[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.
____________________