons. But, unfortunately, they did not have that 
confidence in the judgment of the American people.
  Assault weapons are not for sport. They are not necessary to hunt 
deer or pheasants. They are killing machines. They kill police 
officers. They kill our young people. They kill our family members. 
They serve no legitimate purpose in our society, and they should not be 
permitted here.
  The administration should be commended for its executive order. And 
the authors of this provision ought to think again, what precedent do 
we want to set when someone tries to import something that our law 
enforcement agencies say is against the law to import and they 
disagree? They did not have adequate notice, they say. The law 
enforcement agency is misinterpreting the law, they think. Should 
Congress compensate them, or should they go to court and let the courts 
decide?
  I submit that this is a terrible precedent, this provision. The 
Schumer-McDermott amendment ought to pass. We should not be paying 
$1,000 a gun to people whose guns have been seized as contraband 
because they tried to evade the law as it is. If they think the law was 
unfair or they were not properly notified, let them go to court. Why 
should we bail them out? The only reason we would even think of bailing 
them out is because this Congress apparently is a wholly-owned 
subsidiary of the National Rifle Association.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I would just make another point. The $2 million in this bill only 
goes to 3 or 4 gun importers for approximately 1700 guns. They will be 
getting, again, $1,000, over $1,000 for each gun that retails for $250. 
If there was ever a giveaway, on any fiscal basis, this is it.
  Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we hear a lot of 
rhetoric in this House about cracking down on crime. In 1994, a 
Democratic Congress cracked down on crime. It passed a bill to put 
100,000 new cops on the beat, to crack down on violence against women, 
and to enact the assault weapons ban. Now we see what the Republican 
leadership is trying to do: Let us take back those steps one by one and 
let us make sure that these three companies, who tried to evade the 
law, get paid without a court date.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  First of all, we just heard some significant misstatements of fact. 
These companies did not violate the law. In fact, the law was changed 
in the midst of them carrying out their right to carry on a business. 
And the fact that the administration, who changed the law, concurs that 
this is a fair and proper thing to do, would also counter the argument 
that this is something that they did not agree with when, in fact, it 
was carried out.
  So although I can understand the gentleman's lack of understanding of 
firearms and understand their feelings on firearms, which I respect 
totally, we should stay with the facts. These are not bad Americans. 
They are Americans doing things totally within the limits of the law. 
And to characterize them as someone other than that is unfair.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and will 
give the time back if he wants to followup. The gentleman from Oklahoma

[[Page H5660]]

makes one point very well, and that is the previous speaker, the 
gentleman from New York, referred to these people as people who were 
evading the law. They were not evading the law. They were complying 
with the law. The administration changed the law through its Executive 
Order.
  The second misstatement. He referred to them as manufacturers. They 
are not manufacturers. These are people that import goods. Whether they 
import guns or they import television sets or they import dolls or they 
import shirts, they are importers. They are not manufacturers of these 
guns.
  And the third point I would make is the gentleman referred to the 
fact that we should not sanction these people getting around the rule 
of law. Well, if we are going to talk about the rule of law, how about 
the Gun Control Act of 1968? That is where Congress established which 
the last I heard Congress was the law making body of this country, the 
definitions of permissible guns in the United States that could be sold 
and manufactured in this country.
  So I would suggest that it is the administration who was evading the 
law with this Executive Order. Nonetheless, that is the reality. And 
even the administration, a little bit embarrassed by what they have 
done, recognizes there should be compensation for these people who were 
acting lawfully when they brought these guns to the United States.
  The last point I would make, in response to what the other gentleman 
from New York, from Brooklyn, said, when he referred to this being a $2 
million boondoggle for all of these importers. It does not mean all 
this money is going to go to them. It is only going to go to them as 
these guns are purchased. It is up to $2 million. And if it is not used 
for that purpose, then, fine, it will be reprogrammed for other 
purposes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I share the chairman's position on this but not his 
passion.
  A, not only should the President of the United States not be 
embarrassed, every American ought to thank the President of the United 
States for standing up to make our streets safer, for taking on some 
very powerful interest groups to try to save children, save police 
officers, save our fellow neighbors. That is what the President of the 
United States is trying to do, and he ought not to be embarrassed, and 
is not embarrassed for one second, in his efforts to try to do that.
  I supported that ban. I supported the assault weapons ban when we 
passed it in the House and sent it over to the Senate, and I support it 
today. The administration not only ought not to be embarrassed but 
ought to be congratulated because they are bending over backwards to be 
fair. Some think they are bending over too far. I do not agree with my 
friends who think that. Because what the administration is really 
saying is our effort is to make streets safe, not to hurt American 
businessmen, even when they tried to beat the ban. That is what the 
gentleman from New York was pointing out; that the ads were, ``Get in 
before you can't get in; before they stop this, because there is a time 
frame.''
  So I say to my friends on both sides of this issue, both sides are 
right. They were doing something legal and, therefore, I disagree with 
my friend from New York. They knew, however, as both of my friends from 
New York indicate, that it was not going to be able to be done pretty 
soon and that they needed to get in before the deadline. So, yes, there 
was a little bit of wrongdoing on their part trying to beat the ban.
  The fact of the matter, however, and what the administration has 
said, and why I oppose the amendment and support the chairman's 
position, is that, look, we understand that the import was legal and we 
understand when it got here we stopped it. And by the way, it is in the 
importer's warehouse at this point in time, at their expense. But there 
are some who wanted to let those guns go on the street. That was the 
alternative, the amendment that was going to be offered. Let them go. 
Let 1700 AK-47s and assault weapons on the street.
  The administration said we are not for that. We are not going to 
support that. We will fight that. So we made an accommodation. But the 
administration said, on the other hand, we understand these have been 
paid for, so we will purchase these guns and we are going to melt them 
down so they will never be used to assault anybody.
  Now, I want to reiterate, however, for my friends from New York, the 
chairman's point. It is ``up to $2 million''. And, in fact, the 
administration, as I understand it, believes that we are going to be 
talking about, perhaps, for 1900 rifles and 100 receivers, $237,432. I 
do not know that, and they do not know that. So this sum that was put 
in here is a sum that is ``up to'' available for this purchase.
  So, in closing, I want to make a number of points. One, the 
administration stood up courageously on behalf of the safety of our 
streets and communities and said this is not the kind of weapon we want 
imported into the United States and we are going to stop it. And they 
have.
  Secondly, they have now said, but those who were caught in the 
transition, for whatever reason, we are not going to make that 
judgment, but if they were caught in the transition, we will not 
penalize them financially. And so we will agree to, reluctantly, this 
was not their initiative, this was not their action, reluctantly agreed 
to by the administration, to provide for funds to purchase these 
weapons and, frankly, to destroy these weapons.
  So I, frankly, think that under those circumstances, while I 
certainly appreciate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer), there 
has been nobody in this Congress who has been any more committed, 
focused, and hard working on the issue of making America's streets 
safer than the gentleman from New York, and we can all applaud and 
thank him for that effort, on the other hand, the administration is 
saying we are not against businessmen, we are against guns. We are for 
the safety of our streets.
  I will, therefore, oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on this 
amendment are postponed.
  Are there further amendments?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SCHUMER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Are we going to get a recorded vote on this? I do not 
mind if they roll it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The demand for a recorded vote has been postponed.
  Mr. SCHUMER. What does that mean?
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Chair will postpone the request for 
the vote and that will come up at a later point.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Parliamentary inquiry again.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Under the rule, then, that means that the counting for a 
quorum would be done at a later time, even though the call for the vote 
was right now?
  The CHAIRMAN. A Member could invoke that point of order at the later 
proceedings, at what is considered a later point.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Just another point of parliamentary inquiry. Have we 
ever done that before? I know we roll votes routinely.
  The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Okay.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I want to tell the gentleman from New York, and I want to tell the 
Members, that I know the gentleman is worried that he may not be on the 
floor when it comes up. I will protect the gentleman from New York on 
this and we will have a vote on it, because I will protect him if, per 
chance, he is not on the floor to make the point of order at that time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. As always, he is 
fair, judicious and a great American.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, there is obviously unanimous agreement on that 
issue, I suppose.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?

[[Page H5661]]

  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE III--EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO 
                             THE PRESIDENT

        Compensation of the President and the White House Office


                     compensation of the president

       For compensation of the President, including an expense 
     allowance at the rate of $50,000 per annum as authorized by 3 
     U.S.C. 102; $250,000: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available for official expenses shall be expended for any 
     other purpose and any unused amount shall revert to the 
     Treasury pursuant to section 1552 of title 31, United States 
     Code: Provided further, That none of the funds made available 
     for official expenses shall be considered as taxable to the 
     President.


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the White House as authorized by 
     law, including not to exceed $3,850,000 for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3 U.S.C. 105; subsistence 
     expenses as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 105, which shall be 
     expended and accounted for as provided in that section; hire 
     of passenger motor vehicles, newspapers, periodicals, 
     teletype news service, and travel (not to exceed $100,000 to 
     be expended and accounted for as provided by 3 U.S.C. 103); 
     and not to exceed $19,000 for official entertainment 
     expenses, to be available for allocation within the Executive 
     Office of the President; $52,344,000: Provided, That 
     $10,100,000 of the funds appropriated shall be available for 
     reimbursements to the White House Communications Agency.

                 Executive Residence at the White House


                           operating expenses

       For the care, maintenance, repair and alteration, 
     refurnishing, improvement, heating, and lighting, including 
     electric power and fixtures, of the Executive Residence at 
     the White House and official entertainment expenses of the 
     President, $8,061,000, to be expended and accounted for as 
     provided by 3 U.S.C. 105, 109, 110, and 112-114: Provided, 
     That such amount shall not be available for expenses for 
     domestic staff overtime.
       In addition, for necessary expenses for domestic staff 
     overtime, $630,000: Provided, That such amount shall not 
     become available for obligation until the Comptroller General 
     of the United States submits to the Committees on 
     Appropriations a final report on (1) the audit of fiscal year 
     1996 unvouchered expenditures of appropriated funds of the 
     Executive Office of the President; (2) the review of 
     processes and procedures relating to reimbursable activities 
     and obligations of the Executive Residence; and (3) the 
     number and costs, including domestic staff overtime, of 
     overnight stays in the Executive Residence.

                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Are we reading by 
paragraph?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk is resuming the reading of the bill by 
paragraph on page 26.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I understand we are now at page 28, and I 
rise to make a point of order against a proviso beginning on page 28, 
line 2 through line 11, because it constitutes legislation in an 
appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  I ask for a ruling by the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. For the record, the Clerk will report that paragraph.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, for necessary expenses for domestic staff 
     overtime, $630,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Arizona desire to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. KOLBE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, on the point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland made a point of order, I 
believe, against line 2 beginning with ``Provided''.
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. KOLBE. I would insist the point of order lie against the entire 
paragraph, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. So does the gentleman concede the point of order?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order must be 
against the entire paragraph, not just the proviso portion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the money is authorized. The point of order 
does not lie against the first sentence. In fact, I have raised the 
point of order as to the proviso that is added, starting with page 28, 
line 2 through line 11. I would oppose the point of order as it relates 
to the first part of that provision because a point of order does not 
lie against it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is entitled to expand the 
point of order to the entire paragraph.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, to do it from a correct parliamentary 
standpoint I would make the additional point of order against lines 1 
and 2 on page 28, through line 11 on page 28.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Arizona concede the point of 
order?
  Mr. KOLBE. I make the point of order. I concede the point of order, 
but I make the point of order against lines 1 through 11.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I believe that a point of order is pending 
before the Chair. That point of order was made by me, and that point of 
order relates to line 2, starting with ``Provided'' and ending on line 
11, concluding with ``Residence.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state to the gentleman from Maryland 
that any Member can raise a point of order against the entire 
paragraph.
  Mr. KOLBE. That is what I am doing, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. That is what the gentleman from Arizona is doing at 
this time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the point of order 
as it relates to the first sentence.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to argue further on the point 
of order that has been raised by the gentleman from Arizona?
  Mr. HOYER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, absolutely.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the point of order that I raised said that 
line 2, starting with ``Provided'', down to line 11, concluding with 
``Residence'', is legislation on an appropriation bill and it is, 
therefore, subject to a point of order because it violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI. However, the chairman now seeks to expand upon the point of 
order I have made by including in the ambit of that point of order the 
first sentence. The first sentence reads, ``In addition, for necessary 
expenses for domestic staff overtime, $630,000.''
  I would suggest to the Chair that a point of order does not lie 
against that inclusion because it is, in fact, authorized.

                              {time}  1245

  And it is not legislation on an appropriation bill, it is an 
appropriation to an objective which is consistent with the rules 
providing for the Committee on Appropriations report to make such 
appropriations as it deems appropriate for such objectives as it 
provides.
  My point being that I raised a proper point of order and the Chairman 
seeks to add something thereto which is not subject to a point of 
order.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on my point of order?
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dreier). The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is 
recognized.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would make the point, as the Chair 
correctly said, a Member may expand a point of order. It is correct 
that an individual may make a point of order against certain provisions 
of a paragraph. But if a Member chooses to make the point of order and 
believes that there is something in that paragraph which is not 
permissible, under the Rules of the House, the point of order lies 
against the entire paragraph. And I make the point of order against the 
entire paragraph and would ask for a ruling.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  Where a point of order lies on the basis of the proviso, it may be 
applied against the entire paragraph at the insistence of any Member; 
and, therefore, the Chair has concluded that the entire paragraph will 
be stricken from the bill.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HOYER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it for future reference, 
as we go through the rest of this bill paragraph by paragraph, and 
there may be other expansions, can the Chairman focus me on where I 
ought to look at the rules and/or the precedence for that ruling?
  The CHAIRMAN. Page 661 of the House Rules and Manual, clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  Are there further amendments?

[[Page H5662]]

  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         reimbursable expenses

       For the reimbursable expenses of the Executive Residence at 
     the White House, such sums as may be necessary: Provided, 
     That all reimbursable operating expenses of the Executive 
     Residence shall be made in accordance with the provisions of 
     this paragraph: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, such amount for reimbursable 
     operating expenses shall be the exclusive authority of the 
     Executive Residence to incur obligations and to receive 
     offsetting collections, for such expenses: Provided further, 
     That the Executive Residence shall require each person 
     sponsoring a reimbursable political event to pay in advance 
     an amount equal to the estimated cost of the event, and all 
     such advance payments shall be credited to this account and 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That the 
     Executive Residence shall require the national committee of 
     the political party of the President to maintain on deposit 
     $25,000, to be separately accounted for and available for 
     expenses relating to reimbursable political events sponsored 
     by such committee during such fiscal year: Provided further, 
     That the Executive Residence shall ensure that a written 
     notice of any amount owed for a reimbursable operating 
     expense under this paragraph is submitted to the person owing 
     such amount within 60 days after such expense is incurred, 
     and that such amount is collected within 30 days after the 
     submission of such notice: Provided further, That the 
     Executive Residence shall charge interest and assess 
     penalties and other charges on any such amount that is not 
     reimbursed within such 30 days, in accordance with the 
     interest and penalty provisions applicable to an outstanding 
     debt on a United States Government claim under section 3717 
     of title 31, United States Code: Provided further, That each 
     such amount that is reimbursed, and any accompanying interest 
     and charges, shall be deposited in the Treasury as 
     miscellaneous receipts: Provided further, That the Executive 
     Residence shall prepare and submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations, by not later than 90 days after the end of 
     the fiscal year covered by this Act, a report setting forth 
     the reimbursable operating expenses of the Executive 
     Residence during the preceding fiscal year, including the 
     total amount of such expenses, the amount of such total that 
     consists of reimbursable official and ceremonial events, the 
     amount of such total that consists of reimbursable political 
     events, and the portion of each such amount that has been 
     reimbursed as of the date of the report: Provided further, 
     That the Executive Residence shall maintain a system for the 
     tracking of expenses related to reimbursable events within 
     the Executive Residence that includes a standard for the 
     classification of any such expense as political or 
     nonpolitical: Provided further, That no provision of this 
     paragraph may be construed to exempt the Executive Residence 
     from any other applicable requirement of subchapter I or II 
     of chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code.

 Special Assistance to the President and the Official Residence of the 
                             Vice President


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to enable the Vice President to 
     provide assistance to the President in connection with 
     specially assigned functions; services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109 and 3 U.S.C. 106, including subsistence expenses 
     as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 106, which shall be expended and 
     accounted for as provided in that section; and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; $3,512,000.


                           operating expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the care, operation, refurnishing, improvement, 
     heating, and lighting, including electric power and fixtures, 
     of the official residence of the Vice President; the hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; and not to exceed $90,000 for 
     official entertainment expenses of the Vice President, to be 
     accounted for solely on his certificate; $334,000: Provided, 
     That advances or repayments or transfers from this 
     appropriation may be made to any department or agency for 
     expenses of carrying out such activities.

                      Council of Economic Advisers


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Council in carrying out its 
     functions under the Employment Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1021 et 
     seq.), $3,666,000.

                      Office of Policy Development

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Policy Development, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3 
     U.S.C. 107, $4,032,000.

                       National Security Council


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the National Security Council, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $6,806,000.

                        Office of Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Administration, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3 
     U.S.C. 107, and hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     $28,350,000.

                    Office of Management and Budget


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $59,017,000, of 
     which not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be available to carry 
     out the provisions of chapter 35 of title 44, United States 
     Code: Provided, That, of the amounts appropriated, not to 
     exceed $5,229,000 shall be available to the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs, of which $1,200,000 shall 
     not be obligated until the Office of Management and Budget 
     submits a report to the House Committee on Appropriations and 
     the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight that: 
     (1) identifies annual five percent reductions in paperwork 
     expected in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000; and (2) 
     issues guidance on the requirements of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801(a) 
     (1) and (3); sections 804(3), and 808(2), including a 
     standard new rule reporting form for use under section 
     801(a)(1)(A)-(B): Provided further, That, as provided in 31 
     U.S.C. 1301(a), appropriations shall be applied only to the 
     objects for which appropriations were made except as 
     otherwise provided by law: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds appropriated in this Act for the Office of Management 
     and Budget may be used for the purpose of reviewing any 
     agricultural marketing orders or any activities or 
     regulations under the provisions of the Agricultural 
     Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.): 
     Provided further, That none of the funds made available for 
     the Office of Management and Budget by this Act may be 
     expended for the altering of the transcript of actual 
     testimony of witnesses, except for testimony of officials of 
     the Office of Management and Budget, before the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations or the House and Senate 
     Committees on Veterans' Affairs or their subcommittees: 
     Provided further, That the preceeding shall not apply to 
     printed hearings released by the House and Senate Committees 
     on Appropriations or the House and Senate Committees on 
     Veterans' Affairs.

                 Office of National Drug Control Policy


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy; for research activities pursuant to title I 
     of Public Law 100-690; not to exceed $20,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; and for participation 
     in joint projects or in the provision of services on matters 
     of mutual interest with nonprofit, research, or public 
     organizations or agencies, with or without reimbursement; 
     $36,442,000, of which $17,000,000 shall remain available 
     until expended, consisting of $1,000,000 for policy research 
     and evaluation and $16,000,000 for the Counterdrug Technology 
     Assessment Center for counternarcotics research and 
     development projects: Provided, That the $16,000,000 for the 
     Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center shall be available 
     for transfer to other Federal departments or agencies: 
     Provided further, That the Office is authorized to accept, 
     hold, administer, and utilize gifts, both real and personal, 
     public and private, without fiscal year limitation, for the 
     purpose of aiding or facilitating the work of the Office.

                     FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMS


             High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 
     Program, $162,007,000 for drug control activities consistent 
     with the approved strategy for each of the designated High 
     Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, of which no less than 
     $81,007,000 shall be transferred to State and local entities 
     for drug control activities, which shall be obligated within 
     120 days of the date of enactment of this Act and up to 
     $81,000,000 may be transferred to Federal agencies and 
     departments at a rate to be determined by the Director: 
     Provided, That funding shall be provided at no less than the 
     fiscal year 1998 level for those High Intensity Drug 
     Trafficking Areas that had been designated by the Director of 
     the Office of National Drug Control Policy on or before 
     February 2, 1994: Provided further, That any new High 
     Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas to be designated shall be 
     funded from within the existing appropriation for this 
     account.


                        special forfeiture fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For activities to support a national anti-drug campaign for 
     youth, and other purposes, authorized by Public Law 100-690, 
     as amended, $215,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That such funds may be transferred to other Federal 
     departments and agencies to carry out such activities: 
     Provided further, That, of the funds provided in this 
     paragraph, $195,000,000 shall be to support a national media 
     campaign to reduce and prevent drug use among young 
     Americans: Provided further, That none of the funds provided 
     for the support of a national media campaign may be obligated 
     for the following purposes: to supplant current anti-drug 
     community based coalitions; to supplant current pro bono 
     public service time donated by national and local 
     broadcasting networks; for partisan political purposes; or to 
     fund media campaigns that feature any elected officials, 
     persons seeking elected office, cabinet-level officials, or 
     other Federal officials employed pursuant to Schedule C of 
     title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, section 213, absent 
     advance notice to the Committees on Appropriations and the 
     Senate Judiciary Committee: Provided further, That

[[Page H5663]]

     funds provided for the support of a national media campaign 
     may be used to fund the purchase of media time and space, 
     talent re-use payments, reimbursement of out of pocket 
     advertising production costs for agencies that provide all 
     creative development on a pro bono basis, and the negotiated 
     fee for the contract buying agency: Provided further, That 
     the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
     shall report to Congress quarterly on the obligation of funds 
     as well as on the specific parameters of the national media 
     campaign, and shall report to Congress within one year on the 
     effectiveness of the national media campaign based upon the 
     measurable outcomes provided to Congress previously: Provided 
     further, That, of the funds provided in this paragraph, 
     $20,000,000 shall be to continue a program of matching grants 
     to drug-free communities, as authorized in the Drug-Free 
     Communities Act of 1997.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that we are now on 
page 37 and 38?
  Mr. HOYER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. NEUMANN. I would like to raise a point of order against the $2.25 
billion for Year 2000.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) will 
suspend.
  The Clerk will resume reading.
  Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object.
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman will suspend, the Chair wishes to 
resume reading on page 37 of the bill.
  Mr. HOYER. No, sir. The Clerk has read ``unanticipated needs.'' The 
Clerk read, and I will ask the Record be read back if necessary, but 
the Clerk has read ``unanticipated needs.'' We have passed the 
paragraph to which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) seeks to 
address.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair believes that inadvertently a paragraph on 
page 37 was not read. So the Chair wishes to have the Reading Clerk 
proceed with the reading of that paragraph.
  Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object or state a parliamentary 
inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  I have been following pretty closely. I do not know what paragraph 
was inadvertently not read. And perhaps, we have the Record here, and I 
am sure we can review it again paragraph by paragraph.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has been advised by both the Reading Clerk 
and the Parliamentarian that that paragraph was inadvertently not read.
  Mr. HOYER. Which one?
  The CHAIRMAN. On page 37, beginning on line 10.
  The Chair will call on the Reading Clerk to proceed with the reading 
of that paragraph.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the objection. My staff advises 
me that the Chair is correct, and I will withdraw.
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman would suspend until the Reading Clerk 
proceeds with the reading on page 37.
  The Clerk read as follows:

          Information Technology Systems and Related Expenses


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For emergency expenses related to Year 2000 conversion of 
     Federal information technology systems, and related expenses, 
     $2,250,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That these funds may be transferred to any other accounts, 
     except within the Department of Defense, to carry out Federal 
     governmental activities necessary to meet the requirements of 
     such systems and expenses: Provided further, That the entire 
     amount shall be available only to the extent that an official 
     budget request for a specific dollar amount, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the President's request shall specifically 
     identify agencies, accounts, programs, projects and 
     activities to be funded and no funds shall be available until 
     15 days after the submission of the request: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended: Provided further, That the funds 
     transferred shall be merged with and shall be available for 
     the same purposes and for the same time period as the 
     appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That 
     such transfer authority shall be in addition to any other 
     transfer authority available.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a point of order 
against the portion of the bill beginning on page 37 line 10 and 
continuing through page 38 line 14.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. NEUMANN. I do not believe this is authorized; and, therefore, it 
should be subject to a point of order and should be stricken from the 
bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, this was included in 
the bill at the insistence of the chairman of the subcommittee and the 
chairman of the committee for the purposes of providing for the 
emergency that they foresaw with respect to effecting a solution to the 
problem of our computers working after January 1, 2000.
  In that context, it was judged to be an emergency and critically 
important to be included in this bill so that the objectives of this 
bill and every other bill other than the defense bill could be ensured 
to be carried out in the next millennium.
  I would hope that the Chair, realizing the critical nature of this 
provision, therefore, might find that in fact it was in order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is unaware of any statutory authorization for 
the funds in the paragraph and, therefore, sustains the point of order 
of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann). The paragraph is 
stricken from the bill.
  Are there further amendments?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                          Unanticipated Needs

       For expenses necessary to enable the President to meet 
     unanticipated needs, in furtherance of the national interest, 
     security, or defense which may arise at home or abroad during 
     the current fiscal year, $1,000,000.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the portion 
of the bill beginning on page 38 line 15 and continuing through line 21 
of the same.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. COBURN. This is, I believe, to be unauthorized and legislating on 
an appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard in opposition to the 
point of order raised by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)?
  Mr. KOLBE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, just simply to say that I would concede 
that this is not authorized and, therefore, is subject to being 
stricken on a point of order under the rule that we have adopted, much 
to my regret.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would join my friend the gentleman from 
Arizona, the chairman, in saying that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn) raises correctly a point that can be raised against about 70 
percent of the bill that remains.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to inquire of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) if he simply wanted to include lines 15 through 
19 or if in his point of order he also wanted to include lines 20 and 
21?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I stand corrected. It is 15 through 19.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and that 
paragraph is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This title may be cited as the ``Executive Office 
     Appropriations Act, 1999''.

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

 Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Committee for Purchase From 
     People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled established by the 
     Act of June 23, 1971, Public Law 92-28, $2,464,000.

                      Federal Election Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, 
     $33,700,000, of which no less than $4,402,500 shall be 
     available for internal automated data processing systems, and 
     of which not to exceed $5,000 shall be available for 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided, That of the 
     amounts appropriated for salaries and expenses, $1,120,000 
     may not be obligated until the Federal Election Commission 
     submits a plan for approval to the House Committee on 
     Appropriations for the expenditure of such funds.


             Amendment Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.

[[Page H5664]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York:
       Page 39, line 13, insert after ``$33,700,000'' the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,800,000 to be used for 
     enforcement activities)''.
       Page 40, line 25, insert after ``$482,100,000'' the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,800,000)''.
       Page 41, line 22, insert after ``$5,626,928,000'' the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,800,000)''.
       Page 46, line 21, insert after ``$2,583,261,000'' the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,800,000)''.
       Page 48, line 23, insert after ``$5,626,928,000'' the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,800,000)''.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment which will give the Federal Election Commission an additional 
$2.8 million, bringing its total budget to $36.5 million. This is the 
full amount requested in the President's budget. This amendment is 
sensible. It is a proposal that simply gives the Federal Election 
Commission the resources it needs to do the job to efficiently enforce 
the laws that we create.
  All throughout the campaign finance reform debate we have heard 
opponents of reform argue that we do not need any new laws, we just 
need to enforce the laws that are on the books. But those same 
opponents of reform are reform refuse to fully fund the Federal 
Election Commission. The FEC is the only bipartisan agency empowered to 
enforce our campaign finance laws. It is the watchdog which polices our 
elections.

                              {time}  1300

  It is the only government center that compiles information on 
campaign contributions and expenditures.
  But many Members of this House would like to see the FEC become a 
toothless tiger incapable of enforcing any laws. There was even an 
effort to change the whole structure in the FEC of how they hire and 
fire personnel.
  Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight which, along with the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, 
has spent over $7 million on a partisan investigation of the Clinton 
administration. By contrast, during the last year the Federal 
Election's General Counsel's Office spent only 6 and a half million 
dollars enforcing the law, and the FEC is responsible of investigating 
all elections in this country, not just the presidential race. So we 
see this body empowering committees to spend more than the entire FEC 
on investigating President Clinton, but they will not fund it to the 
level that they say they need to do an appropriate job.
  Opponents of the FEC like to argue that since 1990 funding for the 
agency has increased. This statement is only partially true. On paper, 
funding for the FEC has increased, but in recent years Congress has 
fenced off large portions of their budget for use of modernization of 
computers. Congress has specifically told them that they cannot use the 
money for investigations. When we consider the fact that the total 
amount of money available to the FEC for enforcement and disclosure has 
more or less remained constant over the last 4 years, yet the work load 
has increased dramatically and the total number of staff that the FEC 
has been able to hire has actually gone down, and while the FEC 
resources have stayed constant or decreased, campaign spending has 
increased astronomically. In fact, since 1990 campaign spending has 
gone up 146 percent, cases in which the FEC has determined that there 
is a sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to conduct an audit have gone up 
110 percent, and total itemized transactions, and here I mean the total 
number of contributions which the FEC records in its data base, have 
gone up by 157 percent. So, even if the FEC's budget has gone up, it 
has clearly not gone up enough to keep pace with the explosion in 
campaign spending and alleged abuses. So the argument that the FEC's 
resources have kept pace with the work load is simply not supported by 
the facts.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I would like to really thank the 
gentleman from Kansas for his work on this issue and for offering this 
amendment, and I hope that all Members will support it. If we are 
serious about campaign finance reform, then all Members in this body 
should join us in this effort to fund the FEC at the level that they 
feel is necessary to enforce the laws that are on the book.
  Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, just very briefly; I do not want to go through all of 
the arguments that my colleague from New York (Mrs. Maloney) has 
already gone through, but I do think it is important, as we are in the 
current debate on campaign finance, as we go through the debate on 
campaign finance throughout this year, I think one point that has not 
been made in any of the bills that had been talked about very widely in 
the press, and that is the issue of enforcement.
  Now I know there are a lot of complaints about the FEC and the way 
they do their job. Those may be very valid points. The issue here is 
though we only have one law enforcement agency in the area of campaign 
finance, and that is the Federal Election Commission. Right now one 
stands a 7-in-10 chance of not having any action taken good against 
them if the FEC has a report against them. It seems to me that 
enforcement of campaign finance laws is as important, enforcement of 
the current laws is as important, as trying to change the law which 
will have no better enforcement.
  If we truly have concerns about the FEC, if we have concerns about 
the way they do their job, if we do not think they can do the job any 
more, let us deal with that, and let us replace them. But right now 
they are the only law enforcement agency, and I think that they need to 
have the proper funding as well as the proper personnel to do the job.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that in the words of the gentleman that just 
preceded me to give the enforcers the right to enforce and the 
wherewithal to enforce is a great proposition if there were adequate, 
competent and reasonable enforcers; or certainly if they were fair 
enforcers. But, unfortunately, I do not think any of that is the case 
when we are talking about the Federal Election Commission.
  The Federal Election Commission has not done an adequate job since I 
have followed their activities over the last 10 or 15 years.
  I can remember when it used to allow its General Counsel into the 
deliberations, and the court ruled that the commissioners should stop 
that, and then they did not stop it. I can remember when one former 
senator, who was a former Member of this House as well, who had a case 
before this commission, and somehow he got an appointment as an ex 
officio member of the Federal Election Commission and sat in on the 
deliberations even though he had a case pending. I can remember when 
Federal Election Commission officers and maybe Commissioners traveled 
to the Democrat National Convention in August of 1996, presumably on 
taxpayers' dollars.
  Year after year they hire a press office of about five people to turn 
out press releases complaining that we are holding down their budget, 
and yet since 1991 we have increased their budget by 85 percent. 
Funding for the Office of General Counsel has increased by 88 percent. 
Before 1998, the staff had grown by roughly 30 percent. Salaries and 
benefits, up 57 percent. Cash awards, up 191 percent. Travel, up 75 
percent. Audit divisions, up 100 percent. And yet while the money is 
still coming in for these great enforcers, they drop backlog cases.
  In fact, just a month or two ago we saw where they dropped well over 
a hundred cases because they did not, could not, get around to them. In 
1993, they dropped 130 backlogged cases, and I think since then there 
have been a couple other instances where they have just not gotten 
around to enforcement.
  What I worry about when we talk about the Federal Election Commission 
is, A, they are not fair, but, B, they micromanage the campaigns of the 
people who are genuinely trying to follow the law and discourage good 
people from running for office and, at the same time, ignoring the 
infractions of the people that deserve investigations.
  In fact, as recently as July 13, 1998, about three or four days ago, 
the lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Chairman, talks 
about how the Federal Election Commission simply did not do their job 
in an investigation

[[Page H5665]]

of the Democrat National Committee. So the Federal judge had to weigh 
in and virtually condemn them for not having done the job. I quote: 
``U.S. District Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled the FEC had inexplicably 
waited 15 months to dismiss a request to investigate whether the 
Democrat National Committee and the Clinton-Gore campaign sold seats on 
the Commerce Department trade missions in exchange for contributions.'' 
It goes on: ``The FEC responded to Judicial Watch, a civic inquiry 
group, in December 1977 by closing the case in light of the information 
on the record, the relative significance of the case and the amount of 
time that has elapsed. Judicial Watch challenged the FEC's dismissal, 
and the judge slammed the FEC for attempting to thwart a review of 
these charges.''
  And they want more money. We gave them $2 million more in funds, 
taxpayers' dollars, than they had last year, and yet they have the 
audacity to prevail on Members to come to the floor and say that is not 
enough. And this amendment would take money out of the GAO, General 
Accounting Office, that is guarding the taxpayers' funds to put money 
into this wasteful and inefficient and, I dare say, improper 
organization.
  The fact is this organization has been in place since 1974. The 
commissioners, many of the commissioners were never replaced.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Livingston) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Livingston was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, some of the Commissioners have never 
been replaced. Even though their terms were renewable, they have been 
on the commission for some 20 years. We, finally, last year put a term 
limit on the Commissioners and this year thought it was a good idea to 
put a term on the General Counsel who apparently has, I only found out 
subsequently to my filing of the amendment, been in the position for 
nearly 11 years without interruption.
  Now it seems to me that if term limits are good for, according to 
some people, Members of Congress, and I disagree with that because I 
think the ballot box is a great term limit for elected officials. But, 
if it is good for committee chairmen and subcommittee chairmen, as 
appointed officials within this House of Representatives, and it is 
good for various other executive agencies, then it is good for the 
Federal Election Commission. And maybe that person who has made life 
tenure out of serving in that position, I say albeit not altogether 
fairly, should be up for review as to whether or not he should continue 
to hold his office. These are legitimate questions I have.
  We tried to fence money for years to compel the Federal Election 
Commission to upgrade its computers. They were using equipment that 
went back 25 years, ancient technology. And they wouldn't do it. 
Finally, we just made them do it, and they were forced to upgrade their 
technology.
  They are beginning to come into the new technological world, but they 
have not demonstrated a need for additional moneys. They have not 
demonstrated that they will utilize those funds fairly and 
appropriately, and until they do I am not prepared to vote an extra 
$2.8 million for them. In fact, I urge Members to reject this amendment 
soundly and send the FEC back to improve the job that they should be 
doing.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Arizona continue to reserve his 
point of order?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order, but I do seek 
to speak against it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I really think this amendment is big spending at its 
very worst. As the distinguished chairman of the full committee has 
pointed out, the FEC's budget has grown by 85 percent since 1991. The 
President is requesting an additional 15 percent for the forthcoming 
year, 1 year, and that is what this amendment would provide.
  We have recommended in our bill, we have $33.7 million for the FEC in 
fiscal year 1999. That is an increase of 9 percent, more than $2 
million over the amount that is available in the current fiscal year. 
So we gave the President a good more than half of what he thought that 
this agency should have.
  Let us be honest. If we look at any of the spending bills, a 9 
percent increase in any spending bill, even those that have as much 
popular support such as the National Institutes of Health is a large, 
substantial increase, especially given the budgetary constraints that 
we are under right now. But to talk of giving an agency and this agency 
of which against I think there lies serious questions of its 
management, to talk about giving them a 15 percent increase when we 
have not really seen the reforms that we think need to be made to this 
agency, I think it is just unthinkable.
  The sponsors of the amendment say they are concerned about the 
enforcement part of FEC. But I am sure they are aware the committee 
includes an increase of $1.12 million for enhanced enforcement by the 
Federal Elections Commission.

                             {time}   1315

  So this would add another $2.8 million to the increase that is 
already in there.
  While I certainly agree that enforcement ought to be a top priority 
of the FEC, and there are clearly some problems as it relates to 
enforcing our campaign finance laws, and that most lay here at the foot 
of Congress itself, I do not agree that simply throwing more money at 
the FEC is the way to fix it.
  The fact of the matter is, funding for the Office of General Counsel, 
which is the enforcement arm of the FEC, has increased even more than 
the rest of the FEC, slightly more, by 88 percent. Its staffing has 
increased by more than 28 percent. Surely, given the problems that 
exist there, I do not think that additional revenue is really going to 
resolve the problem.
  We initiated an independent audit of the Federal Elections 
Commission, and of its operations and management. The purpose of the 
audit is to address the issue of resources as it relates to their 
ability to meet its statutory responsibility. This audit is under way, 
and we anticipate the results in January of 1999. It will include a 
thorough review of all of their enforcement activities, including the 
Office of General Counsel, and I am optimistic that, based on what we 
find in this audit, we will be in a position to address from an 
appropriations viewpoint, if the authorizing committees do not, the 
issues raised by this audit and the issues that have been raised, I 
think correctly, on this floor for and against additional funding for 
the Federal Elections Commission. But I do not think we should go with 
this money, on top of the money we are already increasing their budget 
by, until we at least are able to see how these concerns bear out in 
that audit.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. We 
have done the best we can, given the resources we have. This additional 
increase will take severely from some other areas that I know are 
important to other Members, including maintenance and rehabilitation of 
buildings. So I would urge the defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and would rise in support of this 
amendment. I thank the gentlewoman from New York, who has been such a 
tenacious spokesperson on behalf of monitoring and ensuring fair 
elections in America. Her leadership on this issue has been 
outstanding, and all of America owes her a debt of gratitude.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that we ought to clarify what 
this amendment does. The chairman of the committee indicated it took it 
from the General Accounting Office. That was incorrect. The chairman 
made a mistake. It is out of the General Services Administration. I am 
not for reducing those accounts, but this particular account that is 
being reduced is over, I think, $2.3 billion, and this takes $2 million 
out of it. So it is a minor nick at best on the particular accounting 
question.
  Having said that, the gentleman from Kansas, who is the cosponsor of 
this amendment, observes that we obviously feel in this country there 
are substantial problems with elections.

[[Page H5666]]

 Over $1 million was spent, not just by the committee, but by the 
parties involved, on one congressional election during this Congress, 
$1 million, \1/34\th of the dollars in this bill for FEC. That did not 
include the President or any of the other Federal races, United States 
Senate or House Members, other than that one race.
  This Congress has spent, and you can get all sorts of estimates and I 
will not say which one is precise or not, but anywhere between $10 
million and $40 million, a pretty broad spectrum, looking at the 
Presidential race alone. Just one race. We ask the FEC to look at 
essentially thousands of candidates to ensure that they are complying 
with the laws this Congress adopted to ensure that Americans have fair 
elections.
  Now, the gentlewoman's amendment and the gentleman from Kansas's 
amendment takes the FEC from the $34 million-plus that we have 
incorporated in this bill to the $36 million-plus that was the request 
of the administration. Some would argue pretty strenuously that that 
was insufficient in and of itself. Why? Because the dollars involved in 
campaigns has escalated geometrically. We all know that. Just taking 
House races alone, where the average expenditures have gone in the last 
20 years from probably less than $300,000 to, for the most part, close 
to $1 million, that is three-and-a-half times in 20 years.
  The number of candidates is rising. I am not sure that is true this 
year on House races off the top of my head, but we know over the last 6 
years, the number of candidates has escalated very substantially.
  The FEC has had to dismiss cases. They have had to dismiss cases 
because they did not have the resources to handle them. So unless they 
are very serious cases, they have not been able to deal with them. The 
proposition raised by the gentlewoman from New York and the gentleman 
from Kansas is that ought not to be, because, if that happens, we 
cannot ensure fair elections.
  Now, I understand the chairman of the committee feels strongly that 
the FEC does not do its job properly. I understand his premise. I also 
understand his premise when he talks about the length of service by 
some Commissioners. I think he makes a good point. I am not for term 
limits, as the chairman is not for term limits, but we did not raise a 
whole lot of stuff about his provision last year.
  But I would hope that every Member of the House on either side of the 
aisle would look at this amendment in the context of what we are trying 
to do in America to ensure that funds are raised properly, spent 
properly, and administered properly.
  I hear in one-minutes, in special orders and in debate on this bill 
and other bills many, many members of the majority party getting up and 
saying how awful it is that we do not know exactly what happened in the 
elections in terms of raising money from foreigners, from domestic 
people, soft money, hard money, whatever. Well, my friends, if you 
really want to get at it, this is where we have set up in law to do it. 
And to say on the one hand you want to get at fair elections and on the 
other hand undercut the resources of the agencies that Congress has 
established to accomplish that objective I think is problematic at 
best. So I would urge my friends to adopt this amendment, and 
congratulate my colleagues for offering it, and hope that the House 
will adopt it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, my friend from Arizona earlier described this amendment 
as ``big spending at its worst.'' This amendment adds a couple of 
million dollars to the Federal Elections Commission budget for the 
purpose of increasing their capacity to protect the integrity of what 
is left of our campaign finance laws.
  I would suggest that that is not quite the case. I think big spending 
at its worst is the rampant cancerous use of soft money to obliterate 
intelligent debate in political campaigns. I think the big spending at 
its worst is the use of phony so-called issue advocacy ads or phony 
independent expenditures, whether it be by labor or by big business or 
by single interest groups, to influence elections, all the while 
pretending that they are not involved in elections at all. I think that 
is what is big spending at its worst, and this money is just a tiny 
effort to control that big spending at its worst.
  I would also say that it is, at least to me, apparent what the agenda 
of the majority party is in this case. They have been engaged in a 
year-long defense of the status quo on campaign finance laws, and they 
have been systematically attacking the agency which is trying to 
preserve the integrity of what is left of the existing campaign laws. 
They 2 years ago term-limited the FEC so that there is no institutional 
memory or in the future will be no institutional memory at that body.
  They are now trying to make certain that the Federal Elections 
Commission looks more like a pussycat than a tiger, and what they want 
to do is make certain that they can intimidate the executive director 
into not antagonizing anybody in order to assure that he can be 
reappointed.
  It is clear to me that there is great resentment on the other side of 
the aisle because the Federal Elections Commission has the temerity to 
dig into the activities of the use of the Republican Party of GOPAC, 
which contains, in my view, some of the most socially irresponsible 
and, at the same time, richest people in America, to influence the 
economic agenda of this Congress. They are unhappy because the FEC is 
having the temerity to examine those linkages.
  It just seems to me that the choice is clear: If you want to continue 
the status quo, if you want to continue to have a crippled FEC, vote 
against the amendment. If you want to cast a vote in favor of the 
public interest, if you want to cast a vote in favor of giving the 
Federal Elections Commission the additional tools it needs to see to it 
that everyone is policed more adequately, then vote for the amendment.
  The issue is clear, and no rhetoric to the contrary will confuse the 
public on this question.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the 
gentlemen from the Committee on Appropriations from the minority side 
for their very strong statements and really to rise in support of their 
statements and respond to some of the words on the other side of the 
aisle, where one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
accused the FEC of being partisan. Yet a study by the Conservative Fair 
Government Foundation found that ``partisan favoritism is absent'' at 
the Federal Election Commission. In fact, in this study, and I would be 
glad to give it to my colleagues, it showed that they had, in fact, 
investigated more Democrats than Republicans. Yet there is no doubt 
that the need for more spending at the FEC is needed because of the 
spending in campaigns and the allegations that have come to them.
  Campaign spending, as my colleagues have pointed out, has gone up 146 
percent, referrals of audits have gone up 110 percent and itemized 
transactions to be processed have gone up 157 percent, so they need 
this money.
  As my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) pointed out, whether it is the $6 million that has been spent in 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight investigating 
President Clinton, or the monies that have been spent in others, I have 
seen everything from $30 to $50 million in investigations in committees 
in this body, some of which only subpoena Democrats, only investigate 
Democrats, at least at the FEC they investigate both parties, all 
people who run, Democrat, Independent, Republican.
  There have been some concerns that the majority party has been trying 
to destroy the FEC, and I will at this point put in the Record 
editorials that have appeared across this country.

                    [From Roll Call, June 11, 1998]

                             Micro-Muzzling

       Congress is at it again, trying to throttle the Federal 
     Election Commission, the weak watchdog it created to regulate 
     campaign finance. As spending and contribution levels soar 
     and crafty political operatives invent new loopholes to skirt 
     finance laws, Congress regularly keeps the FEC on a bare-
     subsistence diet, unable to keep up with the action.

[[Page H5667]]

     Now, in a simultaneous act of micro-management and muzzling, 
     House Republicans seem bent on firing the commission's 
     general counsel, Lawrence Noble.
       Under current law, it would take a four-member majority of 
     the six-member FEC to oust Noble. The commission is evenly 
     divided, with three Republicans and three Democrats. But last 
     month, the House Oversight Committee approved a bill to 
     require that both the FEC's staff director and general 
     counsel be reconfirmed in office every four years, beginning 
     next January, with a four-vote majority. The bill won't 
     become law, but the Noble ouster may be adopted today as a 
     rider to the Treasury, Postal Service and general government 
     appropriations bill. Disingenuously, backers of the provision 
     say it's not aimed at Noble, just at administratively tidying 
     up the FEC. But everyone knows what's really going on.
       Noble, who's in charge of FEC enforcement, has angered 
     Republicans by claiming that the agency, having opened the 
     loophole that allows for unlimited soft-money donations to 
     political parties, has the power to close it. Noble takes an 
     expansive view of FEC posers to regulate issue ads. And he 
     led the way in investigating the 1996 Dole campaign's 
     management of Republican party advertising, which led to a 
     hefty fine. To his credit, he also is reliably reported to be 
     investigating the even more blatant and extensive White House 
     use of Democratic National Committee funds to run ads 
     boosting President Clinton.
       For Congress to be deciding who serves as general counsel 
     of the FEC would be like allowing the AFL-CIO to name (and 
     fire) the chairman of the National labor Relations Board or 
     for the Chemical Manufacturers Association to pick the head 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency. Already, politicians 
     appoint the members of the commission. The equal partisan 
     division of the commission ensures that it can't be wildly 
     aggressive or overly partisan. Having created the commission, 
     Congress ought to let it pick--and keep--its own general 
     counsel.
       In addition, it's time for Congress to quit hog-tying the 
     agency with limited funds and then complaining it has to 
     perform triage on the cases it investigates. Last year, the 
     FEC dismissed 55 percent of its cases as ``low rated'' or 
     ``stale'' in order to concentrate on higher priorities and to 
     clear its backlog. Fundraising by House and Senate candidates 
     during the first 15 months of the 1997-98 election cycle was 
     up by 14 percent over the same period in 1996, yet House 
     Oversight cut the FEC's budget authorization from a requested 
     $36.5 million to $33.7 million.
       It's time for Congress to strengthen federal campaign laws 
     and the FEC, not sneakily undermine them.
                                  ____


                [From The New York Times, June 11, 1998]

                   Punishing Competence at the F.E.C.

       At a time when Congress should be moving aggressively to 
     strengthen the Federal Election Commission's ability to 
     enforce the nation's campaign finance laws, House Republicans 
     are racing headlong in the opposite direction.
       The F.E.C. remains hampered by an inadequate budget, and by 
     a commission structure (three members from each party) that 
     tends toward gridlock. Now a move is afoot to get rid of the 
     agency's evenhanded general counsel, Lawrence Noble, in 
     retaliation for his attempts to enforce the law as written. 
     He is pressing the commission to use its existing powers to 
     bar the huge ``soft-money'' contributions that have corrupted 
     Federal campaigns. He has pursued lawsuits against groups 
     like Gopac and the Christian Coalition for alleged rules 
     violations. The Republican leadership is not happy.
       Last month the House Oversight Committee approved a measure 
     proposed by its chairman, Bill Thomas of California, taking 
     aim at Mr. Noble without mentioning his name. Currently, it 
     takes a vote by four members of the commission to appoint or 
     remove a general counsel or staff director. Mr. Thomas's bill 
     would require reappointment to these posts every four years, 
     beginning next year, thereby setting the stage for a 
     Republican coup ousting Mr. Noble. The change is nothing more 
     than an attempt to install a do-nothing enforcement staff. 
     Given Attorney General Janet Reno's lax approach to campaign 
     law, a crippled F.E.C. would guarantee an open field for 
     influence-peddlers and influence-buyers.
       A House Appropriations subcommittee is expected to take up 
     this mischievous measure today, with an eye toward adding it 
     as a rider to the Treasury appropriations bill. Reform-minded 
     members from both parties have a duty to oppose this 
     vendetta. President Clinton, meanwhile, who could stand a 
     better image on soft money, needs to make clear that he 
     considers it veto bait.

  Mr. Chairman, one of them called it a vendetta by the Republican 
Party to not fund, to fence the money they have, and to change the 
whole procedure of firing people at the FEC.
  I really want to say that it is the only body that is bipartisan, 
and, in order to investigate, there must be a majority of all of the 
commissioners who vote to do so, so it takes the vote of three 
Republicans and three Democrats to do so. So when they voted to 
investigate GOPAC, it was not the decision of Democrats, it was a vote 
by the Republicans and the Democrats on that committee. So there has 
been much rhetoric on this floor talking about campaign finance reform 
and the need to ban soft money and to regulate independent 
expenditures.

                              {time}  1330

  The FEC has come forward and made these recommendations. They have 
recommended to ban soft money and to regulate the independent 
expenditures, which is the heart of the Shays-Meehan bill that many of 
us support in this body and are hopeful that we will pass eventually.
  But if one is serious about campaign finance reform, then it is 
important that we fund at a level that they can do their job, the one 
body that is bipartisan, that is actually empowered to keep records and 
to investigate, not just one party, but both parties. It is an 
important body. There have been problems with it.
  The chairman mentioned the investigation that was stopped, but that 
was a criminal investigation. They are not supposed to do criminal 
investigations. They are only supposed to do civil investigations.
  So, again, I would refer to the items I mentioned earlier that show 
their bipartisan decisions, how they are made by Republicans and 
Democrats to investigate. There is in this bill, and later on today I 
will move to strike it, a whole effort, and talk about a toothless 
tiger, to remove the teeth, to skin it, and make it totally ineffective 
by making the staff able to be fired by just one party. Now it has to 
be bipartisan. That would mean that the staff would never investigate 
anyone again unless they were an independent or in a primary, because 
they would probably be fired. They would totally declaw the Federal 
Elections Commission.
  So, Mr. Chairman, if we are serious about campaign finance reform, 
then I hope my colleagues will join us in this bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), chairman of 
the full Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to comment on the points that 
the gentlewoman that preceded me made. In fact, she said that the 
Commission has been bipartisan. Well, I do not totally share that view, 
but that view is shared by one of the experienced attorneys who used to 
do election law, and in fact, probably still practices election law. 
One is quoted in the Washington Times on July 14, only a couple of days 
ago, and his quote is precisely my experience and that is that the 
Commission tramples on legal and constitutional rights in a bipartisan 
fashion.
  So if they are bipartisan, then they are uniformly in error and in 
conflict with the Constitution.
  But going back to the editorial that I mentioned in my earlier 
comments in the Wall Street Journal of July 13, I would like to comment 
on what the gentlewoman said about the fact that the Commission is not 
supposed to take criminal cases. Let me just read these paragraphs, 
because I think they are very, very important to understand. The 
Commission does not treat evidence of those criminal activities in an 
appropriate fashion.
  The editorial says, ``Judge Sporkin has had other tangles with the 
FEC, including the one in 1986 in which he ruled that the GOP 
Commissioners had acted contrary to law in closing down a probe of a 
Republican committee. His current decision goes to the heart of the 
fears many have about giving the FEC even more power to referee 
elections. Larry Noble, the FEC's General Counsel, has had great power 
to decide which political players will be investigated and to push his 
view that political speech should be regulated. Mr. Noble has been 
General Counsel since 1987 and keeps his job indefinitely unless a 
majority of the six highly partisan FEC Commissioners oust him. That 
means Mr. Noble remains, but since a majority of Commissioners seldom 
approve his request for prosecution, a kind of permanent gridlock has 
set in. That means many of the cases the FEC brings are exercises in 
`trivial pursuit.' At the same time, the agency's lawyers actually 
argued,'' and this is the part that gets me, Mr. Chairman, ``the 
agency's lawyers actually argued before Judge Sporkin that the bribery

[[Page H5668]]

allegations'' referred to in this editorial ``involving the Commission 
trade mission are `not under the Commission's jurisdiction.' Judge 
Sporkin was skeptical of that, but indicated that even if that were 
true, the FEC should have referred the case to the Justice Department. 
They did not.''
  Mr. Chairman, this is a toothless tiger. It is a wasteful agency. It 
is an agency that takes money from the taxpayer and does not perform 
the real service that it is intended to perform.
  I know my friend, one of the sponsors of the amendment, the gentleman 
from Kansas (Mr. Snowbarger), feels very strongly that we ought to give 
the enforcers the opportunity to enforce, but I would simply analogize 
this to saying, well, a policeman is an enforcer, but if he is a bad 
policeman, we do not give him more money to do a bad job. These people 
are not doing the job they should. We have already given them a raise. 
That should be sufficient, and this amendment should be defeated.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House resolution 498, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York will be 
postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 498, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Schumer); and the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Schumer

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer), 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 122, 
noes 301, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 286]

                               AYES--122

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sabo
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--301

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Gonzalez
     Hefner
     Hill
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     McDade
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Pickering
     Roybal-Allard
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1357

  Messrs. BILIRAKIS, EWING, PORTER, HORN, and Ms. SANCHEZ changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DIXON and Mr. DAVIS of Illinois changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 286, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 
286, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea''.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 498, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Maloney

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is a demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page H5669]]

  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214, 
noes 210, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 287]

                               AYES--214

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Yates

                               NOES--210

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Barton
     Gonzalez
     Hill
     Jenkins
     Kennelly
     McDade
     McNulty
     Roybal-Allard
     Sisisky
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1409

  Messrs. FOLEY, MORAN of Kansas, and FOX of Pennsylvania changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. McKINNEY, and Messrs. KANJORSKI, HOLDEN, DOYLE, MASCARA, LEWIS of 
Georgia, MURTHA, and MOLLOHAN changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   Federal Labor Relations Authority


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the 
     Federal Labor Relations Authority, pursuant to Reorganization 
     Plan Numbered 2 of 1978, and the Civil Service Reform Act of 
     1978, including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     including hire of experts and consultants, hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles, and rental of conference rooms in the 
     District of Columbia and elsewhere; $22,586,000: Provided, 
     That public members of the Federal Service Impasses Panel may 
     be paid travel expenses and per diem in lieu of subsistence 
     as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5703) for persons employed 
     intermittently in the Government service, and compensation as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received from fees 
     charged to non-Federal participants at labor-management 
     relations conferences shall be credited to and merged with 
     this account, to be available without further appropriation 
     for the costs of carrying out these conferences.

                    General Services Administration


                         Federal Buildings Fund

                 limitations on availability of revenue

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For additional expenses necessary to carry out the purpose 
     of the Federal Buildings Fund established pursuant to section 
     210(f) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services 
     Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 490(f)), $482,100,000, to be deposited 
     into the Fund. The revenues and collections deposited into 
     the Fund shall be available for necessary expenses of real 
     property management and related activities not otherwise 
     provided for, including operation, maintenance, and 
     protection of federally owned and leased buildings; rental of 
     buildings in the District of Columbia; restoration of leased 
     premises; moving governmental agencies (including space 
     adjustments and telecommunications relocation expenses) in 
     connection with the assignment, allocation, and transfer of 
     space; contractual services incident to cleaning or servicing 
     buildings, and moving; repair and alteration of federally 
     owned buildings, including grounds, approaches, and 
     appurtenances; care and safeguarding of sites; maintenance, 
     preservation, demolition, and equipment; acquisition of 
     buildings and sites by purchase, condemnation, or as 
     otherwise authorized by law; acquisition of options to 
     purchase buildings and sites; conversion and extension of 
     federally owned buildings; preliminary planning and design of 
     projects by contract or otherwise; construction of new 
     buildings (including equipment for such buildings); and 
     payment of principal, interest, and any other obligations for 
     public buildings acquired by installment purchase and 
     purchase contract; in the aggregate amount of $5,626,928,000, 
     of which (1) $527,100,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for construction of additional projects at locations 
     and at maximum construction improvement costs (including 
     funds for sites and expenses and associated design and 
     construction services) as follows:
       New Construction:
       Arkansas:
       Little Rock, Courthouse, $3,436,000
       California:
       San Diego, Courthouse, $15,400,000
       San Jose, Courthouse, $10,800,000
       Colorado:
       Denver, Rogers Federal Building--Courthouse Expansion, 
     $78,173,000
       District of Columbia:
       Southeast Federal Center Site Remediation, $5,000,000
       Florida:
       Jacksonville, Courthouse, $86,010,000
       Orlando, Courthouse Annex, $1,930,000
       Georgia:
       Savannah, Courthouse Annex, $46,462,000
       Massachusetts:
       Springfield, Courthouse, $5,563,000
       Michigan:
       Sault Sainte Marie, Border Station, $572,000
       Missouri:

[[Page H5670]]

       Cape Girardeau, Courthouse, $2,196,000
       Mississippi:
       Biloxi--Gulfport, Courthouse, $7,543,000
       Montana:
       Babb, Piegan Border Station, $6,165,000
       New York:
       Brooklyn, Courthouse, $152,626,000
       New York, U.S. Mission to the United Nations, $3,163,000
       Oregon:
       Eugene, Courthouse, $7,190,000
       Tennessee:
       Greenville, Courthouse, $26,517,000
       Texas:
       Laredo, Courthouse, $28,105,000
       West Virginia:
       Wheeling, Courthouse, $29,303,000
       Nationwide:
       Non-prospectus construction projects, $10,946,000:

     Provided, That each of the immediately foregoing limits of 
     costs on new construction projects may be exceeded to the 
     extent that savings are effected in other such projects, but 
     not to exceed 10 percent unless advance approval is obtained 
     from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of a 
     greater amount: Provided further, That all funds for direct 
     construction projects shall expire on September 30, 2000, and 
     remain in the Federal Buildings Fund except for funds for 
     projects as to which funds for design or other funds have 
     been obligated in whole or in part prior to such date: 
     Provided further, That of the funds provided for non-
     prospectus construction projects, $2,100,000 shall be 
     available until expended for acquisition, lease, 
     construction, and equipping of flexiplace telecommuting 
     centers; (2) $655,031,000, of which $19,000,000 shall be 
     available for obligation on September 30, 1999, shall remain 
     available until expended for repairs and alterations, which 
     includes associated design and construction services, for the 
     following projects and activities:
       Repairs and alterations:
       California:
       San Francisco, Appraisers Building
       District of Columbia:
       Federal Office Building, 10B
       Interstate Commerce Commission, Connecting Wing Complex, 
     Customs Buildings, Phase 3/3
       Old Executive Office Building
       State Department Building, Phase I
       Colorado:
       Lakewood, Denver Federal Center, Building 25
       New York:
       Brookhaven, Internal Revenue Service, Service Center
       New York, U.S. Courthouse, 40 Foley Square
       Pennsylvania:
       Philadelphia, Byrne-Green, Federal Building-U.S. Courthouse
       Virginia:
       Reston, J.W. Powell Building
       Nationwide:
       Chlorofluorocarbons Program
       Energy Program
       Design Program
       Basic Repairs and Alterations:

     Provided further, That additional projects for which 
     prospectuses have been fully approved may be funded under 
     this category only if advance approval is obtained from the 
     Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That the 
     amounts provided in this or any prior Act for ``Repairs and 
     Alterations'' may be used to fund costs associated with 
     implementing security improvements to buildings: Provided 
     further, That the difference between the funds appropriated 
     and expended on any projects in this or any prior Act, under 
     the heading ``Repairs and Alterations'', may be transferred 
     to Basic Repairs and Alterations or used to fund authorized 
     increases in prospectus projects: Provided further, That all 
     funds for repairs and alterations prospectus projects shall 
     expire on September 30, 2000, and remain in the Federal 
     Buildings Fund, except funds for projects as to which funds 
     for design or other funds have been obligated in whole or in 
     part prior to such date: Provided further, That $5,700,000 of 
     the funds provided under this heading in Public Law 103-329 
     for the Holtsville, New York, IRS Service Center shall remain 
     available until September 30, 1999: Provided further, That 
     the amount provided in this or any prior Act for Basic 
     Repairs and Alterations may be used to pay claims against the 
     Government arising from any projects under the heading 
     ``Repairs and Alterations'' or used to fund authorized 
     increases in prospectus projects; (3) $215,764,000 for 
     installment acquisition payments including payments on 
     purchase contracts, which shall remain available until 
     expended; (4) $2,583,261,000 for rental of space, which shall 
     remain available until expended; and (5) $1,554,772,000 for 
     building operations, of which $223,000,000 shall be available 
     for obligation on September 30, 1999, which shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That funds 
     available to the General Services Administration shall not be 
     available for expenses of any construction, repair, 
     alteration and acquisition project for which a prospectus, if 
     required by the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (40 U.S.C. 601 
     et seq.), has not been approved, except that necessary funds 
     may be expended for each project for required expenses of the 
     development of a proposed prospectus: Provided further, That 
     for the purposes of this authorization, and hereafter, 
     buildings constructed pursuant to the purchase contract 
     authority of the Public Buildings Amendments of 1972 (40 
     U.S.C. 602a), buildings occupied pursuant to installment 
     purchase contracts, and buildings under the control of 
     another department or agency where alterations of such 
     buildings are required in connection with the moving of such 
     other department or agency from buildings then, or thereafter 
     to be, under the control of the General Services 
     Administration shall be considered to be federally owned 
     buildings: Provided further, That funds available in the 
     Federal Buildings Fund may be expended for emergency repairs 
     when advance approval is obtained from the Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That amounts necessary to 
     provide reimbursable special services to other agencies under 
     section 210(f)(6) of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 490(f)(6)), and amounts to 
     provide such reimbursable fencing, lighting, guard booths, 
     and other facilities on private or other property not in 
     Government ownership or control as may be appropriate to 
     enable the United States Secret Service to perform its 
     protective functions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3056, shall be 
     available from such revenues and collections: Provided 
     further, That the remaining balances and associated assets 
     and liabilities of the Pennsylvania Avenue Activities account 
     are hereby transferred to the Federal Buildings Fund to be 
     effective October 1, 1998, and all income earned after that 
     effective date that would otherwise have been deposited to 
     the Pennsylvania Avenue Activities account shall thereafter 
     be deposited to the Fund, to be available for the purposes 
     authorized by Public Laws 104-134 and 104-208, 
     notwithstanding subsection 210(f)(2) of the Federal Property 
     and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 
     490(f)(2)): Provided further, That revenues and collections 
     and any other sums accruing to the Federal Buildings Fund 
     during fiscal year 1999, excluding reimbursements under 
     section 210(f)(6) of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 490(f)(6)), in excess of 
     $5,626,928,000 shall remain in the Fund and shall not be 
     available for expenditure except as authorized in 
     appropriations Acts.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the portion 
of the bill beginning on page 42, line 3 and continuing through page 
44, line 9 on the basis that these are unauthorized, and they are 
legislating on an appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would appreciate if the gentleman from 
Oklahoma would restate the point of order.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the portion 
of the bill beginning on page 42, line 3, and continuing through page 
44, line 10 ending with the semicolon.
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman would proceed with a statement of his 
point of order.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, this point of order is raised on the basis 
that these are unauthorized projects. They have never been authorized.
  Number two, they are legislating on an appropriations bill.
  I would further State that it is difficult for us to be building $600 
million worth of buildings when our children owe $6 billion and that 
perhaps a better use of this money might be in paying the interest on 
the national debt.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member desire to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would concede the gentleman's point of 
order but would make the following observation.
  I would concede it based on the rule which we adopted that these 
projects are at the same time unauthorized. I would, however, note that 
in every case we simply follow the priorities the Judicial Conference 
and so we are not substituting our own judgment, but the gentleman's 
point of order would be correct on this. I regret very much saying 
that, that that would be the case.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, this rule, which I 
opposed precisely because it did not, as it does in most instances, 
protect provisions that are absolutely essential, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma makes the point about our kids' debts.
  Very frankly, the chairman took all of these as priorities from the 
Judicial Conference and GSA. These are not political priorities. These 
are the judgments of those around the country in the justice system who 
know the facilities that are needed to carry out justice in this 
country.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to inform the Members that the debate 
should center around the point of order. The gentleman was straying 
beyond the point of order question.

[[Page H5671]]

  Mr. HOYER. I thank the Chair. The Chair is correct. I was simply 
responding to the rhetoric of the point of order that was made.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma also proceeded beyond that, 
but as it has proceeded, we have decided to rein it in.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the Chair. The gentleman from California is very 
fair.

                              {time}  1415

  I would join the chairman of the committee in lamenting the fact that 
the gentleman from Oklahoma is technically correct, notwithstanding the 
fact I think he is substantively wrong.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order, as stated by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma, is conceded and sustained, and that portion of the bill will 
be stricken from the Record.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         policy and operations

       For expenses authorized by law, not otherwise provided for, 
     for Government-wide policy and oversight activities 
     associated with asset management activities; utilization and 
     donation of surplus personal property; transportation; 
     procurement and supply; Government-wide and internal 
     responsibilities relating to automated data management, 
     telecommunications, information resources management, and 
     related technology activities; utilization survey, deed 
     compliance inspection, appraisal, environmental and cultural 
     analysis, and land use planning functions pertaining to 
     excess and surplus real property; agency-wide policy 
     direction; Board of Contract Appeals; accounting, records 
     management, and other support services incident to 
     adjudication of Indian Tribal Claims by the United States 
     Court of Federal Claims; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109; and not to exceed $5,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses; $108,494,000.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     and services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $32,000,000: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $10,000 shall be available for 
     payment for information and detection of fraud against the 
     Government, including payment for recovery of stolen 
     Government property: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $2,500 shall be available for awards to employees of other 
     Federal agencies and private citizens in recognition of 
     efforts and initiatives resulting in enhanced Office of 
     Inspector General effectiveness.


           allowances and office staff for former presidents

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out the provisions of the Act of August 25, 
     1958, as amended (3 U.S.C. 102 note), and Public Law 95-138, 
     $2,241,000: Provided, That the Administrator of General 
     Services shall transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of such 
     Acts.


          general provisions--general services administration

       Sec. 401. The appropriate appropriation or fund available 
     to the General Services Administration shall be credited with 
     the cost of operation, protection, maintenance, upkeep, 
     repair, and improvement, included as part of rentals received 
     from Government corporations pursuant to law (40 U.S.C. 129).


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order this is in 
violation of clause 2, rule XXI of the House, because it proposes to 
change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation 
bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Has the gentleman stated exactly what section?
  Mr. OBEY. It is section 401.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member desire to be heard on the point 
of order?
  If not, according to the precedent of June 18, 1991, the point of 
order is sustained. Section 401 will be stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 402. Funds available to the General Services 
     Administration shall be available for the hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I again make a point of order against section 
402 because it proposes to change existing law and again constitutes 
legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members wishing to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, for the reason just stated, according to the precedent of 
June 18, 1991, the point of order is sustained and that section will be 
stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 403. Funds in the Federal Buildings Fund made 
     available for fiscal year 1999 for Federal Buildings Fund 
     activities may be transferred between such activities only to 
     the extent necessary to meet program requirements: Provided, 
     That any proposed transfers shall be approved in advance by 
     the Committees on Appropriations.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I again make a point of order against section 
403 for the same reason as the previous two sections.
  The CHAIRMAN. For the same stated reasons, the point of order is 
sustained and that section, 403, will be stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 404. No funds made available by this Act shall be used 
     to transmit a fiscal year 2000 request for United States 
     Courthouse construction that (1) does not meet the design 
     guide standards for construction as established and approved 
     by the General Services Administration, the Judicial 
     Conference of the United States, and the Office of Management 
     and Budget; and (2) does not reflect the priorities of the 
     Judicial Conference of the United States as set out in its 
     approved 5-year construction plan: Provided, That the fiscal 
     year 2000 request shall be accompanied by a standardized 
     courtroom utilization study of each facility to be 
     constructed, replaced, or expanded.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I again make a point of order against this 
section for the same reason.
  The CHAIRMAN. Any other Member wishing to be heard on the point of 
order against section 404 of the bill?
  The Chair finds that section 404 is explicitly legislation in an 
appropriation bill and is, therefore, stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 405. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to increase the amount of occupiable square feet, 
     provide cleaning services, security enhancements, or any 
     other service usually provided through the Federal Buildings 
     Fund, to any agency which does not pay the rate per square 
     foot assessment for space and services as determined by the 
     General Services Administration in compliance with the Public 
     Buildings Amendments Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-313).


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, again, on section 405, I make a point of 
order against this provision because it also constitutes legislation on 
an appropriation bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Any other Members wishing to be heard on the point of 
order raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that section 
405 contains legislative language. The point of order is sustained. The 
section is stricken.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 406. Funds provided to other Government agencies by 
     the Information Technology Fund, General Services 
     Administration, under 40 U.S.C. 757 and sections 5124(b) and 
     5128 of Public Law 104-106, Information Technology Management 
     Reform Act of 1996, for performance of pilot information 
     technology projects which have potential for Government-wide 
     benefits and savings, may be repaid to this Fund from any 
     savings actually incurred by these projects or other funding, 
     to the extent feasible.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, again, the same point of order on section 406 
for the same reason.
  The CHAIRMAN. Any other Member desiring to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Section 406 constitutes legislation. The point of order is sustained. 
The section is stricken.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 407. From funds made available under the heading 
     ``Federal Buildings Fund Limitations on Availability of 
     Revenue'', claims against the Government of less than 
     $250,000 arising from direct construction projects and 
     acquisition of buildings may be liquidated from savings 
     effected in other construction projects with prior 
     notification to the Committees on Appropriations.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, again, point of order. I make the point of 
order against section 407 for the same reason. It violates the same 
clause of the same rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. Any other Member wishing to be heard?
  If not, for the same reason, the point of order is sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 408. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     requirement under section 407 of Public Law 104-208 (110 
     Stat. 3009-337-38), that the Administrator of General 
     Services charge user fees for flexiplace telecommuting 
     centers that approximate commercial charges for comparable 
     space and

[[Page H5672]]

     services but in no instance less than the amount necessary to 
     pay the cost of establishing and operating such centers, 
     shall not apply to the user fees charged for the period 
     beginning October 1, 1996, and ending September 30, 1998, for 
     the telecommuting centers established as part of a pilot 
     telecommuting demonstration program in the Washington, D.C. 
     metropolitan area by Public Laws 102-393, 103-123, 103-329, 
     104-52, and 104-298: Provided, That for these centers in the 
     pilot demonstration program for the period beginning October 
     1, 1998, and ending September 30, 2000, the Administrator 
     shall charge fees for Federal agency use of a telecenter 
     based on 50 percent of the Administrator's annual costs of 
     operating the center, including the reasonable cost of 
     replacement for furniture, fixtures, and equipment: Provided 
     further, That effective October 1, 2000, the Administrator 
     shall charge fees for Federal agency use of the demonstration 
     telecommuting centers based on 100 percent of the annual 
     operating costs, including the reasonable cost of replacement 
     for furniture, fixtures, and equipment: Provided further, 
     That, to the extent such user charges do not cover the 
     Administrator's costs in operating these centers, 
     appropriations to the General Service Administration are 
     authorized to reimburse the Federal Buildings Fund for any 
     loss of revenue.


LAND CONVEYANCE, UNITED STATES NAVAL OBSERVATORY/ALTERNATE TIME SERVICE 
                               LABORATORY

       Sec. 409. (a) Authority To Convey.--
       (1) In general.--Not withstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Administrator of General Services shall convey to 
     the University of Miami, by negotiated sale and by not later 
     than September 30, 1999, all right, title, and interest of 
     the United States in and to the property described in 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) Property described.--The property referred to in 
     paragraph (1) is real property in Miami-Dade County, Florida, 
     including improvements thereon, comprising the Federal 
     facility known as the United States Naval Observatory/
     Alternate Time Service Laboratory, consisting of 
     approximately 76 acres. The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the property shall be determined by a survey 
     that is satisfactory to the Administrator.
       (b) Condition Regarding Use.--Any conveyance under 
     subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that during 
     the 10-year period beginning on the date of the conveyance, 
     the University shall use the property, or provide for use of 
     the property, only for--
       (1) a research, education, and training facility 
     complementary to longstanding national research missions, 
     subject to such incidental exceptions as may be approved by 
     the Administrator;
       (2) research-related purposes other than the use specified 
     in paragraph (1), under an agreement entered into by the 
     Administrator and the University; or
       (3) a combination of uses described in paragraph (1) and 
     paragraph (2), respectively.
       (c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Administrator may 
     require such additional terms and conditions with respect to 
     the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Administrator 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.
       (d) Reversion.--If the Administrator determines at any time 
     that the property conveyed under subsection (a) is not being 
     used in accordance with this section, all right, title, and 
     interest in and to the property, including any improvements 
     thereon, shall revert to the United States, and the United 
     States shall have the right of immediate entry thereon.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order on section 
409 of the bill because it violates clause 2 of rule XXI and 
constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any Members wishing to be heard on the point 
of order?
  If not, section 409 expressly supersedes existing law with explicitly 
prescriptive language. As such, it constitutes legislation in violation 
of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained and that 
section of the bill is stricken.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 410. (a) Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Property, 
     Racine, Wisconsin.--The Administrator of General Services 
     shall convey, by negotiated sale, to the city of Racine, 
     Wisconsin (in this section referred to as the ``City''), all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the 
     vacant Army Reserve property (including improvements thereon) 
     located at the intersection of 24th and Center Streets in 
     Racine, Wisconsin, for the purpose of permitting the City to 
     use the property as the site of water and wastewater 
     utilities.
       (b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory 
     to the Administrator. The cost of any such survey shall be 
     borne by the City.
       (c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Administrator may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Administrator 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 410 
because it proposes to change existing law, constitutes legislation on 
an appropriation bill, and violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Section 410 does, in fact, as the gentleman has stated, 
constitute legislation in an appropriation bill. The point of order is 
sustained and that section will be stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 411. The Administrator of General Services is directed 
     to reincorporate the elements of the original proposed design 
     for the facade of the United States Courthouse, London, 
     Kentucky project into the revised design of the building in 
     order to ensure compatibility of this new facility with the 
     historic U.S. Courthouse in London, Kentucky to maintain the 
     stateliness of the building. Construction or design of the 
     London, Kentucky project should not be diminished in anyway 
     to achieve this goal.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I again make a point of order against section 
411 for the same reasons as I did for the previous section.
  The CHAIRMAN. And for the same reasons the Chair ruled in the 
previous section, the gentleman is correct and the point of order is 
sustained and the section 411 will be stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund

       For payment to the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund to 
     carry out activities authorized in the Environmental Policy 
     and Conflict Resolution Act of 1997, $4,250,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $3,000,000 will be for 
     capitalization of the Fund, and $1,250,000 will be for annual 
     operating expenses.

                     Merit Systems Protection Board


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Merit 
     Systems Protection Board pursuant to Reorganization Plan 
     Numbered 2 of 1978 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, rental of 
     conference rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles, and direct procurement of 
     survey printing, $25,805,000, together with not to exceed 
     $2,430,000 for administrative expenses to adjudicate 
     retirement appeals to be transferred from the Civil Service 
     Retirement and Disability Fund in amounts determined by the 
     Merit Systems Protection Board.

              National Archives and Records Administration


                           operating expenses

       For necessary expenses in connection with the 
     administration of the National Archives (including the 
     Information Security Oversight Office) and records and 
     related activities, as provided by law, and for expenses 
     necessary for the review and declassification of documents, 
     and for the hire of passenger motor vehicles, $216,753,000: 
     Provided, That the Archivist of the United States is 
     authorized to use any excess funds available, from the amount 
     borrowed for construction of the National Archives facility, 
     for expenses necessary to provide adequate storage for 
     holdings.


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 13, printed in the 
July 14, 1998 Congressional Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Page 58, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000) (increased by 
     $2,000,000)''.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to earmark 
$2 million of the funds appropriated to the National Archives and 
Records Administration for fiscal year 1999 for the National Personnel 
Records Center. The funds will enable the records center to modernize 
its records management system, allowing it to respond to 90 percent of 
all veterans' records inquiries received from the Veterans 
Administration within 10 days or less.
  This amendment has the endorsement of all of the major national 
veterans organizations in the United States who recognize the severity 
of this problem. And the groups that are supporting the Sanders 
amendment include the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, 
the Disabled American Veterans, the Vietnam Veterans of America, 
AMVETS, the Reserve Officer's Association of the United States, and the 
National Officer's Association.
  Mr. Chairman, through my work with veterans in the State of Vermont, 
I

[[Page H5673]]

have learned that there are frequently very long delays in simply 
obtaining a veteran's personnel records, which are essential for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs to offer effective medical assistance or 
provide benefits. In Vermont, a request for medical records or any 
detailed request generally takes 4 to 6 months to complete.
  And this is not just a Vermont problem, it is a national problem. A 
veteran comes in and wants his medical records, in order to get health 
treatment, and he waits 2, 3, 4, 6 months. A veteran comes in to get 
his medical records, in order to get the benefits that he or she is 
entitled to, and waits 2, 4, 6 months. This is not the way that we 
should be treating America's veterans.
  Mr. Chairman, America has a commitment to provide our veterans with 
adequate health care. Reliable access to veterans' personnel records is 
essential to meeting this commitment. During the wait of 4 to 6 months, 
in some cases up to a year, little or nothing can be done to assist the 
veteran, as the personnel records, which are the very basis for any 
medical or administrative decision, cannot be assessed. A similar 
situation exists for benefits, as it is impossible for the veteran to 
make his or her request without this information.
  My staff has made calls to many of my colleagues' offices and we have 
tried to find out if this problem is existing all over this country, 
and we find that it is. Let me very briefly read from some of the 
comments made by the service organizations.
  The Retired Officer's Association states, and I quote, ``Our 
association frequently assists uniformed services retirees and 
survivors with disability and other entitlement issues requiring 
documentation available only at the records center. Sadly, needed 
compensation is often delayed for months because of the center's 
antiquated and overwhelmed records management systems. Particularly for 
survivors and older veterans, unfamiliar with specific personnel 
documents issued many years ago, this is far too often an extremely 
frustrating exercise that reflects very poorly on the government.''
  That is from the Retired Officer's Association. Let me read to my 
colleagues from the Reserve Officer's Association of the United States.
  ``We here at the ROA are keenly aware of the difficulties veterans 
frequently encounter when attempting to obtain copies of documents and 
their official military records in order to establish their entitlement 
to veterans benefits. Anything that can be done to expedite the 
processing time involving these requests will be deeply appreciated by 
the veterans and their families. The sheer magnitude of the NPRC's 
operations in St. Louis must be seen to be comprehended.''
  Let me read from the Military Order of the Purple Heart. ``The 
majority of veterans seeking assistance from the VA has to endure long 
waiting times for the VA to locate their records, then they have to 
tolerate further delays if they require additional documentation from 
the NPRC. In many instances, time is a critical factor, particularly 
for our older veterans.''
  Let me read from the National Officer's Association. ``We are fully 
supportive of this effort and, in consideration of the aggravation and 
additional cost incurred by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 
addressing problems arising because of the delayed actions in support 
of veterans' claims, are of the opinion that the modest outlay of $6 
million'', and, actually, we are only asking for $2 million now for the 
first year, ``would be very helpful.''
  Veterans of Foreign Wars: Sympathetic to the Sanders amendment. The 
American Legion: Sympathetic. The Disabled American Veterans: 
Sympathetic. In other words, the veterans organizations know that it is 
an outrage that when a veteran asks for help and medical records he or 
she is delayed 4 to 6 months. I ask for support of this important 
amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, if one was inclined to be opposed to this amendment 
after the impassioned plea of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), 
it would be very hard to oppose him.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just state for the record that our committee, 
our subcommittee, has recognized the problem. We have been talking with 
and working with the Archives. This has been, for a long time, an 
ongoing problem we have had with the National Personnel Records Center, 
going back more than 25, almost 30, years, since the great fire took 
place there and destroyed so many records.

                              {time}  1430

  The Archives is very much committed to changing the way it does its 
work at the Personnel Records Center, and the key part of that change 
is going to be the infusion of information technology in the receipt, 
control, and response to the 1.75 million requests for information it 
receives on an annual basis. That is going to take place over the next 
5 years at a cost of about $6 million. The goal is to be able to have 
retrieval of information, case retrieval time, in less than 10 days for 
every individual.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that this amendment is required for this 
coming fiscal year, but I would like to accept the amendment and work 
with the author and with the ranking member of the minority side and 
others to try to achieve in conference what we all agree is the goal 
that we want to achieve.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the chairman and I have discussed this. I am pleased 
that the chairman is going to accept this amendment.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) who 
has talked to both the chairman and myself, worked very closely with 
us. This obviously is a problem. We need to ensure that the records of 
veterans which are critical for health care purposes, retirement 
purposes, all sorts of other purposes, are in fact retrieved in a 
timely fashion. That is not now happening.
  The good news is not only that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) has brought this to our attention, obviously communicated with 
the veterans' organizations throughout this country and energized them 
and focused them on how we can solve this problem, but also that 
Governor Carlin, who is the administrator, relatively new, recognizes 
that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is absolutely correct. 
This is a problem that needs to be solved, and they are initiating and 
pursuing that objective.
  So I want to congratulate the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
for this initiative. It is a positive one, and I am pleased to join the 
chairman in supporting it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) 
and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for their support for this 
amendment. We have worked together, and I know they are cognizant of 
the problems.
  The sad fact is that this problem has existed for many, many, many 
years. The reason that I want the $2 million appropriated right now is 
that I want to see action take place immediately. As a member of the 
Committee on Government Reform, we will be watching how well they 
proceed in getting these records updated and automated and 
computerized.
  So I look forward to working with both gentlemen so that our veterans 
get a fair shake and we end this bureaucratic nightmare.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) will be pursuing this. The gentleman is one of the most 
tenacious and energetic Members of the House, and I know he will be 
following this very closely to ensure that this objective is 
accomplished.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not plan on taking 5 minutes. But maybe I can 
appeal to my colleague. The cause and effect of veterans, not only 
their records, but the real problem is with their medical care in the 
first place. I think the gentleman agrees with that. It is a cause and 
effect. He may not agree with trickle-down economics, but he think he 
believes in trickle-down problems that come down to the lowest level.
  I would ask the gentleman that we have had the Moran and Watts bill 
help with FEHBP. That is just a Band-Aid

[[Page H5674]]

right now as it is. The Tricare system is a Band-Aid. Subvention is a 
Band-Aid. And the veterans are looking for the same benefits that the 
employees have that if a secretary works over in the Pentagon, when she 
goes under Medicare, she has got a follow-on program called BEHBP. A 
military person does not. A veteran does not. And that is wrong.
  My bill solved that, and it got rid of all the Band-Aids, but they 
could not find the funds for it. I think in the future we have need to 
look at that.
  The records are a problem not only with veterans but active duty 
military, and we are working on that. But I would appeal to my friends, 
we have less than 24 percent retention in our military today. Most of 
those people are going to get out and be veterans that are getting out 
of the service right now.
  The OPTEMPO is 300 percent above what it was in Vietnam in Cold War. 
And our families in the military, people are saying, hey, I cannot 
handle this with my family and have it, too. If we want to solve both 
and live under the caps in defense budget and this budget, then we have 
got to reduce the OPTEMPO of our overseas commitment and we have got to 
bring our people home. And then we can have the dollars, instead of 
Haiti and Somalia and Bosnia and all the others, we will have some more 
dollars to do what we really need not only for our active duty but for 
our veterans.
  I thank the gentleman for his amendment. I think it is very 
thoughtful, and I support it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        repairs and restoration

       For the repair, alteration, and improvement of archives 
     facilities and Presidential Libraries, and to provide 
     adequate storage for holdings, $10,450,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $2,000,000 is for an 
     architectural and engineering study for the renovation of the 
     Archives I facility and of which $4,000,000 is for encasement 
     of the Charters of Freedom.

        National Historical Publications and Records Commission


                             grants program

       For necessary expenses for allocations and grants for 
     historical publications and records as authorized by 44 
     U.S.C. 2504, $6,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                      Office of Government Ethics


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office 
     of Government Ethics pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act 
     of 1978, and the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, including 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, rental of conference 
     rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, and not to exceed $1,500 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; $8,492,000.

                     Office of Personnel Management


                         Salaries and Expenses

                  (including transfer of trust funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office 
     of Personnel Management pursuant to Reorganization Plan 
     Numbered 2 of 1978 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; medical 
     examinations performed for veterans by private physicians on 
     a fee basis; rental of conference rooms in the District of 
     Columbia and elsewhere; hire of passenger motor vehicles; not 
     to exceed $2,500 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; advances for reimbursements to applicable funds of 
     the Office of Personnel Management and the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation for expenses incurred under Executive Order No. 
     10422 of January 9, 1953, as amended; and payment of per diem 
     and/or subsistence allowances to employees where Voting 
     Rights Act activities require an employee to remain overnight 
     at his or her post of duty; $85,350,000; and in addition 
     $91,236,000 for administrative expenses, to be transferred 
     from the appropriate trust funds of the Office of Personnel 
     Management without regard to other statutes, including direct 
     procurement of printed materials, for the retirement and 
     insurance programs: Provided, That the provisions of this 
     appropriation shall not affect the authority to use 
     applicable trust funds as provided by section 8348(a)(1)(B) 
     of title 5, United States Code: Provided further, That, 
     except as may be consistent with 5 U.S.C. 8902a(f)(1) and 
     (i), no payment may be made from the Employees Health 
     Benefits Fund to any physician, hospital, or other provider 
     of health care services or supplies who is, at the time such 
     services or supplies are provided to an individual covered 
     under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, excluded, 
     pursuant to section 1128 or 1128A of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7 through 1320a-7a), from participation in 
     any program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395 et seq.): Provided further, That no part of this 
     appropriation shall be available for salaries and expenses of 
     the Legal Examining Unit of the Office of Personnel 
     Management established pursuant to Executive Order No. 9358 
     of July 1, 1943, or any successor unit of like purpose: 
     Provided further, That the President's Commission on White 
     House Fellows, established by Executive Order No. 11183 of 
     October 3, 1964, may, during fiscal year 1999, accept 
     donations of money, property, and personal services in 
     connection with the development of a publicity brochure to 
     provide information about the White House Fellows, except 
     that no such donations shall be accepted for travel or 
     reimbursement of travel expenses, or for the salaries of 
     employees of such Commission.


                      office of inspector general

                         salaries and expenses

                  (including transfer of trust funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act, 
     as amended, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, hire of passenger motor vehicles, $960,000; and in 
     addition, not to exceed $9,145,000 for administrative 
     expenses to audit the Office of Personnel Management's 
     retirement and insurance programs, to be transferred from the 
     appropriate trust funds of the Office of Personnel 
     Management, as determined by the Inspector General: Provided, 
     That the Inspector General is authorized to rent conference 
     rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere.


      government payment for annuitants, employees health benefits

       For payment of Government contributions with respect to 
     retired employees, as authorized by chapter 89 of title 5, 
     United States Code, and the Retired Federal Employees Health 
     Benefits Act (74 Stat. 849), as amended, such sums as may be 
     necessary.


       government payment for annuitants, employee life insurance

       For payment of Government contributions with respect to 
     employees retiring after December 31, 1989, as required by 
     chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code, such sums as may 
     be necessary.


        payment to civil service retirement and disability fund

       For financing the unfunded liability of new and increased 
     annuity benefits becoming effective on or after October 20, 
     1969, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 8348, and annuities under 
     special Acts to be credited to the Civil Service Retirement 
     and Disability Fund, such sums as may be necessary: Provided, 
     That annuities authorized by the Act of May 29, 1944, as 
     amended, and the Act of August 19, 1950, as amended (33 
     U.S.C. 771-775), may hereafter be paid out of the Civil 
     Service Retirement and Disability Fund.

                       Office of Special Counsel


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office 
     of Special Counsel pursuant to Reorganization Plan Numbered 2 
     of 1978, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-
     454), the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (Public Law 
     101-12), Public Law 103-424, and the Uniformed Services 
     Employment and Reemployment Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-353), 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, payment of 
     fees and expenses for witnesses, rental of conference rooms 
     in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, $8,720,000.

                        United States Tax Court


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses, including contract reporting and 
     other services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $34,490,000: 
     Provided, That travel expenses of the judges shall be paid 
     upon the written certificate of the judge.
       This title may be cited as the ``Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1999''.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                                This Act

       Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
        Sec. 502. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
        Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be available for any activity or for paying the salary 
     of any Government employee where funding an activity or 
     paying a salary to a Government employee would result in a 
     decision, determination, rule, regulation, or policy that 
     would prohibit the enforcement of section 307 of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930.
        Sec. 504. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be available in fiscal year 1999 for the purpose of 
     transferring control over the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center located at Glynco, Georgia, and Artesia, New 
     Mexico, out of the Department of the Treasury.
       Sec. 505. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available to pay

[[Page H5675]]

     the salary for any person filling a position, other than a 
     temporary position, formerly held by an employee who has left 
     to enter the Armed Forces of the United States and has 
     satisfactorily completed his period of active military or 
     naval service, and has, within 90 days after his release from 
     such service or from hospitalization continuing after 
     discharge for a period of not more than 1 year, made 
     application for restoration to his former position and has 
     been certified by the Office of Personnel Management as still 
     qualified to perform the duties of his former position and 
     has not been restored thereto.


                             point of order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against 
section 505 because it proposes to change existing law, constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill, and violates clause 2 of rule 
XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do any other Members wish to be heard on the point of 
order raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  As was stated earlier, under the precedent established June 18 of 
1991, this section constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill; 
and section 505, therefore, will be stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

        Sec. 506. No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may 
     be expended by an entity unless the entity agrees that in 
     expending the assistance the entity will comply with sections 
     2 through 4 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).
        Sec. 507. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--In the case of any equipment or products that may 
     be authorized to be purchased with financial assistance 
     provided under this Act, it is the sense of the Congress that 
     entities receiving such assistance should, in expending the 
     assistance, purchase only American-made equipment and 
     products.
       (b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a 
     notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
        Sec. 508. If it has been finally determined by a court or 
     Federal agency that any person intentionally affixed a label 
     bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription 
     with the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to 
     the United States that is not made in the United States, such 
     person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or 
     subcontract made with funds provided pursuant to this Act, 
     pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility 
     procedures described in sections 9.400 through 9.409 of title 
     48, Code of Federal Regulations.
        Sec. 509. Except as otherwise specifically provided by 
     law, not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances 
     remaining available at the end of fiscal year 1999 from 
     appropriations made available for salaries and expenses for 
     fiscal year 1999 in this Act, shall remain available through 
     September 30, 2000, for each such account, and may be 
     transferred to any other Department account, for the purposes 
     authorized: Provided, That a request shall be submitted to 
     the Committees on Appropriations for approval prior to the 
     expenditure of such funds: Provided further, That these 
     requests shall be made in compliance with reprogramming 
     guidelines.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against 
section 509 for the same reason as I cited previously.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair rules that this is considering legislation in 
an appropriations bill; and, for that reason, the point of order is 
sustained, and section 509 will be stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 510. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Executive Office of the President to request 
     from the Federal Bureau of Investigation any official 
     background investigation report on any individual, unless--
       (1) such individual has given his or her express written 
     consent for such request not more than 6 months prior to the 
     date of such request and during the same presidential 
     administration; or
       (2) such request is required due to extraordinary 
     circumstances involving national security.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make the same point of order 
against section 510.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair's response is the same as on the last section 
and the point of order is sustained; and section 510 will, therefore, 
be stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 511. (a) Appointment and Term of Service of Staff 
     Director and General Counsel of Federal Election 
     Commission.--
       (1) In general.--The first sentence of section 306(f)(1) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     437c(f)(1)) is amended by striking ``by the Commission'' and 
     inserting the following: ``by an affirmative vote of not less 
     than 4 members of the Commission and may not serve for a term 
     of more than 4 consecutive years without reappointment in 
     accordance with this paragraph''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply with respect to any individual serving as the 
     staff director or general counsel of the Federal Election 
     Commission on or after January 1, 1999, without regard to 
     whether or not the individual served as staff director or 
     general counsel prior to such date.
       (b) Treatment of Individuals Filling Vacancies; Termination 
     of Authority Upon Expiration of Term.--Section 306(f)(1) of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 437c(f)(1)) is amended by inserting after 
     the first sentence the following new sentences: ``An 
     individual appointed as a staff director or general counsel 
     to fill a vacancy occurring other than by the expiration of a 
     term of office shall be appointed only for the unexpired term 
     of the individual he or she succeeds. An individual serving 
     as staff director or general counsel may not serve in such 
     position after the expiration of the individual's term unless 
     reappointed in accordance with this paragraph.''.
       (c) Rule of Construction Regarding Authority of Acting 
     General Counsel.--Section 306(f) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     437c(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) Nothing in this Act may be construed to prohibit any 
     individual serving as an acting general counsel of the 
     Commission from performing any functions of the general 
     counsel of the Commission.''.


                             Point of Order

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of 
order against section 511 on page 67, lines 5 through page 68, line 17, 
on the grounds that it violates clause 2 of rule XXI constituting 
legislation on a general appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do any other Members wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  This is direct legislation in the appropriation bill; and, therefore, 
the point of order is sustained and section 511 will be stricken from 
the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 512. Hereafter, any payment of attorneys fees, costs, 
     and sanctions required to be made by the Federal Government 
     pursuant to the order of the district court in the case 
     Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. v. 
     Clinton, 989 F. Supp. 8 (1997), or any appeal of such case, 
     shall be derived by transfer from amounts made available in 
     this or any other Act for any fiscal year for ``Compensation 
     of the President and the White House Office--Salaries and 
     Expenses''.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against 
section 512 for the same reasons as I cited previously.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members wishing to be heard on the 
point of order being raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)?
  If not, for the aforestated reasons, legislation in an appropriation 
bill, the point of order is sustained; and section 512 will, therefore, 
be stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 513. (a) Audits by the Postmaster General.--Subsection 
     (e) of section 2008 of title 39, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(e)(1) At least once each year beginning with the fiscal 
     year commencing after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     financial statements of the Postal Service (including those 
     used in determining and establishing postal rates) shall be 
     audited by the Inspector General or by an independent 
     external auditor, as determined by the Inspector General.
       ``(2) Audits under this section shall be conducted in 
     accordance with applicable generally accepted government 
     auditing standards.
       ``(3) Upon completion of the audit required by this 
     subsection, the person who audits the statement shall submit 
     a report on the audit to the Board''.
       (b) Results of Inspector General's Audit To Be Included in 
     Annual Report.--Section 2402 of title 39, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after the first sentence the 
     following: ``Each report under this section shall include, 
     for the most recent fiscal year for which a report under 
     section 2008(e) is available (unless previously transmitted 
     under the following sentence), a copy of such report.''.
       (c) Coordination Provisions.--Subsection (d) of section 
     2008 of title 39, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(d) Nothing'' and inserting ``(d)(1) 
     Except as provided in paragraph (2), nothing''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2)(A) Before obtaining any audit or report under 
     paragraph (1), the Postal Service shall give the Inspector 
     General advance written notice of that intention.

[[Page H5676]]

       ``(B) Any exercise of power under paragraph (1) shall be 
     subject to any authority available to the Inspector General 
     in carrying out section 4(a) of the Inspector General Act of 
     1978.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--This subsection shall take effect on 
     the date of enactment of this Act.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against 
section 513, and I do so because it proposes to change existing laws 
and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI. And I ask for a ruling from the chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other member wishing to be heard on the 
point of order being raised by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Torres)?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman is correct. This is direct legislation on an 
appropriations bill. The point of order is sustained, and that 
provision will be stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 514. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
     available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative 
     expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal 
     employees health benefit program which provides any benefits 
     or coverage for abortions.


                    amendment offered by ms. delauro

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro:
       Strike section 514 (relating to prohibition of FEHB plan 
     coverage for abortions).

  Ms. DeLAURO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, 
I inquire of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), is this a 
straight-strike amendment?
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, yes, it is.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlwoman 
from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides funding for Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Program. In the network of health insurance 
plans for Federal employees, there are approximately 1.2 million women 
of reproductive age who rely on the FEHBP for their medical care.
  Until November, 1995, Federal employees, just like private-sector 
workers, could choose a health care plan which covered a full range of 
reproductive health services, including abortion. Approximately one-
third of private fee-for-service plans, 30 percent of HMOs do not 
provide abortion coverage, two-thirds are fee-for-coverage, and 70 
percent of HMOs did.
  In 1993 and 1994, Congress voted to permit Federal employees to 
choose a health care plan which covered abortion or to choose one that 
did not cover abortion. The choice was in the hands of the individual.
  According to the American Medical Association, funding restrictions, 
such as the ones in this bill, make it more likely that women will 
continue a potentially health-threatening pregnancy to term or undergo 
abortion procedures that will endanger their health.
  Let me take a moment to address a concern raised by some of my 
colleagues that this amendment will use taxpayer dollars to subsidize 
abortion. This simply is not the case. Coverage of abortion services in 
Federal-held plans does not mean that Government or the taxpayer is 
subsidizing abortion.
  Just like private-sector employees negotiating a compensation 
package, Federal employees agree to work for the Federal Government in 
return for a salary and a benefits package. That salary and those 
benefits belong to the employee and not to the Government.
  The Federal employee, not Government, chooses the health care plan 
that best fits the person and that person's family's needs. As an 
employer, the Federal Government makes a contribution to help pay the 
premium on that health insurance. The rest of the premium is paid by 
the employee. The payment that the Government makes is part of that 
Federal employee's compensation package. It belongs to the Federal 
employee just as much as the paycheck that is deposited in the bank 
does.
  We would never claim that the paycheck paid to Federal employees is 
taxpayer money; and, therefore, no Federal employee should be allowed 
to spend his or her salary to pay for an abortion. Just like the 
salary, the benefit package belongs to the employee, not the employer. 
And employees who do not wish to choose a plan with abortion coverage 
are not required to.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak at length about 
individual choice and the value of taking decisions out of the hands of 
Government and returning the power of choice to individuals. Why, then, 
do they oppose allowing those who serve the public from making their 
choice of health care plans? Why do we deny these individuals their 
right to choose?

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. Chairman, the antichoice movement in this country has failed to 
make abortion illegal; therefore, activists are trying to make it more 
difficult and more dangerous. Singling out abortion for exclusion from 
health care plans that cover other reproductive health care is harmful 
to a woman's health. Why not trust the individual rather than mandate a 
particular point of view of some Members of Congress? This amendment 
discriminates against women in public service who are denied access to 
a legal health procedure simply because of who they work for. It has 
real consequences for real people.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to quickly read a letter written by one of 
those families.

       I have been a Federal employee for 13 years. My husband and 
     I were elated this summer when I became pregnant. I was 
     scheduled for a sonogram at 14 weeks. My husband, mother and 
     sister accompanied me to the ultrasound waiting room because 
     seeing this baby was a big event. The radiologist detected 
     abnormalities and recommended that only my husband be allowed 
     to see the sonogram. The radiologist termed it severe 
     hydrocephalus. We saw an empty skull, termed it incompatible 
     with life. The doctors I saw agreed there was no hope for the 
     fetus, recommended terminating as soon as possible. We were 
     devastated. To compound the tragedy came the news that 
     companies insuring Federal workers are prohibited from 
     covering abortions. In the end we paid a very high fee to 
     have the abortion because the fetal anomaly made the 
     procedure more complicated. My husband and I question whether 
     Congress was implying we were immoral for aborting this fetus 
     in hoping to get pregnant with a healthy child. Our decision 
     was not wanton or frivolous. It was heartbreaking.

  My Chairman, talk about giving individuals choices, I urge my 
colleagues to please give our public servants back this choice. I urge 
them to support this amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just like to make one medical technical comment: 
Intrauterine hydrocephalus today is treated, it is treated effectively 
in all the centers throughout the country. Abortion is not the answer 
to intrauterine hydrocephalus; a shunt is. We are very successful, we 
do it routinely, and, in fact, what it sounds like is this Federal 
employee got terrible advice because, in fact, when I am encountering 
that same situation, my patients have a shunt placed in their baby 
while they are still in their mother's womb and do not have 
hydrocephalus at birth, and, in fact, that, therefore, is not a good 
example of why we should be doing that.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the DeLauro amendment. 
The underlying language I would just say to my colleagues that is in 
this bill that the DeLauro amendment would gut has been in effect every 
year except two since the early 1980s and can best be described as the 
Hyde amendment for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The 
prolife language in the bill ensures that taxpayers and premium payers 
do not subsidize abortion on demand, and that very simply is the issue 
that is before us.
  Today we vote on whether the taxpayers will indeed subsidize. That is 
what it is all about.
  As Members probably know, the taxpayers pay more than 73 percent of 
the

[[Page H5677]]

total funding of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. My 
colleagues and I, those of us who are part of that program, pay the 
remaining 27 percent. So the same rationale holds here as in the Hyde 
amendment. Americans should not be forced to underwrite the cost of 
destroying unborn babies.
  Despite, Mr. Chairman, and I just say this with all due respect to my 
colleagues on the other side, despite the years of propaganda, despite 
all of the efforts to sanitize, and the euphemisms, and the masking of 
abortion, the partial-birth abortion debate has finally stripped the 
veil off the sordid business of what abortion is all about. Abortion, 
Mr. Chairman, is violence against children, it is the ultimate human 
rights abuse, and it tries to purport to be a right, and yet it is 
violence.
  Abortion methods are acts of violence that usually kill the victim, 
although we are seeing in growing numbers of cases, the most recently 
the doctor in Phoenix that was trying to destroy a child using partial-
birth abortion, and, after slashing and lacerating the child's face, 
realized the kid, the baby, was so old that he could not continue with 
it. That is what the defenders of partial-birth abortion have to defend 
because that is what happens each and every day. Normally they just 
result in killing the baby with their violent methods.
  Some of those methods, as I have said on this floor, and I think it 
bears repeating until it hopefully gets across to a growing number of 
people, include dismemberment of an unborn child. Loop-shaped knives 
called curettes are used to literally hack off the arms, and the legs, 
and the head, leaving a torso, and the ribs are ripped apart. That is 
the ugly reality stripped of all the euphemisms of what abortion is all 
about. It is done routinely, and then the suction machine that is 20 to 
30 times more powerful than the average vacuum cleaner takes that 
bloody pulp of what used to be a baby and puts that baby into a bottle. 
I do not know how people can defend that.
  Chemical abortions, salt abortions, saline salting out, high 
concentrated salt solutions pumped into the amniotic sac. The baby 
breaths in that fluid because the organs of respiration are being 
developed, and it is the amniotic fluid that goes in and out until the 
actual birth occurs, and swallows and digests, if my colleagues will, 
through, or absorbs through the lungs that high-concentrated salt; 
kills the baby usually in about 2 hours, and when the baby emerges 
after delivery, a very chemically-burned, often very red child emerges, 
and this is commonplace. This is called the right to choose.
  And, of course, as we all know, again very soon when we debate the 
partial-birth abortion ban, which would be covered if the DeLauro 
amendment passes, there is nothing whatsoever that would preclude 
payment under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program for the 
partial-birth abortions. And we all remember the big lie that was used 
to minimize and trivialize the number of those later-term abortions 
that are done in this country. When that was unmasked, in my own State 
of New Jersey one clinic was found to be doing 1,500 of those grisly 
child killings per year, all of a sudden the 500 figure, which Planned 
Parenthood and the Guttmacher Institute and ZPG and all the other 
groups were bandying about in letters to my colleagues and to I and to 
everyone else, and I have copies of the letters, they said that is what 
the number was. Well, 500 would be a massacre as well, but it is many, 
many thousands more than that. That could be subsidized and paid for if 
the DeLauro amendment were to prevail.
  The amendment that we have crafted, and I first offered it, John 
Ashcroft offered it, did not prevail in the early 1980s. I offered it 
back, I believe it was in 1983. It has been in effect except for 2 
years, and it has said very simply we do not want to be part of 
subsidizing either through the 70 to 73 percent of our taxpayer portion 
or as premium payers, those of us who buy our insurance, HMOs, 
whatever, we do not want to be subsidizing abortion. That is what this 
is simply all about.
  Let me remind Members that in virtually every poll, and I have a 
whole list of them here, when people are asked do they want to 
subsidize or have the government pay for abortions, the answer is 
clearly and unambiguously no.
  So I ask Members, and let me remind them there are three exceptions 
in this amendment: rape, incest and life of the mother. That has been 
the law for the last couple of years, so I do hope that Members will 
support the Hyde amendment of the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
Program. Defeat the DeLauro amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, before I address this particular amendment, I would 
like to ask the gentleman from New Jersey whether, in fact, in addition 
to opposing abortion he opposes all kinds of contraception.
  I have been working very hard with colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, Democrat and Republican, prochoice, prolife, to prevent 
unintended pregnancies. We have been working with the national campaign 
on preventing teenage pregnancy to try and promote abstinence, to 
encourage abstinence upon our young people, to encourage 
responsibility.
  Now I believe the gentleman and the Republican party, in fact, by 
disallowing my amendment, which would make the Federal employee health 
plans which are disallowing coverage of abortion also disallowing 
coverage of contraception, I believe the gentleman also does not 
believe that the majority of the American people who would like to be 
able to purchase contraceptives should be able to have contraceptives.
  So I think we are mixing up the debate here. The gentleman is talking 
about the debate next week on so-called partial-birth abortion, but, in 
fact, in this bill the gentleman does not feel we should cover 
contraception. So we are telling to all the Federal employees, ``No, we 
are not going to cover abortion, we are not going to pay for abortion, 
but you know what? We are not going to cover contraception either.''
  Now I wonder if the gentleman from New Jersey would like to tell that 
to all the constituents in his district who work for the Federal 
Government, that, no, we are not going to cover abortion, but we are 
not going to cover contraception either.
  Now it seems to me that there are five established methods of 
contraception that have been approved by the FDA. Now what we are 
saying and what we said in our amendment was that the Federal employee 
should be entitled to have those expenses covered. Now the cost of 
health care to women is 68 percent higher for women than that of a man, 
and in fact only 10 percent of the plans cover all of the forms of 
abortion, and, excuse me, cover all forms of contraception that have 
been approved. In fact, 81 percent of the plans do not cover the five 
methods of contraception.
  So, my colleagues, I am trying to figure this out. The Republican 
majority does not want to cover payment for abortion for these women 
even though the women's health care costs are 68 percent higher, but 
they do not want to pay for contraception.
  I would hope, my colleagues, we could work together to really reduce 
unintended pregnancies. Let us encourage abstinence, let us encourage 
responsibility, but it is hard to believe, and I am saying this to the 
American people, all the women out there, this party does not want to 
give us a vote on covering of contraception. Does this make any sense?
  So I speak in support of my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro's) amendment because I think that Federal 
employees with their own money that they have earned should be able to 
have abortion covered, but I also believe that Federal employees should 
be able to have the costs of contraception covered. That is only fair.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not sure where the gentlewoman got her information 
from about how the Federal Government health care plans are not 
covering contraceptives. I had my office contact the Office of 
Personnel Management, and every health care provider for Federal 
employees currently provides full prescription coverage for the

[[Page H5678]]

pill, the predominant method of choice of child-bearing age in this 
country.
  Furthermore, according to the Office of Personnel Management, over 75 
percent of all Federal employees currently have coverage which includes 
all FDA-approved methods. Now those FDA-approved methods or drugs and 
devices include the pill, the diaphragm, IUDs, Norplant, Depo-Provera 
and the morning-after abortion pill, and under the proposed amendment, 
as soon as the FDA would approve the abortion pill, the French abortion 
pill RU-486, it would also be covered. But currently 75 percent of all 
Federal employees do have coverage, so to say that they do not have 
access to contraceptives is misleading to the American public because 
they do have that opportunity now.
  Now I do agree with the gentlewoman that we should encourage 
abstinence in sexual activity, certainly for minors. Once they are age 
of adult it is a different thing, but for minors we ought to teach kids 
abstinence, but when it comes to Federal employees, they have this 
access to this coverage now.
  So I think that we should keep clear from the issue that is in this 
current amendment by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). 
She is striking the area of section 514 which says no funds 
appropriated by this act shall be available to pay for abortions.
  Now there was a reference where she said that this was not about tax 
dollars paying for abortions, but if I read this again on page 70, 
section 514, lines 18 and 19, it says no funds approved by this act 
shall be available to pay for abortions. Well, if it is not funds, not 
tax dollars, then there is no reason for the amendment because the 
amendment says that no Federal funds will pay for abortions. So I think 
there is kind of a disconnect in what was presented in the idea of this 
amendment and what the reality of the language in the legislation.
  Now there was also reference, Mr. Chairman, that the benefit package 
belongs to the employee and not the employer. Well, I think if my 
colleagues talk to every small businessman around America who is paying 
the bill for these health care packages, they believe they have 
something at stake, and if we talk to any large corporations in the 
Fortune 500, I believe that they would tell us that their benefit 
packages, that they have a stake in their benefit packages.

                              {time}  1500

  The employer has a stake in the benefit packages. So what you have 
then in the case of a Federal employee, and I think this is a case that 
is too often forgotten, Federal employees work for the people of the 
United States of America, the taxpayers. That is who employ these 
people. That is who ultimately they have to answer to. They work for 
the people of the United States of America.
  This is a democracy. We are governed by the consent of the governed. 
Our government exists according to our Declaration of Independence, our 
Nation's birthright. So I think what we should do is take the 
temperature from the employer.
  What does the employer say about using Federal tax dollars to pay for 
abortions? In overwhelming numbers, they say do not use tax dollars to 
fund abortions. Do not use tax dollars to fund abortions. Yet that is 
what the intent of this legislation is, is to legislate that we would 
use Federal tax dollars to provide someone else's abortion. I think it 
is unfortunate that that is what is going on. It goes against the 
employer, against the will of the American taxpayer. So I think that we 
ought to defeat this amendment and allow the American taxpayer to be 
free.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify this with the facts. Ten 
percent of the Federal employee health benefit plans currently do not 
cover any method of contraception, ten percent. Eighty-one percent of 
the plans cover some of the methods.
  I do not know when the gentleman last had to deal with that issue, 
but for some women the pill is better than other procedures such as the 
IUD or diaphragm. It is not up to us to tell that woman which method is 
better.
  So I think it is important to know that 81 percent of the plans do 
not cover all five of the established methods. Only 1 percent of the 
plans, I think this is important, do not cover sterilization. I think 
we owe it to women to give them a broader range of options. I think it 
is also important to know that when we are talking about contraception 
we are not talking about RU-486.
  So what we are trying to say here with regard to contraception is 
that the Federal Government should be the model employer. When it comes 
to private insurance plans, only 50 percent currently cover all five 
methods of contraception.
  So, in conclusion, I think it is very unreasonable, if we are saying 
to the American people that we are really trying to reduce unintended 
pregnancies, not to cover the cost of contraception, when women's costs 
are 68 percent higher than males', and, in fact, contraception is basic 
health care for women. In this bill, to vote not to cover abortion is 
your right, but then it seems to me the height of hypocrisy not to 
cover contraception.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a comment to my 
colleague from Kansas. The Federal Government pays Federal employees' 
salaries, as well as provides the opportunity for a benefit package. 
They pay our salary, they pay benefit packages. That is all taxpayer 
dollars. We often get into that in debate, about ``taxpayer dollars.''
  The fact of the matter is, I do not know that we are assuming that 
what we would intend to do here is to dictate to people what they could 
do with their own salaries. That is taxpayer money, as well as taxpayer 
dollars that may be involved in benefits packages.
  The gentleman helped me to make my point, which is you negotiate a 
package, salary and benefits, and we are now putting ourselves in the 
position of dictating what people do with their benefits. Not only 
that, it is not saying that. What we are only saying here is allow the 
service to be offered in a benefits package. Some offer it, some do 
not.
  My colleague, I know we have had these commentaries over a long 
period of time, would say to those of us on this side of the aisle, 
give people the choice. Allow them to select the schools they want 
their kids to go to, allow them to do what they need to do in their own 
lives. The Federal Government should stay out of their lives in choice.
  They have a range of health packages. They can then make an 
individual selection, not based on what you think, not based on what I 
think, but what, in fact, meets the needs of themselves and of their 
families.
  That is essentially what we are talking about here. Allow Federal 
workers to have that choice. Do not distinguish their benefits from 
their salary.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say there are large 
parts of the benefit package, the retirement package, and even some 
portions of the salary that are outside the control of the employee. It 
is under the guise of the employer, the taxes that are withdrawn, the 
way the retirement is invested and the health care provided. So, once 
again, they have to be subject to the employer.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. MANZULLO. It is the Republican side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The ranking minority member of the subcommittee sought 
recognition.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I spoke out of order. I intended to speak 
on the last amendment, to strike the last word. I would withdraw my 
comments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.

[[Page H5679]]

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, we confuse salary and Federal employee 
benefits, health benefits and retirement benefits.
  Let me bring this back to what this debate, from my perspective, is 
all about. First of all, I will tell my friend from Kansas that I 
presume he means that our employees are self-employed. He references 
that they work for the taxpayers, apparently not conceiving that they 
themselves are taxpayers. To that extent, I suppose they work for 
themselves. My point being that they are taxpayers, they are citizens 
of this country, and they are due equal consideration, as every other 
working American is due. It so happens, yes, they are our employees, 
but they deserve no less respect, no less integrity in their decisions, 
than any other employee.
  Now, let me tell my friend, every employee in America essentially has 
a compensation package. They may not refer to it as fancifully as that, 
but they have a compensation package. Most employees, not all, most 
have at least two components of that compensation package, salary and 
health benefits.
  We know there are a large number of employees that only have one; 
that is, the salary component. Other employees have, in addition to the 
salary and the health benefits, a retirement benefit, making it a 
three-component compensation package. But the fact of the matter is it 
is all their money, not the employer's, whether the employer be a 
public sector or private sector employer.
  For instance, General Motors. General Motors makes a contract with 
their employees, and they go and negotiate back and forth. Some 
employers used to want to have more health benefits in their package 
and less salary because they pay FICA tax on salary, and it was cheaper 
to do health costs. As health costs have escalated, they have gone to 
salary. Because health benefits are too expensive and they are going to 
HMOs, we are causing the problem we are discussing.
  The fact of the matter is that compensation package is the 
employee's. They made a deal, and they said, ``I will spend X number of 
hours using my talent and effort to accomplish the objectives you, the 
employer, want to accomplish, and in consideration for my talent and 
effort, you will compensate me with X number of dollars. Part of those 
dollars will be paid in salary. I get my check.''
  Now, if the gentleman from Kansas and the gentleman from New Jersey 
perceive those as Federal dollars, if those are Federal dollars, those 
salaries, because they are paid out of exactly the same pot that 
compensation and retirement are paid out, exactly, there is no 
distinction, if you perceive that to be Federal dollars, then the 
Federal employee, unlike every other employee, can only spend their 
dollars when they go home that they earn in salary as we tell them, as 
Big Brother, as dictator employer tells them to spend it.
  But you make an interesting distinction and say oh, well, they can 
spend their salary money, which, of course, comes out of the taxpayers' 
pocket, the way they want; but the part of their compensation package 
that we pay directly to the insurance, because we have a joint system 
in which we directly pay the insurer, which makes it cheaper for the 
employee and cheaper for the employer, so the taxpayer gets a benefit 
because we put it together, as opposed to giving it directly to the 
employee and having them purchase it discretely, individually, which 
would be a lot less efficient and therefore a lot more costly.
  I do not know why we look at Federal employees as some second-rate 
employees in America.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my 
friend from Maryland for yielding to me. I think this is the crucial 
point. Are we going to treat Federal employees, public servants of this 
country, any differently than we treat other American citizens?
  As the gentleman will recall, we played this same game with American 
servicewomen, women who are serving our country in the military, and 
this majority stripped them of the power to be able to get a safe, 
legal abortion in overseas medical clinics.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make 
is, here these women are serving our country, and, guess what? There is 
something called the Supreme Court, and it gives us our constitutional 
rights, and in those constitutional rights is the right to a legal and 
safe abortion. It is a constitutional right.
  These women are defending this country's Constitution, standing on 
the line defending the right of this country to express itself in 
freedom. Yet they themselves are being denied their constitutional 
rights. Just as that happened with the defense bill, now the majority 
is going after Federal employees.
  So it seems to me the only people in this country who are going to be 
truly denied their constitutional rights are the women who are serving 
in our Nation's military and our women who happen to be Federal 
employees.
  I would dare say, just to make this one last point, it is interesting 
here in this Congress, I enjoy seeing my colleagues snicker over here, 
because 95 percent of the women Members of this United States Congress 
support the DeLauro amendment, and we are going to say, the men in this 
House are going to decide whether women have a certain type of 
reproductive freedom or not.
  To me that sounds awfully like gender domination here. If it does not 
sound like that to you, it would be interesting if men were able to get 
pregnant and they would have the right, see whether they were going to 
stand up here and not vote for the DeLauro amendment. When you think 
about reproductive rights and you think if men had to pay this, and 
they were denied the same coverage in here, the same outrage we are 
hearing, but from the women.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I understand what the gentleman is 
saying. What I am trying to focus us on is abortion is a wrenching 
question for America. It is a wrenching question for Americans. It is a 
wrenching, traumatic issue for the individuals involved. It is a 
wrenching issue for me as a legislator. I will tell you that. I cannot 
believe I am any different than any other legislator in this body.

                              {time}  1515

  What I am saying is, that is not what this is about. It is not about 
this because Federal employees, like every American, have been 
guaranteed by the Constitution to choose something that many people 
believe ought not to be an available choice. I understand that. But 
they ought not to be treated differently because they are Federal 
employees, and that is what this is about; not about whether abortion 
is legal or illegal, not about the wrenching issues brought up by the 
gentleman from New Jersey, for whom I have a great deal of respect. It 
is about whether Federal employees will be treated differently than 
every other employee in America.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, first of all, that no 
one is questioning the integrity.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. 
Tiahrt.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that no one is 
criticizing the integrity of Federal employees. We believe that they 
are people who want to serve this country in that capacity, are good, 
wonderful people. That is not the issue here. Nor is the issue whether 
abortion is available to them.
  We have a ruling of the Supreme Court that we all live with, and 
abortions are available to Americans today, and there are health care 
plans outside

[[Page H5680]]

the Federal Government that do not pay for abortion services. This is 
not, we are not treating them separately from other parts of America.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the 
gentleman's perspective, but my point is, no other employees have that 
prescription on the purchase of their health insurance. Now, employers, 
the gentleman is correct, may choose a limited policy, I understand 
that, and the employee may have the choice of only one policy; I 
understand that. That is the compensation package available to them. 
Fortunately, in my opinion, for Federal employees, their compensation 
package is broader as it relates to Federal employee health benefits.
  The gentleman is making a distinction between all other employees and 
Federal employees and, inevitably, because of the gentleman's premise 
that the premium is being paid by taxpayer dollars as opposed to 
Federal employee dollars.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeLauro-Morella-Moran-
Greenwood-Hoyer amendment.
  The bottom line in our discussion today is simply that this amendment 
is going to prevent discrimination against Federal employees and their 
health care coverage.
  It was 3 years ago when Congress voted to deny Federal employees 
coverage for abortions that were already provided to most of the 
country's workforce through their health insurance plans. This decision 
was discriminatory then, and it was another example of Congress 
chipping away at the benefits of Federal employees and their right to 
choose an insurance plan that best meets their health care needs.
  The coverage of abortion services in Federal health plans would not 
mean that abortions would be subsidized by the Federal Government, 
which has been part of this discussion here. Currently, the government 
simply contributes to the premiums of Federal employees, and in order 
to allow them to purchase private health insurance, and this 
contribution, I want to reiterate, is part of the employee benefit 
package, just like an employee's salary or retirement benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, right now, if somebody chose to buy a plan through the 
Federal employee health benefit plan program, they could not buy it if 
it covered any abortion services. When one has this amendment in order, 
someone could choose to buy a plan that does not pay for abortion 
services. They have their choice. And this is what we are saying. We 
should not deny Federal employees from having the same choice that most 
people have in the private sector, because, currently, approximately 
two-thirds of private fee-for-service health insurance plans and 70 
percent, 70 percent of HMOs provide this coverage.
  When the ban was reinstated 3 years ago, 178 FEHBP plans, Federal 
employee health benefit plans, out of 345, offered abortion coverage. 
Women had the choice to decide whether or not to participate in the 
plan with it or without it. Thus, an employee who did not choose to 
have that kind of plan with abortion coverage could do just that. I 
want to emphasize that. But, unfortunately, Congress denied Federal 
employees their access to abortion coverage, thereby discriminating 
against them, treating them differently than the vast majority of 
private sector employees. Frankly, it is insulting to Federal employees 
that they are being told that part of their own compensation package is 
not under their control.
  Thousands of Federal employees struggle to make ends meet. Many 
Federal employees are single parents or the sole wage earners in their 
families and for them the cost of an abortion would be a significant 
hardship, interfering with a woman's constitutionally protected right 
to choose. For these women, the lack of this health coverage could 
result in delayed abortions occurring later in pregnancy, an outcome 
that nobody here wants to see.
  Mr. Chairman, approximately 1.2 million women of reproductive age 
rely on the FEHB program for their health coverage; 1.2 million women 
without access to abortion coverage. Without access, the right to 
choose is effectively denied.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro-Morella-Moran-
Greenwood-Hoyer amendment to ensure that Federal employees are once 
again provided their legal right to choose.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it very 
clear to the Members that this is a clear-cut vote on the Hyde 
amendment for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. It is 
identical in terms of its wording, in terms of its effect, the rape, 
incest and the life of the mother exceptions are included.
  Let me point out that the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) 
was saying, this is another gift, or not precisely his words, from the 
Republican majority. Well, I am very glad that my colleagues on the 
Republican side respect the value and dignity of unborn life and want 
to protect it in a tangible way, but many of our colleagues on the 
Democrat side likewise feel the unborn are worthy of respect and that 
the subsidization of their killing by way of abortion is not something 
that we can countenance.
  When we contribute, as we do, in excess of 70 percent, 73 percent of 
the money for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program comes right 
from the taxpayers. Less than a quarter of it comes from, or a little 
over a quarter comes from the premium payer. So we are talking about a 
tax-payer-funded abortion scheme.
  The Supreme Court made it very clear in upholding the Hyde amendment 
that there is a fundamental difference between abortion and all other 
types of surgeries. Surgeries and health interventions normally are 
designed to cure and to mitigate disease, to excise a cyst, unless one 
construes an unborn cyst to be a tumor or a wart to be done away with 
at will; and, again, the court that actually gave us Roe versus Wade 
when it upheld the Hyde amendment said there is a fundamental 
difference between the two.
  Let me also remind my colleagues that the Federal service labor 
management relation statute makes it very clear that there is no 
collective bargaining over health benefits. It is not permitted in this 
Federal sector, and whether we like that or not, that is the law. We 
can prescribe or proscribe certain limitations on what is permitted and 
what is not under the health benefits program. Those of us who believe 
that the unborn are worthy of respect, that chemical poisoning and 
dismemberment is an abuse of that child, it is child abuse in the 
extreme, and it exploits women, those of us who have that view I 
believe have every right to stand here and say, do not use my taxpayer 
dollars, or my premium dollars, to pay for the destruction of that 
unborn child.
  As I said earlier in the debate, there is not a single method 
employed by the abortionists that is precluded if the DeLauro amendment 
were to pass. So even partial birth abortions could be subsidized, as 
well as the suction and all of the other methods that do grotesque 
things to unborn children.
  So I urge Members to realize that, as legislators and lawmakers, I 
believe we have an affirmative obligation to the weakest and the most 
vulnerable among us, even when it is inconvenient, even when people 
stand up and say, oh, you are antiwoman or, you do not care about 
women's rights. I care about women's rights. I care for women deeply. 
But I believe that killing unborn baby girls and boys is an act of 
violence, I say that with all due respect to my friends on the other 
side, and that birth is an event that happens to all of us. It is not 
the beginning of life. And that child is deserving of respect and that, 
at the minimal, we should not be subsidizing the demise of those 
children.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, since 1995, 1.2 million federally employed women of 
child-bearing age have been denied coverage of abortion services by 
their own Federal health insurance plans. And that means that all over 
the United States these Federal employees have been denied a 
constitutional right to make the critical choices about their own 
health. More than half of the Federal health insurance plans offered 
coverage of

[[Page H5681]]

abortion services before the 1995 ban; and, currently, two-thirds of 
private health insurance plans provide abortion coverage to their 
subscribers.
  The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith) and other proponents of this provision argue that 
the Federal Government is using tax dollars to pay for Federal health 
insurance plans. We would argue that that is too much of a stretch, 
because the Federal health insurance plan is one-third of a benefit 
package that every Federal employee receives in exchange for their 
employment, for their work. The three benefits that they get are 
salary, health insurance and retirement benefits.
  Restricting health care on the basis that it is paid for with 
taxpayer dollars is the same as specifying how a Federal employee can 
use their paycheck or their retirement savings. To mandate how they can 
use that money is like telling them what they can buy when they go 
shopping. This is money that is their money. They earned it. We have no 
right to tell them after they have earned it how they can spend it.
  I heard a while ago from a constituent of mine, I will not reveal her 
name, but she was forced through an ordeal that none of us would ever 
want to face. To think that she faces this situation only because she 
chose a career as a Federal employee is unconscionable, and it should 
make us ashamed as the people charged with making decisions about the 
terms of her employment.
  After being elated to learn she was pregnant at the age of 36, my 
constituent was devastated by the information that the fetus she had 
carried had severe fetal anomalies, anomalies that her doctor termed 
``incompatible with life.'' Her physician recommended that she 
terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible. This procedure is covered 
by her insurance plan, when medically necessary, for non-Federal 
employees. Her insurance plan covers it if she was not a Federal 
employee, but only because she was a Federal employee, only because of 
the ban we imposed in 1995, she had to pay for this expensive procedure 
out of her own pocket.
  To quote from a letter, ``My husband and I question whether Congress 
is implying that we were immoral for aborting this fetus that had no 
brain and was virtually a vegetable. I was hoping to get pregnant with 
a healthy child. We were doing nothing wrong. Our decision was not 
wanton or frivolous, it was heartbreaking.''
  For some couples, this cost can be prohibitive, further endangering 
the future chances of having a healthy pregnancy by delaying it even 
further until they can get enough money together. What right do we have 
to intervene in these lives and these kinds of heartbreaking decisions, 
making these kinds of difficult, moral choices for people we do not 
know in situations that we do not understand? We have no right.
  They earned this money. They have the right to make these kinds of 
decisions. We cannot predict what complicated, heartbreaking, tragic 
circumstances these women and families confront. Who are we to make 
these kinds of moral decisions for them? It is an arrogant abuse of 
congressional power to do this kind of thing to Federal employees or to 
anyone.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to end this discriminatory 
practice of denying coverage of necessary health care on the basis of 
the fact that these people are employed by the Federal Government. 
Please vote in favor of this amendment.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. WYNN. I move to strike the requisite number of words, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro amendment, and cite my 
objections to the bill as written. On its face, this bill is 
discriminatory, and worse, it is arbitrary, because it singles out 
Federal employees for the simple reason that the majority can do it. 
They can get away with it because they control the Federal employee 
benefit package. But it is in fact discriminatory against Federal 
employees.
  What the Republicans are trying to say or what the proponents of this 
bill have tried to say is essentially this, that this is some sort of 
Federal subsidy of abortion. I respect their opinions on abortion, I 
respect the fact that they oppose abortion, but this is in no form or 
fashion a Federal subsidy. What we are talking about here is the right 
of Federal employees to use their compensation as they see fit to 
address their own health care needs in a private way.
  If these Federal employees were not employed by the Federal 
Government, if they were in the private sector, they could get 
insurance, and if they so choose, use that health insurance for an 
abortion. But because they work in the Federal sector and because folks 
on the other side of the aisle have the ability to control their health 
benefits, they are denied this right.
  Make no mistake, benefits, health benefits, are part of compensation, 
just like your salary, your wages. It is compensation for the labor you 
provide for the United States of America. In that context, when you are 
compensated for your labor, that compensation belongs to you. It is no 
longer the taxpayers', any more than your paycheck is the taxpayers'. 
The paycheck belongs to the Federal employee, the health benefits 
belong to the Federal employee, and on that basis the Federal employee 
ought to be able to use them to purchase the health care plan that they 
so desire.
  There are 1.2 million women of reproductive age under the Federal 
Employees Health Benefit Plan. They ought to have the right to purchase 
the health care that they want to. That was the case prior to 1995, 
when my colleagues on that side of the aisle chose to change the law.
  I am not here to debate the merits of abortion. That has been 
resolved by the courts. The courts have said it is a legal procedure. 
On that basis, 70 percent of private insurers offer this benefit. 
Because of that, I believe Federal employees ought to have the right to 
take advantage of that benefit as part of their compensation.
  We should not exercise the . . ., as my colleague referred to it, and 
arbitrary power to inhibit the choices of these women of childbearing 
age simply because we can. That is really all it amounts to.
  They cannot do it for the workers in the Fortune 500 companies who 
have private insurance. They cannot do it for the workers in any other 
company in this country that offer private insurance. They do it to 
Federal employees because they can do it to Federal employees. That is 
not a matter of a moral judgment on their part, that is a matter of 
discrimination . . . . It is being done because they can do it to 
Federal employees.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I 
would ask that he rephrase that. There is absolutely no arrogance. 
Rather, we are trying to manifest our----
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I believe I control the time, and I have not 
yielded.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the gentleman's 
words be taken down.
  Mr. WYNN. I control the time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. It is not an act of arrogance. I would ask 
that the gentleman's words be taken down.
  Mr. WYNN. I think the gentleman is making a very subjective argument.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has requested that the 
words of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) be taken down.
  The Clerk will report the words.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, in the interests of time and in comity, I 
withdraw the statement regarding arrogance.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Wynn) withdraws that statement.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WYNN. Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying this. It may not 
be arrogant, but it is certainly capricious, and it is certainly 
arbitrary to single out Federal employees for different treatment than 
we could give to any segment of society that happens to receive health 
insurance.
  I hope we would correct this injustice by supporting the DeLauro 
amendment.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan 
amendment. This amendment would improve basic health care for women and 
their families by providing health plans that cover abortion services.
  Women serving the Federal Government deserve just the same civil 
rights

[[Page H5682]]

as all other American women. The vast majority of American women have 
private insurance plans that cover the full range of reproductive 
health services. Men, men who work for the Federal Government, are able 
to get all the medical services that they need. But unfortunately, this 
Congress has sought to treat American women who work for the Federal 
Government as sort of second-class citizens. That is just wrong.
  We have heard today about value and dignity. I will say to the 
Members today and to my colleagues that women's lives have value and 
dignity. Let us respect them. Let us respect those women, and let us 
respect the decisions that they make about their health care.
  What we need to do is make abortion less necessary, not more 
difficult and more dangerous for Federal employees. Federal employees 
do a good day's work. They deserve to be treated as all American women 
deserve to be treated, with value, with dignity. I urge my colleagues 
to support the DeLauro-Mo- rella-Moran-Greenwood-Hoyer amend- ment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro amendment. Several 
things are clear, or ought to be clear, as we debate this amendment.
  First, there is a division in this House, as there is in the country, 
over the question of the morality of abortions between the people who 
believe in choice and the people who believe that choice should not be 
permitted to American women on this question.
  Second, it is clear that the Supreme Court has declared that the 
right of choice for women to have abortions if they wish is a 
constitutional mandate. We live with that.
  Third, it is clear that this bill, without the DeLauro amendment, 
arrogates to itself the power to tell Federal employees who are women 
that they cannot choose the abortions if they wish, that they do not 
have the choice that all other women in America have.
  The Federal Employee Health Benefits Program is a negotiated benefit 
that is part of the compensation package. To say that we will not 
permit women who are covered by that health benefit package to use 
their health benefits to pay for abortions, the government will not pay 
for it, and neither can they, through their health insurance, is the 
exact equivalent of saying that because the taxpayers pay the salaries 
of women who work for the Federal Government, we have the right, and 
the power to exercise it, to say that women who work for the Federal 
Government may not use their own salaries to pay for abortions. It is 
the same thing.
  As the gentleman from Maryland said, we are doing it because we have 
the power to do it, whereas we do not have the power under the 
Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, to say in other 
respects that women may not have the right of choice. We should not 
arrogate this power to ourselves. Someone referred to this as 
arrogance. I do not know that I would call it arrogance on the part of 
the authors of the bill, but it would be arrogance on the part of the 
United States Government if the bill passes in the form it is in.
  Let me say one other thing. The Committee on Rules protected every 
other amendment, but it did not protect from a point of order the 
provision adopted by the Committee on Appropriations, authored by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) that said that Federal employee 
health benefits must give women the choice of abortions; that a woman 
must have the ability, Federal employees, to purchase plans that will 
cover contraception.
  So now we would be saying the Federal Employee Health Benefits 
Program cannot pay for abortions because it is immoral, or we think it 
is immoral, or some people think it is immoral, and we will not permit 
it to pay for contraception to reduce the need for abortions.
  This is somewhat inconsistent. Some might even say it is little 
hypocritical. I will not say that, but some might say that. It is 
certainly inconsistent. It is certainly inconsistent. What is the 
reason for this? Again, because we can.
  Why should it not pay for contraception? Because it is immoral? Does 
this House think that birth control is immoral, because some religious 
groups think that it is against their religion? Let those adherents to 
religious groups refrain from contraception.
  Why on God's green Earth should the House of Representatives say that 
contraception should not be permitted to be paid for by the Federal 
Employee Health Benefit Program? Because Members want more abortions? 
Because we want to impose religious doctrines on the American people?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from 
New York for yielding.
  Is the gentleman aware that under the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program, contraception is provided? It is just is not 
mandated. It is totally permissible. An HMO, a Kaiser Permanente, you 
name it, if they want to provide contraception, they can.
  Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, the point, of course, is that the 
choice of contraception ought to be the employee's, not the health 
benefit corporation's. Most health benefit corporations, most health 
plans in this country, cover contraception. Most Federal employee 
health benefit plans do not. The choice, obviously, ought to be the 
purchasers, the women who are the Federal employees who need to use the 
contraception, not the HMOs or the corporation.
  Why would we not say to the corporation, if you are going to provide 
health benefits for employees, you must have a full range of health 
benefits, which normally includes contraception? Why did the Committee 
on Rules say that the provision in the bill that said so is the only 
provision in this bill not protected from a point of order because of 
lack of authorization?
  Again, I submit, it is because, well, I am not sure why people oppose 
contraception. It makes no sense. If you want fewer abortions and if 
you want women to have their rights in this country, then we should 
protect that right. So I urge the adoption of the DeLauro amendment. I 
would hope the Lowey provision can get into this bill, too.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro amendment. This 
weekend marks the 150th anniversary of the first women's rights 
convention in this country. One hundred and fifty years ago on this 
weekend, women gathered in Seneca Falls, New York, and created a 
document called the Women's Bill of Rights. Since then, we have worked 
hard to gain more freedoms and to be sure that our rights are not run 
over.
  We have come a long way since Seneca Falls, but now, in this 
Congress, I feel that we can no longer make progress. We can only fight 
to hold onto the hard-earned rights we won in prior Congresses, and in 
fact, we are losing ground for women. This Congress has acted again and 
again and again toward the gradual elimination of a woman's right to 
choose.
  Let us put this vote today in perspective. This is the 88th vote 
either to protect choice or to restore choice that we have taken in 
this body since the beginning of the 104th Congress. Two years ago 
Federal employees were prevented from getting health insurance that 
covers abortions. That was one of the first in a series of setbacks, 
and it needs to be corrected.
  This amendment gives back the right of choice to Federal employees. 
It does not require anyone to provide coverage or choose coverage for 
abortions. It simply allows an insurance company to cover abortions, 
and it allows women to choose those companies. They may still select a 
company which does not cover abortions. It is all about choice. It is 
about choice in health care, legal, safe health care. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment to give back to women, Federal 
employees, their right to choose.
  I want to just end by saying that I remember when I received my 
notice, after the Republican majority passed the law barring a woman's 
access or right to purchase abortion coverage. It was a chilling moment 
to see in writing a specific act of this Congress rolling back choice 
piece by piece for women.
  Let us restore choice. Let us vote for the DeLauro amendment.

[[Page H5683]]

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, in hopes that we can end the debate on this 
issue, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

                              {time}  1545

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a number of arguments in 
this debate today. I would just like to briefly remind my colleagues of 
a few points.
  If the language in the bill is allowed to remain, hard-working public 
servants will be unable to choose health insurance which covers legal, 
doctor-recommended abortions which are necessary to preserve a woman's 
health. If this amendment passes, no health plan will be required to 
offer abortion coverage, no one, no one will be required to choose a 
health plan which covers abortion. It will be an individual decision.
  This is not a question of taxpayer money being used to subsidize 
abortion. That is not the issue here. The health insurance premiums are 
earned by the employees of our government every single bit as much as 
their paycheck. Those premiums, just like the paycheck, belong to the 
employee, not to the Government and not to the taxpayer.
  The American Medical Association tells us that making it more 
difficult, more expensive for women to access needed abortion leads to 
more health complications for mothers. This is a question of allowing 
women to choose a health insurance plan which covers an important 
aspect of women's health. Under the language in the bill, health 
insurance plans are not permitted to cover an abortion when the doctor 
tells the patient that an abortion is needed to preserve the mother's 
health. This is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues, do not impose your 
own particular point of view on these good, hard-working public 
servants. Allow these women to choose for themselves.
  Vote to strike this provision and preserve the right of these women 
to choose.
  One final point, this is a bipartisan amendment. I thank my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for participating in this effort.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro motion to 
strike. Last night, the House Republican leadership passed a rule that 
effectively blocked the Lowey provision on contraceptive coverage for 
federal employees. Today, Ms. DeLauro is attempting to strike the 
restriction on abortion coverage for those same employees.
  This is simple logic. Federal employees should have access to a range 
of the most common methods of birth control. If we deny them access to 
contraception--the very means to preventing abortion--then the 
alternative is to provide access to abortion services.
  Nearly 50 percent of pregnancies in this country are unintended--
about 30 percent of those occur in marriages--and many of those 
unintended pregnancies will end in abortion.
  To my colleagues who are opposed to abortion, I must ask you: Why 
prevent Federal employees from having coverage of a range of 
contraceptive methods? Why not work with us, as Americans want us to 
do, to be responsible? We should have protected the contraceptive 
coverage provision in the bill--not kowtowed to the National Right to 
Life Committee and other groups that equate contraception with 
abortion. They are extreme, and Americans are tired of their extremism. 
They, like many of us, are tired of this debate.
  Americans want us to work together on solutions. Contraception works. 
It prevents the need for abortion. We failed the American people last 
night--let's not repeat that mistake today. Support the DeLauro motion 
to strike the abortion coverage restrictions. It's the responsible 
thing to do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 498, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 515. The provision of section 514 shall not apply 
     where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus 
     were carried to term, or the pregnancy is the result of an 
     act of rape or incest.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 515 
on the grounds that it constitutes legislation on an appropriations 
bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order the gentleman is raising?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to remind Members that 
this is the rape, incest, life of the mother exception that the 
distinguished gentleman is striking with the point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, are we taking editorials on points of order?
  The CHAIRMAN. Section 515 has, in fact, been held to constitute 
legislation on an appropriations bill, and for that reason the point of 
order is sustained. Section 515 stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 516. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be expended by the Office of Personnel Management to 
     enter into or renew any contract under section 8902 of title 
     5, United States Code, for a health benefits plan--
       (1) which provides coverage for prescription drugs, unless 
     such plan also provides equivalent coverage for all 
     prescription contraceptive drugs or devices approved by the 
     Food and Drug Administration, or generic equivalents approved 
     as substitutable by the Food and Drug Administration; or
       (2) which provides benefits for outpatient services 
     provided by a health care professional, unless such plan also 
     provides equivalent benefits for outpatient contraceptive 
     services.
       (b) For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``contraceptive drug or device'' means a drug 
     or device intended for preventing pregnancy; and
       (2) the term ``outpatient contraceptive services'' means 
     consultations, examinations, procedures, and medical 
     services, provided on an outpatient basis and related to the 
     use of contraceptive methods (including natural family 
     planning) to prevent pregnancy.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order against section 
516 of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this provision violates clause 2 of House 
rule XXI which prohibits of authorization on an appropriations bill, 
and I ask that the provision be stricken from the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, it is shameful and outrageous that this 
provision is being removed from the bill. It is shameful and outrageous 
that the Republican leadership will not allow an open and honest debate 
on the issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) would 
confine her remarks to the point of order being raised, the Chair would 
be appreciative.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, it is shameful and outrageous that over a 
million women covered by the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program 
will not be covered for the payment of contraception.
  The CHAIRMAN. Any other Member wishing to the heard on the point of 
order?
  The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) makes a point of order that 
section 516 of the bill proposes to change existing law in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI. The provision is in the form of a limitation; 
that is, it proposes a negative restriction on funds in the bill for a 
specified object. That object is the entry or renewal of a contract 
lacking specified terms.
  One such term is for the provision of benefits for outpatient 
contraceptive services that are equivalent to any benefits provided for 
outpatient services provided by a health care professional. As recorded 
in Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section 52,

[[Page H5684]]

even though an amendment in the form of a negative restriction on funds 
in the bill might refrain from explicitly assigning new duties to 
officers of the government, if the putative limitation ``implicitly 
requires them to make investigations, compile evidence, or make 
judgments and determinations not otherwise required other than by 
law,'' then it assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a 
point of order under clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The proponent of a limitation, in this instance, the bill originated 
by the Committee on Appropriations, assumes the burden of proving that 
any duties imposed by the provision are merely ministerial or are 
already required by law. The Chair, in this instance, must focus on the 
implicit requirement in section 516 that the officials who administer 
the contracts in question must judge the ``equivalence'' of benefits 
between specified classes of outpatient services. Absent a showing that 
those officials are already charged with that responsibility or 
possessed of that information under current law, the Chair is 
constrained to conclude that section 516 proposes to change existing 
law by imposing a new duty or requiring a new determination in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                Departments, Agencies, and Corporations

       Sec. 601. Funds appropriated in this or any other Act may 
     be used to pay travel to the United States for the immediate 
     family of employees serving abroad in cases of death or life 
     threatening illness of said employee.
       Sec. 602. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any 
     other Act for fiscal year 1999 shall obligate or expend any 
     such funds, unless such department, agencies, or 
     instrumentality has in place, and will continue to administer 
     in good faith, a written policy designed to ensure that all 
     of its workplaces are free from the illegal use, possession, 
     or distribution of controlled substances (as defined in the 
     Controlled Substances Act) by the officers and employees of 
     such department, agency, or instrumentality.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 602 
for the same reason that I cited earlier.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, section 602 applies to funds appropriated in other acts and 
imposes additional duties on Federal officials in violation of clause 2 
of rule XXI. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 603. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1345, any agency, 
     department, or instrumentality of the United States which 
     provides or proposes to provide child care services for 
     Federal employees may, in fiscal year 1999 and thereafter, 
     reimburse any Federal employee or any person employed to 
     provide such services for travel, transportation, and 
     subsistence expenses incurred for training classes, 
     conferences, or other meetings in connection with the 
     provision of such services: Provided, That any per diem 
     allowance made pursuant to this section shall not exceed the 
     rate specified in regulations prescribed pursuant to section 
     5707 of title 5, United States Code.
       Sec. 604. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the 
     maximum amount allowable during the current fiscal year in 
     accordance with section 16 of the Act of August 2, 1946 (60 
     Stat. 810), for the purchase of any passenger motor vehicle 
     (exclusive of buses, ambulances, law enforcement, and 
     undercover surveillance vehicles), is hereby fixed at $8,100 
     except station wagons for which the maximum shall be $9,100: 
     Provided, That these limits may be exceeded by not to exceed 
     $3,700 for police-type vehicles, and by not to exceed $4,000 
     for special heavy-duty vehicles: Provided further, That the 
     limits set forth in this section may not be exceeded by more 
     than 5 percent for electric or hybrid vehicles purchased for 
     demonstration under the provisions of the Electric and Hybrid 
     Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976: 
     Provided further, That the limits set forth in this section 
     may be exceeded by the incremental cost of clean alternative 
     fuels vehicles acquired pursuant to Public Law 101-549 over 
     the cost of comparable conventionally fueled vehicles.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 604 
for the same reasons cited previously.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other Member wishing to be heard on the 
point of order being raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin? If not, 
the Chair is prepared to rule.
  As the Chair ruled on June 18, 1991, this provision constitutes 
legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of clause 2 of rule 
XXI. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 605. Appropriations of the executive departments and 
     independent establishments for the current fiscal year 
     available for expenses of travel, or for the expenses of the 
     activity concerned, are hereby made available for quarters 
     allowances and cost-of-living allowances, in accordance with 
     5 U.S.C. 5922-5924.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 605 
for the same reason.
  The CHAIRMAN. As the Chair ruled on June 18, 1991, this provision 
constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of clause 
2 of rule XXI. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained. The 
section is stricken.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 606. Unless otherwise specified during the current 
     fiscal year, no part of any appropriation contained in this 
     or any other Act shall be used to pay the compensation of any 
     officer or employee of the Government of the United States 
     (including any agency the majority of the stock of which is 
     owned by the Government of the United States) whose post of 
     duty is in the continental United States unless such person 
     (1) is a citizen of the United States; (2) is a person in the 
     service of the United States on the date of enactment of this 
     Act who, being eligible for citizenship, has filed a 
     declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United 
     States prior to such date and is actually residing in the 
     United States; (3) is a person who owes allegiance to the 
     United States; (4) is an alien from Cuba, Poland, South 
     Vietnam, the countries of the former Soviet Union, or the 
     Baltic countries lawfully admitted to the United States for 
     permanent residence; (5) is a South Vietnamese, Cambodian, or 
     Laotian refugee paroled in the United States after January 1, 
     1975; or (6) is a national of the People's Republic of China 
     who qualifies for adjustment of status pursuant to the 
     Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992: Provided, That for 
     the purpose of this section, an affidavit signed by any such 
     person shall be considered prima facie evidence that the 
     requirements of this section with respect to his or her 
     status have been complied with: Provided further, That any 
     person making a false affidavit shall be guilty of a felony, 
     and, upon conviction, shall be fined no more than $4,000 or 
     imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both: Provided 
     further, That the above penal clause shall be in addition to, 
     and not in substitution for, any other provisions of existing 
     law: Provided further, That any payment made to any officer 
     or employee contrary to the provisions of this section shall 
     be recoverable in action by the Federal Government. This 
     section shall not apply to citizens of Ireland, Israel, or 
     the Republic of the Philippines, or to nationals of those 
     countries allied with the United States in a current defense 
     effort, or to international broadcasters employed by the 
     United States Information Agency, or to temporary employment 
     of translators, or to temporary employment in the field 
     service (not to exceed 60 days) as a result of emergencies.
       Sec. 607. Appropriations available to any department or 
     agency during the current fiscal year for necessary expenses, 
     including maintenance or operating expenses, shall also be 
     available for payment to the General Services Administration 
     for charges for space and services and those expenses of 
     renovation and alteration of buildings and facilities which 
     constitute public improvements performed in accordance with 
     the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (73 Stat. 749), the Public 
     Buildings Amendments of 1972 (87 Stat. 216), or other 
     applicable law.
       Sec. 608. In addition to funds provided in this or any 
     other Act, all Federal agencies are authorized to receive and 
     use funds resulting from the sale of materials, including 
     Federal records disposed of pursuant to a records schedule 
     recovered through recycling or waste prevention programs. 
     Such funds shall be available until expended for the 
     following purposes:
       (1) Acquisition, waste reduction and prevention, and 
     recycling programs as described in Executive Order No. 12873 
     (October 20, 1993), including any such programs adopted prior 
     to the effective date of the Executive order.
       (2) Other Federal agency environmental management programs, 
     including, but not limited to, the development and 
     implementation of hazardous waste management and pollution 
     prevention programs.
       (3) Other employee programs as authorized by law or as 
     deemed appropriate by the head of the Federal agency.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 608 
for the same reason cited before.
  The CHAIRMAN. For the same reasons and, accordingly, as has been 
stated repeatedly, under the precedent that was established on June 18, 
1991, the provision does constitute legislation on

[[Page H5685]]

an appropriation bill. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 609. Funds made available by this or any other Act for 
     administrative expenses in the current fiscal year of the 
     corporations and agencies subject to chapter 91 of title 31, 
     United States Code, shall be available, in addition to 
     objects for which such funds are otherwise available, for 
     rent in the District of Columbia; services in accordance with 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; and the objects specified under this head, all 
     the provisions of which shall be applicable to the 
     expenditure of such funds unless otherwise specified in the 
     Act by which they are made available: Provided, That in the 
     event any functions budgeted as administrative expenses are 
     subsequently transferred to or paid from other funds, the 
     limitations on administrative expenses shall be 
     correspondingly reduced.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against this section 
on the same grounds as cited earlier.
  The CHAIRMAN. Once again, a June 18, 1991 precedent has been 
established on this language and this constitutes legislation on an 
appropriation bill.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 610. No part of any appropriation for the current 
     fiscal year contained in this or any other Act shall be paid 
     to any person for the filling of any position for which he or 
     she has been nominated after the Senate has voted not to 
     approve the nomination of said person.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 610 
for the same reason.
  The CHAIRMAN. As has been stated, June 18, 1991, the precedent has 
been established. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained, and 
this section will be stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 611. No part of any appropriation contained in this or 
     any other Act shall be available for interagency financing of 
     boards (except Federal Executive Boards), commissions, 
     councils, committees, or similar groups (whether or not they 
     are interagency entities) which do not have a prior and 
     specific statutory approval to receive financial support from 
     more than one agency or instrumentality.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 611 
for the same reason as previously cited.
  The CHAIRMAN. According to a precedent of June 18, 1991, the point of 
order is sustained, and this section of the bill will be stricken from 
the Record.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 612. Funds made available by this or any other Act to 
     the Postal Service Fund (39 U.S.C. 2003) shall be available 
     for employment of guards for all buildings and areas owned or 
     occupied by the Postal Service and under the charge and 
     control of the Postal Service, and such guards shall have, 
     with respect to such property, the powers of special 
     policemen provided by the first section of the Act of June 1, 
     1948, as amended (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318), and, as to 
     property owned or occupied by the Postal Service, the 
     Postmaster General may take the same actions as the 
     Administrator of General Services may take under the 
     provisions of sections 2 and 3 of the Act of June 1, 1948, as 
     amended (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318a and 318b), attaching 
     thereto penal consequences under the authority and within the 
     limits provided in section 4 of the Act of June 1, 1948, as 
     amended (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318c).
       Sec. 613. None of the funds made available pursuant to the 
     provisions of this Act shall be used to implement, 
     administer, or enforce any regulation which has been 
     disapproved pursuant to a resolution of disapproval duly 
     adopted in accordance with the applicable law of the United 
     States.
       Sec. 614. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     and except as otherwise provided in this section, no part of 
     any of the funds appropriated for fiscal year 1999 by this or 
     any other Act, may be used to pay any prevailing rate 
     employee described in section 5342(a)(2)(A) of title 5, 
     United States Code--
       (1) during the period from the date of expiration of the 
     limitation imposed by section 614 of the Treasury, Postal 
     Service and General Government Appropriations Act, 1998, 
     until the normal effective date of the applicable wage survey 
     adjustment that is to take effect in fiscal year 1999, in an 
     amount that exceeds the rate payable for the applicable grade 
     and step of the applicable wage schedule in accordance with 
     such section 614; and
       (2) during the period consisting of the remainder of fiscal 
     year 1999, in an amount that exceeds, as a result of a wage 
     survey adjustment, the rate payable under paragraph (1) by 
     more than the sum of--
       (A) the percentage adjustment taking effect in fiscal year 
     1999 under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, in 
     the rates of pay under the General Schedule; and
       (B) the difference between the overall average percentage 
     of the locality-based comparability payments taking effect in 
     fiscal year 1999 under section 5304 of such title (whether by 
     adjustment or otherwise), and the overall average percentage 
     of such payments which was effective in fiscal year 1998 
     under such section.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     prevailing rate employee described in subparagraph (B) or (C) 
     of section 5342(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code, and no 
     employee covered by section 5348 of such title, may be paid 
     during the periods for which subsection (a) is in effect at a 
     rate that exceeds the rates that would be payable under 
     subsection (a) were subsection (a) applicable to such 
     employee.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the rates payable to 
     an employee who is covered by this section and who is paid 
     from a schedule not in existence on September 30, 1998, shall 
     be determined under regulations prescribed by the Office of 
     Personnel Management.
       (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rates of 
     premium pay for employees subject to this section may not be 
     changed from the rates in effect on September 30, 1998, 
     except to the extent determined by the Office of Personnel 
     Management to be consistent with the purpose of this section.
       (e) This section shall apply with respect to pay for 
     service performed after September 30, 1998.
       (f) For the purpose of administering any provision of law 
     (including section 8431 of title 5, United States Code, and 
     any rule or regulation that provides premium pay, retirement, 
     life insurance, or any other employee benefit) that requires 
     any deduction or contribution, or that imposes any 
     requirement or limitation on the basis of a rate of salary or 
     basic pay, the rate of salary or basic pay payable after the 
     application of this section shall be treated as the rate of 
     salary or basic pay.
       (g) Nothing in this section shall be considered to permit 
     or require the payment to any employee covered by this 
     section at a rate in excess of the rate that would be payable 
     were this section not in effect.
       (h) The Office of Personnel Management may provide for 
     exceptions to the limitations imposed by this section if the 
     Office determines that such exceptions are necessary to 
     ensure the recruitment or retention of qualified employees.
       Sec. 615. During the period in which the head of any 
     department or agency, or any other officer or civilian 
     employee of the Government appointed by the President of the 
     United States, holds office, no funds may be obligated or 
     expended in excess of $5,000 to furnish or redecorate the 
     office of such department head, agency head, officer, or 
     employee, or to purchase furniture or make improvements for 
     any such office, unless advance notice of such furnishing or 
     redecoration is expressly approved by the Committees on 
     Appropriations. For the purposes of this section, the term 
     ``office'' includes the entire suite of offices assigned to 
     the individual, as well as any other space used primarily by 
     the individual or the use of which is directly controlled by 
     the individual.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 615 
for reasons previously cited.
  The CHAIRMAN. As the Chair has ruled on June 18, 1991, the precedent 
has been established and this constitutes legislation on an 
appropriation bill. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained, and 
this section will be stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 616. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     executive branch agency shall purchase, construct, and/or 
     lease any additional facilities, except within or contiguous 
     to existing locations, to be used for the purpose of 
     conducting Federal law enforcement training without the 
     advance approval of the Committees on Appropriations.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 616 
for reasons previously cited.
  The CHAIRMAN. Any other Member wishing to be heard on the point of 
order raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin? If not, the Chair is 
prepared to rule.
  This section waives existing law and constitutes legislation on an 
appropriation bill. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained and 
this section will be stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 617. Notwithstanding section 1346 of title 31, United 
     States Code, or section 611 of this Act, funds made available 
     for fiscal year 1999 by this or any other Act shall be 
     available for the interagency funding of national security 
     and emergency preparedness telecommunications initiatives 
     which benefit multiple Federal departments, agencies, or 
     entities, as provided by Executive Order No. 12472 (April 3, 
     1984).


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 617 
for reasons previously cited.

[[Page H5686]]

  The CHAIRMAN. According to the precedent set on June 18, 1991, the 
point of order is sustained. This section will be, therefore, stricken 
from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 618. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this or any 
     other Act may be obligated or expended by any Federal 
     department, agency, or other instrumentality for the salaries 
     or expenses of any employee appointed to a position of a 
     confidential or policy-determining character excepted from 
     the competitive service pursuant to section 3302 of title 5, 
     United States Code, without a certification to the Office of 
     Personnel Management from the head of the Federal department, 
     agency, or other instrumentality employing the Schedule C 
     appointee that the Schedule C position was not created solely 
     or primarily in order to detail the employee to the White 
     House.
       (b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to 
     Federal employees or members of the armed services detailed 
     to or from--
       (1) the Central Intelligence Agency;
       (2) the National Security Agency;
       (3) the Defense Intelligence Agency;
       (4) the offices within the Department of Defense for the 
     collection of specialized national foreign intelligence 
     through reconnaissance programs;
       (5) the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the 
     Department of State;
       (6) any agency, office, or unit of the Army, Navy, Air 
     Force, and Marine Corps, the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     and the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department of 
     Justice, the Department of Transportation, the Department of 
     the Treasury, and the Department of Energy performing 
     intelligence functions; and
       (7) the Director of Central Intelligence.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 618 
for the same reasons.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Section 618 applies to funds appropriated in other acts and imposes 
additional duties on Federal officials in violation of clause 2 of rule 
XXI. Therefore, the point of order is sustained, and that section will 
be stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 619. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any 
     other Act for fiscal year 1999 shall obligate or expend any 
     such funds, unless such department, agency, or 
     instrumentality has in place, and will continue to administer 
     in good faith, a written policy designed to ensure that all 
     of its workplaces are free from discrimination and sexual 
     harassment and that all of its workplaces are not in 
     violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 
     amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 
     and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
       Sec. 620. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act may be used to pay for the expenses of travel of 
     employees, including employees of the Executive Office of the 
     President, not directly responsible for the discharge of 
     official governmental tasks and duties: Provided, That this 
     restriction shall not apply to the family of the President, 
     Members of Congress or their spouses, Heads of State of a 
     foreign country or their designees, persons providing 
     assistance to the President for official purposes, or other 
     individuals so designated by the President.
       Sec. 621. Notwithstanding any provision of law, the 
     President, or his designee, shall certify to Congress, 
     annually, that no person or persons with direct or indirect 
     responsibility for administering the Executive Office of the 
     President's Drug-Free Workplace Plan are themselves subject 
     to a program of individual random drug testing.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 621 
for reasons previously cited.
  The CHAIRMAN. Any other Member wishing to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair finds that section 621 explicitly supersedes other 
law. Section 621, therefore, constitutes legislation. The point of 
order is sustained, and that section is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 622. No funds appropriated in this or any other Act 
     for fiscal year 1999 may be used to implement or enforce the 
     agreements in Standard Forms 312 and 4355 of the Government 
     or any other nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement if such 
     policy, form, or agreement does not contain the following 
     provisions: ``These restrictions are consistent with and do 
     not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee 
     obligations, rights, or liabilities created by Executive 
     Order No. 12356; section 7211 of title 5, United States Code 
     (governing disclosures to Congress); section 1034 of title 
     10, United States Code, as amended by the Military 
     Whistleblower Protection Act (governing disclosure to 
     Congress by members of the military); section 2302(b)(8) of 
     title 5, United States Code, as amended by the Whistleblower 
     Protection Act (governing disclosures of illegality, waste, 
     fraud, abuse or public health or safety threats); the 
     Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 
     et seq.) (governing disclosures that could expose 
     confidential Government agents); and the statutes which 
     protect against disclosure that may compromise the national 
     security, including sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 of 
     title 18, United States Code, and section 4(b) of the 
     Subversive Activities Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)). The 
     definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, 
     and liabilities created by said Executive order and listed 
     statutes are incorporated into this agreement and are 
     controlling.'': Provided, That notwithstanding the preceding 
     paragraph, a nondisclosure policy form or agreement that is 
     to be executed by a person connected with the conduct of an 
     intelligence or intelligence-related activity, other than an 
     employee or officer of the United States Government, may 
     contain provisions appropriate to the particular activity for 
     which such document is to be used. Such form or agreement 
     shall, at a minimum, require that the person will not 
     disclose any classified information received in the course of 
     such activity unless specifically authorized to do so by the 
     United States Government. Such nondisclosure forms shall also 
     make it clear that they do not bar disclosures to Congress or 
     to an authorized official of an executive agency or the 
     Department of Justice that are essential to reporting a 
     substantial violation of law.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I again make a point of order against section 
622 on grounds that it, indeed, constitutes legislation on an 
appropriation bill and violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that section 622 addresses funds in other acts. 
Section 622, therefore, does, as the gentleman has stated, constitute 
legislation. The point of order is sustained, and this section will be 
stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.

                              {time}  1600

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 623. No part of any funds appropriated in this or any 
     other Act shall be used by an agency of the executive branch, 
     other than for normal and recognized executive-legislative 
     relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for 
     the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet, 
     booklet, publication, radio, television or film presentation 
     designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the 
     Congress, except in presentation to the Congress itself.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 623 
for reasons previously cited.
  The CHAIRMAN. As was just stated, the Chair rules that this addresses 
funds in other acts, and section 623, therefore, does constitute 
legislation. The point of order is sustained and this portion will be 
stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 624. (a) In General.--No later than September 30, 
     1999, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     shall submit to the Congress a report that provides--
       (1) estimates of the total annual costs and benefits of 
     Federal regulatory programs, including quantitative and 
     nonquantitative measures of regulatory costs and benefits;
       (2) estimates of the costs and benefits (including 
     quantitative and nonquantitative measures) of each rule that 
     is likely to have a gross annual effect on the economy of 
     $100,000,000 or more in increased costs;
       (3) an assessment of the direct and indirect impacts of 
     Federal rules on the private sector, State and local 
     government, and the Federal Government; and
       (4) recommendations from the Director and a description of 
     significant public comments to reform or eliminate any 
     Federal regulatory program or program element that is 
     inefficient, ineffective, or is not a sound use of the 
     Nation's resources.
       (b) Notice.--The Director shall provide public notice and 
     an opportunity to comment on the report under subsection (a) 
     before the report is issued in final form.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 624 
for the same reasons.
  The CHAIRMAN. Any other Members wishing to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair finds that section 624 includes language imparting 
direction. Section 624, therefore, constitutes legislation. The point 
of order is sustained and the provision will be stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 625. None of the funds appropriated by this or any 
     other Act, may be used by an

[[Page H5687]]

     agency to provide a Federal employee's home address to any 
     labor organization, unless the employee has authorized such 
     disclosure or such disclosure has been ordered by a court of 
     competent jurisdiction.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 625 
for reasons previously cited.
  The CHAIRMAN. Any other Members wishing to be heard?
  If not, the Chair finds that section 625 addresses funds in other 
acts. Section 625, therefore, constitutes legislation. The point of 
order is sustained and this portion will be stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 626. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to 
     establish scientific certification standards for explosives 
     detection canines, and shall provide, on a reimbursable 
     basis, for the certification of explosives detection canines 
     employed by Federal agencies, or other agencies providing 
     explosives detection services at airports in the United 
     States.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 626 
for the same reasons.
  The CHAIRMAN. Any other Members wishing to be heard?
  If not, the Chair finds that section 626 includes language conferring 
authority. Section 626, therefore, constitutes legislation. The point 
of order is sustained. The provision is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 627. None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act may be used to provide any non-public information 
     such as mailing or telephone lists to any person or any 
     organization outside of the Federal Government without the 
     approval of the Committees on Appropriations.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 627 
for reasons previously cited.
  The CHAIRMAN. Any Members wishing to be heard on the point of order?
  If not, the Chair finds that section 627 addresses funds in other 
acts and, therefore, section 627 constitutes legislation. The point of 
order is sustained and that provision will be stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 628. For purposes of each provision of law amended by 
     section 704(a)(2) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 U.S.C. 
     5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, 
     United States Code, shall be considered to have taken effect 
     in fiscal year 1999 in the rates of basic pay for the 
     statutory pay systems.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefner

  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hefner:
       On page 89, beginning on line 12, strike Section 628 in its 
     entirety.

  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, last evening we had a very contentious 
debate on the previous question and on the rule on this legislation. It 
was pretty much of a stretch, but we had something that was passed out 
to Members from the National Republican Congressional Committee, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), to Democrats, saying:
  ``We will be watching whether you vote to increase your own pay. 
National Republican Congressional Committee chairman John Linder issued 
a strong warning to House Democrats: We will be watching how you vote 
tonight on the Treasury, Postal Service appropriation rule. Linder said 
anyone voting against a procedural motion is unequivocally voting to 
give themselves a pay raise. A raise, Linder noted, would not be taken 
well by constituents, too many of whom are juggling two jobs trying to 
make ends meet. If Democrats want to block this motion so they can get 
a raise, so be it, but tomorrow I guarantee every newspaper in their 
district will know about it.''
  Now, I understand politics pretty good. I have been here some 24 
years, and pay has always been a contentious issue in this body. We 
thought we had solved the problem a few years ago when we set in place 
a procedure that says we would get a cost of living like every other 
Federal employee. And when we had the last substantial pay raise, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Newt Gingrich) and Mr. Bob Michel stood in 
this well before the Democratic caucus and said, look, if everyone will 
all support this pay raise, it will not be a political issue; we will 
not bring it up in the elections. And guess what? Two weeks later, in 
my district, they were accusing me of being a big spender. But that is 
another story.
  If we can make the stretch that voting for a procedural motion could 
be perceived as voting for a pay raise, I think it is only fair and 
fitting that Members in this House have a chance to express themselves 
as to whether they want to accept the raise, a cost of living raise 
that is in the bill, and take this section out of the bill. Then we 
will have the same stretch that we can make from the handout of the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) that we had voted against a pay 
raise.
  It is unfortunate that these kind of things take place in political 
campaigns. This, I would not say was hypocritical, but I would say that 
it is absolutely intellectually dishonest.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out another couple of things 
here. Last year the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) voted for the 
conference report, which contained, incidentally, our cost of living 
last year. But he voted against the original bill. So he could have it 
both ways: He could be for it and against it.
  So I think the Members should be entitled to have a vote on taking 
this portion out of this bill, where they can let people know where 
they stand on a pay raise. It is unfortunate that this has to be, with 
all the things that we are confronted with, that people have to 
apologize for what they are paid by the American people when we preside 
over the biggest corporation in the world. And we get paid far less 
than rock-and-roll performers, baseball players, or soccer players.
  It is unfortunate that this has to be a political football but, Mr. 
Chairman, I would urge Members to vote for my amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the sentiments expressed by the gentleman 
from North Carolina. The gentleman from Maryland and I and others on 
both sides of the aisle in this body have worked very hard over the 
last couple of years to try to depoliticize the issue of Members' pay. 
This body did that, as a matter of fact, several years ago when we 
established a procedure whereby the increases, the cost of living 
adjustments in the salaries received by Members of this body, would be 
tied to that of other Federal employees, but with half a percent less 
than they would get. So we would never get the same amount as another 
Federal employee was getting.
  The idea was to take it out of the process of forcing us to have 
votes on this one at a time, to have the gut-wrenching vote as to 
whether or not we should receive a pay increase. That process was 
established in law and we had, I believe, every hope that that process 
would work. Unfortunately, Members have realized that the rules of this 
House permit other ways of getting at a vote on the Members' pay raise, 
even when there is not really an increase in the pay; that we are 
talking simply about a cost of living adjustment.
  So we have had this process, unfortunately, on this bill for too many 
years. It does not really belong at all on this legislation. We have 
had this provision added in on several years which would prevent 
Members from receiving the cost of living adjustment that other Federal 
employees have gotten.
  In the strongest possible terms I deplore the use of this issue by 
anybody on either side of the aisle. Members ought to be allowed to 
consider this in the least politically obtrusive way possible. We ought 
to be able to consider this on its merits. Unfortunately, when we have 
Members and it has happened, I would remind the gentleman from North 
Carolina, on both sides of the aisle in the past who have attacked the 
cost of living adjustment for Members, it becomes, especially in an 
election year, a very difficult issue for Members to withstand what 
they perceive to be the heat that they will receive at home on this 
issue.
  Therefore, this year, it was very clear from the statements that had 
been made in both the House and the Senate that there was going to be 
an

[[Page H5688]]

effort made to make sure that Members did not get a cost of living 
adjustment. It was the decision of the subcommittee that we simply put 
that decision into the bill before it got to the floor of the House. 
And that is why we see this provision in the legislation, and that is 
why the rule, which was adopted last night, protects this particular 
provision.
  I wish that we did not have to go through this debate. I wish we did 
not have to have this kind of provision in the legislation but, 
nonetheless, it is there. It is, I think, the decision of the 
leadership on both sides of the aisle that we will not subject the 
Members to a vote on a cost of living adjustment, and I would certainly 
urge my colleagues to vote against the gentleman's amendment and leave 
this provision intact in the legislation when it leaves the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I share the disdain of the gentleman from North 
Carolina for the scurrilous press release, the totally misleading press 
release which was issued last night by the Republican Congressional 
Campaign Committee. Everyone knows that the issue on the rule had 
nothing whatsoever to do with the congressional cost of living. It had 
everything to do with our disagreement about the abandoning of the 
effort to treat as an emergency the Year 2000 computer problems faced 
by virtually every agency of government, and it had everything to do 
with the decision of the Committee on Rules to, in effect, knock out 
the Lowey amendment on family planning.
  I make no apology for the fact that the law provides that under 
normal circumstances, Members of Congress are entitled to a cost of 
living adjustment in their pay on an annual basis, minus one-half 
percent below the amount that has been given to other workers in this 
society in the previous year. That is what the formula provides. That 
formula provides that Members' salaries will be whatever private sector 
workers have received in the previous year minus one-half percent. That 
is simply a short COLA. I make no apology for that. I think that is a 
rational approach.
  But to make clear how phony that press release was, I would urge 
Members to vote against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
North Carolina. I appreciate the fact that he has given us the 
opportunity to make clear that that press release last night was 
totally off base and totally scurrilous, but I would simply say that 
those Members who are truly concerned about trying to prevent a COLA 
from taking place for Members, now is their chance; they can vote 
against this amendment and they will accomplish that fact.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe) is one of the fairest in this Congress. I want to go on record 
saying that. But when he says the leadership made an agreement, the 
leadership went back on their agreement when they put out this press 
release threatening people that they are going to go to their local 
newspapers and say they voted for a pay raise when the pay raise was in 
the entire bill.
  Let me urge my colleagues, if they want to vote against a pay raise, 
they should vote against my amendment. But if they think they are worth 
the money, and they think they are doing the business for their 
constituents, they should vote for my amendment. Those that we are 
talking about, that want to be on record as voting against a pay raise, 
they should vote against my amendment.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say, this reminds me of an 
event that occurred a number of years ago when we were asked by the 
Reagan administration to vote for the IMF increase on this side of the 
aisle; and when we did, the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee 
then demagogued us and put out press releases attacking us for doing 
what the leader of their party asked us to do. I think the press 
release last night was just as unfair.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, to correct one thing that the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) said I think in interpreting my remarks, my 
comment about the leadership agreement applied to the agreement that we 
reached last year.
  There was an attempt made to reach an agreement this year on the 
issue of the COLA. Since it was not reached, we agreed to put in the 
prohibition. There was no other agreement beyond that about what would 
or would not be said this year by anybody on the other side.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would simply again urge 
Members to make the situation and to make the facts as opposed to the 
propaganda perfectly clear, that we vote against the Hefner amendment. 
I thank the gentleman for offering it, and I thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee for accurately stating the situation.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) 
for offering this amendment. My experience has been, in the some 30-
plus years that I have been in public office, that the constituents 
with whom I deal hate most hypocrisy. They can disagree with me from 
time to time, and they do, but it is when they know, and hopefully it 
does not happen very often, hopefully never, that I am saying something 
that I do not believe, that I am voting a way I do not act.
  In 1989, this body, in a bipartisan way, with the leadership of the 
present Speaker, the then Speaker Tom Foley, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), many 
others, Mr. Michael in particular, I think even the presiding officer 
presently came together and said that we need to have a system that we 
believe is fair and the public will believe is fair.
  We, at that point in time, for those Members who are new and do not 
recall, could take 30 percent of our salary from private-sector 
interests to enhance our salary. It was called honoraria.
  I did not think that was right. This body did not think it was right 
and good policy. And we changed that. And in changing that, we said, we 
are going to set in place a system that will attempt to fairly reflect 
a salary that will, in effect, stay level. Because that is what cost of 
living is, of course, staying level, staying even. So that costs 
increase and salaries increase across the board, we escalate Social 
Security by a cost-of-living adjustment so that the value of the 
receipt of Social Security is approximately the same.
  And so we did that. But as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
has correctly pointed out, we said that we are going to take the 
economic cost index, ECI, the private-sector wage information, 
determine what that average salary increase is, and we will then deduct 
half a point from that so that we will be getting less than that 
average in the private sector and adjust our salaries by that number.
  Now, is it a raise? Yes, of course it is an increase. But is it a 
real raise? No, it is not. It is a staying even with the economy. That 
was, in my opinion, an honest, rational, common-sense approach. Members 
voted on that reform on this floor in public on the record at 4 in the 
afternoon, full light of day. And we did it before an election. And we 
said that that would not go into effect until we were reelected. In 
other words, we did not take it at that point in time.
  And, in fact, I believe that every Member who sought re-election that 
was reelected, or even defeated, was not done so because of that 
provision. That is to say, citizens understood that. They thought it 
was fair. In fact, they thought it was reform and common cause, and 
many other citizens organizations endorsed it.
  Now, for a number of years after passing that, we did in fact follow 
without debates; and if Federal employees and if private sector got a 
cost-of-living adjustment, we got a cost-of-living adjustment. It was 
not a controversial item among the citizens in America. They understand 
that that is

[[Page H5689]]

what, for the most part, they would like in their jobs and, for the 
most part, they get in their jobs.
  We have, however, always been inclined to demagogue the institution 
and demagogue one another on institutional issues. That is a shame. It 
is a shame because it brings disrespect on this institution and 
disrespect on the individual Members.
  Now, is that bad for the individuals? Of course. But, much worse, it 
is bad for America to lose faith and trust in its Members, who somehow 
give the impression that they are taking something that is either 
undeserved or unearned.
  I would hope that every Member on the majority side, as I will tell 
my colleagues on my side, will tell the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder), this is not good policy. It may be good politics. It may adopt 
the premise of the Speaker that politics is war. But it is lousy public 
policy. It is demagoguery of the worst type.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, in point of fact, it was also dishonest. 
Because, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out, 
the vote yesterday was not on this issue; it was, in fact, on issues of 
import which we have debated on this floor at some length and was on 
the issue of whether or not we were going to fund in this bill the 
fixing of computers in the Federal Government so that they would be 
compatible with the change of the century.
  Those were substantive issues. They have both been struck on this 
floor today by one Member because of the rule we adopted. I regret that 
it appears that the rule was specifically fashioned to facilitate this 
kind of demagoguery, this kind of threat, this kind of intimidation on 
the Members of this House.
  Now, as every Member knows, I have been for this process and have 
been sometimes among 20 people, 30 people voting for the cost-of-living 
adjustment because I thought the American public deserved an honest 
response. The American public is not surprised that when we vote on 
this, sometimes half, maybe sometimes two-thirds, vote against the 
cost-of-living. And the American public is not surprised when, guess 
what, almost every Member who voted no on the ECI takes the money, 
takes the money, leading to further disrespect for this institution and 
the individual Members who they thereby perceive as dishonest with 
them.
  I love this institution and respect it. It is in fact the people's 
House. But if we do not respect ourselves, if we do not respect this 
institution, we cannot expect the American public to respect us or this 
institution.
  I am going to vote no on this amendment, which will probably be the 
first time since I have served in this body that I have voted against 
the cost-of-living adjustment. The reason I am going to vote against it 
is because I do not want to flimflam the public. We reported this out 
because it was the perception of the chairman and mine that this issue 
had been so politicized and would be so politicized that it would lead 
to further undermining of this institution's credibility.
  But I want everyone to know that I am for the ECI. I think it ought 
to go into effect. Because I believe that was a reform that was good 
for America and this institution and was fair and honest.
  I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment so that no one will 
be confused by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) or anybody else.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. And I realize that 
very few other people will support this amendment today, but I think it 
is important that some do.
  I want to first commend the author of the amendment, and I want to 
commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for the very elegant 
statement that he just made. This issue has called forth much lack of 
candor over the years. And it is easy in a campaign to go say, ``my 
opponent voted for a pay increase for himself.''
  As the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member both said, 
back in 1989, with support from all groups in this House, from both 
parties, from the leadership, from the present Speaker, a decision was 
made to take this issue out of politics and to serve it in a 
responsible way so that Members of the House and the Senate would get 
paid responsibly so that future increases would only be cost-of-living 
increases; and then, in return for foregoing the opportunity of earning 
money outside the salary of the Members of the House, they would be 
guaranteed a cost-of-living increase like other Federal employees, like 
most employees of major corporations in this country, with one 
difference, a half a percent less than the actual cost-of-living 
increase that everybody else gets. And this would be done automatically 
so we would not have the demagogic attacks on votes every year.
  For those last few years, we have had those demagogic attacks because 
people have figured out ways of getting votes to the floor.
  Now, in the absence of this amendment, there would not be a vote on 
the floor. Yet we have a demagogic attack on a different vote as if it 
were a vote on this. The fact is, with every election cycle, a greater 
proportion of the membership of this House are millionaires.
  If we want ordinary men and women to continue to serve in this House, 
we have to allow the salary to increase with the cost of living, as all 
other Federal salaries do, as most government salaries do, as we should 
certainly want all salaries in the private sector to do.
  So I do not expect or ask that many people vote for this amendment 
today. Because the real purpose of this amendment is to undo the 
political mischief that was done by that dishonest and demagogic press 
release that was talked about a few minutes ago.
  The real purpose of this amendment is to enable a straight up-or-down 
vote on this cost-of-living increase in which most Members, because the 
judgment has been made that the political atmosphere is too poisoned to 
permit it this year, most Members will vote no.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I was down in my office meeting with some constituents and I noticed 
that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) got up and spoke, and so I 
turned on my television.
  I have got to tell my colleagues, I came down to the floor to 
associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Maryland in 
many ways, maybe not all of them. But I do love this institution, as 
the gentleman from Maryland does.
  I think that there is too much attack on this institution and its 
Members. It greatly disturbs me when Members and the media and 
otherwise claim that there is corruption in this Chamber. I have many 
times come down to this floor and challenged people that said there is 
corruption in this Chamber to show me and name the corruption that is 
in this Chamber.
  And I, too, have voted for cost-of-living increases, and I am for 
them, and I think it is very important. In order to maintain the 
integrity of this body and making sure that Members can take care of 
their families in a reasonable way that reflects their abilities, we 
should be very, very careful when we attack this institution in this 
regard.
  So I appreciate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and I 
appreciate the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply would ask the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) who just spoke, I am happy to hear he loves this 
institution. My question is, does he love it enough to tell the 
chairman of his campaign committee that he ought to quit issuing 
misleading press releases about this issue?

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that 
I would hope in the future, and, as I said, I plan to vote for this 
amendment, I do not expect to urge many

[[Page H5690]]

others to do so, but I think some of us should. But I hope in the 
future, whoever is in charge of the committee and the leadership of 
this House, that when this bill comes to the floor next year and the 
year after and the year after, and it provides for the cost of living 
increase.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Nadler was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear the gentleman said 
``this bill.'' This bill does not provide for any pay raise or cost of 
living adjustment for Members, with or without this provision. This 
provision prohibits what is provided for in the law that was passed in 
1989 from going into effect so that when the bill comes those who 
demagogue the bill for being a pay raise are absolutely incorrect.
  I know what the gentleman meant; I just wanted to clarify that.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the clarification.
  Let me simply express the hope that next year and the year after the 
cost of living increase is permitted to go into effect in the way it 
was intended without a specific piece of legislation or a vote and that 
the rule provides that an amendment that would come on the floor should 
not be permitted because otherwise the entire purpose of the 1989 law 
is nullified, and if we want this House gradually to become the House 
of millionaires that ordinary men and women do not run for, that is a 
good way to do it, and we should not permit that.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words for just a moment.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say that as I sat in my office watching this 
discussion on television, I could not help but be moved to come and at 
least have my voice be heard in connection with the proposal being made 
by my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner).
  I must say that in the years that I have been in this body, I have 
seen on more than one occasion on both sides of the aisle a propensity 
to demagogue both salary adjustments as well as benefits for the 
Members of this House. It is most disconcerting to me that people 
would, on either side of the aisle, ever play politics for the sake of 
politics on issues such as this.
  I am particularly disconcerted by this pattern because it has 
dramatically impacted over the years a number of younger Members who 
are serving very well in this body, who, because upon arriving here 
with young children, otherwise unaware of the incredible cost of living 
in this region and maintaining residence at home, et cetera, found 
themselves leaving the body long before their service was well 
completed.
  It does not serve the body well or the American public well to simply 
demagogue an issue like this because somebody thinks it may be votes at 
home for someone that they might choose. I have never seen this issue 
make a difference in a significant congressional race, but people love 
to demagogue it.
  Mr. Chairman, I not only applaud my colleague, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hefner), I intend to support his position. I would 
urge as many Members in the House on both sides of the aisle who can 
stand the heat to do so as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 498, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Hefner) will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 629. No part of any appropriation contained in this or 
     any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda 
     purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized 
     by the Congress.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, back to the old business, I make a point of 
order against section 629 for reasons previously cited, ad nauseam ad 
nauseam.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order 
that has just been raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)?
  If not, the Chair finds that section 629 addresses funds in other 
acts, and section 629, therefore, constitutes legislation.
  The point of order is sustained, and section 629 will, therefore, be 
stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 630. None of the funds appropriated in this or any 
     other Act shall be used to acquire information technologies 
     which do not comply with part 39.106 (Year 2000 compliance) 
     of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, unless an agency's 
     Chief Information Officer determines that noncompliance with 
     part 39.106 is necessary to the function and operation of the 
     requesting agency or the acquisition is required by a signed 
     contract with the agency in effect before the date of 
     enactment of this Act. Any waiver granted by the Chief 
     Information Officer shall be reported to the Office of 
     Management and Budget, and copies shall be provided to 
     Congress.
       Sec. 631. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the United States Customs Service may be used to allow the 
     importation into the United States of any good, ware, 
     article, or merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured by 
     forced or indentured child labor, as determined pursuant to 
     section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307).
       Sec. 632. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     part of any funds provided by this Act or any other Act 
     beginning in fiscal year 1999 and thereafter shall be 
     available for paying Sunday premium pay to any employee 
     unless such employee actually performed work during the time 
     corresponding to such premium pay.
       Sec. 633. No part of any appropriation contained in this or 
     any other Act shall be available for the payment of the 
     salary of any officer or employee of the Federal Government, 
     who--
       (1) prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to 
     prohibit or prevent, any other officer or employee of the 
     Federal Government from having any direct oral or written 
     communication or contact with any Member, committee, or 
     subcommittee of the Congress in connection with any matter 
     pertaining to the employment of such other officer or 
     employee or pertaining to the department or agency of such 
     other officer or employee in any way, irrespective of whether 
     such communication or contact is at the initiative of such 
     other officer or employee or in response to the request or 
     inquiry of such Member, committee, or subcommittee; or
       (2) removes, suspends from duty without pay, demotes, 
     reduces in rank, seniority, status, pay, or performance of 
     efficiency rating, denies promotion to, relocates, reassigns, 
     transfers, disciplines, or discriminates in regard to any 
     employment right, entitlement, or benefit, or any term or 
     condition of employment of, any other officer or employee of 
     the Federal Government, or attempts or threatens to commit 
     any of the foregoing actions with respect to such other 
     officer or employee, by reason of any communication or 
     contact of such other officer or employee with any Member, 
     committee, or subcommittee of the Congress as described in 
     paragraph (1).
       Sec. 634. Section 404(a) of the Government Management 
     Reform Act of 1994 is amended by striking the period at the 
     end of paragraph (2) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding 
     at the end the following paragraph:
       ``(3) the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).''.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point or order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 634 
for reasons previously cited.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other Member wishing to be heard on the 
point of order that is being put forward by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)?
  If not, the Chair finds that section 634 directly amends other law. 
Section 634, therefore, constitutes legislation, and the point of order 
is sustained, and section 634 will, therefore, be stricken from the 
bill.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rose a few weeks ago before we went on recess to give 
indication that I had a very serious problem with the Customs 
Department regarding a ruling that had to do with soft

[[Page H5691]]

lumber from Canada. I told the Customs Department that unless some 
action were taken, either yes or no, that I intended to offer an 
amendment reducing their appropriation.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to tell those of my colleagues, especially 
the members of the Forestry 2000, who incidentally very generously had 
agreed each to give me 5 minutes to talk about the demerits of this 
bill unless Customs did something, so I was intending to speak for 8 
hours on this bill, and thanks to the wisdom of the Customs Department 
who issued the ruling that very same day, no longer will my colleagues 
be subjected to that misfortune of having to listen to me for 8 hours.
  So, as a result of Customs' brilliance and as a result of their 
decision, I am happy to tell my colleagues that I now support the bill, 
and I would urge my colleagues at the appropriate time to vote in favor 
of this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 635. Notwithstanding section 611 of this Act and 
     notwithstanding section 1346 of title 31, United States Code, 
     funds made available for fiscal year 1999, by this or any 
     other Act shall be available for the interagency funding of 
     specific projects, workshops, studies, and similar efforts to 
     carry out the purposes of the National Science and Technology 
     Council (authorized by Executive Order No. 12881), which 
     benefit multiple Federal departments, agencies, or entities.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point or order.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
against section 635 of the bill. It violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on section 635?
  If not the Chair is prepared to rule.
  Section 635 explicitly supersedes other law and applies to funds in 
other acts. The point of order is sustained, and the section is 
stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 636. Section 626(b) of the Treasury, Postal Service, 
     and General Government Appropriations Act, 1997, as contained 
     in section 101(f) of Public Law 104-208 (110 Stat. 3009-360), 
     the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) Until the end of the current FTS 2000 contracts, or 
     September 30, 1999, whichever is sooner, subsection (a) shall 
     continue to apply to the use of the funds appropriated by 
     this or any other Act.''.
       Sec. 637. (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``crime of violence'' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 16 of title 18, United States Code; and
       (2) the term ``law enforcement officer'' means any employee 
     described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 
     8401(17) of title 5, United States Code; and any special 
     agent in the Diplomatic Security Service of the Department of 
     State.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, for purposes of chapter 171 of title 28, 
     United States Code, or any other provision of law relating to 
     tort liability, a law enforcement officer shall be construed 
     to be acting within the scope of his or her office or 
     employment, if the officer takes any action, including the 
     use of force, that is determined by the officer to be 
     necessary to--
       (1) protect an individual in the presence of the officer 
     from a crime of violence;
       (2) provide immediate assistance to an individual who has 
     suffered or who is threatened with bodily harm; or
       (3) prevent the escape of any individual who the officer 
     reasonably believes to have committed in the presence of the 
     officer a crime of violence.
       Sec. 638. The Administrator of General Services may 
     provide, from government-wide credit card rebates, up to 
     $3,000,000 in support of the Joint Financial Management 
     Improvement Program as approved by the Chief Financial 
     Officer's Council.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 638 
for reasons previously cited.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order being raised by the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that section 638 includes language conferring 
authority. Therefore it constitutes legislation. The point of order is 
sustained, and section 638 is, therefore, stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 639. Federal Firefighters Overtime Pay Reform Act of 
     1998.--(a) Subchapter V of chapter 55 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 5542 by adding the following new subsection 
     at the end thereof:
       ``(f) In applying subsection (a) of this section with 
     respect to a firefighter who is subject to section 5545b--
       ``(1) such subsection (a) shall be deemed to apply to hours 
     of work officially ordered or approved in excess of 106 hours 
     in a biweekly pay period, or, if the agency establishes a 
     weekly basis for overtime pay computation, in excess of 53 
     hours in an administrative workweek; and
       ``(2) the overtime hourly rate of pay is an amount equal to 
     one and one-half times the hourly rate of basic pay under 
     section 5545b (b)(1)(A) or (c)(1)(B), as applicable, and such 
     overtime hourly rate of pay may not be less than such hourly 
     rate of basic pay in applying the limitation on the overtime 
     rate provided in paragraph (2) of such subsection (a).''; and
       (2) by inserting after section 5545a the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 5545b. Pay for firefighters

       ``(a) This section applies to an employee whose position is 
     classified in the firefighter occupation in conformance with 
     the GS-081 standard published by the Office of Personnel 
     Management, and whose normal work schedule, as in effect 
     throughout the year, consists of regular tours of duty which 
     average at least 106 hours per biweekly pay period.
       ``(b)(1) If the regular tour of duty of a firefighter 
     subject to this section generally consists of 24-hour shifts, 
     rather than a basic 40-hour workweek (as determined under 
     regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel 
     Management), section 5504(b) shall be applied as follows in 
     computing pay--
       ``(A) paragraph (1) of such section shall be deemed to 
     require that the annual rate be divided by 2756 to derive the 
     hourly rate; and
       ``(B) the computation of such firefighter's daily, weekly, 
     or biweekly rate shall be based on the hourly rate under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) For the purpose of sections 5595(c), 5941, 8331(3), 
     and 8704(c), and for such other purposes as may be expressly 
     provided for by law or as the Office of Personnel Management 
     may by regulation prescribe, the basic pay of a firefighter 
     subject to this subsection shall include an amount equal to 
     the firefighter's basic hourly rate (as computed under 
     paragraph (1)(A)) for all hours in such firefighter's regular 
     tour of duty (including overtime hours).
       ``(c)(1) If the regular tour of duty of a firefighter 
     subject to this section includes a basic 40-hour workweek (as 
     determined under regulations prescribed by the Office of 
     Personnel Management), section 5504(b) shall be applied as 
     follows in computing pay--
       ``(A) the provisions of such section shall apply to the 
     hours within the basic 40-hour workweek;
       ``(B) for hours outside the basic 40-hour workweek, such 
     section shall be deemed to require that the hourly rate be 
     derived by dividing the annual rate by 2756; and
       ``(C) the computation of such firefighter's daily, weekly, 
     or biweekly rate shall be based on subparagraphs (A) and (B), 
     as each applies to the hours involved.
       ``(2) For purposes of sections 5595(c), 5941, 8331(3), and 
     8704(c), and for such other purposes as may be expressly 
     provided for by law or as the Office of Personnel Management 
     may by regulation prescribe, the basic pay of a firefighter 
     subject to this subsection shall include--
       ``(A) an amount computed under paragraph (1)(A) for the 
     hours within the basic 40-hour workweek; and
       ``(B) an amount equal to the firefighter's basic hourly 
     rate (as computed under paragraph (1)(B)) for all hours 
     outside the basic 40-hour workweek that are within such 
     firefighter's regular tour of duty (including overtime 
     hours).
       ``(d)(1) A firefighter who is subject to this section shall 
     receive overtime pay in accordance with section 5542, but 
     shall not receive premium pay provided by other provisions of 
     this subchapter.
       ``(2) For the purpose of applying section 7(k) of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938 to a firefighter who is subject 
     to this section, no violation referred to in such section 
     7(k) shall be deemed to have occurred if the requirements of 
     section 5542(a) are met, applying section 5542(a) as provided 
     in subsection (f) of that section: Provided, That the 
     overtime hourly rate of pay for such firefighter shall in all 
     cases be an amount equal to one and one-half times the 
     firefighter's hourly rate of basic pay under subsection 
     (b)(1)(A) or (c)(1)(B) of this section, as applicable.
       ``(3) The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe 
     regulations, with respect to firefighters subject to this 
     section, that would permit an agency to reduce or eliminate 
     the variation in the amount of firefighters' biweekly pay 
     caused by work scheduling cycles that result in varying hours 
     in the regular tours of duty from pay period to pay period. 
     Under such regulations, the pay that a firefighter would 
     otherwise receive for regular tours of duty over the work 
     scheduling cycle shall, to the extent practicable, remain 
     unaffected.''.
       (b) The analysis for chapter 55 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting

[[Page H5692]]

     at the appropriate place the following new item:

``5545b. Pay for firefighters.''.

       (c) Section 4109 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding the following new subsection at the end thereof:
       ``(d) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1), a firefighter who 
     is subject to section 5545b of this title shall be paid basic 
     pay and overtime pay for the firefighter's regular tour of 
     duty while attending agency sanctioned training.''.
       (d) section 8331(3) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' after subparagraph (D);
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (G);
       (3) by inserting the following:
       ``(E) with respect to a criminal investigator, availability 
     pay under section 5545a of this title;
       ``(F) pay as provided in section 5545b (b)(2) and (c)(2); 
     and ''; and
       (4) by striking ``subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), and (E)'' 
     and inserting ``subparagraphs (B)-(G)''.
       (e) The amendments made by this section shall take effect 
     on the first day of the first applicable pay period which 
     begins on or after the later of October 1, 1998, or the 180th 
     day following the date of enactment of this section.
       (f) Under regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel 
     Management, a firefighter subject to section 5545b of title 
     5, United States Code, as added by this section, whose 
     regular tours of duty average 60 hours or less per workweek 
     and do not include a basic 40-hour workweek, shall, upon 
     implementation of this section, be granted an increase in 
     basic pay equal to 2 step-increases of the applicable General 
     Schedule grade, and such increase shall not be an equivalent 
     increase in pay. If such increase results in a change to a 
     longer waiting period for the firefighter's next step 
     increase, the firefighter shall be credited with an 
     additional year of service for the purpose of such waiting 
     period. If such increase results in a rate of basic pay which 
     is above the maximum rate of the applicable grade, such 
     resulting pay rate shall be treated as a retained rate of 
     basic pay in accordance with section 5363 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (g) Under regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel 
     Management, the regular pay (over the established work 
     scheduling cycle) of a firefighter subject to section 5545b 
     of title 5, United States Code, as added by this section, 
     shall not be reduced as a result of the implementation of 
     this section.


        Coordination of Southwest Border Counterdrug Activities

       Sec. 640.--(1) Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of National 
     Drug Control Policy shall conduct a review of Federal efforts 
     and submit to the appropriate congressional committees, 
     including the Committees on Appropriations, a plan to improve 
     coordination among the Federal agencies with responsibility 
     to protect the borders against drug trafficking. The review 
     shall also include consideration of Federal agencies' 
     coordination with State and local law enforcement agencies. 
     The plan shall include an assessment and action plan, 
     including the activities of the following departments and 
     agencies:
       (A) Department of the Treasury;
       (B) Department of Justice;
       (C) United States Coast Guard;
       (D) Department of Defense;
       (E) Department of Transportation;
       (F) Department of State; and
       (G) Department of Interior.
       (2) The purpose of the plan under paragraph (1) is to 
     maximize the effectiveness of the border control efforts in 
     achieving the objectives of the national drug control 
     strategy in a manner that is also consistent with the goal of 
     facilitating trade. In order to maximize the effectiveness, 
     the plan shall:
       (A) specify the methods used to enhance cooperation, 
     planning and accountability among the Federal, State, and 
     local agencies with responsibilities along the Southwest 
     border;
       (B) specify mechanisms to ensure cooperation among the 
     agencies, including State and local agencies, with 
     responsibilities along the Southwest border;
       (C) identify new technologies that will be used in 
     protecting the borders including conclusions regarding 
     appropriate deployment of technology;
       (D) identify new initiatives for infrastructure 
     improvements;
       (E) recommend reinforcements in terms of resources, 
     technology and personnel necessary to ensure capacity to 
     maintain appropriate inspections;
       (F) integrate findings of the White House Intelligence 
     Architecture Review into the plan; and
       (G) make recommendations for strengthening the HIDTA 
     program along the Southwest border.
       Sec. 641. (a) Flexiplace Work Telecommuting Programs.--For 
     fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year thereafter, of the 
     funds made available to each Executive agency for salaries 
     and expenses, at a minimum $50,000 shall be available only 
     for the necessary expenses of the Executive agency to carry 
     out a flexiplace work telecommuting program.
       (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) Executive agency.--The term ``Executive agency'' means 
     the following list of departments and agencies: Department of 
     State, Treasury, Defense, Justice, Interior, Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban 
     Development, Transportation, Energy, Education, Veterans' 
     Affairs, General Service Administration, Office of Personnel 
     Management, Small Business Administration, Smithsonian, 
     Social Security Administration, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, U.S. Postal Service.
       (2) Flexiplace work telecommuting program.--The term 
     ``flexiplace work telecommuting program'' means a program 
     under which employees of an Executive agency are permitted to 
     perform all or a portion of their duties at a flexiplace work 
     telecommuting center established under section 210(l) of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 
     U.S.C. 490(l)) or other Federal law.
       Sec. 642. (a) Meritorious Executive.--Section 4507(e)(1) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``$10,000'' and inserting ``an amount equal to 20 percent of 
     annual basic pay''.
       (b) Distinguished Executive.--Section 4507(e)(2) of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``$20,000'' and 
     inserting ``an amount equal to 35 percent of annual basic 
     pay''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1998, or the date of 
     enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
       Sec. 643. (a) Career SES Performance Awards.--Section 
     5384(b)(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``3 percent'' and inserting ``10 percent''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``15 percent'' and inserting ``20 
     percent''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1998, or the date of 
     enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
       Sec. 644. (a)(1) Paragraph (1) of section 5303(b) of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``If, because 
     of national emergency or serious economic conditions 
     affecting the general welfare,'' and inserting ``If, because 
     of a declared state of war or severe economic conditions,''.
       (2) Section 5303(b) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) For purposes of applying this subsection with respect 
     to any pay adjustment that is to take effect in any calendar 
     year, `severe economic conditions' shall be considered to 
     exist if, during the 12-month period ending 2 calendar 
     quarters before the date as of which such adjustment is 
     scheduled to take effect (as determined under subsection 
     (a)), there occur 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth 
     in the real Gross Domestic Product.''.
       (3) Paragraph (2) of section 5303(b) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``an economic condition 
     affecting the general welfare under this subsection,'' and 
     inserting ``economic conditions for purposes of this 
     subsection,''.
       (b)(1) Subsection (a) of section 5304a of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``If, because of national 
     emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the 
     general welfare,'' and inserting ``If, because of a declared 
     state of war or severe economic conditions,''.
       (2) Section 5304a of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c) and 
     by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) For purposes of applying this section with respect to 
     any comparability payments that are to become payable in any 
     calendar year, `severe economic conditions' shall be 
     considered to exist if, during the 12-month period ending 2 
     calendar quarters before the date as of which such payments 
     are scheduled to take effect (as determined under section 
     5304(d)(2)), there occur 2 consecutive quarters of negative 
     growth in the real Gross Domestic Product.''.
       (c) The amendments made by this section shall apply with 
     respect to any alternative pay adjustments under section 
     5303(b) of title 5, United States Code, and any alternative 
     level of comparability payments under section 5304a of such 
     title 5, scheduled to take effect after 1999.
       (d) The adjustment in rates of basic pay for the statutory 
     pay systems that takes effect in fiscal year 1999 under 
     section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall be an 
     increase of 3.1 percent, unless otherwise provided for under 
     such section.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that section 644 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order being raised by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent)?
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I object to the substance of the point of 
order. Federal employees deserve to be paid according to the Federal 
Employees Pay Comparability Act which we passed, signed into law. 
Striking this section would deny Federal employees their just pay.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to be further heard on this? 
Anyone else wishing to be heard on the

[[Page H5693]]

point of order being raised by the gentleman from Oklahoma?
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me just ask my friend from 
Oklahoma who has raised this objection, Federal employees, as my 
colleague knows, have been on some very difficult times through the 
years, and the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act which was signed 
into law by President Bush has called for annual cost of living 
allowances that can be waived by the administration under severe 
economic circumstances, and we find ourselves this year with a stock 
market at an all-time high, unemployment at a generation low.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair requests the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Davis) to address his remarks to the Chair and to the point of order 
that is being raised by the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, it would seem under these 
circumstances that, if the gentleman could reconsider and allow perhaps 
this to move through to the conference where it could be more fully 
debated at this point, I think he would be doing all Federal employees 
a great service.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other Member wishing to be heard on the 
point of order being propounded by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Largent)?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would hope, too, that the gentleman would 
withdraw his point of order, not because, as he knows, his point of 
order is not well taken, because the Committee on Rules failed, as it 
did on so many other instances amenably to protect items that were 
important but were technically not consistent with existing the rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Again the Chair would ask the gentleman to confine his 
remarks to the point of order that has been propounded by the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
  Mr. HOYER. Again I would reiterate I would hope that the gentleman 
would withdraw his point of order. This is, as the gentleman from 
Virginia said, an important effort that ought to be there for 
conference so that we can discuss it further.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members wishing to be heard on the 
point of order offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent)?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that section 644 directly amends existing law. It, 
therefore, constitutes legislation, and the point of order is 
sustained, and the section will be stricken from the bill.

  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 645. (a) None of the funds made available in this or 
     any other Act may be obligated or expended for any employee 
     training that--
       (1) does not meet identified needs for knowledge, skills, 
     and abilities bearing directly upon the performance of 
     official duties;
       (2) contains elements likely to induce high levels of 
     emotional response or psychological stress in some 
     participants;
       (3) does not require prior employee notification of the 
     content and methods to be used in the training and written 
     end of course evaluation;
       (4) contains any methods or content associated with 
     religious or quasi-religious belief systems or ``new age'' 
     belief systems as defined in Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission Notice N-915.022, dated September 2, 1988;
       (5) is offensive to, or designed to change, participants' 
     personal values or lifestyle outside the workplace; or
       (6) includes content related to human immunodeficiency 
     virus-acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) other 
     than that necessary to make employees more aware of the 
     medical ramifications of HIV/AIDS and the workplace rights of 
     HIV-positive employees.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit, restrict, or 
     otherwise preclude an agency from conducting training bearing 
     directly upon the performance of official duties.


                            Point of Order.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 645 
for reasons previously cited.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order that is being put forward by the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that section 645 addresses funds in other acts, and, 
therefore, it constitutes legislation, and the point of order is 
sustained, and that section 645 will, therefore, be stricken from the 
bill.

                              {time}  1645

  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 646. (a) International Postal Arrangements.--Section 
     407 of title 39, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 407. International postal arrangements

       ``(a) The United States Trade Representative shall be 
     responsible for the formulation, coordination, and oversight 
     of foreign policy related to international postal services 
     and international delivery services, except that the Trade 
     Representative may not negotiate or conclude any treaty, 
     convention, or other international agreement (including those 
     regulating international postal service) if such treaty, 
     convention, or agreement would, with respect to any class of 
     mail or type of mail service, grant an undue or unreasonable 
     preference to the Postal Service, a private provider of 
     international postal services, or any other person.
       ``(b) In carrying out the responsibilities set forth in 
     subsection (a), the Trade Representative--
       ``(1) shall coordinate with and give full consideration to 
     the authority vested by law or Executive order in the Postal 
     Rate Commission and the Department of Commerce; and
       ``(2) shall consult with the Postal Service, private 
     providers of international postal services, users of 
     international postal services, the general public, and such 
     other persons as the Trade Representative considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(c) The Postal Service may enter into such commercial and 
     operational contracts relating to international postal 
     services as it considers necessary, except that the Postal 
     Service may not enter into any contract with an agency of a 
     foreign government (whether under authority of this 
     subsection or otherwise) if it would grant an undue or 
     unreasonable preference to the Postal Service with respect to 
     any class of mail or type of mail service.''.
       (b) Trade-In-Services Program.--The second sentence of 
     paragraph (5) of section 306(a) of the Trade and Tariff Act 
     of 1984 (19 U.S.C. 2114b(5)) is amended by inserting ``postal 
     and delivery services,'' after ``transportation,''.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 
646. I do so because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill, and, therefore, violates clause 
2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members wishing to be heard on the 
point of order being offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Torres)?
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order. 
In fact, I want to urge my colleague to withdraw his point of order.
  The provision the gentleman wants to strike is a step towards 
fairness. I want to just follow up by saying if the point of order is 
not withdrawn, I have an amendment at the desk that I am prepared to 
offer that will contain the language that was negotiated to try to 
create fairness. It will strictly prohibit the use of funds by the Post 
Office at the Universal Postal Union convention next year.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members wishing to be heard on the 
point of order of the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres)?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that section 
646 directly amends existing law. It therefore constitutes legislation.
  The point of order is sustained, and the provision is therefore 
stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 647. (a) Limitation.--No funds appropriated for the 
     United States Postal Service under this or any other Act may 
     be expended by the Postal Service to initiate new nonpostal 
     commercial activities or pack and send services.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``nonpostal commercial activities'' includes services such as 
     volume retail photocopying, notary public services, and the 
     sale of office supplies or novelty items.
       (c) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be considered--
       (1) to affect any governmental function or any services in 
     support of a governmental function;
       (2) to be applicable to the extent contrary to statute or 
     any treaty or international agreement; or
       (3) to have any force or effect before October 1, 1998, or 
     after September 30, 1999.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 
647. Again, I do so because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes

[[Page H5694]]

legislation in an appropriations bill. Therefore, it violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any Members wishing to be heard on the point 
of order of the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres)?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that section 647 addresses funds in other acts. The 
gentleman is correct, it therefore constitutes legislation. The point 
of order is sustained and that section of the bill will be stricken.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Northup

  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Northup:
       On Page 109, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 648. None of the funds appropriated by this or any 
     other Act may be used to fund United States Postal Service 
     participation in the Universal Postal Union.

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment mostly as a 
placeholder in order to allow the conference to reinsert the language 
that was stripped as a result of a point of order. The fact is that 
every 5 years the Universal Postal Union meets to negotiate 
international mail processes.
  The United States Postal Service is right now in control of all of 
these negotiations. We all know what they want. They would want what 
any business wants, and that is special arrangements that would help 
them assume a monopoly in the services they wish to offer.
  The problem is, these services are not a monopoly. They offer the 
same services that private carriers offer. Right now, because of these 
special arrangements that have been negotiated, Japan has 60 percent of 
the current package market. The fact is that this coming February there 
will be a new negotiation in which the Universal Postal Union will 
negotiate the next 5 years' mail processes. For that reason, I hope to 
reinsert the language that was stripped on a point of order.
  Some people will try to claim that the Post Office should continue to 
have this role and use these services as a way to offset the cost of 
universal mail. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is 
that universal mail is a monopoly, and it is covered by all of first, 
second and third class rates. There is not 1 cent that is gotten in the 
competitive market that the Postal Service contributes to offset 
Americans' cost of stamps. In fact, there is more evidence that they 
use the revenues they get from the cost of stamps to offset the cost of 
their package delivery service in Japan.
  The point is that in today's world, we may lose on a point of order 
what was just stricken, but what we will not lose is the fact that the 
American people believe in fairness, and they do not believe that the 
United States Government should be able to use a quasi-government 
organization to go and provide for them certain services that the 
competitive market, the private carriers, cannot provide.
  In my district, Mr. Chairman, the UPS and the Teamsters work very 
hard. They pay taxes, they pay property taxes, they pay workers' 
compensation, they comply with OSHA requirements, and they are 
competing with the Post Office that has none of those things. Plus they 
donate millions of dollars into our schools and schools all across this 
country. All this amendment would have done, all the language in the 
bill would have done, was to make sure that when we go into this 
international organization to negotiation, that we have fairness.
  Since that was stripped out, I ask that we pass an amendment that 
says that the Post Office cannot spend any money at this organization 
next year. I think then what we will find is in conference people will 
agree to the fair restrictions and the fair negotiating authority and 
will give everybody equality.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. NORTHUP. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate of the 
gentlewoman yielding. I asked her to yield simply to say it was my 
intention to give support to the gentlewoman's position regarding the 
language that has been stricken from the bill.
  Indeed, there is little question that the Postal Service currently is 
in a very unusual position of paying no sales taxes, no income taxes, 
no property taxes, and, ofttimes, find themselves competing with 
organizations using that advantage to essentially take the marketplace 
away from that which could be served at least as well in the private 
sector.
  I appreciate the gentlewoman's work in this connection, and look 
forward to continuing to work with her.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from California.
  I would conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that this is the only way 
in which we can ensure that we will have this negotiation in the 
conference committee. I have no intention to take away from anybody the 
ability for fairness, particularly not the postal employees in my 
district nor the postmasters. But I do believe that we can all find 
fair ground here so that every carrier that wishes to deliver packages 
overseas will all deal with the same fair rules. I think that the 
American people eventually will resent terribly if the Post Office is 
not held to the same rules.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, now that I have had a chance to see the 
amendment, I do make a point of order against the amendment, because it 
does, Mr. Chairman, propose to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill, and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of rule XXI. The pertinent part of that rule says, ``No amendment to a 
general appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing 
law.''
  This amendment goes beyond funds in this act. It has the words ``none 
of the funds appropriated by this or any other act may be used to 
appropriate.'' Therefore, it violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and I would 
make the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the 
current law of the U.S. Code, section 2401, provides a permanent 
appropriation to the U.S. Postal Service, and, as such, this amendment 
is within the jurisdiction of the appropriations bill. The fact is that 
every dollar that the Postal Service collects for stamps comes into the 
U.S. Treasury and then is appropriated out by us.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members wishing to be heard on the 
point of order raised by the gentleman from Arizona?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that the amendment addresses funds in other acts, and 
it therefore does constitute legislation, and, therefore, the point of 
order is sustained, and the amendment is therefore out of order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Lowey

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Lowey:
       Page 109, after line 24, add the following:
       sec. 648. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be used to enter into or renew a contract which includes 
     a provision providing prescription drug coverage, except 
     where the contract also includes a provision for 
     contraceptive coverage.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall apply to a contract with 
     any of the following religious plans:
       (1) SelectCare.
       (2) PersonalCaresHMO.
       (3) Care Choices.
       (4) OSF Health Plans, Inc.
       (5) Yellowstone Community Health Plan.

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of her amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, the Treasury-Postal 
bill originally contained the Lowey contraceptive coverage language 
providing Federal employees with contraceptive coverage. I offer now an 
amendment that allows this House a fair and open debate on 
contraceptives.

[[Page H5695]]

  This amendment, if passed, will restore language providing 
contraceptive coverage for Federal employees. My amendment also 
respects the rights of religious plans that as a matter of conscience 
choose not to cover contraceptives. The amendment clearly exempts those 
plans.
  Although all but one of the FEHBP plans covers sterilization, only 10 
percent cover the five most basic, most widely used forms of 
contraception, and 81 percent only cover some of the five methods. 
Contraception, Mr. Chairman, is basic health care for women. It allows 
couples to plan families, have healthier babies when they choose to 
conceive, and it makes abortion less necessary.
  Currently women of reproductive age spend 68 percent more in out-of-
pocket costs than men, partly because of the cost of contraceptives. 
Plans refuse to cover contraceptives because they know that, if forced 
to, women will pay for it themselves. On average, women using the pill 
pay $25 a month. That is $300 a year for their prescriptions.
  It is important to understand what we are talking about when we talk 
about contraceptive methods. We are not talking about abortion. We are 
not talking about RU-486 or any other abortion method. No abortions 
will be covered by this amendment. We are talking about the range of 
contraceptive options that women need.
  It is crucial that plans cover the range of choices, because some 
methods do not work for some women. For example, many women cannot use 
any of the hormone-based methods, such as the oral contraceptive pill, 
because it causes migraines or because they have been advised not to by 
their physician because it may increase the risk of stroke or breast 
cancer. Let us be clear, my colleagues. This is not a mandate on 
private plans. What we are discussing here is what the United States as 
an employer should provide to its employees. The United States 
Government should be a model for other employers.

  A myriad of health groups support the provision, including the 
American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family 
Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics. It is also supported by 
the AFL-CIO and the American Federation of Government Employees.
  Finally, my colleagues, a recent Congressional Budget Office analysis 
determined that this improved coverage for Federal employees would not 
have any impact, no impact on the budget totals for fiscal year 1999.
  I want to repeat that again. This will have no impact for fiscal year 
1999 on the budget.
  This issue is absolutely essential to millions of American women, 
Democrat and Republican, pro-life, pro-choice. I truly hope, my 
colleagues, that after many of the debates that are very difficult for 
all of us, we can come together now to support contraceptive coverage 
and prevent abortions. I would ask my colleagues to vote for the Lowey 
amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a point 
of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing 
law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and 
therefore, violates clause 2 of Rule XXI.
  The rule states, in pertinent part, that ``No amendment to a general 
appropriations bill shall be in order, if changing existing law.''
  Let me make it very clear that this gives affirmative direction, in 
effect, and very importantly, it does impose additional duties. Whether 
it be the OMB director or whoever makes the final decision, additional 
duties will be imposed as a result of this amendment.
  So I hope the ruling of the Chair, as consistent with the other 
amendments, will rule this out of order.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) is recognized.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, the point of order raised by the gentleman 
is not well-founded. The amendment is a limitation on funds contained 
in the bill and does not place any duties upon Federal officials. The 
amendment merely limits the types of Federal Health Benefit Programs 
that can be funded in the bill to those that contain certain benefits. 
The programs exempted from the requirements under the limitation are 
currently known, and again, do not place additional affirmative duties 
on Federal officials.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members wishing to be heard on the 
point of order raised by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to reiterate the last 
statement made by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), that all 
of the plans specified in this amendment are already known to the 
administration. There are no additional duties involved whatsoever in 
identifying them, and I think the amendment is clearly in order, under 
the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members wishing to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that I think 
that this amendment makes a great deal of sense. If we are, in fact, 
united in trying to reduce abortions, this is the way to do it, and the 
Federal Government should lead the way.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that that had nothing to do with 
the point of order; the Chair is now hearing arguments on the point of 
order.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, 
this amendment has been modeled precisely on the passage of the bill 
that says no funds basically shall be expended to cover abortions. This 
is no funds; none of the funds appropriated by this act may be used, 
and basically to pay for a health care plan that does not provide 
contraceptives.
  So this is modeled exactly on the underlying bill, the language in 
the bill that has been acceptable, and so I would hope that the Chair 
would rule favorably.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, just to point out that this 
would mandate, this would require, and as a precondition of receiving 
funds from the Federal Government, one would have to be provided 
services. Right now, this is permissible, this would make it mandatory. 
That certainly imposes a duty.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that the amendment is in the form of a limitation on 
the use of funds in the bill to pay for Federal health plans which do 
not cover contraceptive prescription drugs with certain exceptions for 
specified plans. The amendment does not affirmatively mandate coverage 
or require new determinations by the FDA of equivalency or of 
outpatient availability. This amendment is a proper negative limitation 
denying funding for contracts without specified terms.
  The point of order is overruled on the amendment.
  Are there any Members wishing to be heard on the Lowey amendment?
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey amendment 
to this bill.
  This language would require that Federal Employee Health Benefit 
Plans cover prescription contraception, just as they cover other 
prescription drugs.
  Prescription contraception is like any other prescription medication 
or device that is now covered by Federal plans. It is taken or used 
under the guidance of a physician with the clear purpose of protecting 
and promoting women's health.
  Contraception is absolutely essential if a woman wants to prevent 
unintended pregnancies, and if this Congress is truly committed to 
reducing the number of abortions in the United States, then the use of 
and affordable access to contraception is imperative in achieving that 
goal.
  Prescription contraception methods have health benefits that go 
beyond preventing pregnancy. Birth control pills, for example, have 
been shown to be effective in reducing the risks of disease such as 
uterine cancer. Yet, despite the clear advantages that prescription 
contraception offers, women covered under Federal plans are not 
guaranteed affordable access to them.
  Mr. Chairman, 81 percent of Federal employee plans do not cover all 5 
of the widely used and effective methods of reversible contraception. 
Ten percent of FEHB plans do not cover any type of

[[Page H5696]]

contraception. The undue financial burden of preventing pregnancy 
through contraception is placed on women who now spend 68 percent more 
in out-of-pocket health care costs than men. This is largely due to the 
cost of purchasing prescription contraception, because most health 
insurance companies will not cover the 5 most effective methods of 
birth control.
  The Federal Government health plan is a model for all other health 
plans. Because of the poor example set by this plan, less than 20 
percent of traditional indemnity plans and PPOs cover all types of 
prescription contraception. Less than 40 percent of HMOs cover all 
types of contraception.
  Recently, the administration ordered the Medicaid programs in all 50 
States to cover the cost of Viagra. This drug has been hailed as the 
medical miracle for men who have suffered from impotency for years. But 
if we are going to cover the cost of medication that helps the 
reproductive functions of men, then it seems ironic that we are not 
willing to offer the same protection to women. By not requiring FEHB 
plans to cover prescription contraception, we are essentially placing 
it in the same category as a drug which has only cosmetic purposes.
  Women should not be forced to assume total financial responsibility 
for contraception outside of these plans. We must support the Lowey 
amendment to this bill and require that all Federal health benefit 
plans cover the contraceptive methods that women need for their health 
and well-being.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong 
opposition to this amendment.
  I hope Members pay close attention in reading the amendment. This 
amendment does not define the term ``contraceptive.''
  Now, one might think that the meaning of the term is self-evident, 
but this is not so. The term ``contraceptive'' is not defined in 
Federal law. Moreover, the debates on this very issue on the floor of 
this very body in recent times demonstrates that there is clearly a 
sharp disagreement, even among Members of this body and among groups 
promoting this type of amendment, regarding what the term actually 
means.
  For example, the abortion pill RU46 is used to chemically induce 
abortions between 5 and 7 weeks into pregnancy, yet some groups refer 
to it as a contraceptive in their literature. The original Lowey 
amendment contained a definition which, in my view, is flawed, but this 
version contains no definition at all. Therefore, it imposes a complex 
and perhaps impossible new duty on the FDA officials, and so we have a 
situation where it will be in the eyes of the beholder.
  Let me also point out to my colleagues that this is a mandate. Mr. 
Chairman, if we read the language of this legislation or of this 
amendment, an HMO or a provider of services under the Federal Employees 
Health Benefits Program would not even get reimbursed for an antibiotic 
that they wanted to write as a prescription, penicillin or any other 
kind of prescription, unless they provided a provision of contraceptive 
coverage, and again, that is not defined.
  So I believe this does open up a Pandora's box. It leaves open the 
possibility of abortifacients, those chemicals that kill and destroy a 
newly formed human life, and will indeed be mandated if this 
legislation or this amendment becomes law.
  So I hope that Members will vote ``no.'' It is certainly ambiguous; 
it does not define what the word ``contraceptive'' means, and while 
indeed a way has been found to get this offered today, there is not 
really a nickel's worth of difference between this and the other, 
except that it gained muster in terms of parliamentary procedure.
  I urge Members to vote ``no.'' This mandates right now in the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Program contraception, however one may define 
it, is permissible. It is up to the individual HMOs, and many of them 
provide it, but it is not mandated. If I as an HMO want to provide, or 
a provider of services, these kinds of things, one can do it, but one 
is not told that they have to do it, and they do not risk losing 
everything else in the prescription area as a result of not being 
willing to provide these methods of birth control, which also will 
include abortifacients.
  So I hope Members will vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Lowey provision within the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill. The 
vast majority of FEHB plans do not cover the full range of prescription 
contraceptives which prevent unintended pregnancies and 10 percent of 
the FEHB plans do not even cover any of the five major contraceptives.
  We all know that the FEHB program serves as a model for the nation's 
private health insurance plans. If we do not even cover such basic and 
essential prescription drugs that can decrease the number of abortions 
in this country, then what kinds of message are we sending the American 
people?
  Eighty-one percent of FEHB plans do not cover all five leading 
reversible methods of contraception. (Oral contraceptives, diaphragm, 
IUD's, Norplant, and Depo-Provera). Many women have medical conditions 
that prevent them from even having the option to use certain forms of 
contraception. Women deserve to be able to choose from all 5 of the 
major forms of contraception not only for their specific medical needs, 
but because she and her mate should be able to determine the form of 
birth control that is right for them. This should not and cannot be 
based on the lack of funds, which far too often results in unwanted 
pregnancies.
  Currently, women of reproductive age spend 68% more in out-of-pocket 
health costs than men. We need to narrow the gender gap in insurance 
coverage--not widen the disparities between those who have and those 
have not, and further expand the chasm that has hurt far too many women 
and families throughout the country already.
  The Lowey provision is a critical, yet basic necessity that has a 
``negligible'' cost according to the Congressional Budget Office. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in making sure that we do all that we can 
to reduce the likelihood of abortion in this country, do all that we 
can to help women obtain the prescription drugs they need, and do all 
that we can to make this health care system more equal for women and 
men.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity 
to speak today. I rise to strongly support the Lowey Amendment to the 
FY 1999 Treasury Postal Service general government appropriations bill. 
The Rules Committee voted not to protect Representative Lowey's 
language on H.R. 4104.
  Representative Lowey's amendment required Federal employee health 
benefits to cover contraceptive drugs and related services to 
individuals and their families. However, with her amendment on the 
floor, I believe we cannot deny American women to select their own 
contraceptive methods.
  Currently the Federal employee health benefit plan uniformly offers 
prescription drug coverage, but the majority of such health plans 
discriminate against women by failing to include coverage for the full 
range of prescription contraceptives. Such Federal health insurance 
must cover these FDA approved contraceptives.
  In fact, 10% of Federal employee health plans fail to cover 
reversible contraceptives.
  In some cases, plans only cover one method of prescription 
contraception. Overall, 81% of Federal employee health benefit plans do 
not cover all five leading reversible methods of contraception, which 
of course, prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce the need for 
abortion.
  The Federal program should be a model for private plans, and as an 
employer, it is shocking that the Federal Government does not provide 
this basic health benefit for women and their families insured through 
FEHB.
  Women of reproductive age spend 68% more of their own money for 
health care than men, with contraception and related health services 
accounting for much of the difference. If their Congress can include 
Medicaid coverage for Viagra--why should women be denied needed health 
coverage.
  Making the full range of contraceptive options available to our 
Federal employees is not only an issue of fairness, but is an issue of 
women's health and reproductive choice.
  We must remember that increased access to contraceptives is critical 
to the effort of reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. 
Contraceptive use is an appropriate family planning method.
  Increasing access to contraceptives through insurance coverage will 
help Federal employees obtain the methods and services they need to 
plan their families. Poll show that 90% of the American voting public 
supports family planning.
  I hope that my colleagues will take this opportunity to support 
family planning. Let's make sure every child is a wanted and cared for 
child.
  I urge my colleagues to support Ms. Lowey's amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey 
amendment to include contraceptive coverage under all Federal Employee 
Health Benefit plans, allowing,

[[Page H5697]]

of course, exceptions based on religious beliefs.
  It seems like the beginning of the appropriations process signals the 
beginning of hunting season on a women's reproductive rights.
  Figure it out--contraception means prevention of pregnancy . . . 
rubbers, gels, pills, IUDs . . .
  Unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates drop when women have access to 
the preventive reproductive health care they want and need.
  Voluntary family planning gives mothers and families new choices and 
new hope . . . increasing child survival and safe motherhood by 
offering choice in their method of birth control . . . providing choice 
of contraceptive options.
  Prohibiting Federal workers from using their health care coverage for 
prescription contraceptive coverage as they see fit discriminates 
against women just because they work for the Federal Government!
  This is a disgrace!
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on the rule.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to set the record 
straight.
  It's time for an open and honest dialogue regarding government's 
message to a couple's right to exercise choice.
  My colleagues from the other side of the aisle argue that 
contraception shouldn't be included in the Federal Employees Healthcare 
Benefit Plan.
  Why!? It's time that government takes responsibility about what we 
tell the American people.
  On one hand you say no abortion and then hypocritically turn the 
cheek and say no contraception.
  Well, we can't have it both ways.
  Come-on. Let's level with the American people.
  To refuse to provide basic medical service to a woman, what we are 
really saying is that we don't trust her to make a responsible choice.
  The FEHB program should be a model for private plans.
  We need to narrow the gender inequity with regards to women's health.
  Abortion makes us all uneasy.
  Voting to strike the Lowey language guarantees an increase in the 
practice of abortion--period.
  Ensuring that the Lowey language stands reiterates Congress's 
commitment to make abortion less common and less necessary.
  I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to respect a 
woman's decision and maintain the FEHBP plans provide contraception.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Representative 
Lowey's amendment, which would require Federal Employee Health Benefit 
Plans to cover prescription contraceptives as they cover other 
prescription drugs. This amendment will guarantee contraceptive 
coverage to more than a million women and will help bridge the 
unfortunate gap between the out-of-pocket health care expenses of women 
and men.
  As I have stated in many occasions, it is my personal view that the 
miracle of procreation is the greatest gift we are given, and it should 
be accorded the utmost respect and protection. Although I am deeply 
committed to this belief, I have always recognized that certain 
exceptions exist where compassion and morality dictate that abortion is 
the only humane choice. For this reason, I have consistently favored an 
exception to abortion restrictions where it is necessary to save the 
life of the mother, and I have voted to allow states to use Medicaid 
funding to perform abortions in cases of rape or incest.
  Furthermore, I have always believed that women should have access to 
contraception. I recognize that this is a critical component of 
comprehensive women's health care and is an important means of 
preventing unintended pregnancies. Perhaps most importantly, increasing 
the availability of contraceptives can reduce the need for abortion, a 
goal which I believe all of my colleagues join me in supporting. It 
would indeed be hypocritical to condemn abortion while simultaneously 
denying women access to methods of contraception which can help make 
this tragic practice a less common occurrence.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the abortion 
debate to join me in supporting the Lowey amendment. Despite the 
controversy surrounding this issue, I would hope that we might come 
together in support of improving women's health while reducing the need 
for abortions.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House resolution 498, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) 
will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments?


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Northup

  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Northup:
       Page 109, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 648. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to fund United States Postal Service participation in 
     the Universal Postal Union.

  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I again rise to talk about the importance 
of fairness.
  In this country we have given the United States Postal Service a 
monopoly on delivery of mail and universal mail service. None of us 
disagree with that. In fact, all of us appreciate the wonderful gains 
that have been made over the past years in terms of customer 
friendliness and in terms of efficiency, and we are not here to 
jeopardize that today.
  But, in fact, the United States Postal Service has decided that they 
are going to expand their operations and get into services and provide 
services in which the private market already exists. As they do that, 
they have used, in the international forum, special prerogatives that 
they have to negotiate sweetheart deals with other countries in order 
to bypass Customs, both saving time and money.
  What does that mean? That means that our hard-working Americans here 
in this country, members of the teamsters, that deliver the packages 
around this country and that depend on the solvency and the growth and 
the opportunities that our private carriers are providing, that their 
jobs are in jeopardy.
  So as the Postal Service gets into competitive services, we ought to 
make sure that whoever negotiates the arrangements between this country 
and other countries, that all of those arrangements are the same, 
regardless of whether one is a private carrier bringing that package, 
or the United States Post Office.

                              {time}  1715

  All we ask is that the trade negotiator have an opportunity to be in 
that room and ensure that the same arrangements that are available to 
the postal service are available to the private carriers.
  That is what the language was that was in the bill. It was struck on 
a point of order. So now I bring an amendment on which I have checked 
with the parliamentarian, and understand is not authorizing on 
appropriations. It is meant to hold a place so in the conference 
committee we can restore the very popular language that is supported by 
so many Members of this body to ensure that we have fairness.
  It would be great if we could do it another year, but the fact is, 
these negotiations are going to go on this February, before we have 
another chance to pass a bill to bring this fairness. So if we do not 
put this in this bill, then all the Americans who have jobs in this 
country, all the union jobs for companies that provide package delivery 
service, all of those jobs and their ability for their companies to 
compete internationally will be in jeopardy.
  It is important that we pass this amendment so that we have the 
fairness that all American employees deserve.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. NORTHUP. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman 
yielding. I certainly would not repeat the exhilerating speech I gave 
earlier.
  Because there is a possibility that when the gentlewoman's former 
amendment was stricken, our language might have been stricken, I would 
like to make sure that the world does not miss the opportunity of 
reading these wonderful remarks.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Those were remarks we would not want anybody to miss. 
They were very helpful. I thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is quite correct. As drafted, this 
amendment is quite germane, because it is

[[Page H5698]]

simply a funds limitation to this act, as I think she knows, and as is 
suggested by her comments that she is looking for a placeholder.
  There are no funds appropriated in this act for the Postal Service 
for this purpose, or virtually any other purpose, for that matter, 
except for a very small appropriation that we give for the overseas 
mail and for mail for the blind.
  Therefore, it does not have any real effect on the bill, but would 
certainly sustain or keep her position in the conference committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not favor this amendment because I do not believe 
that the United States ought to be involved in this agency on terms 
that enable us to less effectively defend our national interests than 
we are under the present circumstances.
  In substance, I think the amendment is wrong. I would say, however, 
that this amendment does absolutely ``nothing to nobody,'' as my 
friends in the old neighborhood used to say. It has no real effect.
  It reminds me what Congress does on foreign policy sanctions. This 
Congress passes item after item which places sanctions on some foreign 
country on something that the Congress does not like, and then it gives 
the President a waiver so the President can waive the sanction 
limitations. That means Congress as an institution gets to pose for 
political holy pictures. We get to pretend that we have done something. 
Then the President has to wrestle with the real world.
  That is sort of, in mini scale, what this amendment does. This 
amendment is simply an institutional press release which says that we 
want Federal Express and United Parcel Service to be cut in on the 
deal, rather than having the U.S. post office.
  Because, as the chairman indicates, this bill carries no funds for 
that purpose, and because the post office has plenty of funds it gets 
elsewhere, the practical effect of this amendment is nil. So Members 
can pass this if they want, they can pretend they have done something 
if they want, but it has no real effect.
  If it did have an effect, it would be negative, in my view, so I, for 
whatever good it will do, would oppose this amendment, but I recognize 
what is going to happen here.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

  Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Sanders:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. 648. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to make any loan or credit in excess of $250,000,000 
     to a foreign entity or government of a foreign country 
     through the exchange stabilization fund under section 5302 of 
     title 31, United States Code.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment aims to stop the Exchange 
Stabilization Fund from making loans to foreign countries without the 
approval of Congress.
  This amendment has wide tripartisan support, and is being cosponsored 
by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. Chairman, the Exchange Stabilization Fund was created in 1934 to 
allow the government to buy and sell currency in order to stabilize the 
dollar. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent years, a slush fund for 
anything the Secretary of the Treasury considers necessary. This is 
wrong. It must be changed. That is what this tripartisan amendment is 
all about.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1995 the House passed a very similar amendment to 
what I am offering today by a very strong vote of 245 to 183. It passed 
that amendment then for the same reason that I hope and believe the 
amendment today will pass. That is that Members of Congress do not 
believe that the President of the United States, any President, no 
matter what his or her politics might be, should unilaterally be able 
to commit billions of taxpayer dollars without congressional approval. 
That is the major issue that we are discussing today.
  As a result of compromise within the conference committee in 1995, a 
diluted version of this original amendment was eventually passed into 
law prohibiting more than $1 billion for any future bailouts for longer 
than 6 months without congressional approval. That was the law up until 
a few months ago. Unfortunately, this provision expired after 2 years, 
which is why we are here today.
  I should add that days after this legislation expired, President 
Clinton committed at least $3 billion to Indonesia and $5 billion to 
South Korea through the Exchange Stabilization Fund as part of the East 
Asian financial bailouts. These billions of dollars of taxpayers' money 
were, once again, placed at risk without any debate or any vote in the 
United States Congress.
  My amendment will simply restore some limited and modest restraints 
on the ESF similar to restraints that have won congressional approval 
in the past, and have worked out well in practice.
  Mr. Chairman, let me explain exactly what this amendment does, 
because there has been some confusion about this. This amendment will 
limit the use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund for loans and credits 
in excess of $250 million to foreign governments, banks, or investors 
unless authorized and approved by Congress. Our amendment will not, 
underlined, not, stop the Treasury Department from using the ESF for 
its original purpose, which is stabilizing U.S. currency.
  For example, the recent $2 billion yen purchase would not be blocked 
by our amendment. This amendment will not affect over 90 percent of ESF 
loans, credit, and currency purchases.
  What this amendment does address are the relatively rare but highly 
controversial multibillion dollar loans which put billions of dollars 
of taxpayer money at risk without one minute of debate on the floor of 
the Congress. Not until 1995 was this fund ever used for loans in 
excess of $1 billion to any one country, or for longer than 6 months.
  Mr. Chairman, if the President of the United States wants to come 
before the Congress and propose a bailout of a foreign country, that is 
fine. Let him come. If the Congress wants to approve that 
appropriation, that is fine. But what this amendment says, very 
straightforwardly, is that the President of the United States may not 
unilaterally place at risk billions of taxpayer dollars without the 
approval of the Congress.
  That is the right way to deal with these issues, and in fact, that is 
the constitutional way to address these issues, consistent with article 
1 of the U.S. Constitution, which invests Congress with the power of 
the purse. The Exchange Stabilization Fund is a classic example of how 
powers granted to the executive for one purpose are perverted to other 
uses.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Sanders was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, it is wrong and it was wrong for the 
President of the United States to put at risk $20 billion in the 
Mexican bailout, to put at risk $3 billion providing credit to 
Indonesia, and $5 billion to South Korea, without discussion, debate, 
or approval of the Congress.
  Now, there are some Members here who thought that was a good idea. 
That is fine. But if we are here to represent the taxpayers of this 
country on major foreign policy and financial issues, we cannot simply 
sit back and allow a slush fund which is estimated to have $30 billion 
to be used whenever the President of the United States, any President, 
wants to do that.

[[Page H5699]]

  I personally, for example, would have fought vigorously against the 
bailout to Indonesia, which went to General Suharto, a well-known 
dictator, who has the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on his 
hands. Should we have sat back and said, no problem, let Suharto have 
that money, or do we have a right to debate that issue?
  In terms of Mexico, we have a letter that I will submit for the 
Record signed by the leader of the 126-member bloc in the congress of 
Mexico which says that the Exchange Stabilization Fund, plus the IMF, 
resulted in disastrous policies for Mexico, higher unemployment, lower 
wages, the collapse of small business.
  Should that issue be discussed on the floor of the Congress? Of 
course it should. Some may say it was a good idea. That is fine. Some 
may have opposed it. That is fine. But we cannot abdicate our 
responsibility and sit back.
  To conclude, Mr. Chairman, this amendment in many ways is similar to 
the amendment that was overwhelmingly passed several years ago, and I 
would urge my colleagues to support this concept once again.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I am not sure, 
quite frankly, in trying to read this amendment, whether it really has 
any impact at all, since it states that no funds in the act shall be 
made available or shall be used to make any loan or credit in excess of 
$250 million.

                              {time}  1730

  Since we do not appropriate money for the loans or credit in this 
act, it is not clear to me at all, without a further limitation on 
salaries of the personnel of the Department, whether or not this really 
has any impact. But on the assumption that it will indeed have an 
impact, let me just say that I am very opposed to putting such a 
sweeping and substantive amendment on this legislation.
  If the gentleman's intent is correct and it is worded correctly, he 
would prevent them from administering funds for the Economic 
Stabilization Fund but it does not spell out any conditions for turning 
the funding back on. So it is just nothing in excess of $250 million 
which, as we know, in modern day times is not a lot of money when you 
are looking at trying to stabilize the currency of a country.
  This is an overreaction, Mr. Chairman. It is an overreaction to the 
concerns about legislative oversight of the ESF, which is considerable, 
but it should not be a part of this bill.
  The primary purpose of the fund is to give the Department of 
Treasury, which has the expertise, the training and the institutional 
knowledge to deal with an economic crisis, the ability to respond to 
unforeseen shifts in currency markets.
  Now, this is not new. The ESF has been around for over 60 years as a 
vital tool for defending the American dollar and protecting U.S. 
economic and security issues. It was critical in stopping the dollar 
turbulence from 1987 to 1990, and the fund continues to be the 
Department of Treasury's main currency stabilizing force. It has been 
used again, as was mentioned by the gentleman from Vermont, in Mexico. 
It has been used again in the crisis in Asia.
  While it is important that Congress continue its oversight function 
to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being properly administered, it is 
completely unrealistic and unworkable for the U.S. Congress to 
preapprove each and every use of this fund. Let me just give you an 
example of this.
  At this time, we have 37,000 troops stationed in South Korea. The 
border area between the North and South is constantly on the verge of 
conflict. The North Koreans certainly want to take advantage of any 
weakness that they would see in South Korea, and that would include 
economic weaknesses. Our troops, our men and women who are stationed in 
Korea, would be in jeopardy from a national security standpoint if 
there was a complete financial breakdown, an economic breakdown in 
South Korea.
  There is no way that Congress can convene to determine whether or not 
to stabilize that economic situation on the spur of the moment. Given 
the current economic crisis that we are seeing in Southeast Asia and 
the recent saber rattling between Pakistan and India, this is not the 
time to take away this important economic tool that the administration 
has.
  I cannot think of anything that we would be more ill-advised to do on 
an appropriations bill, something as sweeping as this, as far-reaching 
as this, and one which would have such an enormous economic impact. I 
would hope this body would reject firmly and decisively the Sanders 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the subcommittee chairman, 
for his very sober and realistic comments on this amendment.
  Let me start by saying that I have a very high regard for the 
gentleman from Vermont. I am very fond of him personally. I think he is 
one of the few Members in this institution who really cares about poor 
people and working people. And if everybody had his heart in putting 
them first, this country would be a far better place.
  But I have to say I think he is profoundly wrong on this amendment. I 
opposed NAFTA. I opposed GATT. Because I thought the way that they were 
structured made workers of this country cannon fodder in the way this 
country dealt with the pressures of globalization. But I have to say 
that to require the Congress to have to preapprove every single action 
taken by any executive before they could use the Exchange Stabilization 
Fund would be a profound recipe for disaster.
  Let me explain why. All you have to do is take a look at this 
morning's newspaper, the first page of the business section, and you 
will see that our economy in the last quarter has slowed almost to 
zero. The reason for that is not because of anything that has happened 
in this country. The reason for that is because of something that has 
happened in a faraway place called Asia. And what we had there is a 
series of currency collapses which have resulted in our inability to 
export our goods to that market because they are in such a panic they 
cannot buy things. And it will also result in the future in underpriced 
goods coming into this country from those same countries, taking away 
American jobs.
  The best way to deal with that is to try to stabilize currencies.
  Now, when the administration did that a number of years ago with 
respect to Mexico, I had great doubts about it. At one point I even 
cast a vote on this floor expressing those doubts. But I was wrong. The 
fact is that even though I would have done it differently, we wound up 
making money on that transaction.
  I would point out that there would have been no way that we could 
have responded to the emergency in South Korea if we had had to have 
the prior approval of Congress before we did that. And the Asian 
collapse and its effect on the U.S. economy today would have been far, 
far worse.
  The gentleman mentioned Indonesia. I, for years, have wanted the 
United States to get rid of its relationship with the previous dictator 
in that country. I supported amendments on both the Republican and 
Democratic side of the aisle to eliminate military aid to Indonesia, 
because I thought that that army was nothing but a butcher's dream. But 
I would say that it is not wrong to try to stabilize the economy in 
that country before their instability washes over our workers and 
causes American workers to lose jobs.
  I would make one further observation. I think anybody knows that if 
we had to preapprove every executive action on this issue, that 
decisions about the use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund would be 
made primarily on the basis of politics and not economics. I do not 
think that that would be a very great credit to this Congress or a very 
great contribution to the country.
  The Great Depression was caused not by the collapse of the American 
stock market but by the fact that you had a successive collapse of 
banks and currencies around the world, and the result was that our 
Federal Reserve itself was frozen, as FDR said, in the ice of

[[Page H5700]]

its own indifference. And the result was a mess for years in this 
economy and the world economy.
  I think the amendment is well meaning, but I think the amendment 
would be highly destructive if it were ever put into place. I would 
urge the rejection of the amendment so that our Treasury Department 
retains the capacity to move quickly to contain currency problems 
before they become major crises.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I know this amendment is well intentioned, but I think 
if it were to become the law of the land it would truly be disastrous. 
The only thing that gives me some consolation is that it would not 
become the law of the land because the President would veto any bill 
that would contain such a limiting amendment. So I stand with the 
chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), in the strongest possible opposition 
to this amendment.
  Rather than simply give my own words, what I would like to do is read 
from a recent letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin. 
Secretary Rubin wrote to the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
with specific reference to this amendment.
  He said,

       Such an amendment would constitute an unacceptable 
     limitation on the Executive Branch's ability to protect 
     critical United States economic interests, and I would be 
     forced to recommend a presidential veto if the final bill 
     contains such restrictions.

                              {time}  1745

  The original Economic Stabilization Fund statute deliberately 
provided the executive branch with the flexibility needed to respond 
expeditiously and effectively when justified by important national 
economic interests. Because the nature of financial crises sometimes 
requires urgent action to stabilize markets and protect the United 
States' economy, it is necessary to act more quickly than is permitted 
by the deliberative procedures of the legislative branch. This is 
particularly true in today's large, fast-moving financial markets.
  To take just one recent example, the Economic Stabilization Fund 
permitted the United States, with broad international cooperation, to 
participate in a critical, highly time-sensitive Christmas Eve effort 
to forestall financial default in Korea, where 37,000 American troops 
are stationed. The economic and national security consequences of a 
Korean default were clearly unacceptable risks for the United States, 
and the availability and flexibility of Exchange Stabilization Fund 
resources were indispensable to our stabilization efforts.
  Let me make clear that we fully accept our responsibility to account 
to Congress for our actions under the ESF statute. Treasury submits 
detailed monthly reports on ESF transactions to the banking committees, 
and the President submits an annual report to the Congress. We believe 
strongly that our past use of the ESF, as well as any potential use as 
intended in the Asian crisis, is prudent and consistent with the spirit 
and letter of the law.
  He urges then the Congress to preserve the ESF statute and reject 
this amendment.
  My colleagues, this is not only the position of this Secretary of the 
Treasury, this is the position of every single past Secretary of the 
Treasury, regardless whether conservative, Republican, or liberal 
Democrat, and every single President.
  We are not talking about the IMF now, we are talking about the 
Exchange Stabilization Fund. This is an essential tool. We would no 
more send our troops into combat saying that they could not expend more 
than $250 million in a military action without congressional approval 
than we would say, when it comes to an economic crisis, the 
administration is prevented from acting unless there is prior 
congressional approval. That simply would not work. We would be the 
laughing stock of the world. But more than being the laughing stock of 
the world, we could precipitate an even worse international crisis than 
anything we have ever encountered.
  We are the world's not only military superpower, we are the world's 
only economic superpower right now and we need the weaponry of the ESF, 
the Exchange Stabilization Fund, to fulfill this important role. Please 
reject this amendment.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
  My good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), should 
read the amendment. The amendment says that we cannot give $250 million 
in a giveaway or a loan. We can still go out and prop up the currency. 
So I do not know if the gentleman perhaps did not read the amendment, 
but what we are talking about is should our government have a slush 
fund and go out and give away money; make loans. That is what we are 
talking about. So I rise on behalf of the amendment, an enthusiastic 
cosponsor.
  Basically, let us take this analogy. Let us say that tonight we 
decided to form a limited partnership or a corporation. We all sat down 
and we each put up $100. We elected a president and a secretary. And 
for tonight, that case would be President Clinton, would be our 
President, and our secretary would be Rubin. We would put all our money 
in a pot.
  Well, after about 10 years we find that the President and the 
secretary have a slush fund beyond the money that was reported to us, 
and they want to use this money as a giveaway. Not only do we have the 
President and the Secretary of Treasury doing this, in terms of just 
giving the money as a loan, or giving it away as foreign aid without 
approval from us or Congress, they now have a slush fund which he 
accumulated to a point when it is $38 billion.
  So the question we are talking about tonight, do we want our 
Congress, that represents the people, to control giving away more than 
$250 million? Do we want our Congress to control loans of more than 
$250 million? I submit the answer is yes.
  That is all we are asking tonight. We are not saying that the 
Exchange Stabilization Fund cannot prop up currencies. Good Lord, the 
President has the IMF; he has the World Bank. Is it not proper for 
representatives of Congress, who are elected by the people, to control 
money as foreign aid; and as loans? Should we not, before we give away 
$300 million, a billion dollars, have the approval of the taxpayers; or 
in this case this little group of people that meets tonight to form 
this limited partnership or this corporation?
  So I rise in strong support of this amendment. Our colleague here on 
our side offered this amendment in 1995. It passed overwhelmingly, and 
then, of course, it expired. So what we are asking tonight is not a big 
deal. We are just asking to reinforce our past policy and to extend 
this policy. This is what this amendment does.
  I think it was mentioned earlier that the ESF was established in 
1934. Let us go back to what its purpose was: to give the U.S. adequate 
financial resources to counteract the activities of the European fund. 
Now, the fund was established with $2 billion appropriated from profits 
realized from the revaluation of U.S. gold holdings. But slowly, 
through history, this limited partnership, this corporation, this 
country in this case, was successful, and they have more and more 
money, and they have perverted the original idea of just using it for 
stabilizing funds. They are now the supreme power today and now just 
give away our money. They have their own foreign aid slush fund. Their 
own bank which operates without U.S. citizens consent.
  All we are saying is, listen, if we are going to give away money to a 
sovereign nation, or we are going to make a loan, just come back and 
ask the taxpayers for approval. Because this little group that meets, 
or these 260 million Americans, would like to know what you are doing. 
It is constitutional in fact. The Exchange Stabilization Fund, when it 
gets this big, $38 billion, its mission is going to change. It will be 
all over the park. It will be doing all kinds of things that are not in 
the original mission. We are just going to ask for a little control 
here tonight. It is an important principle.
  And if the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), and others, are 
really, really worried, what Mr. Rubin is able to do, he can still loan 
$250 million today, then a month later he can do another $250 million, 
and he can keep

[[Page H5701]]

doing this without coming back to Congress. Now, that is not the intent 
of this amendment, but he can skirt the process.
  Now, the proponents will counter and they will say no nation has ever 
defaulted on such loans. Well, do we bail out nations in order to pay 
us back? Is that what we are trying to do tonight? Those nations go to 
other sources and borrow more money. Is this an effective means to help 
nations? The use of the ESF in this manner is truly unproductive and 
repetitive. Not only is there IMF funds to help nations, there is also 
the World Bank and, as I mentioned, the private sector. Most of us 
believe in the free market. Why can't the private sector make the loans 
and provide credits? Why does Secretary Rubin have to bail out nations 
with an illegal slush fund?
  Tonight, I believe we have an opportunity to change this habitual 
practice, and I ask all my colleagues to support this amendment 
because, in so doing, they are going to put a little control in this 
slush fund so that no longer will the administration have their own 
foreign aid program where they give away money. They will have to come 
back to Congress. They can continue to balance the exchange rate in 
case of emergencies, like the gentleman from New York mentioned in 
Korea on Christmas Eve, but they cannot go out and just give money 
gratuitously hoping to influence policy.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. Many of my colleagues 
have pointed out in the process that the Economic Stabilization Fund 
has changed since 1934, and I think that that is true. The world has 
changed, and the role of the United States today, as the leading 
economic power in the global marketplace, is very important.
  I would think that my colleagues would be looking at the global 
economy and looking at our mixed economy and the free enterprise system 
and marketplace values that we have advocated, and the success that 
they are having on a global basis, and have a very great interest in 
maintaining them. To adopt this amendment would be the military 
equivalent of a unilateral disarmament.
  The fact is I understand that many of my colleagues would advocate 
such a free market situation that we would leave some of the countries 
that are experiencing these economic downturns and turmoil to proceed 
to economic ground zero. The fact is that almost anyplace we look at 
the utilization of the Economic Stabilization Fund, as exercised 
authority by the Treasury, with the approval of the President and past 
Presidents and past Secretaries of the Treasury, anyplace we look at 
that we find a lot of pain, economically, as is the case that has been 
pointed out with regards to Mexico and the bankruptcy and problems that 
have occurred. The ESF isn't loaning funds where it isn't needed.
  But the question that one must ask themselves is what would it have 
been like if we had let the hand of sort of an Adam Smith level the 
entire country of Mexico and then start over. I am certain that none of 
my colleagues are so duty bound to the ideological proposition or 
theories of a free market that they want to see that type of suffering 
occur in Mexico.
  The fact of the matter is we are not just doing this to help the 
Mexicans or the Korean government, as many of my colleagues talked 
about the U.S. and IMF intervention since last December, but, in fact, 
we are doing it to help ourselves that is the U.S.A. too. In other 
words, this is the evolution in terms of how the U.S.A. intervenes and 
how to assist a global economy and help our own exchange rates and help 
other economies that has also evolved since 1934. We have a better 
understanding of the global economy. And, of course, this Economic 
Stabilization Fund plays a key role, along with other multinational 
financial institutions that exist, which, of course, we are debating 
broadly.
  And, of course, there is great debate over whether or not the IMF 
ought to receive the type of funding that has been requested by the 
President. But this amendment of ESF is not just a new funding. This 
attempt in this particular amendment is to renege, is to renege on the 
existing powers and the existing authority and the existing tools that 
the Secretary of the Treasury and that this President have in terms of 
trying to deal with a tumultuous economic circumstance that basically 
surrounds us in four different directions. That is what the effect of 
this amendment is to deny and frustrate the ability of the U.S.A. to 
play a vital economic role.
  And, of course, to portray that we could deal with those particular 
problems in $250 million increments is, of course, not a serious 
effort. The fact of the matter is that countries right today, right 
this week, as we pick up the paper and read about the type of loans and 
the type of financial structure that had to be dealt with to prevent 
the default of the entire country of Russia, I would think would bring 
a little bit to reality; would bring us down to a little bit of terra 
firma, right down to the ground, to where we can feel and experience 
what is going on rather than being up here where we would pull the 
tools away and let the chips fall where they may.
  Is this a perfect tool? Is the IMF a perfect tool? I think the answer 
is no. But the gentleman is offering to take this away and to 
substantially reduce it to the point of being ineffectual and not 
putting anything in its place. And, of course, I think one can point 
out that some employees used this for dinners or did other things that 
this money was not to be used for, but we get monthly reports on this 
now. There has been an accounting and is an accounting that needs to be 
the subject of our oversight committees.
  But to pull this ESF down is to, in fact, set a course for an 
economic spiral, a downturn, that would greatly hurt this Nation. So 
the gentleman's amendment is not offering improvement, it is offering 
pulling the plug out. Stop the world, I want to get off. I want to stop 
this U.S. economy. We have to accept more responsibility than that, and 
we ought to exercise good judgment by resisting and soundly defeating 
this amendment.

                              {time}  1800

  This amendment deserves to be defeated. We should not let them 
unilaterally disarm our economic capacity. We ought to leave those 
tools in place. We ought to be debating the IMF and trying to improve 
on what the programs do and how they operate.
  Yes, there is a lot of pain where the IMF is involved or where the 
economic stabilization fund is involved, but not because of it. These 
programs are the solutions to the economic difficulties, not the 
problem.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, and this has been said several times but 
let us say it one more time, this Exchange Stabilization Fund was 
created by this Congress, by an appropriation by this Congress in 1934. 
And our Nation, our Treasury, our taxpayer, that is taxpayer money, 
that is money that belongs to the citizens of the United States. It is 
not the Treasury's money. It is not the Congress's money. It is not the 
President's money. It is the people's money. And presently it is $38 
billion.
  What this amendment says to this money which we can oversee, it says 
that we will not loan more than $250 million of this money at any one 
time to a foreign country. It does not place any limitations on us 
using this fund for currency transactions. In fact, we had a currency 
transaction 2 weeks ago by the Treasury. This fund is a fund to 
strengthen the U.S. dollar.
  And what did we use this fund for 2 weeks ago? We used it to drive 
down the U.S. dollar and drive up the yen to enable Japan to be able to 
export cheaper to the United States. That is what we used it for 2 
weeks ago. We used it to help the Japanese economy and to help people 
that compete against our businesses.
  I was told, in opposing this amendment, the chairman of the 
subcommittee said $250 million is not a lot of money. Well, let me say 
this about the economy. Let me say this about protecting our economy. 
And when the gentleman has time, I will let him yield to me and we will 
debate. Let me say this about our economy.

[[Page H5702]]

  Senator E.B. McLean came to my office today. He and I served in the 
Alabama legislature. He told me that a company that had been in 
Birmingham for over 100 years, employed 400 people, had gone out of 
business 3 months ago, a coke plant. There were no Federal funds 
available to help this coke plant. Had it been in Korea, we could have 
taken money out of this fund I guess and propped it up because it would 
have helped the Korean economy and that would have helped our economy 
perhaps. But it failed. And he said it failed because of cheap coke 
coming into our country from the Pacific Basin.
  So I am not saying that we should not use all this money to go around 
the country. And the President said we want to use $5 billion to loan 
to South Korea; we want to loan $3 billion of this money to Indonesia. 
I am simply saying, I do not think we ought to continue to loan this 
money. It is not strengthening the U.S. dollar. It is strengthening 
those economies. It strengthens their economies. And, yes, there is a 
residual of benefit for us. But what if we had gone to Birmingham, 
Alabama, and used some of that money to have assisted that coke plant 
with 400 people that worked there? Would that not have helped our 
economy? Would that not be a more direct way?
  We can turn our backs on all this and we can say this is not under 
our control and this $38 billion can be loaned all over the world. Or, 
as representatives of the people, we can vote for this amendment and 
say, if they are going to loan this money to foreign countries, which 
was not the original intent of the Exchange Stabilization Fund, at 
least vote yes or no.
  They are giving away money, billions of dollars. They are proposing 
it. If this amendment does not go on, the President has already 
announced $8 billion worth of loans out of the Treasury.
  Somebody talked about the Constitution, what is appropriate and what 
is not. Let me quote section 9 of Article I of the Constitution. ``No 
money shall be drawn from the Treasury but by appropriation made by law 
by this Congress.''
  What happened to the Constitution when we gave $20 billion to Mexico? 
I do not care whether it was paid back or not. It was given to Mexico. 
Did it help Mexico? No. Their GNP is worse than it was before the loan. 
They owe $160 billion today. They owed $40 billion then.
  We can continue to loan money to every country around this world, 
Russia, China, Japan; and one day we are not going to have a fund to 
bail out our own dollar.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say this in conclusion. I am saying let us vote 
on this. If we want to loan money to these foreign countries, take a 
stand, vote on it. Do not turn our backs and let the President do it 
without consent.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment. I do so for 
many of the reasons that have already been articulated by some of our 
colleagues; and that is, simply, we are being told that this 
stabilization fund cannot do business if it has to get engaged in a 
little bit of democratic process. And that is that we have a fund here 
with $38 billion that was originally designed for the stabilization of 
currency. We have had interventions time and again, many of which have 
not been certainly questioned by the Congress, many of which have been 
unsuccessful, some of which have been successful when they are 
coordinated on a multilateral basis. But the fact of the matter is now 
what we have is we have a means by which we circumvent whether or not 
some of the activities that the IMF is able to do or not able to do or 
willing to do or not willing to do and we are now making investments of 
substantial amounts of the American taxpayer dollars. And we ought to 
have disclosure of that, we ought to have debate of that, and we ought 
to have approval of that.
  Because we have moved out of the minor leagues in this day and age. 
We are moving into now the movement and the quick movement of billions 
of dollars. And depending upon the timing of that movement, sometimes 
it is wise and sometimes it is not. And sometimes, as we see, the early 
decisions about the commitment of those monies have turned out to be 
the wrong decision. I think that it is time that this Congress have 
some ability to have some say in this process.
  This money is getting moved further and further away from the people 
that provide this money, the taxpayers of this country. It is getting 
moved further and further away from the decision-making process within 
the Congress of the United States, who should be making the decisions 
about the utilization of these funds.
  That is what the Sanders amendment requests. This is not a unilateral 
economic disarmament. It is nothing of the sort. This is not 
surrendering. This is not recognizing that we do not have problems 
around the world in various economies, whether it is in Asia or Russia 
or elsewhere. All of that is still on the table.
  What this suggests is that we ask people to come and be accountable 
to the Congress for the decisions they make about the commitments of 
these resources. Why do we do that? Why do we do that? Because if we do 
not do this properly, even as we look at Asia and as we look at Russia, 
if we do not look at this properly, what we become, we become the 
enablers, we become the enablers of the flow of capital for people who 
now go beyond reasonable risk, go beyond a reasonable return, go beyond 
speculation. They head deep into greed. They head deep into greed with 
the commitment of money by private sources; and then when it goes 
wrong, they come back to the IMF, they come back to the Economic 
Stabilization Fund, and they say they have got to bail them out. They 
have to take our private decisions, many of which in the late stages of 
these games in Indonesia or Malaysia or Korea or Russia were driven by 
greed. They were not driven by economics. They were not driven by cost-
benefit studies. They were not driven by determination of market or 
cash flow. They were driven by greed.
  Now they want to make those debts, those private decisions, public. 
But in order to do that, they need a partner, and that partner becomes 
the U.S. taxpayer. I think the U.S. taxpayer has a right to ask us, as 
though sitting on the board of directors, what the hell is going on and 
what do you know about this.
  Now, there is private meetings. The Secretary of Treasury and others 
move through the corridors of Congress and they talk to this group and 
that group and they say this is what they are going to do. But what 
they do not do is they do not come out here and debate it on the floor.
  Now maybe we are going to have that debate when the IMF comes up in 
the next appropriations. But the Economic Stabilization is part of that 
debate, because this fund has become something for which it was not 
originally intended.
  I appreciate we can put a very expansive decision on currency 
stabilization. But most people understood that to be the kind of 
traditional interventions. We are going way beyond that at this stage. 
We are talking about loans being made to stabilize countries, many of 
which I appreciate money has not been lost, but there is also a great 
prospect that it will not be recovered on a timely basis for a 
considerable period of time.
  And it is about our job as Members of Congress, as elected delegates 
of the people to have some say, to have some review, not just in 
reports submitted to us months afterwards, but up front and before the 
determinations are made about the commitment of money.
  Maybe this fund should be reduced. Maybe there is another use for the 
billions of dollars here. That is part of the debate, too. Because this 
is about priorities. I think we all understand that we are going to 
have to have commitments around the world to help stabilize the world 
economy. But the size of that commitment, the timing of that commitment 
and whether or not that is a wise plan, we should be able to exercise 
some judgment, too.
  That is part of democracy. That is part of democracy. They are going 
to have the debate in the Russian Duma whether or not they want to 
accept this plan and whether or not they think this is good for Russia 
or is not. But we are already going to commit the money. We already are 
going to commit the money. If we meet with enough people from the 
Russian Duma, we wonder if any of this would be possible.

[[Page H5703]]

  So the Sanders amendment is about democratization of this process.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. I would have to say 
this amendment is a very modest approach to a serious problem. I see no 
reason for the Exchange Stabilization Fund to exist. There is no 
constitutional authority for it. There is no economic benefit for it. 
It is detrimental to the people.
  The reason why we have to support this amendment is it is a modest, 
just a small step in the direction of openness in government, a little 
bit of accountability, a little bit of oversight.
  The idea that we can create a fund in 1934 and have essentially no 
oversight for all these years, I just wonder how many billions, 
probably hundreds of billions, of dollars that have come and gone in 
and out and all the mischief it has caused. It was originally set up to 
stabilize the dollar. And what does it do, as the gentleman from 
Alabama mentioned earlier, stabilizes the yen.
  Where did the money come from? It came from confiscation, not through 
taxation, but confiscating gold from the American people, revaluing the 
gold, taking the net profits, putting it into the Exchange 
Stabilization Fund, as well as the initial financing of the IMF.
  They tried to reassure us and say, well, this is not an injury to our 
appropriations process. We do not appropriate money. We do not lose 
money. Well, that is precisely the problem. We are supposed to have 
responsibility. It is not the kind of amendment I want.
  We should be talking about this in terms of a free society. 
Certainly, if we had a sound currency, under a sound currency we do not 
have all this kind of mischief going on. And certainly, if we had a lot 
of respect for the Constitution and actually knew something about the 
Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, we would say, where do we get this 
authority to prop up other countries and other currencies at the 
expense of the American taxpayers?
  This amendment, if we want to give a lot of foreign aid away, this 
does not preclude it, it just slows us up a little bit and makes us 
think about it.
  Yes, we can get into the currency markets to the tune of billions of 
dollars. They say, well, there is only 38; they might not be able to do 
any mischief. But my strong suspicion is that the line of credit to the 
Federal Reserve is endless in the time of crisis.
  This is why we need more openness. Because, ultimately, this is a 
threat to the dollar. The dollar, when it is devalued, it hurts the 
American taxpayer. It is a hidden tax. When we devalue the dollar, we 
are spending money indirectly. We take away wealth and purchasing power 
from the American people. And it is a sinister tax. It is the most 
sinister of all taxes.
  That is why the Exchange Stabilization Fund should either be 
abolished or put on the appropriations process. If we cannot do that or 
will not do that, we have to at least pass this amendment. Pass this 
amendment and say, yes.
  If we are going to give away $250 million per country for propping up 
a foreign currency or foreign country or propping up some banks that 
made loans overseas or propping up our competitors to our own 
industries, we have to at least know about it.
  I do not think this is much of an amendment. The fact that the 
President threatens to veto this bill just because we are acting 
responsibly, this is just a small step in the right direction. I see no 
reason why we cannot pass this amendment.
  We talk a lot about supporting the currency. On a day-to-day basis, 
$1.6 trillion are transferred over the wire service. There is not one 
reputable economist in this country that I know of that really defends 
currency intervention as being productive and being able to change the 
course of events. Because although $38 billion is a lot of money and 
intervention does cause sudden shocks, causes some bond traders, 
currency traders to lose money quickly, it has no long-term effect.

                              {time}  1815

  So the original purpose under fixed exchange rate no longer exists. 
There is no need to prop up a dollar under floating currencies. This is 
used precisely to bail out special privileged people who have made 
loans overseas, special corporations around the country, special 
countries that are our competitors, and it is a way of getting around 
the Congress, it is a way of devaluing the dollar, putting more 
pressure on the dollar and hurting the American people.
  If for no other reason, if my colleagues disagree with all the 
economic arguments, there should be nobody that should disagree with 
the fact that we have a responsibility for open government. That is 
what this issue is all about, and that is what this amendment makes an 
attempt to do is try to at least get it back to where we will be 
responsible for our acts.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and would 
like to try to get the debate back on the facts.
  Let us remember for a moment that the original ESF statute 
deliberately provided the executive branch with the flexibility needed 
to respond expeditiously and effectively when justified by important 
national economic interests. That was done in 1934 for a very real 
purpose; it is just as valid today.
  Two nights ago we in this body in 40 minutes time deliberated a bill 
that was critical to making a multi-million-dollar sale of benefit to 
American agriculture, wheat-producer-specific, yesterday. Forty minutes 
we debated it. Thank goodness we did. We expeditiously handled it. That 
is something that is getting overlooked now.
  Many times, as we have heard the explanation of the international 
currency market, we do not have the time to respond. We can talk about 
our philosophical differences, which we are doing today, and I respect 
those. But since the law's enactment in 1934, this flexibility given to 
the President has served the United States well by enabling it to 
respond to emergencies.
  Consistent with this original purpose there is no need to amend the 
statute because the nature of financial crisis sometimes requires 
urgent action to stabilize markets and protect the United States 
economy. It is almost always necessary to act more quickly than is 
permitted by a deliberative procedure of this legislative branch.
  Now the slush fund language a moment ago, I wish we would not use 
terms like that unless colleagues are willing to say that the detailed 
monthly reports on ESF transactions which are submitted to our 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services monthly and the President's 
submission of an annual report to the Congress constitutes a slush 
fund. Do not use that kind of language unless searching for sound bites 
for 20-second commercials. It is not a slush fund. The appropriate 
committees are responsible for that. Mr. Chairman, I am not on the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, but I trust those on both 
sides who are.
  U.S. pledges of second line of financial support during the Asian 
financial crisis have been an integral part of the international 
response to the region's financial instability. It mobilized billions 
of dollars in multilateral support, spreading the burden among many 
nations, not just us. Japan has committed well over twice what we have 
committed, for example, as the use of this ESF funding.
  As in all such emergencies, the U.S. must be ready to act quickly and 
nimbly to protect our interests.
  We have talked about Mexico for a moment. Let us talk again about 
Mexico. The use of the ESF during the Mexican financial crisis served 
critical U.S. national interests by containing a rapidly escalating 
financial meltdown that directly threatened the U.S. economy and the 
stability of international financial systems. The use of the ESF was 
not only instrumental in the ending of the crisis, but it resulted in a 
profit of $580 million for U.S. taxpayers.
  Now U.S. agriculture has benefited from the recovery in Mexico, and I 
am here speaking primarily on behalf of U.S. agriculture, but it 
affects all of our national interest. In the wake of the recent peso 
devaluation and its aftermath, U.S. agricultural exports dropped by 
only 11 percent, and they surged back with a 34 percent gain. And we 
have heard all the anti-NAFTA et cetera, et cetera, but from the 
standpoint of the facts, from fiscal

[[Page H5704]]

year 1995 to 1996, U.S. farm and food exports to Mexico climbed by $1.3 
billion.
  So to characterize ESF as somehow being a slush fund, a boondoggle, 
as a benefit to everybody but the United States, I say to my colleagues 
who are making this argument they are not dealing with the facts.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. What I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm), Mr. Chairman, is that in terms of Mexico between 1995 and 
1997, after the so-called bailout, more than a third of Mexico's 
businesses declared bankruptcy. We have one-third of the work force is 
unemployed or in imminent danger of unemployment, nearly 2 million 
peasants have been forced to migrate in search of work, real wages have 
fallen almost 25 percent. If my colleague went to the Mexican Congress 
today, they would not tell him that it has been a successful bailout. 
They would tell him it was a disaster.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I am happy for the point the gentleman 
makes. I am here on behalf of American interests. What he is saying is 
what Mexico should or should not be doing. That was a question for 
their legislative body to, in fact, address. I am talking about what we 
ought to be doing, and I am making the argument it is in our best 
interests to provide the President of the United States with the 
flexibility needed whenever crises are involved and need to be 
addressed; that is all that I am saying today. And I believe the facts, 
as they have pertained to Southeast Asia, to Mexico and to Korea last 
December all bear out the wisdom of the original congressional act of 
1934, and I hope we continue that.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the amendment is a mistake. Yes, we have the 
power to do this, but it is not sensible to exercise indirectly every 
ounce of power we have. There are times when we may decide to get our 
purposes accomplished better by some delegation.
  One of the problems we have is we are talking here about emergency 
situations. In emergency situations it is useful for this government to 
have the power to react.
  Now it could come to Congress, but let us be clear about one of the 
major principles of legislation. The ankle bone is connected to the 
shoulder bone. There is a pattern here of an important bill coming to 
this body, and even more to the other body, and remember, this 
amendment does not say the House will decide, it says Congress will 
decide. So this means that nothing will happen unless it has gone 
through this body and the other body. The fact is that it can then 
become tied up with all matter of other issues. If, in fact, we think 
there ought to be a capacity to act on the merits or not in the 
particular financial situation, then saying there has to be an issue-
by-issue vote in both the House and the Senate makes that very 
unlikely.
  Now we have heard all kinds of terrible things that could happen from 
this fund, but the opponents of the fund, the advocates of the 
amendment, have said noticeably we have had this since 1934. Well, 
where are the horror stories? Where are all the terrible things that 
happened? We have had people say, well, billions could have been taken, 
this could have happened. We got a lot of ``couldas'' and a lot of 
``mightas'' and a lot of possibles, but we have no horror stories. And 
one thing that body is good at is giving the horror stories. If there 
had been abuses, we would have heard about them.
  Now my friend from Texas, who is intellectually honest and coherent, 
says that he is against the whole fund, he is a supporter of the gold 
standard, he does not like this whole notion of currency. He is a 
logical proponent of the amendment. But I would suggest that others 
less fiercely devoted to the gold standard than he probably are not as 
on solid logical ground.
  I will say my friend from Texas was, I thought, uncharacteristically 
a little inconsistent when he said on the one hand it is a terrible 
idea because it propped up other currencies, but then he also noted 
that according to him it is impossible to do that. So it may be guilty 
of trying to do the impossible, but it could not be guilty of having 
done the impossible.
  The gentleman from Alabama complained because we use it to prop up 
the yen. We propped up the yen because we wanted to stop the drain on 
American exports. The yen was reaching such a dangerously low level 
that it was threatening American jobs and jobs elsewhere.
  Yes, it was very much in America's interest to prop up the yen. Using 
the funds to prop up the yen was a very pro-American thing to do. And 
does anyone think that we could have done that by saying, oh, we have 
to have this emergency deal, and we are going to try and foil the 
speculators; I know what we will do, let us have a Senate hearing, and 
by the time we are through with this Senate hearing we will have foiled 
the speculators. Of course it would not work. We cannot do that.
  And then we have the gentleman from Florida, and he gave what I 
thought was the strangest argument for an amendment I have ever heard: 
Vote for it because it will be meaningless. Remember the gentleman from 
Florida said, well, he can lend 250 today, and 250 next week, and 250 
the week after. So that is a pretty odd argument for an amendment: Vote 
for this amendment, it will not mean anything. It will just be more 
game playing.
  We are in a difficult world. I agree with my friend who pointed out 
that the aftermath in Mexico was bad. But, as my colleagues know, what 
we are forgetting when we deal particularly in the international world, 
the most important principle of a great philosopher, Henny Youngman:
  ``Whenever you are measuring the effect of any particular policy in 
this area, you have to remember the key question: Compared to what?''
  Yes, there were terrible problems in Mexico after that problem when 
we responded, but would they have been worse or better without this? Is 
Kim Dae Jung and Boris Yeltzin, two men, and in one case there is some 
imperfections, but two men who I believe are great devotees of 
democracy, are they better off if we have to go through a Senate 
filibuster before we get through?
  Mr. Chairman, I will yield if the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) is asking me to yield, or is he just going to look puzzled?.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) took the words out of my mouth. I appreciate his yielding.
  Here is the point: The gentleman asks what might have happened. He 
does not know what might have happened, I do not know what might have 
happened. But this I do know; that the so-called global economy, of 
which the ESF is an integral part, has helped lower the standard of 
living of workers in the United States, lowered the standard of living 
of Mexican workers, lowered the standard of living of the people in 
Canada, has been disastrous.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I take back my time. The 
gentleman was not responding to my question, and I have to say the 
gentleman is articulate and thoughtful, and I take his nonresponse as 
an example of the fact that no response is possible because my question 
was the gentleman cited the problems in Mexico. My question was would 
it have been worse or better? Yes, I am very critical of aspects of the 
global economy, but the question is does the existence of ESF make it 
worse or better, and I believe it helps.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders amendment. This 
amendment prevents the President of the United States from using the 
Exchange Stabilization Fund to bail out corrupt and incompetent regimes 
throughout the world without so much as a vote of Congress.
  We engage in this body in heated debates, heated debates, and we have 
votes that put us on the record as the elected representatives of the 
people of the United States on expenditures that just are in the 
millions of dollars, just in the millions. We expect that each and 
every one of us, because we are the elected representatives of the 
people, must accept the responsibility of where those millions of 
dollars are being

[[Page H5705]]

spent, and we will call for a vote to make sure that our colleagues are 
on the record and so that the American people can make their judgment 
about the job that we are doing in overseeing their resources, the 
American resources, the use of Federal resources. Those are the 
resources the American people.
  That is the way it is supposed to be, that is what our Founding 
Fathers expected, that is what representative government is all about.
  Those who oppose the Sanders amendment want the President of the 
United States to have, yes, a slush fund which he will be able to spend 
up to $38 billion, as much as he wants, to send that overseas to 
whatever regimes, whether they are corrupt or incompetent, whether they 
are friend or foe, whether we believe it is in the best interests of 
the United States or not, without so much as a vote in Congress by the 
elected representatives of the people. This is absurd. I am shocked, I 
think the American people should be shocked, to learn that we have 
given the President of the United States that power in the past.
  This is the most antidemocratic element that I have discovered among 
the current procedures of our government, and I commend the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for trying to do something to put 
accountability back in this democratic system and make it a democratic 
system.

                              {time}  1830

  What we have now with this stabilization fund is an invitation to 
corruption and sculduggery. No, I cannot give you specific examples, 
but I am sure they are there. But, often enough, we can rest assured 
that this bailout money that is going to foreign regimes does not even 
help the people of the countries who are in crisis.
  Instead, like in Mexico, where billions of dollars were being spent 
to supposedly get them out of a crisis, instead it got them further and 
deeper in debt. And who was helped by that bailout? Much of that money 
went to very powerful financial interests in this country, perhaps a 
few powerful financial interests in Mexico as well. The victims are the 
Mexican people and the people of the United States, who are put on the 
hook without so much as a vote of the Members of Congress.
  In recent years we have seen the stabilization fund, this 
stabilization fund that was meant to protect our currency, used to bail 
out Mexico to the tune of $12 to 20 billion, Indonesia, $3 billion, 
South Korea, $5 billion, and, now, how many billions of dollars will 
they want to take to bail out Russia? And where does this money go?
  I am a member of the Committee on International Relations, and I can 
tell you in Russia alone, not to mention Indonesia, we are not talking 
about honest people over there. We are talking about people that would 
have a tough time getting elected and reelected here, with freedom of 
speech and freedom of press and some scrutiny. But, instead, we want to 
grant the President of the United States the ability to send billions 
of dollars over to those people, without so much as a vote in Congress? 
This is absurd.
  This is a fund, as I say, that is supposed to protect the American 
dollar. It is not and was never intended to be a slush fund for the 
whims of the President, so he can send it to people across this world 
at his discretion.
  This amendment makes sense. If the President is going to spend more 
than $250 million of our money, we should have to approve it. I hope 
the American people who are listening to this debate will take note of 
who in this body is suggesting that they do not want to have the 
responsibility to have a vote up and down on where billions of dollars 
of our money is being spent. And when it goes overseas, these billions 
of dollars, what does it do and who does it help? We are being told for 
the stabilization of the world, this global economy requires us to 
grant this power to the President, this power to give away billions of 
dollars and to loan billions of dollars without the approval of 
Congress. Who does it help? It does not help the American people.
  I agree with the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). In the end, it 
has helped people who compete with the United States for jobs. This is 
a total violation and betrayal of the American people. Vote for the 
Sanders amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders-Bachus-Miller-
Stearns-Kaptur-Burton-DeFazio-Rohrabacher Kucinich-Paul-Stark-Owens 
amendment, and I do so for several reasons.
  First of all, the amendment restores proper Congressional 
constitutional prerogatives over the spending of U.S. taxpayer dollars. 
These are our people's dollars. We have a legitimate role here to play 
in the Congress.
  This is a eminently reasonable amendment, because it basically says 
the administration has latitude up to $250 million, not small change by 
anyone's measure, but when you go over that limit, then you have to 
come and seek approval by this Congress, simply because those dollars 
are then used in order to assist foreign governments, banks, investors, 
many who have no role in electing the Members here. There are serious 
issues that we may have with those who would benefit from this type of 
wealth exchanging hands.
  Let me mention that this particular fund, the Economic Stabilization 
Fund, was established by law in 1934, and its purpose, its legislative 
purpose as written by Congress, is to buy or sell currency in order to 
stabilize our dollar in current short-term crises. The fund was never 
meant to be used for medium-term loans or long-term loans or to prop up 
foreign governments, which is what it has been doing of late, to the 
magnitude that is currently being used just in the last couple of 
years, $20 billion, into the billions. It was never, ever intended for 
that purpose. We have back-doored our way into this practice.
  This amendment basically prohibits any administration from putting 
billions of taxpayer dollars at risk in loans to other countries 
without the explicit approval of this Congress. And we well know what 
has been going on, whether we are talking about Korea or Russia or 
Mexico. We are talking about speculative investment that has fueled 
export-led development in those nations that cannot be sustained over 
time.
  I think the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) talked about the 
need for IMF reform. I completely agree, because we end up getting in 
these currency crises because the fundamental development policy is 
wrong. It is unsustainable internally in these countries, and it cannot 
be maintained.
  We fight always to get a vote here on declarations of war, and it has 
been hard for the legislative branch over the decades to maintain its 
prerogatives under the Constitution. But that is not to say we should 
not do it. The same is true with economic policy. Yes, we may have to 
fight for our day in the sun, but, under our Constitution, we have that 
constitutional responsibility.
  This amendment passed before in 1995 by a wide margin. Two hundred 
forty-five Members voted in favor of it. In fact, since that time it 
has not blocked any kind of assistance where it was essentially needed. 
So we are not trying to reinvent the wheel here.
  I always wanted to say that it is very, very important that Members 
think about where these dollars go, and is it not as important for us 
to have oversight over billions of dollars that goes beyond our borders 
in the same way as we have oversight of millions that flow within these 
borders? We have GAO studies, and we have Congressional oversight 
committees, and we have all kinds of staff studies to take a look at 
where every single dollar goes in our health care financing programs 
and so forth, our food stamps, our defense spending. Why should we be 
any less rigorous when the money goes for foreign purposes?
  We have received letters from leaders in the Parliament, for example, 
in Mexico City, talking about the serious financial problems Mexico 
currently faces because of the fact that the fundamental development 
policy was never changed. But we end up trying to bail out the 
speculators that prop up the real estate market and make investments 
that are not creditworthy. We then end up using the ESF fund to try to 
prop up a house of cards that cannot stands on its own.
  In closing, I just want to read a couple lines from the letter that 
came

[[Page H5706]]

from this particular Secretary of Treasury.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Kaptur was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say one of the arguments 
that the Secretary of Treasury uses in the materials he sent to us 
today say, ``The administration and any President needs these dollars 
because of today's large, fast-moving financial markets.''
  I want to say that that is exactly the reason that this Congress 
should have oversight; that because in fact so many powerful global 
financial interests have an impact on this marketplace, we in Congress 
have got to be in tandem with those movements. We cannot absent ourself 
from that process, and, in fact, we have to gain some leverage over 
these major financial decisions that end up being political decisions 
in the end, when we end up supporting certain financial interests in 
other places.
  The Secretary says, ``Treasury fully accepts its responsibility to 
account to Congress.'' I would say Congress ought to accept its 
responsibility to account to the American people. I urge the Members to 
support the Sanders-Bachus amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, we arm wrestle every day back and forth across the 
aisle on domestic spending. We have got budget caps, and we have some 
serious problems in this country. Even though the economics are 
supposed to be good, as many of you believe, and I do, too, there is a 
big difference between Wall Street and Main Street. There is probably 
not a handful of times in the past 8 years that I have agreed with the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). Two times in one day, I am 
starting to question my own rationalization.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, me, too. We 
will not tell anybody.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We will not tell anybody outside of this.
  But the gentleman's idea is good. I also agree with the gentlewoman 
on the fact concerning declaring war, there ought to be a limit, and 
this Congress needs to have its position based on the Constitution, and 
this is a good constitutional issue.
  I thank the gentleman from Vermont. I think it is a very good 
amendment.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I will not talk about the merits of it, but 
earlier today we talked about a pay raise, and it gets so political. If 
you think that it is political for the pay raise and demagoguery, this 
amendment is tailor-made for demagoguery.
  The gentleman from California just a moment ago said we are going to 
be looking at how people vote on this amendment. So there is room for a 
lot of mischief. I am not speaking to the merits of it, but this is 
something that could take forever if you had to go through the House 
and the Senate. It is just a cautionary observation.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand what 
the gentleman is saying. To me this is not demagoguery. This is good 
economic sense and good policy, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) just said. I ask for support of the Sanders amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this proposed amendment, proposed proposition, puts its 
finger on the pulse of a problem, but it is at this juncture very much 
the wrong prescription.
  We have a new set of problems in this world economically. Fifteen 
years ago globalization meant our trade with Europe and Japan. In the 
last decade it has meant our trade relations with developing economies, 
and that is increasingly so since we voted on this 3 years ago.
  It has created all kinds of new issues. We do need new rules of 
competition. We are dealing with economies that are very different from 
our economy, and they have all kinds of subsidies, and they have all 
kinds of different labor market rules. They have all different kinds of 
rules, period. We need to face up to this, and we have not fully. But a 
piecemeal or potshot approach to these serious problems is not the 
answer.
  We need a comprehensive set of policies, and we do not need slogans 
like ``slush funds'' or ``giveaways'' or ``loans'' thrown all together. 
The proposition with Mexico was not a slush fund or a giveaway, it was 
a loan, under certain strict conditions, and the loans were repaid. We 
made money on them.
  We need to take a serious look at this. Three years ago we passed 
this, but a lot has changed since then. We have lots of currency 
problems with developing economies, a lot of them. Now Mexico is cited.
  Look, we need more than just a few minutes of discussion here. I am 
not sure history is going to judge the Mexico loan one way or another, 
but I will tell you, I think there is a good chance it is going to be 
judged as having been a good move by the United States. This is coming 
from someone who feels deeply about the problems in terms of 
competition with Mexico and what was their rigged economy and rigged 
labor market conditions.
  But to simply say we should not allow use of a stabilization fund 
when the currency of another country threatens to go whacky and 
undermine jobs in this country and because their currency becomes so 
weak it is tempting to export even more their way out of their 
problems, that is not the way to handle this. Contrary to some of the 
debate here, we acted on the yen to strengthen the value of the yen, 
not to weaken it; to make sure that they were less tempted to export 
their way and flood the American market with cars and other products.
  One gentleman from Florida said, well, the Secretary of Treasury can 
skirt this by $200 million every week. What kind of an amendment is 
this that can be skirted by the Secretary doing the $250 million a 
week?

                              {time}  1845

  Now, we in Congress need to look at this seriously. This amendment is 
totally a piecemeal approach. It would handicap us when we need to act. 
Currency problems are serious problems, and this would handicap us.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, does my friend understand that this 
amendment has nothing to do and does not change in any way our ability 
to deal with stabilizing U.S. currency?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is not true. It 
does not limit all of our interventions in terms of the currency, but 
it does limit us. It would have limited us in terms of action on Mexico 
where there was a tremendous peso problem and there was a danger of 
such weakening of the peso that it was going to have major 
ramifications not only for the investors in Mexico, and I do not want 
them to come out without some pain, but people in America who were 
producing goods in competition with Mexico and did not want the peso to 
drop so much in value it would be impossible to compete.
  We need new rules of competition, not amendments that are piecemeal, 
that are potshots, that may be good populist rhetoric, and I love the 
gentleman's motives, the gentleman is serious about this. This is not 
the way to attack the problem. I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the previous speaker in the well 
that we do need a comprehensive approach, but we are always told, this 
is not the time.
  The IMF fund has been languishing without replenishment from this 
Congress because many of us have genuine concerns about the activities 
of the IMF, and now we are being told we are in a crisis, we have to 
fund it. We have been told that for months now. We are in a crisis, we 
must fund it, but do not worry, we will reform it after we give them 
another $18 billion when they do not need us for another couple of 
years. Well, we know what will happen. Nothing will happen. This has 
gone on time and time again.

[[Page H5707]]

  The same thing here with the Economic Stabilization Fund. It is 
always the wrong time to deal with this issue, we are being told. The 
Secretary of the Treasury said, we are confronted with large, fast-
moving financial markets. He is right, and we need to do something 
about hot money going around the globe, attacking everybody's currency 
and destroying economies so a few people on Wall Street or in London or 
some other financial center can get filthy, stinking rich. But we are 
not dealing with that. It is not time to deal with that. Just pump some 
more money into the existing system so that they can continue to become 
incredibly wealthy, but do not worry, some day we will deal with it.
  There are things we could do immediately. The U.S. could take steps 
through the World Bank with conditions upon additional money to the IMF 
to deal with hot money, requiring other nations around the world to put 
in place steps to deal with hot money. The Tobin tax, a tiny tax on 
this hot money moving in and out of countries, billions of dollars in a 
single day, just putting a tiny tax on that could fund all of the 
activities of the IMF, all of the activities of the World Bank, dampen 
speculation, and stop tapping the taxpayers of the United States to pay 
for all of the bailouts of all of these wealthy people, these 
speculators around the world.
  That is what this debate is about here on the floor. It is not about 
the stability of the United States dollar.
  This amendment leaves the President total authority to use that $29 
billion any way he wishes to support the United States dollar or to 
devalue the United States dollar, as was done recently by an 
intervention by the United States Treasury. That is still here. 
Although we have had people rise here on the floor and say, this would 
impinge upon the capability; it would not. All it says is one cannot 
lend the money directly, one cannot go around the Congress.
  How did we get into this debate? Because the President was going to 
come to the Congress for $8 billion for Mexico, they counted heads and 
found out under those conditions there were not a majority of Members 
in the House of Representatives who wanted to use $8 billion of 
taxpayer money to bail out the Mexican speculators, both Mexican and 
U.S. speculators who were in there getting incredible rates of return; 
50, 100 percent rate of return on short-term investments, and they 
wanted all of their capital back, too. They had already made 100 
percent profit, but they wanted the capital back.
  When Congress was a little reluctant to do that, concerned that we 
ask the speculators to take a hit, not just the people of Mexico and 
not just the taxpayers of the United States, the Secretary of the 
Treasury went and took the money out of the Economic Stabilization 
Fund, without the authority of the Congress. They say that they can do 
that.
  We are just trying to say now that we want to renew the provisions we 
put in effect 3 years ago that says, if they are going to take more 
than $250 million out of the Economic Stabilization Fund, our money as 
United States citizens, that if it is going to be for purposes other 
than defending or supporting or weakening the United States dollar, as 
is seen fit by the Secretary of the Treasury and the President, that 
they get prior authorization from Congress. That is not going to 
threaten our troops in Korea. It is not going to threaten the stability 
of Israel in the case of a war. It is not going to cause all of this 
economic calamity. What it would do is begin to force people to reform 
this system.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would pick up on a point my friend made. 
Does my friend know what the interest rates in Russia right now are 
when people are buying Russian bonds?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, they went to 150. I do not know what they 
are now.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, they are over 100 percent. These people 
who are lending the money are running to the Congress and saying, fund 
the IMF. Give the money to Russia so that we can make sure we get back 
our money at 100, 125 percent. The gentleman is absolutely right.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
  I also have a letter from a member of the PRD party in Mexico, and he 
goes on at great length about the conditions that came out of the 
Mexican bailout and the disaster it has been for the people of Mexico; 
the fact that it did only bail out a few very wealthy people in Mexico 
and banking interests and wealthy people in the United States and yet 
has caused 20,000 small businesses to collapse and, I am told, economic 
calamity.
  We need to change these policies. If we do not adopt this amendment 
tonight, we will never get them changed.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The Exchange 
Stabilization Fund is being misused by Treasury to bail out foreign 
investment failures. When some aspect of corporate foreign investment 
policy fails, Treasury taps the ESF to cover over the failure.
  Here is a recent example. In Indonesia, the International Monetary 
Fund caused a run on Indonesian banks when it directed the closure of 
16 banks there. A confidential internal IMF memo even acknowledged the 
failure. The IMF caused the panic by making a bad situation worse.
  So what does the ESF, Foreign Investment Failure Fund, do? Without 
congressional approval, Treasury dispatched a credit line of $3 billion 
to cover the mistake; $3 billion, without a vote of the Congress, and 
we have long debates here over $2 million, $2 million as opposed to $3 
billion, and this is just one example.
  NAFTA caused a flood of U.S. investors to abandon their investments 
in the U.S. for higher rates of return in Mexico. Then, the already 
overvalued Mexican currency collapsed. Guess what? The ESF's Foreign 
Investment Failure Fund was used again without congressional approval 
to cover the multibillion dollar failure. Indeed, the ESF was used in 
this way because Congress refused to pass a $20 billion package to 
benefit the Mexican few at the expense of the Mexican people. The use 
of the ESF by Treasury thwarted the will of the Congress.
  What is this House all about, except being the government of the 
people? The Constitution puts the legislative power in our hands. The 
Constitution puts the power of the purse in our hands. The Founders 
could not have envisioned a condition where the Congress of the many 
would forfeit its constitutional power, its financial prerogatives to 
an elite few. We are the government of the people, and we have a 
constitutional responsibility to take control over a fund which is out 
of control, and the ESF billions are way out of control.
  The ESF's Foreign Investment Failure Fund is used to accomplish 
policy changes that often make international financial conditions 
worse. In Korea, important consumer and labor standards and regulations 
were overturned as conditions for $5 billion in Exchange Stabilization 
Fund monies from the U.S.
  Koreans now talk about IMF suicides to characterize the wave of 
suicide among jobless and hopeless Koreans. Korean labor unions are 
conducting massive protests and strikes. Without Congress's approval or 
involvement, global economic policy is being forged for the benefit of 
the few, with the funds of the American people as leverage.
  This amendment, the Sanders amendment, will correct abuses, but it 
will not tie Treasury's hands. If Treasury needs to stabilize another 
country's currency, it will be able to use the ESF to do so, 
unilaterally and without Congress's approval. The amendment allows 
Treasury to do currency swaps and other currency stabilization aids 
without congressional approval, but if Treasury is making a large loan 
to another country, they will have to come to Congress, which is the 
only appropriate process, given the American system of checks and 
balances.
  This amendment is nearly identical to one that Congress passed in 
1995. Many of my fellow Democrats voted for that amendment then. 
Unfortunately, the authority of that provision lapsed in October, 1997. 
Today, we need to repeat the corrective action.

[[Page H5708]]

  So long as the ESF is used to extend credit or to give loans to 
foreign nations without Congress's approval, these foreign investment 
failures will get larger, and they will become more frequent. More of 
the U.S. Treasury will be exposed to paper over them, benefit foreign 
elites, bail out global banks and underwrite austerity, joblessness and 
hopelessness for a majority of ordinary people around the globe.
  Congress, take back your authority. Vote ``yes'' on the Sanders 
amendment.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to sit and listen to all 
of the debate this afternoon on this issue.
  This has been a debate dealing with really two issues. One is process 
and the other is policy.
  With respect to the process, it is really unworkable, but if we are 
going to apply it to this, we should apply it across the board. We 
should apply it to the Federal Reserve, which my colleague may actually 
support, and what they do to enter the market to support the dollar and 
to effect interest rates, and the excess funds of the Federal Reserve, 
which is an entity of the U.S. Government and thus the taxpayers. So 
perhaps we should do it with that.
  Perhaps we should look at every loan guarantee made by OPIC and the 
Eximbank and have every single loan guarantee approved by Congress; 
every action taken by the commodity credit corporation approved by 
Congress.
  The fact is, it would be unworkable; and the fact is that we already 
have the process in place. As a member of the authorizing committee, 
along with the sponsor of the amendment, we have the opportunity to 
review what the Exchange Stabilization Fund is doing, or what the 
Treasury Department is doing, what the ESF, just as the appropriators 
do, just as we do with every other type of function that we have.
  With respect to policy, this was a bad idea in 1995, and it is a bad 
idea today.
  I think we need to also clear up some of the rhetoric that has been 
said on the floor. Some of it has bordered on xenophobia, but I think 
that the sponsor of the amendment is very sincere in his approach, and 
while we disagree on this, I think that his is a question of policy 
over global economics and where we are going, some of which is in our 
control and some of which is not.

                              {time}  1900

  Let me address some of the rhetoric that was said. Our colleague, one 
of our colleagues from California, talked about corruption in the ESF 
program. Here is a report dated July 1, 1998, from the Congressional 
Research Service. That is part of our operation here.
  It says that there is no evidence to suggest that the Economic 
Stabilization Fund has abused its authority. Previous ESF loans to 
foreign governments were all repaid in a timely way, which goes to a 
second piece of rhetoric that was stated about slush fund and 
giveaways. It is very clear that always the process that has been used, 
particularly in terms of loans, it has been loans. There have been no 
giveaways to any countries, and in fact, if anything, the loans have 
been above market.
  There is a complaint as to why the interest rates are so high on some 
of these loans. It is because these countries cannot get loans in the 
private market because they have no liquidity, because there is no 
confidence in their currency. That is why their loans are above market, 
because it is the lender of last resort.
  Then the question comes, why should we be doing this in the first 
place? Why should we not be more concerned about a coke factory in 
Alabama? I think we are concerned about the coke factory in Alabama, 
because we are concerned about whether or not that factory is going to 
be able to sell our product overseas.
  Right now we have a situation in Asia which represents more than a 
quarter of our exports. The fact that the GDP for the second quarter is 
probably around zero, and potentially a contraction, is because we have 
had a dropoff in our export business, and we have seen an increase in 
our trade imbalance. So the last thing we want to do is to cut our 
clients off.
  If there is a currency crisis anywhere in the world, it affects the 
value of the dollar. What is done with the ESF fund through the loans 
that are made is part of exchange stabilization. It either directly, 
through market intervention in supporting the dollar, or indirectly, 
through market intervention in supporting the world economy and how 
that affects of the dollar, moves in helping the American worker.
  So this is really a bad idea. I think that it will probably pass 
because it sounds good. It makes good politics, and the closer we get 
to November, good politics tends to be more important than good policy. 
But if the House was wise, it would reject this amendment, because 
imposing this type of policy on the administration, the only thing that 
we would be doing is saying that we are going to erect a mercantilist 
policy in the United States at the expense of the American work force.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to bring this debate down to one 
which I think is very simple. The reason we need to oppose the Sanders 
amendment and maintain the flexibility with the Exchange Stabilization 
Fund is because it is important to protect U.S. working men and women.
  It is without contention that in our economy, so many more of our 
jobs in this country are becoming more dependent on international 
market opportunities. We only have 4 percent of the world's population 
in the United States. Ninety-six percent live outside our borders. Yet, 
we produce 26 percent of the world's gross domestic product. It is very 
clear that we are becoming increasingly dependent on the ability to 
export our products, export the labor of the working men and women of 
this country.
  The Exchange Stabilization Fund plays a very important and critical 
role there, because it can move rapidly to respond to financial crises, 
which can restore confidence in those international markets, which can 
restore confidence to those currencies and maintain their values.
  That is important, because when we see the decline in the value of 
the yen, that has the potential to make their exports more competitive 
with U.S. exports. If we do not find ways to stabilize the yen and 
other currencies, we are in fact jeopardizing the ability of the 
product of the labors of U.S. men and women to be competitive in the 
international marketplace.
  I would also state that here we have a program that has played a 
critical role, again, in protecting jobs in this country. It is one 
that has not cost taxpayers one dime. We have not lost money on 
utilization of the Exchange Stabilization Fund. In fact, when it 
responded to the crisis in Mexico, it contributed to our budget by 
adding $500 million that we derived from interest on those loans.
  I ask Members to please oppose this amendment, in the interests of 
the U.S. working men and women.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take this opportunity 
to thank all of those people who have supported this amendment, and 
show my respect for those people who have been in opposition. It has 
been a good debate. It has been an important debate. We need more 
debates like this.
  It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, there are three basic points that I 
would like to make. Number one, I hope everybody understands that this 
amendment does not stop the Treasury Department from stabilizing U.S. 
currency. That remains, absolutely, as has been the case for so many 
years.
  Number two, I think there is an important constitutional issue. That 
is, should we sit back and allow tens and tens of billions of dollars 
from U.S. taxpayers being placed at risk without debate, without 
discussion?
  The third point that I would make is that if we pass this amendment, 
it allows the Congress to become more involved in debates over the 
global economy that my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dooley) has touched on.
  I would simply suggest that if we look at the global economy, the 
standard of living of American workers has declined over the last 20 
years. People are working longer hours for lower wages. We have lost 
millions of decent jobs.

[[Page H5709]]

  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, just to 
bring my comments to a close on my own time, it is clear that this 
amendment would work against the interests of the working men and women 
of this country.
  When people talk about the standard of the working men and women in 
this country declining, that is wrong. When we start evaluating in 
terms of how many hours an average worker has to spend in order to 
afford a house, to afford a car, to afford a college education, it is 
much less today than it has ever been in the history of this country. 
In part it is because of our ability to access international markets.
  This measure, if it is successful in passing, will reduce our ability 
to ensure that U.S. workers have the ability to be as competitive as 
possible in the international marketplace, because it will allow this 
country the tools to maintain currency values, which is absolutely 
critical to our economic interest.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, in listening to the proponents of this amendment, 
Members would think that we were a self-sufficient economy; that it 
does not really matter what happens to other economies around the 
world, whether it be Asia or Latin America or even Europe, and that, in 
fact, our leadership role, such as it is, is dispensable, not 
necessary.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. We are all enjoying the 
benefits of a booming economy, an unparalleled level of prosperity. But 
how many people understand that at least a third of the economic growth 
that we are benefiting from is due to international trade, and that 
international trade is dependent upon the confidence of capital 
investors in our global economy?
  If they are not confident in the economies of other nations, they are 
not going to invest, they are not going to put their money into those 
economies in such a way that those economies will be strong and stable. 
If those economies are not strong and stable, they will not be able to 
buy our products. In fact, they could fall into such a desperate 
situation that they will be forced to dump their products on our 
marketplace.
  If there is anything that could jeopardize the strength of our 
current prosperity, it is an international currency crisis. If that 
happens, it will be because we did not sufficiently respect and 
appreciate the role that the United States is currently playing in the 
global economy.
  We are the leaders of the global economy. One of the reasons that we 
are the leaders of the global economy is precisely because we have 
these kinds of stabilization funds. Investors all over the world 
understand that before an economy is allowed to collapse, the United 
States is going to take the lead to stabilize their currency, to build 
up their economy, to ensure that the rest of the international economy 
does not collapse, because we understand our own vested interest.
  I hope they are not giving us too much credit. I would hope that the 
Congress of these United States fully understands what is at stake; how 
important, how dependent the welfare of our constituents is on a 
healthy global economy. If we vote for this amendment, it will reflect 
a lack of understanding, truly an ignorance, of the role the United 
States must play as the leaders of this global economy.
  This is a terribly important amendment, not just because of the 
specifics of the amendment itself, but because of the signal it sends 
to the rest of the world. We have to send that signal. We have to be 
the leaders of the global economy. We have to assume our 
responsibility.
  Not only have we the strongest military, a military greater than all 
the other militaries in the world combined, but the principal reason we 
are the global leader is because of the strength of our economy, and 
the fact that we are prepared to do what is necessary to ensure the 
sustained prosperity of the rest of the world, which is the marketplace 
for our products today and whose economic stability will be the source 
of our security tomorrow.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Sanders' amendment 
to earmark $6 million of the appropriation in this bill for the 
National Archives and Records Administration for the National Personnel 
Records Center.
  I am particularly pleased that this amendment is going to address an 
issue that has been brought to my attention by the county Veterans 
Affairs offices in my district. The issue relates to the timely 
processing of medal requests which are critically dependant upon 
documentation for military service. The National Personnel Records 
Center is part of the National Archives and Records Administration and 
houses all veterans records.
  My office has been contacted by several veterans requesting an 
original or a replacement set of medals, who have had to wait in excess 
of two years for their request to be answered. The county offices have 
had similar experiences. While my office advocates on behalf of 
individual veterans and their families, and is happy to do so, there 
appears to be a general pattern of problems in this area. Those 
providing direct services to veterans on a daily basis in my district 
are very frustrated and feel very strongly about the need to address 
this unacceptable delay.
  Let me give you three examples: (1) Wells E. Elston has been waiting 
3 years for assistance from the National Records Center. (2) Edward 
Hendy has been waiting for 4 years for assistance from the Records 
Center. He is a World War II Veteran in poor health, and is entitled to 
a Good Conduct Medal, an American Theatre Service Medal, and a 
European-African-Middle East Service Medal with 5 bronze stars. (3) 
Randy Marwede, Director of Ingham County Veterans Affairs, sent in a 
request for a copy of his DD 214 and has yet to hear back--the request 
was dated July 1996.
  Our veterans gave us far better service than this--and risked their 
lives to do it. They deserve far better from this country and the 
government agencies who serve them. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 498, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont will be 
postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Wicker

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Wicker:
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. LIMITATION.

       No funds appropriated for the United States Postal Service 
     under this Act may be expended by the Postal Service to 
     initiate new nonpostal commercial activities or pack and send 
     services.

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. The chairman of the 
subcommittee has advised me that he will accept the amendment if I am 
brief, and I intend to comply with that request.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with competition by the Postal 
Service in nonpostal commercial activities, such as the pack and send 
activities. The gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) had an 
amendment that was closely related to it that was accepted by the 
Committee of the Whole a few hours ago now. It dealt with fairness 
globally.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, deals with fairness as it relates 
between the Postal Service and small business, where, for example, a 
small business has taken out a loan, it is a mom and pop operation, 
they are raising their kids, paying their taxes, and here comes the big 
behemoth Postal Service coming in to compete with them.
  This certainly is not as strong as the committee language which was 
stricken by a point of order, but it does send a message. It does say 
that no funds under this act shall be used to initiate new commercial 
non-postal services. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be very, very brief on this. The gentleman is 
correct, I do accept this. As he knows, and he and I have had 
considerable discussions, I have considerable concerns about the 
substance of his amendment, which was adopted in Committee. He did win 
that fair and square.
  This amendment has no real effect because it only effects funds in 
this bill

[[Page H5710]]

dealing with the Postal Service. It simply maintains its place for the 
conference. But I do have real concerns about the substance of the 
amendment, and the gentleman knows that. But I accept this amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as a proponent of the United States Postal Service it 
would be, I think, unseemly to oppose sending a message, and I will 
not.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Saxton

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Saxton:
       Page 109, after line 24, add the following:
       Sec. 648. (a) Exception to Immunity From Attachment or 
     Execution.--Section 1610 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end of the following new subsection:
       ``(f)(1)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     including but not limited to section 208(f) of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. 4308(f), and 
     except as provided in subparagraph (B), any property with 
     respect to which financial transactions are prohibited or 
     regulated pursuant to section 5(b) of the Trading with the 
     Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 5(b)), section 620(a) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2370(a)), sections 
     202 and 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers 
     Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1702), or any other proclamation, order, 
     regulation, or license issued pursuant thereto, shall be 
     subject to execution or attachment in aid of execution of any 
     judgment relating to a claim for which a foreign state 
     (including any agency or instrumentality of such State) is 
     not immune under section 1605(a)(7).
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply if, at the time the 
     property is expropriated or seized by the foreign state, the 
     property has been held in title by a natural person or, if 
     held in trust, has been held for the benefit of a natural 
     person or persons.
       ``(2)(A) At the request of any party in whose favor a 
     judgment has been issued with respect to a claim for which 
     the foreign state is not immune under section 1605(a)(7), the 
     Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of State shall 
     fully, promptly, and effectively assist any judgment creditor 
     or any court that has issued any such judgment in 
     identifying, locating, and executing against the property of 
     that foreign state or any agency or instrumentality of such 
     State.
       ``(B) In providing such assistance, the Secretaries--
       ``(i) may provide such information to the court under seal; 
     and
       ``(ii) shall provide the information in a manner sufficient 
     to allow the court to direct the United States Marshall's 
     office to promptly and effectively execute against that 
     property.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1606 of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after ``punitive 
     damages'' the following: ``, except in any action under 
     section 1605(a)(7) or 1610(f)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall apply to any claim for which a foreign state is 
     not immune under section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, United 
     States Code, arising before, on, or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

                              {time}  1915


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is clearly legislation on an 
appropriation bill. It violates the same rule that I referred to so 
many times today. While this may be a meritorious issue, it needs to be 
dealt with in conference by Members who understand it, and it does not 
fit the rule under which we are operating today.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, would it be in order for me to request the 
gentleman to reserve a point of order in order that the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and I, who offer this amendment together, 
might at least have the opportunity to explain the provisions of the 
amendment?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, under ordinary 
circumstances I would agree with that, but we have gone on this bill 
for most of the day. We still have another bill tonight. Many Members 
are going to be home. We are still going to be here dealing with 
legislation until the wee hours. Under the circumstances, I feel 
constrained to insist on my point of order.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, we can deal with it in a very short order 
tonight or, having talked to leadership about this, we can go into a 
series of hearings on this measure to try and determine why it is that 
the administration is taking a position against the American people and 
in favor of the government Iran.
  Mr. OBEY. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey directly 
amends existing law. As such, the amendment constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I would have offered, which I would 
have done in a more substantive way, is an amendment which is intended 
to correct a grave injustice that is being carried out by this 
administration.
  Mr. Chairman, on April 9, 1995, a terrorist act took place against an 
American family in which an American lady died in Israel. Her name was 
Alisa Flatow. She was an American student studying in Israel. She was 
riding in a bus on a holiday in Israel. This wonderful lady is no 
longer with us.
  This is the vehicle in which she road. Hardly recognizable as a 
vehicle of mass transit today.
  The Flatow family came to me and to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pascrell) and to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and to 
others and asked for help, because the American statute that governs 
the activities of the Federal courts did not permit the latitude for 
them to seek redress in court.
  Due to the great cooperation of the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary and the chairman of the Committee on International Affairs, 
we changed the statute to give the Flatow family the ability to sue. 
Subsequently they did, and subsequently the Federal district court here 
in Washington granted them a judgment in the amount of $247 million 
against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
  That was step one. It was important, but it was step one. And it said 
to the Islamic Republic of Iran, if you commit acts of terrorism, there 
is a price to pay. The Flatow family went back to court to perfect 
their judgment, identified three Iranian-owned properties in 
Washington, D.C. owned by the Iranian government, began to perfect the 
judgment and get liens against the properties. And along came our own 
State Department and our own Treasury and said to the judge, stop. You 
cannot perfect this judgment in the form of liens against those 
properties because there is another statute that gives us the ability 
to stop you and we will.
  And so this administration, in acting against the Flatow family and 
for the government of Iran, is standing in the way of the will of this 
body, which just a year or so ago amended the statute to give the 
Flatow family the ability to sue, and is protecting the assets of the 
State sponsor, proven in court to be the State sponsor of the death of 
Alisa Flatow.
  Now, the amendment, Mr. Chairman, that I would have offered would 
have quietly taken care of this whole deal. As a matter of fact, the 
Senate has already made it part of their Treasury, Postal 
appropriations bill. And for the life of me, I cannot imagine why the 
minority ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations would want 
to side with the administration on the side of Iran against the Flatow 
family in complete and utter defiance of the law that this body passed 
and the President of the United States signed known as the Effective 
Death Penalty and Anti-terrorism Act.
  If it seems as though I am unappreciative of the treatment that we 
have received here tonight, it is so. I believe this administration is 
creating a grave injustice, and to some extent, at least by the actions 
of the minority member, that injustice has been carried through here in 
this body tonight.

[[Page H5711]]

  I will have more to say on this in the days ahead.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, when I looked at the government's response to this 
particular case in July of 1998, where lawyers for the Department of 
State and the Treasury advised the court that the government would file 
motions to quash each of the writs of attachment, we must rise against 
the injustice.
  In April of 1995, Alisa Flatow, who was then a student at Brandeis 
University, from my district of West Orange, New Jersey took a semester 
off to study at Jerusalem Seminary. She was driving on a bus, riding on 
a bus in the Gaza strip when a militant suicide bomber drove a van 
loaded with explosives into the side of the crowded vehicle. Sadly, 
Alisa and eight other innocent people were killed by this act of 
terrorism.
  Alisa was a woman of great character, both in life and in death. And 
those who received her organs can attest to the kind of generous woman 
she was. Her heart was transplanted to a 56-year-old man who had been 
waiting more than a year for one. Her liver was donated to a 23-year-
old man. Her lungs, her pancreas, her kidneys to four different 
patients. Her corneas were donated to an eye bank.
  We will not forget Alisa Flatow or the struggle and trauma her family 
have gone through as a result of this heinous act. State-sponsored 
terrorism cannot be tolerated. Not just in words we speak, but in 
action. That is what the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) was 
talking about. It simply requires that the Secretary of the Treasury 
help victims locate assets of the Nation that sponsored the terrorist 
act, whomever they are. It entitles victims to seize property so that 
they can be liquidated in order to pay any judgments issued by a U.S. 
court, and we have a judgment here, do we not? We have a judgment.
  The measure is a good first step we took in 1996. We need to build 
upon it so we can wage a real war on terrorism, not just of words.
  In 1997, we passed another law that allowed victims of terrorism or 
their families to sue for punitive damages, another step, another 
action taken; not just words.
  We heard the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) speak about the 
rule that Iran must pay $247.5 million. Frankly, I would say to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) I am not interested on this side 
of the aisle in kowtowing and boot licking those people who we think 
some day will be our friends while they tolerate acts of terrorism and 
do not do anything about it. Frankly, I am not interested in that. I am 
interested in now, to send a clear message to the administration, to 
the courts, to our friends and those who are not our friends, that we 
mean business.
  These are our citizens. These are our brothers and sisters. These are 
our relatives we are talking about here.
  This amendment, whatever form it takes, and it will take form, will 
allow the Flatows to seize Iranian property, as the courts have 
decided.
  Those nations who sponsor terrorism must know that if they are found 
guilty in a U.S. court, their assets will be liquidated in order to 
serve justice.
  Mr. Chairman, let justice be served today.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, since the proponents of an amendment that is not even 
before us choose to discuss why they want to offer it, I want to 
explain with all due respect why I objected to their offering it in 
violation of House rules.
  The story that they tell is a very disconcerting one, and there is 
not a member of this body who would not like to do something about it, 
but the fact is that this proposal has already been added to the Senate 
bill. That means the opportunity to deal with this issue will be fully 
present in conference and that means that there is no need to have it 
added to this bill in the House in order to have this problem 
considered.
  There is a serious problem, however, if we had chosen to add it in 
the House. It would have then been in both bills. It would not have 
been subject to conference, and the problem is that there are 
significant national security problems associated with providing this 
amendment.
  I would point out, for instance, that in a letter from the 
administration, the letter indicates that this amendment would 
substantially undermine the President's ability to use such assets as 
leverage when economic sanctions are being used to modify the behavior 
of a foreign state or in negotiations with that state. It said, for 
instance, that if private claims were allowed to execute judgments 
ahead of these assets, the President would be deprived of their use as 
leverage to gain concessions from the North Koreans in the negotiating 
process, because in their judgment this amendment does not just apply 
to Iran. It applies to all kinds of other countries, including Cuba.
  The administration also points out that the Supreme Court has 
recognized the importance of the administration retaining this 
authority in states. Quote, ``Such blocking orders permit the President 
to maintain the foreign assets at his disposal for use in negotiating 
the resolution of a declared national emergency.''

                              {time}  1930

  They also point out that with respect to Cuba there are 5,911 claims 
totaling $1.9 billion, but there are only $148.3 million in Cuban 
government assets available to justify those claims. This proposal 
would contribute to a first-come, first-serve approach, which would not 
be equitable to those people who are left out.
  So I would say that despite the distressing story that these 
gentlemen are telling tonight, the responsible thing to do, since this 
is already in the Senate bill, is to simply deal with it in conference, 
when we will have an opportunity to measure whether or not the 
administration's claims are in the national interest or not, and 
whether or not it is wise to proceed to do what the gentlemen want to 
do or whether we ought to do something else.
  That is why I objected, because I think that is the most responsible 
way to deal with it. I defy any other Member of this House to tell me 
whether they have sufficient information to deal with all of the legal 
questions involved in this issue. Obviously, they do not. And given 
that fact, this is the time-honored way that we have to make certain 
that if we make a foreign policy decision, we make it in a considered 
way.
  Besides that, I would simply point out that if the gentleman did have 
an urgent request, he could have gone to the Committee on Rules and 
asked the Committee on Rules to make this amendment in order under 
House rules. It is not in order under House rules, and I did not vote 
for the rule today, which made a lot of other legitimate issues beyond 
the ability of this House to deal with at this point.
  So for those reasons, I did the responsible thing and I make no 
apology for it.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague for deferring to me, 
and I just wanted to rise in support of what the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Saxton) was attempting to do. I very much regret that we 
will not have an opportunity to have his amendment on the floor.
  I listened intently to my friend from Wisconsin saying that it is in 
the Senate bill and, therefore, we will have ample opportunity in the 
conference to debate that. I would hope that in the conference we would 
have ample opportunity and that we would adopt the Senate version and 
bring it back to this floor with the Senate version so that the Flatows 
can get what is rightfully due to them.
  I am, frankly, not impressed with the language that this would 
undermine the President's ability to use the assets as leverage. This 
is the same sort of gobbledygook we hear all the time from many 
different administrations or from the State Department whenever they 
want to throw cold water on an idea. They always say it somehow 
undermines the ability to have the President do this or that, or 
undermines the ability of anybody to do anything.
  We are the United States Congress and we make policy. We decide what 
is right. And I certainly think that it is right that the Flatows, who 
have gotten a judgment, I mean absolutely they

[[Page H5712]]

have gotten a judgment, this is not some theoretical thing that has 
happened, they have gotten a judgment, and it is a disgrace that 
somebody would prevent them from getting the judgment fulfilled.
  As was pointed out by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), we 
changed the law so that the Flatows would have the right to sue. We did 
that. They sued and they won. There are three Iranian owned properties 
in D.C. And I do not want to hear State Department gobbledygook or any 
kind of gobbledygook. I want to deal in the real world. The real world 
is that there was a terrible injustice that happened.
  We say we are against state-sponsored terrorism. This is a chance to 
put our money where our mouths are. It is all very nice to talk about 
platitudes and just say things, but here is where we can make a 
concrete difference. So I do support my colleague, the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), in his amendment and what he is trying to do. 
And I want to commend him for doing it, because it takes a lot of 
courage to do this, and he is doing the right thing.
  I would hope that when we sit down with the Senate at the conference 
and iron this out, that on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and 
Republicans, we will agree that that Senate language ought to be in so 
that the Flatows can go after that judgment and go after the Iranian 
owned properties. We should not be protecting the Iranians. This 
Congress has spoken a number of times in terms of Iranian assets and 
the types of things that the Iranians have been doing, and there is no 
way that we should condone this kind of nonsense.
  So, again, I do not want to hear gobbledygook, I do not want to hear 
nonsense, I do not want to hear about undermining the President's 
ability. We are the Congress. We have the ability to pass laws and say 
what is right, and we are not undermining anyone if we are saying 
simply that a judgment has been declared and these people have the 
right to exercise that judgment, which they won based on the right to 
sue, which we in the Congress gave them.
  So, again, I hope that on both sides of the aisle we can agree that 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), and what he is trying to 
do, should prevail if the Senate language is in, and I hope we will all 
agree to it.
  Legislating on an appropriation bill. We hear that all the time, and 
all of us know, on both sides of the aisle, that there is a lot of 
legislating on appropriation bills. Sometimes we look the other way and 
everyone is quiet and nobody says anything, and other times, when we 
want to use that to get legislation out, to get language out, we use 
it. It is very, very selective. It is not very uniform. And as far as I 
am concerned, it is a bunch of nonsense. So we ought to put it back in 
after we negotiate with the Senate so that the Flatows can get their 
justice. And I want to commend my friend New Jersey for bringing this 
to the floor.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I want to say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), and the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel), and others who have worked on this case, that this is 
a compelling case. There is no doubt about it. And I have spent 
substantial time talking about it. I have in turned talked with the 
Treasury Department about it tonight very briefly, and not fully, but I 
want to say that we are all agreed that this is a compelling case. And 
although the language is not finally in the Senate yet, it is in the 
committee reported bill.
  There are some other issues involved. However, I am hopeful, and I 
have talked to the chairman about this, I am hopeful that we can, as 
the gentleman from New York said, and the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pascrell) said, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) 
said, resolve this so that the family, who has been grievously injured, 
will have redress of that grievance. And I look forward to working with 
the gentlemen from New Jersey over the next few weeks and the gentleman 
from New York and the chairman toward that end.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I also rise with my colleagues to again discuss the 
fact that we are unified in our bipartisan support in opposition to 
state-sponsored terrorism. It is consistent with the Anti-terrorism and 
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, as amended by the Foreign Service 
Immunities Act, that we move ahead and make sure the verdict in favor 
of the Flatow family moves forward.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just take a minute to say that the 
arguments brought forward by the ranking member relative to 
negotiations and relative to equity to perhaps other future litigants 
are nice to talk about but have very little real meaning in this 
situation.
  With regard to negotiations by the administration, the administration 
never was negotiating for these families. The negotiations that have 
been taking place may have some other broader meaning, but they have 
nothing whatsoever to do with the law we passed nor with the families 
that have been affected by terrorist actions.
  With regard to equity, unfortunately, in our system of jurisprudence, 
as various types of cases come forward, whether they be bankruptcy or 
other types of liability cases, there are people who choose to enter 
into litigation early and there are people who do not. And those who 
enter into litigation early, in our court system, are granted awards. 
And perhaps assets are used up and are, therefore, not available to 
others. So there is nothing unusual about this.
  I would just like to conclude by saying this issue is not going to go 
away. And I am speaking, yes, in terms of the Flatow case, but I am 
also speaking in terms of the statute we passed which this State 
Department is not enforcing and, in fact, is standing in the way of the 
courts who wish to enforce it.
  At the earliest opportunity, I intend to introduce a freestanding 
bill to take care of this problem. I obviously intend to work with 
Senator Lautenberg from the other body and Senator Stevens, who agree 
with our position and have included it in their appropriation bill. And 
I intend to take whatever other actions we may deem as necessary and 
appropriate to affect the action that is just and due the Flatow 
family.
  In addition to that, I would just conclude by making one final point. 
Terrorists operate around this world, and there is seldom a price to 
pay. I thought in 1996, when we passed this law, we took a step in the 
right direction in creating a price to pay. Whether it is the Khobar 
Towers, explosions that occur in England or France or in the Middle 
East or in this country, terrorists walk away scot-free in most 
instances. This is a tool for us to use as a civilized society to 
prevent acts of terrorism by letting would-be terrorists know that 
there is a price to pay.
  I regret deeply that the administration is standing in the way of the 
law we passed and not permitting it to work. And I regret just as 
deeply that we have not been able to affect a step in the direction of 
correcting that inequity here tonight.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Morella

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mrs. Morella:
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) An Executive agency which provides or proposes 
     to provide child care services for Federal employees may use 
     appropriated funds (otherwise available to such agency for 
     salaries) to provide child care, in a Federal or leased 
     facility, or through contract, for civilian employees of such 
     agency.
       (b) Amounts so provided with respect to any such facility 
     or contractor shall be applied to improve the affordability 
     of child care for lower income Federal employees using or 
     seeking to use the child care services offered by such 
     facility or contractor.
       (c) The Office of Personnel Management shall, within 180 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, issue 
     regulations necessary to carry out this section.
       (d) For purposes of this section, the term ``Executive 
     agency'' has the meaning given such term by section 105 of 
     title 5, United States Code, but does not include the General 
     Accounting Office.


[[Page H5713]]


  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, this amendment 
is clearly, again, legislating on an appropriation bill, and I am 
reluctant to do so, but I do not feel that I have any choice under the 
same rule I cited many times today on legislating on an appropriation 
bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist on making his point of order 
at this time?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the point of order, but, 
again, we are going to be a long time tonight. And if we are going to 
spend hours debating amendments that the majority has helped make 
nongermane in the first place, I do not see much sense in it. So I 
would reserve for 5 minutes a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) is recognized for 5 
minutes in support of her amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully note that when we talk 
about debating issues, I have waited 6 hours because I think this is 
important, this particular amendment, which is at the desk. It is very 
simple and I would like to explain it. It would allow agencies to use 
their own salary, their own expense accounts, to help Federal employees 
pay for child care.
  I have worked with the Office of Personnel Management to develop this 
legislation, and I have been requested to do that because several 
agencies, including the Social Security Administration, the Department 
of Justice, the Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel 
Management, have requested such authority from OPM. OPM cannot grant 
this authority so we must legislate this very simple change.
  Now, this amendment does not require any additional appropriation. It 
would be up to individual agencies to determine whether or not to use 
funds from their salary and expense appropriations to help to provide 
child care. Agencies, and not the employees, would make payments to 
child care providers to help lower-income Federal employees pay for 
their child care.

                              {time}  1945

  Such child care benefits are already being provided to military 
employees with a separate line item, which is more than what my 
amendment would provide.
  The Department of Defense, one of the agencies seeking such authority 
to help its employees with child care costs, has pointed out that they 
can provide child care benefits to their military employees but not the 
civil servant working side by side with them.
  Many Federal employees are caught in a serious child care crunch. A 
recent study showed that one-quarter of all Federal workers had 
children under the age of 6 that need care at some time during the 
workday. And during a recent hearing in the subcommittee of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), testimony revealed that some 
Federal child care facilities charge up to $10,000 or more per child 
per year. Many Federal employees just cannot afford that kind of 
quality child care, and yet the demands we make on them are enormous.
  So by giving the agencies simply the flexibility to help their 
workers meet their child care needs, we will be encouraging family-
friendly workplaces and higher productivity. I hope that that will not 
be ruled out or order.
  This is an amendment that has been approved by the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Civil Service as well as the chairman of the Committee 
on Government Reform and Oversight. I went to both of them. They both 
feel that this is an appropriate opportunity to simply put in an 
authority that is so important.
  Decisions have been made today about what is in order and what is not 
in order. To me this is a very simple, noncontroversial amendment that 
is very important, that really is going to help in this country with 
the productivity of our Federal employees. I hope that we not rule it 
out of order.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Morella amendment. 
I think it is a worthy cause to give our Federal employees the 
opportunity to use funds that have not been depleted in our Federal 
budgets, to use it for tuition, for day-care, for our Federal employees 
who find it very difficult on many occasions to find credible day-care 
facilities. And I think that this is an outstanding method for helping 
our Federal employees, and I want to urge my colleagues to support it. 
I hope the chair will not rule it out of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment proposed by my 
colleague, the gentlelady from Maryland, Ms. Morella. This amendment 
allows funds appropriated to executive, legislative, or judicial 
agencies which provide child care, to establish a tuition subsidy 
program for Federal employees whose dependents are enrolled in child 
care.
  I have been working on a legislation that would require Federal child 
care centers to at least meet the standards of the State in which they 
are located. Representative Morella's amendment is a significant step 
in the positive direction toward increasing the availability of quality 
child care for Federal employees.
  If the already appropriated funds are not fully depleted, there is no 
better way to use the excess money than in assistance for Federal 
employees. Many Federal employees find themselves in a difficult 
situation when it comes to finding affordable day care, especially when 
some Federal child care centers charge up to $10,000 or more per child 
per year. Many categories of workers simply cannot afford to send their 
children to an accredited center and this puts their children at 
serious risk.
  There have been too many incidents of injury and death due to 
inadequate child care. A subsidy program would allow the dependents of 
Federal employees to be in a safe, affordable environment in accredited 
centers, while staying within the financial parameters established by 
the already appropriated funds.
  The Department of Defense already has a similar program. Military 
employees are provided child care benefits, but the civil employees 
working beside them cannot receive these same benefits. We should 
provide a model for private industry by enabling our Federal agencies 
to assist their employees with the evergrowing costs of child care. 
This amendment will send a clear message to families, businesses, and 
day care providers across the country that we are committed to 
protecting our children and providing them with safe, affordable, and 
quality day care. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the 
Morella amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman) has been here all afternoon also because he 
feels this is such an important amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I am sure that there are some people who are being hoisted on their 
own petard when they insist on points of order only to subsequently 
realize that there are some things that they really want added to an 
appropriation bill and are not able to add due to the same point of 
order problem.
  The gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), however, voted against 
the restrictive rule on this bill and I know has consistently supported 
child care, I doubt she has ever voted to cut child care. And I 
strongly agree with the intent of this amendment. I think we should 
allow Federal agencies the discretion to use their administrative 
expense money to provide child care for their employees.
  Between 1975 and 1994, over the last 20 years, the number of women in 
the labor force with children under the age of 6 increased from 39 
percent to 60 percent. And more than half of all the children in this 
country under 1 year of age and more than 12 million children under the 
age of 5 are regularly in the care of someone other than their parents. 
Think about that. Most of the children in this country under 1 year of 
age do not have their parent at home because their parents need to be 
in the workforce.

  A recent study shows that one out of every four Federal employees 
needs child care daily. Access to quality, affordable child care has 
become a number one issue for many parents across the country, 
including Federal employees. As a responsible employer, the Federal 
Government should be working to improve access to, and the 
affordability of, child care for its employees.
  In Congress, we have been working to find ways to encourage private 
businesses to do just that. If we look at our

[[Page H5714]]

own record, we are doing a pretty good job. There are 1,400 private-
employer-provided child care centers throughout the United States. But, 
by comparison, the Department of Defense has 850 centers for its 
enlisted employees, another 200 more for DOD civilian employees. But we 
can do much better by allowing all Federal agencies to provide child 
care assistance to all their employees.
  In exchange for being a responsible employer, we have the added bonus 
of increased productivity because available child care will decrease 
the number of missed work hours that are lost due to child care crises. 
We also have the lure of quality, affordable child care that we can use 
in acquiring and retaining the best possible employees to work for our 
Federal Government.
  DOD has been successful in providing sliding-scale fee care on 
location to parent employees. But other Federal agencies have been 
strictly prohibited from funding such a program even by simply 
providing an on-site facility with electricity and furnishings. They 
are prohibited.
  That is the reason for this amendment. The Morella amendment would 
not force agencies to provide child care but would allow agencies to 
use their own administrative funds at their own discretion to provide 
care or tuition assistance. Because the amendment does not require an 
additional appropriation, it does not impact the budget at all.
  In addition, any profits that a facility might be able to acquire 
could be used to make child care more affordable for lower-income 
employees. Over the past several years, we have made tough choices, 
along with great progress, in cutting Federal expenditures and 
achieving fiscal responsibility in the budget. But along with this 
responsibility, we have asked the private sector to do their part in 
being responsible citizens, particularly as employers, by providing 
benefits such as health care and child care to their employees.
  It is time for the Federal Government to step up to our 
responsibility as employers by allowing Federal agencies the discretion 
to provide child care to their employees. And, for that reason, this is 
a good amendment, and I would hope that we could find a way to make it 
in order to allow Federal agencies to exercise their discretion for the 
benefit not only of their employees but for all the people who will be 
better served by their Federal employees.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, and 
I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would very much like to support this amendment. I 
happen to agree with the substance of it. And I very much would like to 
have had a rule on this bill today which would have allowed us to 
consider many issues that were in the interest of the country to 
consider.
  The rule that was adopted today on this bill eliminated our ability 
to deal with one of the most serious emergencies we have had 
domestically in a long time, the computer problem in the year 2000, 
which threatens the ability of the Government to deliver Social 
Security checks, Medicare checks, veterans checks to millions of 
deserving and entitled Americans.
  The rule that was adopted by the majority today is a lousy way to do 
business. It meant that 80 percent of the dollars in this bill were 
made vulnerable to points of order. It meant that we could not consider 
in a fair way the amendment that the committee had adopted on a 
bipartisan basis on family planning.
  Every Member has an amendment which they think is so important it 
ought to be an exception to the rule. But I would simply say to my 
friends on the majority side of the aisle, when you live by the sword, 
you die by the sword.
  It just seems to me that it is not fair, after the majority has 
imposed on this House a rule which has precluded us from dealing with 
many serious issues that should have been dealt with today, it is not 
fair for Members to then get up and say, oh, but I have one that should 
be made an exception.
  Now, I wish I could support this amendment, but the fact is that, 
under the rule adopted by the majority, this amendment violates the 
rules of the House. And I would say that at the same time that this 
offers token support for expanded child care, the majority has largely 
ignored the President's entire child care initiative, which would have 
greatly expanded the affordability and the quality of child care for 
all working families, not just Federal employees.
  The Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, 
the majority in that subcommittee, did not provide any of the 
President's funds requested to improve child care quality under the 
child care block grant program. They funded only one-quarter of the 
Head Start slots of the President's requested program. And they level-
funded the child care development block grant, despite the fact that 
only one in eight eligible children are served.

  So, I take a back seat to no one in my concern about child care. But 
if I am to be consistent, I have to apply the rules to all Members. I 
did not make this rule. I asked the House not to adopt it. But they 
did, and now it seems to me they have no choice but to live with the 
consequences.
  Even in the United States Congress, people need to occasionally have 
to live with the consequences of their own actions. And while I 
recognize that the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) did not 
vote for that ill-advised rule, it was imposed on us by her party.
  And under those circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I do make a point of 
order against this amendment. I continue to reserve the point of order 
momentarily.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a good amendment. I wish that it were 
in order, and I would vote for it. And I wish perhaps that we were not 
going to object. But we are. And I understand the ranking member's 
position. I, too, was adamantly opposed to this rule.
  I am concerned, as I know the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. 
Morella) is concerned, that we are designating salaries as the funding 
source here because we are squeezing salaries. And the gentlewoman from 
Maryland and I regretted that we lost a very important part of this 
bill as a result of an objection from one of the Members, over her 
objection and mine.
  But we need to pursue this issue. We need to make sure that the 
Federal Government, as the gentleman from Virginia and the gentlewoman 
from Maryland have pointed out, is in fact a model employer.
  My district is, I do not know the most but one of the most child-
care-dependent districts in America because we have a lot of parents 
with a number of children who are either a single mother working or a 
single dad working or both parents working, so that child care is a 
necessity. And, of course, the Federal Government is the largest 
employer in our area.
  So this is a critical necessity, not a luxury, not an optional 
requirement for families not just in this area but around the country. 
So that I congratulate the initiative that has been shown here, regret 
that I cannot vote for it at this point in time and hope that we will 
be able to support it and have it on the floor as soon as possible, and 
certainly we will support it at that time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I regrettably, but nonetheless, continue to 
reserve my point of order.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. Let me just say that 
one of the most important parts of raising my two sons to become 
productive young men was the ability to find affordable and quality 
child care. But let me tell my colleagues, it was very, very difficult 
to find such services. The waiting lists were too long. The child care 
facilities were so far away from school or work, and the costs were 
barely affordable.

                             {time}   2000

  Now this was in the 1960s and in the 1970s. Here we are in 1998, and 
rather than improving the availability of child care, it has become 
very, very difficult because, of course, wages have not kept up with 
inflation. We still have not figured out a way to ensure good and 
affordable child care for our Nation's children.

[[Page H5715]]

  It is a truism and a cliche, but nevertheless it is an universal 
truth, that our children are our future. Treat them well, treat them 
with love, attention and respect, and they have an excellent chance to 
become solid citizens of tomorrow.
  When we abandon our children to inadequate and substandard child care 
because we cannot obtain or pay for the appropriate care, we 
disadvantage and even incapacitate young people. We also run the high 
probable risk that we raise adults who have little commitment to their 
parents and to their society.
  It is a persistent national problem that continuing low wages, 
especially for child-bearing-age women, coupled with understandably 
high cost of child care, quality child care, produces a terrible 
dilemma within which mothers and fathers are too often caught. In 1996, 
62 percent of mothers with young children were in the work force; in 
1990 it was 58 percent; in 1980 it was 47 percent; in 1970 it was 32 
percent, and these numbers will continue to grow. But reliable 
professional teachers and nurturers of young children are not available 
for the substandard wages that we pay our child care providers, nor 
should they be.
  So this amendment is a significant step that we can take to really 
help begin to alleviate this pressing need. It is an all-around winner. 
It matches the willingness of the Social Security Administration, the 
Department of Justice, the Department of Defense and the Office of 
Personnel Management to use their salary and expense accounts to help 
Federal employees to pay for child care. It is very simple.
  So I ask my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to vote yes on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Morella amendment to the FY 99 
Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. I commend the gentlewoman from 
Maryland, Representative Morella, for her efforts here today in 
assisting our Nation's Federal employees with the high cost of quality 
child care. Although the amendment has been stripped on a point of 
order I hope that the final version of the bill will contain the 
childcare provisions.
  Currently, child care costs for the average family can range between 
$4,000 and $10,000 a year--the same amount as college tuition at some 
public universities. In fact, some Federal child care facilities charge 
up to $10,000 or more per child per year. Most Federal employees simply 
cannot afford child care at these high prices.
  The Morella amendment would allow Federal agencies to make payments 
to child care providers to help lower income Federal employees meet 
their child care needs. Since it is the decision of the individual 
agency to determine whether to use funds from their salary and expense 
accounts, this amendment does not require any additional appropriation. 
These same child care benefits are already being provided to military 
employees.
  While finding affordable, quality daycare is a basic concern and 
serious dilemma for most working families, it is of special concern to 
Federal employees, who often work in service to the public for low pay 
and long or unusual hours. I urge my colleagues to vote ``Yes'' on the 
Morella amendment.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, the Denver Federal Center is situated 
comfortably at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, about one-half hour 
away from downtown Denver, Colorado. Roughly 5,500 federal employees 
are employed at this facility, many of whom are raising small children. 
The Morella amendment would make a simple but profound change in the 
lives of these individuals--it would make quality child care for their 
children more affordable.
  The amendment before us today would permit the Office of Personnel 
Management to redraw its regulations so that all federal agencies could 
use existing funds to subsidize child care costs for federal employees. 
In the case of this amendment, a little would truly go a long way. 
Lower-income employees all around the country could get the necessary 
assistance to seek out and pay for local area child care programs. At a 
time when child care costs often exceed $10,000 per child per year, and 
at a time when employers are fast becoming aware that good child care 
means higher productivity on the job, this amendment is good 
government. By passing this measure, we not only recognize the 
importance of quality child care to the positive development of our 
children, but we also encourage productive, family-friendly government.
  This amendment does not legislate new child care programs or require 
new appropriations. It is simply an opportunity for Congress to make a 
straight-forward, administrative change to government practice. It's a 
small, but important change.


                             point of order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, for the fifth time, I think, now, I 
regrettably renew my objection and simply make the point of order 
against this provision on the same grounds that I have raised all day, 
that it is legislation on an appropriation bill, it is not in order 
under House rules and, therefore, should not be before us.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members wishing to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair will rule.
  The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) 
places new duties on the Office of Personnel Management that are not 
contemplated in existing law. As such, the amendment does constitute 
legislating in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.


                   amendment offered by Mr. Manzullo

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Manzullo:
       Page 109, after line 24, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 648. INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO HOPE 
                   SCHOLARSHIP AND LIFETIME LEARNING TAX CREDITS.

       (a) Prohibition on Use of Funds.--None of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available under this Act may 
     be used to enforce section 6050S of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to returns relating to higher education 
     tuition and related expenses).
       (b) Waiver of Liability.--
       (1) In general.--No person shall be liable under part II of 
     subchapter B of chapter 68 of such Code (relating to failure 
     to comply with certain information reporting requirements) 
     for failing to file an information return or payee statement 
     required by section 6050S of such Code.
       (2) Period of applicability.--Paragraph (1) shall apply 
     only with respect to information returns and payee statements 
     required to be filed after September 30, 1998, and before 
     October 1, 1999.

  Mr. MANZULLO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I will take my 5 minutes and then 
withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Treasury 
appropriations bill that would simply delay for 1 year the 
implementation of the reporting requirements related to the HOPE 
Scholarship and lifetime learning credits. There is a strong need to 
pass this amendment.
  As part of last year's Taxpayers Relief Act, Congress rightfully 
included the HOPE Scholarship and lifetime learning tax credits. These 
credits represent an opportunity to expand much needed access to higher 
education. By helping make college more affordable for eligible 
students, the tax credits lower the burden on families sending children 
to school. But while students apply to receive this tuition assistance, 
the new law unfortunately imposes costly reporting requirements on 
colleges and universities.
  What do these reporting requirements entail? Colleges and 
universities and trade schools, 7,000 in number across this country, 
must collect the name, address, Social Security number of the student. 
However, under the new reporting requirements colleges and universities 
must now collect and report to the IRS for each student, regardless of 
whether the student takes advantage of the credit, the name, address 
and Social Security numbers of anyone claiming the student as a 
dependent for tax purposes; the name, address and employer 
identification number of the educational institution; contact name and 
phone number; whether the student was in attendance at least half the 
time for any academic period beginning in 1998; the gross amount of 
tuition the student is expected to cover in a calendar year from any 
other source except tuition remission; and whether the student has 
completed 2 years of schooling prior to January 1 of 1998.

  This is very disheartening. This is a very costly unfunded mandate 
that has been placed upon our 7,000 trade colleges, community colleges 
and universities in this country.

[[Page H5716]]

  We have stipulated that schools must collect all sorts of very 
personal information, not only for students that want the credit, but 
on all students. We have been working with six national organizations 
that represent these 7,000 higher learning institutions, and it is 
expected that this unfunded mandate by Congress will cost these higher 
institutions upwards of $150 million to implement alone. Public and 
private higher education institution in Illinois will have to spend $18 
million. Northern Illinois University will pay 200,000. The college 
community system of California has 107 schools and 2\1/2\ million 
students, and their unfunded mandate share is $20 million a year.
  Now the Senate passed a form of relief, holding back many of the 
reporting requirements for at least a year. However, Mr. Chairman, the 
reporting requirements are still going to require a tremendous amount 
of money to be spend by the universities in this country. These 
institutions enroll 23 million students with expenditures that exceed 
$200 billion a year.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do here is to simply make 
available to the IRS a form similar to the child dependent care expense 
form for 1040 filers. It is called Schedule 2 that is formed on 1040 A, 
and what this does, it says the taxpayer that claims the credit has the 
onus of responsibility to fill in the documentation necessary as 
opposed to this horrible mandate that is placed upon our 7,000 schools.
  I have a letter here from the Eastern Connecticut State University 
talking about how much it is going to cost; from the Allegany College 
of Maryland; and the letter I have also, Northern Arizona 
University; McHenry County College; and a letter from John LaTourette 
of Northern Illinois University where he says, ``Let the schools be in 
the business of educating students as opposed to being in the business 
of furnishing IRS different types of information.''

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman. I know he is 
going to withdraw this amendment, and I know it is subject, as well as 
he knows, to a point of order.
  But I know he has done a lot of work on that. He and I have discussed 
the concerns that University of Maryland system has with respect to 
this matter, and I thank the gentleman for all the work he has done on 
this and look forward to looking at this with him. I am sure that the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut who chairs the committee, I 
suppose, that has jurisdiction over this will also be looking at this 
closely, and I look forward to working with the gentleman on that.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words. I, too, would like to comment on the 
gentleman's proposal.
  It is appropriate that it be struck at this time, but I appreciate 
the seriousness of his concern, the amount of research he has done on 
this issue and the significant problems that our universities could 
face if this legislation is implemented poorly. However, it is also 
true that this Congress is going to inject $40 billion through the HOPE 
Scholarship credit and the lifetime learning credit into our 
universities and colleges and other educational institutions, and 
indeed we do have to be sure that that money does go for the cost of 
education.
  I have had a number of discussions with the gentleman now about this, 
and, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction over the Tax Code and works 
closely with the IRS on many issues, we will look forward to working 
closely with him and the universities to straighten out these problems. 
I believe we can do it without legislation.
  We did put some clear direction in the conference report on the IRS 
reform bill, but we will be tracking it very carefully with the 
gentleman and using the input and the ideas that he has had to make 
sure that the process is as simple as it can be and yet assure the 
accountability for the expenditure of what is going to be billions and 
billions of dollars in support of an educated America.

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Manzullo) is withdrawn.


          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 498, proceedings will not 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hefner), the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    amendment offered by ms. delauro

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 17-minute vote followed by three 5-
minute votes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 239, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 288]

                               AYES--183

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     White
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--239

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle

[[Page H5717]]


     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Clayton
     Filner
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Hill
     John
     Kennelly
     Lewis (GA)
     McNulty
     Ortiz
     Parker
     Roybal-Allard

                              {time}  2032

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Filner for, with Mr. Ortiz against.
       Mrs. Kennelly of Connecticut for, with Mr. Hill against.

  Messrs. QUINN, OBERSTAR and McDADE changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. THOMAS and Mr. POMEROY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  the result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 498, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. OBEY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I state a parliamentary inquiry so that no 
Member is mousetrapped on the next vote.
  Is the next vote the vote on the Hefner amendment, and would a vote 
for the Hefner amendment eliminate the cap on congressional pay, and 
would a vote against the Hefner amendment prevent the congressional 
COLA from proceeding?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is not a parliamentary inquiry, but the Chair will 
state that the Hefner amendment strikes section 628.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefner

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Hefner), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 79, 
noes 342, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No 289]

                                AYES--79

     Ackerman
     Berman
     Boehlert
     Burton
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Engel
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Livingston
     Manton
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (CA)
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Owens
     Packard
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Riggs
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sabo
     Schaefer, Dan
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Stark
     Stokes
     Thomas
     Towns
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--342

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H5718]]



                             NOT VOTING--13

     Clayton
     Filner
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Hill
     John
     Kennelly
     Lewis (GA)
     McNulty
     Myrick
     Ortiz
     Parker
     Roybal-Allard

                             {time}   2042

  Mr. McINTYRE and Mr. DICKEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    amendment offered by mrs. lowey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224, 
noes 198, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 290]

                               AYES--224

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--198

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pappas
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Clayton
     Filner
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Hill
     John
     Kennelly
     Lewis (GA)
     McNulty
     Ortiz
     Parker
     Roybal-Allard

                              {time}  2052

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Filner for, with Mr. Ortiz against.

  Messrs. MOAKLEY, GALLEGLY, and EHRLICH changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                amendment no. 16 offered by mr. sanders

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 16 offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a five-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195, 
noes 226, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 291]

                               AYES--195

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Bono
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Largent
     Lee
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Owens
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu

[[Page H5719]]


     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--226

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Archer
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Combest
     Coyne
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Neal
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (OR)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stump
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Vento
     Walsh
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Clayton
     Filner
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Hill
     John
     Kennelly
     Lewis (GA)
     McNulty
     Ortiz
     Parker
     Roybal-Allard
     Waters

                              {time}  2101

  Messrs. MOLLOHAN, WELLER, YOUNG of Alaska, and CHRISTENSEN, Mrs. 
LINDA SMITH of Washington, Mr. HOBSON, and Ms. LEE changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


              amendment offered by mr. smith of new jersey

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
       Add at the end of the bill:
       Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, no funds in this 
     Act may be used to require any contract to include a term for 
     coverage of abortifacients.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) reserves a 
point of order.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, due to the lateness of the 
hour, I do not intend on taking the full 5 minutes.
  Let me make it very clear that part of the problem with the Lowey 
amendment was that it did not define contraception. Many of us have 
been concerned that the pro-abortion lobby and the pro-abortion 
organizations over the years have tried to fudge the line of 
demarcation between fertilization post- and pre-fertilization. Many of 
the chemicals, many of the devices that are now employed that are 
permitted under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program do indeed 
result in many abortions, newly created human lives that are not 
permitted to implant in their mother's womb.
  In a nutshell, my amendment is designed to clarify that if we are 
indeed going to force all of the Federal providers of medical care, the 
HMOs and all the providers as a condition of receiving reimbursement 
for all of their prescriptions, whether it be for penicillin or any 
other drug, that they have, to provide ``a provision for contraceptive 
coverage'', let us at least make it clear that the gentlelady's 
language excludes abortion-inducing chemicals. That is what my 
amendment very simply seeks to do.
  Earlier in the day we pointed out during the debate, that while RU-
486 isn't legal and, hopefully, never will be there are officials of 
Planned Parenthood who are already talking about it as a morning after 
pill. RU486 is baby pesticide and destroys life, the newly created 
life, somewhere along the line up to the 7th week. This is a Federal 
funding of early abortion but many Members of Congress remain 
uninformed of that fact. I say with regret, that safe abortifacients 
like IUDs can be provided by the health care providers under the 
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The question is should they 
be forced to. This says no one is going to be forced to do it. It is a 
conscience type amendment. Still the plain language of Mrs. Lowey's 
amendment only stipulates ``a provision for contraceptive coverage''--a 
much, much, weaker version than the amendment she offered in her 
Appropriations Committee. Clearly, under her amendment, if a plan 
merely provided condoms or birth control pills, that would satisfy the 
obligation created by the amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman clarify for me and for 
others, when he says to include ``a term for coverage,'' what does that 
phrase mean?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for asking the 
question. It says very simply that a health care plan would not have to 
include those devices and chemicals that may have the effect of an 
abortifacient. Under my amendment it will not be mandatory. it will not 
be forced upon the HMOs and upon the health care providers even though 
the language of Mrs. Lowey's amendment require only ``a provision for 
contraceptive coverage'' to satisfy the requirement.
  Mr. HOYER. Am I correct then that the amendment means, ``a term for 
coverage'' would mean the term that refers to the abortifacients?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If I understand the gentleman's question 
that is correct.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his clarification.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
to engage the gentleman from New Jersey in a colloquy.
  I would like to ask the gentleman to define further his amendment. 
Based upon the information that we have, the FDA has approved five 
methods of contraception. This is the established definition of 
contraception. It has nothing to do with RU-486 although, 
unfortunately, there were some letters sent out saying it did. RU-486 
is not included among the five methods of contraception. It has nothing 
to do with abortion. There have been debates that have been going on 
among us, in the country, about when does life begin.
  This takes some serious discussion, and I am sure that we can have 
some serious debates about this issue, but today what we are talking 
about very simply is the five established methods of contraception that 
have been improved by the FDA, nothing to do with abortion, nothing to 
do with RU-486.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If the gentlewoman would yield, let me just 
ask the gentlewoman, because this will help me in responding, her 
definition of contraception. Is it before fertilization occurs or is it 
before implantation in the uterus?

  Mrs. LOWEY. I am sorry. Will the gentleman repeat?

[[Page H5720]]

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Part of the problem we have with the 
gentlewoman's first amendment, as well as the amendment that was 
offered and just passed, is a definitional one. How do you define 
contraception? How do define pregnancy?
  For some, it is implantation. For some, it is fertilization.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Contraception by definition should mean 
before a new life has come into being. There are many who want to blue 
that line and say that chemicals affect the implementation or even 
after that.
  Mrs. LOWEY. If I may reclaim my time, could the gentleman explain 
whether this includes the pill?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. This will have to be determined. There is a 
body of evidence suggesting that IUDs, for example, may have the 
impact, and many women are unaware of this, may have the impact of 
preventing implantation.
  What my amendment says, that is still permissible under Federal 
Employees Health Benefit Program but not mandated.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, if I might ask the gentleman, I 
believe in response to my question as to whether the pill would be 
included, since the pill is one of the five methods of approving 
contraception from the FDA, you seem to be questioning this and I would 
ask the gentleman, if you are not sure whether the pill is an 
established method of contraception, what would the plans determine?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Let me just respond that there are several 
schools of thought as to what the operation is as to what actually 
occurs.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, would the gentleman consider the IUD 
a form of contraception? This is and approved method of contraception. 
Or would you consider the IUD as abortifacient?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Let me make it very clear there has to be a 
determination made, and maybe it is about time, with all of the 
resources at our disposal, we really came to a firm conclusion as to 
how some of these chemicals and how the IUD actually works, because, 
again, even Planned Parenthood and others will say on their web page 
that one of the consequences of the IUD may indeed be preventative of 
implantation .
  Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, does the gentleman include the 
diaphragm as a form of contraception?
  Mrs. SMith of New Jersey. No. As far as I know, that is not included.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I seems to me the gentleman has questions about the pill, 
questions about the diaphragm, questions abut the IUD, and I assume the 
gentleman has questions about Depo--Provera and Norplant.
  Let me say this, there are five established methods of contraception. 
If the gentleman supports the amendment to not cover abortion, then you 
are saying that contraception cannot be covered; no method of 
contraception can be covered.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Not at all. Right now the HMOs, and all of 
the health care providers under the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
program, if they choose, can provide any of those methods that you 
mentioned, from IUDs to Depo-Provera. What your amendment, or what the 
thrust of your original amendment was to force them to do it.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, I just want to make it clear to my 
colleague that the gentleman from New Jersey, it appears to me from 
your statement, is trying to make every method of contraception an 
abortifacient; is that correct?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Not at all, and that is putting words in my 
mouth, and I think that is unfortunate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Lowey was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, if I can make it clear, I think it is very 
important, my colleagues, that we realize what the gentleman is 
attempting to achieve with this amendment. He is stating that there is 
no form of contraception that may not be considered an abortifacient 
and, therefore, the American women have to understand----
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If the gentlewoman will yield, I did not say 
that at all.
  Mrs. LOWEY. No, I will not yield. I will not yield. That the American 
people who are listening to this debate have to understand that this 
Congress wants to tell women that all forms of contraception are 
abortifacients and they cannot be considered.
  I would like to make that point again. The majority of American women 
do support the use of contraceptives. These are very personal 
decisions, we understand that, and each person has to make it for 
themselves. But the majority of American women understands that.
  Now, it seems to me from this discussion, that the gentleman from New 
Jersey is saying to every woman who may take a birth control pill or 
use another one of the five accepted methods of contraception that they 
are abortionists.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Not at all.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I think it is important to clarify what we are talking 
about because the FDA has approved five methods of contraception.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey to 
explain his amendment and to answer any questions he may have.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear to my 
colleagues that birth control pills and diaphragms are not 
abortifacients. IUDs and post-coital pills have the capability of that. 
That is where there has been very little conversation, especially with 
women, as to what might be happening when they think they are 
preventing fertilization when, indeed, implantation is what is being 
prevented.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is confusion about 
this issue, and if I may, from my experience, please lend some of that 
to our body, one; and, number two, also relay that I had a conversation 
with the gentlewoman from New York, and I do understand what her 
intention is and I do understand the intention of the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith). She has an honorable request. She won that in 
her committee, and it should be honored in that way.
  But let me clarify for this body that, in fact, the diaphragm is not 
an abortifacient; that oral contraceptives are not an abortifacient; 
that morning-after pills, in fact, are; that IUDs are, in fact, 
abortifacients.
  Now, there is not a medical question about how they work, and there 
is not a medical question about how oral contraceptives work. Their 
intention is to prevent ovulation or to prevent penetration of a sperm. 
That is not an abortifacient. And there is no question in the medical 
community about how they work.
  So I would ask this body that if, in fact, we feel we want to make a 
decision based on what the request of gentlewoman from New York really 
is, that we supply oral contraceptives to women in this country, that 
we accept the Smith amendment to that, and we can qualify and solve 
this problem and this will go through. If, in fact, not, then we will 
see we will have an extended debate on whether or not the bill will 
make it.
  An honorable amendment was brought forth in the committee. An 
honorable amendment to the gentlewoman's amendment is now offered. The 
clarity cannot be any clearer than what I have stated. The Smith 
amendment does not limit oral contraceptives, it only limits those 
things that are considered abortifacients.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I think that Members have 
to be very sensitive to what my colleague from New Jersey is attempting 
to do here today.
  Is there no limit to my colleague's willingness to impose his concept 
of

[[Page H5721]]

when life begins on others? Conception is a process. Fertilization of 
the egg is part of that process. But if that fertilized egg does not 
get implanted, it does not grow. And so on throughout the course of 
pregnancy.
  For those who do not believe that life begins upon fertilization, but 
believes, in fact, that that fertilized egg has to be implanted, the 
gentleman is imposing his judgment as to when life begins on that 
person and, in so doing, denying them what might be the safest means of 
contraception available to them.
  Some women cannot take the pill. It is too disruptive to them. Some 
women depend on intrauterine devices and other such contracptives. When 
we get to the point where we have the courage to do more research in 
contraception, we will have many other options to offer women so that 
they can have safe contraception.
  For us to make the decision that that woman must choose a means of 
contraception that reflects any one individual's determination as to 
when in that process of conception life actually begins is a level of 
intrusion into conscience, into independence, into freedom that, 
frankly, I have never witnessed. Even the issue of being for or against 
abortion is a different issue than we debate here tonight. We have 
never, ever intruded to this depth.
  When I talk to my friends who are obstetricians, because all my 
colleagues know my husband is a retired obstetrician, how the pills 
work is not simple. In some women they have one effect, and they may 
have first effects and secondary effects. They prevent ovulation in 
general but not absolutely. And if there is a fertilization while on 
the pill, the pill prevents implantation.
  So this is a complex process. And for us to imagine here tonight that 
it is either right or proper or possible for the gentleman to impose 
his determination on others at this level is extraordinary. As a 
Republican who believes that government should stay out of our lives, I 
oppose this amendment with everything in me. And I would ask my 
colleagues, those who are pro life--and I honor that position. And I 
would say that the pro-life members of our Nation have changed the 
issue of abortion over these years. People take it far more seriously. 
It is not as casual. They have made an enormous difference for the good 
in our Nation. But that does not make it right for them to step, then, 
into this level and try to make definitions that, frankly, are not 
nearly so simple as my friend and respected colleague, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), implies.
  The lines are not clear. They are not simple. I would ask my 
colleague to respect that we are a Nation founded on the belief that we 
should have freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, and this 
amendment deeply, deeply compromises those liberties.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198, 
noes 222, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 292]

                               AYES--198

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Packard
     Pappas
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--222

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Clayton
     Filner
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Hill
     John
     Kennelly
     Lewis (GA)
     McDade
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Ortiz
     Parker
     Roybal-Allard

                              {time}  2145

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Ortiz for, with Mr. Filner against.

  Mr. THOMAS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BALLENGER and Mr. COBURN changed their votes from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Treasury and General 
     Government Appropriations Act, 1999''.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, in the last four years I can't 
count the number of

[[Page H5722]]

times I have been here on the House floor voting on bills, amendments, 
appropriations riders, and every possible vehicle for so-called anti-
abortion legislation. The reality is, every member of Congress is anti-
abortion. Every member of Congress wants to make abortion less 
necessary and eventually unnecessary. By improving access to affordable 
contraception, the Lowey amendment is an excellent way to achieve this 
goal.
  As a founding co-chair of the Congressional Prevention Caucus, I am a 
strong proponent of using preventive methods to improve the length and 
quality of human life and also to reduce the skyrocketing costs of 
health care. On average, women spend 68% more on health care costs than 
men. Much of these additional costs can be attributed to reproductive 
health care costs. The use of contraception can help to reduce these 
costs for women by preventing unplanned pregnancy, an expensive and 
potentially life threatening condition.
  Opponents of this amendment argue that 81% of FEHB plans already 
cover at least one form of contraception and that women federal 
employees already have a choice of plans. The one form is generally 
oral hormonal contraception known as ``the pill.'' Oral contraceptives 
are one of the five most common forms of contraceptive but it is not 
always recommended to some women who experience negative side effects 
or may be a higher risk of breast cancer or stroke. Alternatives should 
be accessible to women who decide in consultation with their doctor 
that it is a safer option. Ten percent of plans cover no forms of 
contraception at all.
  Regardless of the percentage of plans that cover this option and 
don't cover that option, contraception should be considered basic 
health care for women of reproductive age. As employers, we have a 
responsibility to choose what kind of health care we want to provide 
for our employees. We should be providing this basic preventive care 
and not forcing our employees to choose a plan that may not be the best 
plan for them because none of the other plans provide contraceptive 
coverage.
  Furthermore, if we are denying federal employees coverage of abortion 
services in their health plans, as we have since 1995, it would be 
hypocritical not to make methods to prevent the necessity of abortion 
as accessible as possible to federal employees. Contraception is a 
proven method in reducing the number of abortions. A recent study of 
the use of contraception in the former Soviet republics shows that 
preventing pregnancy with contraception reduces the number of 
abortions. In Kazakstan for example, abortion rates have fallen by more 
than 40% since the change in contraception policy by the government and 
widespread access to contraception was implemented.
  As adversaries of the ``abortion issue'' continue to disagree over 
pro-choice, pro-life semantics, we should be working together on 
policies that we can agree reduce the necessity of abortion. I urge my 
colleagues to work together where we can on this terribly divisive 
issue by supporting the Lowey amendment to provide comprehensive 
contraceptive health care coverage for federal employees.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
Treasury Postal Appropriations bill. In this bill, there is funding for 
courthouse projects across the country, and I thank Chairman Kolbe and 
Ranking Member, Congressman Hoyer, for their great leadership in this 
issue.
  The situation of aging courthouses across this nation must not be 
tolerated any longer. We must ensure a safe and fair judicial process 
for all Americans. I am very familiar with older courthouses, 
particularly the ones in Jacksonville and Orlando, which I represent. 
In addition to not having the space to properly handle the increasing 
judicial caseload, these older courthouses have serious security risks 
for judges, juries, and litigants. Often times judges must pass through 
corridors with prisoners and defendants lined up along the walls. 
Additionally, these older courthouses do not have the necessary 
security measures that they should have in the this day and age.
  This is a very serious situation, and I am glad that we have the 
leadership here to recognize it and address it.
  We must keep the judicial branch of government viable, particularly, 
as we task it with more federal laws and caseloads. I thank my 
colleagues from Maryland and Arizona for their commitment to this 
issue, and urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) 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, pursuant to House Resolution 498, he reported the bill back 
to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any 
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. UPTON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, is this the appropriate time to offer a 
tobacco amendment?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is definitely out of order.
  The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Without objection, there will be a vote on H.R. 3731 immediately 
following this vote.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 17-minute vote followed by a 
5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 203, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 293]

                               YEAS--218

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--203

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo

[[Page H5723]]


     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Clayton
     Filner
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Hill
     John
     Kennelly
     Lewis (GA)
     McDade
     McNulty
     Ortiz
     Parker
     Roybal-Allard
     Yates

                              {time}  2216

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Ortiz for, with Mr. Filner against.

  Messrs. EVANS, LEVIN, McINTYRE, GEPHARDT, HINOJOSA, Mrs. MEEK of 
Florida, Ms. FURSE, Messrs. CUMMINGS, STRICKLAND, MORAN of Virginia, 
Ms. BROWN of Florida, Messrs. TANNER, HEFNER, SPRATT, CLEMENT, CARDIN 
and WYNN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. PITTS, SAM JOHNSON of Texas, BACHUS, CUNNINGHAM, COLLINS, 
HYDE, SOLOMON, SOUDER, EVERETT, REDMOND, BURTON of Indiana, KING, 
HOEKSTRA, CHRISTENSEN, ENSIGN, BILIRAKIS, METCALF, LaHOOD, BUYER, 
FOSSELLA, HUNTER, PORTMAN, HALL of Texas, Mrs. CHENOWETH, Messrs. RYUN, 
LEWIS of Kentucky, CHABOT, WELDON of Pennsylvania, DAN SCHAEFER of 
Colorado, SCARBOROUGH, ROGAN, SHADEGG, CRAPO, STEARNS, CANNON, RILEY, 
McINTOSH and Mr. CANADY of Florida changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________