[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 95 (Thursday, July 20, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H6622-H6654]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 560 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4871.

                              {time}  1440


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4871) 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, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Dreier in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased today to present H.R. 4871, the 
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 
2001. As reported to the floor, this bill contains $14.4 billion in 
discretionary budget authority for the Department of Treasury, the 
Executive Office of the President, the Postal Service, and other 
independent agencies. This represents an increase of $678 million above 
the current year levels. That is about 5 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, in a few moments, I suspect we will hear from some of 
our colleagues that this bill fails to meet its critical 
responsibilities for agencies under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. I 
do not disagree with that. I disagree, however, that we are not meeting 
our priorities, because we do meet the priorities in this bill.
  We do not fund everything, but we meet the priorities. Do we fund 
everything that was requested by the President? No. But being below the 
President's request by $2.1 billion does not make this bill or this 
subcommittee irresponsible. It means we have somewhat different 
priorities.
  Do we provide $225 million to hire an additional 2,835 IRS employees? 
No. Do we fund seven new courthouses for a cost of $488 million? No, we 
do not.
  The bottom line is this, in putting together this bill, choices had 
to be made.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have called this 
bill half empty. I, on the other hand, believe the bill presented here 
today is more than half full.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today provides $4.9 billion for 
Federal law enforcement, and that supports 30 percent of all Federal 
law enforcement. This includes funds for the U.S. Customs Service to 
protect our borders from drugs and other contraband as well as to 
protect our burgeoning trade; funds for the Secret Service to protect, 
not only our Nation's dignitaries, but also our currency and our 
children through their school violence program; and funds for the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to enforce our gun laws.
  As my colleagues are aware, one of the greatest challenges with this 
bill is keeping it free of controversial legislative riders. We seem to 
have a great talent for attracting controversy for a whole host of 
reasons.
  It is unfortunate that so much time gets spent debating not 
appropriations matters on this bill. From my perspective, it is even 
more unfortunate the passage of this measure has nothing to do with the 
programs and activities that are funded here but rather with 
legislative items that either are attached or perhaps not attached.

                              {time}  1445

  And what gets lost in the debate is the good things that are 
accomplished by this bill.
  For those who may in the end decide to vote against this measure, let 
me tell them what they are opposing. They would be opposed to $185 
million for ONDCP, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, for that 
youth media campaign that keeps kids off drugs and helps parents learn 
how to teach children just to say no.
  They would be opposed to $30 million for Drug Free Community Grants, 
partnerships between community coalitions and the Federal Government 
for the purpose of reducing drug use.
  They would be opposed to $192 million for High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Programs, providing assistance to State and local law 
enforcement in areas most adversely affected by drug trafficking.
  They would be opposed to $13 million to keep children out of gangs 
through the GREAT program that is administered through the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
  They would be opposed to $76 million for the Youth Crime Gun 
Interdiction Initiative, called YCGII, to take guns out of the hands of 
our Nation's youth.
  They would be opposed to $3.6 million for the National Center for 
Missing and Exploited Children, reuniting children with their families 
and supporting the child exploitation unit.
  They would be opposed to $1.7 million for a new program for the 
Secret Service's National Threat Assessment Center, a project designed 
to prevent targeted violence from occurring in schools by helping 
schoolteachers and administrators identify problems in advance.
  And, yes, $4 million for the Customs Cybersmuggling Center to target 
international child pornography trafficking and child exploitation via 
the Internet.
  The list I have just shared with my colleagues is a small sampling of 
what is included in this bill. I could continue. I could tell my 
colleagues about the $233 million that is in here for Customs 
Automation, including $105 million for the much-awaited and even more 
needed Customs information technology modernization program that is 
known as ACE, and I know that many of my colleagues have a strong 
interest in this program.
  I could also stand here and inform Members about the reporting 
requirements that we have included regarding the First Lady's use of 
government aircraft for the Senate campaign, and funding for the 
National Archives to

[[Page H6623]]

improve veterans recordkeeping and accessibility or the reforms for the 
Federal Elections Commission that will help ensure accurate and timely 
disclosure during the current election cycle or advise my colleagues 
about improvements in Treasury's ability to collect Federal debts. But, 
Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I will not list all of the many 
fiscally responsible or the good government provisions that are 
included in this bill.
  My point is simply this: Does the bill do everything that everyone 
wants? No. But it is strong on law enforcement, it is tough on drugs, 
it is supportive of efforts to modernize the Customs Service, provides 
law enforcement with the resources it needs to enforce our current gun 
laws and is a good government bill. It is a people's bill. And all this 
is accomplished in a fiscally responsible manner.
  Mr. Chairman, before I conclude my remarks in this general debate, I 
want to take just a moment to say thank you to the other hard-working 
members of this subcommittee and to all the others who have worked to 
help make this, I believe, a better bill.
  In particular, I want to extend my appreciation to the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and to his staff, 
Scott Nance and Pat Schlueter; the subcommittee staff on our side who 
are surrounding us here, Michelle Mrdeza, Jeff Ashford, Kurt Dodd, 
Tammy Hughes, and Doug Burke; and my personal staff, who has worked so 
hard on this bill, Kevin Messner. Without their work, Mr. Chairman, the 
bill that we would have here today would be far more imperfect than it 
is.
  Without the work and the cooperation of the distinguished ranking 
member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), I do not believe we 
would have a bill here. While it is not acceptable to him, and I 
understand that, it is a bill that we have at least been able to work 
together on to try to move through this process and get it to where we 
are. I am very grateful to the gentleman from Maryland for the 
cooperation that he has shown and for his hard work on this bill, as I 
have just said.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  First, Mr. Chairman, let me start by thanking the chairman, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), for not only his comments but, more 
importantly, for his chairmanship of this committee, which he chairs in 
a very responsible and fair manner. Unfortunately, I think too often, 
Mr. Chairman, the American public gets the impression that all we do is 
come here and yell and scream at one another and try to make political 
points. Clearly, while that happens, and it happens perhaps too 
frequently, we do have the opportunity of working together 
constructively, and it is a great privilege for me to work with the 
gentleman from Arizona, constructively on fashioning this bill. The 
chairman has had to make some tough decisions within the allocations 
for this year; and he has done, I think, a good job with insufficient 
funds.
  I would also like to mention the outstanding job that the Chairman's 
staff director Michelle Mrdeza does, along with her staff of Jeff 
Ashford, Kurt Dodd, Doug Burke, Kevin Messner and others on the 
committee.
  Mr. Chairman, the 302(b) allocation for this bill is $2.1 billion 
below the requested level. That is in a bill that has $14 billion of 
discretionary spending. So it is 17 percent below what the 
administration believed was necessary to carry out the functions of the 
agencies in this bill.
  By comparison, Mr. Chairman, last year at this time the 302(b) was 
less than $.5 billion below the President's request. The chairman has 
decided to fund law enforcement functions at the expense of other 
general government responsibilities this subcommittee has. Very 
frankly, I am not sure he had any alternative. For example, Treasury's 
law enforcement bureaus are funded at or near the administration's 
request.
  That is relevant because it was not a conclusion that the 
administration's requests were unreasonable, because we have 
essentially funded them in the law enforcement area. This law 
enforcement funding includes ATF agents, enough agents to enforce our 
gun laws; funding to begin development of the U.S. Customs Service 
Automated Commercial System, while maintaining their current system; 
and funding to continue the Secret Service workload balancing 
initiative.
  However, the allocation for this bill is not adequate to fund several 
priorities that are critical to the American people. The chairman knows 
this, reiterated it today, and reiterated it in our report. As a matter 
of fact, quoting the bill's report on pages 4 and 5, it says, ``The 
committee acknowledges that IRS, GSA, and the National Archives have 
borne the brunt of the restraint on spending found in the bill, 
requiring denial of requested increases for the upcoming year.''
  This is not the only bill, Mr. Chairman, which is short. Several 
other appropriation bills are already facing veto threats from the 
President because of spending amounts that are inadequate to carry out 
the responsibilities assigned by this Congress.
  Republicans, very frankly, are using this strategy in order to push 
their tax cut agenda, from our perspective, one that will cost $175 
billion over 5 years and a whopping $1 trillion over 10 years. It has 
been segmented, and we are considering those individually, but, 
nevertheless, their overall impact is the same as it would have been 
last year. It will put a hole in our ability to bring down the debt; 
put a hole in our ability to make sure that Medicare and Social 
Security are secure; put a hole in our ability to fund prescription 
drugs; and, obviously, as this bill reflects, puts a significant hole 
in our ability to invest in the responsibilities that we have to the 
American people.
  I might add that I, along with most of my colleagues on this side of 
the House, supported a tax relief plan for middle-income families that 
is fiscally responsible. As a matter of fact, I supported the Blue 
Dog's budget, which would have provided for 25 percent of the surplus 
for investments, 25 percent for tax cuts, and 50 percent of the surplus 
applied to budget deficit reduction.
  This bill does not do that, however. It underfunds the Internal 
Revenue Service by $466 million. This level would not even cover 
mandatory inflation, resulting in a loss of almost 5,000 FTEs all 
together and the resultant decline in taxpayer service. The bill 
jeopardizes implementation of the IRS Reform and Restructuring Act, for 
which all of us voted, and the report of which said that if we were for 
IRS reform we had to be at the time of budget writing and tax writing.
  It also puts at risk successful completion of the 2001 filing season. 
Customer service would be reduced. And one of the principal items we 
said in the restructuring act was that we wanted IRS to be customer 
friendly. Mr. Rossotti, the Director of the IRS, a nonpartisan 
director, a manager, and a businessman, has said that he cannot do the 
job we expect given the funds we are providing.
  Audit coverage, and this ought to be of concern to every one of us, 
would decline to all-time record low levels, reducing revenue to the 
government by up to $2 billion. It would provide for less than a 
quarter of a percent of audits being applied for returns filed. The 
modernization of IRS, its computer systems and business practices would 
be threatened.
  No funding, Mr. Chairman, is provided for construction projects 
requested by the administration. We have a serious crisis going on 
across the country in terms of our Federal Courthouses. We have spent 
billions of dollars over the last 10 or 15 years on the war against 
drugs and crime, resulting in a hefty increase to the judiciary's 
caseload. To handle these changes, we cannot ignore the need to provide 
adequate courthouses.
  The administration's request to continue the Food and Drug 
Administration's consolidation project is zeroed out, costing us 
dollars, time, and effectiveness. This project makes sense fiscally and 
was supported by the Reagan-Bush and Clinton administrations.
  The administration's request for a new Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 
headquarters is zeroed out. Not funding this project will prolong the 
serious security risk for the 1,100 ATF employees working at the 
current location. All told, GSA estimates failure to fund the 
administration's request for construction projects under its 
jurisdiction will

[[Page H6624]]

cost the taxpayers almost an additional $100 million.
  The administration's request to fund the renovation of our National 
Archives building is zeroed out. None of these things, I think, the 
chairman wanted to do. First and foremost, the threat of fire in the 
Archives building is high. Delaying this project will put the lives of 
visitors and staff at risk and endanger irreplaceable archival records. 
Delaying this project will also cost the taxpayers millions of dollars 
in added cost.
  Excluding funding for the drug czar's office, the requested increases 
by the President totaled $20.9 million, of which only $6.4 million is 
included in the bill, resulting in a 69 percent cut from the requested 
increase for the executive office accounts. Included in these cuts is 
$2.5 million for Puerto Rico to hold a referendum to determine the 
Island's status.
  Mr. Chairman, I have other concerns about this bill, including the 
denial of funding for Treasury's financial management services for 
computer security and accounting modernization; lack of funding for 
presidential transition, which is not included at all in this bill, and 
we know that is going to happen; a 32 percent cut in funding for 
repairs of Federal buildings. If we do not maintain our buildings, 
frankly, they will become more expensive. I am concerned as well about 
the denial of the President's critical infrastructure protection 
initiative in the General Services Administration and the Office of 
Personnel Management; and the lack of additional funding necessary for 
the Merit Systems Protection Board to carry out its congressionally 
mandated requirements.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is a good bill as far as it goes. It does not 
go far enough and, therefore, in this form, I cannot support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis).

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the bill as it is currently 
drawn. It certainly has some shortcomings; but it has got I think some 
great dividends for the Federal workers, for the Federal complex at 
Lorton, which will soon be returned back to the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, several million dollars there for environmental cleanup of 
that site.
  But particularly, I want to address the rollback in the Federal 
retirement contributions. This was something that was put into 
operation at the time of the Balanced Budget Act. Federal employees 
were asked to give up one-half of one percent of their salaries to help 
the Federal deficit.
  We thought at that time it would take several years to balance the 
Federal budget, and these rollbacks were to come out of effect into the 
year 2003. As we have seen, the budget has been balanced earlier than 
it was originally forecast.
  As a result of this, we think the Federal employees ought to have 
their money returned to them in a more timely manner. And this 
legislation does that. It mirrors legislation that I have introduced 
and have over a hundred cosponsors in the House. It was introduced by 
my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), in committee.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my friend, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), for his leadership on this issue 
and his effective articulation of the equity of this act that we have 
taken. I appreciate working with him. He has been very effective, and 
his leadership has been very important.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this has been a good team 
effort. I see the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is here, as well 
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who has also been very 
active in this.
  Some Members oppose this because they think this is going to costs 
the Treasury $1.2 billion over 3 years. But I would remind my 
colleagues that this money is not the Government's money. It really 
belongs to Federal employees who worked and earned this money under a 
contract with the Government and then gave it up to help us balance the 
budget.
  We are simply returning to them their own money to allow them to 
spend it, the same thing that we are doing to American citizens when we 
give them tax cuts. This was promised to them to be restored at the 
time that we balanced the budget, and now we have done that.
  As I said before, this was originally slated to expire in 2003 
because that was the year it was assumed that the Federal budget would 
be balanced. But our goals we have arrived at 3 years early. So let us 
return this money to the people from whom it was taken.
  Federal employees sacrificed over $180 billion in benefits to get us 
to our goal of a balanced Federal budget. Now it is time that we return 
to them what we roll back from them. This is our first opportunity to 
do that. This will help us recruit and retain the best and the 
brightest for Federal service. This is very important for the Federal 
Government to fulfill their mission.
  I appreciate the efforts of everyone who has been involved with this, 
and I urge support for the bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on the Treasury, Postal Service and General 
Government for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the comments that my colleague, 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), just expressed with regard to 
the equity included in this bill for Federal employees.
  Back when the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was implemented, we felt 
that one provision that would save money and that Federal employees 
would be willing to do, and in fact they did not have a lot to say 
about it, was to require them, basically, to contribute another half 
percent on their Federal retirement contribution.
  Now, as a result of this and several other measures that were 
designed to balance the Federal budget, Federal employees have paid in 
about $800 million towards the objective of balancing the budget.
  When this was done, the projected deficit was almost $100 billion. 
Today we have a surplus of over $200 billion, a $300 billion 
turnaround.
  So I agree with the Subcommittee on Appropriations and the full 
Committee on Appropriations that it is time to undo this provision, 
because this is Federal employees' money. When we are in a surplus 
environment, we want to act as fair and balanced as possible. That is 
why we lift this burden on Federal employees.
  As of next January 1, the retirement contributions required by 
Federal employees will be reduced by half a percent.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) adding this to 
the bill. I appreciate the support on the part of the gentleman from 
Arizona (Chairman Kolbe). This is the right thing to do. I appreciate 
the fact that we have as many cosponsors as we do to ensure that this 
stays in the bill.
  There are 1.8 million Federal employees. They work very hard. They 
deserve this equity provision. I trust it will stay in the bill and be 
enacted.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), who happens to be a very 
hard-working member on the subcommittee who has contributed 
tremendously to this bill.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise today in support of the 
Treasury, Postal Service and General Government appropriations bill.
  I really want to congratulate the chairman and ranking member, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and their staffs for the 
incredibly hard work they have done on getting this bill to the House 
floor today in not the most easy of circumstances, but they have really 
shown what teamwork is like and working together across the aisle to 
try to achieve the best results with resources that are scarce.
  I want to also say that this bill goes a long way towards tightening 
our borders, making our streets safer, and fighting the war on drugs. 
It takes important steps towards these goals by

[[Page H6625]]

increasing the budgets of the Customs Service, the Secret Service, and 
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas.
  I think the legislation continues to show Congress's strong 
commitment toward winning the war on drugs. Through the funding of 
HIDTAs and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, we are making a 
strong statement that we will not give up on this fight and that we 
will take any and all steps necessary to make sure that our children 
and our Nation are drug free.
  I just want to say that, coming from a very rural area in southern 
Missouri, I know firsthand the problems that drugs and specifically 
methamphetamine can cause for families for a region and for a State. We 
are currently in the midst of a methamphetamine epidemic, Mr. Speaker. 
It endangers our children both from its use and from the violence 
associated with it by endangering our youth; then meth endangers the 
very future of Missouri and of our very Nation.
  I must say that our local law enforcement officials have their hands 
full and are looking for any additional resources to assist them in 
stopping the spread of this awful drug.
  With 1.1 million acres of the Mark Twain National Forest, I can tell 
my colleague it is a haven for methamphetamine production. Anything we 
can do to put funds toward more law enforcement to monitor this area 
would be very, very helpful.
  I really do think the HIDTA program has been a key factor in 
assisting our law enforcement officials to get this problem under 
control. I think that this is one of the most important programs that 
we fund in the Treasury-Postal bill. I would hope that if any 
additional resources come our way that we could revisit the HIDTA 
appropriation at some time. And I am hopeful that that will be done.
  I again want to thank the chairman for his hard work and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his hard work, and I look 
forward to working with both of them through the process.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman for 
her comments and say, as she knows, I support her. I think the HIDTA 
program is one of the best programs in our bill, and I look forward to 
working with her and the chairman and the administration to properly 
fund it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has already 
indicated some of the reasons for concern on this bill. This bill falls 
far short of the administration's request in meeting basic community 
needs for courthouses and the rest.
  I also am concerned, as the committee knows, with the nongermane 
provision which was added to this bill in committee with respect to 
retirement. That is water over the dam, and I am not going to milk that 
one any longer. But I would like to raise the same issue I raised in 
full committee.
  We have seen a tremendous drive to privatize virtually everything in 
this society in the last 20 years, and in some places that is 
appropriate. But I would like to describe what I see happening in a 
number of middle-sized towns all over this country where we have a lot 
of Federal offices that have become fragmented.
  In my hometown, for instance, we have a wide variety of Federal 
offices. We have military recruitment offices. We have Labor Department 
offices, wage-and-hour division. We have Social Security. We have the 
Justice Department. You name it.
  The problem is that they used to all be located in the same place; 
and so if you were a constituent not exactly fully attuned to the 
niceties of the Government's organizational tables, you could still 
walk into the Federal building and know that somebody could point you 
to the right floor, the right office and you could get the job done 
without having to go all over town.
  Today, in my hometown and in many others across the country, all of 
those services are fragmented; and so what happens is, and this does 
not just happen in Wausau, Wisconsin, it happens all over the country. 
You can send a senior citizen who may see the VA in one place, they may 
see the Social Security people in another place, they may see the Labor 
Department in another place. They have got to criss-cross town half a 
dozen times before they have figured out who is the lead agency and how 
you deal with the problem.
  We have had a great deal of talk when we deal with the Labor-Health 
bill about one-stop service for people who are in need of job training, 
for instance. I think we ought to try to create a situation where you 
have one-stop service for everybody who is trying to walk into a 
government office to try to get some help on a problem they have.
  I do not believe we are going to have that unless this Congress 
forces a reevaluation of the way we provide service to people in this 
country. It just seems to me that the Congress ought to ask the 
administration and GSA to review what options are available so that we 
can begin to pull Government services, at least Federal services, 
together again in any one place so that people feel a little bit better 
about their Government tomorrow than they do today because they have a 
little bit better idea of where they can go to get some help when they 
need it.
  This is nothing that is very sexy politically; and so it is one of 
those things that just does not get focused on. But, in my view, if we 
want to improve the reputation of government at the local level, one of 
the most important things would be to give people the opportunity to 
stop in at one place and get their questions answered and get their 
problems addressed.
  So I would simply ask the committee, by the time this bill is 
produced next year, to work with me and others who are interested in it 
so that we can begin to get some alternatives for dealing with this 
fragmentation problem, which leaves people with a more and more sour 
taste in their mouths each day.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
make an announcement.
  For all those Members on the floor or those who may be listening and 
staff people who may be listening, we are trying very diligently to 
complete consideration of this bill in a timely fashion. It would be 
helpful if Members would advise us if there are amendments that they 
have not yet filed, if they would bring them here to either the ranking 
minority member or myself so that we could perhaps consider whether or 
not a unanimous consent agreement on time limitations might be in order 
at some point during this afternoon's debate.
  So I would ask all Members that may have amendments that we are not 
aware of if they would like to alert us to that so that we can begin to 
consider whether or not time limitations when we get to considering 
amendments might be possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the second-ranking member of the subcommittee and 
a very hard working member.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the bill and 
want to commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and also the staffs. I want to 
thank the staffs for the courtesy and the help and support that we have 
had on a number of these issues. I appreciate it very much. Having been 
a staff person years ago, I know how hard they work. So I just want 
them to know that I appreciate it.
  When the 1997 balanced budget agreement was reached, a provision in 
it mandated that Federal and postal employees contribute a higher 
proportion of their salaries to the retirement contribution plans in 
order to do their part to help increase Federal revenues to balance the 
budget. Originally this provision was to remain in effect until the 
year 2003, a time when many thought we would still be in an era of 
deficits. Fortunately, we are running surpluses earlier than anyone 
anticipated, and it is time to roll back the

[[Page H6626]]

specific deficit reduction provision on Federal and postal employees. 
They have paid their share, and it is time to roll it back.
  The second issue is on the issue of diamonds which will come up 
later. I thank the gentleman for his cooperation in helping us. I also 
want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his help and 
support, and also I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), who is in the chair, for his help and support on this issue 
with regard to conflict diamonds that are resulting in young people in 
Sierra Leone losing their arms. For all three gentlemen, I personally 
appreciate their help very much.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to say 
before the gentleman leaves the floor, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) continues to be one of our ranks who I think is most focused on 
human rights throughout this world. He takes an extraordinary amount of 
his own time to visit, to learn and returns to the United States as one 
of the most powerful and effective voices on behalf of those who are 
being visited with atrocities and savagery on a regular basis. His 
voice is one of the strongest in the international community on behalf 
of protecting individuals and human rights. I congratulate him and am 
proud to be his colleague.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Meek).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time. I would also like to say that as a member of the 
Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, I am 
very proud of the leadership of this subcommittee. I do not think that 
you will find any two better leaders in the Congress than the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). 
So it is not that we have not had good guidance on this subcommittee. 
We have been cut short in the resources which are available to our 
subcommittee.
  I do not think many Members of Congress understand how important this 
committee is, certainly maybe not the leadership has not really 
understood that the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and 
General Government holds at its very function general government, and 
being sure that our government is run well and efficiently, and in 
doing so, that will certainly leverage the amount of money that is 
given to this subcommittee to work with. With these inadequate 
resources, they have been well handled, there are a lot of good things 
about this bill; and there are several weaknesses about the bill. What 
we try to do in this subcommittee is to take what we have and do the 
very best we can.
  One of my criticisms of the bill is that we have been very strong on 
law enforcement; and, of course, I do support law enforcement. I 
certainly look very strongly to see that we do have an adequate amount 
of enforcement of the law, that we have very strong customs services 
and that we protect our borders. That is very crucial to us on the 
subcommittee.
  On the other side of that, I also would like to see our government 
function more efficiently and with more efficacy when it comes to 
general government functions, such as a Medicare program, such as 
Social Security. Think of it, Mr. Chairman. If these functions were not 
done very well, it would be chaotic to the people we serve. So this 
subcommittee does need adequate money for administration of these 
things, not only in personnel but in bricks and mortar as well.
  I want the Congress to be more aware of the things that this 
subcommittee works with. It is not always what happens with the money 
in this country, but it is the administration of what happens in this 
committee. We look over the educational administration; we look over 
all the key government functions. So it is very important. Think of the 
national security of this country. It is also addressed by this 
subcommittee.
  My plea is that when we begin to divide and give our 302 funds out, 
we need to think perhaps more strongly of what this committee does and 
the function it does to keep government going, because if you want to 
be criticized back in your district, please note that if the Internal 
Revenue Service is not functioning effectively, the administration of 
it is skewed and is not doing well, you will get the criticism for it. 
If Social Security is not administered effectively, you get the 
criticism. That is the nuts and bolts of this subcommittee.
  The Internal Revenue Service could have gotten a better allotment. I 
just think we have gotten too inadequate funding in terms of the IRS. 
That is the place where we need to have it funded and to be sure that 
the President's budget request which has been strongly gleaned and 
looked at by the administration and by OMB is more thoroughly looked 
at.
  And, of course, in the area I come from, I am very concerned about 
fighting drugs and being sure that there is no terrorism. We need more 
moneys in those particular categories. The committee was not able to 
fund that as well as I would have liked to see it done. The drug 
kingpins are still running this country in places that we do not want 
them to be. We should really enhance the work of the Treasury 
Department in doing this. I do not think we have done enough of a job 
to be able to deter this kind of terrorism. We all look at television 
all the time, Mr. Chairman; and we see what happens in some of these 
places where we have allowed terrorism to reign instead of being able 
to administer these funds correctly.
  Last but not least, I want to say that this committee could have been 
stronger on general government funding and perhaps kept the law 
enforcement but being sure that general government funds are done much 
better. Last, I would like to say we need these courthouses which are 
in the budget. They are not in the budget, but they have been in and 
out of the budget for the last 2 or 3 years. The judicial caseload of 
these courthouses will need to be met. We no longer can overlook that 
by saying we do not have adequate funds, because the administration of 
justice is based on a good climate for the judiciary to conduct itself.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall).
  Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of this 
legislation. The measure includes much-needed funding to modernize the 
outdated Customs computer system. The current system is so susceptible 
to failure that when this flow of $2.2 trillion worth of goods is 
stopped, it costs us about $6 billion a day worth of cargo coming 
across our borders. $6 billion a day. Many assembly lines slow down or 
shut down, and retailers and consumers all end up paying the price.
  In today's ``just in time'' business environment, a company's 
warehouse is often a 40-foot container that is carried on a ship or on 
the back of a truck with trailers. Deliveries to factories and 
consumers is delayed when that box does not move when it is supposed 
to. This is how U.S. companies are keeping their inventory costs down 
to stay competitive. Businesses are using the Internet and information 
technology to make virtually every aspect of business more efficient. 
Indeed, the typical business supply chain, ranging from manufacturing 
parts and components to finished goods, is just hours long in many 
cases. Only a few years ago, this supply chain may have extended days 
or even weeks. But today that is a different story and a failure in the 
Customs computer system now has crippling consequences. Let me give my 
colleagues two real-life examples:
  The first is General Motors. They literally will shut down a plant 
and send people home if parts are delayed as much as 3 or 4 hours at a 
U.S.-Canadian border crossing point. Another one is Caterpillar, one of 
the country's largest exporters. They are forced to shut down a 
production line at their plants in Peoria if they cannot get parts in a 
timely fashion from an overseas distribution point.
  Consumers bear the burden when the shelves at Wal-Mart are empty due 
to a computer failure that occurred thousands of miles away. What will 
mothers and fathers tell their kids when it is time for back-to-school 
supplies and clothing to be there, but the shelves are empty because 
container boxes were not passing through a port on time because of 
Customs brownouts? Many of these products are time sensitive now, some 
are even perishable

[[Page H6627]]

and must reach retail outlets in a specific time period.
  There are also national defense consequences to this computer system. 
It helps us protect ourselves from the importing of counterfeit or 
dangerous products. It helps us with the war on drugs by helping tell 
us where to search for them in the flow of products coming through. It 
is an integral part of the defense system. You can see when it is going 
to block bad material, counterfeit material, or drugs.
  In my specific district, one-third, one-third of all the trade 
travels through the Los Angeles region that this Nation does. The 
combination of the Port of Los Angeles and Los Angeles International 
Airport make my district one of the most dynamic in the country in 
terms of Customs activities. Manufacturers throughout the country rely 
on the goods that move through the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach. 
Every shipper, broker, trucker, longshoreman, importer and exporter 
relies on smoothly operating ports to make their paycheck. A failure in 
this system, in this region, will disrupt movement of goods throughout 
the entire Nation.
  Modernizing the United States Customs computer system must remain a 
high priority. It has national defense consequences. It has economic 
consequences far beyond the reach of that computer system in and of 
itself. We must continue our efforts to ensure that a potential 
disaster is averted because this equipment gets modernized in a timely 
fashion and the flow of goods and services is maintained. I am pleased 
that funds were designated in the bill for this Customs modernization 
and much more is needed to be done. I urge my colleagues to support the 
legislation.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), a member of the 
subcommittee.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I regrettably rise in opposition to 
H.R. 4871. I would have liked to have supported this bill, because I 
believe the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) crafted 
the best bill possible under the tight funding constraints that he was 
given. The bill does, for example, fully fund most of the key law 
enforcement activities of the bill. However, this bill falls woefully 
short in other critical areas. As the gentleman from Arizona himself 
has stated, this bill is $175 million short of what is needed to 
maintain the current level of services and activities provided for 
under our subcommittee's jurisdiction.
  For example, the underfunding of the IRS by $466 million completely 
jeopardizes the ability of the IRS to make the changes necessary to 
improve services and to protect the rights of American taxpayers as 
required by law. Another glaring deficiency in the bill is the total 
lack of funding for the construction of critically needed Federal 
courthouses. The Federal war on crime and drugs has increased to the 
breaking point the workload of our Federal courts, resulting in the 
need for more judges and court employees. Yet our court facilities have 
not come close to keeping pace with this growth.
  As a Member who represents the Los Angeles Federal Court district, 
the largest in the Nation, covering seven counties and over 17 million 
people, I know firsthand the severity of this problem. The Los Angeles 
court, which is at the top of the GSA and Judiciary's priority list, 
continues to operate out of the original courthouse built in 1938. The 
lack of adequate space has forced the court to split its operations 
between the original facility and one several blocks away, causing long 
delays, inefficiencies, and mass confusion to the public. More 
importantly, the current situation causes security to be insufficient 
to protect workers and the public.

                              {time}  1530

  Prisoners facing trial, for example, must be transported between the 
two court facilities by using public corridors and public elevators. In 
fact, the U.S. Marshals Service documented critical security concerns 
with the current facilities in Los Angeles, including life-threatening 
security deficiencies.
  These conditions are simply unacceptable. Congress must act to 
correct these serious security deficiencies before they result in a 
terrible tragedy.
  Finally, from a fiscal perspective, it is irresponsible not to fund 
these badly needed new courthouses. According to GSA, the delaying 
funding for new courthouse projects increases costs by an average of 3 
percent to 4 percent a year, meaning that the Federal Government will 
have to pay significantly more for the same projects in years to come.
  These are just some of several reasons I cannot support this bill. I 
sincerely hope that as we move through the process, additional funding 
will be added to this bill to ensure that our core government functions 
are adequately funded. Until that time, however, I must regrettably 
oppose this bill.
  Mr. KOLBE. I include the following table for the Record as follows:

[[Page H6628]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JY00.001



[[Page H6629]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JY00.002



[[Page H6630]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JY00.003



[[Page H6631]]

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join my 
colleague, the distinguished Chairman of the Treasury, Postal and 
General Government Subcommittee, in supporting funding for an Automated 
U.S. Customs Environment or ACE. The points in favor of prompt, and 
sufficient, funding for a modern Customs processing system are 
numerous:
  The Customs Service's existing computer system is nearly two decades 
old and operating at more than 95% capacity. The system can no longer 
handle either the volume of trade coming through the borders, nor can 
it adequately collect the $22 billion in tariffs and user fees 
generated by the record volume of trade we are experiencing.
  Despite its critical functions, Customs' present system has been 
experiencing crashes or ``Brown Outs'' for several years, the most 
recent occurring only a few weeks ago. These failures put our nation 
and our economy at risk.
  On a typical day, Customs processes over $8.8 billion in exports and 
imports, 1.3 million passengers and nearly 350,000 vehicles at U.S. 
ports of entries. Delays in processing this volume of traffic costs the 
nation untold billions of dollars in lost revenues as just-in-time 
delivery systems at manufacturing plants across this country are 
stalled.
  Customs has prepared to modernize its old systems for several years, 
and is now ready to move forward expeditiously. Customs has met all the 
General Accounting Office's requirements for proceeding with a major 
information technology procurement. And today, the leading IT companies 
in the world are poised to help the government transform these old 
systems and processes, providing needed improvements for the way we 
bill companies for trade and tariffs and detect illegal contraband.
  The business community is clamoring for our support. The presidents 
of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of 
Manufacturers, the International Mass Retailers Association, and the 
Coalition for Customs Automation Funding wrote all of Congress in 
urging funding of ACE:
  ``Trade volume is expected to double over the next six years. This 
will place further pressures on the current system. When you consider 
the benefits derived by both industry and the government from this 
system, there is no question that we must fund the development of a 
21st century automated customs system.''
  The investment will be hefty--approximately $1.5 to $2 billion to 
fully complete modernization. But that investment will more than repay 
itself. Failure to modernize could result in untold consequences. I 
agree with Chairman Kolbe--this investment is vital to protecting our 
nation's borders. It is vital to ensuring the smooth processing of 
trade. We need ACE now--not next year.
  Chairman Kolbe, I salute your commitment to modernizing our U.S. 
Customs Environment. As a nation, we must have both the will and the 
commitment to ensure that this vital government function does not break 
down.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this 
legislation, which offers $96.1 million for the U.S. Postal Service as 
part of the Treasury-Postal Appropriations Act, but I do want to 
mention one area of real concern to the American people. As we consider 
this, I want to make my colleagues aware of a priority project the 
Postal Service must undertake--the correction of its ZIP Code to 
Representative database.
  This database is currently relied upon by Members of Congress, their 
staffs, businesses and thousands of Americans each day as a method of 
matching districts to Members. Unfortunately, most users are unaware 
that this product is massively flawed.
  A brief inspection of the database revealed errors that affect more 
than half of the Congressional Districts in the United States. Included 
in these mistakes, which include ZIP Codes incorrectly split between 
Members and the complete omission of ZIP Codes in certain districts, 
are more than 75 errors that defy geography by being shared by two or 
more Members whose districts are not contiguous. I have found more than 
10 errors in my district alone and have urged my colleagues to take a 
closer look at their jurisdictions and report what they have found. The 
response has been overwhelming, and the scope of these difficulties is 
appalling.
  On a daily basis, this erroneous product misdirects mail, creates 
confusion and allows for the accidental violation of federal franking 
law. Each day citizens wishing to find their Member of Congress are 
referred to the wrong district, delaying the commencement of casework 
for those requiring help with a federal agency. Vendors who use the 
database or products based on the database perpetuate the mistake in 
the materials they distribute, and Members creating mass mailings 
inadvertently include addresses that are not in their actual district, 
violating Congressional Franking Regulations.
  In an era of accuracy and responsibility, the correction of this 
defective product should be made a priority by the United States Postal 
Service. I ask my colleagues to join me in working to ensure that the 
Postal Service begin the new fiscal year by making the development of 
an accurate database a priority and reality.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to declare my intention to 
vote against the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 
2001. I will do so despite supporting the funding levels for gun crime 
enforcement in the bill. However, I have consistently voted against 
cost of living increases (COLAs) for Members of Congress and will do so 
again today. All of us spend a great deal of time working on issues of 
particular importance to senior citizens. I am especially active on the 
topic of providing affordable prescription medicines to the elderly, 
and am committed to protecting and strengthening Social Security and 
Medicare. In recent years, despite the thriving U.S. economy, the COLA 
that seniors receive for their Social Security benefits has been too 
small, as low as 1.3 percent. By comparison, we are preparing to give 
ourselves a 2.7 percent increase, and I do not think this is 
appropriate on fair, especially in light of the enormous budget 
surpluses that are projected over the next decade. Let us take care of 
our seniors before we take care of ourselves.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers on this side.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has 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.
  The Clerk will read.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that on page 1, line 
2, after the comma, the following be inserted: ``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, 2001, and for other 
purposes, namely:''
  Mr. Chairman, this vital section was simply left out in preparing the 
bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4871

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

                  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 Building 
     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 $3,813,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2002, for information technology modernization 
     requirements; 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, $149,437,000: Provided, That of these amounts 
     $2,900,000 is available for grants to State and local law 
     enforcement groups to help fight money laundering.

        Department-Wide Systems and Capital Investments Programs


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For development and acquisition of automatic data 
     processing equipment, software, and services for the 
     Department of the Treasury, $41,787,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, 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

[[Page H6632]]

     in this Act: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated shall be used to support or supplement the 
     Internal Revenue Service appropriations for Information 
     Systems.

                      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, as amended, 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, 
     $31,940,000.

                Inspector General for Tax Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Treasury Inspector General 
     for Tax Administration in carrying out the Inspector General 
     Act of 1978, as amended, 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)); services 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may be 
     determined by the Inspector General for Tax Administration; 
     not to exceed $6,000,000 for official travel expenses; and 
     not to exceed $500,000 for unforeseen emergencies of a 
     confidential nature, to be allocated and expended under the 
     direction of the Inspector General for Tax Administration, 
     $116,427,000.

           Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration

       For the repair, alteration, and improvement of the Treasury 
     Building and Annex, $31,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                 Expanded Access to Financial Services


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For a demonstration project to expand access to financial 
     services for low-income individuals, $2,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That of these funds, such 
     sums as may be necessary may be transferred to accounts of 
     the Departments offices, bureaus, and other organizations: 
     Provided further, That this transfer authority shall be in 
     addition to any other transfer authority provided in this 
     Act.

                  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, $34,694,000, of which not to exceed 
     $2,800,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2003; 
     and of which $2,275,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2002: Provided, That funds appropriated in this 
     account may be used to procure personal services contracts.

                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; for 
     expenses for student athletic and related activities; 
     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 $11,500 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; room and board for 
     student interns; and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $93,483,000, of which up to $17,043,000 for materials and 
     support costs of Federal law enforcement basic training shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2003: 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 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; and 
     travel expenses of non-Federal personnel to attend course 
     development meetings and training sponsored by the Center: 
     Provided further, That the Center is authorized to obligate 
     funds in anticipation of reimbursements from agencies 
     receiving training sponsored by 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 training for the Gang Resistance 
     Education and Training program to Federal and non-Federal 
     personnel at any facility in partnership with the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms: 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, $17,331,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                      Interagency Law Enforcement


                 Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement

       For expenses necessary to conduct investigations and 
     convict offenders involved in organized crime drug 
     trafficking, including cooperative efforts with State and 
     local law enforcement, as it relates to the Treasury 
     Department law enforcement violations such as money 
     laundering, violent crime, and smuggling, $103,476,000, of 
     which $7,827,000 shall remain available until expended.

                      Financial Management Service


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Financial Management Service, 
     $198,736,000, of which not to exceed $10,635,000 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2003, for information systems 
     modernization initiatives; and of which not to exceed $2,500 
     shall be available for official reception and representation 
     expenses.

                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; not to exceed $50,000 for cooperative research and 
     development programs for Laboratory Services and Fire 
     Research Center activities; and provision of laboratory 
     assistance to State and local agencies, with or without 
     reimbursement, $731,325,000, 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 2001: 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,

[[Page H6633]]

     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 $40,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses; and awards of compensation to 
     informers, as authorized by any Act enforced by the United 
     States Customs Service, $1,821,415,000, 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, as amended (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; of which not less than $100,000 shall be 
     available to promote public awareness of the child 
     pornography tipline; of which not less than $200,000 shall be 
     available for Project Alert; not to exceed $5,000,000 shall 
     be available until expended for conducting special operations 
     pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2081; not to exceed $8,000,000 shall be 
     available until expended for the procurement of automation 
     infrastructure items, including hardware, software, and 
     installation; and not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be available 
     until expended for repairs to Customs facilities: Provided, 
     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.


                   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.


  Operation, Maintenance and Procurement, 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, $125,778,000, 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 2001 without the prior approval 
     of the Committees on Appropriations.


                        Automation Modernization

       For expenses not otherwise provided for Customs automated 
     systems, $233,400,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which $5,400,000 shall be for the International Trade Data 
     System, and not less than $105,000,000 shall be for the 
     development of the Automated Commercial Environment: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading may be obligated for the Automated Commercial 
     Environment until the United States Customs Service prepares 
     and submits to the House Committee on Appropriations a final 
     plan for expenditure that (1) meets the capital planning and 
     investment control review requirements established by the 
     Office of Management and Budget, including OMB Circular A-11, 
     part 3; (2) complies with the United States Customs Service's 
     Enterprise Information Systems Architecture; (3) complies 
     with the acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and 
     systems acquisition management practices of the Federal 
     Government; (4) is reviewed and approved by the Customs 
     Investment Review Board, the Department of the Treasury, and 
     the Office of Management and Budget; and (5) is reviewed by 
     the General Accounting Office: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated under this heading may be obligated 
     for the Automated Commercial Environment until that final 
     expenditure plan has been approved by the House Committee on 
     Appropriations.

                       Bureau of the Public Debt


                     Administering the Public Debt

       For necessary expenses connected with any public-debt 
     issues of the United States, $187,301,000, 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 expended for systems 
     modernization: Provided, That the sum appropriated herein 
     from the General Fund for fiscal year 2001 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 2001 
     appropriation from the General Fund estimated at 
     $182,901,000, and in addition, $23,600 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 1012 of 
     Public Law 101-380.

                        Internal Revenue Service


                 Processing, Assistance, and Management

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for 
     tax returns processing; revenue accounting; tax law and 
     account assistance to taxpayers by telephone and 
     correspondence; providing an independent taxpayer advocate 
     within the Service; programs to match information returns and 
     tax returns; management services; rent and utilities; and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may 
     be determined by the Commissioner; $3,512,232,000, of which 
     up to $3,950,000 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; providing top 
     quality service to tax exempt customers; 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; 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, $3,332,676,000 of which not 
     to exceed $1,000,000 shall remain available until September 
     30, 2003, for research.


             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), 
     $145,000,000, 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; 
     $1,488,090,000 which shall remain available until September 
     30, 2002.


          Administrative Provisions--Internal Revenue Service

       Sec. 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 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 Internal Revenue Service shall institute and 
     enforce policies and procedures that will safeguard the 
     confidentiality of taxpayer information.

                      United States Secret Service


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Secret Service, 
     including purchase of not to exceed 844 vehicles for police-
     type use, of which 541 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 research and development; for making 
     grants to conduct behavioral research in support of 
     protective research and operations; not to exceed $25,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; not to exceed 
     $100,000

[[Page H6634]]

     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, $823,800,000, of which $3,633,000 
     shall be available as a grant for activities related to the 
     investigations of exploited children and shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That up to $18,000,000 
     provided for protective travel shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2002.


     Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

       For necessary expenses of construction, repair, alteration, 
     and improvement of facilities, $5,021,000, 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, 2001, 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 2001 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, Treasury Inspector General for Tax 
     Administration, 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.
       Sec. 115. Not to exceed 2 percent of any appropriation made 
     available in this Act to the Internal Revenue Service may be 
     transferred to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax 
     Administration's appropriation upon the advance approval of 
     the Committees on Appropriations. No transfer may increase or 
     decrease any such appropriation by more than 2 percent.
       Sec. 116. Of the funds available for the purchase of law 
     enforcement vehicles, no funds may be obligated until the 
     Secretary of the Treasury certifies that the purchase by the 
     respective Treasury bureau is consistent with Departmental 
     vehicle management principles: Provided, That the Secretary 
     may delegate this authority to the Assistant Secretary for 
     Management.
       Sec. 117. None of the funds appropriated in this Act or 
     otherwise available to the Department of the Treasury or the 
     Bureau of Engraving and Printing may be used to redesign the 
     $1 Federal Reserve note.
       Sec. 118. Section 5547(c) of title 5, United States Code is 
     amended by adding the following paragraph:
       ``(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2), 
     premium pay for protective services authorized by section 
     3056(a) of title 18, United States Code, may be paid without 
     regard to the biweekly limitation on premium pay except that 
     such premium pay shall not be payable to an employee to the 
     extent that the aggregate of the employee's basic and premium 
     pay for the year would otherwise exceed the annual equivalent 
     of that limitation. The term premium pay refers to pay 
     authorized by sections 5542, 5545 (a), (b), and (c), and 5546 
     (a) and (b) of this title. Pay authorized by section 5545a of 
     this title will be treated as basic pay for the purpose of 
     this paragraph to the extent that it does not cause an 
     employee's biweekly pay to exceed the limitation in paragraph 
     (2). Payment of additional premium pay payable under this 
     section may be made in a lump sum on the last payday of the 
     calendar year.''.
       Sec. 119. The Secretary of the Treasury may transfer funds 
     from ``Salaries and Expenses,'' Financial Management Service, 
     to the Debt Services Account as necessary to cover the costs 
     of debt collection: Provided, That such amounts shall be 
     reimbursed to such Salaries and Expenses account from debt 
     collections received in the Debt Services Account.
       Sec. 120. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     reorganization of the field operations of the U.S. Customs 
     Service Office of Field Operations shall result in a 
     reduction in service to the area served by the Port of 
     Racine, Wisconsin, below the level of service provided in 
     fiscal year 2000.
       Sec. 121. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms shall reimburse the 
     subcontractor that provided services in 1993 and 1994 
     pursuant to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms contract 
     number TATF 93-3 from amounts appropriated for fiscal year 
     2001 or unobligated balances from prior fiscal years, and 
     such reimbursement shall cover the cost of all professional 
     services rendered, plus interest calculated in accordance 
     with the Contract Dispute Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
       Sec. 122. (a) No funds appropriated to the Department of 
     the Treasury in this or any Act for the establishment and 
     operation of a new law enforcement training facility may be 
     obligated or expended until an assessment of the need for, 
     and cost-effectiveness of, such facility has been carried out 
     by the Comptroller General of the U.S. General Accounting 
     Office, submitted to the Committees on Appropriations, and 
     the establishment of said facility has been approved by the 
     House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
       (b) This assessment shall include, but not be limited to:
       (1) An analysis of the Department of the Treasury's master 
     plan for the proposed facility;
       (2) Projected law enforcement training workloads at the new 
     facility and existing Treasury facilities;
       (3) Training requirements for the U.S. Customs Service and 
     other law enforcement agencies;
       (4) Federal law enforcement training facility assets 
     currently available and proposed in the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) master plan;
       (5) The total estimated cost associated with the design, 
     construction, and establishment of the proposed facility;
       (6) Projected annual operating costs for the proposed 
     facility;
       (7) Projected costs associated with establishment of a new 
     law enforcement training center, including environmental 
     impact statements, environmental remediation, utilities and 
     other infrastructure; and
       (8) Cost savings and benefits of in-service training at the 
     proposed facility compared to using existing or modified 
     facilities.
       This title may be cited as the ``Treasury Department 
     Appropriations Act, 2001''.

  Mr. KOLBE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the remainder of title I 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?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title I?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy before the 
amendment is offered.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into 
a colloquy with the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member.
  First of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona 
(Chairman Kolbe) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the 
ranking member, for the increased funding included in this bill for the 
State and local money laundering grant program. Although it is a small 
increase, we are headed in the right direction.
  I would like to ask the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) if they will make a commitment to 
me to seek as much funding as possible for this program in conference, 
and, should there be a reallocation of funds during conference, that 
they will work to increase funding for this program.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) for yielding to me and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez) for her remarks. I would concur with her, this is an 
important and a useful program. I would be happy to work with the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking minority member, and 
the Senate to seek funding for this effort in the conference.

[[Page H6635]]

  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Velazquez), I understand the importance of county 
money laundering efforts at the State and local level, and the role the 
grant program plays in those efforts.
  As the gentlewoman knows, I supported her amendment on the House 
floor last year that provided the initial funding for this program, and 
she has, and will have, my continued support.
  I share her concerns about this particular report language, and I 
will work with her to make sure it gets corrected in the conference 
report.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, second, I want to express my concern 
over language included in the report accompanying the Treasury-Postal 
appropriations bill. On page 12 of the report, in the section 
explaining the committee's recommendations for funding the grant 
program, the committee has included language about the National Money 
Laundering Strategy and the grant program that I find troubling.
  The committee's concerns about adequate program oversight are 
laudable; however, some of the language used in the report 
mischaracterizes the intent of the national strategy, the grant program 
and the authorizing legislation.
  Some of the language in this section of the report could be 
interpreted as calling into question the appropriateness of the grant 
program for State and local law enforcement officials to combat money 
laundering. The committee expresses concern that the strategy will 
focus the fight against money laundering solely in local geographic 
areas.
  I want to respond to that concern and explain the intent of my 1998 
legislation and the grant program. Currently, counter-money laundering 
funding is concentrated at the Federal level. The intent of the 
authorizing legislation in question, the Money Laundering and Financial 
Crimes Strategy Act of 1998, is to foster cooperation between State, 
local, and Federal law enforcement officials.
  The purpose of the national strategy required by the law is to focus 
on corporation and information sharing between the Federal, State, and 
local law enforcement agencies. This cooperation and sharing of 
information is an integral part of tracing the funds from illegal 
activities back to the source; that is why, in order for a State and 
local law enforcement agency to receive a grant under the program, they 
must demonstrate how they will enter into a working relationship with 
both Federal law enforcement agencies and other State and locals to 
combat money laundering and drug trafficking.
  Quite the opposite of focusing money solely at the local level, the 
intent of this legislation is to make small grants available to State 
and local law enforcement agencies who have a demonstrated need and an 
acceptable plan.
  Federal law enforcement agents cannot fight money laundering and drug 
trafficking without the cooperation of the State and local law 
enforcement officials who are on the streets and know the local 
players. By the same token, the State and local law enforcement 
officials can benefit greatly from resources and experience of the 
Federal agents.
  By seeming to encourage a focus only on the Federal level, the 
language in the report represents their way of thinking about counter-
money laundering activities. Mr. Chairman, if the conference committee 
does not address this issue, we may be taking a giant step backwards in 
our fight against money laundering and drug trafficking.
  Furthermore, I would like a commitment from the gentleman from 
Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), 
the ranking member, that they will work with me and my staff to draft 
language that addresses the committee's concerns about the program's 
oversight without mischaracterizing the intent of the national strategy 
and the State and local grant program.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
yielding to me, and I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez) for raising these, again, very important issues. It 
certainly was not the intention of the subcommittee to question the 
usefulness or the importance of State and local grants that help to 
combat money laundering.
  We recognize that money laundering is a significant problem and that 
State and local officials are critical in our efforts to combat this 
problem.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Kolbe, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. I am committed to working with the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Velazquez) to make sure that this program is adequately 
funded and receives the necessary oversight.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I will assure the 
gentlewoman that I will work with her as well and with the gentleman 
from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) on this issue and want to congratulate 
her for her leadership and continued careful attention so that this 
program is carried out as effectively as it possibly can be. I thank 
the gentlewoman for her contribution.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

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

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY--
     Departmental Offices--salaries and expenses'', insert before 
     the period at the end the following: ``: Provided, That of 
     the amounts made available under this heading, $500,000 shall 
     be for preparing a report to the Congress on the contents of 
     agreements between the International Monetary Fund and debtor 
     countries and the World Bank and debtor countries: Provided 
     further, That in preparing such report, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall report all provisions of those agreements that 
     require countries to privatize state-owned enterprises and 
     public services; lower barriers to imports, including basic 
     food products; privatize their public pension or social 
     security systems; raise bank interest rates; eliminate 
     regulations on the environment and natural resources; and 
     reform their labor laws and regulations, including legal 
     minimum wages, benefits, and the right to strike''.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to direct the 
Department of Treasury to report to Congress on the IMF and World 
Bank's international advocacy of privatization, deregulation, and trade 
liberalization. Policies such as privatizing government services, 
reforming bank laws, and reforming labor standards are debated here in 
the United States, in Congress, and in State legislatures. There is no 
consensus on whether and in what measure these policies are good for 
the U.S. economy. Good arguments can be made on both sides.
  I believe that the evidence shows that rapid privatization, 
deregulation, and trade liberalization when applied to poor countries, 
have worsened short-term poverty, aggravate economic instability and 
increased indebtedness. At the appropriate time, I would like to submit 
for the Record reports by the Development Group for Alternative 
Policies, Friends of the Earth and the Preamble Center which make this 
point.
  Mr. Chairman, but one does not have to agree with me to want the 
report that I propose. There is no question that the IMF and World Bank 
are important institutions that have considerable influence, 
particularly among developing countries.
  When those countries seek loans or relief from payment on their 
debts, they enter into agreements with the IMF and the World Bank in 
which they pledge to make changes in their economies that the IMF and 
the World Bank desires.
  Every Member of Congress would appreciate knowing the extent to which 
the IMF and World Bank use that influence, that leverage, to push 
debtor countries towards privatization, deregulation and trade 
liberalization.
  One way of obtaining this information is through the agreements and 
documents exchanged between the debtor countries and the IMF and the 
World Bank. My amendment would direct the Secretary of Treasury to

[[Page H6636]]

produce a report to Congress on the contents of agreements and 
documents between the IMF and the debtor countries and the World Bank 
and the debtor countries. In preparing the report, the Secretary would 
report all provisions of those agreements and documents that require 
countries to privatize State-owned enterprises and public services; 
lower barriers to imports including basic food products; privatize 
their public pension or Social Security systems; raise bank interest 
rates; reform regulations on the environment and national resources; 
and reform their labor laws and regulations, including legal minimum 
wages, benefits and the right to strike.
  While the objection could be raised that information sought in this 
request is available in thousands of pages of documents on the Web and 
elsewhere, there is no easy, centralized location where this 
information can be found. The government routinely compiles information 
so that citizenry and Congress can get a better grasp.
  All sides of the many debates we have had in this House regarding 
trade and economic policy would benefit from having an accurate and 
centralized accounting of such requirements.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to withdraw this amendment and would 
hope to work with the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) to obtain 
a report from the Secretary of the Treasury.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, listening to the remarks of the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), I would just say that I think that the 
information that the gentleman seeks from Treasury about these loans 
would be useful information to Congress. And if the gentleman does 
agree to withdraw his amendment, I will certainly work with him to find 
language that is mutually acceptable to us, that we could include in 
the conference report requiring such a study to get this information.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to express my 
appreciation to the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe), and I 
certainly will, at the appropriate time, withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments and 
his intensive observations. I agree with the gentleman from Arizona 
(Chairman Kolbe), and I certainly look forward to working with the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) who has been, I think, one of the 
most tenacious and thoughtful voices on issues like this, and I 
certainly want to make sure that we do have information that is 
accurate and full so that we can understand exactly what is going on.

                              {time}  1545

  Quite obviously, as the gentleman knows, there have been issues 
raised and we will work with him and with the administration to see if 
they can be resolved.
  Mr. Chairman, I would include for the Record a Survey of the Impacts 
of IMF Structural Adjustment in Africa.

A Survey of the Impacts of IMF Structural Adjustment in Africa: Growth, 
              Social Spending, and Debt Relief--April 1999

                  (By Robert Naiman and Neil Watkins)


                           EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

       The role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 
     managing the economies of developing countries has come under 
     increasing criticism in the last two years, especially since 
     the Asian financial crisis.
       Presently, increasing calls for international debt 
     cancellation and debates over United States economic policy 
     in Africa have focused attention on the IMF's policies in 
     Africa, home of many of the world's poorest and most indebted 
     countries. Several initiatives currently being considered by 
     Congress would have the effect of reducing the role of the 
     IMF in Africa, while others would continue and even increase 
     its role.
       This paper relies largely on the IMF's own data to consider 
     the results of the IMF's intervention in the economies of 
     sub-Saharan Africa. We examine the record of countries that 
     have participated in the IMF's Enhanced Structural Adjustment 
     Facility (ESAF), the IMF's concessional lending facility for 
     the least developed countries.
       Among this report's main findings:
       Developing countries worldwide implementing ESAF programs 
     have experienced lower economic growth than those who have 
     been outside of these programs. African countries subject to 
     ESAF programs have fared even worse than other countries 
     pursuing ESAF programs; countries in Africa subject to ESAF 
     programs have actually seen their per capita incomes decline. 
     It will be years before these populations recover the per 
     capita incomes that they had prior to structural adjustment.
       While African countries urgently need to increase spending 
     on health care, education, and sanitation, IMF structural 
     adjustment programs have forced these countries to reduce 
     such spending. In African countries with ESAF programs, the 
     average amount of government spending on education actually 
     declined between 1986 and 1996.
       Neither IMF-mandated macroeconomic policies nor debt relief 
     under the IMF-sponsored HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor 
     Countries) Initiative have reduced these countries' debt 
     burdens. Total external debt as a share of GNP for ESAF 
     countries increased from 71.1% to 87.8% between 1985-1995. 
     For sub-Saharan Africa debt rose as a share of GDP from 58% 
     in 1988 to 70% in 1996. IMF debt relief has not significantly 
     reduced the debt service burden of Uganda or Mozambique, two 
     of the three African HIPC countries that have proceeded 
     furthest under the HIPC initiative. Poor countries continue 
     to divert resources from expenditures on health care and 
     education in order to serve external debt.
       In light of this track record, it appears that efforts to 
     increases economic growth, increase access to health care and 
     education, and reduce the burden of debt repayment are likely 
     to fail so long as the IMF remains in control of the economic 
     policies of countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Efforts to 
     reduce Africa's debt burden should be coupled with efforts to 
     reduce the role of the IMF. Debt cancellation or relief 
     should not be conditioned on compliance with the IMF's 
     structural adjustment programs or policies.


           country experiences with imf structural adjustment

       The External Review examined the experiences of five 
     African countries under IMF adjustment. Below, we take a 
     closer look at three of these countries--Zimbabwe, Cote 
     d'Ivoire, and Uganda. We also briefly consider the experience 
     of Mozambique--a country not examined in the External 
     Review--under the IMF/World Bank HIPC Initiative.
     1. Zimbabwe
       During the 1980s, Zimbabwe's economy grew briskly: real 
     growth averaged about 4% per year. During the early and mid-
     part of the decade, Zimbabwe's exports were diversified and 
     became increasingly oriented toward manufacturing; debts were 
     regularly repaid without the need for rescheduling; a 
     reasonable degree of food security was attained; and the 
     provision of educational and health services was dramatically 
     expanded (due to major increases in government spending on 
     social services). As a result of increased government 
     spending on health care provision in particular, health 
     indicators showed dramatic improvement during the 1980s: the 
     infant mortality rate declined from 100 per 1,000 live births 
     to 50 between 1980 and 1988; life expectancy increased from 
     56 to 64 years (External Review, p. 179). Primary school 
     enrollment doubled over the decade.
       The External Review team summarized the achievements of the 
     1980s: ``The core of the government's redistributive agenda 
     was through (sic) increased public expenditures on education, 
     health, and public sector employment. During the 1980s, much 
     was achieved both in terms of an expansion of these 
     expenditures and in terms of measurable indicators of 
     performance'' (p. 172).
       Though it had entered agreements with the World Bank in the 
     late 1980s, Zimbabwe began structural adjustment in earnest 
     in 1991 when it signed a stand-by arrangement with the IMF in 
     exchange for a $484 million loan. Unlike many of the 
     countries that undertake IMF adjustment programs, Zimbabwe 
     did not institute structural adjustment in response to a 
     ``crisis,'' but rather in an effort to ``jump start economic 
     growth.''
       Among the policy changes required by the IMF in exchange 
     for the loan were cuts in Zimbabwe's fiscal deficit, tax rate 
     reductions, and the deregulation of financial markets. The 
     arrangement also required Zimbabwe to dismantle protections 
     for the manufacturing sector and ``deregulate'' the labor 
     market, lowering the minimum wage and eliminating certain 
     guarantees of employment security (External Review, p. 173-
     176).
       Impact on the economy
       IMF policies which mandated the removal of protections for 
     the manufacturing sector, trade liberalization, and reduced 
     government spending combined with the effects of a severe 
     drought on agricultural production to send the Zimbabwe 
     economy into recession in 1992--real GDP fell by nearly 8% 
     that year. In Zimbabwe, economic crisis actually followed 
     rather than preceded the implementation of structural 
     adjustment.
       Among the indicators of economic performance that declined 
     over the period of adjustment:
       Between 1991-96, manufacturing output contracted 14%;
       Real GDP per capita declined by 5.8% from 1991-1996;
       Real GDP fell by about 1% between 1991 and 1995. (A January 
     1992 IMF staff report

[[Page H6637]]

     predicted 18% GDP growth over the same period);
       Nominal and real interest rates were high and volatile 
     throughout the period, with nominal rates often exceeding 
     40%. The result of high real interest rates was to reduce 
     private domestic investment.
       Total private investment declined by 9% in real terms 
     between 1991-96 (External Review, p. 172-175).
       Furthermore, private per capita consumption fell by 37% 
     between 1991-1996. As the External Review concluded, ``This 
     alone transformed the group of those who lost from the 
     reforms from a minority to a majority'' (p. 177).
       The combination of reduced protection of the manufacturing 
     sector, the reduction in public spending, and labor market 
     deregulation led to higher unemployment and lower real wages. 
     Between 1991-96, formal sector employment in manufacturing 
     fell 9% and real wages declined by 26%. Meanwhile, food 
     prices rose much faster than other consumer prices; this 
     disproportionately affected the rural poor, who spend a 
     larger share of their income on food (External Review, p. 
     180, 182).
       Impact on health and education spending
       In order to meet the IMF's fiscal targets in the 1991 ESAF 
     program, the government had to reduce non-interest 
     expenditures by 46%. The External Review describes this 
     requirement as a ``draconian reduction'' and found it 
     unsurprising that Zimbabwe never met the fiscal target. 
     Though Zimbabwe never met the IMF target, between 1990/91-
     1995/96, spending on health care declined as a share of the 
     budget from 6.4% to 4.3%, and as a share of GDP from 3.1% to 
     2.1% (External Review, p. 178). The IMF's prescriptions for 
     fiscal adjustment included reductions in the real wages of 
     public health sector workers. As a result of the wage cuts, 
     many doctors moved to the private health sector, and the 
     quality of public health care dropped. As health care became 
     less a public service and more a function of the private 
     sector, health services became less accessible to the poor. 
     Because non-wage health spending fell dramatically as well, 
     shortages of prescription drugs became commonplace (External 
     Review, p. 178).
       Compared to the previous era in which health care services 
     were made more widely available to all Zimbabweans through 
     increased government spending, the era of IMF adjustment was 
     characterized by decreased access to health services. This 
     trend was reflected in the deterioration of health 
     indicators. For example, between 1988 and 1994, wasting (a 
     phenomenon linked to AIDS) in children quadrupled and 
     maternal mortality rates appear to have increased. And after 
     many years of decline, the number of cases of tuberculosis 
     began to rise in 1986 and by 1995 had quadrupled (External 
     Review, p. 178-179).
       The decline in government health care spending occurred 
     during a period of increasing need by the population for more 
     access to health care. AIDS was spreading rapidly in 
     Zimbabwe. Given the present cost of treating AIDS patients, 
     the World Bank predicted that the total cost of treating 
     Zimbabwean citizens already infected with AIDS was four times 
     the entire 1996 government health budget. The IMF's fiscal 
     targets meant that the government was unable to respond to 
     growing health needs of the population effectively. The 
     External Review concluded that access to health care fell 
     under adjustment, compared to the pre-IMF era: ``There is no 
     doubt that the previous trend of improving health outcomes 
     was reversed during the period of the reform program'' (p. 
     179).
       Expenditure on education also fell sharply under IMF 
     adjustment. Real per capita expenditure on primary and 
     secondary education declined by 36% and 25% respectively 
     between 1990/91 and 1993/94. As in the health sector, wages 
     for teachers and educational staff fell by between 26% and 
     43% between 1990 and 1993.
       Impact on external indebtedness
       The External review team analyzed Zimbabwe's external 
     viability (i.e., their debt burden). The results show that on 
     the basis of nearly every generally accepted indicator of a 
     country's debt burden, Zimbabwe became significantly more 
     indebted during the period of adjustment. But Zimbabwe still 
     does not qualify for the IMF/World Bank HIPC initiative.
       On April 11, 1999, the Associated Press reported that 
     Zimbabwe had ``severed ties with the International Monetary 
     Fund and the World Bank,'' saying that they had ``made 
     `unrealistic demands' '' as a requirement for releasing 
     funds. A day later the Zimbabwean Finance Ministry denied the 
     report, ``in a bid to reassure markets.'' The Wall Street 
     Journal noted that ``Other donors have indicated they would 
     take their cue from the IMF on whether to release additional 
     financial support,'' again indicating the tremendous power 
     which the IMF wields as a result of the fact that other 
     creditors and donors follow its lead.
     2. Cote d'Ivoire
       Cote d'Ivoire experienced a long period of growth following 
     its independence in 1960, with much of its growth 
     attributable to agricultural exports. Economic decline ensued 
     in the early 1980s as world prices for coffee and cocoa, two 
     of Cote d'Ivoire's main exports, fell. After a brief 
     restoration in growth by 1985, the economic decline 
     resumed in the late 1980s (External Review, 95).
       The IMF became involved in Cote d'Ivoire in November 1989, 
     when it reached a stand-by arrangement with the government, 
     which was followed by another agreement in 1991. Following 
     the initial stand-by arrangements with the IMF, there were 
     six World Bank Structural Adjustment Loans from 1989-1993. 
     Then, beginning in 1994, Cote d'Ivoire entered into an ESAF 
     program with the IMF.
       Over the first period of adjustment, from 1989-1993, IMF 
     fiscal adjustment requirements were introduced in an effort 
     to reduce the government budget deficit. These included 
     substantial reductions in current government expenditures 
     (-30%) and capital expenditures (-15%), in addition to tax 
     increases. Structural reforms also began during this period, 
     including privatizations and some financial reforms.
       The objectives of the next phase (from 1994-1997), under 
     the ESAF program, were threefold:
       To generate a primary budget surplus of 3% of GDP, ``in 
     order to finance debt service'' (External review, p. 97);
       To attain GDP growth of 5% by 1995; and
       To ``protect the most vulnerable during adjustment.''
       In order to reach the budget surplus target, the IMF 
     required labor market deregulation, price decontrol, trade 
     reform, reductions in civil service employment, and faster 
     privatization (External review, p. 97). The IMF also 
     advocated devaluation of Cote d'Ivoire's currency, the Franc 
     CFA, which occurred in January 1994.
       Impact on the economy
       From 1989-1993, per capita GDP fell by 15%, pushed along by 
     the overvaluation of the exchange rate and deterioration in 
     the terms of trade (External Review, p. 95-96). The social 
     impact of IMF structural adjustment on Cote d'Ivoire was 
     severe. Between 1988-1995, the incidence and intensity of 
     poverty doubled, with the number of people making under $1/
     day increasing from 17.8% of the population to 36.8%. In 
     Abidjan, the rate of urban poverty rose from 5% to 20% 
     between 1993 and 1995 (External Review, p. 101).
       Impact on Health and Education Spending
       Between 1990 and 1995, real per capita spending on health 
     care fell slightly and education spending fell dramatically 
     (External Review, p. 101, 105). During the period of IMF 
     structural adjustment (1990-1995), real per capita public 
     spending on education declined by more than 35 percent. 
     Moreover, reductions in the wages of civil servants required 
     by the IMF also led to a reduction in teachers salaries 
     (external review, p. 103). The Review points out that lower 
     wages probably lowered teachers' motivation, and educational 
     quality may have suffered as a result. Despite an improvement 
     in gross enrollment in primary schools over the period 1986-
     1995, educational indicators overall showed poor results. By 
     1995, only 45% of girls from the poorest quintile of 
     households were receiving primary education. At the secondary 
     level, the gross enrollment rate declined from 34% to 31% 
     between 1986-1995 (External Review, p. 104).
       As part of the policy reforms required by the Fund, user 
     fees were introduced into the public health care system in 
     1991. The devaluation of the franc CFA made it especially 
     difficult for the urban poor to pay for health care services, 
     and as a result there was a shift towards traditional 
     medicine. Many health problems worsened. For example, the 
     incidence of stunted growth in children increased from 20% 
     in 1988 to 35% in 1995. As access became more expensive, 
     health issues became a more pressing concern. A survey by 
     UNICEF and the Government of Cote d'Ivoire found that when 
     women were asked to identify their problems, health ranked 
     first (External Review, p.103).
       The team of external reviewers concluded that in Cote 
     d'Ivoire, ``The required reductions in public expenditures 
     were imposed on a system which was already failing to meet 
     basic social needs.''
       Debt burden
       In the first two years of adjustment alone (from the end of 
     1989 to the end of 1991), Cote d'Ivoire's external debt 
     burden grew by $3.7 billion (or from 141% to 175% of GDP). In 
     its analysis of external viability, the External Review found 
     that Cote d'Ivoire's external debt burden increased from 
     132.4% to 210.8% of GDP. Before ESAF, its debt stock to 
     export ratio was 452.8%; following ESAF, it had risen to 
     545.4% (External Review, p. 190).
       Although Cote d'Ivoire has completed the required three 
     consecutive years of structural adjustment to reach its 
     ``decision point'' for eligibility under the IMF/WorldBani 
     HIPC Initiative, it will not reach the ``completion point'' 
     (of actually receiving debt relief) until March 2001, 
     assuming it does not go off track from the adjustment 
     program. Although the country has an urgent need for 
     increased government spending on health care and education, 
     it is unlikely that this could happen under the terms of 
     structural adjustment.
     3. Uganda
       When President Yoweri Musevini came to power in Uganda in 
     1986, his government faced the challenge of rebuilding an 
     economy devastated by the dictatorships of Idi Amin and 
     Milton Obote. Between 1971 and 1986, the Ugandan economy had 
     deteriorated in per capita terms. But in the ten years that 
     followed (between 1986-1996), per capita GDP grew by roughly 
     40%.
       The IMF first became involved in Uganda in 1987, with a 
     loan through its Structural Adjustment Facility (SAF), and it 
     later extended its mission under the ESAF program

[[Page H6638]]

     from 1989-1992 and again from 1992-1997. Real per capita GDP 
     growth averaged 4.2% in Uganda between 1992-1997, and as a 
     result, the IMF often presents Uganda as an example of the 
     success of its structural adjustment policies.
       As noted in the External Review, part of this rapid growth 
     can be explained by the terrible decline of preceding years. 
     But it is also worth looking at how various sectors of the 
     population fared under the growth that coincided with 
     structural adjustment in Uganda
       Two principal reforms mandated by the IMF arrangements were 
     trade liberalization and the progressive reduction of export 
     taxation. But as the external review points out, 
     ``Liberalization of cash crops had only limited 
     beneficiaries.'' This was the case because only a small 
     number of rural households grow coffee. Liberalization had 
     little impact on rural incomes over the period of 
     adjustment--rural per capita private incomes increased just 
     4% over the period from 1988/89 to 1994/95.
       The IMF also mandated the privatization of state-owned 
     industries, a process that has met particularly criticism in 
     Uganda. The Structural Adjustment Participatory Review 
     International Network (SAPRIN), which was launched jointly 
     with the World Bank, national governments, and Northern and 
     Southern NGOs in 1997, has reported that the privatization 
     process in Uganda has gone too fast and has been flawed from 
     the start. A report by Ugandan NGOs who participated in 
     SAPRIN found that ``The privatization process in Uganda has 
     benefitted the government and corporate interests more than 
     the Ugandan people . . .  The privatization process was 
     rushed, and as a result, workers suffered. Some 350,000 
     people were retrenched and, with the private sector not 
     expanding fast enough, unemployment sharply increased. Those 
     laid off were not prepared for life in the private sector, 
     with no training being provided.''
       During the period of IMF structural adjustment, public 
     spending on health care increased as government spending rose 
     overall. However, health care spending did not rise as a 
     share of the recurrent budget, and its share was slightly 
     lower in 1994 than it had been in 1989. Government spending 
     grew over the period but from a very low stating level at the 
     beginning of Museveni's term: in 1986, government expenditure 
     represented just 9% of GDP. At the same time prices of 
     health care services rose much faster than inflation. This 
     was caused in part by the large depreciation of the 
     exchange rate from 1988-1991, which raised the cost of 
     imported inputs in the health sector. As a result, a given 
     level of public health spending bought fewer health 
     services. Real per capita output in health care was lower 
     in each of the years from 1992-1994 than it had been in 
     1989. (External Review, p. 139-141).
       The SAPRIN review of Uganda's experience with adjustment 
     found that ``cost-sharing,'' where patients are expected to 
     pay for a portion of their health care or education, has led 
     to less access for the poor to health care and public 
     education. The policy of cost-sharing was introduced by the 
     Ugandan government in response to IMF fiscal requirements and 
     high debt service payments, which have made it difficult for 
     the government to channel funds into payments for health care 
     and public education. The NGOs in SAPRIN report that:
       ``It [higher costs] has made hospitals and institutes of 
     higher education too costly for the poor. People testified 
     that those who cannot pay for critical health care simply 
     die. Cost-sharing is also poorly administered in the 
     hospitals, and it was pointed out that in areas where people 
     have been unable to pay, the local hospital has simply been 
     closed down. Citizen representatives reported that in 
     villages where the people themselves decide on how much to 
     pay, access to care is much better, so it is best to scrap 
     cost-sharing, which does not benefit the poor.''
       Despite some limited progress in the area of health service 
     provision during the era of adjustment, general health 
     indicators have not improved. In particular, the proportion 
     of children who are malnourished has not declined. As the 
     external review observes, ``This is consistent with the 
     evidence on rural incomes which, as we have seen, suggests 
     little change'' (p. 139). Since rural incomes did not rise in 
     tandem with increasing health care costs, the rural poor have 
     not been able to share in increased access to health service 
     provision.
       Moreover, a declining share of the recurrent budget has 
     been spent on education over the adjustment period, and this 
     led to an overall reduction (over the period 1987 to 1996) in 
     the provision of educational services per capita. (External 
     Review, p. 140-141).
       Debt burden
       The IMF and World Bank often present Uganda as an example 
     of the success of its HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor Country) 
     debt initiative. Uganda was the first country to receive debt 
     relief under the IMF/World Bank HIPC Initiative in April 
     1998, when roughly $650 million of its multilateral debt 
     stock was forgiven.
       However, the process has, first of all, been plagued by 
     several delays. Uganda was originally scheduled to receive 
     debt relief in April 1997, but this was pushed back one year. 
     This delay occurred despite the fact that Uganda had been 
     following structural adjustment programs for nearly a decade. 
     According to Ugandan government projections, the cost of the 
     one year delay was $193 million in lost relief. This amount 
     is more than double the projected spending on education or 
     six times total government spending on health in that year. 
     With the delay, public funds were diverted from priority 
     health care services into debt repayments.
       Moreover, less than one year after receiving relief, 
     Uganda's debt burden has once again become unsustainable 
     according to HIPC criteria. This is mainly because of an 
     overestimation by the World Bank/IMF of revenues Uganda would 
     receive from coffee exports and from trade with the former 
     Zaire, whose economy has recently gone into decline. The 
     United Kingdom's Secretary of State for International 
     Development, Clare Short, confirmed this is a statement 
     before the British House of Commons, noting that, ``the 
     review of Uganda, which has just received debt relief, was 
     very disappointing. As a result of the fall in world coffee 
     prices, it is just as badly off as it was in the first 
     place.'' Uganda's return to an unsustainable debt service 
     burden illustrates the problem with IMF and World Bank 
     projections of export earnings that do not materialize, even 
     over a period of less than a year. It also shows that the 
     debt burdens set by HIPC as ``sustainable'' are much too 
     high, and that much deeper debt relief--preferably 
     cancellation--will be necessary to set these countries on a 
     sustainable growth path.


                 Case Study: Mozambique and Debt Relief

       Unlike the other countries examined in this study, 
     Mozambique's experience with the IMF's structural adjustment 
     was not examined in the External Review of the impact of ESAF 
     programs. But Mozambique is one of just three African 
     countries (the others are Uganda and Cote d'Ivoire) that have 
     reached the final stage under the World Bank/IMF Highly 
     Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. It is therefore 
     worth examining how Mozambique has fared under this 
     initiative, including the required conditions of structural 
     adjustment.
       Mozambique is one of the poorest countries in the world, if 
     not the poorest. According to the United Nations Development 
     Program (UNDP) and UNICEF, only 37% of the population has 
     access to clean water; 39% has access to health services; and 
     just 23% of women can read and write.
       Following a decade of war supported by external powers, 
     Mozambique began a modified form of World Bank structural 
     adjustment in 1987, and in 1990 it entered into an IMF 
     directed ``stabilization program'' under ESAF. Two of the 
     main components of the IMF stabilization program were fiscal 
     adjustment (cuts in government spending) and cuts in credit 
     to the economy (through policies such as higher interest 
     rates). As part of the fiscal adjustment process, government 
     salaries fell. For example, a doctor on the government 
     payroll earned $350/month in 1991, $175/month in 1993, and by 
     1996, took in less than $100/month. For nurses and teachers, 
     monthly salaries fell from $110/month to $60 or $40--levels 
     at which it is impossible to support a family.
       The IMF's primary aim in Mozambique was to contain 
     inflation; the Fund argued that broad post-war reconstruction 
     efforts should be scaled back on the grounds that such 
     actions could be inflationary. While the IMF focused on 
     stabilization policies, World Bank adjustment simultaneously 
     mandated privatization as well as trade and investment 
     liberalization.
     Mozambique and the HIPC initiative
       In a press release issued on April 7, 1998, the IMF 
     announced that, along with other creditors, it had agreed to 
     ``provide exceptional support amounting to nearly US$3 
     billion in nominal terms in debt-service relief for 
     Mozambique,'' claiming that this would ``reduce the external 
     debt burden, free budgetary resources and allow Mozambique to 
     broaden the scope of its development effort.''
       While $3 billion may seem like substantial debt relief for 
     a country as poor as Mozambique, it does not necessarily make 
     a significant dent in the country's debt service burden. 
     Since countries like Mozambique owe far more in external debt 
     than they have the capacity to pay, it is quite possible to 
     reduce their outstanding debt stock considerably, without any 
     commensurate reduction in the net drain of resources out of 
     the country. This happens when creditors cancel that part of 
     the debt that was not being serviced previously. Therefore, 
     in order to know whether poor countries--and poor people in 
     those countries--actually benefit from IMF/World Bank debt 
     relief, it is necessary to know what the impact of this debt 
     reliefs is on the actual debt service paid by these 
     countries.
       In response to criticism from non-governmental 
     organizations, in May the IMF released estimates for these 
     numbers. According to the IMF's own projections, the actual 
     debt service paid by Mozambique will be as high or higher in 
     each of the years from 2000-2003 as it was in 1997. Even 
     after IMF debt relief, the government will be paying roughly 
     as much in debt service as it is spending on health care and 
     education.
       Speaking at a conference on the issue, World Bank 
     representative James Coates noted that more than half of all 
     money allocated to HIPC countries went to cancel Mozambique's 
     debt, and that more debt could not be canceled because the 
     funds allocated under HIPC constituted the maximum that 
     creditors could afford. But the $100 million that Mozambique 
     pays in debt service each year represents barely one-tenth of 
     one percent of the increase in resources which the IMF alone 
     received last year from member

[[Page H6639]]

     governments. This indicates that the lack of meaningful debt 
     relief so far is not the result of scarce resources, but a 
     lack of commitment to significantly reducing the debt service 
     burden of these highly indebted and very poor countries.
     Human impact of the IMF's policies
       The importance of debt relief can be illustrated by 
     estimates of the results, in terms of human welfare, that 
     could be achieved if some of the resources now spent on debt 
     service were reallocated to spending on vital needs. In 1997, 
     the United Nations Development Program estimated that, 
     relieved of their debt payments, severely indebted countries 
     in Africa could have saved the lives of 21 million people and 
     provided 90 million girls and women with access to basic 
     education by the year 2000. In the case of Mozambique, Oxfam 
     estimated that debt relief could save the lives of 600,000 
     children over seven years. Other advocates of debt relief 
     have made similar estimates: based on United Nations 
     Development Program estimates of the impact of increased 
     health and education spending, Jubilee 2000 estimated that if 
     Mozambique were allowed to spend half the money on health 
     care and education which it is now spending on debt service, 
     it would save the lives of 115,000 children every year and 
     6,000 mothers giving birth.


            has africa `turned the corner' in recent years?

       In 1998, the IMF released a series of publications and 
     public statements claiming credit for an ``African economic 
     renaissance'' and ``a turnaround in growth performance.'' The 
     claim from the IMF and World Bank is that structural 
     adjustment is beginning to pay off, at least in macroeconomic 
     terms. But examining just-released growth projections by the 
     World Bank, one discovers that the ``growth turnaround'' has 
     been short-lived. According to the World Bank, real GDP per 
     capita grew by 1.4% in 1996, but by 1997, growth slowed to 
     0.4% and in 1998, per capita incomes fell by 0.8%. The World 
     Bank projects a further decline of -0.4% in 1999. In short, 
     if there was an ``economic renaissance'' for Africa, it 
     appears to be over.
       Why has there been a sudden downturn in growth? The UN 
     Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) reports that Africa's 
     economic performance in 1997 showed ``the fragility of the 
     recovery and underscored the predominance of exogenous 
     factors'' in the determining African economic outcomes. 
     Africa's growth prospects are inexorably linked to world 
     prices for its exports. IMF and World Bank structural reforms 
     had actively promoted this strategy, known as export-led 
     growth. The ECA also emphasized this fact: ``The major thrust 
     of economic policy making on the continent has been informed 
     for the last decade or so by the core policy content of 
     adjustment programs (of the type supported by the IMF and the 
     World Bank) * * *''
       In addition to slower growth in 1997 and 1998, recently 
     released data indicate that the relationship between the IMF 
     and sub-Saharan Africa has taken a turn for the worse during 
     these years.

                          FIGURE 6. IMF RELATIONSHIP WITH SUB SAHARAN AFRICA 1991-1998
                                           [Millions of U.S. dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                1991     1992    1993    1994    1995    1996     1997     1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMF purchases...............................      579      527    1146     918    2994     652      524      837
IMF repurchases.............................      614      530     455     467    2372     596     1065     1139
IMF charges.................................      228      186     138     170     559     124      101       88
      Balance...............................     -263     -189     553     281      63     -68     -642     -390
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary.
 
The Balance shows the net transfer of funds from the IMF to Sub-Saharan Africa; the negative sign indicate a net
  transfer from the countries to the Fund. IMF Purchases represent new resources (loans) taken out from the IMF.
  IMF Repurchases represent repayments of the principal of IMF loans. IMF Charges represent repayments of the
  interest on IMF loans.
 
Source: World Bank, Global Development Finance 1999, in Jubilee 2000 coalition, ``IMF takes $1 billion in two
  years from Africa,'' April 1999.

       As Figure 6 shows, repayments by African governments to the 
     IMF outpaced new resources in the past two years, resulting 
     in a net transfer from Africa to the IMF of more than $1 
     billion in 1997 and 1998. Meanwhile, despite increasing 
     repayments to the IMF, total African debt continued to rise: 
     between 1997 and 1998, Africa's debt increased by 3% to $226 
     billion. This occurred even as African countries paid back 
     $3.5 billion more than they borrowed in 1998.


                               conclusion

       The data reviewed in this study suggest that the 
     International Monetary Fund has failed in Africa, in terms of 
     its own stated objectives and according to its own data. 
     Increasing debt burdens, poor growth performance, and the 
     failure of the majority of the population to improve their 
     access to education, health care, or other basic needs has 
     been the general pattern in countries subject to IMF 
     programs.
       The core elements of IMF structural adjustment programs 
     have remained remarkably consistent since the early 1980s. 
     Although there has been mounting criticism and calls for 
     reform over the last year and a half--as a result of the 
     Fund's intervention in the Asian and Russian financial 
     crises--no reforms of the IMF or its policies have been 
     forthcoming. And there are as yet no indications from the 
     Fund itself that it sees any need for reform. In fact, IMF 
     Managing Director Michel Camdessus has repeatedly referred to 
     the Asian economic collapse as ``a blessing in disguise.''
       In the absence of any reform at the IMF for the foreseeable 
     future, the need for debt cancellation for Africa is all the 
     more urgent. This enormous debt burden consumed 4.3% of sub-
     Saharan Africa's GNP in 1997. If these resources had been 
     devoted to investment, the region could have increased its 
     economic growth by nearly a full percentage point--sadly this 
     is more than twice its per capita growth for that year. But 
     the debt burden exacts another price, which may be even 
     higher than the drain of resources out of the country: it 
     provides the means by which the IMF is able to impose the 
     conditions of its structural adjustment programs on these 
     desperately poor countries.
       Any debt relief that is tied to structural adjustment, or 
     other conditionality imposed by the IMF--as it is in the HIPC 
     initiative--could very well cause more economic harm than 
     good to the recipients. Debt relief should be granted outside 
     the reach of this institution, preferably without conditions. 
     Moreover, the role of the Fund in Africa and developing 
     countries generally, and especially its control over major 
     economic decisions, should be drastically reduced. Any 
     efforts to provide additional funding or authority to the 
     IMF, before the institution has been fundamentally reformed, 
     would be counter-productive.
                                  ____


                          ON THE WRONG TRACK:

    A Summary Assessment of IMF Interventions in Selected Countries

                                                     January 1998.


                                Overview

       As Asian economies continue to unravel, investors have 
     looked to the International Monetary Fund for guidance on 
     whether prospective economic performance warrants their 
     continued participation in the economies of those countries. 
     With a war chest of funds and a staff of neoliberal 
     economists at its disposal and the power and influence of 
     Northern governments and financial markets behind it, the IMF 
     not only sets the standards for such performance, but it 
     forces compliance with the carrot of emergency funding and 
     the stick of discouraging the flow of private-sector and 
     other public-sector financing. When the going gets rough 
     under IMF tutelage, the refrain is always the same: deepen 
     the reforms with more of the same medicine.
       But how good has IMF advice been, and how accurate a guide 
     has the Fund's stamp of approval been for investors? To 
     start, investments in IMF-touted emerging-market countries 
     over the past five years have performed no better than much 
     safer investments at home, and the Fund failed to warn of the 
     two big crashes of the decade--Mexico and East Asia. In fact, 
     right up to the currency and stock-market collapses, the IMF 
     was praising these countries as models of economic success 
     and rationality. Perhaps blinded by its own prescriptions 
     (and the interests of investors) to open these--and other--
     economies before the necessary institutional, financial and 
     social infrastructure was in place, the Fund has consistently 
     failed to recognize, or at least publicly acknowledge, the 
     underlying weaknesses in these economies and its own 
     contribution to the debacles.
       Friends of the Earth and The Development GAP, with the 
     support of the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, have engaged 
     partners in six countries to assess, through short case 
     studies, IMF performance in a representative cross-section of 
     economies. Drafts of four of the studies--Mexico, Senegal, 
     Tanzania and Hungary--have been completed, and summaries are 
     attached, the profiles of the Philippines and Nicaragua are 
     still in progress. These cases paint a consistent picture of 
     an institution bent on fully opening economies to foreign 
     investors on advantageous terms at almost any cost--the 
     destruction of domestic productive capacity and local demand, 
     growing poverty and inequality, the deterioration of 
     education and health-care systems, and, as has been seen, a 
     dangerously expanding vulnerability of these economies 
     themselves to external forces beyond their governments' 
     control.
       What is clear from these studies, and from IMF intervention 
     across the board, is that the Fund's economic conditions--
     which have gone beyond tight monetary and fiscal policies and 
     other stabilization measures to include the liberalization of 
     trade, direct investment and financial capital flows, as well 
     as the dismantling of labor protections and economic 
     infrastructure that supports small producers--have been 
     imposed without linkage to a long-term development strategy

[[Page H6640]]

     aimed at sustainable and equitable growth and economic 
     competitiveness.
       In Mexico, a program of rapid trade liberalization, 
     economic and financial-sector deregulation and large-scale 
     privatization, accompanied by policies that undercut local 
     demand and production, had created a growing current-account 
     deficit well before the December 1994 collapse of the peso. 
     The increasing dependency on foreign capital inflows required 
     to finance the deficit eventually led to massive capital 
     flight and the crisis. Subsequent IMF conditions attached to 
     the bailout of foreign investors, which in essence deepened 
     the reform program while ignoring its underlying 
     weaknesses, caused an economic depression, pushing 
     millions of farmers out of agriculture, bankrupting 
     thousands of small businesses, and drastically slashing 
     jobs and wages. Likewise, in Nicaragua, financial-sector 
     deregulation, narrowly focused and without adequate prior 
     institutional reform, has directed capital toward short-
     term, high-interest deposits and away from productive 
     investment, particularly the activities of small-scale 
     producers in both the agricultural and manufacturing 
     sectors.
       In Africa, the IMF record has been even worse. Tanzania, 
     forced to adopt a program of trade liberalization, 
     devaluation, tight monetary policy and the dismantling of 
     state financing and marketing mechanisms for small farmers, 
     has experienced expanding rural poverty, income inequality 
     and environmental degradation amidst growing agricultural 
     export trade. Food security, housing conditions and primary-
     school enrollment has fallen while malnutrition and infant 
     mortality have been on the rise. The country, under Fund 
     supervision, is today more dependent than ever on foreign 
     aid. Across the continent, Senegal, an IMF pupil for 18 
     years, has experienced declining quality in its education and 
     health-care systems and a growth in maternal mortality, 
     unemployment and the use and abuse of child labor. Official 
     IMF statistics underestimate the real inflation rate faced by 
     most of the population, while economic growth has not 
     effectively reached the poor. As women constitute the vast 
     majority of the poor and depend more on social services, 
     experience lower education and literacy rates, and are least 
     likely to receive support for their agricultural (food-crop) 
     activities than are men, they have suffered 
     disproportionately under the adjustment program.
       With the IMF as its guide, Hungary has led the reform 
     process in Eastern Europe, similarly liberalizing its trade 
     regime, tightening its money supply and selling off assets 
     (on questionable terms) to foreign interests with little 
     concern for the productive contributions of workers and 
     domestic producers in the ``real'' economy. As a result, an 
     increasing portion of resources are being directed away from 
     investment in human capital and infrastructure formation 
     toward unemployment benefits and payments to wealthy 
     bondholders. A more fragmented and troubled society has 
     emerged in which other big losers include: the elderly, who 
     often cannot afford the cost of medicines or home heating, 
     pensioners, whose stipends will further decrease, gypsies, 
     who are losing access to jobs and public housing, youth, who 
     face decreased access to education and employment, 
     particularly in rural areas, and children, who, for the first 
     time, are experiencing malnutrition as poverty expands in 
     Hungary.
       The IMF claims that it is not a development assistance 
     agency and its track record proves its point. Yet, while 
     destroying the basis for sustainable, equitable and stable 
     development around the globe with the imposition of both 
     stabilization and adjustment measures, the Fund has also 
     greatly increased the economic vulnerability of nation after 
     nation. By opening the door prematurely to fickle and 
     unregulated foreign capital flows, liberalizing trade and 
     investment regimes and pushing up interest rates to attract 
     bondholders without adequate support for local production, 
     developing cheap production bases for foreigners and export 
     at the expense of underpaid and undereducated work forces, 
     domestic demand and the natural environment, and rewarding 
     speculators instead of financing critical social investments 
     and equilibrium, the IMF has demonstrated both its biases and 
     its ignorance of local conditions. It should be neither a 
     guide for the market nor a dictator of national development 
     programs. At this point in history, the less influence, the 
     less money, the less power it has, the better.
                                  ____

                                                       April 1999.

  Conditioning Debt Relief on Adjustment: Creating the Conditions for 
                           More Indebtedness

          (By The Development Group for Alternative Policies)

       Over the past year there has been growing public 
     recognition, even within official circles, that foreign-debt 
     burdens, particularly those of the least-developed countries, 
     are unsustainable and constitute severe constraints on those 
     countries' future development. The dire situations in 
     Honduras and Nicaragua after Hurricane Mitch serve to 
     highlight the impossibility of those countries garnering 
     sufficient resources to rebuild their devastated 
     infrastructures while foreign-debt payments continue to 
     absorb much of their governments' and export earnings.
       Various proposals have been developed for the cancellation 
     of bilateral and multilateral debt. Most prominent among 
     these proposals is the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) 
     initiative. The stated intention of this program, which is 
     administered by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the 
     World Bank, is to enable highly indebted poor countries to 
     achieve sustainable debt levels within six years. After three 
     years of implementation of structural adjustment programs 
     (SAPs), countries reach a ``decision point'', at which time 
     some debt rescheduling may be granted and the level of 
     additional debt reduction needed is calculated. That 
     reduction, however, is typically available only after another 
     three years of adjustment. It could take even longer than six 
     years for a country to receive any debt relief, as the 
     ``clock'' stops if a country fails to fully adhere to the 
     adjustment program and restarts only when the IMF has 
     certified that it is in compliance once again. In fact, given 
     the long time frame for debt cancellation, it appears that a 
     central goal of the HIPC initiative is to keep countries 
     locked into adjustment programs, with debt reduction now 
     used--as has been both access to finance and debt itself--as 
     leverage toward that end.
       While the recognition that debt levels must be reduced is a 
     step in the right direction, the requirement that countries 
     continue to implement SAPs in order to qualify for and 
     receive that relief greatly diminishes or even negates the 
     benefits that might accrue from debt cancellation. Not only 
     have adjustment programs devastated national economies across 
     the South and caused misery for hundreds of millions of 
     people, evidence shows that, in the large majority of 
     countries implementing those policies at the insistence of 
     the international financial institutions (IFIs), debt levels 
     have increased.
       In fact, a study carried out by two researchers affiliated 
     with The Development GAP demonstrates that there is a 
     positive linear relationship between the number of years that 
     countries implement adjustment programs and increases in debt 
     levels. Rather than leading countries out of situations of 
     unpayable debt levels, the HIPC program and others 
     conditioned on the implementation of SAPs would likely push 
     participating countries further into a tragic circle of debt, 
     adjustment, a weakened domestic economy, heightened 
     vulnerability, and greater debt.


                              methodology

       The Development GAP study covers 71 economies of the South 
     with a history of at least three years operating under World 
     Bank-supported structural and sectoral adjustment programs 
     during the period 1980-1995. Many of these countries have 
     also implemented IMF adjustment programs. On average, the 
     countries included in the study had implemented SAPs for 7.8 
     years. Some 42 African and Middle Eastern countries were 
     included and comprised 59.2 percent of the sample. Eleven 
     Asian countries, or 15.5 percent of the total, and 18 Latin 
     American countries, comprising 25.4 percent of the cases, 
     were also included in the study. A list of the countries 
     included in he study, along with data related to SAPs and 
     debt, is provided in the Annex.
       The independent variable used in the study analysis was the 
     number of years a country had been implementing a structural 
     adjustment program. The dependent variable was the change in 
     the ratio of debt to GNP. The total debt level used was the 
     sum total of debt and the debt and interest cancelled during 
     the period (so that official debt-reduction plans do not skew 
     the results). Changes in the ratio of debt to GNP were 
     derived by calculating percentage changes in the ratio from 
     the first to last year of a country's SAP. In the cases in 
     which the program was still ongoing, 1995 was used as the 
     final year for calculation due to the unavailability of data 
     on debt after that date. All figures are based on official 
     World Bank information.


                                results

       Of the countries included in the study, a full two-thirds 
     saw their debt burdens increase during the adjustment period. 
     Furthermore, as cited above and contrary to assertions by the 
     IFIs that ``sound economic policy'' is the best road out of 
     debt, statistical analysis of the data demonstrates a 
     positive relationship between the number of years under 
     adjustment and increases in debt levels. The longer these 
     countries implemented the neoliberal programs, the worse 
     their debt burdens typically became.
       It is striking that none of the countries currently being 
     considered for debt relief under the HIPC initiative has 
     experienced a drop in the debt-to-GNP ratio under their 
     respective adjustment programs. In some countries, the 
     inverse relationship was especially strong. Guyana and Cote 
     d'Ivoire, two countries that are scheduled to receive such 
     debt relief, have experienced phenomenal increases in the 
     debt/GNP ratio. In the former, the ratio grew by 147 percent 
     after 13 years of adjustment, and, in the latter, 13 years of 
     SAPs produced a 120-percent increase in debt to GNP. Of the 
     35 countries listed by the World Bank as HIPCs, only 
     three experienced decreases in debt-to-GNP levels under 
     adjustment. All others experienced increases, ranging from 
     an 11-percent rise in Mauritania to a 670-percent increase 
     in Nigeria.
       The average, or mean, increase in debt for all of the 
     countries in the sample was 49.2 percent. The median, or most 
     frequent, increase was 28.2 percent. The top 25 percent of 
     the countries showed a 75-percent increase in foreign debt.


                 tragic circles of debt and adjustment

       There are a number of reasons for the rise in debt levels. 
     In some countries, the trade

[[Page H6641]]

     liberalization required under adjustment programs leads to a 
     flood of imports and, consequently, higher trade and current-
     account deficits. Those deficits need to be compensated for 
     by higher foreign investment, foreign assistance or foreign 
     borrowing. In many countries, such as Brazil, the maintenance 
     of high real interest rates, as often mandated by the IFIs, 
     in order to appease nervous foreign investors, is increasing 
     the cost of domestic debt, thus adding to the government's 
     budget deficit, raising the specter of further devaluation, 
     and, consequently, creating greater difficulty in servicing 
     the foreign debt.
       One of the central objectives of structural adjustment 
     programs is to reorient economic activity away from 
     production for domestic consumption and toward production for 
     export. In making this shift, nations become exceeding 
     vulnerable to the vagaries of the global economy. Countries 
     export more and more as commodity prices continue to fall. 
     Governments deregulate economic activity, ``flexibilize'' 
     labor markets and raise interest rates in increasingly 
     desperate efforts to attract and maintain fickle foreign 
     investment. The recent crises in Mexico, East Asia, Russia 
     and Brazil demonstrate the hazards of countries betting their 
     future well-being on the erratic global financial market. 
     Indeed, those countries receiving IMF-orchestrated 
     ``bailouts'' could very likely constitute the next group of 
     debt-crisis countries, as the adjustment conditions attached 
     to these packages include the requirement that governments 
     guarantee payments to private international banks, thus 
     making private debt a public obligation.
       High foreign-debt levels are both a result and a symptom of 
     the extreme risk that governments take in tying their 
     economies too closely to the global market. The causes of 
     that debt are flawed economic policies that fail to develop 
     domestic productive capabilities or raise local income levels 
     so as to reduce the need for external financing. For this 
     reason alone, the requirement that governments adhere to the 
     structural adjustment programs designed by the international 
     financial institutions is pure folly. Instead, governments 
     should be encouraged to develop national economic plans 
     designed democratically to expand the domestic financial 
     resource base, incomes and markets and, consequently, reduce 
     their extreme dependence on foreign debt. Otherwise, we can 
     expect the tragic circle of debt and adjustment to continue 
     into the foreseeable future--debt-relief programs not 
     withstanding.

       Prepared by Karen Hansen-Kuhn and Doug Hellinger based on 
     research and analysis by Matt Marek and Nan Dawkins.

                 ANNEX: COUNTRIES INCLUDED IN THE STUDY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Percent
            Africa and Middle East              Years under  increase in
                                                    SAP        debt/GNP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algeria.......................................            5        72.05
Benin.........................................            6        17.74
Burkina Faso..................................            4        65.98
Burundi.......................................            9       155.96
Cameroon......................................            6       156.96
Central African Rep...........................            7       110.76
Chad..........................................           66        81.43
Comoros.......................................            4        30.30
Congo.........................................            7        75.59
Cote d'Ivoire.................................           13       119.53
Egypt.........................................            3       -22.89
Equatorial Guinea.............................            4        23.10
Ethiopia......................................            3        28.25
Gabon.........................................            7        62.58
The Gambia....................................            5       -25.88
Ghana.........................................           12       148.31
Guinea........................................            8        10.92
Guinea-Bissau.................................           10        64.57
Jordan........................................            5       -29.72
Kenya.........................................           15       120.50
Madagascar....................................            9        87.87
Malawi........................................            4       142.92
Mali..........................................            7        29.06
Mauritania....................................            9        10.55
Mauritius.....................................            8       -15.91
Morocco.......................................           10       -28.19
Mozambique....................................            7        30.92
Niger.........................................            9        63.92
Nigeria.......................................           11       669.66
Rwanda........................................            4       106.65
Sao Tome and Principe.........................            8       287.91
Senegal.......................................           14        56.66
Sierra Leone..................................            3        -9.77
Somalia.......................................            6        37.75
Sudan.........................................            7       -25.54
Tanzania......................................           14       361.07
Togo..........................................           12        14.43
Tunisia.......................................            8       -22.69
Uganda........................................           13        33.19
Zambia........................................           11        61.19
Zimbabwe......................................           11       121.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Percent
                     Asia                       Years under  increase in
                                                    SAP        Debt/GNP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bangladesh....................................           15        75.76
China.........................................            3        15.94
India.........................................            3       -16.32
Indonesia.....................................            5        -9.32
Lao PDR.......................................            5       -33.23
Nepal.........................................            6        57.68
Pakistan......................................            4        30.61
Papua New Guinea..............................            5       -35.86
Philippines...................................           14         7.57
Sri Lanka.....................................            5       -12.38
Thailand......................................            3         6.72
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Percent
          Latin America and Caribbean           Years under  increase in
                                                    SAP        Debt/GNP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argentina.....................................            9       -11.85
Bolivia.......................................           15        51.43
Brazil........................................            9        -8.99
Chile.........................................            3       -19.99
Colombia......................................           10       -33.56
Costa Rica....................................           12       -56.61
Dominica......................................            4       -19.22
Ecuador.......................................            9        13.80
El Salvador...................................            4       -20.69
Guatemala.....................................            3       -13.86
Guyana........................................           13       147.32
Honduras......................................            6        38.97
Jamaica.......................................           14        75.13
Mexico........................................           11        30.83
Nicaragua \1\.................................           13       726.07
Panama........................................           11         8.87
Peru..........................................            3         8.42
Trinidad and Tobago...........................            3        -5.10
Uruguay.......................................            9       -55.72
Venezuela.....................................            5        -3.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Nicaragua was excluded from the analysis because of the unorthodox
  nature of its debt and because adjustment was implemented sporadically
  during the period (and at times without support from the international
  financial institutions), making it difficult to identify beginning and
  end years for the program.

  
                                  ____
        Environmental Consequences of the IMF's Lending Policies

                       (By Friends of the Earth)

       Environmentalists around the world have long been concerned 
     about the impact of International Monetary Fund (IMF) 
     structural adjustment policies on the global environment. 
     While economic instability is a threat to the environment, 
     the IMF's approach to economic reform generally induces a 
     blatant disregard for environmental impacts, even when the 
     economic goals go hand in hand with environmental goals.
       The result: too many economic policies that promote 
     environmental degradation and too few policies that could 
     promote positive environmental gains.


                           pressure to export

       Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) treat natural 
     resources as commodities, exported as cheap products to over-
     consuming markets in the Northern rich countries. Exports of 
     natural resources have increased at astonishing rates in many 
     IMF adjusting countries, with no consideration of the 
     sustainability of this approach. For example, Benin, under 
     SAPs since 1993, had sawnwood exports increase four fold 
     between 1992 and 1998. (1)
       Furthermore, it is often raw resource exports, whose prices 
     are notoriously volatile, that are being promoted, rather 
     than finished products, which would capture more value-added, 
     employ more people in different enterprises, help diversify 
     the economy, and disseminate more know-how.


                     budget cuts and weakened laws

       Structural adjustment's goal of balancing the government 
     budget can also hurt the environment. In the effort to shrink 
     budget deficits, cuts in government programs weaken the 
     ability to enforce environmental laws and diminish efforts to 
     promote conservation. Budget cuts in Brazil, Russia, 
     Indonesia and Nicaragua have greatly reduced these 
     governments' ability to protect the environment. Governments 
     may also relax environmental regulation to meet SAP 
     objectives for increased foreign investment.


                        world bank is no example

       The IMF explains that it relies on the World Bank to assess 
     the environmental implications of its adjustment lending. Yet 
     the World Bank has proven to be no help. A recent review 
     found that fewer than 20% of World Bank adjustment loans 
     included any environmental assessment. (2)
       Another consequence of the IMF's narrow approach to 
     economic reform is that economic policies that could help 
     promote environmental sustainability are being ignored. Tax 
     promote environmental sustainability are being ignored. Tax 
     policy, for example, could emphasize green taxes in order to 
     generate revenue and discourage excessive resource use. In 
     the IMF's effort to build countries' accounting systems and 
     statistics capabilities, full cost accounting could be 
     pursued to help both countries and international financial 
     institutions realize the value of natural resources and would 
     therefore encourage countries to use them prudently. 
     Immediate steps must be taken to make sure that environmental 
     protection is considered as a core component of economic 
     policy reform.


                                forestry

       Many countries under the IMF's Structural Adjustment 
     Programs are rich in forest resources. SAP's economic 
     incentives for increasing exports of forest products can lead 
     to more foreign exchange earnings, but when uncontrolled can 
     result in unsustainable forestry management and high 
     deforestation rates.
       In Cameroon, IMF-recommended export tax cuts, accompanied 
     by the January 1995 devaluation of the currency, provided 
     great economic incentives to export timber. As a result, the 
     number of logging enterprises increased from 194 in 1994 to 
     351 in 1995 (3) and lumber exports grew by 49.6% between 
     1995/96 and 1996/97 (4), threatening the country's 
     rainforests and natural habitat (see inset). In a recent 
     report the IMF finally acknowledged the precarious nature of 
     Cameroon's export strategy and encouraged a strengthening of 
     the government's institutional capacity to promote the 
     rational use of forest resources.
       Between 1990 and 1995, forest loss for the 41 Heavily 
     Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) greatly exceeded the rate of 
     forest loss for the world. For example, the two Central 
     American HIPC countries, Nicaragua and Honduras, lost almost 
     12% of their forest, which is 7.5 times greater than the 
     world rate. Approximately 75% of these HIPC countries had an 
     IMF SAP at some point during this time period. (5)

                         FOREST LOSS, 1990-1995
                              [In percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Region                  HIPCs      Non-HIPCs      World
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tropical Africa..................         3.65         2.60          1.6
Tropical Asia....................         8.33         4.60          1.6

[[Page H6642]]

 
Central America..................         11.6         5.12          1.6
America..........................          4.2         2.60          1.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAO, 1997

                                 mining

       Like forestry, mineral resources are seen as a quick source 
     of export earnings and a locus for foreign investment. Mining 
     is one of the most environmentally destructive activities, 
     contaminating ground water through acid mine drainage, 
     threatening fish, animal and bird life, and destroying 
     wildlife habitats. SAP policies have promoted the 
     exploitation of mineral resources, and done so without regard 
     to disruption to local communities and indigenous peoples and 
     requirements for land rehabilitation. (6)
       Under SAP guidance since the mid 1980s, Guyana implemented 
     policies to increase large-scale, foreign-owned mining 
     ventures. This has led to river pollution, the decline of 
     fish populations, and deforestation (see inset). There are 
     now 32 foreign mining companies active in Guyana and large 
     scale mining permits now cover an estimated 10% of the 
     country. (7) The IMF is encouraging Guyana's government to 
     transform mining and petroleum into one of the country's 
     critical economic sectors by the year 2000. (8)
       Under IMF guidance, Cote d'Ivoire has targeted mineral 
     resources for export intensification and is stepping up 
     exploration efforts. The results are new surface mining 
     projects, three new gold mining companies since 1994, and 80 
     permits issued for mineral exploration to 27 international 
     mining companies in 1995. (9)


                              agriculture

       Agriculture is another sector SAPs target for export 
     growth. In order to increase yields, farmers must either 
     increase land intensity through fertilizer and pesticide use, 
     or clear new land for more crops. Large-scale agriculture 
     often involves monocropping, resulting in erosion, loss of 
     soil fertility and increased industrial inputs.
       SAPs led Cote d'Ivoire to devalue its currency and 
     eliminate export taxes creating incentives for increased 
     agricultural output. From 1992 to 1996 cocoa production 
     dramatically increased by 44%. The environmental implications 
     included soil degradation, deforestation and loss of 
     biodiversity. (11)
       SAP programs in Tanzania resulted in rising input costs for 
     the agricultural sector. Consequently, the need for 
     production increases has led to land clearing at the rate of 
     400,000 ha per year. Between 1980 and 1993, one quarter of 
     the country's forest area was lost, 1993, one quarter of the 
     country's forest area was lost, forty percent for 
     cultivation. (12)


  Weakened Environmental Safeguards--Budget cuts represent a typical 
                    response to IMF policy mandates

       In Brazil, government spending on environmental programs 
     was cut by two-thirds in order to meet the fiscal targets set 
     by the IMF. (13)
       In Russia the budget for protected areas was cut by 40%. 
     (14)
       In Indonesia, budget cuts have forced officials in Jakarta, 
     one of the world's most polluted cities, to suspend 
     environmental programs. (15)
       In Nicaragua, the budget of the Ministry of the Environment 
     and Natural Resources was cut by 36% in order to adhere to 
     IMF budget targets.


                      changes in laws and policies

       Many countries have changed their laws and regulations to 
     attract foreign investment. In the mining sector, for 
     example, many countries under IMF policy reforms have relaxed 
     regulations for investment and exploration. Some countries 
     still try to assess the environmental impacts of mining, but 
     it is yet to be seen whether concerns for environment will be 
     overshadowed by economics in these cash strapped economies.
       Guyana changed its mining policies, giving large mining 
     companies the majority stake in large operations. (16)
       Benin and Guinea both revised their mining codes to promote 
     mining and increase exploration.
       The Central African Republic established new mining codes 
     citing that mineral resources were ``insufficiently 
     exploited.''
       Mali established a new mining code in 1999 to encourage 
     development, also including plans to consider environmental 
     impact.
       Mauritania established a new mining code to increase 
     development and will also formulate policies to assess the 
     environmental impact.


                            recommendations

       The IMF needs to take immediate steps to reverse the 
     negative ecological impact of structural adjustment. Natural 
     resources are finite, and need to be recognized for their 
     full ecological, social, and economic values. The current 
     model of economic development that is being pursued by the 
     IMF and World Bank is fundamentally unsustainable as it seeks 
     growth at all costs, without regard to ecological limits.
       The IMF and WB should take the following steps to integrate 
     environmental concerns into economic development, including:
       Conduct environmental and social assessments of SAPs,
       Encourage the protection of environmental programs by 
     publishing environmental spending figures,
       Refrain from cutting environmental spending or weakening 
     conservation laws,
       Publish changes in environmental laws that are the result 
     of structural adjustment discussions,
       Include environmental ministers in negotiations on IMF 
     programs,
       Pursue environmental accounting as part of IMF technical 
     assistance and data gathering, and
       Implement green taxes that could generate revenue and 
     discourage excessive resource use.


                                sources

       1. Food and Agriculture Organization. Statistical Database. 
     www.fao.org.
2. Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development. 
     1999. Social and Environmental Aspects. A Desk Review of 
     SECALs and SALs Approved During FY98 and FY99. Washington, 
     DC: World Bank.
       3. Verolme, Hans J.H., Moussa, Juliette. 1999 Addressing 
     the Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest 
     Degradation-Case Studies, Analysis and Policy 
     Recommendations, Washington, DC: Biodiversity Action Network.
       4. International Monetary Fund. 1998. ``Cameroon 
     Statistical Appendix,'' IMF Staff Country Report No. 98/17. 
     Washington, DC: IMF.
       5. Food and Agriculture Organization. 1997. State of the 
     World's Forests.
       6. ``Mining's Environmental Impacts.'' http:/
     www.mineralpolicy.org/Environment.html
       7. Project Underground. 1997. ``Investing in Guyana Does 
     Not Bring Riches for All.'' Drillbits and Tailings. (November 
     1997).
       8. International Monetary Fund. 1998. ``Cote d'lvoire: 
     Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility Policy Framework 
     Paper 1998-2000.'' Washington, DC: IMF. (February 9, 1998: 
     Section 37).
       9. Melvis, Dzisah. 1998. ``Mining, Energy Sectors Attract 
     Investors.'' Panafrican News Agency. (September 1, 1998).
       10. Jodah, Desiree Kisson. 1996, ``Courting Disaster in 
     Guyana,'' The Multinational Monitor. 16:11 (November 1995).
       11. International Monetary Fund. 1998. ``Cote d'lvoire: 
     Selected Issues and Statistical Appendix.'' IMF Staff Country 
     Report: No. 98/46. Washington, DC: IMF. (May 1998).
       12. Hammond, Ross. 1999. ``The Impact of IMF Structural 
     Adjustment Policies on Tanzanian Agriculture.'' The All Too 
     Visible Hand. Washington, DC: The Development Gap, Friends of 
     the Earth.
       13. Schemo, Diana Jean. 1991, ``Brazil Slashes Money for 
     Project Aimed at Protecting Amazon.'' New York Times (January 
     1. 1999).
       14. Personal communications with Russian and Pacific Rim 
     NGO's.
       15. Emilia, Stevie. 1998. ``Crisis Forces Jakarta to 
     Sacrifice its Environmental Programs.'' Jakarta Post. (July 
     2, 1998).
       16. Colchester, Mark. Social Exclusion and Development 
     Domination: The Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest 
     Degradation in Guyana. World Rainforest Movement Campaigns 
     and News. www.wrm.org.

 Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Vitter

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Vitter:
       In the item relating to ``Internal Revenue Service-
     processing, assistance, and management'', insert after the 
     first dollar amount the following: ``(reduced by 
     $25,000,000)''.
       In the item relating to ``Federal Drug Control Programs-
     high intensity drug trafficking areas program'', insert after 
     the first dollar amount the following: ``(increased by 
     $25,000,000)''.

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It increases 
funding for high intensity drug trafficking areas, known as HIDTAs, by 
$25 million and reduces the IRS administration account by a like 
amount, $25 million. So it clearly is budget neutral.
  Mr. Chairman, the Antidrug Abuse Act of 1988 authorized the director 
of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to designate areas within 
the U.S. which exhibit serious drug trafficking problems as high 
intensity drug trafficking areas, HIDTAs. That designation does a few 
different things. Mainly, it provides additional Federal funds to 
facilitate cooperation between Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement officials to really go after in a very geared-up, 
coordinated way production, manufacture, transportation, distribution, 
and chronic use of illegal drugs.
  Since 1990, 31 areas in 40 States have been designated HIDTAs, and I 
really want to underscore this point for Members because the great 
majority of Members are directly impacted by this very successful HIDTA 
effort. Most Members are directly impacted by a HIDTA in their area.
  As I said, HIDTAs have been very successful, enormously successful, 
because they coordinate Federal, local,

[[Page H6643]]

State law enforcement. They are an amazingly important clearinghouse. 
Let me give an example from my area, the Gulf Coast HIDTA. It is 
located in my district, and in many other districts along the Gulf 
Coast, last year targeted 65 drug trafficking and money laundering 
organizations and successfully dismantled, really dismantled, 47. Some 
of these include long-standing organizations which have long been the 
targets of local law enforcement.
  What does that mean? It means a lot for my city, my State. New 
Orleans reports an average decrease in crime of about 15 percent. Five 
of our other six major cities show a decrease in the total crime index 
of 1 to 14 percent. Murder rates in five other cities have declined 5 
to 24 percent. National averages are 4 to 9 percent respectively.
  Now, the Gulf Coast HIDTA is not the only reason. We have been doing 
other things locally, but it is one important reason, because of the 
coordination, it provides for Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement.
  HIDTAs around the country continue to face new challenges, and we 
need to fund them properly and to keep up with the challenge. That is 
why I am afraid this budget is really inadequate. The President did not 
provide additional money over last year for HIDTAs, nor did this bill. 
I know the chairman and the ranking member want to continue to work on 
HIDTAs in the conference process, but I really think we really need to 
vote a bill out of the House that provides additional funding. So that 
is what my amendment would do, $25 million.
  The offset is the IRS administrative account. If we look at the IRS 
budget overall, the increase in this budget this year for the IRS is 
$231 million. So still after my amendment there would be a very 
significant increase in the IRS account, and we are talking about a 
total account of $7 billion. So certainly this is not going to do any 
damage to that account.
  When we look at IRS activity and their track record lately, certainly 
we are trying to make improvements with positive reform efforts; but 
certainly in the last full GAO report, which is 1999, there were some 
very glaring problems in the IRS. In one case it took 18 months for the 
IRS to correct an input error, and that resulted in a wrong assessment 
of $160,000 against a taxpayer who was really due a refund; 4,800 
employees hired to process taxes before the proper fingerprinting and 
other checks were made; on and on and on, some clear problems, abuses 
in the IRS.
  There are really two frames of mind about how to deal with that. Some 
people look at these gross problems and errors and want to throw more 
money at it. Personally, I look at these dramatic problems and say we 
need to show the IRS we mean business and penalize bad behavior, not 
reward it. But certainly in any case, even after my amendment, the IRS 
administrative account would get a very significant increase of $200 
million, a total budget of $7 billion. Certainly, I think in that 
context this shifting of $25 million from the IRS administration 
account to the HIDTAs, which is not getting any increase this year, 
which is very much on the front line of the war on drugs, is fully 
justified.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) has made a 
very good case for the HIDTAs, a case which I concur with entirely. I 
happen to be a strong supporter of HIDTAs. In fact, one of the first 
original HIDTAs, that is High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, was 
designated in Arizona. I work very closely with the law enforcement 
officials who manage that HIDTA in Arizona. I know the value that this 
HIDTA provides along the southwest border in helping us to interdict 
drugs in that area.
  There is a need for increased funding, in my view, for the HIDTAs. 
The problem that I have at this moment, and the reason we do not have 
additional amounts, is that we have asked the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy, the drug czar, who has the responsibility for these 
funds for managing this and making the grants to the HIDTAs, to come up 
with some criteria for us by which we can judge HIDTAs, the need for 
them, new ones being created, the ones that exist, whether they need 
additional funding or whether the problem has shifted and there may be 
some HIDTAs that actually require a reduction in funding. We do not 
have that criteria. We do not have a set of criteria that we can use to 
consider in a rational way how much additional funding is needed.
  The gentleman suggested $25 million. As he describes the problem, and 
it is enormous, $25 million may not be adequate. What is adequate?
  The other side of this amendment, of course, is taking the money out 
of the Internal Revenue Service. Now, the gentleman said it is huge, it 
is big, it is a big account; and it is. The dollar amount that he is 
taking out of here is also substantial. The responsibilities of the IRS 
that we have given them under the Reorganization Act that this Congress 
passed by an overwhelming majority a few years ago, the 
responsibilities we have given them to transform themselves and become 
more customer friendly, to focus more on filers and customer relations, 
those responsibilities are tremendous; and they have a reorganization 
requirement.
  They have two things. One, they need money for reorganization, and 
they need money for their technology modernization. This comes 
particularly out of the account for management processing, assistance, 
and management. This is where we have told them to become more customer 
friendly. We have already made a significant reduction in the last 
several years in the size of the IRS. I think it is justified, and I 
think the IRS needs to streamline its activities. We need to streamline 
the Tax Code to make it easier to file, but this would be a reduction 
of approximately 500 additional employees. That would mean people would 
wait longer for customer assistance. It would mean they would wait 
longer to get their refunds, to get questions answered about their 
filings of their tax returns.
  Is it legitimate that we should say it is more important to fight 
drugs than to do this? I do not have a simple answer to that. This bill 
attempts to address all of the requirements that we have within it in a 
way that meets the priorities in the best possible fashion. I said at 
the outset that we lacked funds to do everything that we would like in 
this legislation, but I think particularly at this time it would be 
inappropriate to take the money from this account, where Congress has 
acted, where Congress has said make this reorganization, where Congress 
has said meet these specific missions, IRS, to take the money from this 
account and put it into the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, as 
valuable as they are, without knowing exactly how that money should be 
allocated, what criteria we are going to use for the drug czar to 
reallocate that money.
  So I think it would be inappropriate for us to do that, and for that 
reason I must oppose the gentleman's amendment, as valuable though I 
think the idea of increasing HIDTA funding would be.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect the perspective and 
thoughts of the gentleman about the IRS. I just want to clarify. Even 
under the amendment, we would increase the IRS budget over last year 
over $200 million, and I presume we are not going to give them 200 
million more dollars and be laying off people.
  Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time, yes, actually we are. We are making a 
reduction because of the need for meeting current services, that is, 
the pay increases that all Federal employees will get and so forth. 
There actually is a reduction under our legislation, the number of 
people.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we had a very lively debate in the committee on this 
subject on HIDTA, and I want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Vitter) for his amendment. I think there is a problem here. I 
think we have the same problem out in the State of Washington. We have 
a crisis in my district with these meth labs, and this is a phenomena 
that I know that the chairman is well aware of in California where 
there is the same problem. It is a phenomena that is moving kind of 
from the West Coast to the East Coast.

[[Page H6644]]

  I am deeply concerned about it. In fact, the governor of the State of 
Washington, myself, and the prosecuting attorney of Pierce County, 
Washington, held a conference in our State and brought together all the 
law enforcement people, including the HIDTA people, and I personally 
talked to General McCaffrey about this because I am deeply concerned. 
These meth labs are a tremendous problem. Not only is this a 
devastating drug that has a terrible impact on the individuals but it 
also creates tremendous environmental problems, and the cleanup of 
these meth labs is a tremendous problem for the local communities.
  I believe that the budget this year for HIDTA at $192 million or 
thereabouts is inadequate. Now I understand that the chairman and the 
ranking member have a problem with the allocation here, and they 
probably would like to do more in this area, because I think we in the 
Congress think that HIDTA is a pretty decent program; and yet we are 
caught with this problem of the allocation. I would just urge the 
chairman and the ranking member, based on the debate we had in the 
committee, to please take a look at this as we go to conference, as we 
go through this process. If we get some additional money for this 
particular bill, I would certainly hope that HIDTA would be one of the 
areas that we would look at.
  I can certainly say that this has been a very successful program in 
Washington State, in the Northwest, and it is a program that needs some 
additional funding. I realize the administration did not request 
additional funding for it; but in my view, based on what I have seen 
out there with this crisis with these meth labs, and it is going all 
over the Northwest, we have to do more to deal with this problem. 
Again, I understand the amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Vitter) here, and I realize that taking the money out of the IRS is a 
difficult problem; but somehow in the process, before it is over, we 
have to do something to increase funding for HIDTA.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman 
from Louisiana. I want to congratulate him for his work in this and 
recognize an extraordinary problem that methamphetamine presents, not 
just to Louisiana and Arkansas, but really to the entire country and is 
expanding in the depth of its problems.
  In response to the gentleman from Arizona, and I appreciate his work 
on the committee, because he raises a couple of questions. The first 
thing that he raised is that there is not sufficient criteria for the 
development of a HIDTA, and who would be allocated a HIDTA. The 
gentleman from Washington indicated that the HIDTA is working very well 
in the State of Washington. My State, Arkansas, does not have a HIDTA 
program. We have applied for a HIDTA the right way, in my judgment, 
which is through the channels of General McCaffrey and the Drug Czar's 
office. I have met with him; we have met the criteria.
  Mr. Chairman, we have an extraordinary meth lab explosion in 
Arkansas; and we would like to be designated a HIDTA. They are 
reviewing that at the present time, because they have criteria. They 
have criteria that we have to meet. The difficulty is that whenever 
this goes to conference, we are going to have some people from various 
States saying, we want to legislatively write in the fact that this 
State, blank State, will be designated a HIDTA. So Congress will 
override the criteria that the Drug Czar has imposed. I would do that 
if I was in that meeting, probably, for Arkansas. I would like to have 
that prerogative. But we are trying to apply based upon that 
prerogative and that criteria that has been set.
  So this amendment is very important. Because if we get granted this 
HIDTA designation, the next thing they are going to say is, well, you 
have been designated, but there are not funds in order to assist 
Arkansas. So this amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana will assure 
that there is at least a larger pool of money, a very modest, greater 
pool of money that the States can use in their existing HIDTA programs 
as well as a new one like Arkansas that might be so designated.
  Just to give my colleagues an idea of the scope of the problem which 
many are already aware of, I serve on the Subcommittee on Crime. We 
have had hearings across this country: in California, we are going to 
have one in Kansas, we have had one in Arkansas. In Arkansas, we have 
an explosion of meth labs. But despite our explosion of meth labs, our 
law enforcement people say that 50 percent of our meth in Arkansas 
comes from California. So I am delighted that we give more money to 
California, to Washington and places that have this enormous 
overabundance of meth that is coming into States like Arkansas.
  Secondly is the enormous danger of this. We have had two law 
enforcement officials in my district shot when they were executing a 
search warrant on a meth lab. What is the reason for that? An addict 
testified as to the danger of meth and he said that using heroin, using 
heroin is like smoking a cigarette compared to the dangers and the 
effects of methamphetamines. An extraordinary statement, because it 
increases one's paranoia, it heightens one's senses, one's violence 
propensity, and that is why it is such an enormous danger to our young 
people and to our law enforcement.
  Mr. Chairman, this is money that is well invested. It is a very 
modest amount of money. I do agree with the gentleman that the IRS is 
doing an extraordinary job and they are working hard at their 
reorganization. But this is a small amount of money to a huge budget to 
the IRS versus a small amount of money that can make a significant 
difference to the HIDTA program.
  So I ask my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentleman from 
Louisiana. Again, I thank him for his work on this issue.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have worked on HIDTA since we created the HIDTAs back 
in the 1980s. I am a very enthusiastic supporter of HIDTAs. For those 
of my colleagues who may not be specifically knowledgeable of HIDTA, 
HIDTA is a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. We adopted the premise 
of HIDTAs in the drug reform bill in which we adopted the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy and the director, who is affectionately 
referred to as the Drug Czar. We did so in an effort to ensure that we 
had coordination not only among Federal agencies in fighting the drug 
problem and securing our communities from the scourge of drugs, but we 
did so for the purposes of ensuring that we had coordination of our 
assets that are deployed by the Federal, State and local governments. 
In fact, in my opinion, the biggest benefit in HIDTA is not the money, 
although the money is important, and it funds the intelligence effort 
that all levels can access so in that respect, it is critically 
important. But its greatest contribution, in my opinion, is the 
coordination between Federal, State and local law enforcement that it 
has brought.
  Mr. Chairman, it needs more money. Very frankly, I could support a 
sum greater than the gentleman from Louisiana offers in his amendment 
for adding to HIDTA.
  The fact of the matter is, however, we deal in a world of 
alternatives. Once one votes for a budget that, in my opinion, 
underfunds our ability to respond to the needs of our country, one is 
constricted in terms of what one can spend. Now, the fact of the matter 
is, in this bill, the chairman has funded the law enforcement component 
of this bill almost exactly at the President's request. He has done so 
with the recognition that we need to support law enforcement efforts to 
make sure our communities are safe.
  Now, I have not looked at the HIDTA problems in Louisiana, and I have 
been to Washington State with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) 
and with Mr. Brian Baird. I have talked with his law enforcement 
officials, have talked to them about the success of their existing 
HIDTA and the need to expand HIDTAs along the Route 5 corridor, U.S. 
Route 5 from Canada down to San Diego, which is obviously a major 
population area, and a major area of meth labs and other illegal drug 
activity.
  So the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Dicks) is absolutely 
correct,

[[Page H6645]]

Mr. Baird is correct, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) is 
correct. We need more resources.
  Now, having said that, it is not enough to say we need more 
resources. We need to say, where do we get those resources? I think we 
have sufficient resources, but if we combine the tax cuts and therefore 
adopt a budget substantially under the President's request, we have to 
squeeze somewhere. So where did the chairman squeeze? He squeezed, 
because he was required to, very hard on IRS.
  Now, it is very easy to say, well, we will cut IRS. Who here thinks 
IRS is a popular agency? Well, nobody raised their hand, got up and 
screamed and who will, so I presume the answer is really nobody. The 
fact of the matter is, though, we will not fund one HIDTA without the 
IRS. We will not fund one member of the Armed Forces without IRS. We 
will not fund an FBI agent without the IRS. That is to say, it is the 
agency that we have charged with the responsibility of collecting sums 
from all of us to fund services that we authorize and appropriate for.
  The gentleman is correct, as the chairman has pointed out. The IRS 
has a large sum of money, because it is a large agency. I will tell my 
friend, though, from Louisiana, he has come relatively recently to the 
Congress, that the IRS is 17,000 people less than it was 6 years ago. 
At the same time, we have enacted the Reform and Restructuring Act 
which said that the IRS needed to do more services and be more friendly 
to our customers. That was the right thing for us to do. We want the 
telephone answered more quickly, we want taxpayers' questions answered 
accurately; and when they have problems, we want them served 
appropriately. All of us support those objectives.
  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, in order to accomplish that objective, we 
have to have personnel to accomplish that. The IRS budget is 70 percent 
personnel. So that while a $25 million cut in a $8.3 billion budget 
seems like a small amount, relatively speaking, it is a significant 
amount when we understand that we have already cut $466 million from 
the request. A request that Mr. Rossotti who, by the way, is a 
Republican, so this is not a partisan issue, is a manager hired to 
manage, says this will undercut his ability to carry out the Reform and 
Restructuring Act.
  So I suggest to my friend from Louisiana that the solution here is, 
because we all agree that HIDTAs need more money, is not to take 
dollars out of the IRS and underfund it further and make it unable to 
perform the functions we expect of it, but to add additional sums so 
that we can reach the levels that the gentleman suggested, and indeed 
exceed those, so that we can take care of the needs of Louisiana, and 
take care of the needs of Washington State. Therefore, I would hope 
that we would not support the gentleman's amendment and reject it, but 
not reject the idea.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 560, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) 
will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to title I?


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Klink

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Klink:
       Page 4, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $950,000)''.
       Page 12, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $950,000)''.

  Mr. KLINK (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 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would take $950,000 from the 
Treasury Inspector General's account for tax administration and would 
move that sum over to the Customs Service to provide the Customs 
Service with funding to monitor the radioactivity in scrap metal that 
is being imported into the United States. This is a problem that has 
just recently come to our attention during field hearings with the 
steel industry in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and we would like to take 
some action on that.
  Currently, the United States has no standard to control the free 
release of radioactive contaminated scrap metal. Those metals are being 
recycled into consumer and industrial products and then are being sold 
on open commerce. Nor is there an international standard that tells us 
if there is a safe level of radioactivity in these metals that are 
recycled.
  There is tremendous public opposition to any radioactive metal being 
included in consumer products like the silverware that we eat with or 
the pots and pans that we cook with or the cans that our food may come 
in or baby carriage handles or braces on one's teeth, or belt buckles. 
The steel industry does not want any radioactive scrap metal in its 
blast furnaces because it could contaminate the entire steel mill and 
the cleanup could cost $15 million to $20 million if that occurs. We 
are asking for a relatively modest sum to be able to monitor this 
amount of money.
  As we decommission more and more of our nuclear weapons facilities 
around the world and our nuclear power plants around the world, there 
are literally hundreds of millions of tons of contaminated scrap metal 
that will have to be dealt with. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is 
in the process of seeing if a standard can be established.
  While this is underway, the Department of Energy has put a moratorium 
on the release of any contaminated metal. DOE is studying whether it is 
economical to have a dedicated steel facility that produces goods for 
the complex that will use this metal. I fully support those steps.
  However, in the meantime, there have been at least 50 incidents of 
undetected contaminated metals coming into this country from overseas. 
Currently, Customs agents at truck ports wear radiation detectors 
around their belts like a pager. These detectors are only sophisticated 
enough to detect the really hot items of 10 millirems or higher. The 
funds we are asking for today would allow for the purchase of portal 
monitors that trucks can drive through which can detect radiation 
levels as low as 1 millirem.
  Mr. Chairman, this program will not stop shipments of scrap metal 
from going to the recipients. It will, however, identify those 
shipments that are contaminated and will also provide the information 
necessary to determine whether importation of radioactive metals is a 
problem that deserves further attention.
  After one year, I will ask the Customs Service to provide a report to 
the Congress on the results of this radioactive test monitoring.
  Mr. Chairman, the American public, the American steel industry, and 
those who work in that steel industry deserve the same protections, 
regardless of the source of the metal that is going into these 
products. This amendment would provide the funds to make that happen, 
and I ask the chairman and the ranking member for their support of this 
amendment. It is a nonpartisan amendment, and it is one that is 
intended to protect the public and the workers in the steel industry.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes. I have mixed views about 
this. I understand what the gentleman is trying to do. I would just 
point out that this comes out of the Inspector General's account. This 
is the account that we regard as the one we expect to do the oversight 
for the IRS and all the other functions in Treasury.
  Now, in an account that has over $100 million, maybe losing $1 
million of that is not that significant. But we do not really know 
exactly what the impact of this will be in terms of their oversight 
functions.
  I am also a little unclear as to exactly, and I know the gentleman 
has

[[Page H6646]]

talked about it being a demonstration project, but I am a little 
unclear as to exactly how this would work, what the $950,000 is going 
to be used for.
  There have not been any hearings, as I understand it, in front of the 
Committee on Commerce. There has been no work done by the authorizing 
committee on this. I think this needs more information and more 
discussion before we would proceed with it.
  For that reason, I would just say that I think this amendment may be 
an inappropriate amendment at this point.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concerns. To 
address them, we have been working in the Committee on Commerce, and 
while we have not had hearings, we have been working on this in a 
bipartisan fashion trying to address this issue.
  We have a piece of legislation separate from this that is a 
bipartisan piece of legislation, the bipartisan Steel Caucus is in 
support of it, called the Scrap Act. We are trying to move that forward 
at this time.
  The figure we came up with is not one that was pulled out of the air, 
it is one that they tell us, for the two main ports that we have to 
address where we are most concerned, and these concerns are throughout 
the government, we are most concerned that this scrap would be coming 
in from Mexico and South America and the Far East. We can take care of 
those two main ports.
  The reason we chose this account, and I understand, I do not like to 
cut the Inspector General either, but this account was plussed up by $7 
million. We do not think that taking $950,000 from that account would 
be a problem. It is $7 million higher in 2001 than in 2000. I thank the 
gentleman for his courtesy.
  Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just note that 
in full committee, the gentleman may not be aware of this, but this 
account already was reduced by $2 million over the amount that was 
planned for. This is another $1 million out of that.
  In terms of meeting current services and paying the pay increases for 
the people that are already there doing the jobs of oversight, it will 
have an effect on that, there is no question about it. But I just raise 
these questions.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment raises an important issue 
which I come to the floor today to discuss. That is the overall issue 
of metals recycling in this country.
  I certainly support the gentleman on steel issues and these import 
questions, and think the intent of his amendment is worthwhile. But I 
want to come today and express some frustration.
  Being a representative of one of the major components of the 
Manhattan Project in this country, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where we won 
the Cold War and broke the back of communism with a nuclear buildup, we 
now have this challenge, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania well 
stated, of what to do with this nuclear legacy and how to turn this 
environmental liability around, and what to do with these assets.
  We have to reindustrialize these assets at some point, in some way. 
My frustration is that the Department of Energy announced a sweeping 
plan to tear down these buildings and melt the metals, and where 
science and the best intelligence that we can find shows that the 
levels of radiation are below any reasonable standard, then we could 
put that recycled metal back into the marketplace.
  That is where I thought we were when they began this 
reindustrialization effort and announced what they called a win-win-win 
situation for the American taxpayer. We could actually recycle the 
metal and help pay for the clean-up, because these buildings, these 
huge assets, cannot just sit there in a mothballed state. The 
maintenance cost is too high. We need to turn them around and put the 
land and buildings back into some kind of productive use.
  We have buildings in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, that are acres and acres 
and acres under one roof from the Manhattan Project that need to be 
turned over. We cannot just maintain them at this high cost. So there 
is a shared national interest in trying to clean up this environmental 
legacy.
  I just want to make sure that science and common sense drives this 
train, and that hysteria or some special interest groups do not end up 
winning the day on these issues.
  I want to say I am frustrated. I am frustrated because the Department 
of Energy on July 7 officially retreated from their own program, the 
one that Secretary Richardson rolled out as a win-win-win, and now they 
have retreated. They have said no recycling pending the study that may 
not take place for 2 years.
  I am all for the study, but all the studies that I have seen show 
that we get more radiation from salt substitute than we get from any of 
these things. Radiation is natural in our environment. Radiation we get 
from flying on airplanes. We get radiation from a variety of things.
  Radiation is not the issue, the level of radiation is the issue. If 
it is very, very, very low level radiation that is not anywhere near 
what we would get going to the dentist, it is ridiculous to halt it.
  What has happened in East Tennessee by halting it is people are now 
sent home with no pay pending all these studies, pending the outcomes 
in a program that DOE initiated.
  I would ask the administration to get its act together, to be 
consistent, at least to follow through on what they say, and do not 
just send workers, good and decent people in my region now, hundreds of 
them that are going to be sent home or they have been sent home 
indefinitely to just wait, and wait on what, I do not know.
  I called the Secretary today and he said he would meet me about it 
next week. I am asking for some answers. I am asking for consistency. I 
am asking for some solutions for the folks of East Tennessee and the 
Oak Ridge reservation that have been called on to turn these buildings 
around, because they are now left hanging because this administration 
cannot figure out exactly what it wants.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAMP. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I would look forward to working with my 
friend, the gentleman from Tennessee, because he brings to light a very 
real situation that we are faced with today. We are all in favor of 
getting these buildings cleaned up. The question is, the Federal 
government has not set a level, and we think a level should be set for 
those things that are volumetrically contaminated.
  We would work with the gentleman. I know he is very serious on this. 
We have worked together on other issues before. This amendment does not 
get to the gentleman's point. This is about those things that are 
imported from China, from Russia, from South America, that we do not 
know, and as the gentleman knows, 60 percent of steel that is produced 
today is recycled.
  They could be doing things over there that we do not know about. We 
want to catch it at our ports. It has nothing to do with the domestic 
content.
  Mr. WAMP. Reclaiming my time, I am in total agreement with that. I 
understand that. I am in support of that. I just use this opportunity 
to say, please, Administration, give us clear direction. Let our 
workers know, are we going to clean this up or not? If they do not want 
us to clean it up, what are we going to do with it, because we need a 
policy that says, let us clean up the Cold War legacy, let us put 
people to work and keep them to work until the job is done. Let us not 
pull the rug out from under them. They are left in limbo. Even over 
this very weekend that is in front of us, workers in East Tennessee do 
not know if they are supposed to go back to work or not.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I share the chairman's concern, as I expressed in the 
last amendment, about the offset. However, this is much less of an 
offset of a relatively modest number. I was trying to glean carefully 
what the chairman was saying. I am not going to oppose this amendment. 
I think the gentleman's amendment is a worthwhile objective.
  Again, I am hopeful that we will get the requisite number of dollars 
so we

[[Page H6647]]

can, in addition to the dollars the gentleman is seeking, which are 
relatively modest for this objective, we can add back into the 
Inspector General so we do not underfund that, because the chairman is 
absolutely correct, we cannot further decrease this account.
  Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Klink amendment. 
The funds in this amendment will be used to purchase monitoring 
equipment by the Customs Service to ensure that contaminated metal 
products do not enter the United States.
  Currently, Customs agents use radiation detectors to monitor possible 
contamination of products entering our country. However, the current 
equipment used by Customs agents is grossly inadequate. The current 
equipment employed cannot consistently detect radiation levels that are 
dangerous to human health. Consumers should not have to worry if their 
cars or their kitchen utensils are radioactive.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense, nonpartisan amendment that my 
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, has offered. This is an 
issue of public health and consumer safety. We can all agree that 
American consumers should be confident that the products they buy are 
safe.
  By giving the Customs Service the tools to better do their jobs, we 
can be sure that products entering the country are safe and free from 
contamination.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the most powerful tool the Federal government has to 
make our communities more livable is not necessarily a rule, 
regulation, or a mandate placed upon the public, but simply to play by 
the same rules as the rest of America, to have Federal agencies like 
the United States Post Office obey the same rules and regulations that 
we require homeowners and businesses to follow.
  There are over 40,000 post offices across America. They are both the 
symbols of how we connect to one another and of a very real part of 
each and every community. Time and time again we find that the post 
office on Main Street anchors the business opportunity. It is a source 
of pride for people in local communities. Often it is an historic 
structure.
  Each of these post offices is an opportunity for the Federal 
government to promote livability by being a more constructive partner. 
While there are many legitimate efforts and real progress by the postal 
service in some areas, I see too many examples where the post office 
has fallen short of the mark.
  A good example is to be found in my own hometown of Portland, Oregon, 
where land use planning has been a hallmark for a generation. There is 
perhaps no American community that has worked harder to manage growth. 
Most recently, our community has finished a 20-40 growth plan to 
prepare for growth over the next 40 years. It involved over 17,000 
citizens, businesses, and all the local governments for 5 years.
  Yet, the postal service, with over 500 facilities in a fast-growing 
region, acknowledging that it is playing serious catch-up, made no 
attempt to coordinate its facilities with the planning of the rest of 
the community.
  Knowing where growth would be concentrated in the years ahead would 
have enabled the postal service to make strategic facilities decisions 
in a way that would take advantage of change, rather than trying to 
continue to play catch-up. The Federal government cannot afford to 
pursue independent strategies on its own. Opportunities in this case 
were lost for coordinated planning to avoid mistakes and save money, 
time, and effort.
  Too often the postal service uses its exemption from local land use 
laws to avoid making investments that would be prudent not just for the 
community but for its own customers. Again, in my own community, I had 
a post office under construction where the city received a 
communication from the postal service that they would not cooperate 
with us because they were immune from all local laws.
  Despite the fact that any other business or the city itself would 
have been required to, for instance, put in pedestrian sidewalks, the 
postal service decided they would not even accede to this modest 
requirement. We got them to put in half the sidewalks only by 
threatening to block the entrance to their facility.
  To assist the post office in partnering with communities, I have 
introduced the Community Partnership Act, which would require the 
postal service to obey local land use laws and planning laws and 
environmental regulations and to work with local citizens before they 
make decisions that could have a wrenching effect on communities.
  It is ironic that our postal service gives the public more input into 
what version of the Elvis stamp we are going to print than on decisions 
that could be literally life or death for small town America.
  I am pleased that our legislation, H.R. 670, has a Senate companion 
bill by Senators Baucus and Jeffords, and that they have attracted a 
broad coalition of supporters, including Governors, mayors, cities and 
counties, a host of preservation action groups, and I believe is the 
only environmental priority of both the National Association of 
Homebuilders and the Sierra Club.
  With its 240 bipartisan sponsors, this bill would easily pass if it 
were brought to the floor for a vote. I will continue to work with the 
bill's supporters on and off the Hill, and hope that we can achieve 
floor action.
  But in the meantime, I would hope that the leadership of this Chamber 
and the conferees on the Postal-Treasury bill would at least include 
language that would encourage the postal service to, at a minimum, make 
public their capital plans for communities as a result of their 5-year 
capital investment plan.

                              {time}  1630

  In Blackshear, Georgia, last year, the public was notified that their 
post office might be moved in less than a month. The service management 
delivered the verdict that it would be closed, a new one would be 
built, and a new site was chosen on a highway away from town.
  Now a great fight has ensued with the Rotary Club, the chamber of 
commerce, the American Legion, their local historical society, both the 
Republicans and the Democrats joining with over 1,000 postal patrons in 
opposing the move.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Blumenauer was allowed to proceed for 10 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, this type of pitched battle does not 
have to occur if the postal service would start working with our 
communities earlier. I would hope that this committee would bring its 
good offices together to encourage that common sense approach.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word simply to say 
to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who focuses on the 
quality of life in our communities more than any other Member of this 
House and who raises a very important issue. We have also discussed 
this in our committee. Obviously, there is discussion between ourselves 
and the authorizing committees. But I want to assure the gentleman that 
I intend to give this very great attention.
  I look forward to working with the chairman on this issue to see if 
we can come up with language which will encourage, maybe will not go 
further than that, a better performance with respect to the post office 
cooperation with local communities to ensure the objectives the 
gentleman spoke of.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        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

[[Page H6648]]

     section 2401 of title 39, United States Code, $96,093,000, of 
     which $67,093,000 shall not be available for obligation until 
     October 1, 2001: 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 fiscal year 2001.

  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would 
like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman 
Kolbe).
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend the chairman and the ranking 
member for increasing funding that they have included in this bill for 
firearm-related issues, specifically: $62.2 million to expand the 
Integrated Violence Reduction Strategy; 76.4 million to expand the 
Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, which will expand to 12 more 
cities, a total of 50 now, which includes the rapid gun tracing 
analysis to allow State and local law enforcement and new ATF agents to 
work in a task force operation with local law enforcement for illegal 
arms investigation; $26.4 million to support ATF's Ballistic 
Identification System; and $25 million for a nationwide comprehensive 
gun tracing.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILBRAY. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Bilbray) for underscoring the fact that this bill is about making our 
laws work for the safety of all citizens and especially for our 
children.
  All the laws of the world that we might pass are not going to make a 
difference if we do not put an effort behind them to enforce them, and 
that is one of the things that I think every Member of this House 
believes in and can support, regardless of what side of the aisle we 
are on and wherever we might stand on the issue of gun use and gun 
ownership.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to also thank the gentleman 
from Arizona for showing the type of bipartisanship and the ability to 
set politics aside. I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), 
ranking member, ought to be commended along with the gentleman from 
Arizona for working on the common goal of allocating additional funds 
to enforce existing laws in combatting gun violence.
  As a supporter of moderate gun safety legislation measures in the 
past, and in fact the items that are being discussed by the Senate-
House Conference Committee at this time, I think we all can agree that 
it is important that we allocate necessary funds to those agencies 
tasked with enforcing existing laws. It has been an important goal of 
mine and many of my colleagues that we focus on those laws that combat 
gun violence and provide additional funding to the Federal, local, and 
State agencies in charge of enforcement. The gentleman has seized this 
opportunity with this bill through this appropriation process to 
achieve this goal, and I commend the gentleman for it, and his 
committee and his ranking member.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, I wrote a letter to the 
gentleman from Arizona regarding this issue last year, and I will 
submit the letter for the Record.
  But I just want to stop a second and say to the chairmen and ranking 
members, during these appropriation processes, many Members will stand 
up on the floor and talk about provisions that were not included in the 
legislation or in the appropriations bill.
  I just thought it was important for me as just one Member of this 
body to stand up and include a ``thank you'' for having this funding 
and this focus there. I look forward to working with the committee at 
reducing gun violence by implementing common sense gun safety laws, but 
more importantly in focusing on enforcing those laws and making them 
actually work.
  Mr. Chairman, the letter I referred to is as follows:

                                         House of Representatives,


                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, April 7, 2000.
     Hon. Jim Kolbe,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and 
         General Government, Committee on Appropriations, Rayburn 
         HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kolbe: I am requesting your support in the 
     Fiscal Year 2001 Treasury, Postal Service and General 
     Government Appropriations Act to increase funds for those 
     programs designed to reduce youth gun violence, prosecute 
     criminals who commit crimes using a firearm, and enforce 
     existing gun laws.
       While I support moderate gun safety measures being 
     discussed in the Senate-House Conference Committee, such as 
     requiring trigger locks on new guns and to close the loophole 
     on background checks on individuals who purchase firearms at 
     gun shows. I also believe it is essential that we focus on 
     those existing laws that combat gun violence and provide 
     additional funds to those federal, local and state agencies 
     in charge of enforcing these laws.
       I understand the difficult choices that need to be made in 
     the current era of operating under a balanced budget, but it 
     is my belief that a top priority during the upcoming 
     appropriation process should be to allocate additional 
     funding for the Department's of Justice and Treasury. 
     Specific funds that will enable law enforcement agents to 
     continue implementing and administering those laws that will 
     enable law enforcement agents to continue implementing and 
     administering those laws that will keep firearms out of the 
     hands of felons and potential criminals. Additionally, 
     increasing funds to hire new prosecutors and to expand 
     intensive firearm prosecutions will aid in keeping these law 
     breaking criminals off the streets.
       As the Senate-House Conference Committee debate the issues 
     surrounding gun control, it is important that this Congress 
     work concurrently by allocating funds to enforce existing 
     laws. This is a bipartisan issue that can lead to real 
     results and I would like to assist in any way to bring these 
     goals forward.
       Mr. Chairman, please feel free to contact me for any 
     additional information. Thank you for your consideration of 
     this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Brian P. Bilbray,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for purposes 
in engaging in a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from Arizona 
(Chairman Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I will be happy 
to engage in a colloquy.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his committee's work in protecting many 
important priorities in this bill. I also want to express my gratitude 
for his generosity and patience regarding a matter of great importance 
to my district and the many districts that have point-of-entry border 
crossings into Canada.
  I would like to ask the gentleman from Arizona if he would agree to 
protect the language on rural border staffing and hours of operation as 
this legislation moves forward and if he will agree to work with me to 
ensure that the hours of operation at the Pittsburgh-New Hampshire 
border station and all such rural crossings reflect the security 
concerns and the concerns of many citizens who depend on open and 
accessible borders.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BASS. I certainly yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Bass) for the issue that he has raised and the efforts 
that he has made to make my subcommittee and our staff aware of the 
problems that exist along his border.
  I share his concerns, both about the security and about operational 
issues on the border, and I look forward to working with the gentleman 
as this bill moves forward through the conference.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Arizona for that commitment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       This title may be cited as the ``Postal Service 
     Appropriations Act, 2001''.

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title III 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?
  There was no objection.

[[Page H6649]]

  The text of title III is 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; $390,000: 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); 
     not to exceed $19,000 for official entertainment expenses, to 
     be available for allocation within the Executive Office of 
     the President, $52,135,000: Provided, That $9,072,000 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, $10,286,470 to be expended and accounted for as 
     provided by 3 U.S.C. 105, 109, 110, and 112-114.


                         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.


                   White House Repair and Restoration

       For the repair, alteration, and improvement of the 
     Executive Residence at the White House, $658,000, to remain 
     available until expanded, for projects for required 
     maintenance, safety and health issues, Presidential 
     transition, telecommunications infrastructure repair, and 
     continued preventive maintenance.

 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; $3,664,000.


                           Operating Expenses

       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; $354,000: 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 of Economic Advisers 
     in carrying out its functions under the Employment Act of 
     1946 (15 U.S.C. 1021), $3,997,000.

                      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, $4,030,000.

                       National Security Council


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the National Security Council, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $7,148,000.

                        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 $41,185,000, 
     of which $8,893,000 shall remain available until September 
     30, 2002, for a capital investment plan which provides for 
     the continued modernization of the information technology 
     infrastructure.

                    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, $67,143,000, 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, 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 Committees on 
     Appropriations or the Committees on Veterans' Affairs or 
     their subcommittees: Provided further, That the preceding 
     shall not apply to printed hearings released by the 
     Committees on Appropriations or the Committees on Veterans' 
     Affairs.

                 Office of National Drug Control Policy


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy; for research activities pursuant to the 
     Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 
     1998 (title VII of division C of Public Law 105-277); not to 
     exceed $8,000 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, $24,759,000, of which 
     $2,100,000 shall remain available until expended, consisting 
     of $1,100,000 for policy research and evaluation, and 
     $1,000,000 for the National Alliance for Model State Drug 
     Laws: Provided, 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.


                Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses for the Counterdrug Technology 
     Assessment Center for research activities pursuant to the 
     Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 
     1998 (title VII of Division C of Public Law 105-277), 
     $29,750,000, which shall remain available until expended, 
     consisting of $16,000,000 for counternarcotics research and 
     development projects, $13,050,000 for continued operation of 
     the technology transfer

[[Page H6650]]

     program, and $700,000 for a grant to the United States 
     Olympic Committee for its anti-doping program: Provided, That 
     the $16,000,000 for counternarcotics research and development 
     projects shall be available for transfer to other Federal 
     departments or agencies.

                     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, $192,000,000 for drug control activities consistent 
     with the approved strategy for each of the designated High 
     Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, of which no less than 51 
     percent shall be transferred to State and local entities for 
     drug control activities, which shall be obligated within 120 
     days of the date of the enactment of this Act: Provided, That 
     up to 49 percent, to remain available until September 30, 
     2002, may be transferred to Federal agencies and departments 
     at a rate to be determined by the Director: Provided further, 
     That, of this latter amount, $1,800,000 shall be used for 
     auditing services.


                        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 105-277, 
     $219,000,000, 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, $185,000,000 
     shall be to support a national media campaign, as authorized 
     in the Drug-Free Media Campaign Act of 1998: Provided 
     further, That of the funds provided, $30,000,000 shall be to 
     continue a program of matching grants to drug-free 
     communities, as authorized in the Drug-Free Communities Act 
     of 1997: Provided further, That of the funds provided, 
     $1,000,000 shall be available to the Director for transfer as 
     a grant to the National Drug Court Institute: Provided 
     further, That of the funds provided, $3,000,000 shall be 
     available for transfer to, or reimbursement of, other Federal 
     departments and agencies to support the operations of the 
     Counterdrug Intelligence Executive Secretariat.
       This title may be cited as the ``Executive Office 
     Appropriations Act, 2001''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title III?
  If not, the Clerk will read.

                     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, $4,158,000.

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of title IV 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?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of title IV is as follows:

                      Federal Election Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, 
     $40,240,000, of which no less than $4,689,500 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.

                   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, $25,058,000: 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

                        Real Property Activities


                         Federal Buildings Fund

                 limitations on availability of revenue

                     (including transfer of funds)

       To carry out the purpose of the Fund established pursuant 
     to section 210(f ) of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 490(f )), 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 $5,272,370,000 
     of which (1) $490,592,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for repairs and alterations which includes 
     associated design and construction services, of which 
     $290,000,000 shall be available for basic repairs and 
     alterations: Provided, That funds made available in any 
     previous Act in the Federal Buildings Fund for Repairs and 
     Alterations shall, for prospectus projects, be limited to the 
     amount identified for each project, except each project in 
     any previous Act may be increased by an amount not to exceed 
     10 percent unless advance approval is obtained from the 
     Committees on Appropriations of a greater amount: 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 necessary to meet the minimum standards for 
     security in accordance with current law and in compliance 
     with the reprogramming guidelines of the appropriate 
     Committees of the House and Senate: 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, 2002, 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 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; (2) 
     $185,369,000 for installment acquisition payments including 
     payments on purchase contracts which shall remain available 
     until expended; (3) $2,944,905,000 for rental of space which 
     shall remain available until expended; and (4) $1,580,909,000 
     for building operations which shall remain available until 
     expended, of which $500,000 shall be available to conduct a 
     site selection analysis for a replacement facility for the 
     National Center for Environmental Prediction of the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 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, 
     as amended, has not been approved, except that necessary 
     funds may be expended for each project for required expenses 
     for the development of a proposed prospectus: 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 
     revenues and collections and any other sums accruing to this 
     Fund during fiscal year 2001, 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 
     $5,272,370,000 shall remain in the Fund and shall not be 
     available for expenditure except as authorized in 
     appropriations Acts.


                           GENERAL ACTIVITIES

                         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 responsibilities 
     relating to automated data management, telecommunications, 
     information resources management,

[[Page H6651]]

     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, $115,434,000, of which $14,659,000 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided, That none of 
     the funds appropriated from this Act shall be available to 
     convert the Old Post Office at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue in 
     Northwest Washington, D.C., from office use to any other use 
     until a comprehensive plan, which shall include street-level 
     retail use, has been approved by the Committees on 
     Appropriations, the House Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, and the Senate Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works: Provided further, That no funds from this Act 
     shall be available to acquire by purchase, condemnation, or 
     otherwise the leasehold rights of the existing lease with 
     private parties at the Old Post Office prior to the approval 
     of the comprehensive plan by the Committees on 
     Appropriations, the House Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, and the Senate Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works.


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     and services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $34,520,000: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $15,000 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, 
     $2,517,000: 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 SERVICES ADMINISTRATION--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       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).
       Sec. 402. Funds available to the General Services 
     Administration shall be available for the hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles.
       Sec. 403. Funds in the Federal Buildings Fund made 
     available for fiscal year 2001 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.
       Sec. 404. No funds made available by this Act shall be used 
     to transmit a fiscal year 2002 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 2002 request must be accompanied by a standardized 
     courtroom utilization study of each facility to be 
     constructed, replaced, or expanded.
       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 that 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).
       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.
       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.
       Sec. 408. Section 411 of Public Law 106-58 is amended by 
     striking ``April 30, 2001'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``April 30, 2002''.

                     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, $28,857,000, 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.

 Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental 
                           Policy Foundation


   Federal Payment to Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in 
                National Environmental Policy Foundation

       For payment to the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and 
     Excellence in National Environmental Policy Trust Fund, to be 
     available for the purposes of Public Law 102-252, $2,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.


                 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 1998, $1,250,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

              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 archived Federal 
     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, 
     $195,119,000: 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.


                        Repairs and Restoration

       For the repair, alteration, and improvement of archives 
     facilities, and to provide adequate storage for holdings, 
     $5,650,000, to remain available until expended.


        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, as amended, $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, $9,684,000.

                     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, $93,471,000; and in addition 
     $101,986,000 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, of which $10,500,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for the cost of automating the 
     retirement recordkeeping systems: Provided, That the 
     provisions of this appropriation shall not affect the 
     authority to use applicable trust funds as provided by 
     sections 8348(a)(1)(B) and 8909(g) of title 5, United States 
     Code: 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 2001, accept donations of 
     money, property, and personal

[[Page H6652]]

     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, $1,360,000; and in 
     addition, not to exceed $9,745,000 for administrative 
     expenses to audit, investigate, and provide other oversight 
     of 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) 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 and the 
     Act of August 19, 1950 (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; $10,319,000.

                        United States Tax Court


                         Salaries and Expenses

         For necessary expenses, including contract reporting and 
     other services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $37,305,000: 
     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, 2001''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title IV?


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Quinn

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

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Quinn:

                               H.R. 4871

       In the item relating to ``General Services Administration--
     federal buildings fund--limitations on availability of 
     revenue''--
       (1) after the first and last dollar amounts, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,600,000)'';
       (2) redesignate paragraphs (1) through (4) as paragraphs 
     (2) through (5), respectively; and
       (3) before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated), insert the 
     following:

     (1) $3,600,000 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 York:
       Buffalo, U.S. courthouse, $3,600,000;

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona reserves a point of order.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to urge my colleagues to 
support funding for courthouse construction projects in the fiscal year 
2001 Treasury, Postal and General Government Appropriations bill.
  Specifically, I want to highlight a local concern of ours up in 
Buffalo, New York, and ask that we consider providing $3.6 million for 
site acquisition and design work on a Federal courthouse in my district 
in western New York.
  The President's fiscal year 2001 budget resolution includes funding 
for eight Federal courthouse projects nationwide, totalling over $480 
million. However, the bill before us today contains no funding for 
courthouse construction projects.
  The Administrative Office of the United States Courts has ranked the 
project in Buffalo, New York, as seventh highest as a priority across 
the country, seventh highest; and yet it has not been included in the 
President's budget.
  So I have actively lobbied colleagues of ours up in New York, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and others, to assist us in 
making certain that people here in our Nation's capital know of the 
importance. Unfortunately, because of tight budget constraints, our 
pleas have not been answered.
  So I would like to take this opportunity today to stress the 
importance of the project and to ask the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe), the distinguished chairman, to agree to work with us on this 
project.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. QUINN. Certainly, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New York 
yielding to me, and I appreciate the comments that he has made.
  I share the concern that the gentleman has, first, that we are not 
able to do any of the courthouse funding and construction that we would 
like to do. We have a significant need for infrastructure in this 
country, and the longer we postpone building courthouses, the more 
difficult it gets. So I am concerned about that. I hope that perhaps an 
additional allocation of funds might make it possible for us to do some 
of the courthouse construction.
  We also know that courthouse construction is a priority for a number 
of Members whose districts are affected by that. Buffalo, while it is 
number six on the priority list for the courts, was not included in one 
of the seven projects which the administration recommended be funded, a 
moot point, as I said, because we did not recommend funding any of 
these.
  But I look forward very much to working with the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Quinn) and with other Members of his delegation as we move 
forward on the construction to be sure that this priority that the 
courts have held for this is adhered to and that we are able to fund 
this in a timely fashion.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). I only want to conclude by saying that I 
appreciate the tough, tough job that he has with these budget 
constraints, and everybody has these concerns. But I appreciate the 
time of the gentleman from Arizona and the efforts of the full 
committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Are there further amendments?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason I do so is, I understand that the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) is on his way. He is going to offer an 
amendment and withdraw it. But he wants to make the point similar to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) with reference to the FDA 
consolidation at White Oak, which is in his district.
  The President included over $100 million for the FDA consolidation in 
his request. That is a consolidation which was supported by the Reagan 
administration, by the Bush administration, and now the Clinton 
administration to save very substantial dollars in terms of leases that 
exist all over the Washington metropolitan region with respect to the 
FDA.
  Some of those leaseholds are very aged and very inefficient. The fact 
that FDA is spread over such a wide area leads to a lack of efficiency 
in the operations of its responsibilities.
  I know the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), when he gets here, 
will make it very clear that this is something that we think is 
supported in a bipartisan fashion.

[[Page H6653]]

  This is an item that was not included in the budget, as was the 
Buffalo courthouse project that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) 
just referred to because of the fact that we had insufficient funds. 
However, I know that the administration will be looking very carefully 
at this bill as it moves through the process and is very supportive of 
adding the FDA money back in as it is in adding the courthouse money 
back in as well as I know the chairman is. So I am hopeful that we will 
have the requisite dollars to get there.
  The facility in question, which, again, is in the district of the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) is a facility which is vitally 
needed. It is a facility that has been in this administration's plans 
and certainly the Bush administration's in terms of planning.
  To delay this, as I said in my opening comments, will cost millions 
of dollars because it will prolong the payment to leaseholds and 
leasehold expenses as we fail to consolidate and provide space at the 
White Oak site.
  The particular project in question is a little over $100 million for 
lab space for FDA and additional office space as well. It will be a 
more efficient and effective use of space than currently exists.

                              {time}  1645

  So that I would hope that we could see that amount added to the bill 
at the appropriate time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman from Maryland, I know, 
is trying very well to use up some time here while he is waiting for 
his colleague to arrive, I would just suggest we do have one Member 
here who does have a colloquy prepared, if he would like to yield back.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, 
and I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill directs the U.S. Customs Service 
that it shall not, in the event of a reorganization of field 
operations, reduce the level of service to the area served by the port 
of Racine, Wisconsin, below the level of service provided in the year 
2000.
  As the gentleman from Arizona knows, earlier this year, the U.S. 
Customs Service issued a notice of proposed rulemaking announcing their 
intention to close down their operations in Racine, Wisconsin. 
Unfortunately, the U.S. Customs Service continues to disregard the 
Racine community and the negative impact this proposal would have on 
southeastern Wisconsin.
  I thank the gentleman for recognizing the need for continued Customs 
Service in Racine and including this requirement in the underlying 
bill. I want to take this opportunity to clarify that Racine will 
receive no change in service under any proposal put forth by the U.S. 
Customs Service.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from 
Wisconsin for his work in this area. In fact, I can say with absolute 
certainty, no issue in this bill has been raised more times by any 
Member in this body than this issue has by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Ryan). So his defense of the interests of Racine, Wisconsin have 
been tremendous.
  I appreciate the comments that he has made and understand what he is 
talking about, and I am very pleased that we could include statutory 
language, which I believe addresses this issue for him.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman from Arizona for his support and his efforts to address this 
very important matter.
  I would just like to say, I have discussed this matter several times 
on several occasions with the gentleman from Arizona and I really 
appreciate the professionalism and the courtesy that has been extended 
toward me in this matter, and I want to thank the gentleman from 
Arizona on behalf of the residents of Racine, Wisconsin. This is 
exciting for us and we really appreciate all of the gentleman's help.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Wynn

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Wynn:
       In title IV, add at the end (before the short title) the 
     following section:
       Sec. 6__. Of the amounts appropriated in title IV of this 
     Act for the account ``General Services Administration--Real 
     Property Activities--federal buildings fund--limitation on 
     availability of revenue'', $101,000,000 is transferred and 
     made available for the design and construction of laboratory 
     facilities for the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 
     Food and Drug Administration.

  Mr. WYNN (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 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) reserves a point 
of order.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) is recognized for 5 minutes in 
support of his amendment.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I begin by thanking my colleague from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for holding the fort for me, as it were. This is a 
very important amendment to my district; very important to the entire 
State of Maryland. It deals with the consolidation of the Food and Drug 
Administration at a location in Montgomery County, Maryland, known as 
White Oak.
  Currently, the FDA has approximately 39 different buildings in 21 
different locations, housing 6,000 employees. The purpose of this 
project was to consolidate those buildings, employees and locations 
into one site, the former Naval Surface Warfare Center in White Oak in 
my district. Importantly, this amendment would allow for the 
construction and design of a 100,000-square-foot center for drug 
evaluation and research. This is a very important laboratory in the 
overall work of the Food and Drug Administration.
  Equally important, or perhaps more importantly, the consolidation 
would result in significant savings. Specifically, we can save $200 
million in lease costs over a 10-year period if we pass this amendment, 
which would allow for the construction of the Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research Laboratory.
  In addition to serving the purposes of the Food and Drug 
Administration, this project will also help fill a void left in my 
district with the closure of the Naval Surface Warfare Center. As my 
colleagues know, in the course of base closings some facilities were no 
longer needed. And in the process of determining which facilities were 
not needed, we also developed programs and processes which would 
basically say that while we are closing this facility, we are looking 
at other options. One of the options that was considered and, in fact, 
agreed upon, was to consolidate the Food and Drug Administration at 
this site. It is a very beautiful campus-like setting, a wooded 
facility that could easily house the Food and Drug Administration in an 
appropriate setting which concentrates and brings together all of their 
facilities.
  We think this is a very important project, but we also understand 
that no construction projects were funded by the committee, and we are 
sensitive to the fact that we would not be given an inordinate 
preference in this case. I raise the amendment for purposes of 
increasing the profile of this particular issue in the hopes that the 
chairman would consider this project in the course of discussions in 
conference. I do not intend to press the amendment, but I believe this 
is an important project for the country in terms of consolidating the 
Food and Drug Administration, it is an important project for the 
community in Montgomery County and the Washington region in terms of 
having these facilities consolidated in an effective way and developing 
this new laboratory, and it is important for the taxpayers in terms of 
saving significant lease costs.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WYNN. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Before 
he

[[Page H6654]]

got to the floor here, the gentleman's colleague, the distinguished 
ranking member of this subcommittee, spoke eloquently about the 
project, and I concur.
  This is a project that we have looked at very closely. There is no 
question that the consolidation of the Food and Drug Administration is 
badly needed, and we have actually started that process. To me, it is a 
great disappointment that our bill requires the interruption of that 
process of consolidation. This is a very long-term process.
  We do hope that in conference, if funds are made available, that we 
would be able to move this project forward into the second phase, and 
certainly we do understand the importance of this consolidation. So I 
appreciate the gentleman's rising and making us very aware of this and 
bringing this again to our attention.
  Mr. WYNN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
his thoughts.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WYNN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. My 
colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), has worked 
tirelessly on this project and very effectively on this project. As the 
chairman of the subcommittee has indicated, there is no controversy 
with respect to doing this project, we just have to find the money to 
do it.
  I appreciate the gentleman's raising this issue, and I assure him 
that I will be working closely with the chairman to see that before 
this process is over that, hopefully, we get the requisite funds so 
that this project can be fully funded.
  Mr. WYNN. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Chairman, I certainly 
understand the considerations, and I thank the chairman and my 
colleague for their cooperation.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Herger) 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. 4871) 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, 2001, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________