[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 120 (Wednesday, September 15, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8339-H8352]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2490, TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule just adopted, I call up
the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2490) 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, 2000, and for other
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 291, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
September 14, 1999, at page H8201.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today, along with the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), to present to the House the conference report on
the fiscal year 2000 Treasury and General Government Appropriations
bill. This is a bill that not only meets the commitment we have made to
the American people to reform modernize the Internal Revenue Service,
but one that continues to strengthen our support for Federal law
enforcement, to protect our borders against drugs, and to prosecute
violations of our gun laws.
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would just like to say that I think
that the staff always plays an essential role in preparing and
supporting the committee at all stages of its annual appropriations
bills, and I am surrounded today by the very valuable staff that has
made this work very possible, and it is true also of the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) whose staff is on the way.
I want to pay special tribute if I might to one individual, our
congressional fellow, Clif Morehead, who leaves us at year end, having
performed exemplary service for the House of Representatives. Clif has
worked for this subcommittee for the past year, and after serving a
year in the personal office of my distinguished ranking member, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), Clif will be leaving the committee
to return to his work as a special agent with the U.S. Secret Service.
Clif has been a terrific asset to this subcommittee, bringing not
only his experience and insight into Federal law enforcement from his
Secret Service career, but also his understanding of how Congress and
the Federal agencies operate from his previous work on defense issues,
and as a Marine Corps officer.
{time} 1500
Whether it has been preparing for the hearings, doing the in-depth
research, briefings, planning and organizing committee travel,
including a very informative trip that we participated in to review
counterdrug efforts in the Andes earlier this year, to the drafting and
negotiations of the bill and its report, Cliff has been an invaluable
staff member. I am grateful for his hard work.
Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee will soon bid
farewell to our Congressional Fellow, Clifton, D. Morehead, as he
begins his next assignment as Special Agent for the U.S. Secret
Service. Special Agent Morehead has proven himself to be tremendous
asset to the work of this Subcommittee, bringing with him the
experience he has gained with the Secret Service, as a business manager
for Procter and Gamble, and as a Marine Corps officer. Clif began his
fellowship in 1998 in the office of the distinguished ranking member of
this subcommittee, Steny Hoyer, where he served as his legislative
assistant for defense policy and appropriations issues. Clif therefore
arrived in this subcommittee with a strong background in the technical
issues and folkways of the appropriations process.
Serving as a member of my subcommittee staff, Clif has brought a
unique perspective to bear on many of the lively debates and sometimes
convoluted issues we face as we craft this appropriation bill, and in
overseeing the agencies and programs in our jurisdiction. In
[[Page H8340]]
particular, Clif's insight and contribution has been invaluable on
matters affecting law enforcement, national security, and management
issues. Throughout his service here, Clif's unqualified
professionalism, perceptiveness, great sense of humor and cool head
have helped this Subcommittee and the Congress move forward on a wide
range of policy and budgetary issues. His assistance in planning for
and coordinating a complicated trip to the Andean countries to review
the U.S. counternarcotics assistance programs there was of particular
benefit to us.
Special Agent Morehead has served me, this subcommittee, and the
House well: we are sorry to see him leave, and will miss him as a
colleague and as a friend. Each of us on the Treasury Appropriations
Subcommittee wish Clif all the best as he resumes his Secret Service
career, and expect to see great things there.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would
like to join the chairman of the committee in commending the work of
Clif Morehead. This is an extraordinarily valuable program for the
Federal Government, these exchange programs. They give the Members of
various different agencies a perspective on how the Congress operates,
and other agencies, but how this process works.
Clif Morehead is an extraordinary young man who has contributed a
great deal to the quality of our work during the past frankly 24
months, first working in my office, where he was an invaluable asset,
and then in the committee office, as well.
I want to join the chairman in commending Clif Morehead. He is an
extraordinary asset of the Secret Service, and has been an outstanding
asset of ours. I join with the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe)
in wishing him the very best as he returns to his position as an agent
in the United States Secret Service, where I know he will continue to
prove to be a valuable asset to our country.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) for his kind remarks about Clif. Clif is on the floor with us
today, and Clif, it is not our eulogy to you but rather a tribute to
you, and we look forward to continuing to work with you.
Mr. Speaker, let me return to the conference report, if I might, and
discuss for a moment some of the key parts about it.
This conference agreement provides $13.7 billion for agencies which
come under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. That is $240 million
above the current fiscal year, an increase of less than 2 percent, but
it is $220 million below what the President requested.
I am concerned to learn there are some Members who believe that this
level of funding is both excessive and unnecessary. In fact, it is
neither. Just to keep pace with inflation, the administration requested
an increase of $600 million. That was before any of the initiatives,
and before the mandatory requirements, such as Y2K readiness for the
IRS, or workloads associated with the upcoming Presidential elections,
the workload increase that will be caused during the upcoming
Presidential election for the Secret Service, or for increases in the
critical drug programs, such as the high-intensity drug trafficking
areas or the Drug-Free Communities Act.
Mr. Speaker, a $240 million increase barely makes a dent towards
putting together a bill that meets all of our current law enforcement
responsibilities.
Clearly, this subcommittee was faced with a daunting task. I can tell
the Members that without this funding level, the conference report
before us now would not be pretty from anyone's perspective. The fact
is, anything less than what is provided in the conference report would
have fallen far short of our shared goals.
Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, I know my colleagues have concerns over
these funding levels. On the other hand, I know that we all support the
same things. We all support IRS restructuring and reform and improving
customer service for our constituents. We all support hardening the
borders against drugs and illegal contraband while improving the flow
of legitimate commerce. We all support keeping our children off drugs
and strengthening our communities and families. Finally, we all support
keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, adult and juvenile
criminals, and giving State and local law enforcement officers the
tools they need to enforce the firearms laws that we have adopted.
These are items which certainly ought not to be controversial. These
are items that are funded within our conference allocation, and I think
we can all agree they are not excessive, they are not unnecessary.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me address the issue of legislative items
and the suggestion that somehow the conference agreement has put one
over on some Members, including items which, for a variety of reasons,
should not be included, or should not be in there in their present
form.
Each year, this subcommittee is burdened with controversial
legislative provisions that ultimately have to be negotiated in
conference with the Senate. The fact is, once they are attached to the
bill, we are responsible for negotiating differences with the Senate on
behalf of the sponsors. So we did not put anything over on anybody in
this conference report. The conferees negotiated to the best of their
ability, and with nothing but the best of intentions. The conferees
made every effort possible to accommodate the views of all Members,
House and Senate, both sides of the aisle, on these different issues.
The agreement before us now reflects the very best intentions and the
very best judgment of the conferees. I might add, it has received the
unanimous and unqualified support of the House and Senate conferees. We
have a bill that I believe can receive a majority of votes in both
sides of the aisle, in both chambers, and one that I believe can and
will be signed by the President of the United States.
I hope that, when some of my colleagues say they are threatening to
vote against this measure because they disagree with the specifics of
it or some of the controversial provisions, that they will reconsider
that position. That would be a very shortsighted approach, and I urge
Members to look at this conference report in its entirety.
This is an excellent conference agreement. It is strong on law
enforcement, it is tough on drugs, and it continues our commitment to
restructure and reform the IRS. I urge my colleagues to support this
conference agreement.
[[Page H8341]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE99.001
[[Page H8342]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE99.002
[[Page H8343]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE99.003
[[Page H8344]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE99.004
[[Page H8345]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank the the gentleman from Arizona
(Chairman Kolbe) and his staff for their leadership and work on this
bill. This has been in some respects a difficult bill, and in other
respects a relatively easy bill. Within the 302(b) allocation level
that had been provided to this subcommittee, this is a very good
conference report. Even though we were not able to fund the courthouse
construction within the constraints of this allocation, this report
deserves bipartisan support.
Mr. Speaker, I was one, and I know the Chair shares my view, that
believes we should be moving forward on courthouse construction. There
is a backlog in the criminal justice system which certainly requires
this, as does the civil side of the court dockets. Notwithstanding the
fact that we have not been able to do that, the balance of the bill
warrants the support of both sides of the aisle.
This conference report funds the Treasury Department at $12.355
billion, which is $21 million below the President's request. However,
it is certainly sufficient to give to the Treasury the ability to do
the job that we expect of them.
Included within this amount is $3.3, almost $3.4 billion for the
Treasury's five important law enforcement agencies. Those agencies
comprise, Mr. Speaker, 40 percent of law enforcement at the Federal
level. In addition, I am happy to note that this bill fully funds the
IRS at the requested level, providing for enhanced customer service and
the restructuring of the IRS recently mandated by this Congress.
As my colleagues know, this is one of the major problems I raised
with respect to the bill as it passed the House. I was very concerned
that we were not providing the resources necessary to implement the
reform program that we had adopted just a short time ago.
Happily, in conference, we have now provided the resources so that
that reform can be fully implemented. I have talked personally, as I
know the chairman has, to Mr. Rissotti, and he believes that, given the
resources in this bill, that he will be able to meet the expectations
that the Congress has to ensure that citizens are treated well and
served effectively and efficiently by the Internal Revenue Service.
This bill also funds many drug activities, including $460 million for
the Office of National Drug Control Policy. This important, yes, even
critical office has the lead role in coordinating all of this
government's efforts in the war against drugs.
Within this $460 million, $192 million is for the very successful
high-intensity drug trafficking program, $185 million for the ONCDP,
National Youth Antidrug Media Campaign, and $30 million for the third
year of the Drug-Free Communities Act. I think the gentleman from
Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) received a request from almost every Member of
the Congress, it seemed, to fully fund this drug-free communities
effort.
While we could not fully fund the General Services Administration
within the 302(b) allocation, GSA is funded near the requested level,
including funding for needed border stations in several States, and the
first stage of the project to consolidate the Food and Drug
Administration at White Oak, in Maryland.
This bill addresses the rate of increase also for Federal employees'
compensation. Just a few minutes ago, maybe an hour ago or so, we
passed the defense authorization bill, which authorizes a 4.8 percent
level for the military. Happily, this bill, pursuant to the parity
language adopted by this House on two different occasions this year,
funds Federal employees at the same rate.
I thank the chairman for his leadership and assistance in
accomplishing that objective. Both he, Senator Campbell, and Senator
Stevens were very supportive of this objective, and I thank them for
their efforts in that regard.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have extended the authority for
voluntary early retirement for Federal employees in this bill, critical
as we downsize in a smart way. Clearly an across-the-board RIF is very
inefficient. It does not necessarily remove those employees who are no
longer needed, and is, both from an efficiency standpoint and from an
economic standpoint, a very poor way to manage our service.
This language, which gives permanent authority to OPM to authorize
early outs, will be extraordinarily helpful, I think, in managing well
the Federal Government.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this conference report provides government
agencies with the authority to use appropriated dollars to provide
child care for low-income Federal employees. I know this has some
controversy to it and I know that the chairman has indicated that he
intends to have our committee very closely monitor this initiative, and
I look forward to working with him on this effort.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference report. It deserves bipartisan
support. Mr. Speaker, indeed, I would hope that every Member of the
House, on both sides of the aisle, could support this report. I thank
the chairman for his leadership and his work, and join him in his words
of praise, again, for the competency and commitment of our staff in
reaching this result.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member,
for his kind comments, and I would say that it has also been a great
pleasure for me and my staff to work with him. We do not always agree
on everything, and we will not, that is the nature of this body, that
is the nature of the legislative process. But it also is the nature of
the legislative process experience on appropriations that we work
together to solve problems, and work together to make sure that we have
a government that functions for the best interests of all of our
citizens.
I think that this bill reflects the very best of that process, and
certainly both with his staff and with the ranking minority member and
the other members of the subcommittee, I think we have achieved a
result that we can all be quite proud of.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), who has been very
instrumental in working for child care provisions in legislation.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this conference report.
I want to very much thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe)
for his leadership and hard work on this important bill. It has been
inch by inch hard work, diligent work, every step of the way.
I also want to commend the ranking member, my colleague, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for the work that he has done. He
has done a yeoman's job, and it is a great product that has come about.
I also want to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for
working with me to ensure that the legislation incorporates the
provisions of my bill, H.R. 206, the Federal Employee Child Care
Affordability Act.
This important and yet simple legislation would allow Federal
agencies to use funds from their salary and expense accounts to help
low-income Federal employees pay for child care. The legislation does
not require any additional appropriations. It would be up to individual
agencies to determine whether or not to use funds from their salary
accounts to help provide child care. Agencies, not employees, would
make payments to child care providers to help lower-income Federal
employees pay for their child care.
One of the greatest challenges that families face is finding safe,
affordable day care. America's lack of safe, affordable day care is not
a new problem, but its consequences are becoming more dire. It does
require new, innovative solutions.
In 1995, 62 percent of women with children younger than 6 and 77
percent of women with children between the ages of 6 and 17 were in the
labor force. Federal employees working, for example, at the National
Institutes of Health in my district face significant financial choices
in paying for child care.
[[Page H8346]]
{time} 1515
A GS-6 secretary earning $26,000 per year as a single parent of a 1-
year-old child would have to pay $11,440, more than half of her after-
tax salary, on child care alone. This is a personal example. Put
simply, without help from her employer, she would not be able to afford
to work and raise her child.
This legislation gives federal agencies the flexibility similar to
that enjoyed by the Department of Defense to tailor their child care
programs to meet the particular needs of their employees. The
Department of Defense, writing in support of my legislation, stated
that these provisions will help remedy the current situation creating
``the `have's and the have not's' between the Department of Defense and
other federal agencies because other agencies lack the authority to
subsidize personnel costs.'' That is a quote.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that these child care provisions do
not grant regulatory authority to the Office of Personnel Management
that could lead the way to federalized child care. Mr. Speaker, I am
dismayed at the level of misinformation that is being spread against
these common sense provisions. The conferees explicitly stated that any
regulations promulgated by OPM pursuant to this authority ``shall only
address the use of appropriated funds to provide child care services
and improve the affordability of child care for lower income
employees.''
Mr. Speaker, by empowering agencies to work as partners with
employees to meet their child care needs, Congress truly will be
encouraging family-friendly federal workplaces in higher productivity.
Retaining our good civil servants is essential to the well-being of our
democracy.
In addition to empowering our agencies to create family-friendly
workplaces, I am pleased that the conference report provides a 4.8
percent pay increase for our federal civilian employees, equaling the
pay increase provided for uniformed military personnel and other
legislation.
I am encouraged that this legislation includes the victory that we
won during the debate on the fiscal year 1999 Treasury, Postal bill
providing for contraceptive coverage in the Federal Employee Health
Benefits Program. Contraceptives help couples plan wanted pregnancies
and reduce the need for abortions. This conference report ensures that
we will continue treating prescription contraceptives the same as all
other covered drugs in order to achieve parity between the benefits
offered to male participants in FEHB plans and those offered to female
ones.
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased about the inclusion of language that
would require federal agencies to have a policy in place to address sex
discrimination and harassment. It is a provision that steps in the
right direction to counter the roadblocks for women in federal
employment and can only bring us closer to creating a highly effective
work force as we face the challenges of the new millennium.
I think this conference report is important. I think it reflects a
sensible compromise between multiple interests.
Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and
thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member, for
the very good work. I encourage all of my colleagues to support these
important provisions to help federal employees and their families.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letter from the
General Counsel of the Department of Defense:
General Counsel of the
Department of Defense,
Washington, DC, May 18, 1999.
Hon. Constance A. Morella,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congresswoman Morella: This is in response to your
request for the views of the Department of Defense on H.R.
206, the Federal Employee Child Care Affordability Act, and
how it would benefit the Department of Defense.
The Department of Defense has no objections to the proposed
legislation and in fact will benefit from H.R. 206.
The Department of Defense is committed to providing quality
affordable child care for both military and civilian
employees of the Department. We also are active partners with
both the Office of Personnel Management and the General
Services Administration in trying to share ``lessons
learned'' from the military child care experiences with the
rest of the Federal government. One of the lessons we have
learned is that quality child care costs more than most lower
income and lower ranking members of our community, both
military and civilian, can afford. Because of this, we
established a policy where families pay child care fees based
on their total family income. We pay the balance from funds
appropriated to the Department of Defense for its operations
and maintenance.
H.R. 206 would provide other Federal agencies the authority
to lower the cost of child care for lower income families in
a similar manner to how the Department of Defense has done
this. The bill, if enacted, would make it easier for us to
become partners with other Federal agencies when we are co-
located in Federal buildings or leased facilities. For
example, many of our military recruiting offices are located
with other Federal agencies in buildings conveniently located
for the communities they serve. Your legislation, if enacted,
would permit us to offer more affordable care to these very
critical personnel.
The current Federal child care policies create the ``have's
and the have not's'' between the Department of Defense and
all other Federal agencies because other agencies lack the
authority to subsidize personnel costs. H.R. 206 would assist
other Federal agencies in moving closer to the military in
quality, cost and availability of child care by decreasing
the gap in funding. Requiring any appropriated funds to be
used to improve the affordability of child care for lower
income employees would move other Federal child care programs
closer to the military model which subsidizes child care for
lower income employees. This sets the stage to make the
entire Federal Government a model for the country in the
provision of affordable child care.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that, from the
standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no
objection to the presentation of this report for the
consideration of the Committee.
Sincerely,
Judith A. Miller.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for a moment on language that is in the
statement of managers for the conference report on the Treasury and
General Government's appropriations bills. This deals with the issue of
a report that is to be submitted to Congress on personal search
inspections policies and practices of the U.S. Customs Service.
Because of the implications the personal search policy has for
individual rights, Congress clearly needs to monitor proposed policies
and their implementation. We have anticipated and we expect that
Customs Service will prepare this report, a report that will cover
changes being implemented, together with an action plan for further
improvement in its personal search policies, and that they would submit
this to the Secretary of the Treasury for approval and transmittal to
the Committee on Appropriations.
Let me make note of the fact that Commissioner Kelly has taken steps
that demonstrate his commitment to improving Customs' policy on
personal search of international passengers at our airports. The search
process has been made less invasive. Supervisors are being made more
accountable by being more closely involved in decisions to conduct a
personal search.
I think it is clear that the commissioner is committed to fairness in
the processing of international passengers and making sure that there
is no racial bias in selecting who is searched. But this does not
diminish our responsibility as a Congress to oversee this issue and to
make sure that individual rights are being protected.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) if he would like to add any
comments to this.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe), and I agree with him. Allegations of unfair treatment by
Customs personnel toward minorities at international airports is
certainly taken seriously by this committee. This is an area where we
need to exercise our oversight responsibilities.
The United States Customs Service has taken these allegations
seriously as well and has undertaken a thorough review of its policies.
More importantly, an independent panel has been appointed to review the
practices of personal searches at the Customs Service and by the
Customs Service.
The Personal Search Review Commission is chaired by a widely
respected individual, Ms. Constance Newman, and includes three esteemed
officials from other agencies. As someone
[[Page H8347]]
who has had the opportunity of working with Connie Newman over the
years, I have full confidence in her fairness, in her thoroughness, and
in her impartiality.
The collective experience, knowledge, and insight of the commission
will provide a firm basis for an objective analysis of the Customs
Service's methods for carrying out this aspect of their mission.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sanford Cloud, the President of the
National Conference for Community and Justice, has been selected to be
an independent advisor to the Commission of the Customs Service on
personal search matters.
In this time of change at Customs, it is imperative that Congress be
provided with the information to evaluate the modifications in personal
search policy. That is why we intend for this report to be prepared by
the Customs Service with the approval of the Secretary of Treasury and
Under Secretary for Enforcement on the changes and its implementation.
I thank the chairman for allowing us to clarify this matter so that
we fully understand the import of the language that is included in our
bill.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman
Kolbe) for yielding me the time, and I do want to express my
appreciation to him and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). They
had a difficult job this year within the parameters that were given to
them. In the Treasury, Postal, there is no question of very key
important facets to our Government agencies. I, however, wanted to
speak, because I am adamantly opposed to this bill as it is written,
and I wanted to spend a minute so that my colleagues can know why.
In this bill, we have a 4.8 percent increase for federal workers. A
third of them will receive another 3 percent increase. That is a 7.8
percent increase. Now, as we look at what the average federal worker,
and this comes from the Federal Government statistics, not my
statistics, the average Federal Government worker who works in the D.C.
area, Maryland, Virginia and the D.C. area, their present average
salary is $57,371.
With this increase, which is four-tenths of a percent above what the
President asked for, they will receive on average a $2,754 a year
raise. That is $1.40 an hour is what the average federal employee is.
Now, I want to contrast with, we are going to give our seniors in
Social Security a 1.8 percent increase. That is what we are going to
give the seniors that are out there struggling to make it on their
Social Security.
The money that is going to be used to enhance the federal employees
far above the level of the other people's average salary, and if my
colleagues look at the whole average federal employee salary in this
country, $44,886, which is 2\1/2\ times the average family income in
the State of Oklahoma, that is what the average federal worker's salary
is, they will receive over $1 an hour increase.
The four-tenths of a percent increase above what the President
requested, and do not get me wrong, I think we should increase the pay
for federal employees, is a $330 million bill. Do my colleagues know
where that money is going to come from? It is going to come dead out of
Social Security. So not only are we not supplying our seniors with what
they should have through an equitable Social Security system, but what
we are doing is we are taking $330 million that ultimately will come
from Social Security, because the agreement reached between the
Congress and the President of the United States will be violated by the
end of this year as far as the budget caps.
We just had the President say he is not going to pass the tax cut;
and, yet, he is going to ask the Congress to spend more money. So if we
are not going to give a tax cut to the American people and we are going
to spend more money, then if we are going to do that, let us pony up a
little bit more for the seniors. If we are going to steal their Social
Security money anyway, why do we not give them more than a 1.8 percent
cost of living adjustment that is not even covering their Medicare
costs or their prescription drug costs.
There is a second reason that I am against this bill. I am not
against child care. The Morella idea is a good idea. We should care for
our children. But the extension of that idea will not work without
ultimately what her bill, which will eventually be on the floor to
authorize this, says, that there will be a federal mandated standard
for federal child care centers.
The other thing about the Morella language that is in this bill is
that it is discriminatory. Only can one have the federal benefit if one
goes to a federally approved day care. If one wants one's neighbor to
care for one's child, if one wants one's children to care for one's
child, one does not get the benefit. So only if one comes to Big Daddy,
Big Brother, will one get that benefit.
I would hope that the Members of this body will vote against this
bill and put it back into perspective. We are not in position where we
can give a $2,000 a year raise to every federal employee.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to debate at length the presentation of
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the last speaker, but I
understand his point. I do not agree with it.
In fact, I would make the observation that we have a system whereby
the federal employees are compared with comparable positions in the
private sector. That report is done pursuant to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. In fact, for comparable work done in the regions of the
country, it is done regionally so it is not over-inflated for high cost
areas and low cost areas, but by region, our federal employees for
comparable work done in the private sector are 20 to 30 percent behind.
Now, the reason the salaries sound high is because we have NIH
scientists, we have NASA engineers, we have law enforcement officials
that are skilled and, for instance, in FBI, college graduates, doing
some of the most sophisticated criminal investigations possible and DEA
and ATF and other agencies. We have at the IRS highly skilled and paid
personnel to carry out very sophisticated financial responsibilities
and analysis.
So that, yes, by comparison with the overall, they are high. But just
as well, Michael Jordan's salary by comparison was high. I tell people
that Abe Pollin could have gotten 100 people to apply for the Bullets
at $250,000 a year. There would have been no lack of people applying to
play.
Now, the fact of the matter is Abe Pollin would never have won a game
because, at $250,000, which is a lot of money by our standards, by
anybody's standards, he would not have gotten competitive ball players.
That is the nature of some of the things that we do in the federal
service, very sophisticated, requiring highly skilled people. In the
competitive market, one pays what the market pays.
As I pointed out before the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) got
here, we just passed the defense authorization bill, I obviously do not
know whether he voted for or against it, in which we included 4.8
percent adjustment for military pay because we want to keep them and we
want to be able to recruit. The law calls for parity, and that is what
we are providing for in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Committee on Small
Business.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland from
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the conferees for including in
this conference report my amendment which provides funding for grants
to local and State programs to combat money laundering. This program is
the linchpin of the anti-money laundering strategy outlined by my bill,
the Money Laundering and Financial Strategy Act of 1998.
We all know how the plague of drugs continue to rock this country. In
the United States alone, estimates put the amount of drug profits
moving through the financial system as high as $100 billion. We need to
be serious about facing down this threat. Indeed, recent revelations
about Russian organized crime laundering money through the Bank of
[[Page H8348]]
New York shows us that we need to be serious. That means giving our
State and local officials the tools they need to follow the money.
This appropriation will be used to stop those who bring drugs into
our neighborhoods and into our kids' lives. Together with the national
anti-money laundering strategy, which will soon be released, we are
sending a strong message that the free ride is over.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just, if I might, respond to a few of the
comments that were made by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
{time} 1530
Let me say that I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). He has been the conscience of this House, he has
been a fiscal hawk, and he has forced those of us on the appropriations
committees, and all the committees, to answer questions in a way that I
think we need to have answers, not only to our colleagues but to the
American people.
So I salute him for the work that he has done and I appreciate it. It
may not have always have made my days easier, but it is okay. I think
it makes for a better bill in the long-run.
But if I might, let me just talk about a couple of things that he
mentioned. He talked about the fact that this is $240 million over last
year. In my opening remarks, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)
was not on the floor at that time, but I noted that that $240 million,
which is less than a 2 percent increase over the current year, is
considerably short of what we would need--$600 million--to maintain
current levels. That is just to keep the current operations going.
Now, one can argue that we ought to make it more efficient, that we
ought to be more productive, and that there ought to be ways to make
Government do better with less. And I do not disagree with that. I
think through the years, for example in the IRS, we have done that very
substantially. We have brought the number of employees down in IRS by
20,000. We have brought the amount of money that we have spent in IRS
substantially. We do have a much more efficient Internal Revenue
Service.
But it, nonetheless, gives us a benchmark I think for where we can
compare things. And clearly, the amount of money needed to make all the
services that were in our bill last year stay just the same, keep on
automatic pilot, would be $600 million. We are only taking $240 million
over that from last year.
In just two accounts, IRS tax processing, for example, it would take
$118 million more to maintain current levels. In tax law enforcement,
it would take $137 million to maintain current levels. Those two
accounts alone, and those are just two accounts of IRS, which is just
one very large part of our entire bill, those two accounts alone
require more than we are giving this bill just to maintain current
services.
So it is clear we are not even maintaining current services with the
proposed spending increases. We are doing it frankly by cutting out
spending in other areas, and a lot of that comes in courthouse spending
that we are not able to do this year.
So I would just make that note that I believe that we do need to have
these additional resources if we are to have efficiencies in the
Internal Revenue Service.
All of us on this floor, I believe all of us that are here at this
moment, and I believe my colleague from Oklahoma, voted for the IRS
modernization legislation, which requires much more consumer friendly,
much more customer orientation on the part of the Internal Revenue
Service. That costs money. We have shifted a lot of people over from
IRS tax law enforcement to customer service. It requires more money and
more time in order to do that.
That is one of the things that we did not do when we passed the bill
on this floor in July. We were not able to give all the money we needed
for the new initiatives that this body has authorized for the Internal
Revenue Service. We attempted to do that with the money that has been
restored in the conference committee. So I think it is reasonable.
I also think that this subcommittee has been very diligent in going
after agencies to make sure that we are spending every dollar as wisely
as possible.
Does that mean we cannot do more? No. We can do more. Does that mean
we can do better? Yes, we can do better. The agencies can do better and
the Office of Management and Budget can help us with that as they
prepare the request for this next year. But I think this bill will
stand the test of time.
Let me also just finally mention the issue of pay increases for
Federal workers. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) said that he
thought it was not fair that Federal employees were getting more than
retirees were getting into their annual adjustment. We all know the
difficulty that that poses for us from a fairness standpoint or from a
political standpoint. But we also know that those two items are based
on very different kinds of adjustments.
One for workers, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has
pointed out, is based on an employment index, that has to do with what
is the comparable pay on the outside for workers.
We are in a very tight labor market. Labor costs have been going up
fairly dramatically in the last couple of years. Fortunately, inflation
has not been going up as rapidly. So we find ourselves with this
anomaly, and it is an anomaly based on historic conditions, where
inflation remains very low, but thanks to productivity gains and other
gains, we have been able to increase real wages more rapidly in the
last couple of years.
Now, this was true last year. The difference was not as great, but it
was true last year as well.
Many of us can remember going back 15, 16, 17 years ago to the early
1980s when Social Security recipients and Federal retirees were getting
12 and 13 percent COLA adjustments, while Federal workers were getting
3 and 4 percent pay increases. The difference was much more dramatic
going the other direction.
So I would just say that these are based on two different indexes and
we ought not to start to mix apples with oranges on that issue.
Finally, let me just say on the issue of the pay increase, the fact
that this legislation mandates a 4.8 instead of the 4.4 percent that
had been requested by the President.
The Members will remember that earlier this year we gave that larger
increase to the military because it was felt that we needed to do that
in order to try to catch up. There was a sense that the same kind of
fairness needed to be given to civilian employees. And so, in the bill
that was adopted here on the floor of the House of Representatives, we
included a provision, a sense of Congress provision, that Federal
civilian employees should get the same 4.8 percent increase.
Subsequently, after the President announced that he was going to
agree to a 4.8 percent adjustment, we decided to write it into the
bill. That is why we have a 4.8 percent increase in our legislation.
So I would just want to make those points at this time.
I respect what the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has suggested
to us, but I think this bill does stand any test and I think it can be
fully justified.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I value the Federal employees that work in my district.
This is not about any individual employee. But the average Federal
employee's salary in this country is greater than the average salary in
this country by $4,000.
So they may be unlike comparisons, but there is an unfairness
inherently when the average American makes $4,000 more than the average
Federal employee. That is number one.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if my friend will yield for a question on
that point, I ask him, how much does the average doctor make above the
average salary?
Mr. COBURN. Probably significant. I do not know what the average
doctor's salary is. But I also know that the average doctor has 8 years
additional education and debt that the average
[[Page H8349]]
Federal employee does not have, the average.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I did not say the average Federal employee.
The gentleman does want to continue to compare apples to apples. The
reason I use the NBA analogy is because they make far more than any of
us contemplate ever making perhaps in our lifetime in a year.
Why do they do so? Because the marketplace demands that if an owner
of an NBA team wants to have the opportunity of winning, he must hire
the skill levels necessary to accomplish that objective. The skill
level required, and the gentleman knows my point, is such that we need
to pay more.
Now, I asked the question for doctors not because I think doctors
should not be well compensated. They have to go through extraordinary
difficulty to acquire the skills that I want in my doctor. I want my
doctor to be highly skilled; and, therefore, I know in the marketplace,
in a free market, I am going to have to pay that doctor, society is
going to have to pay that doctor, commensurate with the skills
required.
What I suggested during my response to the intervention of the
gentleman was that we have the requirement for some highly skilled
people in the Federal service. The Federal Government does some
extraordinarily difficult, complicated things requiring high skills.
NIH doctors. That goes into the average my colleague is talking about.
But I will tell my colleague, the average NIH research doctor at NIH
makes far less than his private sector counterpart. I think the
gentleman would probably concede that.
So when we take the average across the country and compare not just
average salaries but compare skill levels, the report of every report
that has come out since I have been in Congress in 1989 when we had
Ronald Reagan and George Bush and now Bill Clinton in office, it did
not really vary in terms of administrations, was that there was a
substantial pay gap between the private sector when we compare
comparable duties and responsibilities with the public sector. That is
my point.
So my colleague continues to say ``average,'' and that is correct,
but many of our people do not have average skills any more than a
doctor has average skills.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I would make two points.
I would concede that there is a difference in mix. I do not deny
that. But I also say that if we look at the attrition from the Federal
Government, it is one-fifth the rate of private industry today. So
that, on an economic sense, says that they are not running away and
that they are not being underpaid.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman make that point again.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I said the attrition rate in the Federal
Government versus private industry is about one-fifth.
Number two is, we did need to raise military pay, but we do not pay
military on average anywhere close to what we are paying Federal
civilian employees. And to say because we are trying to bring them up
to retain when we do not have the retention problem in the rest of the
government I think is not an accurate argument.
The final point I would make: In last year's appropriation there was
over $400 million for buildings in this bill that are not in there this
year. So the real expenditure that the American people needs to know is
this bill has gone up $640 million. Because we are not buying $400-plus
million worth of buildings this year. We are applying that to run the
IRS and some of the other agencies that we run.
So even though the net is only up this additional $240 million, I
think it is accurate to say that. And I am not saying we do not
necessarily need to do that. My complaint was on the $330 million, Mr.
Chairman, not the $240 million.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference
report for H.R. 2490, the Treasury, Postal Service, and General
Government Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2000.
The bill reported out of conference is a sound bill and a significant
improvement over the House-passed version. Specifically, the $240
million that irresponsibly was cut from the House bill at the direction
of the Republican leadership, was restored in the conference on the
bill. As a result, this conference report is unanimously supported by
the both the House and Senate conferees.
The conference report provides $13.7 billion dollars in funding for
the important agencies and programs within the bill. The conference
report includes increased funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms to enforce our gun and tobacco laws and provides increases
in funding for key drug control programs, such as a $10 million
increase for the Drug Free Communities Act, a $5.5 million increase for
the High intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, and a small increase
for the drug technology transfer program. Additionally, the conferees
approved funding for a much-deserved 4.8% raise for our hard-working
federal employees.
I am particularly pleased that the conference report contains two
important measures for American families. The first is a provision that
would ensure that mothers have the right to breastfeed their babies
anywhere on federal property that they have a right to be. It may seem
shocking that this legislation is actually needed. However, this
provision was attached by Representative Carolyn Maloney in response to
several instances in which women were asked to stop breastfeeding their
babies or leave federal museums, parks, and galleries. preventing or
discouraging mothers from nursing their babies is simply not
acceptable. I am pleased that the federal government will now set an
example for the country by encouraging the healthy and natural act of
breastfeeding.
I am also pleased that Congresswoman Morella's provision that allows
federal agencies to use their own funds to help low-income federal
employees pay for child care was included in the conference report.
With the severe shortage of affordable, high-quality child care in our
country, this provision is critically needed.
While this is a good bill overall, the strict funding limitations our
committee was forced to adhere to means it is certainly not a perfect
bill. There are several agencies and programs in this bill that
deserved and truly needed additional funding. Specifically, I am very
concerned that new federal courthouse construction projects will
receive no funding in this bill.
The federal war on crime and drugs has greatly increased the workload
of the federal courts. Accordingly, the number of judges and court
employees has grown. However, our court facilities have not even come
close to keeping pace with this growth. I am particularly aware of this
need for new courthouses because the proposed federal courthouse
project in my district in Los Angeles is first on the General Services
Administration's priority list for fiscal year 2000.
The Central District Court in Los Angeles is the largest district
court in the nation, covering seven counties and over 17 million
people. The court still operates out of the original courthouse, built
over 60 years ago, in 1938. The existing facility lacks the adequate
space to house the current court operations. In fact, according to the
Judicial Conference, these facilities were officially ``out of space''
in 1995. This lack of space has created delays, inefficiencies, and
large backlogs of cases.
Moreover, security is insufficient to protect those who work in and
utilize the court facilities. Among other problems, the Judicial
Conference found that the current facilities in Los Angeles have
``critical security concerns,'' including ``life-threatening'' security
deficiencies documented by the U.S. Marshals service. These conditions
are simply unacceptable.
In addition, not providing the funding needed to modernize our court
facilities will only cost us more money in the long run. According to
GSA delaying funding of new courthouse projects increases costs by an
average of 3 to 4% annually, meaning that the 16 courthouses on GSA's
priority list, which would cost $532 million in FY 2000, will cost the
taxpayers significantly more in years to come. I sincerely hope that
the Administration and my colleagues in Congress will not allow this
short-sighted strategy regarding out nation's courts to continue.
In closing, given the current budgetary constraints, the conference
report on the Treasury, Postal and General Government Appropriations
bill is a fair bill. Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Member Hoyer deserve to
be commended for crafting a sound bill under these adverse
circumstances. As a new member of the Appropriations Committee, I am
pleased to support this conference report and I urge my colleagues to
do so as well.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
conference report.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is an example of bipartisan leadership at its
best. And I want to commend Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Member Hoyer for
their tireless work on this bill.
I am particularly pleased that this bill includes strong language
dealing with the Federal Election Commission.
[[Page H8350]]
Not only does this bill give the FEC its full funding request, but it
also includes three sensible provisions that will help the FEC operate
more efficiently.
Last night, I was proud to stand with my good friend and colleague
from Maryland in supporting the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform
bill.
By passing this bill today, we will help the FEC--the agency that is
charged with enforcing our campaign finance laws--operate in a more
efficient manner and better enforce the law.
It is also worth noting that the FEC provisions in this bill are very
similar to language that was included in the Thomas substitute debated
last night.
At that time, the gentleman from Maryland very wisely suggested that
we should pass the Thomas substitute tomorrow.
In this bill, he seems to be getting at least part of his wish.
So I applaud the gentleman from Maryland, and the gentleman from
Arizona for their bipartisan leadership on this issue.
I am also happy to note that an expanded version of my Right to
Breastfeed amendment was accepted by the Conference Committee.
This landmark bill will ensure a woman's right to breastfeed her
child on any federal property. For too long, new mothers have been
shooed away from federal buildings, national parks, national museums,
and federal agencies simply because they were feeding a child.
Until now, they have had little recourse. Now, the law of the land
will be clear: The federal government supports a woman's decision to
breastfeed her child.
I want to thank my colleagues Lucille Roybal-Allard, Christopher
Shays, and Connie Morella, who worked closely with me on this bill.
I am pleased to see that the conference committee retained
contraceptive coverage for federal employees provision from last year.
This is a victory for women of reproductive age, who routinely pay 68%
more than men in out of pocket health care costs. This will also go a
long way toward reducing unwanted pregnancies and therefore reduce
abortions.
I would also like to commend my good friend and colleague Connie
Morella of Maryland, who has been a leader on child care issues, got a
version of her bill, H.R. 206, included in this conference report.
I was very pleased to support this provision allowing executive
branch agencies to use their existing funds to help provide child care
service for their employees.
I congratulate her for that, and I applaud the conference committee
for treating child care issues with such importance.
This bill shows how much we can accomplish for the American people
when we work together on a bipartisan basis. I congratulate my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, there is much in this bill that I find to
be particularly worthy. Unlike last year, when the Members of this
House fought for months over the details of this legislation, the
conferees were able to return a final product to this House that a
majority of people on both sides of the aisle could support. In
particular, I am pleased that this Congress has finally provided our
hard working federal employees a 4.8% pay raise. The pay gap between
government workers that make this country function and white collar
workers in the private sector grows every year. This situation, which
failed to be redressed until this year, has negatively impacted the
hundreds of thousands of households that are headed by government
employees. As a result of the bipartisan agreement embodied by this
conference report, thousands of government workers will have an easier
time making ends meet.
The Conference Report on H.R. 2490 also contains several other
important provisions. First, it makes good on the promise that this
Congress made to the American people in the last Congress when we tried
to make the Internal Revenue Service more consumer friendly. We do this
by fully funding the I.R.S., which will use the funds to continue the
administrative reforms necessary to fulfill the intent of H.R. 2676
(P.L. 105-206). It also continues to require health plans that cover
federal employees to make contraceptives available as part of their
prescription drug coverage. This will assist family planning and reduce
abortions. I further applaud the provision in the section funding the
United States Customs Service that requires our customs officers to
curb the discriminatory treatment of minorities at agency check points,
as well as the funding for the crucial fight against drug trafficking.
I could detail more provisions in this conference report that I
support, but suffice it to say that I would have voted for this bill
had it not been for one provision, the cost of living increase for
Members of Congress. For that reason alone, I cast my vote against H.R.
2490.
When I was elected to Congress in 1996, I was, in essence, hired by
the people of the Eighth Congressional District of New Jersey. Prior to
Election Day 1996, I made an agreement with these people to take the
salary of the job that they hired me to do. Implicit in this
arrangement was my promise to neither vote for nor accept any pay raise
prior to another election. When the Members of this House voted to
increase our own salaries in 1997, I voted against it. When my paycheck
demonstrated the effect of this pay raise, I returned it to the United
States Treasury. My stance on this issue is intensely personal, and I
have no expectation that others should follow my lead. It is simply a
matter of keeping my word to those I represent.
Unfortunately, my colleagues in the 106th Congress have again deemed
it necessary to raise their own pay. This deed was accomplished via the
same tactic that was used last year, a procedural vote that I would
contend that less than half of the people inside the Beltway
understand, much less the American people. This is regrettable. If we
are going to raise our own pay, it should be done via a straight up or
down vote in circumstances that we can all understand. A pay raise
should not be tucked in an appropriations bill that almost all of us
could support without its presence. There is much here that I want to
support. However, to do so would be to break the agreement that I made
with the people of the Eighth Congressional District over two years
ago. Many say that your word is your bond and I couldn't agree more. I
am not willing to sacrifice mine to make a politically popular vote.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report
on the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill.
I do so particularly because of two areas of funding in the bill--the
first being the important anti-drug efforts of the National Youth Anti-
drug Media Campaign and the Drug Free Communities Act. These are both
measures that I strongly believe will make a difference in our fight
against substance abuse by reducing demand for illegal drugs. These
measures are the key to winning the so-called war on drugs.
I am also pleased that this conference report restores funding to
reform the IRS. Last year, we passed this historic IRS Restructuring
and Reform Act, the most dramatic reform in over 45 years. The Clinton
Administration initially opposed the effort but ultimately agreed with
a strong, bipartisan majority in this House that reform was needed.
Mr. Speaker, this appropriations bill honors the commitment to
reforming the IRS that we made last year. It funds the very important
customer service improvements that were mandated by the legislation we
passed last year, including a dramatic taxpayer-friendly reorganization
of the whole IRS that will improve customer service for every
taxpayer--and including the very popular Tele-File program that lets
taxpayers file their tax returns much more easily through the
telephone.
Second, it funds the desperately needed computer modernization
effort. Every Member of this House has heard horror stories, I know I
have, from our constituents who have received erroneous computer
notices where the left hand of the IRS does not know what the right
hand is doing. I have been very critical of the IRS as have other
Members. By investing in improved IRS technology, we will be protecting
our constituents from the kind of computer problems we have all seen.
We also need to expand access to taxpayer-friendly electronic
filing--and this funding will enable us to move forward on that front.
Right now there is a 22 percent error rate on paper filing, compared to
less than a 1 percent error rate on electronic filing. That is why we
mandated that the IRS work hard on electronic filing and in fact we set
a goal of 80 percent electronic filing for the IRS by 2007.
Finally, this funding will enable the IRS to complete its Y2K
preparations during this calendar year. While the thought of IRS
computers crashing may bring glee to the hearts of many, think about
the consequences. Think about no refund checks. Think about erroneous
IRS notices sent to innocent taxpayers who think they have paid their
taxes in a timely way and in an appropriate way. Think about the
unnecessary audits that might result. This appropriations bill gives
the IRS the tools it needs to complete its Y2K preparations.
I believe we are making progress in reforming the IRS, and this
appropriations bill gives Commissioner Rossotti the resources to
continue these efforts. But make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. The
Clinton Administration's continued failure to send a full slate of
nominees for the new IRS Oversight Board to the Senate is a cause for
very deep concern. I am deeply troubled by this continued failure--now
eight months past the statutory deadline--and I believe it raises
serious questions about this Administration's commitment to reforming
this troubled agency. I strongly urge the Administration to stop
delaying and send the IRS Oversight Board nominations to the Senate.
{time} 1545
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H8351]]
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote in favor of this
conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Murtha
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference
report?
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I am in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Murtha moves to recommit the conference report on the
bill, H.R. 2490, to the Committee of Conference.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 61,
nays 359, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 425]
YEAS--61
Bartlett
Berkley
Boswell
Cannon
Carson
Chabot
Coburn
Condit
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Danner
Deal
DeMint
Deutsch
Duncan
Edwards
Fletcher
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Gutknecht
Hayworth
Hilleary
Hostettler
Inslee
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Largent
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Manzullo
McIntosh
Miller (FL)
Murtha
Nadler
Pascrell
Pease
Pelosi
Phelps
Pickering
Salmon
Scarborough
Shadegg
Shows
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stabenow
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Turner
Udall (NM)
NAYS--359
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Coyne
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Towns
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Clay
Etheridge
Hastings (FL)
Houghton
Istook
Jefferson
Kingston
McIntyre
McNulty
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ros-Lehtinen
Sanford
{time} 1612
Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, PAUL, WALSH, Ms. GRANGER, Mrs. CLAYTON,
Mr. MARTINEZ, Ms. WOOLSEY and Mr. DELAHUNT changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. TIERNEY, DUNCAN, EDWARDS, Ms. BERKLEY, and Messrs. MANZULLO,
GUTKNECHT, GOODE, TURNER, FLETCHER, DEUTSCH, SHOWS, SMITH of Michigan,
CONDIT, HOSTETTLER, COSTELLO and BOSWELL changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Armey was allowed to speak out of order.)
Legislative Program
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make an important announcement
regarding the floor schedule for the rest of today and the balance of
the week.
Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious that Members are concerned about the
safety regarding making flights home before the arrival of the
approaching storm. My office has been in contact with the major
airlines flying out of both Reagan and Dulles airports, and they are
warning us to expect delays and many cancellations beginning this
evening and into tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, in order to give the Membership the greatest window of
opportunity to make flights back to their districts, we are concluding
legislative business on the House floor after this next vote.
Mr. Speaker, we are further meeting with key appropriators who will
be contacted by the Speaker's office in order for them to use this time
to continue their work on the appropriations conference reports.
A notice with next week's legislative agenda will be delivered to all
Members' offices later this week, and I wish all my colleagues safe
travel home, and of course our prayers will be with all those affected
by this hurricane.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 292,
nays 126, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 426]
YEAS--292
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
[[Page H8352]]
Armey
Bachus
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Spence
Stark
Stenholm
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--126
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Berkley
Berry
Boswell
Canady
Carson
Chabot
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Condit
Crane
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeFazio
DeMint
Deutsch
Doolittle
Duncan
Ehlers
Evans
Fletcher
Ford
Franks (NJ)
Gibbons
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Inslee
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Kasich
Kind (WI)
Kucinich
Largent
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Mascara
McInnis
McIntosh
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Moran (KS)
Pascrell
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Radanovich
Ramstad
Riley
Rivers
Roemer
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanders
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shows
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Strickland
Stump
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Weygand
Wise
Wu
NOT VOTING--15
Brady (TX)
Clay
Clayton
Etheridge
Hastings (FL)
Houghton
Jefferson
Kingston
McIntyre
McNulty
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ros-Lehtinen
Sanford
Slaughter
{time} 1630
Mr. KUCINICH changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________