[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 95 (Thursday, July 20, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H6663-H6710]
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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4871.

                              {time}  1804


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) had been postponed and title V was open for 
amendment at any point.
  Pursuant to the order of the House today, the previous order of the 
House

[[Page H6664]]

shall be corrected to read, an amendment by ``Mr. Davis of Virginia, 
regarding Federal contracts.''
  Are there further amendments to title V?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee:
       Page 64, after line 8, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 521. Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of each agency 
     funded under this Act shall submit to the Congress a report 
     that discloses--
       (1) any agency activity related to the collection or review 
     of singular data, or the creation of aggregate lists that 
     include personally identifiable information, about 
     individuals who access any Internet site of the agency; and
       (2) any agency activity related to entering into agreements 
     with third parties, including other government agencies, to 
     collect, review, or obtain aggregate lists or singular data 
     containing personally identifiable information relating to 
     any individual's access or viewing habits to nongovernmental 
     Internet sites.

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) reserves a point 
of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a privacy amendment we are offering to assure 
ourselves that Congress is made aware of privacy violations or concerns 
that arise from agencies' review of citizens' actions on the Internet. 
What we have fashioned here is a relatively simple amendment that will 
require these agencies, under Treasury and others subject to these 
appropriations, to report to Congress of any monitoring activities that 
these agencies are involved in on our use of Internet sites.
  Now, what has indicated that this is appropriate is both the 
proliferation of our use of the Internet and our citizens' use of the 
Internet, but also some legitimate concerns we have of some of the 
agencies' activity in monitoring citizens' actions on the Internet.
  For instance, we have been told that the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy had placed cookies on sites that would essentially allow 
tracking of personal identifiable information and how people surf or 
travel through the Internet.
  There are very legitimate privacy concerns that Congress ought to be 
aware of before those agency monitoring activities are allowed to 
continue. We know about the explosion of the Internet; we also are 
aware of the potential explosion in the violation of citizens' privacy 
if we do not ride herd on potentially problematic privacy violations. 
So what our amendment would seek to do is simply require the agencies 
to notify Congress of the nature of these activities by Federal 
agencies.
  Our people are very concerned and increasingly concerned about 
privacy on the Internet and otherwise, and it is certainly appropriate 
that we in Congress as the elected officials know about those potential 
privacy violations by our own government. This amendment would, in 
fact, make sure that these agencies told the elected officials about 
those privacy violations if they were occurring, or at least allow us 
to determine what should be or should not be allowed in monitoring 
Internet access by our citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a basic, fundamental American right. Let us 
pass this amendment. I hope the chairman actually would allow it so 
that we can make sure in Congress that privacy rights of citizens are 
not being violated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                Departments, Agencies, and Corporations

       Sec. 601. Funds appropriated in this or any other Act may 
     be used to pay travel to the United States for the immediate 
     family of employees serving abroad in cases of death or life 
     threatening illness of said employee.
       Sec. 602. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any 
     other Act for fiscal year 2001 shall obligate or expend any 
     such funds, unless such department, agency, or 
     instrumentality has in place, and will continue to administer 
     in good faith, a written policy designed to ensure that all 
     of its workplaces are free from the illegal use, possession, 
     or distribution of controlled substances (as defined in the 
     Controlled Substances Act) by the officers and employees of 
     such department, agency, or instrumentality.
       Sec. 603. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the 
     maximum amount allowable during the current fiscal year in 
     accordance with section 16 of the Act of August 2, 1946 (60 
     Stat. 810), for the purchase of any passenger motor vehicle 
     (exclusive of buses, ambulances, law enforcement, and 
     undercover surveillance vehicles), is hereby fixed at $8,100 
     except station wagons for which the maximum shall be $9,100: 
     Provided, That these limits may be exceeded by not to exceed 
     $3,700 for police-type vehicles, and by not to exceed $4,000 
     for special heavy-duty vehicles: Provided further, That the 
     limits set forth in this section may not be exceeded by more 
     than 5 percent for electric or hybrid vehicles purchased for 
     demonstration under the provisions of the Electric and Hybrid 
     Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976: 
     Provided further, That the limits set forth in this section 
     may be exceeded by the incremental cost of clean alternative 
     fuels vehicles acquired pursuant to Public Law 101-549 over 
     the cost of comparable conventionally fueled vehicles.
       Sec. 604. Appropriations of the executive departments and 
     independent establishments for the current fiscal year 
     available for expenses of travel, or for the expenses of the 
     activity concerned, are hereby made available for quarters 
     allowances and cost-of-living allowances, in accordance with 
     5 U.S.C. 5922-5924.
       Sec. 605. Unless otherwise specified during the current 
     fiscal year, no part of any appropriation contained in this 
     or any other Act shall be used to pay the compensation of any 
     officer or employee of the Government of the United States 
     (including any agency the majority of the stock of which is 
     owned by the Government of the United States) whose post of 
     duty is in the continental United States unless such person 
     (1) is a citizen of the United States; (2) is a person in the 
     service of the United States on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act who, being eligible for citizenship, has filed a 
     declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United 
     States prior to such date and is actually residing in the 
     United States; (3) is a person who owes allegiance to the 
     United States; (4) is an alien from Cuba, Poland, South 
     Vietnam, the countries of the former Soviet Union, or the 
     Baltic countries lawfully admitted to the United States for 
     permanent residence; (5) is a South Vietnamese, Cambodian, or 
     Laotian refugee paroled in the United States after January 1, 
     1975; or (6) is a national of the People's Republic of China 
     who qualifies for adjustment of status pursuant to the 
     Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992: Provided, That for 
     the purpose of this section, an affidavit signed by any such 
     person shall be considered prima facie evidence that the 
     requirements of this section with respect to his or her 
     status have been complied with: Provided further, That any 
     person making a false affidavit shall be guilty of a felony, 
     and, upon conviction, shall be fined no more than $4,000 or 
     imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both: Provided 
     further, That the above penal clause shall be in addition to, 
     and not in substitution for, any other provisions of existing 
     law: Provided further, That any payment made to any officer 
     or employee contrary to the provisions of this section shall 
     be recoverable in action by the Federal Government. This 
     section shall not apply to citizens of Ireland, Israel, or 
     the Republic of the Philippines, or to nationals of those 
     countries allied with the United States in a current defense 
     effort, or to international broadcasters employed by the 
     United States Information Agency, or to temporary employment 
     of translators, or to temporary employment in the field 
     service (not to exceed 60 days) as a result of emergencies.
       Sec. 606. Appropriations available to any department or 
     agency during the current fiscal year for necessary expenses, 
     including maintenance or operating expenses, shall also be 
     available for payment to the General Services Administration 
     for charges for space and services and those expenses of 
     renovation and alteration of buildings and facilities which 
     constitute public improvements performed in accordance with 
     the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (73 Stat. 749), the Public 
     Buildings Amendments of 1972 (87 Stat. 216), or other 
     applicable law.
       Sec. 607. In addition to funds provided in this or any 
     other Act, all Federal agencies are authorized to receive and 
     use funds resulting from the sale of materials, including 
     Federal records disposed of pursuant to a records schedule 
     recovered through recycling or waste prevention programs. 
     Such funds shall be available until expended for the 
     following purposes:

[[Page H6665]]

       (1) Acquisition, waste reduction and prevention, and 
     recycling programs as described in Executive Order No. 13101 
     (September 14, 1998), including any such programs adopted 
     prior to the effective date of the Executive Order.
       (2) Other Federal agency environmental management programs, 
     including, but not limited to, the development and 
     implementation of hazardous waste management and pollution 
     prevention programs.
       (3) Other employee programs as authorized by law or as 
     deemed appropriate by the head of the Federal agency.
       Sec. 608. Funds made available by this or any other Act for 
     administrative expenses in the current fiscal year of the 
     corporations and agencies subject to chapter 91 of title 31, 
     United States Code, shall be available, in addition to 
     objects for which such funds are otherwise available, for 
     rent in the District of Columbia; services in accordance with 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; and the objects specified under this head, all 
     the provisions of which shall be applicable to the 
     expenditure of such funds unless otherwise specified in the 
     Act by which they are made available: Provided, That in the 
     event any functions budgeted as administrative expenses are 
     subsequently transferred to or paid from other funds, the 
     limitations on administrative expenses shall be 
     correspondingly reduced.
       Sec. 609. No part of any appropriation for the current 
     fiscal year contained in this or any other Act shall be paid 
     to any person for the filling of any position for which he or 
     she has been nominated after the Senate has voted not to 
     approve the nomination of said person.
       Sec. 610. No part of any appropriation contained in this or 
     any other Act shall be available for interagency financing of 
     boards (except Federal Executive Boards), commissions, 
     councils, committees, or similar groups (whether or not they 
     are interagency entities) which do not have a prior and 
     specific statutory approval to receive financial support from 
     more than one agency or instrumentality.
       Sec. 611. Funds made available by this or any other Act to 
     the Postal Service Fund (39 U.S.C. 2003) shall be available 
     for employment of guards for all buildings and areas owned or 
     occupied by the Postal Service and under the charge and 
     control of the Postal Service, and such guards shall have, 
     with respect to such property, the powers of special 
     policemen provided by the first section of the Act of June 1, 
     1948 (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318), and, as to property owned 
     or occupied by the Postal Service, the Postmaster General may 
     take the same actions as the Administrator of General 
     Services may take under the provisions of sections 2 and 3 of 
     the Act of June 1, 1948 (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318a and 
     318b), attaching thereto penal consequences under the 
     authority and within the limits provided in section 4 of the 
     Act of June 1, 1948 (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318c).
       Sec. 612. None of the funds made available pursuant to the 
     provisions of this Act shall be used to implement, 
     administer, or enforce any regulation which has been 
     disapproved pursuant to a resolution of disapproval duly 
     adopted in accordance with the applicable law of the United 
     States.
       Sec. 613. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     and except as otherwise provided in this section, no part of 
     any of the funds appropriated for fiscal year 2001, by this 
     or any other Act, may be used to pay any prevailing rate 
     employee described in section 5342(a)(2)(A) of title 5, 
     United States Code--
       (1) during the period from the date of expiration of the 
     limitation imposed by section 613 of the Treasury and General 
     Government Appropriations Act, 2000, until the normal 
     effective date of the applicable wage survey adjustment that 
     is to take effect in fiscal year 2001, in an amount that 
     exceeds the rate payable for the applicable grade and step of 
     the applicable wage schedule in accordance with such section 
     613; and
       (2) during the period consisting of the remainder of fiscal 
     year 2001, in an amount that exceeds, as a result of a wage 
     survey adjustment, the rate payable under paragraph (1) by 
     more than the sum of--
       (A) the percentage adjustment taking effect in fiscal year 
     2001 under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, in 
     the rates of pay under the General Schedule; and
       (B) the difference between the overall average percentage 
     of the locality-based comparability payments taking effect in 
     fiscal year 2001 under section 5304 of such title (whether by 
     adjustment or otherwise), and the overall average percentage 
     of such payments which was effective in fiscal year 2000 
     under such section.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     prevailing rate employee described in subparagraph (B) or (C) 
     of section 5342(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code, and no 
     employee covered by section 5348 of such title, may be paid 
     during the periods for which subsection (a) is in effect at a 
     rate that exceeds the rates that would be payable under 
     subsection (a) were subsection (a) applicable to such 
     employee.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the rates payable to 
     an employee who is covered by this section and who is paid 
     from a schedule not in existence on September 30, 2000, shall 
     be determined under regulations prescribed by the Office of 
     Personnel Management.
       (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rates of 
     premium pay for employees subject to this section may not be 
     changed from the rates in effect on September 30, 2000, 
     except to the extent determined by the Office of Personnel 
     Management to be consistent with the purpose of this section.
       (e) This section shall apply with respect to pay for 
     service performed after September 30, 2000.
       (f) For the purpose of administering any provision of law 
     (including any rule or regulation that provides premium pay, 
     retirement, life insurance, or any other employee benefit) 
     that requires any deduction or contribution, or that imposes 
     any requirement or limitation on the basis of a rate of 
     salary or basic pay, the rate of salary or basic pay payable 
     after the application of this section shall be treated as the 
     rate of salary or basic pay.
       (g) Nothing in this section shall be considered to permit 
     or require the payment to any employee covered by this 
     section at a rate in excess of the rate that would be payable 
     were this section not in effect.
       (h) The Office of Personnel Management may provide for 
     exceptions to the limitations imposed by this section if the 
     Office determines that such exceptions are necessary to 
     ensure the recruitment or retention of qualified employees.
       Sec. 614. During the period in which the head of any 
     department or agency, or any other officer or civilian 
     employee of the Government appointed by the President of the 
     United States, holds office, no funds may be obligated or 
     expended in excess of $5,000 to furnish or redecorate the 
     office of such department head, agency head, officer, or 
     employee, or to purchase furniture or make improvements for 
     any such office, unless advance notice of such furnishing or 
     redecoration is expressly approved by the Committees on 
     Appropriations. For the purposes of this section, the word 
     ``office'' shall include the entire suite of offices assigned 
     to the individual, as well as any other space used primarily 
     by the individual or the use of which is directly controlled 
     by the individual.
       Sec. 615. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     executive branch agency shall purchase, construct, and/or 
     lease any additional facilities, except within or contiguous 
     to existing locations, to be used for the purpose of 
     conducting Federal law enforcement training without the 
     advance approval of the Committees on Appropriations, except 
     that the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center is 
     authorized to obtain the temporary use of additional 
     facilities by lease, contract, or other agreement for 
     training which cannot be accommodated in existing Center 
     facilities.
       Sec. 616. Notwithstanding section 1346 of title 31, United 
     States Code, or section 610 of this Act, funds made available 
     for fiscal year 2001 by this or any other Act shall be 
     available for the interagency funding of national security 
     and emergency preparedness telecommunications initiatives 
     which benefit multiple Federal departments, agencies, or 
     entities, as provided by Executive Order No. 12472 (April 3, 
     1984).
       Sec. 617. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this or any 
     other Act may be obligated or expended by any Federal 
     department, agency, or other instrumentality for the salaries 
     or expenses of any employee appointed to a position of a 
     confidential or policy-determining character excepted from 
     the competitive service pursuant to section 3302 of title 5, 
     United States Code, without a certification to the Office of 
     Personnel Management from the head of the Federal department, 
     agency, or other instrumentality employing the Schedule C 
     appointee that the Schedule C position was not created solely 
     or primarily in order to detail the employee to the White 
     House.
       (b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to 
     Federal employees or members of the armed services detailed 
     to or from--
       (1) the Central Intelligence Agency;
       (2) the National Security Agency;
       (3) the Defense Intelligence Agency;
       (4) the offices within the Department of Defense for the 
     collection of specialized national foreign intelligence 
     through reconnaissance programs;
       (5) the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the 
     Department of State;
       (6) any agency, office, or unit of the Army, Navy, Air 
     Force, and Marine Corps, the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     and the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department of 
     Justice, the Department of Transportation, the Department of 
     the Treasury, and the Department of Energy performing 
     intelligence functions; and
       (7) the Director of Central Intelligence.
       Sec. 618. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any 
     other Act for fiscal year 2001 shall obligate or expend any 
     such funds, unless such department, agency, or 
     instrumentality has in place, and will continue to administer 
     in good faith, a written policy designed to ensure that all 
     of its workplaces are free from discrimination and sexual 
     harassment and that all of its workplaces are not in 
     violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 
     Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
       Sec. 619. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the United States Customs Service may be used to allow the 
     importation into the United States of any good, ware, 
     article, or merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured by 
     forced or indentured child labor, as determined pursuant to 
     section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307).
       Sec. 620. No part of any appropriation contained in this or 
     any other Act shall be

[[Page H6666]]

     available for the payment of the salary of any officer or 
     employee of the Federal Government, who--
       (1) prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to 
     prohibit or prevent, any other officer or employee of the 
     Federal Government from having any direct oral or written 
     communication or contact with any Member, committee, or 
     subcommittee of the Congress in connection with any matter 
     pertaining to the employment of such other officer or 
     employee or pertaining to the department or agency of such 
     other officer or employee in any way, irrespective of whether 
     such communication or contact is at the initiative of such 
     other officer or employee or in response to the request or 
     inquiry of such Member, committee, or subcommittee; or
       (2) removes, suspends from duty without pay, demotes, 
     reduces in rank, seniority, status, pay, or performance of 
     efficiency rating, denies promotion to, relocates, reassigns, 
     transfers, disciplines, or discriminates in regard to any 
     employment right, entitlement, or benefit, or any term or 
     condition of employment of, any other officer or employee of 
     the Federal Government, or attempts or threatens to commit 
     any of the foregoing actions with respect to such other 
     officer or employee, by reason of any communication or 
     contact of such other officer or employee with any Member, 
     committee, or subcommittee of the Congress as described in 
     paragraph (1).
       Sec. 621. (a) None of the funds made available in this or 
     any other Act may be obligated or expended for any employee 
     training that--
       (1) does not meet identified needs for knowledge, skills, 
     and abilities bearing directly upon the performance of 
     official duties;
       (2) contains elements likely to induce high levels of 
     emotional response or psychological stress in some 
     participants;
       (3) does not require prior employee notification of the 
     content and methods to be used in the training and written 
     end of course evaluation;
       (4) contains any methods or content associated with 
     religious or quasi-religious belief systems or ``new age'' 
     belief systems as defined in Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission Notice N-915.022, dated September 2, 1988; or
       (5) is offensive to, or designed to change, participants' 
     personal values or lifestyle outside the workplace.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit, restrict, or 
     otherwise preclude an agency from conducting training bearing 
     directly upon the performance of official duties.
       Sec. 622. No funds appropriated in this or any other Act 
     may be used to implement or enforce the agreements in 
     Standard Forms 312 and 4355 of the Government or any other 
     nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement if such policy, 
     form, or agreement does not contain the following provisions: 
     ``These restrictions are consistent with and do not 
     supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee 
     obligations, rights, or liabilities created by Executive 
     Order No. 12958; section 7211 of title 5, United States Code 
     (governing disclosures to Congress); section 1034 of title 
     10, United States Code, as amended by the Military 
     Whistleblower Protection Act (governing disclosure to 
     Congress by members of the military); section 2302(b)(8) of 
     title 5, United States Code, as amended by the Whistleblower 
     Protection Act (governing disclosures of illegality, waste, 
     fraud, abuse or public health or safety threats); the 
     Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 
     et seq.) (governing disclosures that could expose 
     confidential Government agents); and the statutes which 
     protect against disclosure that may compromise the national 
     security, including sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 of 
     title 18, United States Code, and section 4(b) of the 
     Subversive Activities Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)). The 
     definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, 
     and liabilities created by said Executive order and listed 
     statutes are incorporated into this agreement and are 
     controlling.'': Provided, That notwithstanding the preceding 
     paragraph, a nondisclosure policy form or agreement that is 
     to be executed by a person connected with the conduct of an 
     intelligence or intelligence-related activity, other than an 
     employee or officer of the United States Government, may 
     contain provisions appropriate to the particular activity for 
     which such document is to be used. Such form or agreement 
     shall, at a minimum, require that the person will not 
     disclose any classified information received in the course of 
     such activity unless specifically authorized to do so by the 
     United States Government. Such nondisclosure forms shall also 
     make it clear that they do not bar disclosures to Congress or 
     to an authorized official of an executive agency or the 
     Department of Justice that are essential to reporting a 
     substantial violation of law.
       Sec. 623. No part of any funds appropriated in this or any 
     other Act shall be used by an agency of the executive branch, 
     other than for normal and recognized executive-legislative 
     relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for 
     the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet, 
     booklet, publication, radio, television or film presentation 
     designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the 
     Congress, except in presentation to the Congress itself.
       Sec. 624. (a) In General.--For calendar year 2002, the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall prepare 
     and submit to Congress, with the budget submitted under 
     section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, an accounting 
     statement and associated report containing--
       (1) an estimate of the total annual costs and benefits 
     (including quantifiable and nonquantifiable effects) of 
     Federal rules and paperwork, to the extent feasible--
       (A) in the aggregate;
       (B) by agency and agency program; and
       (C) by major rule;
       (2) an analysis of impacts of Federal regulation on State, 
     local, and tribal government, small business, wages, and 
     economic growth; and
       (3) recommendations for reform.
       (b) Notice.--The Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall provide public notice and an opportunity to 
     comment on the statement and report under subsection (a) 
     before the statement and report are submitted to Congress.
       (c) Guidelines.--To implement this section, the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget shall issue guidelines to 
     agencies to standardize--
       (1) measures of costs and benefits; and
       (2) the format of accounting statements.
       (d) Peer Review.--The Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget shall provide for independent and external peer 
     review of the guidelines and each accounting statement and 
     associated report under this section. Such peer review shall 
     not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
     U.S.C. App.).
       Sec. 625. None of the funds appropriated by this or any 
     other Act may be used by an agency to provide a Federal 
     employee's home address to any labor organization except when 
     the employee has authorized such disclosure or when such 
     disclosure has been ordered by a court of competent 
     jurisdiction.
       Sec. 626. Hereafter, the Secretary of the Treasury is 
     authorized to establish scientific certification standards 
     for explosives detection canines, and shall provide, on a 
     reimbursable basis, for the certification of explosives 
     detection canines employed by Federal agencies, or other 
     agencies providing explosives detection services at airports 
     in the United States.
       Sec. 627. None of the funds made available in this Act or 
     any other Act may be used to provide any non-public 
     information such as mailing or telephone lists to any person 
     or any organization outside of the Federal Government without 
     the approval of the Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 628. No part of any appropriation contained in this or 
     any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda 
     purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized 
     by the Congress.
       Sec. 629. (a) In this section the term ``agency''--
       (1) means an Executive agency as defined under section 105 
     of title 5, United States Code;
       (2) includes a military department as defined under section 
     102 of such title, the Postal Service, and the Postal Rate 
     Commission; and
       (3) shall not include the General Accounting Office.
       (b) Unless authorized in accordance with law or regulations 
     to use such time for other purposes, an employee of an agency 
     shall use official time in an honest effort to perform 
     official duties. An employee not under a leave system, 
     including a Presidential appointee exempted under section 
     6301(2) of title 5, United States Code, has an obligation to 
     expend an honest effort and a reasonable proportion of such 
     employee's time in the performance of official duties.
       Sec. 630. Section 638(h) of the Treasury and General 
     Government Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-58) is 
     amended by striking ``at noon on January 20, 2001'' and 
     inserting ``on May 1, 2001''.
       Sec. 631. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be used to enter into or renew a contract which includes 
     a provision providing prescription drug coverage, except 
     where the contract also includes a provision for 
     contraceptive coverage.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall apply to a contract 
     with--
       (1) any of the following religious plans:
       (A) Personal Care's HMO;
       (B) Care Choices;
       (C) OSF Health Plans, Inc.; and
       (2) any existing or future plan, if the carrier for the 
     plan objects to such coverage on the basis of religious 
     beliefs.
       (c) In implementing this section, any plan that enters into 
     or renews a contract under this section may not subject any 
     individual to discrimination on the basis that the individual 
     refuses to prescribe or otherwise provide for contraceptives 
     because such activities would be contrary to the individual's 
     religious beliefs or moral convictions.
       (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require 
     coverage of abortion or abortion-related services.
       Sec. 632. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1346 and section 610 of 
     this Act, funds made available for fiscal year 2001 by this 
     or any other Act to any department or agency, which is a 
     member of the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program 
     (JFMIP), shall be available to finance an appropriate share 
     of JFMIP administrative costs, as determined by the JFMIP, 
     but not to exceed a total of $800,000 including the salary of 
     the Executive Director and staff support.
       Sec. 633. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1346 and section 610 of 
     this Act, the head of each Executive department and agency is 
     hereby authorized to transfer to the ``Policy and 
     Operations'' account, General Services Administration, with 
     the approval of the Director

[[Page H6667]]

     of the Office of Management and Budget, funds made available 
     for fiscal year 2001 by this or any other Act, including 
     rebates from charge card and other contracts. These funds 
     shall be administered by the Administrator of General 
     Services to support Government-wide financial, information 
     technology, procurement, and other management innovations, 
     initiatives, and activities, as approved by the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the 
     appropriate interagency groups designated by the Director 
     (including the Chief Financial Officers Council and the Joint 
     Financial Management Improvement Program for financial 
     management initiatives, the Chief Information Officers 
     Council for information technology initiatives, and the 
     Procurement Executives Council for procurement initiatives). 
     The total funds transferred shall not exceed $17,000,000. 
     Such transfers may only be made 15 days following 
     notification of the Committees on Appropriations by the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
       Sec. 634. (a) In General.--In accordance with regulations 
     promulgated by the Office of Personnel Management, an 
     Executive agency which provides or proposes to provide child 
     care services for Federal employees may use funds (otherwise 
     available to such agency for salaries and expenses) to 
     provide child care, in a Federal or leased facility, or 
     through contract, for civilian employees of such agency.
       (b) Affordability.--Amounts so provided with respect to any 
     such facility or contractor shall be applied to improve the 
     affordability of child care for lower income Federal 
     employees using or seeking to use the child care services 
     offered by such facility or contractor.
       (c) Advances.--Notwithstanding 31 U.S. Code 3324, amounts 
     paid to licensed or regulated child care providers may be 
     paid in advance of services rendered, covering agreed upon 
     periods, as appropriate.
       (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``Executive agency'' has the meaning given such term by 
     section 105 of title 5, United States Code, but does not 
     include the General Accounting Office.
       (e) Notification.--None of the funds made available in this 
     or any other Act may be used to implement the provisions of 
     this section absent advance notification to the Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Sec. 635. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 
     woman may breastfeed her child at any location in a Federal 
     building or on Federal property, if the woman and her child 
     are otherwise authorized to be present at the location.
       Sec. 636. Notwithstanding section 1346 of title 31, United 
     States Code, or section 610 of this Act, funds made available 
     for fiscal year 2001 by this or any other Act shall be 
     available for the interagency funding of specific projects, 
     workshops, studies, and similar efforts to carry out the 
     purposes of the National Science and Technology Council 
     (authorized by Executive Order No. 12881), which benefit 
     multiple Federal departments, agencies, or entities: 
     Provided, That the Office of Management and Budget shall 
     provide a report describing the budget of and resources 
     connected with the National Science and Technology Council to 
     the Committees on Appropriations, the House Committee on 
     Science; and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation 90 days after enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 637. (a) Clarification of Election Cycle Reporting of 
     Certain Expenditures.--Section 304(b) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(b)), as amended by section 
     641(a) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
     Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-58), is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5)(A), by inserting after ``calendar 
     year'' the following: ``(or election cycle, in the case of an 
     authorized committee of a candidate for Federal office)'';
       (2) in paragraph (6)(A), by striking ``calendar year (or 
     election cycle, in the case of an authorized committee of a 
     candidate for Federal office)'' and inserting ``election 
     cycle''; and
       (3) in paragraphs (6)(B)(iii) and (6)(B)(v), by striking 
     ``(or election cycle, in the case of an authorized committee 
     of a candidate for Federal office)'' each place it appears.
       (b) Clarification of Permissible Use of Facsimile Machines 
     and Electronic Mail To File Reports.--Section 304 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d)(1) Any person who is required to file a report, 
     designation, or statement under this Act, except those 
     required to file electronically pursuant to subsection 
     (a)(11)(A)(i), with respect to a contribution or expenditure 
     not later than 24 hours after the contribution or expenditure 
     is made or received may file the report, designation, or 
     statement by facsimile device or electronic mail, in 
     accordance with such regulations as the Commission may 
     promulgate.
       ``(2) The Commission shall make a document which is filed 
     electronically with the Commission pursuant to this paragraph 
     accessible to the public on the Internet not later than 24 
     hours after the document is received by the Commission.
       ``(3) In promulgating a regulation under this paragraph, 
     the Commission shall provide methods (other than requiring a 
     signature on the document being filed) for verifying the 
     documents covered by the regulation. Any document verified 
     under any of the methods shall be treated for all purposes 
     (including penalties for perjury) in the same manner as a 
     document verified by signature.''.
       (c) Treatment of Lines of Credit Obtained by Candidates as 
     Commercially Reasonable Loans.--Section 301(8)(B) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (xiii);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (xiv) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(xv) any loan of money derived from an advance on a 
     candidate's brokerage account, credit card, home equity line 
     of credit, or other line of credit available to the 
     candidate, if such loan is made in accordance with applicable 
     law and under commercially reasonable terms and if the person 
     making such loan makes loans in the normal course of the 
     person's business.''.
       (d) Expediting Availability of Reports on Last Minute 
     Funds.--
       (1) Requiring reports for all contributions made within 20 
     days of election; requiring reports to be made within 24 
     hours.--Section 304(a)(6)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(6)(A)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``after the 20th day, but more than 48 
     hours before any election'' and inserting ``during the period 
     which begins after the 20th day before an election and ends 
     at the time the polls close for such election''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``within 48 hours 
     after the receipt of such contribution'' and inserting the 
     following: ``not later than 24 hours after the receipt of 
     such contribution or midnight of the day on which the 
     contribution is deposited (whichever is earlier),''.
       (2) Requiring actual receipt of certain independent 
     expenditure reports within 24 hours.--
       (A) In general.--Section 304(c)(2) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     434(c)(2)) is amended in the matter following subparagraph 
     (C)--
       (i) by striking ``shall be reported'' and inserting ``shall 
     be filed''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Notwithstanding subsection (a)(5), the time at which the 
     statement under this subsection is received by the Secretary, 
     the Commission, or any other recipient to whom the 
     notification is required to be sent shall be considered the 
     time of filing of the statement with the recipient.''.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--Section 304(a)(5) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 434(a)(5)) is amended by striking ``or (4)(A)(ii)'' 
     and inserting ``or (4)(A)(ii), or the second sentence of 
     subsection (c)(2)''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to elections occurring after January 
     2001.
       Sec. 638. Retirement Provisions Relating to Certain Members 
     of the Police Force of the Metropolitan Washington Airports 
     Authority.--(a) Qualified MWAA Police Officer Defined.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term ``qualified MWAA police 
     officer'' means any individual who, as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act--
       (1) is employed as a member of the police force of the 
     Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (hereinafter in 
     this section referred to as an ``MWAA police officer''); and
       (2) is subject to the Civil Service Retirement System or 
     the Federal Employees' Retirement System by virtue of section 
     49107(b) of title 49, United States Code.
       (b) Eligibility To Be Treated as a Law Enforcement Officer 
     for Retirement Purposes.--
       (1) In general.--Any qualified MWAA police officer may, by 
     written election submitted in accordance with applicable 
     requirements under subsection (c), elect to be treated as a 
     law enforcement officer (within the meaning of section 8331 
     or 8401 of title 5, United States Code, as applicable), and 
     to have all prior service described in paragraph (2) 
     similarly treated.
       (2) Prior service described.--The service described in this 
     paragraph is all service which an individual performed, prior 
     to the effective date of such individual's election under 
     this section, as--
       (A) an MWAA police officer; or
       (B) a member of the police force of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration (hereinafter in this section referred to as an 
     ``FAA police officer'').
       (c) Regulations.--The Office of Personnel Management shall 
     prescribe any regulations necessary to carry out this 
     section, including provisions relating to the time, form, and 
     manner in which any election under this section shall be 
     made. Such an election shall not be effective unless--
       (1) it is made before the employee separates from service 
     with the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, but in 
     no event later than 1 year after the regulations under this 
     subsection take effect; and
       (2) it is accompanied by payment of an amount equal to, 
     with respect to all prior service of such employee which is 
     described in subsection (b)(2)--
       (A) the employee deductions that would have been required 
     for such service under chapter 83 or 84 of title 5, United 
     States Code (as the case may be) if such election had then 
     been in effect, minus
       (B) the total employee deductions and contributions under 
     such chapter 83 and 84 (as applicable) that were actually 
     made for such service,


[[Page H6668]]


     taking into account only amounts required to be credited to 
     the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. Any amount 
     under paragraph (2) shall be computed with interest, in 
     accordance with section 8334(e) of such title 5.
       (d) Government Contributions.--Whenever a payment under 
     subsection (c)(2) is made by an individual with respect to 
     such individual's prior service (as described in subsection 
     (b)(2)), the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority shall 
     pay into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund any 
     additional contributions for which it would have been 
     liable, with respect to such service, if such individual's 
     election under this section had then been in effect (and, 
     to the extent of any prior FAA police officer service, as 
     if it had then been the employing agency). Any amount 
     under this subsection shall be computed with interest, in 
     accordance with section 8334(e) of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       (e) Certifications.--The Office of Personnel Management 
     shall accept, for the purpose of this section, the 
     certification of--
       (1) the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (or its 
     designee) concerning any service performed by an individual 
     as an MWAA police officer; and
       (2) the Federal Aviation Administration (or its designee) 
     concerning any service performed by an individual as an FAA 
     police officer.
       (f) Reimbursement To Compensate for Unfunded Liability.--
       (1) In general.--The Metropolitan Washington Airports 
     Authority shall pay into the Civil Service Retirement and 
     Disability Fund an amount (as determined by the Director of 
     the Office of Personnel Management) equal to the amount 
     necessary to reimburse the Fund for any estimated increase in 
     the unfunded liability of the Fund (to the extent the Civil 
     Service Retirement System is involved), and for any estimated 
     increase in the supplemental liability of the Fund (to the 
     extent the Federal Employees' Retirement System is involved), 
     resulting from the enactment of this section.
       (2) Payment method.--The Metropolitan Washington Airports 
     Authority shall pay the amount so determined in 5 equal 
     annual installments, with interest (which shall be computed 
     at the rate used in the most recent valuation of the Federal 
     Employees' Retirement System).
       Sec. 639. (a) For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``comparability payment'' refers to a 
     locality-based comparability payment under section 5304 of 
     title 5, United States Code;
       (2) the term ``President's pay agent'' refers to the pay 
     agent described in section 5302(4) of such title; and
       (3) the term ``pay locality'' has the meaning given such 
     term by section 5302(5) of such title.
       (b) Notwithstanding any provision of section 5304 of title 
     5, United States Code, for purposes of determining 
     appropriate pay localities and making comparability payment 
     recommendations, the President's pay agent may, in accordance 
     with succeeding provisions of this section, make comparisons 
     of General Schedule pay and non-Federal pay within any of the 
     metropolitan statistical areas described in subsection 
     (d)(3), using--
       (1) data from surveys of the Bureau of Labor Statistics;
       (2) salary data sets obtained under subsection (c); or
       (3) any combination thereof.
       (c) To the extent necessary in order to carry out this 
     section, the President's pay agent may obtain any salary data 
     sets (referred to in subsection (b)) from any organization or 
     entity that regularly compiles similar data for businesses in 
     the private sector.
       (d)(1)(A) This paragraph applies with respect to the 5 
     metropolitan statistical areas described in paragraph (3) 
     which--
       (i) have the highest levels of nonfarm employment (as 
     determined based on data made available by the Bureau of 
     Labor Statistics); and
       (ii) as of the date of enactment of this Act, have not 
     previously been surveyed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
     (as discrete pay localities) for purposes of section 5304 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (B) The President's pay agent, based on such comparisons 
     under subsection (b) as the pay agent considers appropriate, 
     shall (i) determine whether any of the 5 areas under 
     subparagraph (A) warrants designation as a discrete pay 
     locality, and (ii) if so, make recommendations as to what 
     level of comparability payments would be appropriate during 
     2002 for each area so determined.
       (C)(i) Any recommendations under subparagraph (B)(ii) shall 
     be included--
       (I) in the pay agent's report under section 5304(d)(1) of 
     title 5, United States Code, submitted for purposes of 
     comparability payments scheduled to become payable in 2002; 
     or
       (II) if compliance with subclause (I) is impracticable, in 
     a supplementary report which the pay agent shall submit to 
     the President and the Congress no later than March 1, 2001.
       (ii) In the event that the recommendations are completed in 
     time to be included in the report described in clause (i)(I), 
     a copy of those recommendations shall be transmitted by the 
     pay agent to the Congress contemporaneous with their 
     submission to the President.
       (D) Each of the 5 areas under subparagraph (A) that so 
     warrants, as determined by the President's pay agent, shall 
     be designated as a discrete pay locality under section 5304 
     of title 5, United States Code, in time for it to be treated 
     as such for purposes of comparability payments becoming 
     payable in 2002.
       (2) The President's pay agent may, at any time after the 
     180th day following the submission of the report under 
     subsection (f), make any initial or further determinations or 
     recommendations under this section, based on any pay 
     comparisons under subsection (b), with respect to any area 
     described in paragraph (3).
       (3) An area described in this paragraph is any metropolitan 
     statistical area within the continental United States that 
     (as determined based on data made available by the Bureau of 
     Labor Statistics and the Office of Personnel Management, 
     respectively) has a high level of nonfarm employment and at 
     least 2,500 General Schedule employees whose post of duty is 
     within such area.
       (e)(1) The authority under this section to make pay 
     comparisons and to make any determinations or recommendations 
     based on such comparisons shall be available to the 
     President's pay agent only for purposes of comparability 
     payments becoming payable on or after January 1, 2002, and 
     before January 1, 2007, and only with respect to areas 
     described in subsection (d)(3).
       (2) Any comparisons and recommendations so made shall, if 
     included in the pay agent's report under section 5304(d)(1) 
     of title 5, United States Code, for any year (or the pay 
     agent's supplementary report, in accordance with subsection 
     (d)(1)(C)(i)(II)), be considered and acted on as the pay 
     agent's comparisons and recommendations under such section 
     5304(d)(1) for the area and the year involved.
       (f)(1) No later than March 1, 2001, the President's pay 
     agent shall submit to the Committee on Government Reform of 
     the House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate, and the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and of the Senate, a report 
     on the use of pay comparison data, as described in subsection 
     (b)(2) or (3) (as appropriate), for purposes of comparability 
     payments.
       (2) The report shall include the cost of obtaining such 
     data, the rationale underlying the decisions reached based on 
     such data, and the relative advantages and disadvantages of 
     using such data (including whether the effort involved in 
     analyzing and integrating such data is commensurate with the 
     benefits derived from their use). The report may include 
     specific recommendations regarding the continued use of such 
     data.
       (g)(1) No later than May 1, 2001, the President's pay agent 
     shall prepare and submit to the committees specified in 
     subsection (f)(1) a report relating to the ongoing efforts of 
     the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Management 
     and Budget, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to revise the 
     methodology currently being used by the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics in performing its surveys under section 5304 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (2) The report shall include a detailed accounting of any 
     concerns the pay agent may have regarding the current 
     methodology, the specific projects the pay agent has directed 
     any of those agencies to undertake in order to address those 
     concerns, and a time line for the anticipated completion of 
     those projects and for implementation of the revised 
     methodology.
       (3) The report shall also include recommendations as to how 
     those ongoing efforts might be expedited, including any 
     additional resources which, in the opinion of the pay agent, 
     are needed in order to expedite completion of the activities 
     described in the preceding provisions of this subsection, and 
     the reasons why those additional resources are needed.
       Sec. 640. (a) Civil Service Retirement System.--The table 
     under section 8334(c) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in the matter relating to an employee by striking:

  


                                         ``7.5  January 1, 2001, to
                                                 December 31, 2002.
                                             7  After December 31,
                                                 2002.''
 
 

     and inserting the following:

  


                                           ``7  After December 31,
                                                 2000.'';
 
 

       (2) in the matter relating to a Member or employee for 
     Congressional employee service by striking:

  


                                           ``8  January 1, 2001, to
                                                 December 31, 2002.
                                           7.5  After December 31,
                                                 2002.''
 
 

     and inserting the following:

  


                                         ``7.5  After December 31,
                                                 2000.'';
 
 

       (3) in the matter relating to a law enforcement officer for 
     law enforcement service and firefighter for firefighter 
     service by striking:

  


                                           ``8  January 1, 2001, to
                                                 December 31, 2002.
                                           7.5  After December 31,
                                                 2002.''
 
 

     and inserting the following:

  


                                         ``7.5  After December 31,
                                                 2000.'';
 
 

       (4) in the matter relating to a bankruptcy judge by 
     striking:

  


                                         ``8.5  January 1, 2001, to
                                                 December 31, 2002.
                                             8  After December 31,
                                                 2002.''
 
 


[[Page H6669]]

     and inserting the following:

  


                                           ``8  After December 31,
                                                 2000.'';
 
 

       (5) in the matter relating to a judge of the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for service as a judge 
     of that court by striking:

  


                                         ``8.5  January 1, 2001, to
                                                 December 31, 2002.
                                             8  After December 31,
                                                 2002.''
 
 

     and inserting the following:

  


                                           ``8  After December 31,
                                                 2000.'';
 
 

       (6) in the matter relating to a United States magistrate by 
     striking:

  


                                         ``8.5  January 1, 2001, to
                                                 December 31, 2002.
                                             8  After December 31,
                                                 2002.''
 
 

     and inserting the following:

  


                                           ``8  After December 31,
                                                 2000.'';
 
 

       (7) in the matter relating to a Court of Federal Claims 
     judge by striking:

  


                                         ``8.5  January 1, 2001, to
                                                 December 31, 2002.
                                             8  After December 31,
                                                 2002.''
 
 

     and inserting the following:

  


                                           ``8  After December 31,
                                                 2000.'';
 
 

       (8) in the matter relating to a member of the Capitol 
     Police by striking:

  


                                           ``8  January 1, 2001, to
                                                 December 31, 2002.
                                           7.5  After December 31,
                                                 2002.''
 
 

     and inserting the following:

  


                                         ``7.5  After December 31,
                                                 2000.'';
 
 

     and
       (9) in the matter relating to a nuclear materials courier 
     by striking:

  


                                           ``8  January 1, 2001 to
                                                 December 31, 2002.
                                           7.5  After December 31,
                                                 2002.''
 
 

     and inserting the following:

  


                                         ``7.5  After December 31,
                                                 2000.''.
 

       (b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--
       (1) In general.--Section 8422(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) The applicable percentage under this paragraph for 
     civilian service shall be as follows:

  


``Employee............................       7  January 1, 1987, to
                                                 December 31, 1998.
                                          7.25  January 1, 1999, to
                                                 December 31, 1999.
                                           7.4  January 1, 2000, to
                                                 December 31, 2000.
                                             7  After December 31, 2000.
Congressional employee................     7.5  January 1, 1987, to
                                                 December 31, 1998.
                                          7.75  January 1, 1999, to
                                                 December 31, 1999.
                                           7.9  January 1, 2000, to
                                                 December 31, 2000.
                                           7.5  After December 31, 2000.
Member................................     7.5  January 1, 1987, to
                                                 December 31, 1998.
                                          7.75  January 1, 1999, to
                                                 December 31, 1999.
                                           7.9  January 1, 2000, to
                                                 December 31, 2000.
                                             8  January 1, 2001, to
                                                 December 31, 2002.
                                           7.5  After December 31, 2002.
Law enforcement officer, firefighter,      7.5  January 1, 1987, to
 member of the Capitol Police, or air            December 31, 1998.
 traffic controller.
                                          7.75  January 1, 1999, to
                                                 December 31, 1999.
                                           7.9  January 1, 2000, to
                                                 December 31, 2000.
                                           7.5  After December 31, 2000.
Nuclear materials courier.............       7  January 1, 1987, to
                                                 October 16, 1998.
                                           7.5  October 17, 1998, to
                                                 December 31, 1998.
                                          7.75  January 1, 1999, to
                                                 December 31, 1999.
                                           7.9  January 1, 2000, to
                                                 December 31, 2000.
                                           7.5  After December 31,
                                                 2000.''.
 
 

       (2) Military service.--Section 8422(e)(6) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a period; and
       (C) by striking subparagraph (C).
       (3) Volunteer service.--Section 8422(f)(4) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a period; and
       (C) by striking subparagraph (C).
       (c) Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability 
     System.--
       (1) In general.--Section 7001(c)(2) of the Balanced Budget 
     Act of 1997 (50 U.S.C. 2021 note) is amended--
       (A) in the matter before the colon, by striking ``December 
     31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 2000''; and
       (B) in the matter after the colon, by striking all that 
     follows ``December 31, 2000.''.
       (2) Military service.--Section 252(h)(1)(A) of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2082(h)(1)(A)), 
     is amended--
       (A) in the matter before the colon, by striking ``December 
     31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 2000''; and
       (B) in the matter after the colon, by striking all that 
     follows ``December 31, 2000.''.
       (d) Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System.--
       (1) In general.--Section 7001(d)(2) of the Balanced Budget 
     Act of 1997 (22 U.S.C. 4045 note) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) in the matter before the colon, by striking ``December 
     31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 2000''; and
       (ii) in the matter after the colon, by striking all that 
     follows ``December 31, 2000.''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) in the matter before the colon, by striking ``December 
     31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 2000''; and
       (ii) in the matter after the colon, by striking all that 
     follows ``December 31, 2000.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 805(d)(1) of the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4045(d)(1)) is amended, in the 
     table in the matter following subparagraph (B), by striking:

  


                                        ``January 1, 2001,           7.5
                                        through December 31,
                                        2002, inclusive.
                                        After December 31, 2002      7''
 
 

     and inserting the following:

  


                                        ``After December 31,        7''.
                                        2000.
 
 

       (e) Foreign Service Pension System.--
       (1) In general.--Section 856(a)(2) of the Foreign Service 
     Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4071e(a)(2)) is amended by striking 
     all that follows ``December 31, 2000.'' and inserting the 
     following:

  


                                         ``7.5  After December 31,
                                                 2000.''.
 
 

       (2) Volunteer service.--Section 854(c)(1) of the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4071c(c)(1)) is amended--
       (A) in the matter before the colon, by striking ``December 
     31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 2000''; and
       (B) in the matter after the colon, by striking all that 
     follows ``December 31, 2000.''.
       (f) Civil Service Retirement System.--Notwithstanding 
     section 8334 (a)(1) or (k)(1) of title 5, United States Code, 
     during the period beginning on October 1, 2002, through 
     December 31, 2002, each employing agency (other than the 
     United States Postal Service or the Metropolitan Washington 
     Airports Authority) shall contribute--
       (1) 7.5 percent of the basic pay of an employee;
       (2) 8 percent of the basic pay of a congressional employee, 
     a law enforcement officer, a member of the Capitol police, a 
     firefighter, or a nuclear materials courier; and
       (3) 8.5 percent of the basic pay of a Member of Congress, a 
     Court of Federal Claims judge, a United States magistrate, a 
     judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 
     Forces, or a bankruptcy judge;

     in lieu of the agency contributions otherwise required under 
     section 8334(a)(1) of such title 5.
       (g) Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability 
     System.--Notwithstanding section 211(a)(2) of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2021(a)(2)), 
     during the period beginning on October 1, 2002, through 
     December 31, 2002, the Central Intelligence Agency shall 
     contribute 7.5 percent of the basic pay of an employee 
     participating in the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement 
     and Disability System in lieu of the agency contribution 
     otherwise required under section 211(a)(2) of such Act.
       (h) Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System.--
     Notwithstanding any provision of section 805(a) of the 
     Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4045(a)), during the 
     period beginning on October 1, 2002, through December 31, 
     2002, each agency employing a participant in the Foreign 
     Service Retirement and Disability System shall contribute to 
     the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund--
       (1) 7.5 percent of the basic pay of each participant 
     covered under section 805(a)(1) of such Act participating in 
     the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System; and
       (2) 8 percent of the basic pay of each participant covered 
     under paragraph (2) or (3) of section 805(a) of such Act 
     participating in the Foreign Service Retirement and 
     Disability System;

     in lieu of the agency contribution otherwise required under 
     section 805(a) of such Act.
       (i) The amendments made by this section shall take effect 
     upon the close of calendar year 2000, and shall apply 
     thereafter.
       Sec. 641. (a) Section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434), as previously amended by this 
     Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e)(1) In addition to any other information required to 
     be reported under this section, the principal campaign 
     committee of a candidate for the House of Representatives or 
     for the Senate who uses any aircraft of the Federal 
     government for any purpose which includes (in whole or in 
     part) carrying out the candidate's campaign for election for 
     Federal office (including using an aircraft of the Federal 
     government for transportation to or from a campaign event), 
     shall file with the Commission a statement containing the 
     following information:
       ``(A) A description of the aircraft used, including the 
     type or model.
       ``(B) The number of individuals who used the aircraft, 
     including the candidate and those whose use of the aircraft 
     was paid for (in whole or in part) by the committee.
       ``(C) The amount the candidate paid to reimburse the 
     Federal government for the use

[[Page H6670]]

     of the aircraft, together with the methodology used to 
     determine such amount, in accordance with section 106.3 of 
     title 11, Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(2) The statements required under this subsection shall 
     be included with the reports filed by the principal campaign 
     committee under subsection (a)(2), except that any statement 
     with respect to the use of any aircraft after the 20th day, 
     but more than 48 hours before the election shall be filed in 
     accordance with subsection (a)(6).''.
       (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with 
     respect to elections occurring after December 31, 2000.
       Sec. 642. (a) Section 5545b(d) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Notwithstanding section 8114(e)(1), overtime pay for 
     a firefighter subject to this section for hours in a regular 
     tour of duty shall be included in any computation of pay 
     under section 8114.''.
       (b) The amendment in subsection (a) shall be effective as 
     if it had been enacted as part of the Federal Firefighters 
     Overtime Pay Reform Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681-519).

  Mr. KOLBE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the remainder of the bill through page 112, line 8, 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? If not, the Clerk will read the 
last section of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 643. Section 6323(a) of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) The minimum charge for leave under this subsection is 
     one hour, and additional charges are in multiples thereof.''.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilman

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman:
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec. __. Section 616 of the Treasury, Postal Service and 
     General Government Appropriations Act, 1988, as contained in 
     the Act of December 22, 1987 (40 U.S.C. 490b), is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e)(1) All existing and newly hired workers in any child 
     care center located in an executive facility shall undergo a 
     criminal history background check as defined in section 231 
     of the Crime Control Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13041).
       ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term `executive 
     facility' means a facility that is owned or leased by an 
     office or entity within the executive branch of the 
     Government (including one that is owned or leased by the 
     General Services Administration on behalf of an office or 
     entity within the judicial branch of the Government).
       ``(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be considered to 
     apply with respect to a facility owned by or leased on behalf 
     of an office or entity within the legislative branch of the 
     Government.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is slightly changed from my original 
amendment, listed as Amendment No. 2 in the Congressional Record, and 
contains language clarifying the definition of an ``executive 
facility.''
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Gilman-Maloney-Morella 
amendment which seeks to close a loophole regarding the safety of child 
care in Federal facilities throughout our Nation. I would like to thank 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for their support of this issue and their 
dedication to improving the quality of child care for all children.
  Congress passed the Crime Control Act in 1990, including a provision 
calling for mandatory background checks for employees hired by a 
Federal agency. However, some agencies have interpreted that law in 
such a way that many child care employees are not subjected to 
background checks.
  Currently, Federal employees across the Nation undergo, at the bare 
minimum, a computer check of their background which includes FBI, 
INTERPOL and State police records. However, some child care workers who 
enter these same buildings on a daily basis do not. Federal employees 
who use federally provided child care should feel confident that these 
child care providers have backgrounds free of abusive and violent 
behavior that would prevent them from working with our children.
  Moreover, this amendment helps to ensure the overall safety of our 
Federal buildings. Child care workers step into Federal buildings each 
day and look after children of Federal employees. Without performing 
background checks, the children in day care, as well as the employees 
in Federal facilities, are exposing themselves to possible violent acts 
in the workplace. A child care worker, with a history of violent 
criminal behavior, has the opportunity to create a terrorist situation, 
the likes of which have not been seen since the tragedy in Oklahoma 
City.
  Child care providers working in Federal facilities throughout our 
Nation have somehow fallen through the cracks and have become exempt 
from undergoing a criminal history check. This amendment corrects that 
situation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to vote yes on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney).

                              {time}  1815

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Gilman-Maloney-Morella amendment to provide criminal background checks 
for all Federal child care employees. I am very happy to join my 
colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), who have been consistent 
leaders on child care.
  I am very pleased that last year a provision offered by the 
gentlewoman from Maryland has been extended that allows Federal 
agencies the option of assisting employees with child care expenses. I 
am very pleased to be a lead cosponsor of several bills introduced by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) to expand affordable and 
available day care.
  In 1990, Congress passed the Crime Control Act, which mandates that 
Federal employees undergo background checks. But because of a funding 
loophole, this provision does not apply to those who take care of our 
children in Federal day care facilities. Each day, millions of families 
around the country go to work and leave children in day care.
  Everyone assumes that our children are safe. Everyone assumes that 
the child care workers have certain kinds of training and children will 
be protected. Everyone hopes for the best. But because of a current 
loophole in the law, the people who we trust with our children could be 
criminals. Child care workers in Federal facilities are contracted 
through Federal agencies, and therefore, not hired directly by a 
Federal agency.
  This is a dangerous loophole, and we need to correct it. We should 
not have to worry about who is taking care of our children simply 
because agencies do not view their child care employees as government 
agents. Certainly those who care for our children should not be exempt 
from this law.
  This bipartisan amendment makes it clear, criminals will be unable to 
work in Federal child care agencies. Programs involving children 
deserve to be 100 percent safe and secure. We must take precautions so 
that our children, the world's future, are being cared for by people we 
trust.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Gilman-Maloney-Morella amendment. 
We need to know who is watching our children. It is important. I urge a 
yes vote.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her supportive 
remarks, and I yield the balance of our time to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support strongly the Gilman-
Maloney-Morella amendment. It is a commonsense proposal. It is one I 
think that everybody in this House can wholeheartedly endorse.
  Currently, Federal employees across the country undergo at the bare 
minimum a computer check on their background, which includes FBI, 
Interpol,

[[Page H6671]]

and police records. However, child care workers who enter these very 
same buildings on a daily basis do not. These individuals care for 
small children each day, and our Federal employees should be able to 
feel confident that they are leaving their children in a safe 
environment with qualified individuals.
  Federal agencies have neglected to perform these background checks 
because these individuals are hired by the child care center, not the 
Federal government. But it only takes one missed background check to 
lead to a devastating situation.
  We cannot afford to let that happen. I hope that Members will join me 
and the other authors of this amendment, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), in 
supporting this amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill 
and close this loophole.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek to claim the time in opposition?
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Deutsch

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Deutsch:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section, 
     preceding the short title, the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to allow the importation into the United States of 
     any product that is the growth, product, or manufacture of 
     Iran.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today there is an amendment in front of us which 
specifically deals with what is going on in Iran.
  Right now there are forces in Iran which are really the most right-
wing forces engaged in activities which have had detrimental effects to 
America's interests and concerns. The effect of the amendment will 
weaken those forces.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEUTSCH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
want to thank him for his working to craft the amendment, along with 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  This is an important amendment. Mr. Chairman, in 1911 a Russian Jew 
named Mendel Beilis was arrested by the czar's secret police. He was 
accused of a crime resurrected from the dusty, murky depths of medieval 
antisemitism, the blood libel. That was an ancient myth that the ritual 
murder of a child was needed in order to make a Passover Matza. It was 
an utterly absurd assertion.
  Mr. Chairman, we are witnessing an equally obscene perversion of 
justice today. Earlier this year, ten Jewish residents of the Iranian 
town of Shiraz were charged by the authorities of the Islamic Republic 
of Iraq of espionage for Israel.
  Mr. Chairman, the analogies between these two cases are instructive. 
In both cases, there was not a shred of plausible evidence to support 
the prosecutors' case. In both cases, the government had clear 
political reasons to proceed with a groundless prosecution. In both of 
these cases, the scapegoats, who were sacrificed at the altar of 
political cynicism, were Jews.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to support this amendment because it sends a 
very clear message that we will not tolerate injustice, we will not 
tolerate persecution, and we will not allow our laws to be used to help 
the Iranian government and the Iranian revolutionary court prosecute 10 
Jews unjustly.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which 
will send a strong message to the government of Iran and the world that 
the United States Congress will not tolerate Iran's blatant disregard 
for basic human rights.
  We have heard about the so-called ``moderation'' of Iran, about the 
power struggle between the hard-line clerics and the reformists led by 
President Khatemi. I invite my colleagues to examine carefully the face 
of this moderation.
  Ten Iranian Jews were recently sentenced on charges of spying for the 
United States and Israel. These 10 have been denied due process, were 
coerced into confessing on Iranian TV, and were prosecuted, judged, and 
sentenced by the same Revolutionary Court judge.
  Since late May, over 20 newspapers and magazines associated with the 
reformists have been shut down by the Iranian government, silencing the 
voices of the independent press in that country.
  And just recently, two prominent human rights lawyers in Iran were 
sent to prison, without trial, on charges of insulting public 
officials.
  No reasonable person could call this ``moderation.''
  My colleagues, Iran is not ready to join the community of nations. 
Each day, Iran produces more and more evidence that the terms of 
membership in this community--including respect for basic human rights, 
due process, and freedom, are not terms it can accept. Each day, Iran 
sends unmistakable messages to the world that it is not willing to 
embrace the mores of reasonable society. Each day, Iran continues to 
threaten its neighbors and pursue the development of weapons of mass 
destruction.
  We have heard these messages loud and clear. And we should react 
accordingly. This is not the time to make concessions to Iran. This is 
not time to open up our markets to Iran, to allow the government to 
fill its coffers with dollars from the sale of Iranian goods to the 
United States. This is not the time to give Iran one iota of legitimacy 
in the international community. Legitimacy must be earned, and Iran has 
earned nothing.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Deutsch amendment, which 
would deny funding for the importation of Iranian products. We owe at 
least this much to the Iran 10, the independent journalists, the human 
rights lawyers, and all the people of Iran who are still not free.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, these remarks will be titled, No Justice, 
No Caviar.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Florida. We should not do business with Iran until 
they respect human rights. No justice, no caviar.
  On July 1, ten of the 13 Jews held on espionage charges in the 
southern Iranian city of Shiraz were convicted and sentenced to jail 
terms from four to 13 years. The men had been arrested in March 1999 
and the ten ultimately convicted had languished in prison since that 
time awaiting trial, which finally began last April. While the death 
penalty--a distinct possibility in Iran for ``espionage''--was 
thankfully averted, the conservative Judiciary in Iran still felt it 
was necessary to take 89 years in total away from the lives of these 
innocent men.
  And let there be no doubt that ``the ten''--as well as the two Muslim 
accomplices--are innocent. The trial was a joke of the first order. The 
judge served not merely as a neutral arbiter of the law, but also as 
the prosecution. There was no jury; the judge/prosecutor, known 
affectionately by fellow conservatives as ``the Butcher,'' also made 
the determination of guilt. The proceedings were held in private--no 
one except the Butcher, the defendants, and their lawyers know what 
happened in that courtroom. For varying reasons, none of them are 
talking. Every few days or so during the heat of the trial two more 
defendants would be paraded before waiting television cameras to 
``confess,'' but their confessions were virtually devoid of detail. 
Stalin at least would have gotten his defendants to confess to some 
details to back up the official state story.
  Last March our government decided to relax its embargo on Iranian 
fruits, nuts, caviar and rugs. The rationale for this move was that 
there are ``moderate'' forces in Iran aligned

[[Page H6672]]

with President Khatemi who need to be bolstered in their fight against 
the conservative mullahs.
  History and recent experience with Iran strongly argue against this 
policy. The US needs to take the lead in using our political and 
economic clout to help win the release of these men. Only then can we 
rally other governments to make continued favorable business and 
investment arrangements contingent on this basic human rights issue. 
Only when Iran sees the impact to its bottom line will it understand 
the need to release these shopkeepers, clerks and religious men to go 
home to their families.
  We should not accept Iranian goods until the Iranian's respect human 
rights. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to support 
human rights in Iran.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the amendment?
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Virginia

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Virginia:
       At the end of the general provisions title, add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to carry out the amendments to the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation contained in the proposed rule published by the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (65 Fed. Reg. 40829) 
     (2000), relating to responsibility considerations of Federal 
     contractors and the allowability of certain contractor costs.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking my good 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), for 
offering this amendment with me today. This is the Davis-Moran 
amendment.
  Last summer, the administration first proposed regulations that would 
significantly change our procurement process, jeopardizing the 
bipartisan procurement reforms of the past few years.
  At that time, myself and really hundreds of Members of the private 
sector had concerns that we expressed at that point. We felt that the 
administration had drafted overly broad regulations that would violate 
due process rights of supportive contractors and substantially affect 
the Federal Government's ability to acquire goods and services at the 
best value.
  We have tried through the years of this administration to work in a 
bipartisan manner on procurement reform. We have had several successes: 
The Federal Acquisition Reform Act, the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act, where we have worked in a bipartisan way together.
  Unfortunately, some of the regulations that are currently presented I 
think are really miscast and take us backwards in terms of procurement 
reform.
  On June 30, 2000, the administration reissued the proposed 
regulations, portraying them as a clarification of the non-
responsibility criteria a contracting officer may use to disqualify a 
contractor from competing for a Federal contract. Specifically, their 
stated intention is to clarify what constitutes a satisfactory record 
of business ethics and integrity.
  But the proposed regulations constitute a substantial change to 
procurement law. They run counter to the existing procurement 
standards. For that reason, we feel at this point, pending a GAO audit 
which will show exactly the depth of the problems the administration is 
trying to correct, pending that audit coming back here, we believe we 
should put these on hold. For that reason, we are offering this 
amendment.
  For the first time under the proposed regulations, the contracting 
officers would be required to consider certain nonprocurement laws when 
reviewing bids without a minimum standard. This would signify when a 
contractor has met the existing requirement of a satisfactory record of 
integrity and business ethics.
  In trying to clarify this, they are taking a number of nonjudicial 
decisions, decisions in some cases that have unilaterally come forward 
from the Federal government in terms of charges which the contractors 
had no opportunity to rebut. They have taken this, and could be 
debarred from that and a series of contracts with simply allegations.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say that in many of these cases where we get 
allegations and charges coming from the government, many of these 
cases, over half of them, are dismissed later, not prosecuted because 
they are not well-founded. But under this procedure, contracting 
officers would have to pay attention to this.
  This with respect to Federal contractors I think would seriously harm 
our ability to get the best value for goods and services. This 
amendment would stop these regulations from moving forward until we 
have an opportunity to review the GAO audit.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking my good friend and colleague 
from Virginia, Congressman Moran for offering this amendment with me 
today.
  Last summer, the Administration first proposed regulations that would 
significantly change our procurement process, jeopardizing the 
bipartisan procurement reforms of the past few years. At that time, I 
had grave concerns that the Administration had drafted overly-broad 
regulations that would violate the due process rights of prospective 
contractors and substantially affect the Federal Government's ability 
to acquire goods and services at the best value. Last year, I worked 
through the comment process and met on a number of occasions with the 
Administration to express my concerns. I was hopeful that the 
Administration would carefully consider the numerous comments it 
received on this proposal from Members of Congress, including the 
bipartisan comments expressed by the Small Business Committee at its 
hearing in September 1999, and the over 1500 comment letters it 
received. Unfortunately, the Administration did not.
  On June 30, 2000, the Administration reissued the proposed 
regulations, portraying them as a clarification of the 
nonresponsibility criteria a contracting officer may use to disqualify 
a contractor from competing for a Federal contract. Specifically, their 
stated intention is to clarify what constitutes a satisfactory record 
of business ethics and integrity.
  However, the proposed regulations constitute a substantial change to 
Federal procurement law and run counter to existing procurement 
standards. While there is no question that the Federal Government has a 
responsibility to ensure that it does not do business with bad actors, 
the Administration has not been able to offer any evidence that there 
is a problem with Federal contracts being awarded to unscrupulous 
contractors, specifically because they have no mechanism for tracking 
that type of information.
  For these reasons, I am offering--with Mr. Moran--this amendment 
which will not allow any funds available under the Treasury, Postal 
appropriations bill to be used to implement the regulations until the 
results of a GAO audit are available. The GAO audit was requested in 
June and will track the extent to which the Federal Government is 
contracting with those that are violating the standards put forth in 
the proposed regulations.
  I believe there are a number of flaws with these regulations that run 
counter to the bipartisan procurement reform efforts that we have 
enacted since 1993. Although they are intended to clarify existing 
standards, they actually inject an extraordinary amount of uncertainty 
into the procurement process. As a result, they most certainly would 
constitute an arbitrary and capricious rulemaking.
  For the first time, contracting officers will be required to consider 
non-procurement laws when reviewing bids without a common standard that 
would signify when a contractor has met the existing requirement that 
it have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics. This 
will create a high level of subjectivity in the review process. This 
means contractors will not know when violations, or alleged violations 
of the law, reach a degree of seriousness that will result in contract 
suspension or how that standard will apply from contract to contract 
and agency to agency. This regulation will only serve to further 
complicate the well-intentioned efforts of contracting officers to 
comply with existing Federal Acquisition Regulations. Moreover, 
contracting officers and their departmental counsels will now be 
expected to understand a significant body of law that is now under the 
jurisdiction of many different federal agencies.

[[Page H6673]]

  I would also ask, if this regulation is supposed to clarify an 
existing standard shouldn't it be consistent with past applications of 
the standard? The proposed regulation must be considered substantial 
rulemaking because it is putting in place an entirely new standard of 
law without any direction from Congress on this issue. In fact, what 
makes up a record of good business ethics and integrity is currently 
contained in the FAR. There is a list of seven items that are 
automatically used by a contracting officer in making the 
responsibility determination currently required for every contract 
award. As well, suspension of a contract is already available to the 
Federal government if there are criminal violations are serious civil 
violations related to the honesty of statements made to the government.
  This regulation also runs counter to the long-standing procurement 
case law and practices currently utilized by contracting officers. When 
a contracting officer makes a nonresponsibility determination, he or 
she will do so on the basis that there is a nexus between the 
contractor's past violation of the law and the contract on which they 
are bidding. This is clearly the case in the often-cited and 
misinterpreted bid challenge asserted by Standard Tank Cleaning 
Corporation on a United States Navy contract. The Navy contracting 
officer eliminated the bidder from consideration because the contractor 
had a number of state environmental citations that indicated an 
inability to effectively perform a contract for hazardous waste removal 
and disposal. It was found that the company lacked the integrity to 
perform the contract. None of us would disagree with this standard: an 
environmental polluter ought not work for the government to clean up 
the environment.
  The regulation also has no due process provisions, contrary to 
Administration statements on this issue. A contractor may be suspended 
from receiving a contract based on ``credible information'' or 
``complaints, violations, or findings by Administrative Law Judges, or 
any federal agency, board, or commission.'' Neither of those standards 
mean that company has gone through a hearing process or had the 
decision adjudicated. They would largely be denied the opportunity to 
explain the circumstances related to a nonresponsibility determination.
  Moreover, the ``credible information'' standard is nothing short of a 
mystery to me. I have yet to find an explanation of credible 
information that a contracting officer may use to guide them in making 
a nonresponsibility determination. Again, this clearly constitutes 
arbitrary and capricious rulemaking. Last year, the Administration 
included the terminology ``alleged violation'' in the original proposed 
regulations. After assuring me on a number of occasions that they 
understood the regulations were too vague on this point and violated 
due process, the Administration just switched words around and came up 
with ``credible information.'' Who may offer a contracting officer 
credible information during the bid process: a competing contractor, a 
disgruntled employee, or an organization pursuing an independent 
agenda? This standard invites third party mischief into the procurement 
process. How does a responsible contractor defend himself against this 
type of misinformation campaign?
  Especially important to note is the impact these changes will have on 
the technology sector, small businesses--many of whom are technology 
companies--and university research programs. These parties, in 
particular, will be unable to survive a subjective scrutiny that will 
result in a delayed federal procurement process, increased litigation, 
and the proliferation of bid protests. The length of the process alone 
will jeopardize the viability of many small businesses and our nation's 
research priorities. In turn, the Federal Government will undermine the 
benefits it realizes through technological innovation and university-
sponsored federal research.
  At this point, Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent that the 
Information Technology Industry Council letter in support of the Davis-
Moran amendment and key vote notice, a letter from my distinguished 
colleague, Congressman Talent, Chairman of the Small Business 
Committee, that lists the affect this regulation could have on small 
businesses, and a letter of support for the amendment from the American 
Council on Education that is signed by ten higher education 
organizations, all be inserted into the Record.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a reasonable response to flawed 
attempts to legislate through regulation. I urge all of my colleagues 
to support our bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following letters in 
support of the amendment:

                                                             NFIB,


                                  The Voice of Small Business,

                                                    July 19, 2000.
     Hon. Tom Davis,
     224 Cannon House Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Davis: On behalf of the 600,000 members 
     of the National Federation of Independent Business, I am 
     writing to support your amendment to the 2000 Treasury and 
     Postal Appropriations bill to prohibit the Clinton 
     Administration from enforcing its federal procurement 
     ``backlisting'' regulation until the General Accounting 
     Office has completed an audit of government contracting 
     practices.
       This regulation would effectively blacklist companies from 
     eligibility to receive government contracts if they do not 
     follow arbitrary standards, defined as ``satisfactory 
     compliance with federal laws including tax laws, labor, and 
     employment laws, environmental laws, antitrust laws, and 
     consumer protection laws.'' Satisfactory compliance will be 
     determined subjectively, unfairly politicizing the 
     contracting process.
       Ninety-three percent of NFIB members believe that the 
     federal government should not require small businesses to 
     follow such biased rules to receive federally funded 
     projects. Requiring small businesses to abide by subjective 
     and arbitrary terms in order to receive federal contracts 
     discourages competition and is counter to the principles of 
     free enterprise. Further, the proposed regulation would 
     discriminate against small businesses that may not be able to 
     meet the subjective thresholds established under the 
     regulations. For instance, large businesses and others may 
     use small businesses' minor paperwork violations to prevent 
     them from qualifying for federal contracts.
       We will strongly urge Members to protect their small 
     business constituents from unfair blacklisting regulations by 
     voting for your amendment when it comes to the floor during 
     consideration of the Treasury, Postal Appropriations bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Dan Danner,
     Senior Vice President, Federal Public Policy.
                                  ____

                                                    Small Business


                                         Technology Coalition,

                                                    July 18, 2000.
     Hon. Tom Davis,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Davis: I am writing you to thank you 
     for your leadership in introducing the Davis-Moran Amendment 
     to the Treasury and Postal Appropriations Bill and to 
     communicate the support of the Small Business Technology 
     Coalition for passage of this amendment. This amendment will 
     postpone implementation of regulation being proposed by the 
     administration, which would otherwise impose significant 
     burdens on the Small Business community our coalition 
     represents. The Davis-Moran amendment simply restricts funds 
     from being spent on implementation of the administration's 
     proposed guidelines on contractor responsibility until the 
     GAO can determine that a problem exists. Until now, no 
     credible evidence has been presented which establishes that a 
     problem exists and it is my position that the proposed 
     regulations will harm Small Businesses doing business with 
     the government.
           Respectfully,
                                               Richard W. Carroll,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                                    July 18, 2000.
     Hon. Tom Davis,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman: I want to thank you for offering an 
     amendment to the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill, which 
     would postpone a burdensome and ill-conceived regulation. 
     National Small Business United (NSBU) strongly supports your 
     amendment and urges all members of the House to vote for it.
       These regulations on so-called contractor responsibility 
     would unfairly ``blacklist'' many small businesses from 
     competing for federal contracts, based on whether the 
     business had ever paid any federal fines or penalties. As you 
     know, many small businesses face unfair and unjustified 
     penalties from government agencies, and frequently pay the 
     fine rather than spend the enormous amounts of time and 
     resources necessary to fight the penalty. Moreover, there has 
     not yet been any substantial evidence presented that 
     demonstrates that a serious problem exists on contractor 
     responsibility. Your amendment would postpone these 
     regulations until GAO can determine whether a problem 
     actually exists.
       Again, I want to thank you for offering this important 
     amendment in support of small business contractors. NSBU 
     urges its speedy adoption.
           Yours truly,
                                                   Todd McCracken,
     President.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Small Business,

                                    Washington, DC, July 19, 2000.
     Hon. Thomas M. Davis,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Committee 
         On Government Reform, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Davis: On October 21, 1999, the Committee On 
     Small Business held a hearing on the proposed changes to the 
     contractor responsibility rules of the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulations. At that hearing, the potential adverse impact of 
     those proposed changes on small business were highlighted. 
     Subsequent to that hearing, the ranking member, Ms. 
     Velazquez, and I filed joint comments with the FAR Council 
     again raising a number of potential barriers that the 
     proposed rule could create in the ability of small businesses 
     to obtain federal government contracts. We noted that the 
     standards

[[Page H6674]]

     being utilized were vague, imbued contracting officers with 
     excessive amounts of discretion, failed to provide 
     contracting officers with adequate guidance on determining 
     whether a prospective awardee has an adequate record of 
     business ethics and integrity, ignored the implementation 
     problems of the proposal on subcontractors, and requested 
     that the FAR Council perform an adequate regulatory 
     flexibility analysis.
       I have examined the new proposed rule issued on June 29, 
     2000. That proposal fails to address most, if not all, of the 
     concerns raised at the hearing and in the formal comments 
     filed with the FAR Council. The new proposal still imposes 
     new vague standards for contracting officers, does not 
     provide contracting officers with guidance in making 
     responsibility determinations, ignores the subcontracting 
     issue in its entirety, and fails to perform an adequate 
     regulatory flexibility analysis. In fact, the FAR Council 
     continues to maintain, despite the evidence at the hearing, 
     that the proposal will not have a significant economic impact 
     on a substantial number of small entities. That simply is not 
     the case and the FAR Council appears headed to finalize a 
     rule that could substantially raise the bar over which small 
     businesses will have to hurdle in order to get federal 
     government contracts.
       While I certainly do not want federal agencies contracting 
     with businesses that have committed serious civil or criminal 
     breaches of federal law, the new proposal still fails to 
     address whether this is a serious problem or an isolated 
     occurrence. It is my understanding that the General 
     Accounting Office will be performing a study to determine 
     whether a problem exists concerning the award of federal 
     government contracts to businesses that have committed 
     serious civil or criminal breaches of the law. I concur in 
     your efforts to delay the implementation of any final rule on 
     contractor responsibility pending the completion of the 
     General Accounting Office study.
       Thank you for your leadership on this issue and please feel 
     free to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James M. Talent,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                     American Council on Education


                                       Office of the President

                                                    July 20, 2000.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned 
     organizations, I urge you to support the Tom Davis (R-VA) and 
     Jim Moran (D-VA) amendment to H.R. 4871, the Treasury, Postal 
     Service, and General Government Appropriations Bill, that is 
     expected to be on the House floor this week. The Davis/Moran 
     amendment would impose a moratorium on the implementation of 
     the proposed amendments to the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulations (FAR) as proposed by the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulatory Council pending an outcome of a study by the 
     Government Accounting Office (GAO). The Davis/Moran amendment 
     presents a fair, balanced approach to this issue and provides 
     Congress the opportunity to examine the extent to which the 
     government is contracting with organizations that have 
     unsatisfactory records of compliance with federal law, as 
     well as evidence of contractor violations and their impact on 
     contract performance.
       The proposed amendments to the Federal Acquisitions 
     Regulations (FAR) would bar employers, including colleges and 
     universities, from eligibility for federal contracts based on 
     preliminary determinations, unproven complaints, and actual 
     transgressions of federal employment, labor and tax laws. 
     Although portrayed as clarification of existing law, we 
     believe the proposed regulations would, in effect, give new 
     powers to federal contracting officers not granted by 
     Congress.
       American colleges and universities, which receive over $18 
     billion annually in federal grants and contracts, would be 
     directly affected by these proposed regulations. The FAR 
     revisions could have the result of creating a ``blacklist'' 
     of contractors who would be penalized as ineligible to 
     receive government contracts--and potentially debarred--for 
     ``unsatisfactory'' labor and employment practices. Colleges 
     and universities are progressive employers, offering generous 
     benefits and innovative policies such as work-family 
     initiatives and domestic partners benefits. They are also 
     large, complex organizations that are subject to extensive 
     federal regulations. Despite our best efforts, conflicts and 
     disagreements do arise, some of which result in allegations 
     that an institution has violated labor, environment, or other 
     laws.
       We believe the federal government should seek to 
     investigate and resolve such allegations in the most 
     constructive manner possible under the current law process 
     within the respective agencies. Unfortunately, the proposed 
     Federal Acquisition Regulations would move in the opposite 
     direction, encouraging adversarial relationships. Under the 
     proposal, violations, preliminary determinations, and 
     unproven complaints of laws--such as the National Labor 
     Relations Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the 
     Fair Labor Standards Act, and employment discrimination 
     statutes such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the 
     Age Discrimination in Employment Act--could trigger a status 
     akin to ``blacklisting.'' The proposed regulations also would 
     penalize contractors for violations of environmental, 
     antitrust, tax, and consumer protection laws. Adverse 
     determinations could lead to exclusion from preferred vendor 
     lists and from eligibility for contracts and subcontracts.
       The proposal would engender mistrust between colleges and 
     universities and the various regulatory and contracting 
     agencies. Moreover, it would invite and encourage persons or 
     organizations who disagree with an institution about 
     employment practices, land use, or various other matters to 
     file formal complaints and thereby invoke the possibility of 
     grave penalties contemplated in the proposed regulations as 
     leverage. That would be an unfortunate distortion and 
     certainly is not the intention of federal laws and other 
     standards.
       Under the proposals, federal agents would be empowered to 
     decide what is or is not a ``satisfactory'' record of 
     employee relations from colleges and universities of every 
     size throughout the country. Federal contracting officers do 
     not, by the very nature of their work, possess the expertise 
     or experience in the enforcement of labor and employment laws 
     and regulations, to say nothing of environmental, tax, and 
     antitrust laws and workplace practices. The proposed changes 
     would give them authority to make arbitrary determinations to 
     the detriment of the entire procurement process and the fair 
     enforcement of employment and other laws.
       The strong and cooperative relationship between the federal 
     government and the country's colleges and universities has 
     reaped countless gains for each party and for the nation as a 
     whole through the contracting process. In the interest of 
     furthering that long-standing relationship, we urge your 
     support of the Davis/Moran amendment to H.R. 4871.
           Sincerely,
                                             Stanley A. Ikenberry,
                                                        President.
       On behalf of:
       American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 
     American Council on Education, Association of American 
     Universities, College and University Professional Association 
     for Human Resources, Council for Christian Colleges and 
     Universities, Council of Independent Colleges, Mennonite 
     Board of Education, National Association of College and 
     University Business Officers, National Association of 
     Colleges and Universities, National Association of 
     Independent Colleges and Universities, and the National 
     Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.
                                  ____

                                            Information Technology


                                             Industry Council,

                                    Washington, DC, July 19, 2000.
     Hon. Thomas M. Davis III,
     Hon. James P. Moran,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Gentlemen: The Information Technology Industry 
     Council, ITI, wishes to express strong support for the 
     bipartisan Davis/Moran amendment to H.R. 4871, the FY2001 
     Treasury/Postal Service appropriations bill. We urge Congress 
     to support your amendment.
       The Davis/Moran amendment would postpone promulgation of a 
     new regulation on ``contractor responsibility'' 
     determinations, pending the completion of a comprehensive 
     study by the General Accounting Office on whether such a 
     major regulation is needed. We believe such a postponement is 
     necessary to avoid undermining IT modernization efforts by 
     federal agencies. For this reason, we anticipate including 
     your amendment as a key vote in our Year 2000 High Tech 
     Voting Guide.
       As you know, the High Tech Voting Guide is used by ITI and 
     the media to measure Members of Congress' support for the IT 
     industry and policies that ensure the success of the digital 
     economy. ITI is the leading association of U.S. providers of 
     information technology products and services. ITI members had 
     world-wide revenue of more than $633 billion in 1999 and 
     employ an estimated 1.3 million people in the United States.
       ITI was a strong advocate of the landmark procurement 
     reform legislation enacted by Congress and this 
     Administration during the last decade. The reforms greatly 
     enhanced the government's ability to acquire state-of-the-art 
     information technology by eliminating many of the government-
     unique rules and procedures that made it too risky and 
     expensive to compete in the federal marketplace. 
     Unfortunately, the new regulation would roll back many of 
     those hard-fought reforms by imposing on contractors 
     certification requirements and recordkeeping burdens that 
     have no corollary in the commercial sector. Ultimately, the 
     regulation could hinder the government's ability to acquire 
     IT products and services.
       Clearly, the U.S. government should only do business with 
     responsible, law-abiding contractors. We are unaware of any 
     compelling evidence, however, that indicates the need for a 
     major expansion of current laws and regulations, and in 
     particular, one that leaves so many subjective judgments in 
     the hands of those responsible for their interpretation. For 
     these and other reasons, we urge Congress to order a 
     statutory ``time-out'' in order to allow GAO to conduct a 
     thorough, independent review of the regulation and its 
     potential impact. Your amendment will accomplish that.
       Thank you for your efforts. We commend you for your 
     leadership on issues of critical importance to the IT 
     industry.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Rhett B. Dawson,
                                                        President.

[[Page H6675]]

     
                                  ____
                                              Technology Coalition


                                  for Responsible Procurement,

                                                    July 18, 2000.
     Hon. Thomas M. Davis III,
     Hon. James P. Moran,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Gentlemen: We are writing on behalf of the thousands 
     of responsible information technology (IT) companies that we 
     represent, to express strong support for your amendment to 
     the FY 2001 Treasury and General Government Appropriation 
     Act. As we understand it, the amendment would delay 
     promulgation of the June 30, 2000 proposed rule (65 FR 40830) 
     on ``contractor responsibility'' to allow the U.S. General 
     Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a comprehensive study of 
     the issues involved. We strongly support this effort.
       As an industry, we firmly support the policy that the 
     federal government only does business with contractors that 
     act responsibly and comply with federal statutes. We believe, 
     however, that existing law and regulations already provide 
     the government with sufficient authority and latitude to 
     determine contractor responsibility. This is borne out by the 
     relative lack of a body of evidence to the contrary.
       The Federal Acquisition Regulation Council has described 
     the proposed regulation as a clarification of current law. We 
     do not share that view. If implemented, the new regulation 
     would roll back many of the landmark procurement reforms 
     enacted during the 1990s and create undue risk for IT 
     companies that contract with the Federal Government. For 
     example, the Clinger-Cohen Act (PL 104-106) called for the 
     elimination of government-unique certification requirements 
     that had no corollary in commercial practice. The proposed 
     regulation ignores this mandate by creating a new 
     certification requirement that could force companies to 
     create and maintain expensive databases in order to avoid 
     violations. Compounding the risk, the highly proprietary 
     information that would be contained in such databases could 
     be subject to unlimited discovery by the very parties who 
     raised the initial allegations.
       To the extent that there are shortcomings in applying or 
     enforcing current rules, rather than creating new regulatory 
     burdens, the Administration should work with Congress to 
     resolve any problems through cooperative efforts or, if 
     necessary, legislation. Another alternative would be to 
     bolster training to ensure that contracting personnel have 
     the necessary tools and skills to do their jobs.
       The Federal contracting process already presents 
     significant challenges for commercial IT companies. The 
     additional burdens and risks outlined above may well convince 
     contractors to forgo competing for government business, 
     thereby depriving agencies of the technology that is 
     essential to fulfilling their missions in an efficient and 
     cost-effective manner. Are we willing to take that chance? 
     The comprehensive GAO study currently being researched will 
     provide policymakers with critical information that will 
     enable them to make informed, reasoned decisions on this 
     matter. We urge Congress to provide that opportunity by 
     supporting your amendment.
           Sincerely,
       Association for Competitive Technology, Computing 
     Technology Industry Association, Electronic Industries 
     Alliance, Information Technology Association of America, 
     Information Technology Industry Association, Professional 
     Services Council.
                                  ____



                             American Electronics Association,

                                                    July 18, 2000.
     Hon. Tom Davis,
     226 House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Davis: The American Electronics 
     Association (AEA), the nation's largest high-tech trade 
     association representing more than 3,500 of America's leading 
     high-tech companies, is writing in support of your amendment 
     to the Treasury/Postal Appropriations bill to prevent the 
     blacklisting regulations from moving forward.
       On June 30, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the 
     Defense Acquisition Council published a rule in the Federal 
     Register to ``clarify'' federal contracting rules on what 
     constitutes a ``satisfactory record of integrity and business 
     ethics.'' Under the so-called ``blacklisting'' proposal, a 
     company could be barred from contract award without the due 
     process currently provided under federal contracting rules if 
     a Federal contract officer were to arbitrarily determine the 
     contractor is irresponsible, AEA's 3,500 member companies are 
     extremely concerned about this proposed regulation.
       These proposed regulations will complicate the Federal 
     procurement process and threaten to limit government access 
     to the high-tech products and services produced by more than 
     5 million skilled U.S. workers. Current law already protects 
     the Federal Government from bad actors, so additional 
     regulations are not necessary. Further, these draft 
     regulations will subject the current procurement process to 
     inappropriate third-party influence without due process for 
     contractor exclusion, suspension, and debarment. Moreover, 
     the blacklisting regulation would result in more litigation, 
     as contractors protest both awards and denial of contracts 
     because of the blacklisting regulation.
       The proposed blacklisting regulation is a solution in 
     search of a problem. The Federal Government has not brought 
     forth credible evidence that a large number of federal 
     contracts are being awarded to bad actors. The Davis/Moran 
     Amendment simply postpones implementation of the blacklisting 
     regulation until the independent Government Accounting Office 
     (GAO) can determine whether federal contracts are being 
     awarded to companies that routinely violate federal law. Once 
     this study is completed--in about a year--a determination can 
     be made to the need for the blacklisting regulation.
       AEA and its members believe the approach taken by your 
     amendment is a reasoned and rational way of addressing the 
     issue of business ethics and contractor responsibility in 
     awarding federal contracts. AEA appreciates your efforts and 
     looks forward to working with you on this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                William T. Archey,
     President and C.E.O.
                                  ____



                               Electronic Industries Alliance,

                                     Arlignton, VA, July 18, 2000.
       To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: When the 
     House considers the Treasury, Postal Service and General 
     Government Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001, we understand 
     that Representatives Tom Davis, Jim Moran and other Members 
     are expected to offer an amendment that would prohibit 
     implementation of proposed blacklisting regulations pending 
     completion of a GAO study. On behalf of our more than 2,100 
     member companies, we urge you to support the Davis-Moran 
     amendment. This vote is very important to our members.
       Under the proposal, contracting officers would be allowed 
     to deny federal contracts to companies on the basis of 
     ``relevant credible information'' regarding alleged 
     violations of federal law (labor and employment, environment, 
     tax, antitrust or consumer protection). This would represent 
     a significant and, we believe, an unwarranted change in the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) which currently provide 
     sufficient criteria for determining whether a potential 
     contractor is responsible. Further, the proposal's 
     introduction of a new, overly broad standard for 
     eligibility--``satisfactory compliance'' with such an 
     extensive array of laws during the preceding three years--
     would provide contracting officers with almost unlimited 
     discretion to make subjective judgments on matters unrelated 
     to procurement and moreover, their area of expertise. 
     Additionally, the proposal would by regulatory fiat vastly 
     expand the penalties authorized by Congress under the 
     aforementioned laws, e.g., environmental, tax and consumer 
     protection. Thus, it is an attempt to circumvent the 
     legislative process. Finally, none of this has any relevance 
     to a potential contractor's ability to provide the required 
     goods and/or services to the federal government.
       For all these reasons, we are opposed to the proposed 
     blacklisting regulations and believe that they are 
     unwarranted and inconsistent with sound procurement policy. 
     Accordingly, we respectfully urge your support of the Davis-
     Moran amendment to the Treasury, Postal Service and General 
     Government Appropriations for FY '01. We find merit in 
     awaiting the GAO's findings prior to implementation of any 
     changes to the FAR; particularly those as overly broad as 
     contemplated by the proposed blacklisting regulations.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Dave McCurdy,
       President, Electronic Industries Alliance.
     John Kelly,
       Executive Vice President, JEDEC: Solid State Technology 
     Association.
     Dan C. Heinemeier,
       President, Government Electronics and Information 
     Technology Association.
     Robert Willis,
       President, Electronic Components, Assemblies and Materials 
     Association.
                                  ____



                                                      CompTIA,

                                                    July 18, 2000.
     Hon. Thomas M. Davis III,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. James P. Moran,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Davis and Mr. Moran: We are writing on behalf of 
     the 8,000 member companies of the Computing Technology 
     Industry Association (CompTIA) to endorse your amendment to 
     the FY 2001 Treasury, Postal Service and General Government 
     Appropriation Act. The amendment will delay promulgation of 
     the June 30, 2000 proposed rule (65 FR 40830) on ``contractor 
     responsibility'' to allow the U.S. General Accounting Office 
     (GAO) to study of the issues involved. We strongly support 
     such a delay.
       CompTIA supports the Federal government's existing policy 
     of doing business only with contractors that act responsibly 
     and comply with federal statutes in the areas of employment, 
     environmental, antitrust, tax, and consumer protection. We 
     believe that existing law and regulations already provide the 
     government with sufficient authority

[[Page H6676]]

     and latitude to determine contractor responsibility. For this 
     reason new regulations are unnecessary.
       The proposed regulation ignores the Clinger-Cohen Act (PL 
     104-106) mandate requiring the elimination of government-
     unique certification requirements that had no corollary in 
     commercial practice by creating a new certification 
     requirement that could force companies to create and maintain 
     expensive databases in order to avoid violations. Most of our 
     8,000 member companies are small business, many of them very 
     small. We estimate that 20% of them do business with the 
     Federal Government. We believe that compliance costs would be 
     substantial for smaller firms.
       In addition a number of federal senior procurement policy 
     and contracting executives have expressed concerns off the 
     record that contracting personnel do not have the necessary 
     tools and skills to carry out the requirements of the 
     proposed regulation.
       Finally, another potential unintended outcome of the 
     proposed regulation is that some companies may seek to use 
     the proposed regulation as a new bid protest mechanism, 
     seeking to disqualify successful competitors who may have 
     faced real or imagined charges. This could slow down the 
     procurement of time-critical IT products and services.
       A comprehensive GAO study will provide policymakers with 
     critical information that will enable them to make informed, 
     reasoned decisions on this matter. We urge Congress to 
     provide that opportunity by supporting your amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bruce N. Hahn,
     CAE.
                                  ____

                                  Aerospace Industries Association


                                                   of America,

                                    Washington, DC, July 19, 2000.
     Hon. Thomas M. Davis III,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Davis: On behalf of the member 
     companies of the Aerospace Industries Association of America, 
     I am writing to share our strong support for your amendment 
     to the Fiscal 2001 Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill that 
     would delay implementation of the proposed regulations on so-
     called contractor responsibility. There are a number of 
     issues with the proposed regulations that require a delay 
     until the General Accounting Office completes its study.
       The regulations published on June 30, while improved with 
     respect to earlier versions, raise a number of serious 
     concerns that justify further more detailed study. Among our 
     concerns, the regulations maintain very ambiguous standards 
     regarding ``relevant credible information'' that a 
     contracting officer may use in making a determination 
     concerning a contractor's responsibility based upon integrity 
     and business ethics. Contracting officers are not trained in 
     the intricacies of tax, environmental, labor, and antitrust 
     laws about which they would be required to make decisions 
     based on this ambiguous standard. Moreover, the proposed 
     regulations would effectively deprive contractors of existing 
     due process rights under the suspension and debarment 
     process.
       The need for the proposed regulations has not been 
     established. Our member companies support the existing 
     mechanisms for ensuring contractor responsibility and 
     compliance with federal law. These mechanisms have proven 
     sound and have struck a balance between effectiveness and the 
     preservation of adequate due process for all parties. No 
     analysis has been undertaken to demonstrate a need for 
     imposing the additional burdens on the federal acquisition 
     process that would follow from the implementation of the 
     proposed regulations.
       At a minimum, there needs to be a delay in implementation 
     sufficient to allow further study and resolution of these 
     important issues. Such a delay will ensure that regulations 
     of this nature will not undermine our shared goals of 
     integrity, efficiency, and fairness in federal procurement.
           Sincerely,
                                                 John W. Douglass,
     President.
                                  ____



                                Professional Services Council,

                                     Arlington, VA, July 18, 2000.
     Hon. Thomas D. Davis III,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. James P. Moran,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Gentlemen: On behalf of the members of the 
     Professional Services Council, I am writing to express our 
     strong support of your amendment to the FY 2001 Treasury and 
     General Government Appropriation Act which would delay the 
     promulgation of the June 30, 2000 proposed rule on 
     ``Contractor responsibility.'' In summary, the proposed rule 
     (65 FR 40830) is profoundly antagonistic to the spirit of 
     acquisition reform. It represents the worst form of ill-
     conceived, over-reaching and arbitrary regulatory design. 
     Your amendment represents an appropriate and reasoned 
     response to the proposed rule by requiring the U.S. General 
     Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a comprehensive study of 
     the issues involved before the federal government proceeds.
       As you know, PSC is the principal national trade 
     association representing the professional and technical 
     services industry. Our sector's products are ideas, problem-
     solving techniques, and system that enhance organizational 
     performance. Primarily, these services are applications of 
     professional, expert, and specialized knowledge in areas such 
     as defense, space, environment, energy, education, health, 
     international development, and others used to assist 
     virtually every department and agency of the federal 
     government, state and local governments, commercial, and 
     international customers. Our members use research and 
     development, information technology, program design, analysis 
     and evaluation, and social science tools in assisting their 
     clients. This sector performs more than $400 billion in 
     services nationally including more than $100 billion annually 
     in support of the federal government.
       The proposed rule has been discussed and opposed by all 
     responsible industry parties based on its inherent 
     inapplicability and because it runs counter to the recent 
     reforms of the Federal Acquisition Reform Act and the Federal 
     Acquisition Streamlining Act, which were aimed at simplifying 
     and commercializing federal government contracting. Further, 
     the proposal is in direct conflict with the Administration's 
     own National Performance Review, aimed at restructuring the 
     management of federal agencies to make them more businesslike 
     and less burdened by command control-type regulations. The 
     acquisition reform process ought to engender openness, 
     partnering, and fairness. The proposed rule creates the 
     opposite environment and would represent one more onerous 
     regulatory manifestation further discrediting the federal 
     government in the public's eye.
       It is important to recognize that all of the issues the 
     proposed rule purports to protect are covered already in 
     their own domains, through extensive labor relations 
     statutes, equal employment statutes, and others. The parallel 
     system that this proposed rule would create would have no 
     benefits and would inevitably create redundant and 
     conflicting regulatory activity.
       This proposal will have a serious negative impact on 
     contractors currently providing goods and services to the 
     federal government and will inject another disincentive for 
     firms the government seeks to attract into the federal 
     market. Indeed, there is a very strong and growing sentiment 
     among many of our nation's most respected and capable private 
     sector companies that doing business with the federal 
     government may not be work the regulation and social 
     engineering arbitrarily being imposed on them. With 
     commercial opportunities increasing dramatically, companies 
     are under pressure form their stakeholders and shareholders 
     to pursue these instead of potentially higher-risk and over-
     regulated federal government work.
       The comprehensive GAO study that you are requesting in your 
     amendment will provide policymakers with critical information 
     that will enable them to make informed, reasoned decisions on 
     this matter. We urge Congress to provide that opportunity by 
     supporting your amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                Charles H. Cantus,
     Acting President.
                                  ____

                                     Contract Services Association


                                                   of America,

                                    Washington, DC, July 19, 2000.
     Hon. Tom Davis,
     House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Davis: On behalf of the members of the 
     Contract Services Association of America (CSA), I would like 
     to register my strong support for the amendment you will be 
     offering with Representative Jim Moran to the Treasury-Postal 
     Appropriations bill. Your amendment would place a much needed 
     moratorium on implementation of the unwarranted 
     ``blacklisting'' regulations until GAO has finished the 
     report you've requested and Congress has had a chance to do 
     some oversight.
       Now in its 35th year, CSA represents over 350 government 
     service contractors, and their hundreds of employees, that 
     provide a wide array of services to the Federal government, 
     as well as numerous state and local governments. Small 
     businesses represent a large portion of our membership, and 
     many of our members (of all sizes) are headquartered in 
     Virginia. Attached is a list of our members, all of whom 
     support your proposal.
       As you well know, there are already stringent laws and 
     regulations on the books that fully protect the Federal 
     government's interest on labor, environment, tax and other 
     matters, and effectively address the issues of irresponsible 
     or unethical business practices. If implemented, these 
     regulations would move us away from the significant 
     acquisition streamlining measures supported by the Congress 
     and the Administration that is intended to modernize the 
     Government and move it toward using more commercial 
     practices. And, it would discourage commercial companies, 
     particularly high tech firms, from entering the Government 
     marketplace.
       I applaud your amendment. This is very necessary measure to 
     restore fairness and balance to the Government contracting 
     process.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Gary Engebretson,
                                                        President.


       contract services association of america member companies

       AAI Engineering Support, Inc., A-Bear Janitorial Service, 
     Inc., Ace Services, Akima Corporation, Akin, Gump, Strauss, 
     Hauer & Feld, Alan A. Bradford, Inc., Alcaraz, Palanca & 
     Pernites, Ltd., All Star Maintenance, Inc., All Risks, Ltd., 
     All-Pro Electric,

[[Page H6677]]

     Inc., Allen Norton and Blue, Allstate Security and 
     Investigative Services, Alltech, Inc.--A Parsons Brinckerhoff 
     Co., Alutiiq Management Services, LLC, American Operations 
     Corporation, American Service Contractors, L.P., AMERTAC, 
     INC., Anderson Dragline, Inc., AON Risk Services, Inc., 
     Applied Innovative Management, Arc Ventura County, Arctic 
     Slope World Services, Inc., Aronson, Fetridge & Weigle, ASRC 
     Communications, Atlantic Power Services, Inc., Baker Support 
     Services, Inc., Bardes Services, Inc., Bay Span Construction, 
     Inc., BDM Contracting Corporation, BDMS International, Beeman 
     Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc., Belzon, Inc., Benefits Design, 
     Inc., BeneTek Corporation, Blank, Rome, Comisky & McCauley, 
     Blueprint Plumbing Corp., BMAR & Associates, Inc., BMT 
     Services, Bob Holtz Services Inc., Bodenhamer, Inc., The Boon 
     Group, BRB Contractors, Inc., Briarcliff Development Company, 
     Brookwood Landscape, Inc., Brown & Root Services Corporation, 
     BRPH Service Company, Burns and Roe Services Corporation, 
     Business Plus Corporation, C & F Construction Co., Inc., C & 
     T Associates, Inc., Career Smith, Carris, Jackowitz 
     Associates, The Carroll Dickson Company, CC Distributors, 
     Inc., CDS Inc., Centennial Contractors Enterprises, Inc., The 
     Centers for Habitation, Chatham Technical Services, CH2M 
     Hill, Inc. EES Business Group, Chesapeake Insurance Group, 
     Inc., Chugach Alaska Corporation, Colossale Concrete, Inc., 
     Complete Building Services, Con Rod Concrete Construction, 
     Condor, Government Solutions Division, Congress Construction 
     Company, Inc., Contracting Services, Inc., Craford Benefits 
     Consultants, Crown Management Services, Inc., C.R. Snowden 
     Co., The Cube Corporation, Cubie Worldwide Technical 
     Services, Inc.,
       C.W. Resources, Inc., Dale Rogers Training Center, Day & 
     Zimmerman Services, Inc., DDD Company, De Leon Technical 
     Services, Inc., DEL-JEN, INC., Deltek Systems, Inc., Denali 
     Ventures, Inc., DGS Contract Services, DiRienzo Mechanical 
     Contractors, Diverse Technologies Corporation, DLS 
     Engineering Associates, Inc., Dominick Dan Alonzo, Inc., 
     Double D Pipeline, Inc., DTSV, Inc., DUCOM, Inc., Dyer, Ellis 
     & Joseph, Dynamic Science, Inc., Eastern Maintenance & 
     Services, Inc., Eastland Construction, El-Co Contractors, 
     Inc., Electronic Transport Corp., Elite Painting & 
     Wallcovering, Inc., Enron Federal Solutions, Inc., Erection 
     and Welding Contractors, LLC, Eurest Support Services/Compass 
     Group, Fairfax Opportunities Unlimited, FCC O&M, Inc., 
     February Enterprises, Inc., First Capital Insulation Inc., 
     FlexForce, FOUR WINDS Services, Inc., General Landscape and 
     Maintenance Co., G.E. McKim Civil Constructors, General 
     Trades & Services, Inc., Global Associates, Goodwill 
     Industries, Inc., Gosney Construction Company, Government 
     Contracting Resources, Inc., Government Contractors Insurance 
     Services, Gray Waste Management Corp., Griffin Services, 
     Inc., Group Benefit Design, Harris Technical Services 
     Corporation, Hathaway General Engineering Contractor,
       Hawpe Construction, Inc., H.E. Julien and Associates, Inc., 
     High Lite Construction, Hirota Painting Company, Inc., Holmes 
     & Narver Services, Inc., Horton Dry Wall Company, Howrey & 
     Simon, Gov't. Contracts Group, HWA, Inc., IP Worldwide 
     Services, INNOLOG, InsurMark Group, Inc., Inter-Con UPSP 
     Services Corporation, IT Corporation, ITT Systems, JAD 
     Business Services, Inc., J & J Maintenance, Inc., J.A. Jones 
     Management Services, Inc., Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., 
     Jantec, Inc., J.C. Company and Associates, The J. Diamond 
     Group, Inc., J.D. Steel Company, Inc., Johnson Controls World 
     Services Inc., Jones Technologies, Inc., Jordan Fireproofing, 
     Kenyon Building Maintenance, Inc., Kervin Plumbing, KIRA, 
     Inc., Knight Protective Service, Inc., Knox Electric, Inc., 
     K.W. Electrical Construction, Inc., KWG Associates, Lad Glass 
     Company, Lakeview Concrete & Masonry, Inc., Lear Siegler 
     Services, Inc., Lockheed Martin Technology Services Grp., 
     Louise W. Eggleston Center, Inc., Maccarone Plumbing, Inc., 
     Madison Services, Inc., Makro Janitorial Services, Inc., M & 
     P Underground, Inc., Manuel Bros., Inc., MAR, INCORPORATED, 
     Mark G. Jackson Attny. & Couns.-at-Law, Mark Diversified, 
     Inc.,
       MAX of D.C., Inc., McLaughlin Brothers Contractors, The 
     McDonald Glenn Company, McKenna & Cunco, L.L.P., McManus, 
     Schor, Asmar & Darden, The Mercer Group, Inc., Mike Garcia 
     Merchant Security, Inc., Miranda's Landscaping, Inc., Modern 
     Asphalt, Inc., Montvale Corporation, Morrison-Knudsen 
     Corporation O&M Grp., Mr. Electric Service Co., Inc., N & N, 
     Inc., National Association of Special Police, National 
     General Supply, Inc., Native Landscape, Noack and Dean/
     Interwest Insur. Brokers, The Occupa. Training Cntr/
     Burlington Co., Ott & Purdy, P.A., Pacific Southwest Roofing 
     Group, Inc., Pacific West General, Pacific 17, PAE Government 
     Services, Inc., P & P Properties, Inc., Paug-Vik, Inc. Ltd., 
     Pavetec Industries, Inc., PCL Civil Constructors, Inc., 
     Permis Construction Corporation, Pestmaster Services, Inc., 
     Phelps Program Management/L.L.C., Phoenix Management, Inc., 
     Piliero, Mazza & Pargament, Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe 
     L.L.P., Pitman Electric Service, Inc., Pompan, Murray & 
     Werfel, Precision Wall Tech, Inc., Premier Security, Pride 
     Industries, Pro Con Concrete, Inc., Program Unlimited 
     Plumbing & Heating, Proposal Technologies & Services, Inc, 
     Protemp Staffing Services, Public-Private Partnerships Corp., 
     Quantum Services, Inc., Raven Services Corporation,
       Raytheon Technical Services Company, Real Escape, Inc., 
     Recchi America, Inc., Red River Service Corporation, Rio 
     Construction, RTL Ventures, Inc., Rural/Metro Corporation, 
     Satellite Services, Inc., Schultz Contracting, Science 
     Applications Int'l. Corporation, Science and Technology 
     Corporation, SciTech Services, Inc., Seaward Services, Inc., 
     SecTek, Inc., Securiguard, Inc., Security Concepts, Inc., 
     Serco, Inc., Serveor, Inc., Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & 
     Geraldson, Shor-Form, Inc., Sidtron, Inc., SKE International, 
     Inc., Society Contracting, LLC, South Coast Electric, Space 
     Mark, Inc., Spartago Masonery, Inc., Spiess Construction Co., 
     Inc., Standard Construction Corp., Stephen J. Johnson Law 
     Office, Steve Lynch Masonry, Inc., Stout Construction, Inc., 
     Stow Construction, Inc., Sun Construction, Inc., Suncoast 
     Pipeline, Inc., Superior Services, Inc., SYMVIONICS, INC., 
     Szerlip & Company, Inc., TAC Services Incorporated, Taritas 
     Power Services, Ins., Ted L. Vance & Sons, Tetra Tech 
     Technical Services, Inc., 3J Mechanical, Inc., TMI Services, 
     TNT Painting and Contracting, Inc., Trandes Repair, Manuf. 
     and Technology.
                                  ____

                          National Defense Industrial Association,
                                     Arlington, VA, July 18, 2000.
     Hon. Thomas M. Davis,
     House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Davis: NDIA strongly supports the 
     Davis-Moran Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2001 Treasury-Postal 
     Appropriations Bill that would impose a moratorium on the 
     implementation of the proposed contractor labor relation 
     regulations that were issued June 30th.
       NDIA, the largest defense-related association, has nearly 
     900 corporate firm members and 25,000 individual members. As 
     such, we represent the full spectrum of the technology and 
     industrial base, firms of all sizes from the smallest to the 
     mega-sized businesses, and the preponderance of the two 
     million men and women in the defense sector.
       We support the moratorium for the following reasons:
       The requested General Accounting Office Study of the 
     implications and impacts of the proposed regulations is just 
     underway and will not be completed before the anticipated 
     implementation of the final rule.
       Congress should have the opportunity to conduct 
     comprehensive oversight hearings on the proposed regulations 
     before they take effect. With the compacted congressional 
     schedule, it is unlikely that adequate hearings could be held 
     before the targeted adjournment date.
       The proposed regulations effectively amend critical areas 
     of law involving consumer protection, environmental 
     protection, anti-trust matters and taxes. Further, these 
     changes would be made through administrative actions rather 
     than through legislative actions.
       Under the proposed regulations, a subsequent regulation 
     would be issued dealing with contractor debarment. This 
     provision should not be treated separately from the pending 
     proposed regulations.
       Contracting officers have not been properly prepared or 
     trained to assume primary responsibility for making 
     responsible contractor determinations based on the new 
     criteria contained in the proposed regulations.
       Clearly, the federal government system should be designed 
     to ensure that only ethical businesses receive contracts. 
     Current law and regulation provide for such protections. In 
     our view, the proposed regulations are fatally flawed because 
     they effectively undermine the progress made to date 
     encouraging commercial high technology firms to do business 
     with the Federal Government, and represent serious threats to 
     small business to secure its fair share of the Federal 
     Market.
       Therefore, NDIA believes that the Davis-Moran Amendment 
     represents a prudent balanced and equitable approach to 
     resolve this matter and to afford Congress adequate time to 
     consider the policy and procedural issues associated with the 
     proposed regulations. There is no compelling requirement to 
     rush to judgment on this matter. We sincerely urge your 
     colleagues to support your amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                              Lawrence F. Skibbie,
     President.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                                Manufacturers,

                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 2000.
     Hon. Thomas Davis II,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Davis: On behalf of the National Association 
     of Manufacturers' ``18 million people who make things in 
     America,'' I am writing to express the NAM's support for your 
     amendment to the Treasury, Postal Service and General 
     Government Appropriations bill which would defer 
     implementation of the Administration's proposed 
     responsibility-determination regulations pending completion 
     of a requested GAO audit. The NAM represents 14,000 member 
     companies, including more than 10,000 small and mid-sized 
     manufacturers and 350 member associations serving 
     manufacturers and employees in every industrial sector in all 
     50 States. Many of our members, both large and small, 
     contract with the government.
       The Administration's proposed regulation, published June 
     30, 2000, purports to provide

[[Page H6678]]

     guidance to contracting officers regarding responsibility 
     determinations. In fact, the proposed rule will undermine 
     sound procurement practices and set back the hard-won 
     procurement reforms accomplished during the past two decades. 
     Contracting officers will be empowered to decide, on an ad 
     hoc basis, whether a contractor is ``responsible'', using 
     factors wholly unrelated to a contractor's ability to 
     perform. Furthermore, it is unclear that a regulation 
     effecting such drastic procurement changes is actually 
     needed. This is precisely why we need to wait until the GAO 
     audit has assessed the situation.
       As this issue potentially has a significant impact on our 
     members the vote for this very important amendment will be 
     considered for designation as a Key Manufacturing Vote in the 
     NAM Voting Record for the 106th Congress.
           Sincerely,
     Michael Elias Baroody.
                                  ____



                                     U.S. Chamber of Commerce,

                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 2000.
       To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The House 
     is expected to consider soon the Treasury, Postal Service, 
     and General Government Appropriations Bill. On behalf of the 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce, I urge your support for an 
     amendment sponsored by Representatives Davis (R-VA) and Moran 
     (D-VA) to prohibit implementation of proposed regulations 
     which would effectively ``blacklist'' employers from 
     receiving federal contracts until a study by the General 
     Accounting Office is completed on the issue.
       The proposed regulation would disqualify companies from 
     eligibility to receive government contracts if they do not 
     have ``satisfactory compliance with federal laws including 
     tax laws, labor and employment laws, environmental laws, 
     antitrust laws, and consumer protection laws.'' (See 65 Fed. 
     Reg. 40833). This issue is of great concern to the business 
     community for many reasons, but particularly because the 
     regulation's standard for eligibility--``satisfactory 
     compliance''--covering an enormously complex matrix of laws--
     is so broad and vague as to be meaningless, effectively 
     empowering individual government agents with virtually 
     unlimited arbitrary discretion to deem which contractor will, 
     or will not be, favored with a government contract. Even 
     unproven, pending allegations can be considered.
       Further, even the best-intentioned employer can get caught 
     in the vast maze of confusing and often conflicting agency 
     rules and regulations. Regulations relating just to 
     employment laws cover over 4,000 pages of fine print, 
     environmental regulations cover over 14,000 pages and the 
     complexity of tax and anti-trust laws is legendary. Even the 
     federal government, with its legions of agencies and 
     specialists with expertise in every nuance of the law, is 
     confused by what is or is not required by the laws.
       Finally, it should be emphasized that the proposed 
     regulation is an attempt to circumvent the legislative 
     process by adding, through regulation, a major, new draconian 
     penalty--disqualification from government contracts--to 
     employment, tax, environment, antitrust and other laws of the 
     land. Any changes to these laws should receive full 
     consideration by the Congress, rather than be adopted through 
     the back door of the administrative agencies.
       Because of the importance of this issue to American 
     businesses, the U.S. Chamber will consider using votes on the 
     Davis/Moran amendment in our annual ``How They Voted'' 2000 
     ratings.
           Sincerely,
     R. Bruce Josten.
                                  ____

                                               Associated Builders


                                              and Contractors,

                                        Rosslyn, VA, July 18, 2000
     The Honorable       ,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: You will soon be voting on the Fiscal 
     Year 2001 appropriations legislation for the Treasury 
     Department, the U.S. Postal Service and related agencies. On 
     behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), and its 
     more than 22,000 contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and 
     related firms from across the country, I urge you to support 
     a bipartisan amendment to be offered by Representatives Tom 
     Davis (R-VA) and Jim Moran (D-VA) which would prohibit 
     implementation of proposed regulations which would 
     effectively ``blacklist'' employers from receiving federal 
     contracts until a study of the General Accounting Office is 
     completed on the issue.
       ABC strongly opposes the Administration's amended 
     regulations because they will create a ``blacklist'' of 
     contractors who are alleged to have ``unsatisfactory'' 
     compliance with federal laws. For example, an allegation 
     against a contractor for lack of compliance with tax, anti-
     trust, labor, employment, environmental, or consumer 
     protection law may cause a prospective contractor to be 
     denied a federal contract.
       We are particularly concerned about the impact of the 
     proposed regulations on small construction firms. As the 
     nation's second largest employer, with 6 million workers, 94% 
     of all construction companies are privately held and 1.3 
     million construction companies are not incorporated. Small 
     firms would be particularly vulnerable to being 
     ``blacklisted'' from federal contracts due to the vast maze 
     of confusing and often conflicting agency rules and 
     regulations. For example, regulations relating to employment 
     laws cover over 4,000 pages of fine print, environment laws 
     cover over 14,000 pages, and the complexity of tax and anti-
     trust laws are legendary.
       Under the proposed regulations, government contracting 
     officers would have the power to deny federal contracts to 
     companies based on pending, unproven alleged violations of 
     any of the above laws. A charge need only be filed before 
     considered as part of an employer's record to be reviewed, 
     including complaints pending with the NRLB, OSHA, IRS, and 
     EPA. These types of charges--many of which are frivolous and 
     without merit--are commonplace in the construction industry, 
     and under the proposed regulations would all be considered, 
     even before a final determination of guilt or innocence is 
     made.
       The federal government's role has always been to maintain a 
     position of absolute neutrality in the awarding of federal 
     contracts to protect against favoritism and abuses with tax 
     dollars and this practice must continue. These regulations 
     will insert an unacceptable level of subjectivity into the 
     process.
       ABC will use the Davis/Moran Amendment as a ``Key Vote'' 
     for our ``How They Voted'' 2000 ratings.
           Sincerely,
                                               William B. Spencer,
     Vice President, Government Affairs.
                                  ____



                                                          LPA,

                                                    July 19, 2000.
     Representative Tom Davis,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Representative Jim Moran,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Davis and Moran: LPA is pleased to 
     endorse your amendment to the Treasury-Postal Appropriations 
     Bill for FY 2001, which will suspend the Administration's 
     proposed blacklisting regulation.
       As you know, LPA is a public policy advocacy organization 
     representing senior human resource executives of more than 
     230 of the leading companies doing business in the United 
     States. LPA member companies employ more than 12 million 
     employees, or 12 percent of the private sector workforce.
       The Administration's proposed rule would amend federal 
     acquisition regulations (FAR) to make it easier for 
     contracting officers to deny federal contracts to businesses 
     by changing the criteria used to determine whether a 
     potential contractor is deemed ``responsible.''
       The proposed regulations would dramatically expand the 
     scope of the threshold determination that contracting 
     officers must make. First, the majority of the new criteria 
     that contracting officers should consider are identical to 
     those on which debarment procedures are based. However, there 
     is virtually no due process or opportunity to respond to a 
     contracting officer's not-responsible determination. 
     Consequently, decisions that are now reached through an 
     adversarial process, providing each side an opportunity to 
     present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, will now be 
     made unilaterally by contracting officers.
       Secondly, under the new proposal, a not-responsible 
     determination would be too easily triggered. Contracts could 
     be denied based on ``credible information'' including mere 
     allegations of wrongdoing. Likewise, the regulation requires 
     contracting officers to give great weight to initial agency 
     determinations such as charges or complaints by any federal 
     agency or board, even though initial determinations are often 
     overturned or the matter is later settled amicably.
       In addition, contracting officers will be called on to make 
     judgments about laws with which they have no experience. For 
     example, a contracting officer at the Environmental 
     Protection Agency may have to make a responsibility 
     determination based on an unfair labor charge found by an 
     administrative law judge at the National Labor Relations 
     Board. Such a policy will obviously yield inconsistent 
     results.
       The proposal also adds new self-certification requirements, 
     in direct conflict with acquisition reform enacted as part of 
     the Defense Authorization Act in 1996. These provisions were 
     designed to streamline the procurement process and eliminate 
     unnecessary burdens that contractors faced in hopes of 
     decreasing contract costs and making federal contracting more 
     attractive to mainstream businesses. The Administration's 
     proposal is clearly inconsistent with the law's prohibition 
     against new self-certification provisions.
       Finally, the Administration's proposal is not new. Less 
     ambitious proposals have been introduced and defeated in 
     Congress numerous times for over twenty years. The 
     Administration should not now try to accomplish by regulation 
     what the Congress has consistently defeated.
       Thank you again for your leadership in offering this 
     important amendment. Please do not hesitate to contact LPA if 
     we can provide additional information on this matter.
           Sincerely yours,
                                               Michael J. Eastman,
     Director, Government Relations.
                                  ____



                              Food Distributors International,

                                  Falls Church, VA, July 19, 2000.
       Dear Representative: As the House considers the Treasury, 
     Postal Service and General Government Appropriations bill 
     this week. I urge you to support an amendment

[[Page H6679]]

     to prohibit implementation of proposed regulations to 
     ``blacklist'' employers from receiving federal contracts 
     until the completion of a study already underway by the 
     General Accounting Office. The bipartisan amendment will be 
     offered by Reps. Tom Davis (R-VA) and Jim Moran (D-VA).
       Food Distributors International members supply and service 
     independent grocers and foodservice operations throughout the 
     United States, Canada and 19 other countries. The 
     association, has 232 member companies that operate 819 
     distribution centers with a combined annual sales volume of 
     $156 billion. Foodservice member firms annually sell nearly 
     $45 billion in food and related products to restaurants, 
     hospitals and other institutional foodservice operations 
     including the military and other federal government 
     facilities.
       The proposed regulation would create a broad and 
     irresponsibly vague standard of ``satisfactory compliance'' 
     with federal laws ranging from labor and employment to tax 
     and environmental laws. They would empower individual 
     contracting officers to disqualify companies on an arbitrary 
     basis, and even allows officers to consider pending and 
     unproven allegations. Labor unions or other organizations 
     could then use the regulations as a club by filing frivolous 
     charges and threatening companies with the loss of their 
     federal contracts.
       The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) already contain 
     provisions requiring compliance, along with procedures to 
     penalize companies for non-compliance. The new rules are a 
     dramatic expansion of these provisions, and fail to provide 
     adequate due process protections for employers who could be 
     debarred for mere allegations of wrongdoing. Such a radical 
     rewrite of the FAR has been repeatedly rejected by Congress 
     and should not be done by executive fiat.
       This is an issue of vital importance for food distributors. 
     For that reason, Food Distributors International will include 
     this vote in our congressional vote ratings.
       I urge you to support the Davis/Moran amendment on 
     blacklisting. These regulations are unnecessary and would 
     simply result in additional costs for the federal government, 
     which ultimately must be borne by the American taxpayer.
           With best wishes,
                                                   Kevin M. Burke,
     Vice President, Government Relations.
                                  ____



                                          International Paper,

                                    Washington, DC, July 19, 2000.
     Hon.       ,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Bldg., 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: I encourage your strong support for an 
     amendment to be offered by Rep. Tom Davis and Jim Moran to 
     prohibit implementation of the so-called blacklisting 
     regulations being promulgated by the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy. The amendment will likely to offered 
     during debate on the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill as 
     early as Wednesday, July 19.
       The defeat of these regulations has been a priority of 
     International Paper since they were first proposed by Vice 
     President Al Gore almost three and one-half years ago. IP's 
     CEO, John Dillon, serves as Chairman of a task force at the 
     Business Roundtable organized specifically to marshal 
     opposition to this initiative.
       While the arguments against the blacklisting rules are 
     numerous, perhaps the principal reason to oppose them is 
     because of the harm they will do to our nation's fair, open 
     and competitive federal procurement process. If we allow 
     political expediency to transform this system to one 
     characterized by favoritism and third-party influence, we 
     will have dealt a significant blow to years of effort to 
     create a world class procurement system that is open to all 
     responsible contracts.
       The regulations are now on a fast track to implementation 
     and could carry the force of law before the end of September. 
     Please support the strong bipartisan effort to block 
     implementation of these rules at least until the General 
     Accounting Office has completed a review of their 
     justification and impact. Your support will mean a great deal 
     to our company.
           Sincerely,
     Lyn M. Withey.
                                  ____

                                                 Society for Human


                                          Resource Management,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 19, 2000.

               Support Davis-Moran Blacklisting Amendment

       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 140,000 members of 
     the Society for Human Resource Management, I am writing to 
     urge your support for an amendment to be offered by 
     Congressmen Tom Davis (R-VA) and Jim Moran (D-VA) which would 
     prohibit implementation of proposed regulations which would 
     effectively ``blacklist'' employers from receiving federal 
     contracts until a study by the General Accounting Office is 
     completed on the issue. The amendment will be considered as 
     part of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government 
     Appropriations bill. The House is expected to take up the 
     spending bill as early as tomorrow.
       If finalized, the proposed regulation would disqualify 
     companies from eligibility to receive government contracts if 
     they are not in ``satisfactory compliance with federal tax, 
     labor and employment, environmental, antitrust, and consumer 
     protection laws.'' (See 65 Fed. Reg. 40833). This issue is of 
     great concern to the business community for many reasons, but 
     particularly because the regulation's standard for 
     eligibility--``satisfactory compliance'')--covering an 
     enormously complex matrix of laws--is so broad and vague as 
     to be meaningless, effectively empowering government agents 
     with unlimited discretion to deem which contractor will, or 
     will not be, favored with a government contract.
       Even the best-intentioned employer can get caught in the 
     vast maze of confusing and often conflicting agency rules and 
     regulations. Even the federal government itself, maintaining 
     multiple agencies and specialists who have expertise in every 
     nuance of the law, is confused by what is or is not required 
     by the extensive matrix of federal laws.
       Finally, it should be emphasized that the proposed 
     regulation is an attempt to circumvent the legislative 
     process. Changes to laws such as this should receive the full 
     benefit of the legislative process rather than a back door 
     adoption by the administrative agencies. I again urge you to 
     support the Davis-Moran Amendment during floor consideration 
     of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government 
     Appropriations bill.
           Sincerely,
                                               Susan R. Meisinger,
     SPHR, Executive Vice President/COO.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 2000.
       Dear Colleague: Please see the attached letters of support/
     key vote letters for the Davis-Moran Amendment to H.R. 4871, 
     Treasury Postal Appropriations. This amendment is widely 
     supported by small businesses, Universities and Colleges, and 
     the technology industry. If you need more information on the 
     Davis-Moran amendment, please feel free to contact Melissa 
     Wojciak of Representative Tom Davis' office at X5-6751, or 
     Melissa Koloszar of Representative Jim Moran's office at 5-
     4376.
       National Federation of Independent Business.
       Small Business Technology Council.
       National Small Business United.
       American Council for Education.
       College University Professional Association for Human 
     Resources.
       American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
       Association of American Universities.
       Council for Christian Colleges and Universities.
       Council of Independent Colleges.
       Mennonite Board of Education.
       National Association of College and University Business 
     Officers.
       National Association of Independent Colleges and 
     Universities.
       National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant 
     Colleges.
       Information Technology Industry Council.
       American Electronics Association.
       Electronics Industry Alliance.
       Consumer Electronics Alliance.
       Government Electronics and Information Technology 
     Association.
       Electronic Components, Assemblies, and Materials 
     Association.
       JEDEC: Solid State Technology Association.
       CompTIA
       Society for Human Resource Management.
       Aerospace Industries Association.
       Contract Services Association.
       National Defense Industrial Association.
       Professional Services Council.
       Information Technology Association of America.
       Telecommunications Industry Association.
       U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
       National Association of Manufacturers.
       Association of General Contractors.
       Associated Builders and Contractors.
       Labor Policy Association.
       Food Distributors International.
       International Paper.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Tom Davis,
                                               Member of Congress.
                                                        Jim Moran.
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                            The Associated General


                                       Contractors of America,

                                                    July 18, 2000.
     Hon. Thomas M. (Tom) Davis III,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Davis: The Associated General Contractors 
     of America urges you to support the Davis-Moran Amendment to 
     the Treasury/Postal Appropriations bill. This amendment will 
     ensure that federal contractors maintain their right to due 
     process and will prevent the Administration from inserting a 
     new, unnecessary level of subjectivity into the procurement 
     selection process.
       On June 30, the Administration proposed an amendment to the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) that would increase the 
     subjectivity of contract award decisions made by contracting 
     officers. Any change of a violation of federal law could 
     subject a contractor to the loss of a federal contract. A 
     contracting officer would be forced to judge a federal 
     contractor who had not yet had his or her day in court before 
     a federal contract could be awarded. These contracting 
     officers are trained to determine a contractor's ability to 
     perform the work required by the government, not to make 
     technical judgements about alleged violations of 
     environmental, tax, labor, or consumer protection laws.
       Federal contractors should be judged based on their ability 
     to perform the work or provide services the government 
     requires. There are other forums in which to judge a 
     contractors guilt or innocence on alleged

[[Page H6680]]

     charges. If these problems impact the ability of the 
     contractor to perform work or the contractor is truly a ``bad 
     actor,'' then the government already has the ability to 
     suspend or debar contractors. These two procedures allow a 
     full investigation of the charges with both sides able to 
     present their case to a federal attorney with a full 
     understanding of the legal issues. The Administration's 
     proposal short-circuits the federal debarment process.
       The Davis/Moran Amendment preserves the due process rights 
     of federal contractors. This amendment would prevent the 
     Administration from undermining the integrity of the federal 
     procurement system. There is no evidence that the federal 
     government is contracting with so-called ``bad actors.'' 
     Until there is such evidence, this is a solution in search of 
     a problem that could adversely impact the government's 
     procurement process, economically harm innocent contractors 
     and their employees, subcontractors and suppliers, and 
     increase the administrative burden of federal contractors to 
     an unmanageable level.
           Sincerely,

                                              Loren E. Sweatt,

                                  Director Congressional Relations
                                      Procurement and Environment.

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of 
this amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Davis).
  As the gentleman has stated, this amendment would simply prohibit 
funds from being expended to implement the administration's contractor 
responsibility rules until the General Accounting Office completes an 
ongoing study of them. We are not trying to kill the rules, we are just 
saying the GAO ought to look into the basis for them and make a 
determination as to what is the problem, and then suggest some remedy 
for that problem, if a problem exists.
  Let me emphasize at the outset that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Davis), the gentlemen from California, Mr. Ose and Mr. Dooley, myself, 
and a number of Members from both sides of the aisle have been involved 
with this issue for almost a year.
  When the rule was first proposed, we met with administration 
officials to express deep concerns about the rule's justification and 
about its potential impact on the industries and the workers in our 
districts. We questioned whether contracting officers are really 
equipped to apply a wide array of complex Federal laws to routine 
procurement decisions.
  We are asking these contracting officers to be familiar with all of 
the Federal laws, to make some determination as to whether there is 
satisfactory compliance with all the Federal laws before they carry out 
their responsibilities as to who is eligible for bidding on a contract 
and who ought to get that contract.
  Many of us were concerned that the rule runs completely contrary to 
the procurement reforms that I believe are a major achievement of the 
Clinton-Gore administration.
  Unfortunately, very little has changed in the year in which we have 
been working with the administration. Our questions have not been fully 
resolved. The contractor responsibility rule remains a solution in 
search of a problem. At no point has the administration furnished us 
with an adequate justification for why this new rule is necessary, 
despite the fact that it could adversely affect thousands of American 
workers employed by high-tech companies, by small and large businesses, 
defense contractors, and institutions of higher education.
  The rule would vastly expand the power of Federal contracting 
officers under existing procurement law. They could cite a single 
adverse finding by an administrative law judge, a complaint from a 
Federal agency, or an order or decision from an agency as a reason to 
disqualify a contractor from doing business with the Federal 
government.
  Unlike existing law, there would be no requirement for a nexus 
between the alleged violation of Federal law and the contractor's 
ability to perform the contract. We are trying to get contracts awarded 
to people who can perform the contract, and these things can 
potentially be totally unrelated to the ability to perform the 
contract.
  I do not believe we should put Federal contracting officers in that 
position. They should not have to determine whether a company's 
compliance with a wide range of Federal laws, unrelated to the 
performance of a contract, is sufficient to allow the company to do 
business with the Federal government. There is no way that they can 
have that kind of information.
  The only guidance the rule provides in allowing contracting officers 
to make a nonresponsibility determination is the vague and potentially 
arbitrary standard of ``credible information.'' What is ``credible 
information?'' It is entirely up to the contracting officer to 
determine what that means, ``credible information.'' It can mean a 
complaint, it can mean a rumor, whatever they determine to be credible 
information.
  Let me emphasize that the importance of this issue extends far beyond 
the many industries that are potentially affected by the rule. 
Consider, for example, the comments of Stanley Ikenberry, the President 
of the American Council on Education.
  I quote: ``American colleges and universities, which receive over $18 
billion annually in Federal grants and contracts, would be directly 
affected by these proposed regulations.'' He said these ``revisions 
could have the result of creating a `blacklist' of contractors  . . 
.'', and this is his word, ``a blacklist of contractors.''

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. Ikenberry continues, ``The strong and cooperative relationship 
between the Federal Government and the country's colleges and 
universities has reaped countless gains for each party and for the 
Nation as a whole through the contracting process. In the interest of 
furthering that relationship, we urge your support of the Davis/Moran 
amendment to H.R. 4871.''
  This is Dr. Ikenberry's letter. It was sent on behalf of the American 
Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, and a 
number of other groups that represent American Higher Education. 
American Higher Education is scared of this regulation. They strongly 
support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, it should be adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, again, this amendment needs to be adopted. The 
blacklisting rule makes Federal procurement much more complicated, not 
less so.
  It is contrary to the procurement reforms that this administration 
has achieved. It confers excessive new authority on Federal contract 
officers without a justification. It could potentially stifle 
innovation and job growth for thousands of American workers.
  This amendment needs to be adopted, and I strongly urge that the 
Congress do so. Again, I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Davis) for introducing this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Davis) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Does any Member seek to claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The amendment 
is argued passionately for by the gentleman from Virginia. The Clinton 
administration's proposed contractor responsibility reforms simply 
clarifies and reinforces the long-standing rule that requires 
government to do business only with responsible contractors.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, how often have we heard that a contractor was 
doing business for the Government, making a lot of money, and was a 
major polluter? How often have we heard that the contractor was a major 
violator of OSHA or other labor provisions? How often have we heard 
that and responded that, how do we do this?
  Why do we do this? Should we not do business with people who comply 
with the rules, regulations, and laws of our country? Should not we 
advantage those contractors who seek to comply? The regulations that 
have been promulgated here I suggest to my colleagues are reasonable 
regulations, and we ought to allow them to go forward and reject this 
amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we have three additional 
speakers of 30 seconds each, but we only have 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, let me use some time then.

[[Page H6681]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Owens).
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, the previous speakers have greatly 
overstated their case. The overkill is amazing. To protect the 
Government's interest, laws have been on the books for decades 
requiring that the Government can only give Federal contracts to 
responsible contractors, that has been there all the time, those with a 
satisfactory record of financial and technical capability, performance, 
and business ethics and integrity.
  The only thing that is happening now is that the administration has 
moved to clarify this and pinpoint more exactly what it means by 
responsible contractors. That is what is new. We do not need another 
study by the GAO. For decades, they have been observing and studying, 
and there is a whole body of experience that goes into the need to 
clarify what we mean by responsible contractor.
  Last month, the administration issued a proposal to clarify the rules 
for determining who is a responsible contractor. The proposed 
regulations clarify that a relevant factor in deciding whether a 
contractor meets a responsibility test is its record of complying with 
the law. I mean, is that not easy enough to understand, a record of 
complying with the law, the tax law, labor and employment law, consumer 
protection laws, environmental law, and other Federal laws?
  This is a modest common sense proposal that furthers the Government's 
interest in efficient, economical, and responsible contracting. It 
stands for and reinforces an important principle. Taxpayer-funded 
government contracts should go to responsible contractors with respect 
for the law.
  All across the Nation, there are certain municipalities and towns and 
States that have laws which already go much further than this. One 
cannot get a contract in certain places unless one has complied with 
the law and one does not have a record of having violated the law. But 
this does not go that far. It does not blacklist anybody for having 
violated a law at once.
  Opponents have attacked the proposal, saying it is a blacklist. These 
claims are unfounded. Nothing in the proposed clarifying rules will 
create a blacklist, nothing that prohibits contractors from bidding on 
future property. It is far too generous.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, I am in support of the 
Davis-Moran amendment. We fully agree, I think, on this floor that the 
Federal Government should do business with ethical and law-abiding 
companies, and that is why Congress, working with the Office of Federal 
Procurement Policy, has passed already a substantial body of statutes 
to which the Federal contractors must adhere. We do not need this 
blacklisting regulation. I, therefore, urge this body to support the 
Davis-Moran amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment proposed by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran). In opposing this amendment, to me, the issue is one of 
simple fairness.
  Very simply, I see no reason we in the Congress should delay 
implementation of regulations which require contractors to be 
responsible, to be in compliance with the law, all laws, environmental 
laws, labor laws; nor is there any reason the taxpayers' dollars, the 
dollars of hard-working Americans, should be used to reimburse the 
attorney's fees of contractors even when those contractors have been 
found guilty of violating labor laws.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I see no reason why taxpayer money should be 
used to reimburse contractors the cost of conducting anti-union 
campaigns.
  Mr. Chairman, very simply, I believe the contractors doing business 
with the Federal Government must be responsible. The taxpayers' money 
must not be squandered. I call for the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) has 
1 minute remaining. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 6 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
each side be allotted 1 additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Davis-Moran 
amendment; and given that I have but a minute, I will be brief.
  The issue here is not union/nonunion, open shop/closed shop. The 
issue here is procurement policy. Current regulations already in place 
protect the Federal Government from unscrupulous contractors.
  I would cite for my colleagues the Federal acquisition regulations 
that exist today, in fact, include a phrase ``the contractor is subject 
to a decision by the contracting officer that that organization or 
person have a satisfactory record of integrity and ethics.''
  This is not about open or closed shops. This is not about union or 
nonunion shops. This proposal by the administration in the form of 
these new regs is very dangerous, because today we have an 
administration of one party suggesting one thing. Six months from now, 
we may very well have a different administration of another party.
  This Moran amendment makes sense. Support it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran) first talked to me about this issue, I thought it sounded 
reasonable. I have been involved in a lot of disputes between labor and 
companies with the Defense Department.
  I had some procurement officers come in to see me today, and they 
told me they need systematic guidance about how to deal with these 
contracts. Now, they believe that this kind of guidance that has been 
set up or proposed in these regulations is the type of regulation that 
they need in order to be able to consummate the contracts. In other 
words, if the person is not violating the law or a regulation, they go 
forward. If by some chance the contracting officer makes a mistake, 
they have a recourse; and the recourse, of course, is appeal, and 
damages can be awarded to that particular company.
  So if they have a legitimate bid, and they are not awarded the 
contract, and yet they would be otherwise, and it is very clear that 
the reason that they were not given the contract was because they did 
not comply with other Federal regulations or the law, then they have 
the recourse of going to the appeal and getting damages.
  So I think we make a serious mistake if we were to delay these 
regulations at this time. I know my colleagues have been working a long 
time. But my feeling from the procurement officers themselves, the 
people that deal with this, is that they need guidance which says they 
are a systematic violation of the law or regulations, and that is the 
kind of guidance which helps them make a decision on whether to accept 
a contract or do not accept it.
  So I would urge the Members to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The long-standing policy of the Federal Government has been to make a 
determination of responsibility. All the rules have attempted to do is 
to make more specific, to establish certain standards of performance 
that the people who are doing these deliberations

[[Page H6682]]

can have some absolute objective guidance rather than subjective 
criteria.
  I think it is very, very important to establish certain rules and 
regulations that these contract negotiators must follow. The taxpayers 
are involved in this. We have to make absolutely sure that the 
contractors who are being awarded these contracts are responsible, pay 
their taxes, follow the law, abide by the environmental requirements, 
OSHA requirements, and all of those other standards.
  My State is full of Federal contracts, thanks to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania and his generosity in coming and providing these contracts 
to our military bases. But it is very important that those contractors 
who come in abide by standards, otherwise the people of my State will 
be left paying the penalties.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment would prevent the Administration from 
adopting a rule that would reaffirm the principle that the Federal 
government should not award contracts to companies that chronically 
violate federal law.
  The concept of the proposed rule is simple--if you are a persistent 
and serious violator of federal law, the federal government will take 
that into account in determining whether to grant you a contract.
  The proposed rule simply clarifies the existing rule that the federal 
government should only contract with ``responsible contractors.'' It 
specifies what ``business ethics and integrity'' means for federal 
contractors. The standard includes compliance with federal tax, labor 
and employment, environmental, antitrust and consumer protection laws.
  This amendment would prevent that.
  A 1995 GAO study identified the kids of serious workplace violations 
that Federal contractors have committed. According to the GAO, ``for 88 
percent of the 345 inspections, OSHA identified at least one violation 
that it classified as serious--posing a risk of death or serious 
physical harm to workers. For 69 percent, it found at least one 
violation that it classified as willful-situations in which the 
employer intentionally and knowingly committed a violation. At the work 
sites of 50 federal contractors, 35 fatalities and 85 injuries 
occurred.'' The Davis-Moran amendment would tell the Federal government 
to ignore these violations in deciding to award a Federal contract.
  Another 1995 GAO report studied the labor records of Federal 
contractors. The report found that fifteen federal contractors had 
either ``been ordered to reinstate or restore more than 20 individual 
workers each or had been issued a broad cease and desist order by the 
National Labor Relations Board.''
  The amendment is opposed by the Alliance of Mechanical, Electrical 
and Sheet Metal Contractors. The Alliance represents over 12,000 
construction companies. It recognizes that an objective assessment of 
the past performance of federal contractors benefits the government and 
rewards contractors that obey the law. The private sector increasingly 
uses past contract and performance criteria including safety, training 
and workers compensation to assess contract compliance. So should the 
Federal government.
  An economical and well functioning procurement system can only be 
based upon contracts with law-abiding citizens. Let's reject this ill-
advised amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment because it does 
the wrong thing in the wrong way. Federal contract officers ought to 
have clear guidance when a contract competitor has engaged in a pattern 
and practice of disregard or violation of the law. People who engage in 
a pattern and practice of violation are bad risks, and they subject the 
taxpayers to the risk of poor performance or overpayment.
  Moreover, this is done, I believe, in the wrong way. The 
administration has carefully looked at the policy issues involved in 
this, and I do not believe that a brief debate in the context of an 
appropriations bill is also a place to overturn that judgment.
  With all due respect, the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
could and should take a look at this. I believe we will reach the same 
conclusion the administration did. It is bad business to do business 
with those who do that business badly.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) has 
1 minute remaining. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 3 
minutes remaining and the right to close.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, is it too much to expect that Congress 
wants our laws obeyed? Is it too much for citizens to expect that their 
taxes are protected from law breakers? Our society expects individuals 
to follow the law. When they do not, there are consequences.
  When a company applies for a Federal contract to perform work paid 
for by the taxpayers, existing laws say it should be a law-abiding 
company. If it is not, regulations recently proposed would deny the 
law-breaking company eligibility to bid for a contract.
  But this amendment prevents the Government from expecting that 
Federal contractors obey the law. This amendment would reward law 
breakers with taxpayer funds. This amendment would reward companies 
that break our environmental, labor, and consumer safety laws with 
lavish Federal contracts.
  I regretfully must ask for a no vote on the Davis amendment.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the administration's new rules would create a 
standard which is so broad and so vague that it would cripple employers 
in the high-technology industry, and both sides want to do something 
here. This is an opportunity for small businesses and college and 
university research, but the administrations' new rules would add cost 
and, I think, would negatively impact the taxpayers.
  So I ask colleagues on both sides to support the Davis-Moran 
amendment, which has bipartisan support, and which merely postpones the 
implementation of these regulations until GAO has the time to 
adequately assess them.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, last October I wrote to the Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy requesting any data or information upon 
which a procurement policy decision was made. I asked specifically for 
any information with specific contractors that had failed to comply 
with the laws. I asked for any specific complaints received from 
contracting officers involving the inadequacy of the current Federal 
acquisition laws. I asked for examples of specific government 
contractors that had been unable to fulfill their contracts.
  Guess what the answer was? ``We do not keep any data that would give 
us an opportunity to answer your question.'' Well, then, where do they 
get any data to write these regulations?
  Mr. Chairman, Congress needs to be responsible enough to get to the 
bottom of this proposed rule. If there is credible evidence showing a 
problem, then this is an issue we should address through the 
legislative process. But the Clinton administration needs to make a 
case that there is a problem.
  The administration had the good sense to withdraw its first proposal. 
It should have the good sense to do the same with this revised 
proposal. Let me tell my colleagues, this proposed rule does not just 
implicate federal labor and employment laws. The regulation impact tax, 
environmental, antitrust, and consumer protection laws as well. Let me 
also point out that unless we pass the Davis-Moran Amendment, our 
colleges and universities may also lose important research contracts 
with the federal government under these proposed changes. The American 
Council on Education urges passage of this Amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to vote yes on the Davis-Moran Amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record letters relating to the subject 
matter of this amendment.


[[Page H6683]]


         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                 Washington, DC, November 5, 1999.
     Hon. William F. Goodling,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter dated October 
     5, 1959, regarding ``Proposed Rulemaking/Federal Acquisition 
     Regulations.''
       In your letter you asked me to respond to three questions 
     concerning data about procurement problems. You asked about 
     contractors who have failed to comply with laws and the 
     resulting problems in the procurement process. You also asked 
     for information on government contractors who have been 
     unable to fulfill contracts with the government because of 
     labor and employment law violations. Finally, you asked about 
     complaints from contracting officers concerning suspension 
     and debarment procedures.
       Section 19 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 
     (codified at 41 U.S.C. 417), entitled ``Record Requirements'' 
     delineates the procurement files every executive agency must 
     establish and maintain. These unclassified files, which are 
     computerized, record individuals facts about each procurement 
     greater than $25,000. Procurement facts concerning contracts 
     below $25,000 are recorded in a summary fashion. These agency 
     records are then entered into the Federal Procurement Data 
     System (FPDS), as discussed in Subpart 4.6 of the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The FPDS is the authoritative 
     source of Government-wide procurement information. Federal 
     agencies do not keep, and hence the FPDS files do not 
     reflect, data from which answers to your questions can be 
     derived. (Enclosures 1 and 2 are hard copies of the forms 
     used by the agencies.)
       The files kept on individual contract actions (there are 
     nearly 12 million actions each year) are also not helpful in 
     answering your questions. With the exception of a 
     certification (Enclosure 3), those files are not set up to 
     reflect contractor failure to comply with the law. Rather, 
     they reflect performance or nonperformance of the contract.
       In answer to your question concerning suspension and 
     debarment procedures, the procurement debarment and 
     suspension process under FAR Subpart 9.4 appears to be 
     working effectively. The Department of Labor also has the 
     authority to debar and suspend for failure to follow certain 
     labor requirements under their jurisdiction. I have no 
     current information concerning these non-FAR procedures. All 
     debarments and suspensions are consolidated on a master list 
     used by contracting officers, grants officers, and, in some 
     cases, Government loan officers.
       The proposed change to the FAR, however, does not concern 
     debarments or suspensions; it concerns responsibility 
     determinations. Responsibility determinations are actions 
     taken by contracting officers on individual contracts. In 
     contrast, suspensions and debarments are actions taken by 
     agency suspension and debarment officials, and are effective 
     in regard to all contracts and grants for the entire 
     Government. The proposal would change 9.104-1 of the FAR but 
     would make no change to Subpart 9.4. While Subparts 9.1 and 
     9.4 are related, they have separate purposes and procedures. 
     We believe the proposed change does not concern, and will 
     have no impact on, suspensions and debarments.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Deidre A. Lee,
     Administrator.
                                  ____

         Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of 
           Representatives
                                  Washington, DC, October 5, 1999.
     Ms. Deidre A. Lee,
     Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Acting 
         Deputy Director for Management, OMB, Old Executive Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Re: Proposed Rulemaking/Federal Acquisition Regulations
       Dear Ms. Lee: As you are aware from numerous correspondence 
     between this Committee and the executive branch, I, and a 
     growing number of other members of Congress, strongly believe 
     the administration's proposed ``blacklisting'' regulations 
     published in the Federal Register July 9, 1999, are unfair, 
     unnecessary, and without technical merit.
       Testimony heard before this Committee last year 
     demonstrated--as will testimony before House and Senate 
     Committees in the future no doubt further demonstrate--that 
     these changes will grant procurement officers discretion over 
     laws with which they are not expert; are unnecessary in light 
     of the protections against ``bad actors'' found in current 
     law; and are so vague with regard to the standard potential 
     contractors must meet they raise serious due process 
     concerns.
       Equally disturbing is the administration's attempt to 
     bypass the proper legislative role of Congress effectively to 
     amend the penalty provisions of dozens of federal laws--
     including the labor and employment laws within this 
     Committee's jurisdiction.
       I am writing today to urge you again to reconsider this 
     political effort to cheapen the federal procurement process. 
     In addition, I request that you provide to this Committee by 
     October 19, 1999, specific data upon which your Office and 
     the administration relied in fashioning these proposals. 
     Specifically, what contractors have failed to comply with 
     what laws causing what problems in the procurement process? 
     What specific complaints have you received from contracting 
     officers regarding the inadequacy of the current FAR 
     suspension and debarment procedures? Also, what specific 
     government contractors have been unable to fulfill contracts 
     with the federal government because of labor and employment 
     law violations? Finally, I also request any other data or 
     information upon which this policy decision was made.
       I thank you in advance for your attention to this request. 
     If you have any questions, please contact Peter Gunas of my 
     Committee staff, at 202-225-7101.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bill Goodling,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                    American Council on Education,


                                      Office of the President,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 2000.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned 
     organizations, I urge you to support the Tom Davis (R-VA) and 
     Jim Moran (D-VA) amendment to H.R. 4871, the Treasury, Postal 
     Service, and General Government Appropriations Bill, that is 
     expected to be on the House floor this week. The Davis/Moran 
     amendment would impose a moratorium on the implementation of 
     the proposed amendments to the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulations (FAR) as proposed by the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulatory Council pending an outcome of a study by the 
     General Accounting Office (GAO). The Davis/Moran amendment 
     presents a fair, balanced approach to this issue and provides 
     Congress the opportunity to examine the extent to which the 
     government is contracting with organizations that have 
     unsatisfactory records of compliance with federal law, as 
     well as evidence of contractor violations and their impact on 
     contract performance.
       The proposed amendments to the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulations (FAR) would bar employers, including colleges and 
     universities, from eligibility for federal contracts based on 
     preliminary determinations, unproven complaints, and actual 
     transgressions of federal employment, labor and tax laws. 
     Although portrayed as clarification of existing law, we 
     believe the proposed regulations would, in effect, give new 
     powers to federal contracting officers not granted by 
     Congress.
       American colleges and universities, which receive over $18 
     billion annually in federal grants and contracts, would be 
     directly affected by these proposed regulations. The FAR 
     revisions could have the result of creating a ``blacklist'' 
     of contractors who would be penalized as ineligible to 
     receive government contracts--and potentially debarred--for 
     ``unsatisfactory'' labor and employment practices. Colleges 
     and universities are progressive employers, offering generous 
     benefits and innovative policies such as work-family 
     initiatives and domestic partners benefits. They are also 
     large, complex organizations that are subject to extensive 
     federal regulations. Despite our best efforts, conflicts and 
     disagreements do arise, some of which result in allegations 
     that an institution has violated labor, environment, or other 
     laws.
       We believe the federal government should seek to 
     investigate and resolve such allegations in the most 
     constructive manner possible under the current law process 
     within the respective agencies. Unfortunately, the proposed 
     Federal Acquisition Regulations would move in the opposite 
     direction, encouraging adversarial relationships. Under the 
     proposal, violations, preliminary determinations, and 
     unproven complaints of laws--such as the National Labor 
     Relations Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the 
     Fair Labor Standards Act, and employment discrimination 
     statutes such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the 
     Age Discrimination in Employment Act--could trigger a status 
     akin to ``blacklisting.'' The proposed regulations also would 
     penalize contractors for violations of environmental, 
     antitrust, tax, and consumer protection laws. Adverse 
     determinations could lead to exclusion from preferred vendor 
     lists and from eligibility for contracts and subcontracts.
       The proposal would engender mistrust between colleges and 
     universities and the various regulatory and contracting 
     agencies. Moreover, it would invite and encourage persons or 
     organizations who disagree with an institution about 
     employment practices, land use, or various other matters to 
     file formal complaints and thereby invoke the possibility of 
     grave penalties contemplated in the proposed regulations as 
     leverage. That would be an unfortunate distortion and 
     certainly is not the intention of federal laws and other 
     standards.
       Under the proposals, federal agents would be empowered to 
     decide what is or is not a ``satisfactory'' record of 
     employee relations from colleges and universities of every 
     size throughout the country. Federal contracting officers do 
     not, by the very nature of their work, possess the expertise 
     or experience in the enforcement of labor and employment laws 
     and regulations, to say nothing of environmental, tax, and 
     antitrust laws and workplace practices. The proposed changes 
     would give them authority to make arbitrary determinations to 
     the detriment of the entire procurement process and the fair 
     enforcement of employment and other laws.
       The strong and cooperative relationship between the federal 
     government and the country's colleges and universities has

[[Page H6684]]

     reaped countless gains for each party and for the nation as a 
     whole through the contracting process. In the interest of 
     furthering that long-standing relationship, we urge your 
     support of the Davis/Moran amendment to H.R. 4871.
           Sincerely,
                                             Stanley O. Ikenberry,
                                                        President.

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let us cut to the chase here as to what this amendment is about and 
why these regulations came about. My friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) mentioned the criteria here. 
``Responsible bidder: Necessary technical and financial capability, 
performance record, and business integrity and ethics.''
  There seems to be a fear that somebody will make a subjective 
judgment. Well, the fact is that is a very broad criteria that is 
difficult to define. So what has been proposed? The administration is 
proposing that we have some definition of what ethics and integrity is. 
They simply say that that test of responsibility is the contractor's 
record of complying with the law. Certainly, we want our contractors to 
do that, including environmental laws, consumer laws, labor and 
employment laws, and other Federal laws, so that it will not be simply 
a subjective judgment as to what ethics and integrity are, but it will 
have some specific criteria to direct officials in overseeing whether 
or not somebody is a responsible contractor.
  Is that not a reasonable step to take to give direction to Federal 
decision makers, as opposed, ironically, because the sponsors of the 
amendment think the opposite is true, of giving this very broad 
latitude currently existing to make a determination of whether somebody 
is ethical or has integrity? That certainly is a very broad base. 
Somebody may have complied with all of the laws but be deemed by 
somebody as not ethical in its behavior.
  My suggestion, my colleagues, is to reject this amendment because, in 
fact, I think it does the opposite of what its proponents want to do. 
Its proponents want to give some definition and preclude arbitrary and 
capricious action. In my opinion, the regulations do exactly that. We 
ought to sustain them and reject the amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment which seeks to prevent the administration from implementing 
its contractor responsibility proposal.
  I want to put this in the simplest terms. The administration has 
proposed that when awarding a Federal contract, we should ensure that 
the company who receives the contract has satisfactorily complied with 
federal laws, including environmental laws, labor laws, and consumer 
protection laws.
  This is a commonsense proposal. If a company is illegally polluting 
our communities, endangering consumers, violating workplace safety 
laws, and not paying taxes, we should not be awarding them federal 
contracts. Instead, we should award the contract to a law-abiding 
company.
  It is also important to understand that this is simply a refinement 
of current law. Since 1984, federal contractors have had to have a 
``satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics'' under federal 
procurement law. The pending proposal states that in examining this 
record, a federal grant officer should consider whether the company has 
demonstrated ``satisfactory compliance with federal laws including tax 
laws, labor and employment laws, environmental laws, antitrust laws, 
and consumer protection laws.''
  Now, maybe some business lobbyists think we should reward lawbreaking 
companies with federal contracts, but I believe the American people 
want their tax dollars to support upstanding companies that comply with 
the law. In the words of the Sierra Club, ``Companies that fail to 
comply with environmental laws do not deserve to be rewarded with 
taxpayer-funded contracts.''
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to oppose this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 560, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Davis) will be postponed.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Will the gentleman suspend?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Frelinghuysen), a member of the committee, was on his feet.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. The Chair finds 
itself in the following position: I did not see the gentleman from New 
Jersey. We have just considered a Republican amendment and I was going 
to go to the most senior Democrat. But since the gentleman from New 
Jersey is a member of the committee and asks to be recognized, the 
gentleman from New Jersey will be recognized.


              Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Frelinghuysen

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment No. 6.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Frelinghuysen:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:
       Sec.   . None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for use of a Federal Internet site to collect 
     information about an individual as a consequence of the 
     individual's use of the site.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
today, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the intent of my amendment is quite simple. Government 
Web sites exist to serve the public. They should not be used to collect 
personal information about people who use these sites, unless the 
public chooses to disclose personal information to the government.
  Recent news reports reveal that some Federal agency Web sites are 
placing what are called ``cookies'' on the personal computers of people 
who view and access government Web sites. This cookie technology 
basically allows the operator of a Web site to follow users around as 
they visit the site, and has the potential to continue to follow that 
user around after they have left the site.
  I think that the use of this cookie technology on government Web 
sites raises many serious questions. For instance, do we really want 
the Federal Government to keep information on a user that tells them 
what page on the National Institutes of Health site the user looked up; 
how many times the user looked at the site; what time the user visited 
the site; what information the user downloaded from the site; and where 
the user went on the Web after they left that particular site? More 
important, why are they collecting this information? What are they 
using it for? What could this information be used for? Could it be 
misused? And, most especially, under what force of law do these 
agencies have the right to collect this information?
  In response to the public outcry about government Web sites using 
cookies, the Federal Office of Management and Budget did issue a policy 
directive on June 22 of this year. And while it is a step in the right 
direction, let me just quote from the directive, which states, ``Under 
this new Federal policy, cookies should not be used at Federal Web 
sites unless in addition to clear and conspicuous notice the following 
conditions are met: A compelling need to collect data on the site, 
appropriate and publicly disclosed privacy safeguards, and personal 
approval by the head of the agency.''
  Mr. Chairman, one agency's idea of what they call a ``compelling 
need'' may very well be in violation of my constituents' privacy. I do 
not think we want to put these decisions in the hands of every agency 
head, nor do I think we want privacy protections that vary from agency 
to agency. We need this time out, or moratorium, where agencies are 
barred from using these technologies until we have a government-wide 
consistent policy under force of law that provides the necessary 
protections against the unintentional and involuntary collection of 
people's personal information.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that this is a whole new arena for all of us in 
government as well as in the private sector,

[[Page H6685]]

and we need the time to sort it through. I look forward to working with 
the chairman and others in Congress on this very important issue.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for the 
amendment he has offered. Members of this body have been working 
closely with the gentleman from New Jersey and his staff for some time 
on this.
  I think the gentleman has raised an important issue and, as he 
suggests here, we really need to have a consistent government-wide 
policy on the use of gathering information about people who are on the 
Internet and who seek access to Internet sites, including government 
sites. So I commend him for what he is doing. We do have some concerns 
that we have talked to him about the way his amendment is drafted, but 
we think we can work those out.
  Members will also note this is the second amendment on this topic 
that we have had here tonight. The gentleman from Washington offered 
one which proceeds from the presumption that Internet access is being 
looked at and he asked to study it. This one proceeds from the idea 
that cookies should not be used. I think that is the appropriate way to 
look at this for the moment.
  So I commend the gentleman for offering this amendment and thank him 
for yielding.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman for his comments.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does anyone claim the time in opposition?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Rangel

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rangel:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (page 
     112, after line 13) the following new section:
       Sec. 644. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Department of the Treasury to enforce the 
     economic embargo of Cuba, as defined in section 4(7) of the 
     Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 
     1996 (Public Law 104-114), except those provisions that 
     relate to the denial of foreign tax credits, or to the 
     implementation of the harmonized tariff schedule of the 
     United States.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
today, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and a Member opposed 
each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart) reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is recognized for 10 minutes 
on his amendment.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It has been the policy of our country not to use food and medicine as 
a tool for foreign policy, and yet, as relates to the government of 
Cuba, we have been doing just that. We have allowed the people of the 
United States to believe that we have enacted the so-called Helms-
Burton law in an effort to promote democracy in Cuba, but we have seen 
that sanctions really have not pushed democracy in Cuba.
  The fact is that we have been using a different technique as it 
applies to communism in North Korea, in North Vietnam and in, more 
recently, China. It would seem to me that, if we really want to be 
consistent with our foreign policy, what is good in terms of trying to 
turn around these other Communist countries should be good for a 
Communist country that is only 90 miles from us.
  In addition to this, so many American businesses are suffering 
unnecessarily because of this embargo. Our farmers are looking for new 
markets; the tourism industry; our bankers. There are just great 
opportunities. Not only that, but the same arguments relate to China; 
that other countries are ignoring this so-called embargo. They are 
doing business in Cuba at our expense. As a matter of fact, ironically, 
Cuban-Americans, who best know Cuba, are being denied the opportunity 
to do business in their homeland.
  So what I am asking is that we just strike all of the funds that 
would be used to enforce this economic embargo against Cuba and allows 
us to have a consistent foreign policy and not to use food and medicine 
as a tool against them; not to deny people an opportunity to send money 
back home; not to deny people the opportunity, especially Americans, to 
go where they want to go, when they want to go, without fear of 
spending money or suffering sanctions from the United States 
Government.

                              {time}  1900

  So I am asking for an aye vote on this so that America foreign policy 
and trade policy with Cuba would be in alignment with our overall 
universal policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) 
insist on his point of order?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order, and I 
rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn. The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just a few years ago, the Cuban dictator shot down two 
unarmed civilian aircraft over international waters killing three 
United States citizens including a Vietnam war hero and a legal 
resident of the United States.
  Castro publicly admitted that he ordered the murders. Time Magazine, 
March 11, 1996: ``I personally ordered the shootdowns,'' he said.
  In lieu of military action against Castro's Cuba, President Clinton 
agreed to sign the codification of our embargo against Castro's regime. 
Castro's act of terrorism against Americans was an unprecedented act of 
direct state terrorism. Not even Iraq or North Korea or Iran have done 
this, or Syria.
  He did not pay or train terrorists to kill Americans. He did so with 
his own air force under his own orders. This was not 40 years ago. This 
was not during the Cold War. This was 4 years ago after as many of our 
colleagues say he no longer poses a threat to anyone.
  Now, what has Castro done to merit the consideration and the 
courtesies that our colleagues seek to bestow upon him today? For us to 
send a signal saying, in effect, he can kill American citizens; do not 
worry about military action. And in 4 years we might want to make a 
buck from them?
  What has he done except for his dinners and his banquets when he 
tries to charm visitors with his so-called wit during his 10-hour 
dinners? Increased repression. Thousands of political prisoners 
languish at this moment in his dungeons. And he continues to harbor 
U.S. fugitives from justice, including murderers of policemen.
  I include for the Record, Mr. Chairman, the following letter received 
yesterday from the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police:

                                                      Grand Lodge,


                                    Fraternal Order of Police,

                                   Washington, DC., July 19, 2000.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and 
         Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing on behalf of the more than 
     290,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police to express 
     our strong concern about amendments to various appropriations 
     measures which would ``normalize'' trade and relations with 
     the Communist dictator in Cuba.
       It is well known that the Cuban government is harboring 
     scores of criminals wanted in the United States. Perhaps the 
     most notorious case involves Joanne Chesimard, who murdered 
     New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster and severely wounded 
     his partner, Trooper James Harper. She escaped a maximum 
     security prison in 1979 and fled to Cuba, where she now lives 
     under the protection of the Cuban government as an example of 
     ``political repression'' in the United States.
       Fidel Castro also plays host to at least two members of a 
     group called the ``Republic of New Africa,'' who murdered New 
     Mexican State Trooper Robert Rosenbloom. And while some 
     Members of Congress may see no problem normalizing relations 
     with Cuba, the Fraternal Order of Police believes

[[Page H6686]]

     strongly that before any normal relations--trade or 
     otherwise--are considered, Fidel Castro must return those 
     wanted fugitives. We ought not to reward the Cuban policy of 
     providing a safe haven for the murderers of Americans.
       I realize that relationships with other governments are 
     sensitive and complex, which require compromise and nuanced 
     accommodation. However, the American people and the Fraternal 
     Order of Police do not feel that we must compromise our 
     system of justice and the fabric of our society to foreign 
     dictators like Fidel Castro.
       I ask that the Senate reject any and all amendments which 
     would normalize relations between the United States and Cuba 
     unless the issue of these murderous fugitives are resolved to 
     our satisfaction. Trade bought with the blood of American law 
     enforcement officers doing their job on American soil is too 
     high a price to pay.
       Please contact me if I can be of any further assistance on 
     this or any other issue.
           Sincerely,
                                              Gilbert G. Gallegos,
                                               National President.

  After going through a number of State troopers, for example, State 
Trooper Werner Foerstar, murdered by someone who Castro has given 
``asylum'' to and today is receiving his protection in Cuba; and State 
Trooper James Harper, who was maimed; State Trooper Robert Rosenbloom.
  The Fraternal Order of Police writes yesterday: ``The Fraternal Order 
of Police believes strongly that before any normal relations, trade or 
otherwise, are considered, Fidel Castro must return those wanted 
fugitives. We ought not to reward the Cuban policy of providing a safe 
haven for the murderers of Americans. Trade bought with the blood of 
American law enforcement officers doing their job on American soil is 
too high a price to pay.''
  This is the Fraternal Order of Police yesterday.
  I reject the argument that we hear over and over again that the 
embargo has not worked. Number one, as leverage for a democratic 
transition after Castro is no longer on the scene, it is not supposed 
to work yet. Just like the European Union's demand of democracy for 
Franco's Spain or for Oliveira's Portugal did not work until they were 
gone from the scene, but it sure as heck worked when they were gone 
from the scene. And those countries are now part of the fully 
democratic European Union.
  But with regard to other key aspects, the embargo has already worked. 
The embargo constitutes a red line to the kind of massive investments 
in credit and hard currency including, yes, through mass U.S. tourism 
that would give Castro an extraordinary economic boost if it were 
lifted.
  Imagine the Cuban dictator with unlimited investments and credits 
with the kind of cash that he had when the Soviets were a superpower, 
with the kind of cash that he would have if the Rangel amendment were 
adopted, with the kind of cash that would be available if U.S. tourism 
were available.
  It was just a few years ago, Mr. Chairman, just a few years ago that 
Castro had armies in Africa, surrogate armies throughout this 
hemisphere. Imagine Castro's support for international terrorists if he 
once again had the cash. Imagine the export arms industry that he would 
have developed, the chemical or biological weapons he would have 
manufactured if only he had the cash.
  It certainly would not be like it is today. Because of our policy and 
because of Castro's brutality and his ineptness, his regime is a 
bankrupt tyranny condemned yearly by the United Nations Human Rights 
Commission with a radically diminished offensive capability, a 
radically diminished offensive capability that did not happen because 
of osmosis but that happened because of a wise bipartisan policy that 
this Congress and every administration has maintained because of the 
national security threat that his regime has signified.
  U.S. sanctions, Mr. Chairman, have hurt the Cuban tyranny and denied 
the regime precious resources that Castro will use to work to overthrow 
elected governments, spread violence and terrorism, and work to defeat 
democracy throughout the hemisphere and indeed other hemispheres.
  So I ask not that we stay on these pretexts; but rather, that we 
recognize, Mr. Chairman, there are three steps that U.S. law and policy 
call for for an end to all sanctions, for all American tourists to be 
able to go there, for all the billions that many seek to see and go to 
Cuba, go ahead and go there, only three steps that we call for in U.S. 
law: freedom for all the political prisoners, those languishing in 
prison today; legalization of political parties, labor unions and the 
press; and the scheduling of free elections.
  We are the first to want to see an end to those sanctions, Mr. 
Chairman. Simply join us, we ask our colleagues, in demanding those 
three steps. And if not, just stop the pretext and admit that what is 
being sought is to bolster a regime that has oppressed our closest 
neighbors brutally for 41 years, that has killed Americans, and that 
continues to harbor fugitives from American justice, including 
murderers of U.S. policemen.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to argue against the arguments made 
by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart).
  I just refuse to believe that those people who voted for permanent 
trade relations with China were supporting the government of China or 
North Korea or North Vietnam. It was just a considered thought of this 
body that the best way to try to disrupt these types of communist 
governments is sunshine and let the light shine on the economic 
progress that countries can make through trade.
  And so it just seems to me that we should not have a double standard. 
And no one is trying to help President Castro. From what I see, it does 
not appear to me that he is in need of food or medicine. But what we 
are saying is that the Cuban people should not suffer while we have 
seen that this man, Castro, has outlived nine or 10 United States 
Presidents while we have been looking for change. And we should not use 
the denial of food and medicine and the denial of the rights of 
Americans to go where they want to go when they want to go just because 
we are concerned, and rightly so, about the conduct of this man in 
Cuba.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano).
  (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), my brother, for being courageous 
enough to always bring up this issue.
  The fact that we continue to bring this issue is to the celebration 
of the day and of the time because this issue is not going to go away. 
As I said before on this floor, time is running out.
  Today we will see something that has not happened before today. We 
will see Republican amendments on this floor dealing with the Cuba 
issue and deal with the Cuba issue as we see it, as I see it, allowing 
travel, allowing exchanges, allowing commerce between the two 
countries.
  Now, we can continue here to espouse all the points we want about 
what is wrong with Cuba, but the fact of life is that the relationship 
we want is with the Cuban people. No one here is supportive of the 
Cuban Government or Chinese Government or Vietnamese Government. We are 
supportive of people.
  At this point in our relationship with the rest of the world, it 
makes no sense whatsoever to continue to say that we will not deal with 
Cuba because somehow they present a threat to us and to our security 
and to the rest of the world.
  We present a threat to the people in Cuba. We present a threat to the 
children in Cuba. Every time we deny contact through travel, every time 
we deny food and medicine, every time we deny our culture, our 
behavior, our ideals, our way of being and of conducting business to be 
seen and heard up close in Cuba, we are hurting the Cuban people.
  But we continue to believe that somehow, if we squeeze Cuba a little 
bit more, its government will fall apart and we keep hearing that.
  Well, 6 months from now the Cuban Government will be on its 11th 
president, American President. The only reason they are not on their 
13th president is because Reagan and Clinton were reelected.
  So we better get used to the fact that the change has to come over 
here in

[[Page H6687]]

terms of how we are going to behave with them. As long as we stand on 
this floor and we see support for China, Vietnam and Korea, there has 
got to be support for Cuba.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to provide funds 
to the oppressive Castro regime without current U.S. policy 
requirements and those requirements deal with human rights, civil 
liberties, and political freedoms.
  Do the supporters of this amendment believe that it is a bad thing to 
require democracy and liberty for the Cuban people first and require 
that U.S. policy not prolong their suffering?
  By propping up the regime that oppresses them, by providing hard 
currency to the Castro regime, this amendment postpones the inevitable. 
And that is what we want for Cuba is we want democracy and we want 
liberty.
  But this amendment condones the murder of these children and all of 
the other victims killed by Fidel Castro.
  In this instance, Fidel Castro's coast guard rammed their small 
tugboats and turned their power hoses on these children, drowning them 
in their cries of anguish. Six years later, the regime refuses to turn 
over their bodies to the relatives.
  This amendment would allow the Cuban dictatorship to purchase even 
more weapons such as those shown in this poster for Castro's brand of 
calisthenics for children when they lift rifles above their heads.
  This amendment would propagate the system of apartheid, which is 
established by the regime denying access to food, medicine, and hotels 
to the Cuban people in favor of the tourists.
  This amendment would allow Castro officials to keep political 
prisoners and human rights dissidents, such as Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, 
in isolation in a squalid jail cell denied of food and medical 
attention, denied even the Bible.
  That is what the Rangel amendment will do.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) for offering this amendment and for really allowing us to 
come to the floor to debate this issue which is so, so important.
  Opening the door for the sale of food and medicine to Cuba is really 
a step in the right direction for America and for Cuba.
  More than a decade has passed since the end of the Cold War. Yet one 
of the most Draconian policies from that era still exists, the United 
States trade embargo against Cuba. This is outrageous.
  Now, I have visited Cuba on several occasions, and I have seen 
firsthand the immoral and inhumane impact of food and medical 
sanctions. I have witnessed the suffering and fear of people on kidney 
dialysis machines which need American parts in order to function 
properly so that their lives can be saved.
  The Cold War has been banished to the ash bins of history. But 
unfortunately, the trade embargo with Cuba lives on. It is time to lift 
this embargo, especially on food and medicine, against an island of 
about 10 or 11 million people, 90 miles away from the coast of Florida. 
Even our own Department of Defense said that it poses no national 
security threat to the United States of America.
  I support real action on this issue like the Rangel amendment, not 
watered down compromises. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment and further implore the President of the United States to 
lift the economic sanctions against Cuba.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) has 2 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 2\3/4\ 
minutes remaining, including the right to close.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman from New 
York's amendment. And I regret that I do not hear the voices of my 
colleagues, for example, who spoke very passionately on China about 
human rights, about labor rights, about democracy issues and who voted 
as I did in that context to deny MFN status to China because we 
believed that those issues were so tantamount, so important, that that 
trade should not be granted to that country.
  The fact of the matter is that what the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) seeks to do in his amendment would not actually change existing 
law. In other words, the embargo would remain, but the ability 
supposedly to administer and enforce it would be gone, and, of course, 
this would not only create confusion but it would create lawlessness. 
Because what it would say to U.S. citizens is, ``Go ahead, break the 
law because the government can't catch you.''
  What is even more important for those who do not believe in our 
policy is that the Treasury Department would be prevented from 
continuing to issue legal licenses for certain travel and food and 
medicine sales as is now allowed under existing law and the Department 
would be prohibited from providing that humanitarian assistance to the 
people of Cuba. By the way, Mr. Chairman, it is the United States of 
America through nongovernmental organizations that is the greatest 
remitter of humanitarian assistance to the people of Cuba over the last 
5 years. It has sent over $2 billion over the last 5 years to help the 
people of Cuba.
  So what hurts my family that still lives in Cuba is not the embargo 
of the United States. What hurts my family that lives in Cuba is the 
dictatorship of Fidel Castro, his failed economic policies, his 
rationing of people. There is plenty of food for tourists, plenty of 
food for tourism. There are plenty of medicines for what they call 
health tourism. There are medicines to export to other parts of the 
world but they are not there for the people of Cuba.
  Therefore, we should vote against the Rangel amendment and preserve 
our policy in order to ensure freedom and democracy.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I think all of us have compassion in trying to find some way to bring 
democracy in all parts of the world and certainly Cuba being so close 
to us, we would like to see that happen there.
  When we talk about people voting against China and not giving them 
normal trade relationship, a lot of people did that. But an embargo is 
close to an act of war.
  I have heard some of my colleagues say, ``Well, didn't you support an 
embargo against South Africa? Why do you think it is so different from 
China?''
  An embargo is not effective when it is a unilateral embargo. No one 
respects our embargo. They know it is a political thing. It has nothing 
to do with our foreign policy or with our trade policy. What we are 
doing is because there is a constituency, a constituency that wants to 
make certain that this deviates from our policy, and a good policy, 
and, that is, not to use food, not to use medicine in order to change 
the political composition of any government. We should not use it as a 
political tool. That is what we are doing here.
  Anyone can tell you, anyone that served in any administration as 
Secretary of State or any Assistant Secretaries of State in charge of 
Latin affairs would tell you that the embargo is bad foreign policy for 
the United States of America. We should not get involved in this type 
of thing, and it is not working. But, my God, if you can see American 
businessmen over there, to see tourists over there, to see students 
over there, to see our doctors and our scientists exchanging 
information over there. The Cuban people are not stupid. When they see 
what Americans can do, how they think and the competitive nature of 
their business and see how democracy really works, that is how you get 
rid of Communist government. You do not deny people the opportunity to 
listen, to travel, to send money, to do trade, to have commerce. That 
is when you are ashamed of your government and you do not want them

[[Page H6688]]

to see things. We want to have this thing wide open, so Americans can 
see what is going on in Cuba and Cuba can see what is going on in the 
United States.
  Why should we be fearful in terms of our national defense of this 
small handful of people that are in Cuba? Why can we not make them our 
friends and a part of the Caribbean Basin Initiative? Why can we not 
bring all countries to trade with us? What country are we denying the 
opportunity that is this close to us that is in our hemisphere not to 
be a part of our trading partners? I ask you all to think about our 
farmers, think about our businesspeople, and support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 560, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mrs. Morella

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

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mrs. Morella:
       Page 112, after line 13, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 644. (a)(1) Title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after section 5372a the following:

     ``Sec. 5372b. Administrative appeals judges

       ``(a) For the purpose of this section--
       ``(1) the term `administrative appeals judge position' 
     means a position the duties of which primarily involve 
     reviewing decisions of administrative law judges appointed 
     under section 3105; and
       ``(2) the term `agency' means an Executive agency, as 
     defined by section 105, but does not include the General 
     Accounting Office.
       ``(b) Subject to such regulations as the Office of 
     Personnel Management may prescribe, the head of the agency 
     concerned shall fix the rate of basic pay for each 
     administrative appeals judge position within such agency 
     which is not classified above GS-15 pursuant to section 5108.
       ``(c) A rate of basic pay fixed under this section shall 
     be--
       ``(1) not less than the minimum rate of basic pay for level 
     AL-3 under section 5372; and
       ``(2) not greater than the maximum rate of basic pay for 
     level AL-3 under section 5372.''.
       (2) Section 7323(b)(2)(B)(ii) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``or 5372a'' and inserting 
     ``5372a, or 5372b''.
       (3) The table of sections for chapter 53 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to section 5372a the following:

``5372b. Administrative appeals judges.''.

       (b) The amendment made by subsection (a)(1) shall apply 
     with respect to pay for service performed on or after the 
     first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or 
     after--
       (1) the 120th day after the date of enactment of this Act; 
     or
       (2) if earlier, the effective date of regulations 
     prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management to carry out 
     such amendment.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First and foremost, I just want to say that I am offering this 
amendment today to right a wrong that has gone unchanged for the last 
10 years. The amendment I am offering is simply a matter of fairness. 
There currently are 20 administrative appeals judges who serve on the 
Appeals Council for the Social Security Administration. These judges 
review numerous decisions made by administrative law judges, and yet 
they are not even compensated at the very same level. Prior to the 
enactment of the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act in 1990, both 
of those judges, the ALJs and the AAJs, were compensated at the GS-15 
level. That FEPCA, the Comparability Act, elevated the pay of ALJs to a 
new level that is from 10 to 15 percent higher than the GS-15 level. 
Unfortunately, Congress did not include the administrative appeals 
judges in this new pay category. Therefore, it has resulted in the 
situation where the Appeals Council is now the only administrative 
appellate body in government whose members are paid less than the 
judges whose orders and decisions that they review. This amendment 
would remedy this inequity. It would ensure that administrative appeals 
judges are paid at the very same level as those judges whom they 
review, the administrative law judges.
  Actually, I bring this before the body because frankly we are in 
terrible difficulty with regard to losing those administrative appeals 
judges, and we need them desperately. This is an equity matter. I will 
just simply ask that the Record include my full statement and ask the 
chairman of the committee for his consideration of this amendment.
  First and foremost, I would just like to say that I am offering this 
amendment today to right a wrong that has gone unchanged for the last 
ten years. The amendment I am offering is simply a matter of fairness. 
There currently 20 Administrative Appeals Judges (AAJs) who serve on 
the Appeals Council (AC) for the Social Security Administration. These 
judges review numerous decisions made by Administrative Law Judges 
(ALJs), yet they are not compensated at the same level. Prior to the 
enactment of the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act in 1990, both 
ALJs and AAJs were compensated at the GS-15 level. FEPCA elevated the 
pay of ALJs to a new level that is from 10 to 15 percent higher than 
the GS-15 level. Unfortunately, the Congress did not include AAJs in 
this new pay category, resulting in the situation where the Appeals 
Council (AC) is now the only administrative appellate body in 
government whose members are paid less than the judges whose orders and 
decisions they review. This amendment would remedy this inequality and 
ensure that Administrative Appeals Judges are paid at the same level as 
those judges whom they review, Administrative Law Judges.
  1. The AAJ's when compared to other Appellate Board members, whose 
grades are set by statute at the Senior Level (SL) or SES, operate with 
equal responsibility and authority. The Appeals Council (AAJ's) decide 
on complex legal/medical issues which at the very least equal those 
members of other Appellate boards within government. The decisions of 
the Appeals Council constitute the final administrative rulings in the 
case, and are not referred to any higher authority for approval or 
rejection.
  2. Prior to FEPCA, the AC was stable in membership and few of its 
members sought appointments as Administrative Law Judges. Subsequent to 
FEPCA, 14 AAJ's have accepted appointments as Administrative Law Judges 
(and 16 of the present Administrative Appeals Judges are on the waiting 
list to become Administrative Law Judges). As a result, more than 50% 
of the Administrative Appeals Judges serving on the Appeals Council 
have less than two years experience. In addition, since FEPCA was 
introduced, only one Administrative Law Judge has applied for a 
vacancy. Consequently, the AC has suffered diminution of institutional 
memory and working experience.
  3. And most importantly this amendment does not add any money to the 
Treasury/Postal Appropriations bill. The Social Security Administration 
will pay these salaries. We are simply asking OPM to authorize these 
changes and OPM is in support.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for 
offering this amendment. I am prepared as chairman of the subcommittee 
to accept the amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment. I 
think it is a very positive addition to the bill. I join the chairman 
in support of the amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. I thank both the chairman and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee for that. I want to point out to this body that it adds no 
money to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone seek time in opposition to the 
gentlewoman's amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page H6689]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new title:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. No funds in this bill may be used in 
     contravention of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et 
     seq.; popularly known as the ``Buy American Act'').

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This is a very simple, straightforward amendment. No funds in the 
bill may be used in contravention of the Buy American Act. There is a 
lot of money in the bill. If the IRS is going to buy computers, they 
should attempt wherever possible to buy American-made computers.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, this has been added to other bills. The 
gentleman from Ohio knows my particular views on this issue, but I 
think we are prepared to accept the amendment here.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to speak in opposition to the 
gentleman from Ohio's amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Page 112, after line 13, insert the following:
       Sec. 644. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used by the Internal Revenue Service for any activity that is 
     in contravention of section 411(b)(1)(H)(i) or section 
     411(d)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, section 
     204(b)(1)(G) or 204(b)(1)(H)(i) of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974, or section 4(i)(1)(A) of the Age 
     Discrimination in Employment Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this tripartisan amendment is cosponsored by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich), the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett). It is also supported by the 
AARP, the Pension Rights Center, the Communication Workers of America 
and many other unions.
  This amendment is simple and straightforward. It simply would 
prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from using any funding for 
activities that violate current pension age discrimination laws, laws 
that have been on the books since 1986.
  Mr. Chairman, if a company reduced pension benefits based on race or 
religion or gender, the Federal Government would be sure to take 
appropriate action against the company. We can do no less when it comes 
to age discrimination in pension plans. The truth is that with regard 
to cash balance plans, the Federal Government has been asleep at the 
wheel and it is time to give them a wake-up call. That is what this 
amendment does.
  Let me quote from a letter I received from the AARP today:
  ``This issue has largely been brought into focus because of the most 
recent corporate pension trend of changing traditional pension plans to 
so-called cash balance plan formulas. Older workers face inequitable 
treatment under these plans, and AARP believes the cash balance plans 
violate current law prohibitions on age discrimination. Already, 
hundreds of charges of age discrimination have been filed with the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In addition, the IRS, in 
consultation with other government agencies, has begun a process of 
review of the age discrimination issues involved in cash balance 
conversions. All this amendment requires is that the IRS not take any 
action in contravention of current age discrimination law. AARP hopes 
that this amendment will send a strong message that we value older 
workers and that we reaffirm that older workers should not be subject 
to age discrimination.''
  Mr. Chairman, this tri-partisan amendment is co-sponsored by Mr. 
Gutknecht, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Conyers and Mr. 
Barrett.
  It is also supported by the AARP, the Pension Rights Center, the 
Communication Workers of America and many other unions.
  This amendment is simple and straightforward. It simply would 
prohibit the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from using any funding for 
activities that violate current pension age discrimination laws--laws 
that have been on the books since 1986.
  Mr. Chairman, if a company reduced pension benefits based on race, or 
religion, or gender, the federal government would be sure to take 
appropriate action against the company. We can do no less when it comes 
to age discrimination in pension plans. The truth is that with regard 
to cash balance plans the federal government has been asleep at the 
wheel and it is time to give them a wake up call. And that's what this 
amendment does.
  Mr. Chairman, let me quote from a letter that I received today from 
the AARP:

       This issue has largely been brought into focus because of 
     the most recent corporate pension trend of changing 
     traditional pension plans to so called ``cash balance'' plan 
     formulas. Older workers face inequitable treatment under 
     these plans, and AARP believes that cash balance plans 
     violate current law prohibitions on age discrimination. 
     Already, hundreds of charges of age discrimination have been 
     filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In 
     addition, the IRS (in consultation with other government 
     agencies) has begun a process of review of the age 
     discrimination issues involved in cash balance conversions. 
     All this amendment requires is that the IRS not take any 
     action in contravention of current age discrimination law. 
     AARP hopes that this amendment will send a strong message 
     that we value older workers and that we reaffirm that older 
     workers should not be subject to age discrimination.

  A vote in support of this amendment is a vote to protect the pensions 
of older Americans and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this 
amendment.
  Why are we offering this amenmdent? Mr. Chairman, hundreds of 
profitable companies across the country, including IBM, AT&T, CBS and 
Bell Atlantic have converted their traditional defined benefit pension 
plan to a controversial cash balance plan. Cash balance schemes 
typically reduce the future pension benefits of older workers by as 
much as 50 percent. Not only is this immoral, it is also illegal 
because the reductions in benefits are directly tied to an employee's 
age.
  What makes the conversions even more indefensible is the fact that 
many of these companies have pension fund surpluses in the billions of 
dollars. It is simply unacceptable that during a time of record 
breaking corporate profits, huge pension fund surpluses, massive 
compensation for CEOs (including very generous retirement benefits), 
that corporate America renege on the commitments that they have made to 
workers by slashing their pensions. Mr. Chairman, Congress must stand 
with older workers and insist that anti-age discrimination statutes are 
enforced.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard from hundreds of workers throughout the 
country who have expressed their anger, their disappointment and their 
feelings of betrayal by cash balance conversions. These employees had 
stuck with their company when times were tough, and there have been 
some tough times for American workers. Some of these people are 
salaried employees who worked 60 or 70 hours a week for their company 
with no additional compensation, and missed their kids' Little League 
games or family activities because they were determined to do their 
jobs well. These are employees who went to work for their company and 
stayed at their company precisely because of the pension program that 
the company offered.
  And these are the same employees who woke up one day, to discover 
that all of the promises that their companies made to them were not 
worth the paper they were written on. Mr. Chairman, this is outrageous. 
We must provide protections for these workers that have been screaming 
out to Congress for help. We must pass this amendment.
  Large, multinational companies with defined benefit pension plans 
receive $100 billion a

[[Page H6690]]

year in tax breaks from private pension plans alone according to the 
Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Chairman, the IRS should not be 
giving tax breaks to companies that willfully violate the pension age 
discrimination statutes.
  To do so, not only violates public law and policy, it also provides 
taxpayer subsidies for illegal pension conversions. Mr. Chairman, there 
should be no tax breaks for companies that discriminate on the basis of 
age.
  The fact that cash balance plan conversions violate current pension 
age discrimination laws is clear. According to Edward Zelinsky, law 
professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law,

       As a matter of law, the typical cash balance plan violates 
     the statutory prohibition on age-based reductions in the rate 
     at which participants accrue their benefits . . . There is no 
     dispute about the underlying arithmetic: as cash balance 
     participants age, the contributions made for them decline in 
     value in annuity terms.

  Mr. Chairman, if you are still wondering if cash balance schemes 
violate pension age discrimination laws, consider this:
  Mr. Chairman, pension security is vital to the working men and women 
of America, and we must do all we can to ensure that employees of the 
most profitable companies in America do not lose their retirement 
benefits as a result of age discrimination. I urge my colleagues to 
stand up for American workers and vote for this amendment.

                                                         AARP,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 2000.
     Hon. Bernie Sanders,
     Rayburn HOB, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Gil Gutknecht,
     Cannon HOB, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Sanders and Gutknecht: AARP supports 
     your amendment to the Treasury-Postal Appropriations Act to 
     ensure that the Internal Revenue Service does not use any 
     funds in contravention of current law prohibitions on age 
     discrimination in pension plans.
       In 1986, on a bipartisan basis, Congress enacted a set of 
     parallel amendments to the Age Discrimination in Employment 
     Act (ADEA), the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), and the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to prohibit the 
     reduction of an employee's benefit accrual because of age. 
     These provisions highlight Congressional concern about 
     fairness to older workers in the operations of pension plans. 
     The overall objectives of the amendment were two-fold: to 
     assure that employee pension benefit plans do not 
     discriminate on the basis of age and to remove disincentives 
     to older employees to remain in the workforce. Prior to these 
     changes, many plans made older workers face a cruel choice--
     retire, or watch the value of their retirement benefits erode 
     substantially.
       Your amendment would not change current law, but would 
     simply require that IRS not use any funds that violate these 
     current law provisions.
       This issue has largely been brought into focus because of 
     the most recent corporate pension trend of changing 
     traditional pension plans to so called ``cash balance'' plan 
     formulas. Older workers face inequitable treatment under 
     these plans, and AARP believes that cash balance plans 
     violate current law prohibitions on age discrimination. 
     Already, hundreds of charges of age discrimination have been 
     filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In 
     addition, the IRS (in consultation with other government 
     agencies) has begun a process of review of the age 
     discrimination issues involved in cash balance conversions. 
     However, IRS has yet to issue any definitive guidance in this 
     area.
       All this amendment requires is that IRS not take any action 
     in contravention of current law. AARP hopes that this 
     amendment will send a strong message that we value older 
     workers and that we reaffirm that older workers should not be 
     subject to age discrimination in their pension plans.
       If you have any further questions, feel free to call me, or 
     have your staff call David Certner of our Federal Affairs 
     Department at 202-434-3760.
           Sincerely,
     Horace B. Deets.
                                  ____



                                        Pension Rights Center,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bernard Sanders,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Sanders: The Pension Rights Center, the 
     nation's only consumer organization working solely to protect 
     the pension rights of workers, retires and their families, 
     strongly supports your amendment to the Treasury-
     appropriations bill to prohibit the Internal Revenue Service 
     (IRS) from using any funding for activities that violate 
     current age discrimination laws. We believe that this 
     amendment will help protect older Americans' pensions.
       This amendment will ensure that the IRS does not approve 
     cash balance conversions, a practice that clearly violates 
     age discrimination laws. These cash balance conversions have 
     received widespread attention because they significantly and 
     irreparably reduce older workers' pension benefits. Loyal 
     employees from some of the largest blue chip corporations--
     IBM, Bell Atlantic, Citibank and SBC--have been bewildered, 
     angered and frustrated to learn that their companies have 
     broken the long-standing pension promises that they counted 
     on to make ends meet in retirement. Many of these employees 
     have come to the Pension Rights Center asking us to help them 
     protect their rights.
       As you have noted, cash balance plans violate the age 
     discrimination provisions of the Internal Revenue code, ERISA 
     and the Age Discrimination Enforcement Act by reducing 
     benefit accruals of people as they age. Many cash balance 
     conversions also violate age discrimination rules by 
     effectively freezing the benefits of older workers while 
     providing new benefits only to younger workers through a 
     controversial practice called, ``wearaway.''
       The argument that the prohibition of cash balance plans 
     will erode the defined benefit system is fallacious. The fact 
     is, employers are switching to cash balance plans to save 
     millions of dollars by reducing benefits of older workers. 
     Employers know that if they were to terminate their 
     overfunded defined benefit plans and set up a defined 
     contribution plan, they would be required to pay a 
     substantial excise tax. But by restructuring their plans into 
     a cash balance arrangement, employers have been able to avoid 
     paying taxes while essentially recapturing the ``surplus'' in 
     their pension plans for corporate purposes. In face, recent 
     articles in the Wall Street Journal, the New Times and 
     Business Week have exposed how companies have used this 
     practice to pump up the bottom line.
       We have heard from thousands of employees who wonder how 
     profitable corporations with overfunded pension plans have 
     been able to unilaterally and unfairly break promises to 
     them. If Members of Congress are concerned about the long-
     term viability of the private pension system, they should 
     support your amendment to help restore faith in the nation's 
     private pension system. Unless the IRS stops cash balance 
     conversions, taxpayers will rightly question why they are 
     being asked to foot the bill for $80 billion in tax breaks to 
     encourage pension plans if these plans are not serving their 
     interest.
       We look forward to working with you as you continue your 
     efforts to champion legislation that fairly promotes the 
     interests of employees and their families.
           Sincerely,
     Karen W. Ferguson,
                                                         Director.
     Karen Friedman,
                                         Pension Fairness Project.

  The CHAIRMAN. Does a Member rise in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) is recognized for 
5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
This is a rather unusual amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Vermont. It is unusual because by its own terms it says the IRS shall 
not use the funds appropriated to it under this bill to violate 
specific provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, ERISA and the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act. I hope this is unnecessary.
  Under current law, the Internal Revenue Service is required to 
interpret and enforce the law and is prohibited from acting in 
contravention of the law. It is also unusual in that we are in the 
appropriation process and this addresses tax policy.
  I do not see any particular harm in the amendment, I just think it is 
a little unusual.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am not going to 
oppose the amendment for the same reason that the gentleman mentioned. 
I have discussed with the gentleman from Vermont, but not the gentleman 
from Ohio yet. But I would hope that the amendment is not necessary 
because I believe that the IRS is following the law. I understand that 
that is the purpose of the amendment, however, and we are not going to 
oppose it.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, I do want to take this opportunity 
to say that I have a bigger concern here which is whether the IRS has 
the resources available to it today to properly implement the laws that 
Congress is passing.

                              {time}  1930

  Let me talk specifically about the resources necessary to implement 
the historic restructuring reform act that this Congress passed only 2 
years ago providing the most sweeping reforms of the IRS in 46 years.
  My colleagues will recall that the Clinton administration initially 
opposed this effort but ultimately an

[[Page H6691]]

overwhelming bipartisan majority of this House on both sides agreed 
that reform was needed. The RRA, Restructuring and Reform Act, required 
a number of major reforms, including a taxpayer friendly total 
reorganization of the entire Internal Revenue Service to improve 
customer service for every taxpayer.
  We also directed the IRS to undertake a desperately needed computer 
modernization effort. Every Member of the House has heard horror 
stories from their constituents about erroneous computer notices 
received by constituents; where the left hand does not seem to know 
what the right hand is doing. The only way to get at this is by 
investing in improved IRS technology. This House made a commitment to 
do that.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to protect our constituents from these very 
kinds of computer problems. The RRA also took steps to reduce IRS 
paperwork by moving toward taxpayer-friendly electronic filing, but 
there is an initial cost to that. We know there is a 22 percent error 
rate with paper returns, but only a 1 percent error rate with 
electronic filing. That is why we mandated that the IRS move to 80 
percent electronic filing by 2007.
  We are just beginning to see some improvements in the IRS, just 
beginning to see some progress. Yet, here, we are not funding the IRS 
at adequate levels. Earlier this year, the GAO reported that the 
processing time for tax returns on paper this year was 14 percent 
faster than last year. Electronic filings increased about 17 percent 
this year.
  The IRS assistance lines are being answered at a higher rate, 
although not nearly at the private sector rate, and it is not nearly 
adequate. The point is that we are making some progress. There also 
have been some bumps along the road. Among other things, we desperately 
needed the IRS oversight board that the administration has dragged its 
feet on.
  Although I agree that Commissioner Rossotti is doing a good job at 
trying to turn the agency around. He cannot do it without adequate 
resources. We need to continue funding the IRS at an adequate level to 
ensure that we do not jeopardize the very reforms that again so many 
Members of this House supported so enthusiastically just 2 years ago.
  I hope, Mr. Chairman, as we move forward with this legislation that 
the House and Senate will be able to work together to find the needed 
funds to provide the taxpayers service improvements that we require in 
our IRS reform package.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) 
for his help with regard to the RRA; he was a big part of it. I commend 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member as well, 
for the difficult job both of them have done now in pulling together 
this legislation before us today and making sure it fits within the 
budget caps.
  I know how committed both of them are to ensuring that the IRS 
modernization effort works for taxpayers. I would hope that the 
gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) will work with the colleagues 
in the Senate to attempt to adequately fund the IRS restructuring and 
reform effort.
  Again, I would say to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), my 
friend, this amendment before us, I think, is probably unnecessary, but 
my bigger concern is whether the IRS has the resources to be able to 
follow the very requirements that we put in place through the IRS 
Restructuring and Reform Act.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say to all colleagues in the House, I do not 
think there is anybody in the House who has spent more time on making 
sure that the Internal Revenue Service is an effective agency 
efficiently collecting the revenues that are due to the government that 
can be used for the benefit of the American public and to do so in a 
manner that is consistent with the best interests of the taxpayer and 
his focus on giving it the proper resources to do the job we expect of 
it I think has been untiring and unwavering, and I congratulate him for 
his efforts.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  I must say to my friend from Ohio (Mr. Portman), this is not about 
more computers. It is not about more people. It is about the IRS doing 
its job. I have here the dictionary definition of vested, and it says, 
law, settled, fixed or absolute, being without contingency, as in a 
vested right.
  What this is about, ladies and gentlemen, is forcing the IRS to 
finally offer us a ruling on whether or not the conversion of some of 
these pensions violate the age discrimination laws that we already have 
on the books. That does not require a new computer. That does not 
require more staff. It simply requires that they do what we expect them 
to do, and that is interpret the law the way I think most of us would 
say.
  I would say to all of my friends on either side of the aisle, could 
we imagine what would happen if we started tinkering with Federal 
employees with their vested pension rights? I might to say to some of 
my friends in the military, what would happen here in this very Chamber 
if we began to tinker with the vested rights for some of our people who 
serve us in the Armed Services. But that is happening right now in 
violation, in my opinion, of age discrimination laws, and this IRS and 
this administration has refused to do anything about it.
  This is a simple amendment. It is supported by the AARP, and, 
frankly, it will be supported by millions of Americans. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, cash balance 
pension conversion completely reverses the incentive older workers now 
have. Under cash balance pensions, workers have hypothetical retirement 
accounts that grow by earning interest.
  The longer a worker stays with the company the larger effect of this 
compound interest; therefore, an older worker with only 10 years left 
before retirement does not have as much time as a younger worker with 
25 years before retirement in which to earn interest. So this older 
worker will retire with a smaller retirement than a younger worker will 
when he retires. That just is not fair.
  This amendment would compel compliance with the laws saving many 
American workers from losing the pensions they work for and halting the 
illegal and unethical conversion of workers pension to cash balance 
plans.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is necessary. It is 
necessary, particularly in light of some of the omissions in the 
pension bill that passed the House yesterday. Among those omissions was 
the failure to deal with the increasing propensity of many major 
corporations across America to move from defined benefit pension plans 
to cash balance pension plans, and thereby, as a result of that move, 
reducing pension benefits for the more senior employees in the 
organization.
  So this amendment is absolutely necessary. It draws attention to that 
omission, and, in fact, it draws attention of the IRS to the fact that 
its responsibilities with regard to pensions has to be observed, 
particularly, those responsibilities with regard to protecting older 
employees in their retirement.
  This amendment is necessary. It should be passed.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud my 
colleague from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for this excellent amendment.
  This is an amendment that is necessary. The issue here is cash 
balance pensions, and what we have heard from many corporations is that 
they are doing this to help younger workers being more mobile. We do 
not need to do this to help the younger workers. We are hearing that it 
is being done to make it easier for people to understand what their 
balances are. We do not

[[Page H6692]]

need to do it. What we do need is, we do need the IRS to make it clear 
that you cannot convert a pension plan and rip off workers, and that is 
why it is important that this amendment be added. It is important that 
the age discrimination laws in this country be followed by the IRS as 
well.
  Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering an amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Vermont to restrict the use of funds by 
the Internal Revenue Service to take any action that would undermine 
the pension laws or age discrimination in employment act. The intent of 
the amendment is to retaliate against companies converting defined 
benefit plans to cash balance plans. Ultimately, the gentleman seeks to 
prohibit such conversions because they may be detrimental to the 
retirement benefits of long-term employees. Because defined benefit 
plans provide the greatest amount of value towards the end of the 
employees relationship with the company, the effect of these 
conversions may fall more harshly on older, long-term employees who 
have spent their entire careers with one employer.
  I share the gentleman's concern about the impact of these conversions 
on long-term employees. In fact, the issue hits me personally as my 
wife is one of those employees in a defined benefit plan who is within 
a few years of retirement. While I believe that we should consider how 
to change our pension laws to protect these employees, this amendment 
does not accomplish that objective. I also strongly disagree with my 
colleague's assessment that cash balance plans should be prohibited.
  The amendment says that the Internal Revenue Service cannot fund any 
action that violates relevant tax, pension or age discrimination laws. 
On its face, the amendment is targeting the wrong party. The amendment 
has to take this approach to be considered on the floor today. It is a 
classic example of why legislation is not permitted on appropriations 
bills--they simply are too clumsy to be effective policy-setting tools. 
On a more technical level, these laws say that accrued--or earned--
benefits cannot be reduced on the basis of age. However, future accrual 
are not protected by these laws. Moreover, while long-term employees 
may bear a greater burden, they are not being singled out on the basis 
of age because the conversion affects everyone in the company. For this 
reason, there is genuine disagreement over whether the conversion 
violates age discrimination laws. Most observers assert that cash 
balance plans are not inherently flawed and, in fact, the problem is 
not with cash balance plans but how the transition from defined benefit 
to cash balance plan is implemented.
  Finally, cash balance plans play an important role attracting workers 
in a period when labor markets are tight and the workforce increasingly 
mobile. Portability is not a characteristic that should be penalized in 
our zeal to protect older and/or less mobile employees. The solution 
must take a broader view of the conversion, requiring employers to 
provide other benefits to long-term employees facing the prospect of 
having their future benefits cut. This approach reflects the economic 
reality for most conversions while preventing examples like the IBM 
conversion that have generated most of the negative publicity.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Coburn

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn:
       Strike Section 640

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House earlier today, the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) will be recognized for 10 minutes 
and a Member in opposition will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, under agreement with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), 
the chairman of the committee, I have chosen to later withdraw this 
amendment during this discussion.
  But I think it is very important that the American public know what 
we have done in this bill, and the reason I am offering it is to 
describe once again the tendency of us as a body, well-intentioned as 
we are, to think in the short term.
  In 1995, we passed a budget out of this House that said we would 
change the contribution of Federal employees for their retirement. We 
did that again in 1996. The agreement with the President in 1997 was 
the same. In 1997, we had a 5-year moratorium to bring that up to 7.5 
percent participation rate. What the committee did in trying to benefit 
Federal employees is to rescind the next few years of that agreement.
  Although, I hold no malice towards our Federal employees, I think we 
ought to be very frank about what we are doing. We are spending $1.3 
billion of Federal monies that we had previously agreed that we will 
not spend, so we reversed, once again, a commitment we made to the 
American public with the administration about how we would fix the 
finances of our country.
  We do have a better revenue stream. There is no question about that, 
but our children do not have a better revenue stream. If we look at the 
unfunded obligations for Medicare and Social Security, unless we think 
about the future, instead of about today, we are going to put them in a 
tremendous financial box.
  We all know that; that is why we are all grappling with ways to fix 
Medicare and Social Security. But under the Federal pension benefit, we 
have an unfunded liability of three-quarters of a trillion dollars, a 
very high number equating close to one of these other two that I have 
mentioned.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make a case so that the American people know 
that if you compare to the top 800 corporations in this country defined 
benefits in terms of retirement, the Federal employees on average have 
40 percent better benefits than the top 800 corporations for the same 
wages. They also have rising COLAs every year which those benefits they 
do not have in the private sector. They are going to be paying with 
this past the same level of contribution for a much expanded benefit as 
they paid in 1969, where those in the private sector have had 
significant increases in terms of 30 percent or 40 percent.
  So although I hold no malice towards our Federal employees, I do hold 
malice on our judgment for going back on our long-term commitments to 
protect the future for our children and look honestly about what we 
need to be doing in terms of addressing this need. How are we going to 
pay for the retirement of the Federal employees?
  Nobody has a plan out there. It is an unfunded liability of three-
quarters of a trillion dollars, $763 billion today; this is going to 
add $1.3 billion to that and that we are going to take and assume.
  I offer this amendment so that we can discuss this and understand 
what we are doing as we do this, and I have every intention of 
withdrawing it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes and I rise in 
opposition to the amendment. I realize the amendment is going to be 
withdrawn.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) raising this 
for purposes of discussing why we are doing this; that is appropriate. 
I am pleased to rise and explain why we are doing this. I think it will 
be less animated than I otherwise would have been because the gentleman 
is going to withdraw the amendment.
  Let me say that, first of all, I appreciate the remarks of the 
gentleman with respect to looking long term and looking to the future, 
ensuring that we manage the finances of America responsibly.
  I have been here for longer than the gentleman, serving here since 
1981. I think we were incredibly fiscally irresponsible as a Nation. 
Everybody went into debt very deeply in America in the 1980s. When I 
say everybody, consumers went deeply into debt. Business went deeply 
into debt, and government went deeply into debt.
  First of all, in 1990, we adopted a budget which started us on the 
road of fiscal responsibility. It was very controversial. Then 
President Bush signed the legislation and was severely criticized for 
doing so, but most economists say that that was the first step in 
reaching where we are today. The second step, was 1993 when we thought 
about the future. Some called it a piece of legislation that was going 
to drive us deeply into recession, explode unemployment and explode the 
debt. Mr. Gingrich said that, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) said 
that, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) said

[[Page H6693]]

that, that numerous other leaders in this House said that. In point of 
fact, exactly the opposite happened.
  We have the best economy that any of us have seen in our adult 
lifetimes. In 1997, in furtherance of the effort to ensure that we were 
going to have a balanced budget and would not be deficit financing, we 
said to Federal employees you are going to pay an additional half point 
on your retirement.

                              {time}  1945

  It is only for the purposes of solving our deficit problem; and, 
therefore, because the budget projections now show a deficit balance as 
of 2002, we will sunset it in 2002 and go back to what they were paying 
in 1997. We then thought that 2002 would be the time when we would 
balance the budget. Well, lo and behold not only because of the 1990 
bill, the 1993 bill and the 1997 act, which was a bipartisan act, the 
economy, mostly because of a high-tech explosion that has occurred and 
the global success that we have had, we balanced the budget earlier 
than we thought; in 1999.
  As a result, we are now saying to those Federal employees, because we 
asked for the extra half percent and took it out of their paycheck to 
contribute to solving the deficit problem, we have now solved that 
deficit, operating deficit, on an annual basis and as a result what we 
are now saying is we are going to give it back. We are now going to 
return them to where they were, as we said we would in 1997.
  So I say to my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), we 
are doing exactly what we said we would do. We said when the budget was 
projected to be in balance we will roll back this temporary increase. 
All we are saying today is we have had good fortune and because we have 
met the premise of that act, we will now do what we said we would do, 
and do it early. That is all we are doing.
  Now, I tell my friend, I represent a lot of Federal employees, as the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) knows. If the policies that were 
in place in 1981 had not been changed, Federal employees in those 19 
years would have received over a quarter of a trillion dollars more in 
pay and in benefits. A quarter of a trillion dollars Federal employees 
have contributed to getting this deficit down, by reduced pay and 
reduced benefits; a quarter of a trillion dollars.
  Now, I say further to my friend, who mentions those 800 corporations, 
no Federal employee gets a stock option. No Federal employee can cash 
in his stocks at the end of the day or at the end of his career. They 
do not get a windfall. He does not get a golden parachute. The fact of 
the matter is, the Federal employees, as my friend knows, under FEPCA, 
the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act, consistently is concluded 
by every analyst, and now it may differ as to the amount but by every 
analyst, to be paid less than his private-sector counterpart. 
Therefore, this is the fair thing to do. It is the right thing to do, 
and I am pleased that we are doing it.
  Again, I thank the gentleman for raising it, and I thank the 
gentleman for agreeing to withdraw it at the appropriate time. I think 
it was appropriate to have it aired, and I am pleased to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would make some points. First of all, the American 
people should look at the national debt clock. We are doing so well 
that the debt is going to rise this year. So if we want to measure 
whether or not we are balanced and whether we are in surplus, just look 
at how much debt we are going to leave for our children because it is 
going to be higher at the end of this year than it was at the end of 
last year. That is number one.
  Number two, in 1960, the Federal employee contributions provided 84.8 
percent of the benefit outlets. In 1995, that went down to 12.5 
percent, and in the next 10 years it is to be below 10 percent, so that 
the fact is for the benefits as they rise, the Federal employees' share 
are at a decreasing and decreasing amount.
  What does that mean? That means that our grandchildren's level and 
share is at an increasing amount. The point is that we still have a 
marked differential.
  Let the record show, there is a thrift savings plan that most 
employers do not offer to their employees that Federal employees have. 
The comparisons that he made in terms of employees are based on 
professional employees, not bureaucrats, not midlevel employees. It is 
based on professional. So although I think the gentleman is right in 
his position to defend those that are his constituents, I still stand 
with my position that we are not prudent for our grandchildren; we are 
not prudent for the investment of the future; we are not prudent for 
their standard of living because what we are going to do is leave them 
a legacy of debt.
  Although we talk about retiring debt, we are talking about retiring 
publicly held debt. We are not retiring total debt. We still have the 
obligations, and the only thing it changes is our cash flow, not our 
actual amount of money costed in interest. So I understand the rhetoric 
in Washington about the debt and about the balanced budget, and I 
respect that that is the way it has been talked about; but in terms of 
an accounting standpoint, it is baloney. We are not in a budget surplus 
yet, even though we are calling it a surplus because we have a 
consolidated accounting that does not recognize our obligations.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all thank my 
friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), who I disagree with 
on this issue but I think has shown an amazing amount of integrity as 
he deals with the budget deficit, really taking no prisoners or 
favorites as he goes out, trying to make sure that that budget becomes 
in balance. It has been a crusade with him since he joined the House; 
and as he leaves the House, I think he has left his mark on that. I 
respect and admire what he is trying to do.
  On this particular amendment let me just tell the gentleman why I 
disagree with him. I represent 54,000 Federal employees, some of the 
hardest-working people we will find in America, but this money was 
taken from them to help balance the Federal budget. Their retirement 
system was actuarially sound. It was not in any jeopardy. They did not 
need to make a greater contribution to make it actuarially sound. The 
Civil Service Retirement System, the old system that is being paid out 
had problems, but these were people who came in under a contract; and 
we were trying to keep the contract with them, and yet they gave up a 
half of 1 percent of their salary to help balance the Federal budget.
  They, in addition to that, gave up about $180 billion by last 
calculation of other benefits they were in line to receive to help 
reduce the deficit over the last decade and a half.
  So it is not our money. It is their money. All we are doing in this 
particular case is restoring to them the benefits and the money that 
they had rightly owned and were willing to give up to help us balance 
the budget. Well, we have done that. We have done it 3 years early. 
Under the original act, this was going to be returned to them in 2003 
when we thought the budget would meet the criteria that it is now 
meeting.
  So I think it is fitting that we go ahead with this now. It is for 
that reason that I take exception to this amendment, but I appreciate 
what he is trying to accomplish and again his tenacity in pursuing a 
goal that I think we are all trying to get to.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would state that anything that is backed by the 
Federal Government is actuarially sound even through we know Medicare 
is not, we know Social Security is not, and we know that the Federal 
Employee Retirement System is not as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H6694]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Nadler:

                               H.R. 4871

       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. __. Section 9101 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 
     (111 Stat. 670) is repealed.

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) reserves a point 
of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House earlier today, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will be recognized for 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a rare event indeed that a 172-acre island just 
off the tip of Manhattan that includes beautiful historic buildings, 
its own infrastructure and vistas of open space becomes available.
  Since the U.S. Coast Guard left Governor's Island, thousands of New 
Yorkers, never short on opinions, have weighed in with proposals for 
its use, ranging from relocating Yankee Stadium to building an 
education center, to keeping an open space.
  The future of the island has attracted national attention as well. In 
an effort to balance the Federal budget in 1997, a provision was 
included in the Balanced Budget Act, despite the strong objections of 
the New York delegation, mandating that the island be sold by 2002 for 
not less than $500 million, a price which even in New York's thriving 
real estate market is absurdly out of the question.
  I rise today to reiterate the call to strip the arbitrary sales price 
of $500 million from the Balanced Budget Act and to voice my strong 
support for transfer of the island to the State or City of New York at 
no cost.
  The island was donated to the Federal Government by New York 200 
years ago, for no cost, for use as a military base; and now that the 
military no longer needs it, it is only right that the Federal 
Government return it to New York with the same courtesy and 
graciousness with which it was donated in 1800.
  The island was used inappropriately a few years ago as collateral to 
help balance the budget; but now that we have extraordinary surpluses, 
the proposed auction of this island must be canceled.
  For several years I have been working with the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney) in trying to free Governor's Island from the chains 
of the Balanced Budget Act. In that vein, we were pleased to be joined 
recently by Mayor Giuliani and by Governor Pataki in putting forward a 
framework for a conceptual plan to redevelop the island.
  Many of those interested in the return of the island to the public 
agree that this plan, if followed, is a promising first step in this 
process. The island would be mixed use, meaning a significant portion 
of it would be devoted to open space and educational facilities to 
teach and remember the history of the island, along with some limited 
commercial activities such as park concessions, a hotel and a 
convention center to be established in one of the existing buildings in 
order to pay for the island's upkeep.
  With this limited development, it is hoped the island could sustain 
itself financially while providing an enjoyable and educational place 
for everyone who visits New York. While we still have some stumbling 
blocks to overcome in New York in the way of local issues, we have 
begun a dialogue. It is a dialogue that I believe will produce an 
outcome satisfactory to the governor, the mayor, local elected 
officials, local planning and civic organizations and, most 
importantly, to those in New York and throughout the United States who 
would want to enjoy this treasure in New York Harbor.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, it is this body in which virtually no 
dialogue on this subject has taken place. When we were scrambling to 
balance the budget, Governor's Island was seen as an easy mark for a 
fictitious $500 million.
  I would point out that this Congress is now scrambling to find new 
and creative ways to give the money back to Americans. I would say this 
is a perfect opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member who rises in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the time in opposition, but 
I just want to continue to reserve my point of order, and will make it 
at the appropriate time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 45 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly and firmly support his amendment, as does 
the mayor and the governor, and really in a bipartisan spirit, the 
delegation of New York State. Along with the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Horn), we held a series of hearings on Governor's Island in New 
York, and basically this bill is a reality check. In no way is this 
island worth $500 million; and if this price tag is attached to it, 
then we will not be able to develop it for the public service purpose 
that the governor and the mayor and all of the citizens of New York 
State and indeed everyone who visits New York could benefit from the 
development of this island.
  This island was given to the country for defense 200 years ago, and 
now we are celebrating really the anniversary of that time; and it is 
time for the Federal Government to return the island to New York with 
the same generosity that New Yorkers showed by returning it to us at no 
cost so that we can follow through with the governor's and mayor's plan 
for development of it in a cost-effective, balanced way with 
educational, cultural, and as a tourist attraction. It has many 
historic forts that would benefit really the country.

                              {time}  2000

  It is an important opportunity for this Congress to really respond in 
a reasonable way and support the gentleman's amendment, and it is 
certainly in the best interests of New York State and, I would say, the 
country.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, having taken this opportunity to air these 
issues on the floor of the House, and hoping that the House will see 
its way clear in the next year or so to deal with this issue properly, 
I will not cause the chairman to exercise his point of order.
  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.


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Sanford

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

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Sanford:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to administer or enforce part 515 of title 31, 
     Code of Federal Regulations (the Cuban Assets Control 
     Regulations) with respect to any travel or travel-related 
     transaction.
       (b) The limitation established in subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to transactions in relation to any business travel 
     covered by section 515.560(g) of such part 515.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of earlier today, 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) and a Member opposed 
each will control 10 minutes.
  Does the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) seek to control 
the time in opposition?
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply make it possible for an 
American to enjoy his constitutional right to travel; specifically, to 
travel to Cuba. I think that this is important, first of all, because 
if one wants to change the policy in Cuba, if we want to end Castro, I 
think that travel is inevitably a good part of that success.

[[Page H6695]]

  We have tried 40 years of one program, and it has not worked. So I 
think by sending Americans as diplomats, in essence, for our American 
way of life and for the need to change, we could change the Castro 
regime.
  Mr. Chairman, I say this as a conservative. It was, in fact, Ronald 
Reagan that used this exact strategy in Eastern Europe in working to 
bring down the Berlin wall. He allowed Americans to travel with 
backpacks throughout Eastern Europe and it was part of what brought 
down the Berlin wall. In fact, this is what the U.S. Information Agency 
paid for in apartheid South Africa. When the entire world had an 
embargo on South Africa, the U.S. Information Agency paid for exchanges 
for American students to go to South Africa and for South African 
students to come to America because we thought that that personal 
diplomacy was very important in changing things in apartheid South 
Africa.
  Finally, I would say this is simply important because this is what I 
heard when I went to Cuba myself and talked to political dissidents. 
What they said is that if you want to send the Castro regime, if you 
want to send him packing, the key to that is these personal diplomats 
coming down and flooding Cuba with American ideas. I say this in 
particular as one who voted for Helms-Burton. Helms-Burton has not 
worked, the strategy has not worked. I thought it might at the time; it 
did not work, and I think we need to move on.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say that this is a constitutional right that 
can be abridged I think only under the weightiest of national security 
reasons. In fact, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency came out with a 
report in 1998 that said Cuba is no longer a military threat to the 
United States. So right now, in place, there are only three places in 
the world one cannot travel to: Libya, Iraq, and Cuba. The State 
Department can legitimately make the claim that it is dangerous to 
travel to Libya or Iraq, and therefore, we cannot travel there, but 
they cannot make the claim with Cuba. That is why Treasury handles it, 
and that is why this amendment specifically goes after the funding with 
Treasury.
  So we have a very odd policy right now. One can travel to Vietnam or 
Pakistan or Serbia or Afghanistan, North Korea, China, to Sierra Leone, 
and a host of other places, many of which have repressive regimes, but 
we cannot travel to Cuba, and I think that travel would be important in 
changing things down there.
  Finally, I would just make the point that this is a gut-check vote on 
how consistent we are, particularly as Republicans, because many of us 
believed in the idea of PNTR, the idea of being engaged with China to 
bring about change in China. If we think it will work in China, I do 
not know how it does not work in a country but 60 miles off our coast.
  I would say up front that I admire the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for the way that they are 
advocates for their congressional districts. But what we need to get 
away from in our current national policy is having three congressional 
districts drive our policy toward Cuba. I think that this proposal, 
this is not lifting the embargo, but specifically goes after just 
travel, is a modest amendment, and it is bipartisan, it is the Sanford-
Rangel-Campbell-Serrano amendment. I would urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  While there may be some merits to this issue and the debate is 
certainly one that this House should have, it does not belong on this 
appropriation bill. This appropriation bill has enough weight on it, 
and I would urge my colleagues not to add this amendment to this bill. 
I urge the rejection of this amendment.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment allows the continuation of an oppressive 
communist dictatorship who, according to the State Department Human 
Rights Reports has actually increased its persecution and harassment of 
human rights dissidents. It denies medical treatment and food to 
political prisoners; it imprisons anyone at any time for expressing 
political views and beliefs that run contrary to the communist 
dictatorship.
  This amendment would give the Cuban dictatorship additional funds to 
host killers of U.S. police officers, cop killers such as Joanne 
Chesimard who gunned down in cold blood New Jersey State trooper Werner 
Foerster, or those who murdered New Mexico State trooper James Harper. 
It would help keep other fugitives of U.S. justice in the lap of 
luxury, fugitives who are wanted for murder and kidnapping and armed 
robbery, among other heinous crimes.
  This amendment gives funds to a dictatorship that condones the 
silencing of the opposition in Cuba by a regime which is classified by 
the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression in the Hemisphere as 
the worst violator of human rights in all the Western Hemisphere.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would give funds to enable Castro's 
intelligence service to expand its espionage in and against the United 
States. After all, they suffered a severe blow in 1998 when one of 
their spy rings was discovered by the FBI for their penetration of U.S. 
military bases, an action which threatened U.S. national security.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would help support a regime who has sent 
special agents to Vietnam to help torture American POWs.
  The only ones who will benefit from this amendment are the Castro 
brothers and their band of thugs who use violence and terror to hold on 
to power. They trample on the human rights and civil liberties of its 
citizens.
  This amendment tells the Castro regime that it is okay for the regime 
to hold hostage the children of constituents in my district such as 
Jose Cohen, a Cuban refugee who escaped from prison 5 years ago. It 
tells the Castro regime that the 9-year-old daughter of Milagros Cruz 
Cano, a blind human rights dissident who escaped from Castro's gulag 
last November, is the property of the regime and she will not be 
allowed to be reunited with her mother here in the United States.
  This amendment would give money to this regime, and the supporters 
must understand, as the Fraternal Order of Police has stated, that 
attempts to normalize relations with Fidel Castro and, they say, the 
American people and the Fraternal Order of Police do not feel that we 
must compromise our system of justice and the very fabric of our 
society to foreign dictators like Fidel Castro.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley).
  (Mr. MOAKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, our policy prohibiting Americans from visiting Cuba is 
really a relic of the Cold War. Forty years ago, it might have been a 
great idea. Today it is not.
  My colleagues are offering a great amendment, one that will open 
dialogue, break down the barriers, and foster understanding.
  Mr. Chairman, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba lost much 
of its military strength. In 1998, the Defense Department said that 
Cuba was no longer a threat to national security. I would say to my 
colleagues, if the Defense Department does not think Cuba is a threat, 
why can American citizens not visit there? We allow American citizens 
to travel all over the world; we should certainly allow them to travel 
90 miles away to Cuba.
  In 1982, the South African government was engaging in the most 
hideous kind of apartheid, and U.S. citizens were allowed to travel 
there. In 1988, when communism still existed, the United States 
citizens were allowed to travel to Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, 
Romania, the Soviet Union. Today, when terror still abounds, U.S.

[[Page H6696]]

citizens are allowed to travel to Syria. Mr. Chairman, the only 
countries besides Cuba which American citizens are prohibited from 
traveling to are Iraq and Libya. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that we 
have a lot more reasons to fear Saddam Hussein and Moammar Khadafi than 
we do Fidel Castro.
  History has shown that communism crumbles when exposed to the light 
of American democracy. Mr. Chairman, let us put the light on Cuba.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we may live in the land of the free but that's only if 
you don't want to visit the country 90 miles off the coast of Florida.
  I rise in strong support of the Sanford amendment to allow U.S. 
citizens to travel to Cuba.
  Mr. Chairman, our policy prohibiting Americans from visiting Cuba is 
left over from the cold war. Forty years ago it might have been a good 
idea, today it's not.
  My colleagues are offering an excellent amendment, one that will open 
dialogue, break down barriers, and foster understanding.
  Mr. Chairman, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba lost much 
of its military strength. In 1998, the Defense Department declared that 
Cuba was no longer a threat to national security.
  I would say to my colleagues: If the Defense Department doesn't think 
Cuba is a threat, why can't Americans go there?
  We allow American citizens to travel all over the world. We should 
certainly allow them to travel to Cuba.
  The United States treats Cuba differently than any other country, Mr. 
Chairman. And some people say that is part of our foreign policy.
  I would like to state, for the record, that prohibiting face-to-face 
diplomacy has never been a part of American Foreign Policy.
  In 1972, when Nixon normalized relations with China, U.S. citizens 
were allowed to travel to China.
  In 1977, only 2 years after the end of the Vietnam War, U.S. citizens 
were allowed to travel to Vietnam.
  In 1982, when the South African Government was engaging in the most 
hideous kind of apartheid, U.S. citizens were allowed to travel to 
South Africa.
  In 1988, when communism still existed, U.S. citizens were allowed to 
travel to Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the Soviet 
Union.
  Today, when terrorist threats still abound, U.S. citizens are allowed 
to travel to Syria.
  Mr. Chairman, the only countries, besides Cuba, to which American 
citizens are prohibited from traveling, are Iraq, and Libya.
  I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that we have a lot more reasons to fear 
Saddam Hussein, and Moammar Khadafi, than we do Fidel Castro.
  Far too few Americans have visited a country that is far too close 
for us to ignore.
  I believe we should lift the food and medicine embargo on Cuba, I 
believe Americans should be allowed to travel to Cuba, I believe 
American companies should be allowed to do business in Cuba.
  We should send Cuba our food, our tourists, and our Reeboks and 
Gillette products.
  American tourists will bring to Cuba American ideas of freedom. 
History has shown us that communism crumbles when exposed to the light 
of American democracy, Mr. Chairman, let us expose Cuba to the light.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. I do so because I have been listening to this debate, and I 
am rather appalled by the notion that we won the Cold War by allowing 
Americans to go visit, and I disagree with my friend from South 
Carolina. Ronald Reagan did not win the Cold War by engaging and 
appeasement. Ronald Reagan did the right thing by standing up and 
pointing to the Communist dictators that killed millions and millions 
of people, and called them what they are, the evil empire. Called them 
the evil empire. Fidel Castro is evil.
  Now, it might be nice to send American citizens down as tourists to 
pad the pockets of Fidel Castro and fund his habit, but where is our 
compassion for the people of Cuba, the people, the thousands upon 
thousands of people in Cuba that have been maimed, killed, buried? 
Where is our compassion for the American citizens that Fidel Castro has 
killed in a murderous way?
  This is a tiny island, this is not Eastern Europe, this is not the 
Soviet Union, this is a tiny island with an evil dictator that is 
oppressing his citizens. Yes, it has not worked the way it should have 
worked, because we have not been turning the screws on him and screwing 
him down and putting pressure on him, so that his people will rise up 
and throw him out for what he is.
  Let me just tell my colleagues something. We talk about apartheid. 
The tourist industry in Cuba is apartheid. The Cubans do not get to go 
to the tourist facilities except to work there, as long as they are 
very well screened and the right kind of people that will work with the 
tourists. There is no interchange here. You go down, you lay on the 
beach, a nice hotel, you get to go to all of these wonderful places. 
This is an evil empire on the island of Cuba, and we should not lift 
the embargoes, we should screw it down tighter.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I would just make the point that while 
Ronald Reagan did indeed call Communist countries the evil empire, he 
nonetheless allowed Americans to travel to Eastern Europe, and it was 
part of bringing down the Berlin wall.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Serrano).
  (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SERRANO. Well, Mr. Chairman, it finally happened, the last 
speaker let the cat out of the bag. Cuba is a small island, not a large 
European country. That is the problem. If it was a large European 
country or an Asian country, he would be lobbying, as he did, for free 
trade with Cuba, because he was the chief sponsor of lobbying on behalf 
of President Clinton for free trade with China.
  But he said it. Cuba is a small island, and for 41 years, we have 
been saying, you are a small island, you are insignificant, you speak 
another language, we are going to step all over you. Well, the big news 
tonight is that it is no longer a Serrano amendment, it is a Sanford-
Campbell-Serrano amendment, and even the chairman of the subcommittee, 
who I respect tremendously said, it does not belong in this bill, but 
he never said the amendment stinks, he said we should debate it.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the change, that we want to begin to debate it, 
and it is a matter of time before this policy falls apart. Because it 
was improper, and it finally came out. It was never about what was 
right, it was about Cuba being a small little island, and China being a 
big country, and Russia being a big country.

                              {time}  2015

  Well, Cuba will remain a small, little island, but the small children 
of Cuba should be able to greet and meet the children of America. 
Contact is the best way. Of all the things we have done to try to 
isolate Cuba, the travel ban is the most unconstitutional. It is 
unheard of. It is anti-American at its core to say people cannot 
travel, and this will have to end.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleague that once upon a time he 
was always advocating on behalf of a free Cuba. It is a shame that now 
he is on the other side.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Menendez), the esteemed minority whip.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Sanford 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, I take offense to the 
gentleman's statement that in fact three congressional districts, that 
supposedly we are working on behalf of our congressional districts, 
three congressional districts driving policy.
  That would be the equivalent of saying that Irish American Members of 
this House who promote peace and justice in northern Ireland are 
driving that policy, or that Jewish Members of this House are driving 
the policy on the Middle East, or that African-American Members of this 
House who believe very passionately about the need to invoke and engage 
in Africa are driving that policy.
  I reject that view. I find it distasteful.
  Let me say that I hope to hear from some of our colleagues about 
human

[[Page H6697]]

rights, about democracy, about the hundreds of prisoners in Castro's 
jails. They are very eloquent in other parts of the world. They are 
silent as it relates to Cuba.
  Twelve types of travel are now permitted under existing law. 
Thousands are going to Cuba for legitimate media, cultural exchanges, 
academic, and religious purposes. This provision would actually create 
a set of circumstances where Americans, because the law would not be 
changed, Americans would have to otherwise travel to Cuba who can 
travel to Cuba legally; under these licenses, they would now have to 
choose between traveling illegally or not going at all.
  I do not believe that sunning one's buns on the beaches, I do not 
believe that sipping rum at the bar, I do not believe that smoking 
cigars or that the poor slave labor at the Hotel Nacional ultimately 
promotes freedom, democracy, and human rights. That is, in essence, 
what we are doing, throwing an economic lifeline to Castro.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, what is clear is that the present policy 
towards Cuba has failed. What completely leaves us incapable of 
understanding is why we would ban American travel. Are we fearful that 
Americans would somehow be beguiled by Castro's political system, and 
they would go over?
  It seems to me clear that our policy for 40 years has failed. If 
Members want to undermine Fidel Castro, get out of the way, let 
Americans of Cuban descent and every other national origin go there. 
The contrast will undermine Fidel Castro.
  Somehow Members think that Americans would lose their faith in our 
political system, or Americans might go over to the other side. There 
is no physical harm or danger to Americans. It is clear the American 
embargo on Cuba has only isolated America.
  The answer here is clear: Let us change the policy, and we will 
change Fidel Castro. Continue this policy and we only shore up Castro.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would remind our colleague that contracts were destroyed by Fidel 
Castro.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) is a 
distinguished member of our Committee on International Relations for 
whom I have the highest regard. However, I find it necessary to oppose 
his amendment.
  This Sanford amendment would make enforcement of travel restrictions 
to Cuba virtually impossible. The travel restrictions themselves would 
not be lifted. People who violated law would still be subject to 
criminal penalties.
  Furthermore, this amendment would end the Treasury Department's 
ability to issue case-by-case licenses for travel to Cuba, as is now 
permitted under existing regulations. People who wanted to travel to 
Cuba legally for purposes that we all support would not be able to get 
licenses. In effect, the amendment would prevent law-abiding people 
from visiting Cuba.
  The net effect of this amendment would be to encourage people to 
break the law. We must not send that kind of a message, particularly 
not to our Nation's young people.
  This is particularly true when our fundamental quarrel with Fidel is 
that he refuses to allow the rule of law in Cuba. The Castro government 
refuses to take the steps that would permit us to lift the provisions 
of our embargo: freeing political prisoners, permitting opposition 
political parties, freeing labor unions to organize, and scheduling 
free, fair, internationally supervised elections.
  With all due respect to my good friend, the gentleman from South 
Carolina, I urge our colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the United States listened to 
the people of Cuba, to Cuba's religious leaders, and to the 
overwhelming majority of its human rights activists and dissidents, it 
would lift its embargo and begin to normalize relations with the 
island.
  What we should be doing is learning from our own mistakes. Whether we 
brand a country Communist or not, evil is evil, bad is bad. But we 
should learn from our own mistakes, for surely in this country it just 
took to 1965 to where all Americans in this country had the right to 
vote in America, in a democracy.
  We can look back, back in the 1950s, when we sent people like Paul 
Robeson, Junior, away from this country. We did not allow people to do 
various things and exercise human rights in this country.
  So what we should do, we should take this opportunity to show what we 
have learned by our mistakes, that understanding that engaging with 
Cuba, when clearly for 40 years holding them at bay has not done 
anything, but by engaging with them, we could bring democracy.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to my colleagues, we 
have talked about apartheid and what existed in South Africa. One of 
the things we could do is ask every American who would travel to Cuba 
not to stay in a hotel that carries out apartheid.
  Many of my colleagues have visited Cuba. Maybe they are not aware 
that literally no Cuban is literally even allowed into the lobby of the 
hotel legally under Cuban law; that when they meet with my colleagues, 
they actually have to get specific exemptions from that law to meet 
with my colleagues in those hotels.
  That is the regime we are dealing with, a regime that, if we do this, 
we throw an economic lifeline to them. That is a mistake. Cuban workers 
who get paid 25 cents an hour do not get paid that. It goes to the 
Cuban government, and they get paid 10 cents an hour.
  I urge the defeat of the amendment.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my 
other colleague, the gentleman from South Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) of 
the Committee on Rules, to close on our side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my distinguished 
friend, the gentleman from South Carolina, his measure, if passed, 
would constitute the most significant hard currency generator for the 
Cuban dictatorship that we could pass in this Congress.
  Secondly, it would in that way contribute more than any other measure 
to the oppression by the repression machinery of the Cuban people by 
the dictatorship.
  I would remind the gentleman from South Carolina when just a few 
years ago we were in Guantanamo we met with 35,000 refugees. For the 
first time in 35 years, they were able to elect a council. The council 
said, tighten sanctions, do not ease them.
  Then I asked him here, right here where the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Bartlett) is right now, just a few weeks ago, is there any 
difference between the views of the people they met in Cuba and the 
people they met in Guantanamo? And the gentleman said no.
  So with all respect, I do not understand the change in the gentleman 
from South Carolina. Do not agree to this amendment, defeat it. It 
would be the singular, the most significant way in which we could 
increase hard currency to the dictatorship. Defeat the Sanford 
amendment.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say that we come at this with the same goal: 
ending Castro's regime in Cuba. I think we need to be careful about 
maligning the intentions of others. The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano) may see a different way than the gentlewoman

[[Page H6698]]

from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), but the end goal is the same, which 
is, how do we change things in Cuba?
  The evidence, based on 40 years of our policy not working, comes out 
decidedly on the side of engagement. I say that from the standpoint of 
history. If we look at history, Members will recall, sanctions have 
never worked in the history of mankind. I do not know why there would 
be an exception with Cuba.
  Two, I would say, based on personal experience, 50,000 people a year 
travel to Cuba basically illegally. I tried that myself. I went down on 
my own, under the radar screen, and stayed in a person's home. This is 
not about getting money to Castro. I paid $35 a night to stay in a 
person's home. We ate at their cousin's house. I paid money to eat at 
their house. This is about getting money in to the regular Cuban 
citizenry, which can then combat the Castro regime that I think we are 
all against.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on this amendment.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 560, further proceedings 
on this measure will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


          Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York

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

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York:
       Page 112, after line 13, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 644. The Office of Personnel Management shall conduct 
     a study to develop one or more alternative means for 
     providing Federal employees with at least 6 weeks of paid 
     parental leave in connection with the birth or adoption of a 
     child (apart from any other paid leave). Not later than 
     September 30, 2001, the Office shall submit to Congress a 
     report containing its findings and recommendations under this 
     section, including projected utilization rates, and views as 
     to whether this benefit can be expected to--
       (1) curtail the rate at which Federal employees are being 
     lost to the private sector;
       (2) help the Government in its recruitment and retention 
     efforts generally;
       (3) reduce turnover and replacement costs; and
       (4) contribute to parental involvement during a child's 
     formative years.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) will control 5 minutes and a 
Member in opposition will control 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, last year when my chief of 
staff was expecting a baby I inquired what the Federal leave policy 
was, and I was surprised to learn that there is no paid leave for the 
birth or adoption of a child.
  There have been many news articles talking about the difficulty of 
maintaining a talented staff for the Federal Government. In response, 
along with my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman), and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), we 
introduced the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act, H.R. 4567.
  This amendment will help us understand and quantify why this bill is 
so important. We are asking OPM to conduct a study to understand the 
impact of providing paid parental leave to Federal employees. We often 
hear that we need to run government more like a business. This study 
will lay the foundation for the Federal government to do just that.
  Mr. Chairman, we are here today in support of families.
  Everyone talks about supporting families, but when you look at the 
policies, they are not as supportive as they should be.
  In a Federal Government that says it is family friendly, public 
employees should not lose pay for becoming parents.
  Last year, when my District staff director was having a baby, I 
reviewed our office policy. I also wanted to consult the federal leave 
policy.
  I was shocked to learn that the Federal Government does not provide 
its employees with any paid leave for the birth or adoption of a child!
  In the Federal Government, unless you have stowed away all your 
vacation and sick days, there is no way to take off even one day 
without taking a cut in your paycheck.
  Then, in May the Washington Post informed us that the Federal 
Government is suffering from a talent drain because it is not providing 
competitive pay or benefits as compared to private sector companies.
  In response to these problems, I, along with Mr. Davis of Virginia, 
Mr. Hoyer of Maryland, and Mr. Gilman of New York, and Mrs. Morella of 
Maryland introduced H.R. 4567, the Federal Employees Paid Parental 
Leave Act.
  This bipartisan bill would give Federal employees 6 weeks of paid 
parental leave for the birth or adoption of a child.
  Since we introduced the bill in May, I have heard from men and women 
across the country who have relayed their stories to me about the great 
impact this legislation would have on their families.
  Mary Bassett wrote to tell me her story.
  When Mary was pregnant with her son in 1993, she was placed on 
bedrest for the last six weeks of her pregnancy.
  She was forced to exhaust all of her sick and annual leave.
  When her son was born, he was critically ill and was in Intensive 
Care for two weeks.
  Since Mary had used up all of her sick leave and accrued vacation 
time, she was forced to return to work when her son was 7 weeks old.
  Her family could not survive without her paycheck so May was forced 
to make a choice:
  Stay home with her sick newborn, or put food on the table for her 
family.
  I also heard from Dee Kerr. Dee works for NASA.
  When her daughter was born, she had accrued a lot of leave and was 
able to take time off with pay.
  Now, at 40, Dee would like to have another child but doesn't have any 
paid leave saved up.
  She is now wondering if she and her husband can have a second child 
because they cannot afford to take time off without pay.
  Dee has to make a choice:
  Have a second child or put food on the table for her family.
  Today, I join with Representative Hoyer and Representative Gilman in 
introducing an important bipartisan amendment.
  This amendment will help us understand and quantify why H.R. 4567 is 
so important.
  We are asking OPM to conduct a study to understand the impact of 
providing paid parental leave to Federal employees.
  This study will likely reveal that the Federal Government will become 
more competitive with the private sector by offering paid parental 
leave.
  This study will likely show that the government's recruitment efforts 
will be boosted and that the costs related to turnover and replacement 
will be greatly reduced.
  Finally, this study will conclude that the Federal workforce can win 
back dedicated and qualified workers to the Government if we offer a 
benefit that is already being offered by the majority of private sector 
companies.
  Everyone always says that the Federal Government should be run more 
like a business.
  This study will lay the foundation for the Federal Government to do 
just that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), co-author of this amendment.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this amendment benefiting our 
Federal employees. I applaud my colleagues, the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for

[[Page H6699]]

their leadership on this important issue calling for a study looking 
into offering paid parental leave for Federal employees, a benefit that 
many of their counterparts in the private sector now enjoy.
  The time has finally arrived for the Federal government to become 
more competitive with the private sector to help gain and retain 
qualified employees. The private sector has been able to hire the best 
and brightest employees and offer competitive benefits and pay, while 
the Federal government has seen its top workers fleeing for higher-
paying private sector jobs.
  Employees will not be forced to choose between their new child and 
their jobs. Paid leave will afford Federal employees the opportunity to 
welcome their child into the world and adjust to their new life without 
worrying about whether or not they can pay next month's gas bill.
  I am pleased to support the amendment, confident that this study will 
lead to extending 6 weeks of paid leave for Federal employees. Families 
will celebrate the arrival of a child with fewer worries, which will 
help create a more family-friend Federal Government. I urge support for 
the amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the chair of the Democratic 
Children's Caucus.
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, it makes good sense to have the OPM study 
the best ways to give Federal employees paid leave following the birth 
or adoption of a child, and to study the effect paid leave will have on 
the Federal work force, because it then can be a model for the rest of 
the country.
  Today if a child is fortunate enough to have two parents living with 
them, chances are that both parents work long hours and commute long 
distances. So then we have to ask the question, who is taking care of 
our children? Compared to 33 years ago, parents spend 52 fewer days a 
year with their children. That is almost one day a week.

                              {time}  2030

  We must do something to help parents bridge the gap between work and 
family, especially when they have a new baby. The Maloney-Gilman-Hoyer 
amendment is a good first step that will let American parents respond 
to the question, who is taking care of our children? Then we can have a 
simple answer. That answer can be we all are.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding to me. I thank her for introducing this amendment along with 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Davis), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). I firmly and 
wholeheartedly support it.
  The majority of private sector companies do provide paid leave to 
their employees, but the Federal Government does not. In fact, the 
Federal Government does not provide its workers with any paid leave for 
the birth or adoption of a child. That is why this study is really 
important.
  I want to refer to the fact that Steve Barr, who writes for the 
Washington Post, recently wrote a series of articles showing that the 
Federal Government is suffering from a talent drain because it is not 
providing competitive pay or benefits as compared to private sector 
companies.
  We do need to attract and retain the most qualified, dedicated 
workers to serve in our workforce; and these family-friendly policies 
that can be brought about and enhanced by virtue of this study are 
critically important.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  I stand today, Mr. Chairman, to support this amendment to require OPM 
to conduct a study on alternative means to provide Federal employees 
with at least 6 weeks of paid parental leave in connection with the 
birth or adoption of a child.
  I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 4567, which would provide that at 
least half of any leave taken by a Federal employee for the birth, 
adoption, or placement of a child be paid leave. Parenting is a key 
component to a child's development and eventual success in and 
contribution to a society.
  In 1993, the President signed the Family Medical Leave Act providing 
Federal workers with up to 12 weeks of unpaid job-protected leave for 
childbirth or adoption, which has benefited more than 20 million 
Americans. However, parents need more support to help balance their 
family and work responsibilities.
  A recent poll released by the National Parenting Association found 
that low-income parents and parents of very young children are the 
least likely to be able to take family leave due to the loss of income.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member wishing to claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney)?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran of Kansas

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Moran of Kansas:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (page 
     112, after line 13) the following new section:
       Sec. 644. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement any sanction imposed by the United 
     States on private commercial sales of agricultural 
     commodities (as defined in section 402 of the Agricultural 
     Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954) or medicine or 
     medical supplies (within the meaning of section 1705(c) of 
     the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992) to Cuba (other than a 
     sanction imposed pursuant to agreement with one or more other 
     countries.)

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House earlier today, the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and a Member opposed each will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  For what purpose does the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) 
rise?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moran), in my view, violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the 
House rules by, in effect, legislating on an appropriations bill.
  The amendment would add significant new responsibilities and duties 
to the Treasury Department, for example, to determine whether there are 
agreements when it refers to in the last sentence of the amendment, 
``pursuant to agreement with one or more countries, the Treasury 
Department would have to determine whether there are agreements to 
whether such agreements could grant legal authority for the President 
to take legal action.'' What is meant by an agreement? Does it have to 
be a written agreement, a treaty, or is an action in concert 
sufficient?
  I guess I would ask of the author of the amendment, is an action in 
concert sufficient? Is that what he seeks to mean by agreement?
  Even U.N. multilateral embargoes, Mr. Chairman, for example, they 
require the U.N. Participation Act to grant the President the legal 
authority to impose any sanctions agreed upon by the United Nations.
  So for those reasons, and I ask the question in the context of making 
the point of order, is action in concert sufficient, or is a written 
bilateral agreement necessary? Due to that, I believe, especially since 
it is unclear, that

[[Page H6700]]

there is a significant possibility, and I believe it does constitute 
legislating on an appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) desire to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to be heard on the 
point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that current designations by OFAC designating 
which countries we have unilateral sanctions against is specified in 
the rules and regulations. They would easily and readily be able to 
determine the definition of the phrases included in the amendment.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, addressing the point of order, this 
applies as well to future agreements. So my point is, is action in 
concert sufficient to constitute a future agreement under this 
amendment, or is a written bilateral agreement necessary? This 
amendment, without any doubt, Mr. Chairman, applies to future 
agreements.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) wish to be 
heard further on the point of order?
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. No, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I certainly do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that, based on all precedents within the 
House concerning appropriations bills and limitation of spending 
thereon, the amendment of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) meets 
all of the criteria as established under due precedence of this House. 
It is not that complicated. It is simply saying that none of the funds 
may be made available under this act to implement any sanction imposed.
  It is something that the Parliamentarian has upheld, the Speaker has 
upheld many times, and I would urge the upholding and the ruling 
against this particular appealing of the Chair or the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Yes, Mr. Chairman, on the point of order.
  Again, I would hope that each of us has an opportunity to read the 
amendment specifically. I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) that this is much broader than a limiting amendment, and I 
would agree completely with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart).
  If we read the language, it specifically asks someone, without any 
legislation, to determine other than a sanction imposed pursuant to an 
agreement with one or more other countries.
  It is not a limiting amendment. A limiting amendment talks 
specifically about limiting funds on a specific program in a specific 
way without creating this additional category which would take 
investigative power, which would, in fact, take expenditure of funds, 
which by definition a limiting amendment cannot expenditure funds, 
which is exactly what this does.
  So I think it is a pretty black and white case that we are spending 
money. This is authorizing money effectively, because that is the only 
way to do what this amendment asks us to do is spend money.
  So I urge the Chair to rule the amendment out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, is a verbal agreement by the President 
with any other country sufficient to constitute an agreement? Or is a 
bilateral written agreement or multilateral written agreement 
necessary? That is my question.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is in the form of a limitation 
accompanied by an exception. The limitation confines itself to the 
funds in the instant bill and merely imposes a negative restriction on 
the availability of those funds for specified purposes, to wit: 
implementing certain international sanctions. The exception excludes 
sanctions ``imposed pursuant to agreement with one or more other 
countries.''
  The Chair finds it appropriate to construe the word ``agreement,'' as 
used in the context of international sanctions, as meaning accords 
between or among sovereigns. The Chair similarly finds it appropriate 
to engage a presumption of regularity in finding that officials of the 
United States who are charged with the implementation of international 
sanctions with a specific knowledge of unilateral sanctions are 
likewise charged with knowledge of the bases on which they proceed, 
including the ``corporate'' knowledge of their Executive agency 
concerning the provenance of a particular sanction.
  On these premises, the Chair holds that neither the limitation nor 
the accompanying exception imposes new duties of discernment, occasions 
new burdens of investigation, or otherwise requires Executive action 
beyond the call of existing law.
  The point of order is overruled.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry of the 
Chair.
  Mr. Chairman, I was given a copy of this amendment earlier this 
evening, and the amendment that is at the desk is a different 
amendment. I would inquire of the Chair if the unanimous consent 
agreement allowed for the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) to change 
his amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous consent agreement to which the House 
concurred simply specified an issue. Under the order of the House the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) may offer an amendment regarding 
sales to any foreign country. It was not a numbered amendment. That was 
part of the order.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, that is not the amendment in front of us. 
The amendment in front of us specifically speaks to only one country; 
and, therefore, it is not in order based on the unanimous consent 
agreement of this House today.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state again, the order of the House 
states that the amendment may regard sales to any foreign country, so 
one foreign country would obviously be included in that description.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would make clear that the amendment that I am 
offering this evening restricts the use of funds in this appropriations 
bill solely for food and medicine and solely related to the country of 
Cuba. It is different than any amendment offered previously today by 
other Members of the House.
  Our embargo against sales to Cuba has done little to change the 
behavior of this island nation. In fact, it appears to me that the only 
thing that U.S. sanctions have done is to give Cuba, its government, an 
excuse to blame us for their failed policies.
  This policy has been in place for 38 years, and a failed policy does 
not have to be permanent. We have debated this issue on this floor 
numerous times, and I think it is now time for the House to speak its 
will in regard to whether or not this sanction policy should be 
continued.
  Why is this amendment in order appropriate to the Treasury-Postal 
appropriation? United States sanctions are enforced by the Office of 
Foreign Asset Control, a branch of the U.S. Treasury Department. This 
amendment, again, would prohibit the use of funds to implement those 
sanctions which are, in fact, unilateral on food and medicine to Cuba.
  When the world acts together, and I might point out that, if our 
policy on sanctions toward Cuba was a good one, one would expect other 
countries, democracies, perhaps, who share our ideals, to join us in 
the effort of imposing sanctions against the country of Cuba.
  That has not been the case. When the world acts together, we can 
perhaps achieve some success in influencing the behavior of another 
country or its government. However, in today's global economy, 
unilateral sanctions simply have been proven ineffective.
  I encourage support of this amendment for several reasons that I 
would like to defer until my opportunity to close.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the amendment of 
the gentleman from Kansas.

[[Page H6701]]

  To those that have argued previously and will argue again that this 
is not the time and the place, I would agree. It would have been much 
better to have had this issue freely and openly debated on the floor of 
the House months ago. But having not done that, it would have been next 
better to have had it dealt with on the Agriculture appropriations 
bill; but it was not to be.
  No way now do I, though, endorse the type of government that has 
existed in Cuba for 5 decades.

                              {time}  2045

  But it should be obvious to all that sanctions, unilaterally applied, 
do not work; cannot work.
  And the reason they cannot work, or as a previous speaker said today, 
what we ought to be doing is tightening the screws down on Mr. Castro. 
That is impossible to do when we have unilateral sanctions. When we 
unilaterally deny the sale of food and medicine to the Cuban people 
from the United States and our ``friends'' from Canada, from Europe, 
from Asia, from all over the world sell to that market, who are we 
kidding when we say we are hurting anyone other than the people of 
Cuba, who still like Americans; and producers in America, who otherwise 
would have the opportunity to compete for those sales?
  Sanctions do not work unilaterally applied. How many years is it 
going to take for this body to understand they cannot possibly work if 
they are unilaterally applied? If they are multilaterally applied, in 
which all countries of the world decide this is what we should do, 
whether it be to any country of the world, then we have a chance.
  Tonight we have a clear shot, up and down, for every Member of this 
body to express themselves as to whether or not we should lift the 
sanctions on Cuba on food and medicine. That is what this vote is 
about.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of 
the gentleman from Kansas, and I want to state something. This is not 
about lifting the sanctions on food and medicine, because the law still 
will exist. And any sales to Cuba, other than those that are licensed, 
will still be illegal. So we will not be achieving what the gentleman 
wishes to achieve.
  Secondly, the amendment speaks of agricultural commodities and, as 
such, chemicals can be sold under that heading, including precursor 
chemicals, which I do not believe we want the Castro regime, which is 
still on our list of terrorist states and which harbors fugitives from 
the United States, to have access to. Voting for this amendment would 
prohibit the United States from enforcing the sale of precursor 
chemicals that can be used for weaponry, including bombs, biological 
and chemical weaponry.
  Lastly, the fact of the matter is that we constantly hear that our 
sanctions are affecting the Cuban people, even though we are the 
greatest remitters of humanitarian assistance to the people of Cuba, $2 
billion over the last 5 years, more than all the other countries of the 
world combined during the same time period. Yet it is Castro's failed 
economic system and his dictatorship that refuses to give the Cuban 
people what they deserve. He can buy from anyplace in the world. He has 
to have the money to do so. He does not have the money to do so.
  And I would note that this amendment, if we believe that it is going 
to accomplish lifting it, which it does not, lifting the sale of food 
and medicine, it says nothing about credits and, in fact, can be 
interpreted to permit credits and can be interpreted to permit 
government subsidies. Now, the last thing I believe that this body 
would want is to use subsidies to sell to a dictatorship that uses food 
and rations as a form of control, which is exactly what Castro does. He 
uses rationing as a form of control over his people.
  So this is not about selling to the average Cuban, which I probably 
would be for. This is about selling to the regime and then having the 
regime ration their own people, as they do today, as my family has to 
do, standing in line, because the regime does not give them the 
resources and opportunities in a free marketplace for them to purchase.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In response to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), this 
amendment deals strictly with an agricultural commodities; does not 
talk about agricultural chemicals. And the issue of credit remains with 
the administration, as it does today with our dealings with any other 
country. The President has the ability, and has used it in my tenure in 
Congress, to defeat the opportunity to sell agricultural commodities by 
refusing to extend credit.
  So the amendment does not in any way increase or decrease the 
authority of the administration, of a President of the United States, 
in regard to credit.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  This amendment ensures U.S. Government financing to the Castro 
regime. Our U.S. taxpayers would be subsidizing a dictatorship. Our 
country was founded on the principles of freedom, of democracy, of 
human rights. As the leader of the international community, this 
amendment means that our principles are being sacrificed. It means that 
we are no longer upholding, defending and, indeed, demonstrating the 
moral guidelines which have directed U.S. policy of helping oppressed 
people.
  This amendment would provide funds to a regime which violates human 
rights, which denies its citizens the right to participate in their 
religious beliefs. It tortures men and women for thinking differently 
and for voicing their dissenting opinions despite the threat to their 
personal safety.
  The safeguards that this amendment seeks to remove are in place so 
that the Castro regime does not take U.S. food and medicine and then 
sells it to a third country so that it can further increase its war 
chest, a war chest which it uses to torture, to harass, to intimidate 
and to oppress the Cuban people.
  This amendment would allow the unbridled, unrestricted trade with a 
brutal dictatorship using U.S. taxpayer funds, and it would only 
prolong the suffering of the Cuban people.
  This amendment would send a message that this pariah state is now 
being forgiven for their practices, despite the cost in human life and 
the dignity of each individual who suffers under the dictatorship.
  This amendment sends the signal that the United States will no longer 
serve as a moral compass for emerging democracies to emulate; that the 
United States' sense of right and wrong is succumbing to commercial 
interests.
  The safeguards in place through the licensing process at the 
Department of Commerce and the Department of Treasury ensure that the 
food and medicine donated to the Cuban people actually reach the men, 
the women, and the children that they are intended for. These 
safeguards ensure that they will not be diverted by the Castro regime 
for the use of its officials and for foreigners. This amendment seeks 
to remove those safeguards and has U.S. taxpayer money going to the 
Castro regime.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the balance of 
the time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) has 
5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
this amendment.
  I would agree on one point that one of the opponents of this 
amendment made, and that is that none of us are apologists for the 
actions of Castro. Truly, he has infringed upon human rights, he has 
impeded religious freedoms, he has impeded the advancement of 
democracy. But where I absolutely disagree is what is the policy that 
this country can adopt that is going to advance democracy in Cuba? And 
it is a policy of engagement.
  This simple amendment we are talking about today is one that we will

[[Page H6702]]

allow for the sale of U.S.-produced agricultural products and medicines 
to Cuba. A policy of isolation has done nothing to advance democracy 
over the past 40 years. It is time for us to adopt a policy that will 
let us flood Cuba with U.S.-produced rice, with U.S.-produced wheat, 
with U.S.-produced beef products. That is going to do more to achieve 
our objectives.
  I think it is somewhat ironic that Cuba today, per capita, is 
probably exporting more doctors throughout the world than any other 
country, yet the United States, the economic power, the leader in 
medicine technology, is refusing to sell medicinal products to Cuba. 
That is outrageous. That is not a policy that this country should be 
proud of.
  If we truly are a country that respects democracy, that understands 
how we can best influence the actions of a country, then we should be 
embracing the policy of economic engagement which we adopted with 
China, that we should adopt in Vietnam, and which we should adopt in 
Cuba to make a difference in advancing the rights of the people of 
Cuba.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I can agree in a sense with the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dooley), but I want to talk a bit about specifics.
  I really plead with my colleagues to think about the specifics of 
what this amendment does. The specifics is really selling to the Castro 
government. It is not selling to Cuba. It is selling to the Castro 
government. It is selling to Castro. It is literally propping Castro 
up.
  As my colleague from New Jersey said, I think all of us would be in 
agreement if there was a way that we could sell to NGOs and get food 
and medicine to Cuba, which we support, but that is not what this 
amendment does. And, in fact, the Cuban government has restricted, in 
fact has prevented the ability to even give food and medicine through 
NGOs to the Cuban people.
  Cuba is not China in any sense, where the leadership has changed. Mao 
Tse-tung does not exist in China today. Again, the specifics of this 
amendment would strengthen the Castro regime. I urge its defeat.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. We are not talking about free trade, we are talking about 
pulling Castro's fat out of the fire right at the last minute.
  We are not talking about anything that is going to promote freedom or 
prosperity or goodness for the Cuban people, we are talking about 
keeping in power a dictatorship; a country in which the jails are full 
and the newspapers are censored.
  What is going to happen down there if we pass this? We are going to 
demoralize all the people in Cuba who long for freedom and democracy. 
We are going to cut the chances for freedom in that country in half, or 
cut them down to nothing if we pass this amendment.
  The fact is we can trade with Cuba any time Castro permits us to. We 
can sell them anything that Castro will permit us to sell them. Only 
one stipulation: Castro has to have a free election.
  What is standing in the way of trade with Cuba? One man, a 
dictatorship based on one personality, one guy who has thrown everybody 
who has ever opposed him or his system in the clink. We do not want to 
support that guy either. Oppose this amendment.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I think a better dialogue would be as 
to how both sides on this issue could come together.
  I do not support the amendment. I wish we had a White House that 
would not walk softly and carry a big stick of candy, and that is 
either a Republican or a Democrat; that would force the policies that 
we want. I do not believe a stick of candy to Cuba is the right thing, 
without a State Department that will stand up for an agreement. And I 
think the same thing is true with China, and I supported PNTR.
  We need an Intel apparatus that will let us know, because there is a 
national security threat with Cuba. I disagree with the gentleman that 
said there was not. They are a current threat, even to Guantanamo.
  We need to take a look at the food and medicine distribution; make 
sure that someone like a Red Cross or an international group would 
distribute that instead of giving it to Castro and letting him sell it 
for money and power.

                              {time}  2100

  Those are the kind of things that could draw us together instead of 
just blasting each other on each side of this issue.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the chief deputy whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I would like to start by saying I have no better friend in the House 
than my friend, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran). But I think this 
amendment is ill conceived. It can produce unknown results. We do not 
change the law, but we do not provide any funds to enforce the law.
  As the gentleman from California (Mr. Menendez) pointed out earlier, 
the whole sanctioning process, the whole way to get an ability to work 
around the sanctions is not available if we cannot enforce the law. It 
confuses the question of whether or not U.S. credit can be available to 
Cuba if we cannot enforce the sanction law; does that mean Cuba has 
access to U.S. Government programs.
  On our side of the aisle, we have had good-faith negotiations to try 
to come up with a position that we were comfortable with where both 
sides gave, where we would in fact deal with the fact that Cuba is 
handled differently in the law than other countries and clarify that in 
a way that helps American farmers but does not help Castro.
  I think this amendment confuses that. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against it.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee 
on International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  This amendment, like others being offered on this legislation, seeks 
to prohibit funds from being used to enforce U.S. law. This makes no 
sense. Congress makes our nation's laws and we appropriate funds so 
these laws may be enforced. We are a nation of laws. That is what makes 
our country different from Cuba. That is what makes us strong. Congress 
should not adopt measures that encourage people to break our laws. This 
is a wrong signal to send.
  This amendment could open up the taxpayers pockets to underwrite the 
Castro regime. Federal Government financing for exports to Cuba could 
flow to a bankrupt regime that sponsors terrorism. Accordingly, I urge 
my colleagues to join in opposing the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Moran.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to simply say, why does Castro have enough food for all the tourists 
that come to Cuba but not enough food for the people of Cuba. Why is it 
he has medicines that he can export from Cuba, Meningitis B vaccines 
and others, but he does not have enough for the people of Cuba? And is 
the food for the tourists, or is it for the people of Cuba?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, to those who support the dictatorship, 
I am not addressing these words but, rather, to those who think that 
American business is being somehow left out of Cuba at this point by 
not dealing with the dictatorship.
  The Cuban people, since this Congress 100 years ago, stood alone in 
the world after the Cubans had been fighting for 100 years for 
independence with the Cuban people, ever since then they have had great 
respect and admiration

[[Page H6703]]

for the American people, including for American business.
  Those who want to go in now and do business with the apartheid 
economic system and the dictatorship are, in effect, seeking to lose 
the good will that American business will have in the future in a 
democratic future if they now go in and become tainted like the 
Europeans and others who are participating in creating and helping to 
prop up the apartheid economy.
  So for business sense, not for those who idealogically support the 
dictatorship, I am not talking to them. For those who think that 
American business is losing out, no, keep the good will, stand on the 
side of the Cuban people and against the oppressor of the Cuban people; 
and that will be, for those who are so interested in business, good 
business in the future.
  Defeat this amendment. Defeat this amendment that is defeating the 
good will of the American people and would defeat the good will of the 
American business community in the future democratic Cuba.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a difficult amendment for me to offer. 
The opponents to my amendment feel very strongly in opposition to this 
amendment, and it raises emotional chords within them as well as all of 
us.
  I would tell my colleagues that I feel very strongly about the 
importance of this amendment and would not be on the House floor today 
trying to stress to my colleagues why it matters.
  I have been in this Congress for 4 years. Not one step of progress 
has been made toward sanction relief and reform that we have been 
promising our farmers in Kansas and across the country since I have 
been a Member of this Congress.
  How long do we have to wait before we can determine the will of this 
body on the issue of sanctions in regard to Cuba and other countries?
  Let me reiterate, this amendment deals only with Cuba. Let me 
reiterate, it is a different amendment than the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) offered, which opens all trading opportunities from the 
United States. This is limited solely to food and medicine, 
agricultural products.
  It matters to agriculture, to farmers and ranchers, who are trying to 
eke out a living today in this country. But it is more than just about 
economics. It is about our ability to export our products, our ideas.
  I am a firm believer, as I was in the debate on dealing with China, 
that personal freedom follows economic freedom; and when people around 
the world see our market system, the glimmer of hope for personal 
freedom is enhanced, not diminished.
  It is time for us to end a failed policy that improves not only our 
own economic livelihoods but provides an opportunity for freedom to be 
increased, not diminished.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 560, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) will 
be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


               Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

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

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Hostettler:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enforce, implement, or administer the provisions 
     of the settlement document dated March 17, 2000, between 
     Smith & Wesson and the Department of the Treasury (among 
     other parties).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) and the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. McCarthy) will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise to offer an amendment that would prohibit 
the Department of Treasury and specifically the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms, or BATF, from using taxpayer dollars to enforce 
the provisions of a settlement agreement between Smith & Wesson, the 
Treasury Department and the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a new amendment, but it is new 
circumstances in which I offer it given the fact that the agreement 
constitutes the 22 pages of legislation that was never considered in 
these Chambers nor passed by Congress and includes new duties for the 
BATF.
  Now the BATF will no longer just enforce Federal laws; they will now 
enforced a private civil agreement. This greatly expands the BATF's 
scope of power without Congress's approval.
  Failure to pass this amendment will allow the executive branch to 
continue to coerce legal industries, in this particular case the gun 
industry, to enter into these agreements whenever they feel they cannot 
get their agenda through Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, last month my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Hostettler), attempted to turn back the clock on gun safety. He 
failed twice and the House bipartisanly rejected his amendments. Well, 
it is time to defeat this amendment again.
  The bill has changed, but the amendment is the same. Instead of the 
Department of Justice or HUD, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler) tries to prevent the Department of Treasury from spending 
any money related to the HUD-Smith & Wesson agreement.
  More than 500 communities across the Nation from Los Angeles to Long 
Island, New York, have endorsed this agreement. Secretary Cuomo and 
more than 10 of the Nation's mayors successfully negotiated the 
agreement with gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson in March. This agreement 
is making our communities safer, and we should allow it to continue 
without congressional tampering.
  Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Appropriations has agreed to hire 600 
ATF agents and fund DNA ballistics technology that will assist law 
enforcement in arresting criminals. My ENFORCE bill authorizes the same 
programs.
  The funding levels of this bill are a victory for gun enforcement. It 
is the first time gun safety and pro-gun Members have decided to give 
law enforcement the tools necessary to enforce existing gun laws. Now 
we all agree gun enforcement equals more ATF agents and funding for 
ballistic technology.
  While the bill's funding level also increases gun enforcement, the 
Hostettler amendment cuts gun enforcement. It says that the ATF cannot 
enforce the Smith & Wesson agreement.
  Here is a quote from the mayor of Bloomington, Indiana. Mayor John 
Fernandez calls these efforts a ``direct attempt to preempt our 
ability,'' their ability, the mayors, ``to build these kinds of 
successful efforts in partnership with the Federal Government, 
partnerships that will save lives in our cities and help make our 
communities safer.''
  Here is a quote from Police Chief Trevor Hampton of Flint, Michigan: 
``The gun manufacturers, like Smith & Wesson, can help police 
departments do their jobs by adjusting the guns they produce. For 
example, by putting a second hidden serial number in the inside of 
every gun they make.''
  This only helps our police officers track those guns.
  We constantly hear that Congress should not meddle in the affairs of 
our cities and our counties. The Hostettler amendment is meddling. It 
says local communities cannot work with the Federal Government to 
reduce gun violence. This amendment says the Department of Treasury 
should not keep

[[Page H6704]]

their word. It says it is trivial that 12 children are killed every day 
by gun violence.
  The Department of Treasury reached an agreement with Smith & Wesson, 
and Congress should honor that agreement.
  I urge all Members, Republicans and Democrats, to again defeat this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).
  (Mr. GOODE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) for his efforts on behalf of the second 
amendment. He has taken the time to analyze this 24-page Smith & Wesson 
agreement and to understand its ramifications.
  Many may think this applies only to Smith & Wesson, the Department of 
Treasury, HUD, and the localities that signed it. Not so. This has a 
direct and significant impact on individuals.
  For example, a widow living alone who wanted to buy a firearm to 
protect herself in her own home goes to a gun store and, under this 
agreement, can she get a firearm? No, she cannot, unless she has taken 
a government-approved course or passed a government-approved test.
  What if she wanted to buy something besides a Smith & Wesson, a Colt, 
a Berenger, or some other brand? No, she cannot get it under this 
agreement.
  I urge my colleagues to read this agreement. We want our second 
amendment right preserved. I ask my colleagues to stand up for their 
right to defend themselves, their right to own a firearm, and vote for 
the Hostettler amendment.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) has 
continued to do here in each and every appropriations bill is to undo a 
freely negotiated settlement between the Department of HUD and Smith & 
Wesson.
  Smith & Wesson is synonymous with not only gun safety over the years 
but, just as importantly, an excellent reputation for community 
service. And also it is a major employer in my district.
  What troubles me about this is that we always hear these complaints 
about the intrusive nature of the Federal Government. This agreement 
was not forced upon Smith & Wesson. They voluntarily entered into this 
agreement. Overwhelmingly, the American people agree with the 
negotiated settlement. It is sensible and visionary public policy.
  The continued effort here to resist this negotiated settlement is 
what is intrusive. This interference that has come now on three 
appropriations bills is what is intrusive. It is a mistake to proceed 
in this manner. We should allow this agreement to stand as it is, and 
we ought to honor it.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to 
respond to some of the comments made earlier.
  Mr. Chairman, I once again want to reiterate the fact that the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) said that this amendment is 
going to stop cities and Smith & Wesson from continuing in this 
agreement. This amendment does not.
  This amendment merely stops the Federal Government from intruding in 
this situation from being a part of this agreement. So if Smith & 
Wesson and the cities and towns that are involved in this want to 
collude to compromise the safety of their men and women in uniform, 
they are free to do that.
  Secondly, I would like to say that the gentleman said that this was 
an agreement that was freely entered into. It is not. This kind of 
Congress that makes the laws that the BATF is supposed to enforce never 
entered into this agreement. The people's House did not speak. This 
agreement was made between a private company, and the Congress said 
nothing.

                              {time}  2115

  But the gentleman from Massachusetts said now we are interfering. Now 
the Congress of the United States is interfering in legislation that 
was crafted by the executive branch and Smith & Wesson. Well, pardon us 
for interfering in the legislative process, but that is what we are 
here to do.
  According to article 1, section 1 of the Constitution, all 
legislative power shall be vested in a Congress, not the lawyers at 
HUD, not the lawyers at Treasury and not the lawyers with Smith & 
Wesson. It is our prerogative to create policy as the Congress of the 
United States and not these entities that we have mentioned before.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, well, here they go again. Today, the gun 
lobby and their congressional friends are again trying to hijack the 
will of the American people.
  Since the Smith & Wesson deal was announced, over 500 police 
departments and community leaders have pledged to buy only firearms 
that meet at least minimal safety standards, standards much like the 
ones included in this deal.
  For some inexplicable reason, gun safety threatens some of my 
colleagues in this Chamber. Instead of obstructing responsible gun 
manufacturing as this amendment would do, we should be encouraging it. 
As parents and legislators, our job should be to promote 
responsibility, ensure safety and educate the American people when it 
comes to owning, selling and manufacturing firearms. It is certainly 
not our job to get in the way of responsible Americans who want 
responsible gun safety standards.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time for children to once again feel safe in our 
schools and our neighborhoods. And it is time for this Congress to once 
again defeat this reckless amendment.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, I just want to remind my colleagues that this issue is 
not an issue about gun safety. You do not need a 24-page agreement 
crafted by lawyers at HUD, BATF and Smith & Wesson to create an 
agreement considering gun locks, trigger locks and new modes of 
creating pistols that make those handguns more safe.
  This is an argument of gun control and our second amendment rights 
and should we allow the Federal Government to bypass the legislative 
process to create more gun control and deprive us of our second 
amendment rights.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
opposition to the amendment.
  I am outraged at this attempt by Congressional Republicans to 
prohibit gun safety agreements . . . not gun control agreements but gun 
safety agreements.
  The Republican leadership has done everything in its power to prevent 
common sense handgun reforms from becoming law.
  They blocked attempts to pass child safety locks and close the gun 
show loophole.
  They ignore efforts to pass consumer product regulations for 
handguns, licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms.
  Now they come to the floor with this amendment that frustrates 
agreements reached voluntarily by the private sector.
  This amendment is pure and simple evidence that the Republican 
leadership is against gun safety because this amendment is about gun 
safety, not gun control.
  How can the party that so loudly praises smaller government and 
greater freedoms for the private sector . . . be afraid of an 
individual manufacturer deciding to apply smart gun technology and 
safety locks, and to stop straw purchases by shady gun dealers?
  Instead of this Congress answering the call, we have forced the 
private sector to take up the cry of our children, our families and one 
million mothers.
  We should be ashamed that it has come to this.
  We should be ashamed of our own inability to pass legislation.
  We should be ashamed that we have been incapacitated for two years on 
this issue.
  But now that this Smith and Wesson agreement has been reached, the 
least this Congress can do is get out of the way.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote for gun safety and defeat the 
Hostettler amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page H6705]]

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 560, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Sanford

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

       Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Sanford:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for travel on a trip with the President by more than 
     120 individuals employed in the Executive Office of the 
     President, excluding Secret Service personnel.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would make the point that I plan to withdraw this amendment, but 
prior to doing so would simply mention to the chairman of the 
subcommittee that what this amendment would have gotten at is an issue 
of imperial travel.
  I think that within the executive branch, we have moved to a whole 
different stage on travel. I think it needs to be addressed and much 
more closely looked at than is now the case.
  I say that because Nixon's official trip to China consisted of 34 
Members from the executive branch to China. If you look at Reagan's 
trip to Iceland with Gorbachev, it was 40 members of the executive 
branch. Forty-seven members on the G-7 summit in Italy.
  In contrast, I see here these recent trips are just plain bizarre. 
There were 1,300 folks that went with the current President to Africa. 
There were 592 people to Chile. There were 510 people to China. I think 
that we really have moved on to a stage of imperial travel, and I would 
just ask the chairman of the subcommittee to closely look and monitor, 
whether it is George Bush or whether it is Al Gore that is President, 
that we begin to look and try to do something about the size and scale 
of executive branch travel.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 560, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: the amendment by the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Vitter); the amendment by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro); the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis); the 
amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel); amendment No. 14 
by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford); the amendment by 
the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran); amendment No. 8 by the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Vitter

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 284, 
noes 134, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 421]

                               AYES--284

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--134

     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bilirakis
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Ehlers
     English
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gilman
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McGovern
     Meek (FL)
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Porter
     Portman
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Visclosky
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Baca
     Barton
     Berman
     Burton
     Campbell
     Clay
     Cooksey
     Delahunt
     Hayworth
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Roemer
     Sanchez
     Smith (WA)
     Vento
     Weller

[[Page H6706]]



                              {time}  2145

  Messrs. GEORGE MILLER of California, WELDON of Florida, DAVIS of 
Virginia, KENNEDY of Rhode Island, ARCHER, and MANZULLO changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. McDERMOTT, GEJDENSON, MARTINEZ, TRAFICANT, LUTHER, HOLDEN, 
SHAW, SPRATT, McNULTY, SNYDER, CUMMINGS, DIXON, GILCHREST, HOLT, WATT 
of North Carolina, LEWIS of California, PRICE of North Carolina, MEEKS 
of New York, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Ms. 
MILLENDER-McDONALD, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. McKINNEY, Mrs. 
EMERSON and Mrs. CLAYTON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2145


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 560, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each additional 
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. De Lauro

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 230, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 422]

                               AYES--184

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kuykendall
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--230

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Baca
     Barton
     Berman
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Campbell
     Clay
     Cooksey
     Delahunt
     Hayworth
     Kaptur
     Matsui
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Roemer
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Smith (WA)
     Vento
     Weller

                              {time}  2152

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Virginia

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 190, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 423]

                               AYES--228

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent

[[Page H6707]]


     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Baca
     Barton
     Berman
     Burton
     Campbell
     Clay
     Cooksey
     Delahunt
     Hayworth
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Roemer
     Sanchez
     Smith (WA)
     Vento
     Weller

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. CROWLEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Rangel

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 241, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 424]

                               AYES--174

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--241

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Baca
     Barton
     Berman
     Brown (FL)
     Burton
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Clay
     Cooksey
     Delahunt
     Hayworth
     John
     McInnis

[[Page H6708]]


     McIntosh
     Roemer
     Sanchez
     Smith (WA)
     Vento
     Weller

                              {time}  2207

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 424, I was unavoidably 
detained and missed rollcall vote 424. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained and 
missed rollcall vote No. 424 on the Rangel amendment.
  Had I been here, I would have voted ``aye.''


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Sanford

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment No. 14 offered by the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Sanford) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232, 
noes 186, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 425]

                               AYES--232

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--186

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Berkley
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Engel
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hill (MT)
     Hobson
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pease
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Baca
     Barton
     Berman
     Burton
     Campbell
     Clay
     Cooksey
     Delahunt
     Hayworth
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Roemer
     Sanchez
     Smith (WA)
     Spence
     Vento
     Weller

                              {time}  2215

  Mrs. ROUKEMA and Mr. DICKEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. HILLEARY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2220


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran of Kansas

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 301, 
noes 116, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 426]

                               AYES--301

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson

[[Page H6709]]


     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--116

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Berkley
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Cook
     Cox
     Crowley
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Engel
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hobson
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     Lucas (KY)
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Ortiz
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Boehner
     Emerson
       

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Baca
     Barton
     Berman
     Burton
     Campbell
     Clay
     Cooksey
     Delahunt
     Hayworth
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Roemer
     Sanchez
     Smith (WA)
     Vento
     Weller

                              {time}  2223

  Mr. GRAHAM changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. ADERHOLT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment No. 8 offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 204, 
noes 214, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 427]

                               AYES--204

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Fowler
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--214

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Baca
     Barton
     Berman
     Burton
     Campbell
     Clay
     Cooksey
     Delahunt
     Hayworth
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Roemer
     Sanchez
     Smith (WA)
     Vento
     Weller

[[Page H6710]]



                              {time}  2231

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last two lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       This Act may be cited as the ``Treasury and General 
     Government Appropriations Act, 2001''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments? If not, under the 
rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) 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, pursuant to House Resolution 560, he reported the bill back 
to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 202, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 428]

                               YEAS--216

     Abercrombie
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cox
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hill (MT)
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--202

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moore
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Baca
     Barton
     Berman
     Burton
     Campbell
     Clay
     Cooksey
     Delahunt
     Hayworth
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Roemer
     Sanchez
     Smith (WA)
     Vento
     Waters
     Weller

                              {time}  2251

  Messrs. Gary MILLER of California, CUNNINGHAM, PAYNE, COX, RILEY and 
EVERETT changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________