[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 25, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4553-H4594]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 206 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2590.

                              {time}  1131


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2590) 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, 2002, and for other purposes, with Mr. Dreier in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present to the House H.R. 2590. This is 
the fiscal year 2002 Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government 
appropriations bill.
  As reported, this bill, of course, is within the agreed-upon balanced 
budget that has been agreed to by the House with the Senate and the 
President. The bill, compared to the current fiscal year operations, is 
$1.1 billion above the current operations. It is also some $340 million 
above the original request from the White House, although that number, 
Mr. Chairman, was amended somewhat. The supplemental request included 
funds for the 2002 Winter Olympics, which has been funded through the 
supplemental and has been reallocated accordingly within this bill.
  As reported, Mr. Chairman, the spending allocation enables us to do a 
number of significant things regarding Federal law enforcement in 
particular.
  Mr. Chairman, realizing that we have been favored with a positive 
allocation from the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young), it is a fair question how we have applied the extra $1 
billion that has been made available. The short answer is we have 
sought to address some very significant needs, in particular in Federal 
law enforcement. Some 30 percent of Federal law enforcement is funded 
through this appropriation measure. We have also sought to address some 
very compelling needs regarding information technology.
  Let me give an example, Mr. Chairman. We are all aware that the IRS 
has had significant problems dealing with the complexity of the Tax 
Code and in having a modern information system that will enable 
taxpayers to have correct information in the hands of the IRS and not 
be receiving incorrect notices. This allocates significant funding to 
accelerate the information technology advancement in the IRS.
  In particular, within the Customs Service, we have what might be 
fairly called, Mr. Chairman, a rickety computer system that is utilized 
for handling some $8 billion worth of trade each day that goes through 
ports of entry with the U.S. Customs Service. That system is, frankly, 
on the verge of collapse; and we do not need to be losing $8 billion 
daily in trade because of an antiquated information system in Customs.
  Even beyond the pace set by the administration's budget, we have put 
the funding in for what is called the Automated Commercial Environment, 
which is the new Customs information technology system that ties 
together some 50 agencies that are involved in the imports and exports 
handled by the Customs Service to make sure that this trade that is so 
vital to the economy of the United States of America can flow 
unimpeded.
  So those areas, law enforcement, trade, drug interdiction as a key 
component of law enforcement, and the information technology, are the 
main areas in which we have provided investments through the 
Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government bill.
  The bill places, as I mentioned, a priority on counter-drug efforts 
in law enforcement. Let me mention some the elements by which that is 
done.
  We have the Customs Air and Marine Interdiction Program, which has 
not had the aircraft or the boats to be able to keep up with the degree 
of smuggling of illegal drugs into the United States, such as in 
southern Florida, where I visited recently. They are in sore need of 
modern equipment to be able to stem the flow of illegal narcotics into 
America.
  We put significant new investments into the effort, the manpower, 
expanding the manpower where they are overburdened and overworked, and 
also expanding the equipment available to them to do that.
  We have funding for the Integrated Violence Reduction Strategy by 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which is trying to stem the use of 
illegal weapons, or legal weapons used illegally, by people in the 
commission of violent crimes. Both the Youth Crime Interdiction 
Initiative and the Integrated Violence Reduction Strategy receive 
significant new funding in this measure.
  Also significantly increased is what is known as HIDTA, the High 
Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program. Some $231 million in Federal 
resources is made available in this bill for coordinating the efforts 
between the State, the local and the Federal law enforcement agencies, 
which all must work together, especially in the areas where there are 
significant problems of drug trafficking.
  We also have, Mr. Chairman, an effort to try to address the 
accumulated backlog that is clogging up the court system. Federal 
courthouses are funded in this bill to the tune of $326 million

[[Page H4554]]

in construction, following the priorities laid out by the 
administration and the General Services Administration and the 
Administrative Offices of the Courts, to make sure that we are putting 
the funding where the courts are most overcrowded. So this includes the 
funding for site acquisition, design and/or construction of some 15 
court houses across the Nation, which is one beyond the number that was 
originally proposed by the President, but does follow the same priority 
list as everyone has agreed upon, including the administration.
  In regard to legislative items, I would like to point out, Mr. 
Chairman, that we continue the prohibition that is part of current law 
to make sure that Federal funds are not used to help pay for abortions 
through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. This also continues 
the requirement that FEHBP includes coverage for prescription 
contraceptive services with certain circumstances for concerns of 
conscience and with key exceptions, but overall a clear policy on the 
coverage of contraceptives.
  As we move through consideration of this measure on the floor, Mr. 
Chairman, I know we will hear different amendments. I will not try to 
cover them all at this time, rather than give an overview of the bill; 
but I know we will hear many different policies proposed that, frankly, 
Mr. Chairman, I do not think will be in order under the bill, or, even 
though they might technically be in order, will not be proper for 
inclusion in this bill and should be addressed through other 
legislation. We hope to keep this appropriation bill clear of any 
extraneous riders that are not really part of the central purpose of 
the measure.
  I wanted to thank my colleagues on the subcommittee for all of their 
hard work and effort in putting this bill together. The gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, has been especially 
helpful in working together to resolve differences; and, frankly, Mr. 
Chairman, we have been able to come to agreement on some things that 
sometimes there are significant policy differences on, but a lot of 
hard work with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and everyone 
else has gotten us through that.
  I want to thank his staff members, including Scott Nance; the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and his staff; Rob Nabors; and of 
course, I would be remiss if I did not thank the excellent staff that 
we are able to enjoy on the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, 
and General Government: the chief clerk, Michelle Mrdeza; Jeff Ashford; 
Kurt Dodd; Tammy Hughes; and, on a delegated status from the Secret 
Service, Chris Stanley.
  It has taken a lot of hard work to go through the details in this 
bill, having as many different Federal agencies that are at the heart 
of the executive branch, including the White House, the Office of 
Management and Budget, the General Services Administration, Office of 
Personnel Management, the Treasury Department itself, and many of the 
core Federal agencies, including in particular law enforcement.
  I believe this is a good bill, Mr. Chairman, which merits people's 
support. It advances our objectives to combat the flow of illegal 
drugs, yet to improve the flow of legal commerce. It tries to address 
significant problems of overcrowding in the Federal courts by making 
sure that facilities are available to them.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask every Member of this body to support this 
bill, and look forward to working with the Members in considering 
amendments that they may offer.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record.

[[Page H4555]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY01.001



[[Page H4556]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY01.002



[[Page H4557]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY01.003



[[Page H4558]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. This is a reasonable 
bill, and I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) and the 
staff for working closely with our staff and with me and with our 
Members on bringing this bill to the floor.
  As I said, I believe it is a reasonable bill, a bill that is higher 
than fiscal year 2001 and about one-third higher than the President's 
request. The bill provides strong support for our law enforcement 
agencies. Forty percent of law enforcement is covered by this bill, 
which surprises some, but it is a critically important component of our 
law enforcement efforts at the Federal level.
  We support our law enforcement agencies by including $170 million 
above the President's request for the Customs Service to modernize 
their systems for the assessment and collection of taxes and fees, 
which total over $20 billion annually. That is important for all of our 
exporters and importers. It is important for every consumer in America, 
and the increase is an appropriate step for us to take to ensure that 
the information technology capability of Customs is at the level it 
needs to be.
  It includes $15 million above the request for Customs Service to hire 
additional inspectors, a very important objective; $33 million more for 
Customs inspection technology; and $45 million in additional funding 
for the Secret Service to hire additional agents to reduce staggering 
overtime levels.
  The chairman mentioned that, but let me call to the attention of some 
who may not know these figures that some of our Secret Service agents 
have been asked to work 90 hours per month.

                              {time}  1145

  Obviously, the job of a secret service agent is extraordinarily 
stressful. They need to be alert at all times; obviously, sometimes 
tense times as they guard the President, the Vice President and other 
dignitaries, and asking them to work 90 hours overtime is simply not 
safe for them or safe for those whom they protect.
  In addition, we add an additional $25 million for the high intensity 
drug trafficking areas, the HIDTA program, and the chairman referred to 
those. They are an extraordinarily important asset of our law 
enforcement in this country, and a complement to local law enforcement 
in their fight against drugs and the trafficking of drugs. Their major 
contribution, in my opinion, is that they bring together Federal, 
State, and local law enforcement agencies to coordinate with one 
another to confront, to arrest, and to incarcerate those who would 
undermine the health of our communities by selling drugs on our 
streets, in our schools, and in our communities.
  Mr. Chairman, for the IRS, this bill provides the Internal Revenue 
Service with a funding level above the President's request, including 
$325 million to modernize their computer systems and $86 million to 
complete the hiring of over 3800 employees necessary to establish a 
strong balance between compliance and customer service at the IRS.
  Mr. Chairman, some years ago, we passed the Reform and Restructuring 
Act which asked the IRS to become more efficient and more customer-
friendly. We also, at the same time, at the insistence of Secretary 
Rubin, then Secretary of the Treasury, hired a new Commissioner, 
Charles Rossotti. Mr. Rossotti is doing an excellent job and I think 
that perception is shared across the aisle and across ideologists. He 
is a business manager of the first stripe. He has brought his business 
management skills to IRS; and, because of that, I think we are seeing 
an improved IRS, a more efficient IRS, but there are still problems.
  Mr. Chairman, significant improvements were made to the bill during 
the committee consideration. We were able to add back $10 million for 
the First Accounts program. We acted on that in the manager's 
amendment. There has been an agreement that the money appropriated for 
the First Account system will be subject to authorization.
  We also provided a provision which carries out existing law of pay 
parity for our Federal employees with our military employees. Federal 
employees will continue to have, as the chairman has pointed out, the 
option, their choice, of contraceptive coverage under the Federal 
employee health benefit program.
  Obviously, no bill comes to the floor that is a perfect one; and I 
want to mention, Mr. Chairman, some of my continuing concerns.
  First, I am concerned about the decline in compliance activities at 
the IRS. I make the analogy to setting a speed limit at 55 or 60, and 
then having no enforcement of that speed limit. Clearly, what will 
happen not only in the short term, but over the long term, will be that 
drivers will drive faster and faster because of the lack of 
enforcement, and safety will be at risk. Frankly, what happens in the 
IRS, with less and less enforcement, we have, unfortunately some, who 
will not comply with their obligations. What that does is it places 
higher obligations on those who voluntarily and legally comply.
  Mr. Chairman, in-person audits have decreased from 2 million in 1976 
to 247,000 in 2000, an 88 percent decline. Now, that is an 88 percent 
decline from 2 million down to 247,000, but when we consider it in the 
context of the fact that we have millions of more taxpayers 25 years 
later, that decline in percentages of tax returns audited is even more 
dramatically reduced.
  The additional FTEs included in this bill will go to help this 
problem, but I will continue to monitor, and I know the committee will 
as well, this situation closely to determine that the IRS is able to do 
the job that the Congress and the American public want them to do.
  Another concern I have is the funding for courthouse construction. 
Although this bill includes funding above the President's request, the 
committee has fallen short of the judiciary's 5-year courthouse project 
plans. In fact, we have funded only half of what they say is needed 
over these last 5 years for courthouses.
  As we have seen an increase in prosecutions, an increase in 
incarcerations to make our streets safer, the good news is the crime 
statistics throughout our country have gone down. That is what we 
wanted them to do. At the same time, the demands on our courthouses 
have gone up. In order to accommodate that, we need to invest to make 
sure that those courthouses are up to the job. I would hope that the 
committee would continue to focus on this issue very carefully.
  The longer we underfund the judiciary's request, the higher the cost 
and the more pressing the need becomes.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned with several provisions in this 
bill that reduce legislative oversight responsibilities of the 
Executive Office of the President. We are going to be talking about 
those. There is a certain sensitivity that is particularly important as 
Congress reviews the budget request for the Executive Office of the 
President. In my opinion, the President of the United States deserves 
the appropriate respect and deference. However, it is also important 
that Congress not relinquish its oversight responsibilities. We will 
hear about these issues today as other Members of the body have similar 
concerns, and amendments will be offered.
  I am encouraged, however, that this bill contains a placeholder for 
an issue important to all Americans, and that is election reform. We 
are going to be discussing that when the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) offers an amendment to add substantial dollars to this bill. 
I will not debate it further at this time, but it is a very significant 
concern which we will have to deal with either today or in a 
supplemental some weeks ahead.
  Many Members of the body, Mr. Chairman, are rightfully concerned that 
neither the administration nor Congress has acted on election reform. I 
truly believe, as I have said in the past, that election reform is the 
civil rights issue of the 107th Congress. There is no more basic right 
for an American or anyone who resides in a democracy but to have the 
right to vote, but as importantly, to have that vote easy to cast and 
properly counted.
  Mr. Chairman, I have had several conversations with the chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), who has shown a great willingness to consider and support 
election reform and

[[Page H4559]]

 election reform funding. I appreciate his efforts, and I hope we can 
make some positive progress on this issue for all Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me say that this is a good bill. It 
funds properly the priorities that are the responsibility of this bill, 
and I would urge Members to support it when it comes time for final 
passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who has been so focused on the 
needs of Federal employees, and their pay and benefits; he has been 
extraordinarily helpful in years past and this year in fashioning a 
bill to ensure that Federal civilian employees are treated fairly and 
that we have the ability to not only retain our excellent public 
employees, but also to recruit, to fill the vacancies that will occur 
in increasing numbers in the years ahead.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I very much thank the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my very close friend and neighbor and leader 
in so many ways, and particularly on the issues that are involved in 
this Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. I wanted to refer to three of 
them in particular: the effect on the Federal workforce; gender parity 
in terms of health insurance; and the money for the Customs 
modernization that is in this bill.
  In terms of the Federal workforce, this includes an amendment that 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf), and I put in the full committee markup. It also reflects an 
amendment that I had added to this year's budget resolution that we 
should be providing the same pay raises for Federal civilian employees 
as we do for military employees. President Bush's budget includes a 4.6 
to 5 percent increase for military employees and, in some cases, up to 
10 percent. We think that civilian employees who work side-by-side with 
military personnel should get the same pay raise.
  We have a crisis developing in the Federal workforce. Over the next 5 
years, up to half of our Federal workforce will retire or at least be 
eligible for retirement. There are a number of things we can do to 
address this crisis. One of them is to implement the Federal Employees 
Pay Compensation Act that was passed back in 1990. Right now, we have a 
32 percent pay gap between Federal civilian employees and people who 
perform the same function in the private sector. There is a 10 percent 
gap between military personnel and those people who perform the same 
function in the private sector. Both of those gaps should be narrowed 
and eventually eliminated, but we should at least provide the same pay 
raise for civilian as well as military personnel.
  In terms of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, this plan has 
been going up by double digits in each of the last 4 years. So it is 
important that we bring these premium costs under control while 
maintaining the current coverage of services, and since about half of 
our workforce are women, which we would expect, we should certainly 
treat women the same as we do men in terms of its coverage. Right now, 
there is a disparity.
  President Bush's budget expressly rejects the bipartisan 
contraceptive coverage provision that has been part of this bill since 
1998, so we put it back in in committee to make sure that women's 
contraception is covered under Federal health insurance plans. It is 
the largest single out-of-pocket expense for women during their working 
years, and there is no question that this is an important aspect of 
health insurance coverage and should be mandated if the executive 
branch is not going to include it.
  There is no additional cost to the plan, according to the Office of 
Personnel Management; and I am glad that this will be part of this bill 
and should certainly be enacted.
  Now, the last thing is the Automated Commercial System for Customs. 
There is an inclusion of money for the Customs Service to continue the 
computerization of our Customs Service. This is terribly important. We 
have miles of trucks backed up on our borders. This should have been 
put in place years ago. We will now be on schedule to put Customs 
automation on line within the next 5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It should be passed with a strong 
bipartisan vote.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for the purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly mention the subject 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) mentioned earlier and that is 
the courthouse issue and the priority that might be given it. I would 
first like to compliment the committee and the professionalism in which 
they have approached the courthouse issue. As the gentleman knows, 
there is a long list which has been developed with the Department of 
Justice in a very professional, nonpolitical way.
  I represent a town called Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which is on the cusp of 
whether it should be funded this year or the following year.

                              {time}  1200

  It is my understanding, based on some public announcements this past 
week, that Senate appropriations leadership has indicated that they 
expect to fund the Cedar Rapids Courthouse, at least the beginning 
planning funding of about $15 million.
  What I would like to inquire of the gentleman is, if resources become 
available and we can move down this next step, if there is any 
possibility that Cedar Rapids could be considered in this round.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa, because I 
know he has been working diligently to secure the needed courthouse in 
Cedar Rapids.
  I want to tell the gentleman that that is indeed the item that is 
next on the priority list that we have. We are fortunate we were able 
to go one beyond what the administration had proposed as far as funding 
courthouses. And again, as the gentleman mentioned, on a professional 
priority basis, a nonpolitical basis, Cedar Rapids has now moved to the 
top of the list, and we are looking at the potential of being able to 
find a way to potentially fund that during this year.
  Obviously, we have not been able yet to reach that conclusion. We are 
still not through the entire budget process, but we do want to work 
together with the gentleman to look at the potential of making sure 
that moves along rapidly.
  I do want to assure the gentleman that whether it ended up being this 
year or next year, it is at the very top of our priority list now.
  Mr. LEACH. I appreciate that.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to just conclude with two comments.
  One, again, I would express my appreciation for the professionalism 
of this whole consideration. Cedar Rapids, like many towns in America, 
has been on this list, and each town is anxious to get their courthouse 
done. There is a case for everyone around the country. It is my 
impression that the gentleman's subcommittee has been exceptionally 
professional in how they have done the prioritization.
  I would only conclude with one brief aspect for my community. The 
community has really done a whole lot on the cost containment grounds 
with low-cost ground, et cetera. This is the heart of community 
revitalization for Cedar Rapids, so it is both a judiciary matter and, 
frankly, a community matter.
  So to the degree that sympathetic consideration can be given this 
year, I personally would be deeply appreciative, and I thank the 
gentleman from Oklahoma for his thoughtful leadership.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. I very much appreciate 
his terrific effort on this matter.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and 
Related Agencies. She does an extraordinary job. We are pleased with 
her help on this bill. I appreciate the gentlewoman commenting on this, 
and her very important intervention.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the able gentleman from Maryland

[[Page H4560]]

(Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal 
Service and General Government, for yielding me this time.
  I rise to engage the chairman of the subcommittee on Treasury, Postal 
Service and General Government, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Istook), in a colloquy regarding public debt management.
  Mr. Chairman, as part of the House report accompanying the fiscal 
year 2002 appropriation bill for the Treasury Department, the Committee 
on Appropriations directs the Bureau of Public Debt to provide a report 
to review the complete debt program of the Bureau from a fiscal 
management perspective, providing cost comparisons between high amount-
low volume debt instruments and low amount-high volume debt 
instruments.
  Another major concern regards the ownership of our public debt, 
particularly the extent and growth in foreign ownership of U.S. debt 
securities.
  I would say to the chairman, the ownership of the government's debt 
is increasingly in the hands of foreign owners. Our government may not 
be sufficiently active in promoting the domestic ownership of our debt, 
especially to individuals, something that many of us in this Chamber 
can recall being a matter of national will and, indeed, pride.
  As part of this review of the national debt, I believe that we should 
have a detailed report regarding the levels of ownership of savings 
bonds and other forms of public debt, rates of return on those savings 
bonds and other forms of public debt, and how savings bond ownership 
historically compares to other forms of public debt.
  Would the gentleman agree that the review of the complete debt 
program of the Bureau of the public debt requested by the committee 
should contain a thorough analysis of debt ownership, differentiating 
between foreign and domestic customers as well as between individuals 
by income category, corporations, and governments; trends over the last 
20 years with respect to what groups are purchasing U.S. debt; the 
amount of interest being paid to each bondholder category; and 
developments and trends over the last 20 years with respect to what 
media and methodologies are being used to affect debt transactions?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her interest, 
which is bona fide, on an important issue.
  Yes, it is the intent of the Committee that the report provide 
information on customer demographics and transaction changes such as 
the gentlewoman described, as well as the detailed cost data, with 
sufficient detail to allow us to differentiate among all of the major 
forms in which the public debt is financed.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for the 
clarification and for his willingness to engage in this colloquy. It 
has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) to engage in a colloquy.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I also thank the ranking member and the chairman, both 
of them, for their support of the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
Center in Artesia, New Mexico, and in Brunswick, Georgia.
  This very important Federal Training Center trains over 70, I believe 
the number exactly is 71, different Federal agencies. They have over 
250 different classes. They get all kinds of hands-on training. It is 
very important for our law enforcement effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be certainly remiss on this 3-year observance 
of the terrible tragedy we had with the Capitol Hill Police in this 
very building to not recognize yesterday's moment of silence in the 
memory of those great officers who bravely put their lives on the line 
and sacrificed their lives 3 years ago for this body and for all the 
tourists who come to the United States Capitol. They were trained at 
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the chairman if he would engage in a 
colloquy with me. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. I want to 
thank the gentleman for all the support he has given, and also ask a 
question.
  As the gentleman knows, FLETC, the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
Center, is in the midst of a master plan for construction to meet their 
long-term capacity requirements, in particular the closure of the 
temporary U.S. Border Patrol Training Facility in Charleston, South 
Carolina, and to allow for transition of all basic training for border 
patrol officers to be carried out at the FLETC location in Brunswick, 
Georgia, and in Artesia, New Mexico, on those campuses, by the year 
ending 2004.
  This transition will increase the workload both at Glynco and 
Artesia. Glynco is preparing to meet the increased demand. It is very 
important that they have the space and facilities needed to accommodate 
the additional students.
  I greatly appreciate the efforts of the chairman and the ranking 
member and all the subcommittee members for the improvements that are 
already in this bill. I greatly appreciate the manager's amendment, 
which the gentleman just passed, and the gentleman's support of the 
additional construction funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask, as we move into conference, if 
the gentleman could say that these additional resources, and any others 
that may be out there, will have the support of the chairman as we go 
through the process with the other body.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I am very well aware of the important work being done at Glynco and 
of FLETC's critical role in providing the very highest quality in 
consolidated law enforcement training to Federal law enforcement 
organizations, as well as others that participate.
  I applaud the strong personal support of the gentleman from Georgia 
for FLETC's work to achieve this mission.
  We have indeed addressed some important construction requirements at 
FLETC to keep it on its necessary construction schedule. I certainly 
want to assure my colleague that I look forward to working with him 
further to ensure that additional FLETC funding is going to be given 
every consideration as the bill does move through the process.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I certainly thank the chairman for that.
  Again, I wanted to emphasize to the chairman and to the very capable 
staff, we appreciate everything that they do for them, not just in 
Brunswick, Georgia, but in Artesia.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his 
support of FLETC. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has visited 
the facility before, and I know staff has visited it, but the doors are 
wide open. Any time the Members want to come to Georgia, we would be 
glad to put on our dog and pony show for the gentleman and show off the 
facility.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I certainly look forward to meeting the dogs and the 
ponies.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say to the gentleman from Georgia, he 
is absolutely correct, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, 
located in Glynco, in his district, is not only a law enforcement 
agency that trains Treasury law enforcement, but, as the gentleman 
knows, trains a broad array of law enforcement officers, including non-
Federal officers. It is a very, very important facility. They are one 
of the experts in the field.
  We are very pleased to work with the gentleman and with them to carry 
out the very, very important job of not only training initially our law 
enforcement officers but from time to time giving them training that 
keeps them both technically, physically, mentally on top of their game.
  I am also pleased, as the gentleman knows, that we are going to 
provide some local law enforcement training for all the law enforcement 
officers that are located here so they can keep up to speed on a week-
to-week and month-to-month basis.
  But there is no doubt that FLETC's job and its location at Glynco, 
which we have fought to keep centralized, so we do not putting training 
centers all

[[Page H4561]]

 over the country and can marshall and focus our expertise at that 
site, is a very important effort. I appreciate the gentleman's 
comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Meek), a very outstanding member of the subcommittee and of the 
Committee on Appropriations, someone who represents her district 
extraordinarily well in south Florida, in the Miami area, and someone 
who I count as a very dear friend. She has an amendment that has been 
included, which is a very, very important one. I think she wants to 
talk about that.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me, the ranking member of our subcommittee. I thank 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very good bill. Certainly we need the support 
of the entire Congress on this bill. It is quite an improvement over 
last year's bill, and that is as it should be.
  Mr. Chairman, there are many items in the bill that I like very much. 
There are one or two that perhaps could have been included that perhaps 
were not. I like the First Accounts program that pays parity to people 
of low income, and I like the parity amendment between the civilians 
and the military.
  I like protection for the civil service. We heard very good testimony 
from the civil service, and I feel good about the fact that the bill 
provides $45 million for the Secret Service to address their overtime 
concerns.
  There is $15 million for additional Customs Inspectors, which we need 
desperately in certain coastal areas of this country. There is $33 
million to improve Customs inspection technology and $14 million for 
Customs air improvement programs.
  I cannot say too much on behalf of law enforcement in the area of the 
Treasury-Postal bill in that each of the law enforcement agencies did 
receive considerable help through this bill. They very much needed it.
  The Customs Service's Automated Commercial Environment, which we call 
the ACE program, ACE received $170 million more than the President's 
request. It is important that this particular initiative be bolstered 
by our subcommittee.
  Most of all, Mr. Chairman, we owe a debt of gratitude to the staff of 
this committee. I am sure each of our subcommittees have wonderful 
staffs, but I saw that this particular committee staff went beyond what 
staff normally does to reach out to Members who need help, and I 
appreciate that.
  We provide $15 million for the Miami Federal courthouse. That has 
been a long time coming, but it is here now; and thanks to the 
subcommittee, we have the remaining funds to build the Federal 
courthouse in Miami.
  All Members realize that the Federal courts are really packed, and 
they do need money. They are the busiest ones in the country. Mr. 
Chairman, this bill does a lot.
  I also want to mention the fact that there is one issue that we are 
not putting enough emphasis on in this country, and in this particular 
bill we did not put emphasis on it, either. That was electoral reform. 
The time has come that we do pay sufficient attention to election 
reform, and this is the committee to do that. So I do hope that this 
problem will be addressed in a better fashion another year.

                              {time}  1215

  I am advised that my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) have already introduced 
legislation that will help us in terms of election reform. They are 
providing leadership on that, and it does not only fit some of the 
problems in Florida but the entire Nation.
  Now, I do not have the time to discuss all the particulars, Mr. 
Chairman, and all the needs that were met through this particular piece 
of legislation, and there are, I am sure, other items that we could 
have funded and could have done a better job of; but we did cover law 
enforcement, we covered Customs, certainly, we covered the First 
Accounts initiative, and I am pleased with those significant steps that 
we take in this bill to improve our support for Treasury law 
enforcement, particularly with respect to Customs and the Secret 
Service.
  I mentioned the $300 million investment for ACE, and as I have 
repeatedly discussed before, we need more Customs employees at Miami 
International Airport and the Miami seaport. And I thank the members of 
the committee and urge support of this bill.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would 
like to comment on a statement that appears in the report accompaning 
this legislation, to the effect that the Federal Elections Commission 
(FEC) has asked for approximately, $2.5 million, to update and enhance 
voting system standards. The committee notes they support these efforts 
but will wait for authorization from the Committee on House 
Administration, of which I am a member and of which the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is also a member.
  I have good news for the chairman. I think I can save him some of 
that $2.5 million, and that is the reason I rise today. I have 
introduced a bill, H.R. 2275, that would hand this standards-setting 
duty over to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which 
is the Nation's standard-setting organization. NIST is specifically 
given the mission of, and is well equipped to, set standards. They 
would do a very fine job of setting voting technology standards, at 
considerably less cost, and essentially at no cost to the gentleman's 
budget.
  Let me describe this bill a bit more. As I said, the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology is the Nation's chief standard-
setting organization; and they do not just pull standards out of the 
air. They always work with the user communities. They have a 200-year 
history of doing this, and do it well. A commission, which would be 
formed as part of this, would have the director of the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology as the Chair. The commission 
would also include a member from the American National Standards 
Institute, which is the private sector arm of standard setting and is 
well-known. There would be a representative of the Secretaries of State 
throughout this country, a representative from the Election Directors 
of the States, representatives from local governments, county clerks, 
city clerks and so forth, as well as technical representatives, 
individuals who are in universities and have experience working on 
voting and voting standards issues. And, of course, I am sure they will 
work with the FEC on this.
  This commission would recommend standards. They would establish 
rather immediate voluntary technical standards; and then, after some 
time, they would develop permanent standards which are accepted by the 
user community. These standards would ensure the usability, accuracy, 
integrity, and security of voting products and systems used in the 
United States.
  It is very important to recognize the Federal Government does not 
control the election apparatus. But H.R. 2275 outlines what we can do 
to help the city clerks and county clerks, who actually operate the 
voting systems, and the State authorities who supervise the local 
systems. Now, why have NIST do this? As I said, because they have the 
experience. They do this constantly, and I am certain they would do a 
very good job.
  Let me add another comment, Mr. Chairman. I understand there is 
another amendment which will be offered later to include in this bill 
an extra $600,000 for communities to buy voting equipment. I think that 
is premature. I do not think anyone should buy new voting equipment 
until we review, determine, and establish good voting standards.
  Let me give a specific example of why this is important. More and 
more of the voting machines are computerized, and yet they do not have 
any emphasis on security. The average college freshman could hack these 
systems and change election results. We need far better standards for 
security, integrity and usability so that any citizen can use them 
without training and the vote will accurately reflect the intent of the 
voter.
  There is a lot of work to be done here. I believe asking NIST to set 
these initial standards is a good way to start. Additional legislative 
work that will

[[Page H4562]]

have to be done will come from the Committee on House Administration 
and will be done by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Nay), who is chairman of that committee, and 
by myself as a member, and with the other committee members.
  There is much to be done here, but I believe having NIST work on the 
voting standards with the Federal Elections Commission and all the user 
groups is a very good way to start. And I just want to pass that 
information on to the chairman, and hopefully help him save some money 
in this bill.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak about the Members' 
annual cost of living allowance, not to oppose the COLA but to reject 
the procedure we are using to consider it.
  During my time in Congress, we have addressed this issue several 
times. In 1997, I opposed the increase because the Federal budget was 
in deficit, and we were proposing massive cuts to programs that 
everyday people rely upon. I was also concerned about the process the 
House employed in considering the COLA. I was unhappy that there was 
little public debate on the issue and only a procedural rather than a 
straight yes or no vote.
  In 1999, the procedure was the same. Again, I was uncomfortable; and 
as I did with the 1996 COLA, I did not accept the increase and returned 
the net amount to the Treasury.
  Now, many Members argue that COLA is not a raise per se and that the 
statute automatically authorizes implementation without requirement of 
debate or vote. Several point out that COLAs for other workers operate 
in just this fashion. This is true. It is absolutely correct. However, 
we are not like other workers. One hundred percent of our costs, both 
for employment and office expenses, are borne by the taxpayers. We also 
set our own salaries, and we have no direct employer or supervisor, 
except the public in the collective.
  Few workers in this country enjoy such circumstances. We have the 
luxury through our own action, or in this case inaction, to alter the 
amount of money we earn. Given that, I believe a substantive vote on 
the COLA is the appropriate way to handle the annual increases. 
Nevertheless, it does not appear that my views are likely to prevail on 
this issue, although I will continue to promote a direct vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the COLA itself. I believe that 
Members can justify a 3.4 percent increase in their wages, but I also 
believe that the taxpayers who pay our salaries have a right to ask for 
that justification. In order to do so, however, they must be able to 
understand the House's action relative to its compensation.
  I am not here to criticize or demean the hard work of the good people 
with whom I serve in this body. Nor do I wish to disparage the views of 
those who disagree with me. I have a personal sense of propriety that 
we should be doing this publicly. I am making it clear to my 
constituents that Congress is indeed voting to raise our salary.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman. I want to commend Chairman Istook and 
Ranking Member Hoyer for their hard work on this bill. I also want to 
thank members of the Appropriations Committee for supporting the 
reinstatement of my provision to provide contraceptive coverage to 
America's federal employees.
  This is a very important provision, and I am grateful that the vote 
to sustain this coverage was both bipartisan and strong.
  I am very proud to say that this provision, which gives 1.2 million 
federal employees of reproductive age access to contraception in their 
health plans, has been very, very successful.
  Since the provision's enactment, there have been no problems with 
implementation and no complaints received by the Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM). Let me repeat that--no plan, no provider, no 
beneficiary has contacted OPM with a concern or complaint about the 
contraceptive coverage provision.
  Before my provision was enacted, 81% of all FEHB plans did not cover 
the most commonly used types of prescription contraception. A full 10% 
covered no prescription contraception at all.
  Today, federal employees can choose the type of contraception best 
medically suited for them.
  My colleagues, let's remember why this is so very important.
  Contraception is a family issue, and it is basic health care for 
women.
  Although abortion rates are falling, today--still--nearly half of all 
pregnancies in America are unintended and half of those will end in 
abortion. Increasing access to the full range of contraceptive drugs 
and devices is the most effective approach to reducing the number of 
unintended pregnancies.
  Americans share our goal. According to a recent national survey, 87 
percent support women's access to birth control, and 77 percent support 
laws requiring health insurance plans to cover contraception.
  Their message is clear: If we want fewer abortions and unintended 
pregnancies, we must make family planning more accessible.
  And, my colleagues, this important benefit has not added any cost to 
FEHB premiums. This is important because when first introduced, the two 
main arguments against my provision were that covering contraceptives 
would add prohibitive cost to FEHB plans, and discriminate against 
religious providers.
  Neither of those charges have proven to be true. This benefit has not 
added any cost to FEHB premiums.
  Since the provision's inception, the OPM has not received any 
complaints about the provision from either beneficiaries, health 
professionals, or participating health plans. And this year's bill 
continues to respect the rights of religious organizations and 
individual providers.
  These protections are identical to those that passed by the House in 
1999. Let me summarize what the religious exemption in the bill right 
now provides.
  Two plans identified by OPM as religious providers are explicitly 
excluded from the requirement to cover contraceptives, and any other 
plan that is religious is given the opportunity to opt out.
  Furthermore, individual providers are exempted from having to provide 
contraceptive services if it is contrary to their own religious beliefs 
or moral convictions.
  I believe that Americans want us to look for ways--as we did with 
contraceptive coverage--to work together, to find common ground. 
Increasing access to family planning is one way we can do that.
  This is a good provision and I thank my colleagues for continuing to 
support it.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank Mr. Istook and Mr. 
Young for their cooperation in addressing the concerns of the Committee 
on Financial Services with respect to the Treasury, Postal and General 
Government Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. And while I am 
supportive of the bill in its current form, I do have a concern with 
certain language contained in the committee report. That language 
states:

       The Committee is aware that concerns have been expressed 
     about the impact of the Federal Reserve/Department of 
     Treasury proposed regulation to redefine real estate 
     brokerage and management activities. The Committee expects 
     Treasury to work with the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development when developing the final rule.

  This language contradicts section 103 of the Gramm Leach Bliley Act 
of 1999 which provides that the Federal Reserve Board, together with 
the Department of the Treasury, shall have the sole responsibility to 
determine for financial holding companies what activities are financial 
in nature or incidental or complementary to such financial activity. 
Given this conflict between statutory law and the Appropriations 
Committee report, I have every expectation that the Federal Reserve 
Board will follow the letter and intent of the law.
  In noting this contradiction, I am not expressing an opinion on the 
Federal Reserve Board/Treasury proposal to classify real estate 
brokerage and management activities as financial activities. I trust 
the Federal Reserve Board and the Department of the Treasury will fully 
consider the views of the public, the industries affected by this 
proposal, as well as the relevant Federal and State agencies, and take 
any time necessary to do so.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2590, the 
Treasury and Postal Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. I 
congratulate Chairman Istook on his leadership on this bill. This bill 
meets our requirements under the Balanced Budget Act and properly 
provides for critical operations of the Treasury Department and other 
important agencies.
  I also want to thank the Subcommittee, in particular, for including a 
requirement that I requested to prevent federal government websites 
from collecting personal information on citizens who access federal 
websites and doing so without the knowledge of the person visiting the 
site. This is an important policy for our government--it is a policy 
that makes clear that we will lead by example when it comes to 
protecting peoples' privacy on the web.
  Mr. Chairman, last year I added a provision to the Treasury, Postal 
Service and General Government Appropriations bill to prohibit federal 
agencies funded under this bill from using funds to monitor and collect 
personally identifiable information from the public who access 
government websites. Unfortunately, the previous Administration chose 
to ignore this law and allowed federal websites to continue to use 
tracking software to gather personal information from citizens who 
visit the website of federal agencies.
  Even more disturbing, this past April a summary report by the 
Inspector Generals of each federal agency found that 64 federal 
websites are still using unauthorized tracking software, despite our 
direction to do otherwise.
  What that means to the average citizen is that our government could 
be creating a database that would know about your visit to the

[[Page H4563]]

IRS website and what you looked at there, your visit to the NIH website 
where you may have looked up information on a personal health matter, 
or that your child visited the website of the Drug Czar's office to do 
a report on the dangers of drug abuse. Do we really want to allow the 
government to keep that information about you and do so without your 
knowledge? The answer is clearly no.
  Given the fact that my previous efforts have gone largely ignored, 
this year I expanded the provision to apply government-wide to all 
federal agency websites.
  Mr. Chairman, the federal government has a responsibility to set the 
standard for privacy protection in the information age. Federal 
websites are fast becoming a primary source of information for the 
public and that's an excellent development. Now, it is essential that 
we not allow the public to lose confidence in the Internet or their 
taxpayer funded federal websites. These websites were designed to serve 
the public--they were not designed for the government to secretly 
collect personal information and track our movements on the Internet.
  Mr. Chairman, we must ensure that if you visit a federal government 
website, both our tax dollars and our privacy are protected. With this 
prohibition in place, we do just that.
  Again, my thanks to Chairman Istook for his help and leadership on 
this issue. I urge support of the bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the remainder of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and the amendments printed in House Report 107-
158 are adopted.
  The amendment printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 5 may 
be offered only by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) or his 
designee, and only at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2590

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Treasury 
     Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive 
     Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                  TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                          Departmental Offices


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Departmental Offices 
     including operation and maintenance of the Treasury Building 
     and Annex; hire of passenger motor vehicles; maintenance, 
     repairs, and improvements of, and purchase of commercial 
     insurance policies for, real properties leased or owned 
     overseas, when necessary for the performance of official 
     business; not to exceed $3,500,000 for official travel 
     expenses; not to exceed $3,813,000, to remain available until 
     expended for information technology modernization 
     requirements; not to exceed $150,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses; not to exceed $258,000 for 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential nature, to be 
     allocated and expended under the direction of the Secretary 
     of the Treasury and to be accounted for solely on his 
     certificate, $174,219,000: Provided, That of these amounts 
     $2,900,000 is available for grants to State and local law 
     enforcement groups to help fight money laundering.

        Department-Wide Systems and Capital Investments Programs


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For development and acquisition of automatic data 
     processing equipment, software, and services for the 
     Department of the Treasury, $68,828,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That these funds shall be 
     transferred to accounts and in amounts as necessary to 
     satisfy the requirements of the Department's offices, 
     bureaus, and other organizations: Provided further, That this 
     transfer authority shall be in addition to any other transfer 
     authority provided in this Act: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds appropriated shall be used to support or 
     supplement the Internal Revenue Service appropriations for 
     Information Systems.

                      Office of Inspector General


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, not to exceed $2,000,000 for official 
     travel expenses, including hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     and not to exceed $100,000 for unforeseen emergencies of a 
     confidential nature, to be allocated and expended under the 
     direction of the Inspector General of the Treasury, 
     $35,508,000.

           Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Treasury Inspector General 
     for Tax Administration in carrying out the Inspector General 
     Act of 1978, as amended, including purchase (not to exceed 
     150 for replacement only for police-type use) and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)); services 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may be 
     determined by the Inspector General for Tax Administration; 
     not to exceed $6,000,000 for official travel expenses; and 
     not to exceed $500,000 for unforeseen emergencies of a 
     confidential nature, to be allocated and expended under the 
     direction of the Inspector General for Tax Administration, 
     $123,474,000.

           Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration

       For the repair, alteration, and improvement of the Treasury 
     Building and Annex, $30,932,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                 Expanded Access to Financial Services


                     (including transfer of funds)

       To develop and implement programs to expand access to 
     financial services for low- and moderate-income individuals, 
     $10,000,000, such funds to become available upon 
     authorization of this program as provided by law and to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of these 
     funds, such sums as may be necessary may be transferred to 
     accounts of the Department's offices, bureaus, and other 
     organizations: Provided further, That this transfer authority 
     shall be in addition to any other transfer authority provided 
     in this Act.

                  Financial Crimes Enforcement Network


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Financial Crimes Enforcement 
     Network, including hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel 
     expenses of non-Federal law enforcement personnel to attend 
     meetings concerned with financial intelligence activities, 
     law enforcement, and financial regulation; not to exceed 
     $14,000 for official reception and representation expenses; 
     and for assistance to Federal law enforcement agencies, with 
     or without reimbursement, $45,837,000, of which not to exceed 
     $3,400,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2004; 
     and of which $7,790,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2003: Provided, That funds appropriated in this 
     account may be used to procure personal services contracts.

                         Counterterrorism Fund

       For necessary expenses, as determined by the Secretary, 
     $36,879,000, to remain available until expended, to reimburse 
     any Department of the Treasury organization for the costs of 
     providing support to counter, investigate, or prosecute 
     unexpected threats or acts of terrorism, including payment of 
     rewards in connection with these activities: Provided, That 
     use of such funds shall be subject to prior notification of 
     the Committees on Appropriations in accordance with 
     guidelines for reprogramming and transfer of funds.

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center, as a bureau of the Department of the 
     Treasury, including materials and support costs of Federal 
     law enforcement basic training; purchase (not to exceed 52 
     for police-type use, without regard to the general purchase 
     price limitation) and hire of passenger motor vehicles; for 
     expenses for student athletic and related activities; 
     uniforms without regard to the general purchase price 
     limitation for the current fiscal year; the conducting of and 
     participating in firearms matches and presentation of awards; 
     for public awareness and enhancing community support of law 
     enforcement training; not to exceed $11,500 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; room and board for 
     student interns; and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $102,132,000, of which $650,000 shall be available for an 
     interagency effort to establish written standards on 
     accreditation of Federal law enforcement training; and of 
     which up to $17,166,000 for materials and support costs of 
     Federal law enforcement basic training shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2004: Provided, That the Center is 
     authorized to accept and use gifts of property, both real and 
     personal, and to accept services, for authorized purposes, 
     including funding of a gift of intrinsic value which shall be 
     awarded annually by the Director of the Center to the 
     outstanding student who graduated from a basic training 
     program at the Center during the previous fiscal year, which 
     shall be funded only by gifts received through the Center's 
     gift authority: Provided further, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, students attending training at any 
     Federal Law Enforcement Training Center site shall reside in 
     on-Center or Center-provided housing, insofar as available 
     and in accordance with Center policy: Provided further, That 
     funds appropriated in this account shall be available, at the 
     discretion of the Director,

[[Page H4564]]

     for the following: training United States Postal Service law 
     enforcement personnel and Postal police officers; State and 
     local government law enforcement training on a space-
     available basis; training of foreign law enforcement 
     officials on a space-available basis with reimbursement of 
     actual costs to this appropriation, except that reimbursement 
     may be waived by the Secretary for law enforcement training 
     activities in foreign countries undertaken pursuant to 
     section 801 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty 
     Act of 1996, Public Law 104-32; training of private sector 
     security officials on a space-available basis with 
     reimbursement of actual costs to this appropriation; and 
     travel expenses of non-Federal personnel to attend course 
     development meetings and training sponsored by the Center: 
     Provided further, That the Center is authorized to obligate 
     funds in anticipation of reimbursements from agencies 
     receiving training sponsored by the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center, except that total obligations at the end of 
     the fiscal year shall not exceed total budgetary resources 
     available at the end of the fiscal year: Provided further, 
     That the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center is 
     authorized to provide training for the Gang Resistance 
     Education and Training program to Federal and non-Federal 
     personnel at any facility in partnership with the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms: Provided further, That the 
     Federal Law Enforcement Training Center is authorized to 
     provide short-term medical services for students undergoing 
     training at the Center.


     acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

       For expansion of the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
     Center, for acquisition of necessary additional real property 
     and facilities, and for ongoing maintenance, facility 
     improvements, and related expenses, $27,534,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                      Interagency Law Enforcement


                 interagency crime and drug enforcement

       For expenses necessary to conduct investigations and 
     convict offenders involved in organized crime drug 
     trafficking, including cooperative efforts with State and 
     local law enforcement, as it relates to the Treasury 
     Department law enforcement violations such as money 
     laundering, violent crime, and smuggling, $107,576,000, of 
     which $7,827,000 shall remain available until expended.

                      Financial Management Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Financial Management Service, 
     $213,211,000, of which not to exceed $9,220,000 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2004, for information systems 
     modernization initiatives; and of which not to exceed $2,500 
     shall be available for official reception and representation 
     expenses.

                Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
     and Firearms, including purchase of not to exceed 812 
     vehicles for police-type use, of which 650 shall be for 
     replacement only, and hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire 
     of aircraft; services of expert witnesses at such rates as 
     may be determined by the Director; for payment of per diem 
     and/or subsistence allowances to employees where a major 
     investigative assignment requires an employee to work 16 
     hours or more per day or to remain overnight at his or her 
     post of duty; not to exceed $20,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses; for training of State and local 
     law enforcement agencies with or without reimbursement, 
     including training in connection with the training and 
     acquisition of canines for explosives and fire accelerants 
     detection; not to exceed $50,000 for cooperative research and 
     development programs for Laboratory Services and Fire 
     Research Center activities; and provision of laboratory 
     assistance to State and local agencies, with or without 
     reimbursement, $816,816,000, of which not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 shall be available for the payment of attorneys' 
     fees as provided by 18 U.S.C. 924(d)(2); of which not more 
     than $10,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     2003, for Gang Resistance Education and Training grants; of 
     which up to $2,000,000 shall be available for the equipping 
     of any vessel, vehicle, equipment, or aircraft available for 
     official use by a State or local law enforcement agency if 
     the conveyance will be used in joint law enforcement 
     operations with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 
     and for the payment of overtime salaries including Social 
     Security and Medicare, travel, fuel, training, equipment, 
     supplies, and other similar costs of State and local law 
     enforcement personnel, including sworn officers and support 
     personnel, that are incurred in joint operations with the 
     Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms: Provided, That no 
     funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to 
     transfer the functions, missions, or activities of the Bureau 
     of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to other agencies or 
     Departments in fiscal year 2002: Provided further, That no 
     funds appropriated herein shall be available for salaries or 
     administrative expenses in connection with consolidating or 
     centralizing, within the Department of the Treasury, the 
     records, or any portion thereof, of acquisition and 
     disposition of firearms maintained by Federal firearms 
     licensees: Provided further, That no funds appropriated 
     herein shall be used to pay administrative expenses or the 
     compensation of any officer or employee of the United States 
     to implement an amendment or amendments to 27 CFR 178.118 or 
     to change the definition of ``Curios or relics'' in 27 CFR 
     178.11 or remove any item from ATF Publication 5300.11 as it 
     existed on January 1, 1994: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated herein shall be available to 
     investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal 
     firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c): Provided 
     further, That such funds shall be available to investigate 
     and act upon applications filed by corporations for relief 
     from Federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c): 
     Provided further, That no funds under this Act may be used to 
     electronically retrieve information gathered pursuant to 18 
     U.S.C. 923(g)(4) by name or any personal identification code.

                     United States Customs Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Customs 
     Service, including purchase and lease of motor vehicles; hire 
     of motor vehicles; contracting with individuals for personal 
     services abroad; not to exceed $40,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses; and awards of compensation to 
     informers, as authorized by any Act enforced by the United 
     States Customs Service, $2,056,604,000, of which such sums as 
     become available in the Customs User Fee Account, except sums 
     subject to section 13031(f)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended (19 U.S.C. 
     58c(f)(3)), shall be derived from that Account; of the total, 
     not to exceed $150,000 shall be available for payment for 
     rental space in connection with preclearance operations; not 
     to exceed $4,000,000 shall be available until expended for 
     research; of which not less than $100,000 shall be available 
     to promote public awareness of the child pornography tipline; 
     of which not less than $200,000 shall be available for 
     Project Alert; not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be available 
     until expended for conducting special operations pursuant to 
     19 U.S.C. 2081; not to exceed $8,000,000 shall be available 
     until expended for the procurement of automation 
     infrastructure items, including hardware, software, and 
     installation; not to exceed $30,000,000 shall be available 
     until expended for the procurement and deployment of non-
     intrusive inspection technology; and not to exceed $5,000,000 
     shall be available until expended for repairs to Customs 
     facilities: Provided, That uniforms may be purchased without 
     regard to the general purchase price limitation for the 
     current fiscal year: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the fiscal year aggregate 
     overtime limitation prescribed in subsection 5(c)(1) of the 
     Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 261 and 267) shall be 
     $30,000.


                   harbor maintenance fee collection

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For administrative expenses related to the collection of 
     the Harbor Maintenance Fee, pursuant to Public Law 103-182, 
     $2,993,000, to be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
     Fund and to be transferred to and merged with the Customs 
     ``Salaries and Expenses'' account for such purposes.


  operation, maintenance and procurement, air and marine interdiction 
                                programs

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of marine vessels, aircraft, and 
     other related equipment of the Air and Marine Programs, 
     including operational training and mission-related travel, 
     and rental payments for facilities occupied by the air or 
     marine interdiction and demand reduction programs, the 
     operations of which include the following: the interdiction 
     of narcotics and other goods; the provision of support to 
     Customs and other Federal, State, and local agencies in the 
     enforcement or administration of laws enforced by the Customs 
     Service; and, at the discretion of the Commissioner of 
     Customs, the provision of assistance to Federal, State, and 
     local agencies in other law enforcement and emergency 
     humanitarian efforts, $181,860,000, which shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That no aircraft or other 
     related equipment, with the exception of aircraft which is 
     one of a kind and has been identified as excess to Customs 
     requirements and aircraft which has been damaged beyond 
     repair, shall be transferred to any other Federal agency, 
     department, or office outside of the Department of the 
     Treasury, during fiscal year 2002 without the prior approval 
     of the Committees on Appropriations.


                        automation modernization

       For expenses not otherwise provided for Customs automated 
     systems, $427,832,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which $5,400,000 shall be for the International Trade Data 
     System, and not less than $300,000,000 shall be for the 
     development of the Automated Commercial Environment: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading may be obligated for the Automated Commercial 
     Environment until the United States Customs Service prepares 
     and submits to the Committees on Appropriations a plan for 
     expenditure that: (1) meets the capital planning and 
     investment control review requirements established by the 
     Office of Management and Budget, including OMB Circular A-11, 
     part 3; (2) complies with the United States Customs Service's 
     Enterprise Information Systems Architecture; (3) complies 
     with the acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and 
     systems acquisition management practices of the Federal 
     Government; (4) is reviewed and approved by the

[[Page H4565]]

     Customs Investment Review Board, the Department of the 
     Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget; and (5) is 
     reviewed by the General Accounting Office: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated under this heading may be 
     obligated for the Automated Commercial Environment until such 
     expenditure plan has been approved by the Committees on 
     Appropriations.

                           United States Mint


               united states mint public enterprise fund

       Pursuant to section 5136 of title 31, United States Code, 
     the United States Mint is provided funding through the United 
     States Mint Public Enterprise Fund for costs associated with 
     the production of circulating coins, numismatic coins, and 
     protective services, including both operating expenses and 
     capital investments. The aggregate amount of new liabilities 
     and obligations incurred during fiscal year 2002 under such 
     section 5136 for circulating coinage and protective service 
     capital investments of the United States Mint shall not 
     exceed $43,000,000. From amounts in the United States Mint 
     Public Enterprise Fund, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     pay to the Comptroller General an amount not to exceed 
     $250,000 to reimburse the Comptroller General for the cost of 
     a study to be conducted by the Comptroller General on any 
     changes necessary to maximize public interest and acceptance 
     and to achieve a better balance in the numbers of coins of 
     different denominations in circulation, with particular 
     attention to increasing the number of $1 coins in 
     circulation.

                       Bureau of the Public Debt


                     administering the public debt

       For necessary expenses connected with any public-debt 
     issues of the United States, $192,327,000, of which not to 
     exceed $15,000 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses, and of which not to exceed 
     $2,000,000 shall remain available until expended for systems 
     modernization: Provided, That the sum appropriated herein 
     from the General Fund for fiscal year 2002 shall be reduced 
     by not more than $4,400,000 as definitive security issue fees 
     and Treasury Direct Investor Account Maintenance fees are 
     collected, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2002 
     appropriation from the General Fund estimated at 
     $187,927,000. In addition, $40,000, to be derived from the 
     Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to reimburse the Bureau for 
     administrative and personnel expenses for financial 
     management of the Fund, as authorized by section 1012 of 
     Public Law 101-380.

                        Internal Revenue Service


                 processing, assistance, and management

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for 
     pre-filing taxpayer assistance and education, filing and 
     account services, shared services support, general management 
     and administration; and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, at such rates as may be determined by the Commissioner, 
     $3,808,434,000 of which up to $3,950,000 shall be for the Tax 
     Counseling for the Elderly Program, and of which not to 
     exceed $25,000 shall be for official reception and 
     representation expenses.


                          tax law enforcement

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for 
     determining and establishing tax liabilities; providing 
     litigation support; conducting criminal investigation and 
     enforcement activities; securing unfiled tax returns; 
     collecting unpaid accounts; conducting a document matching 
     program; resolving taxpayer problems through prompt 
     identification, referral and settlement; compiling statistics 
     of income and conducting compliance research; purchase (for 
     police-type use, not to exceed 850) and hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)); and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may be 
     determined by the Commissioner, $3,538,347,000, of which not 
     to exceed $1,000,000 shall remain available until September 
     30, 2004, for research.


             earned income tax credit compliance initiative

       For funding essential earned income tax credit compliance 
     and error reduction initiatives pursuant to section 5702 of 
     the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33), 
     $146,000,000, of which not to exceed $10,000,000 may be used 
     to reimburse the Social Security Administration for the costs 
     of implementing section 1090 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 
     1997.


                          information systems

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for 
     information systems and telecommunications support, including 
     developmental information systems and operational information 
     systems; the hire of passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 
     1343(b)); and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at 
     such rates as may be determined by the Commissioner, 
     $1,573,065,000 which shall remain available until September 
     30, 2003.


                     business systems modernization

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service, 
     $391,593,000, to remain available until September 30, 2004, 
     for the capital asset acquisition of information technology 
     systems, including management and related contractual costs 
     of said acquisitions, including contractual costs associated 
     with operations authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided, That 
     none of these funds may be obligated until the Internal 
     Revenue Service submits to the Committees on Appropriations, 
     and such Committees approve, a plan for expenditure that (1) 
     meets the capital planning and investment control review 
     requirements established by the Office of Management and 
     Budget, including Circular A-11 part 3; (2) complies with the 
     Internal Revenue Service's enterprise architecture, including 
     the modernization blueprint; (3) conforms with the Internal 
     Revenue Service's enterprise life cycle methodology; (4) is 
     approved by the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of 
     the Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget; (5) 
     has been reviewed by the General Accounting Office; and (6) 
     complies with the acquisition rules, requirements, 
     guidelines, and systems acquisition management practices of 
     the Federal Government.

          Administrative Provisions--Internal Revenue Service

       Sec. 101. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available in this Act to the Internal Revenue Service may be 
     transferred to any other Internal Revenue Service 
     appropriation upon the advance approval of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Sec. 102. The Internal Revenue Service shall maintain a 
     training program to ensure that Internal Revenue Service 
     employees are trained in taxpayers' rights, in dealing 
     courteously with the taxpayers, and in cross-cultural 
     relations.
       Sec. 103. The Internal Revenue Service shall institute and 
     enforce policies and procedures that will safeguard the 
     confidentiality of taxpayer information.
       Sec. 104. Funds made available by this or any other Act to 
     the Internal Revenue Service shall be available for improved 
     facilities and increased manpower to provide sufficient and 
     effective 1-800 help line service for taxpayers. The 
     Commissioner shall continue to make the improvement of the 
     Internal Revenue Service 1-800 help line service a priority 
     and allocate resources necessary to increase phone lines and 
     staff to improve the Internal Revenue Service 1-800 help line 
     service.

                      United States Secret Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Secret Service, 
     including purchase of not to exceed 745 vehicles for police-
     type use, of which 541 are for replacement only, and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; purchase of American-made side-car 
     compatible motorcycles; hire of aircraft; training and 
     assistance requested by State and local governments, which 
     may be provided without reimbursement; services of expert 
     witnesses at such rates as may be determined by the Director; 
     rental of buildings in the District of Columbia, and fencing, 
     lighting, guard booths, and other facilities on private or 
     other property not in Government ownership or control, as may 
     be necessary to perform protective functions; for payment of 
     per diem and/or subsistence allowances to employees where a 
     protective assignment during the actual day or days of the 
     visit of a protectee require an employee to work 16 hours per 
     day or to remain overnight at his or her post of duty; the 
     conducting of and participating in firearms matches; 
     presentation of awards; for travel of Secret Service 
     employees on protective missions without regard to the 
     limitations on such expenditures in this or any other Act if 
     approval is obtained in advance from the Committees on 
     Appropriations; for research and development; for making 
     grants to conduct behavioral research in support of 
     protective research and operations; not to exceed $25,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; not to exceed 
     $100,000 to provide technical assistance and equipment to 
     foreign law enforcement organizations in counterfeit 
     investigations; for payment in advance for commercial 
     accommodations as may be necessary to perform protective 
     functions; and for uniforms without regard to the general 
     purchase price limitation for the current fiscal year, 
     $920,112,000, of which $2,139,000 shall be available as a 
     grant for activities related to the investigations of 
     exploited children and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That up to $18,000,000 provided for protective 
     travel shall remain available until September 30, 2003.


     acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

       For necessary expenses of construction, repair, alteration, 
     and improvement of facilities, $3,457,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

             General Provisions--Department of the Treasury

       Sec. 110. Any obligation or expenditure by the Secretary of 
     the Treasury in connection with law enforcement activities of 
     a Federal agency or a Department of the Treasury law 
     enforcement organization in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 
     9703(g)(4)(B) from unobligated balances remaining in the Fund 
     on September 30, 2002, shall be made in compliance with 
     reprogramming guidelines.
       Sec. 111.  Appropriations to the Department of the Treasury 
     in this Act shall be available for uniforms or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901), including 
     maintenance, repairs, and cleaning; purchase of insurance for 
     official motor vehicles operated in foreign countries; 
     purchase of motor vehicles without regard to the general 
     purchase price limitations for vehicles purchased and used 
     overseas for the current fiscal year; entering into contracts 
     with the Department of State for the furnishing of health and 
     medical services to employees and their dependents serving in 
     foreign countries; and services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.

[[Page H4566]]

       Sec. 112. The funds provided to the Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco and Firearms for fiscal year 2002 in this Act for the 
     enforcement of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act shall 
     be expended in a manner so as not to diminish enforcement 
     efforts with respect to section 105 of the Federal Alcohol 
     Administration Act.
       Sec. 113. Not to exceed 2 percent of any appropriations in 
     this Act made available to the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Bureau 
     of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, United States Customs 
     Service, Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement, and United 
     States Secret Service may be transferred between such 
     appropriations upon the advance approval of the Committees on 
     Appropriations. No transfer may increase or decrease any such 
     appropriation by more than 2 percent.
       Sec. 114. Not to exceed 2 percent of any appropriations in 
     this Act made available to the Departmental Offices, Office 
     of Inspector General, Treasury Inspector General for Tax 
     Administration, Financial Management Service, and Bureau of 
     the Public Debt, may be transferred between such 
     appropriations upon the advance approval of the Committees on 
     Appropriations. No transfer may increase or decrease any such 
     appropriation by more than 2 percent.
       Sec. 115. Not to exceed 2 percent of any appropriation made 
     available in this Act to the Internal Revenue Service may be 
     transferred to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax 
     Administration's appropriation upon the advance approval of 
     the Committees on Appropriations. No transfer may increase or 
     decrease any such appropriation by more than 2 percent.
       Sec. 116. Of the funds available for the purchase of law 
     enforcement vehicles, no funds may be obligated until the 
     Secretary of the Treasury certifies that the purchase by the 
     respective Treasury bureau is consistent with Departmental 
     vehicle management principles: Provided, That the Secretary 
     may delegate this authority to the Assistant Secretary for 
     Management.
       Sec. 117. None of the funds appropriated in this Act or 
     otherwise available to the Department of the Treasury or the 
     Bureau of Engraving and Printing may be used to redesign the 
     $1 Federal Reserve note.
       Sec. 118. The Secretary of the Treasury may transfer funds 
     from ``Salaries and Expenses'', Financial Management Service, 
     to the Debt Services Account as necessary to cover the costs 
     of debt collection: Provided, That such amounts shall be 
     reimbursed to such Salaries and Expenses account from debt 
     collections received in the Debt Services Account.
       Sec. 119. Funds appropriated by this Act, or made available 
     by the transfer of funds in this Act, for intelligence and 
     intelligence-related activities of the Department of the 
     Treasury are deemed to be specifically authorized by the 
     Congress for purposes of section 504 of the National Security 
     Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal year 2002 until 
     enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 
     year 2002.
       Sec. 120. Section 122 of Public Law 105-119 (5 U.S.C. 3104 
     note), as amended by Public Law 105-277, is further amended 
     in subsection (g)(1), by striking ``three years'' and 
     inserting ``four years''; and by striking ``, the United 
     States Customs Service, and the United States Secret 
     Service''.
       Sec. 121. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act may be used by the United 
     States Mint to construct or operate a museum at its National 
     Headquarters in Washington, D.C., without the explicit 
     approval of the House Committee on Financial Services and the 
     Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
       This title may be cited as the ``Treasury Department 
     Appropriations Act, 2002''.

  Mr. ISTOOK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the bill through title I be considered as read, printed in 
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to this portion of the bill?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, senior citizens in my district have worked hard their 
entire lives and, with the help of Social Security, have been able to 
enjoy their golden years. A favorite pastime of seniors is attending 
card parties. Seniors enjoy the card playing. It can be fun and 
challenging as a test of skill and luck. Sometimes people will go from 
one card party to the other, they enjoy it so much. I see that as I 
visit my district. Something people do not like, though, is when they 
know that cards are being played with a stacked deck, a game that is 
rigged. That is really repugnant to the American sense of fairness.
  Well, in its efforts to turn Social Security over to Wall Street, the 
administration has stacked the deck against senior citizens on Social 
Security, because the administration's Commission on Social Security is 
stacked with the kings of finance who want to privatize Social Security 
so they can get money for Wall Street interests. One member of the 
administration's Commission on Social Security is a former World Bank 
economist; another member, president of the business-financed Economic 
Security 2000, favors a fully privatized system; another member, an 
investment company executive with Fidelity; another member, AOL Time 
Warner former chief operating officer, who, at the same time, is 
involved with a Labor Department matter where the Labor Department has 
filed suit against Time Warner for denying its own workers health and 
pension benefits.
  The deck is being stacked against our seniors. And while Wall 
Street's backing for the commission is being made known, Wall Street 
Journal reports on June 12 of the year 2001, a range of financial 
service firms are pooling their efforts and millions of dollars for 
advertising to assist in privatization. But the ad dollars, the Wall 
Street Journal goes on to say, are a pittance compared to the billions 
of dollars at stake for Wall Street should Mr. Bush achieve his goal of 
carving private accounts from Social Security. To help build its own 
war chest, the coalition will hold a luncheon at New York's Windows on 
the World atop the World Trade Center.
  The deck is stacked against the people of this country. Social 
Security is headed to the stock market to benefit the kings of finance. 
That is all this is about.
  Well, we have other things to do in this Congress. We know that the 
administration has a doublethink on the size of the Social Security 
financial problem. The administration's tax cut would reduce revenue by 
about the same amount of the shortfall between Social Security 
obligations and revenues. The administration considers the tax cut 
``quite modest.'' Says Paul Krugman of The New York Times, in today's 
New York Times in an article on the op-ed page, ``If it's a modest tax 
cut, then the sums Social Security will need to cover its cash 
shortfall are also modest. We're supposed to believe that $170 billion 
a year is a modest sum if it's a tax cut for the affluent, but that 
it's an insupportable burden on the budget if it's an obligation to 
retirees.''
  He talks about the commission wanting it both ways, what George 
Orwell called doublethink. That is what the commission report is all 
about, Paul Krugman says. It is biased, internally inconsistent, and 
intellectually dishonest.
  I will be offering an amendment, Mr. Chairman, and that amendment 
would establish a commission that would oppose the privatization of 
Social Security. This commission would have the ability to protect 
Social Security and stop the diversion of Social Security revenues to 
the stock market and a reduction of Social Security benefits. This 
commission would be the answer to this administration's stacked deck, 
which wants to privatize Social Security to take money from the seniors 
and to give it to Wall Street.
  The truth is that Social Security is solvent through the year 2034 
without any changes whatsoever, and we have to defend the right of our 
senior citizens to have a secure retirement free from the greedy hands 
of Wall Street trying to glom on to that Social Security Trust Fund. We 
need to defend Social Security and everything it stands for.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for offering this 
amendment which would require the Treasury Department to establish a 
commission to oppose the privatization of Social Security.
  President Bush and his Commission on Social Security are using scare 
tactics and misleading claims to sell their privatization plan to 
American women. Privatizing Social Security will only hurt women, who 
rely most heavily on Social Security for their retirement.
  The President's commission would have us believe that women would be 
better off giving up their guaranteed lifetime benefits for a risky 
private account. But we cannot afford to gamble the security and 
independence of our seniors on an uncertain stock market, which is just 
too risky. Women rely on Social Security in their senior years because 
they tend to earn less and live

[[Page H4567]]

longer than men. They are also less likely than men to have private 
pensions through their employers. And women often spend less time in 
the workforce, taking almost up to 11\1/2\ years out of their careers 
to care for their families.
  Do my colleagues know that in my own district about 58 percent of the 
Latina elderly women live alone and live in poverty? We should be 
concentrating on how we can improve Social Security benefits to reduce 
this deplorable level of poverty and not talking about privatizing 
schemes that will actually reduce their benefits.

                              {time}  1230

  I urge support for the Kucinich amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) 
for raising this issue. There is obviously a desire to privatize Social 
Security by some. We, on this side, think that is a bad, bad mistake.
  There can be no more dramatic showing of why that is a mistake than 
to look at the stock market into which presumably those private 
investments would go over the last 60 days. If one was retiring now and 
taking out their assets, they would lose. Obviously, if they had 
retired a year ago they may have won. But that is not a very secure 
Social Security.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) raises an excellent point. 
This issue will be one of the most critical issues that we confront in 
this Congress. It will be debated not only in the Halls of Congress but 
throughout this country. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) 
for raising this issue in his usual dramatic, pointed, and effective 
way.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I too would like to say a word about the proposed plan 
to begin a privatization of Social Security. We are being told by the 
privatizers in the Bush administration and elsewhere that the Social 
Security system is in some jeopardy and that, in fact, if we do not 
take drastic action, that the plan will begin to exhaust its funds 
somewhere around the year 2016.
  Well, 2016 under the present set of circumstances is the point at 
which Social Security will begin to pay out more than it is taking in. 
But even at that moment it will have a surplus which will be in the 
trillions of dollars. The surplus today, for example, is $1.2 trillion. 
That is to illustrate that the Social Security system is in no crisis 
whatsoever. But we are being told that it is because the privatizers 
want to undermine the confidence of the American people in this system 
of Social Security which has provided just that now for almost 70 
years.
  Social Security has taken a situation where more than half of the 
American elderly are living under the poverty level and changed that to 
a situation where virtually no retirees, no elderly people are living 
in poverty thanks to the stability and the security in Social Security.
  Now, the estimate that says that Social Security will begin running 
out of funds around 2016, of course, is just that. It is an estimate. 
It is based upon numbers that are made up. It is projections based upon 
those made-up numbers. If we used a different set of numbers, of 
course, we would likely come up with a different result.
  Let us try that. Let us take the numbers that were used to justify 
the President's tax cut, a tax cut which I regard as being 
irresponsible, particularly in view of the fact that it gives most of 
its benefits to the wealthiest 1 percent of the population; but let us 
take the numbers that were used by the administration to justify that 
tax cut. Under those numbers we come up with a very different 
situation.
  If we were to apply those numbers to the Social Security scenario, 
those more optimistic numbers, those numbers that show economic growth 
going out into the future, what we find is the Social Security system 
does not begin to pay out more benefits in 2016, but, rather, the 
Social Security system will last with great strength and vigor until at 
least 2075.
  So, what does that tell us? It tells us that people are being 
disingenuous, people are being dishonest, people are using numbers to 
try to create an impression to undermine confidence in Social Security 
where there is no justification whatsoever for undermining confidence 
in Social Security.
  The President tells us he would like to have a system whereby people 
could invest in the stock market. Well, there is nothing wrong with 
that. People, if they can afford it, ought to invest in the stock 
market. Why does the President not set up a program whereby this 
government will match the funds that people set aside outside of Social 
Security, independent of Social Security, and have that money invested 
in the stock market? That would be a very good idea. It would not 
undermine Social Security. It would leave it just as it is, strong and 
secure, providing benefits into the future just as it was intended to 
do and has always done.
  If the President were really serious about trying to do something to 
help people in their retirement years, I have an idea for him. Here is 
what we ought to do. He ought to send to this Congress legislation 
which would strengthen the private pension plans of all American 
workers. We need that because there are a growing number of 
corporations in this country which are undermining their own pension 
plans, which are providing fewer benefits to their workers in the 
future, taking away from them health insurance as well.
  We need to protect those pension plans. Many corporations are using 
those pension plans to pretend that they are profits within the 
company, thereby enhancing the compensation of executives for the 
company and making it appear as if the company is actually stronger 
than it is. That is wrong, and the private pension plans ought not to 
be used in that way.
  So Social Security is in no trouble. Let us leave it. If we want to 
do something for retirees, we can set up an independent plan.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

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

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       At the end of title I (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ____. The Secretary of Treasury shall establish a 
     commission to oppose the privatization of Social Security, 
     the diversion of Social Security revenues to the stock 
     market, and the reduction of Social Security benefits.

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) has made his presentation and is prepared to have the Chair 
rule on his point of order.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply troubled by the way this 
Administration appears to tackle difficult policy questions. I fear a 
pattern may be developing.
  The GAO is already investigating Vice President's Cheney's secret 
meetings with energy executives on federal energy policy. There are 
questions about this Administration's faith-based office consulting 
with the Salvation Army about allowing discrimination with federal 
funds. There are further allegations that the President's Medicare Drug 
Plan was done in secret consultation only with representatives from the 
drug companies. Now, the Social Security Commission is looking at only 
one way to strengthen Social Security--they want to privatize it.
  This type of one-sided look at policy questions is hurting the Bush 
Administration. Poll after poll shows that there is a growing concern 
that the President is too concerned with powerful special interests. 
His Administration appears to care more about energy companies and drug 
companies, than about consumers and seniors who need to buy 
prescription drugs.
  Well, today, we are offering the President the opportunity to change 
that perception. Why not balance his one-sided, unbalanced, biased, 
pro-prviatization Social Security Commission with another Commission to 
study the other side of the issue? Both Commissions could make 
recommendations, and Congress and the President could hear from both 
sides of the debate before making any decisions. This is entirely 
reasonable, and I hope this amendment is adopted.
  The new Commission, unlike Bush's current Commission, might be 
composed of people

[[Page H4568]]

who have NOT advocated raising the retirement age and cutting benefits. 
The President should not have any problem filling the seats on this 
Commission, because most Americans do not support raising the 
retirement age or cutting benefits.
  The new Commission might point out many of the views that Bush's 
Commission might not mention. The new Commission could study the need, 
feasibility, cost, fairness, and risks involved in privatization.
  It might conclude, as many of us do, that privatization of Social 
Security is not necessary, not workable, not cheap, not fair, and not 
worth the risk.
  Let me briefly explain these shortfalls.
  First, privatization is not necessary. The Social Security Trustees 
predict a system that is solvent for 37 years and may in fact be 
solvent as far as the eye can see.
  Second, the Trustees predictions are pessimistic, and have had to be 
revised every year.
  Third, the Trustees pessimistic predictions are unreliable because 
they don't take into account the affect of the predicted long term 
labor shortage on wages, productivity, unemployment, or immigration 
policy.


                             It won't work

  (1) Privatization does not restore solvency to the system--simply 
diverting 2% of payroll to individual accounts simply makes the funding 
problem worse. It hastens the insolvency of the system.
  (2) Privatization plans that claim to restore solvency to Social 
Security, only do so because they also cut guaranteed benefits, 
increase the retirement age, or create huge deficits in the non-social 
security federal budget. Cutting benefits, raising the retirement age, 
or adding general fund revenues can make the system solvent with or 
without the private accounts.


                     The Transition Costs Too Much

  (1) The transition costs to a private system are enormous. 
Furthermore, $1.3 trillion of the surplus is no longer available to 
finance the transition because of the tax cut.
  (2) There are enormous administrative costs to setting up millions of 
small investment accounts. Why not simply put that money into Social 
Security directly to make the system more solvent?


                              It is unfair

  (1) Under privatization the rich will earn more than the poor in 
their private accounts. Two percent of $70,000 is much more than two 
percent of $20,000. This will increase the disparity in the system.
  (2) Privatization hurts women--who generally earn less, live longer, 
and take time out from the paid workforce to care for children.
  (3) Privatization (diverting funds to private accounts) may 
jeopardize existing survivor and disability payments--putting children 
and those with disabilities at risk.


           It is either risky or will not produce major gains

  (1) Investing in the stock market is riskier than investing in bonds. 
As a result of the risk, the potential for gains is higher, but the 
potential for losses is higher as well. So, privatization could leave 
millions in poverty--is that a risk we are willing to take?
  (2) If you want to minimize the risk of people ending up poor, you 
could limit their investments in lower risk stocks or mutual funds. 
Fine, but then the rate of return is smaller, and the accounts are less 
likely to make up for the cuts in guaranteed benefits needed to set up 
the accounts.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill; and, therefore, it violates 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  That rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
  This amendment gives affirmative direction, in effect, and I ask for 
a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to be recognized on the point 
of order?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I have made my point.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that the amendment imparts direction to the 
executive. As such, it is legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of 
rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        TITLE II--POSTAL SERVICE

                   Payment to the Postal Service Fund

       For payment to the Postal Service Fund for revenue forgone 
     on free and reduced rate mail, pursuant to subsections (c) 
     and (d) of section 2401 of title 39, United States Code, 
     $76,619,000, of which $47,619,000 shall not be available for 
     obligation until October 1, 2002: Provided, That mail for 
     overseas voting and mail for the blind shall continue to be 
     free: Provided further, That 6-day delivery and rural 
     delivery of mail shall continue at not less than the 1983 
     level: Provided further, That none of the funds made 
     available to the Postal Service by this Act shall be used to 
     implement any rule, regulation, or policy of charging any 
     officer or employee of any State or local child support 
     enforcement agency, or any individual participating in a 
     State or local program of child support enforcement, a fee 
     for information requested or provided concerning an address 
     of a postal customer: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds provided in this Act shall be used to consolidate or 
     close small rural and other small post offices in fiscal year 
     2002.
       This title may be cited as the ``Postal Service 
     Appropriations Act, 2002''.

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

        Compensation of the President and the White House Office


                     compensation of the president

       For compensation of the President, including an expense 
     allowance at the rate of $50,000 per year as authorized by 3 
     U.S.C. 102, $450,000: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available for official expenses shall be expended for any 
     other purpose and any unused amount shall revert to the 
     Treasury pursuant to section 1552 of title 31, United States 
     Code: Provided further, That none of the funds made available 
     for official expenses shall be considered as taxable to the 
     President.


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the White House as authorized by 
     law, including not to exceed $3,850,000 for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3 U.S.C. 105; subsistence 
     expenses as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 105, which shall be 
     expended and accounted for as provided in that section; hire 
     of passenger motor vehicles, newspapers, periodicals, 
     teletype news service, and travel (not to exceed $100,000 to 
     be expended and accounted for as provided by 3 U.S.C. 103); 
     and not to exceed $19,000 for official entertainment 
     expenses, to be available for allocation within the Executive 
     Office of the President, $54,651,000: Provided, That 
     $10,740,000 of the funds appropriated shall be available for 
     reimbursements to the White House Communications Agency.

                 Executive Residence at the White House


                           operating expenses

       For the care, maintenance, repair and alteration, 
     refurnishing, improvement, heating, and lighting, including 
     electric power and fixtures, of the Executive Residence at 
     the White House and official entertainment expenses of the 
     President, $11,695,000, to be expended and accounted for as 
     provided by 3 U.S.C. 105, 109, 110, and 112-114.

                         reimbursable expenses

       For the reimbursable expenses of the Executive Residence at 
     the White House, such sums as may be necessary: Provided, 
     That all reimbursable operating expenses of the Executive 
     Residence shall be made in accordance with the provisions of 
     this paragraph: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, such amount for reimbursable 
     operating expenses shall be the exclusive authority of the 
     Executive Residence to incur obligations and to receive 
     offsetting collections, for such expenses: Provided further, 
     That the Executive Residence shall require each person 
     sponsoring a reimbursable political event to pay in advance 
     an amount equal to the estimated cost of the event, and all 
     such advance payments shall be credited to this account and 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That the 
     Executive Residence shall require the national committee of 
     the political party of the President to maintain on deposit 
     $25,000, to be separately accounted for and available for 
     expenses relating to reimbursable political events sponsored 
     by such committee during such fiscal year: Provided further, 
     That the Executive Residence shall ensure that a written 
     notice of any amount owed for a reimbursable operating 
     expense under this paragraph is submitted to the person owing 
     such amount within 60 days after such expense is incurred, 
     and that such amount is collected within 30 days after the 
     submission of such notice: Provided further, That the 
     Executive Residence shall charge interest and assess 
     penalties and other charges on any such amount that is not 
     reimbursed within such 30 days, in accordance with the 
     interest and penalty provisions applicable to an outstanding 
     debt on a United States Government claim under section 3717 
     of title 31, United States Code: Provided further, That each 
     such amount that is reimbursed, and any accompanying interest 
     and charges, shall be deposited in the Treasury as 
     miscellaneous receipts: Provided further, That the Executive 
     Residence shall prepare and submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations, by not later than 90 days after the end of 
     the fiscal year covered by this Act, a report setting forth 
     the reimbursable operating expenses of the Executive 
     Residence during the preceding fiscal year, including the 
     total amount of such expenses, the amount of such total that 
     consists of reimbursable official and ceremonial events, the 
     amount of such total that consists of reimbursable political 
     events, and the portion of each such amount that has been 
     reimbursed

[[Page H4569]]

     as of the date of the report: Provided further, That the 
     Executive Residence shall maintain a system for the tracking 
     of expenses related to reimbursable events within the 
     Executive Residence that includes a standard for the 
     classification of any such expense as political or 
     nonpolitical: Provided further, That no provision of this 
     paragraph may be construed to exempt the Executive Residence 
     from any other applicable requirement of subchapter I or II 
     of chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code.


                   white house repair and restoration

       For the repair, alteration, and improvement of the 
     Executive Residence at the White House, $8,625,000, to remain 
     available until expanded, of which $1,306,000 is for 6 
     projects for required maintenance, safety and health issues, 
     and continued preventative maintenance; and of which 
     $7,319,000 is for 3 projects for required maintenance and 
     continued preventative maintenance in conjunction with the 
     General Services Administration, the Secret Service, the 
     Office of the President, and other agencies charged with the 
     administration and care of the White House.

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


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to enable the Vice President to 
     provide assistance to the President in connection with 
     specially assigned functions; services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109 and 3 U.S.C. 106, including subsistence expenses 
     as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 106, which shall be expended and 
     accounted for as provided in that section; and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, $3,925,000.


                           operating expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the care, operation, refurnishing, improvement, and to 
     the extent not otherwise provided for, heating and lighting, 
     including electric power and fixtures, of the official 
     residence of the Vice President; the hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles; and not to exceed $90,000 for official 
     entertainment expenses of the Vice President, to be accounted 
     for solely on his certificate, $318,000: Provided, That 
     advances or repayments or transfers from this appropriation 
     may be made to any department or agency for expenses of 
     carrying out such activities.

                      Council of Economic Advisers


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Council of Economic Advisors 
     in carrying out its functions under the Employment Act of 
     1946 (15 U.S.C. 1021), $4,211,000.

                      Office of Policy Development


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Policy Development, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3 
     U.S.C. 107, $4,142,000.

                       National Security Council


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the National Security Council, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $7,494,000.

                        Office of Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Administration, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3 
     U.S.C. 107, and hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     $46,955,000, of which $11,775,000 shall remain available 
     until expended for the Capital Investment Plan for continued 
     modernization of the information technology infrastructure 
     within the Executive Office of the President: Provided, That 
     $4,475,000 of the Capital Investment Plan funds may not be 
     obligated until the Executive Office of the President has 
     submitted a report to the House Committee on Appropriations 
     that (1) includes an Enterprise Architecture, as defined in 
     OMB Circular A-130 and the Federal Chief Information Officers 
     Council guidance; (2) presents an Information Technology (IT) 
     Human Capital Plan, to include an inventory of current IT 
     workforce knowledge and skills, a definition of needed IT 
     knowledge and skills, a gap analysis of any shortfalls, and a 
     plan for addressing any shortfalls; (3) presents a capital 
     investment plan for implementing the Enterprise Architecture; 
     (4) includes a description of the IT capital planning and 
     investment control process; and (5) is reviewed and approved 
     by the Office of Management and Budget, is reviewed by the 
     General Accounting Office, and is approved by the House 
     Committee on Appropriations.

                    Office of Management and Budget


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $70,752,000, of 
     which not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be available to carry 
     out the provisions of chapter 35 of title 44, United States 
     Code, and of which not to exceed $3,000 shall be available 
     for official representation expenses: Provided, That, as 
     provided in 31 U.S.C. 1301(a), appropriations shall be 
     applied only to the objects for which appropriations were 
     made except as otherwise provided by law: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated in this Act for the 
     Office of Management and Budget may be used for the purpose 
     of reviewing any agricultural marketing orders or any 
     activities or regulations under the provisions of the 
     Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. 601 et 
     seq.): Provided further, That none of the funds made 
     available for the Office of Management and Budget by this Act 
     may be expended for the altering of the transcript of actual 
     testimony of witnesses, except for testimony of officials of 
     the Office of Management and Budget, before the Committees on 
     Appropriations or the Committees on Veterans' Affairs or 
     their subcommittees: Provided further, That the preceding 
     shall not apply to printed hearings released by the 
     Committees on Appropriations or the Committees on Veterans' 
     Affairs: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act may be available to pay the salary 
     or expenses of any employee of the Office of Management and 
     Budget who calculates, prepares, or approves any tabular or 
     other material that proposes the sub-allocation of budget 
     authority or outlays by the Committees on Appropriations 
     among their subcommittees: Provided further, That of the 
     amounts appropriated, not to exceed $6,331,000 shall be 
     available to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs, of which $1,582,750 shall not be obligated until the 
     Office of Management and Budget submits a report to the House 
     Committee on Appropriations that provides an assessment of 
     the total costs of implementing Executive Order 13166: 
     Provided further, That the Housing, Treasury and Finance 
     Division shall, in consultation with the Small Business 
     Administration, develop subsidy cost estimates for the 7(a) 
     General Business Loan Program and the 504 Certified 
     Development Company loan program which track the actual 
     default experience in those programs since the implementation 
     of the Credit Reform Act of 1992: Provided further, That 
     these subsidy estimates shall be included in the President's 
     fiscal year 2003 budget submission and the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall report on the progress of the 
     development of these estimates to the House Committee on 
     Appropriations and the House Committee on Small Business 
     prior to the submission of the President's fiscal year 2003 
     budget.

                 Office of National Drug Control Policy


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy; for research activities pursuant to the 
     Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 
     1998 (21 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); not to exceed $12,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; and for 
     participation in joint projects or in the provision of 
     services on matters of mutual interest with nonprofit, 
     research, or public organizations or agencies, with or 
     without reimbursement, $25,267,000; of which $2,350,000 shall 
     remain available until expended, consisting of $1,350,000 for 
     policy research and evaluation, and $1,000,000 for the 
     National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws: Provided, That 
     the Office is authorized to accept, hold, administer, and 
     utilize gifts, both real and personal, public and private, 
     without fiscal year limitation, for the purpose of aiding or 
     facilitating the work of the Office.


                counterdrug technology assessment center

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses for the Counterdrug Technology 
     Assessment Center for research activities pursuant to the 
     Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 
     1998 (21 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), $40,000,000, which shall 
     remain available until expended, consisting of $17,764,000 
     for counternarcotics research and development projects, and 
     $22,236,000 for the continued operation of the technology 
     transfer program: Provided, That the $17,764,000 for 
     counternarcotics research and development projects shall be 
     available for transfer to other Federal departments or 
     agencies.

                     Federal Drug Control Programs


             high intensity drug trafficking areas program

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 
     Program, $233,882,000 for drug control activities consistent 
     with the approved strategy for each of the designated High 
     Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, of which no less than 51 
     percent shall be transferred to State and local entities for 
     drug control activities, which shall be obligated within 120 
     days of the date of the enactment of this Act: Provided, That 
     up to 49 percent, to remain available until September 30, 
     2003, may be transferred to Federal agencies and departments 
     at a rate to be determined by the Director: Provided further, 
     That, of this latter amount, not less than $2,100,000 shall 
     be used for auditing services and activities: Provided 
     further, That High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Programs 
     designated as of September 30, 2001, shall be funded at 
     fiscal year 2001 levels unless the Director submits to the 
     Committees on Appropriations, and the Committees approve, 
     justification for changes in those levels based on clearly 
     articulated priorities for the High Intensity Drug 
     Trafficking Areas Programs, as well as published Office of 
     National Drug Control Policy performance measures of 
     effectiveness.


                        special forfeiture fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For activities to support a national anti-drug campaign for 
     youth, and other purposes, authorized by 21 U.S.C. 1701 et 
     seq.,

[[Page H4570]]

     $238,600,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $180,000,000 shall be to support a national media campaign, 
     as authorized in the Drug-Free Media Campaign Act of 1998, of 
     which $4,000,000 shall be made available by grant or other 
     appropriate transfer to the United States Anti-Doping Agency 
     for their anti-doping efforts; of which $50,600,000 shall be 
     to continue a program of matching grants to drug-free 
     communities, as authorized in the Drug-Free Communities Act 
     of 1997; of which $1,000,000 shall be available to the 
     National Drug Court Institute; and of which $3,000,000 shall 
     be for the Counterdrug Intelligence Executive Secretariat: 
     Provided, That such funds may be transferred to other Federal 
     departments and agencies to carry out such activities.

                          Unanticipated Needs

       For expenses necessary to enable the President to meet 
     unanticipated needs, in furtherance of the national interest, 
     security, or defense which may arise at home or abroad during 
     the current fiscal year, as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 108, 
     $1,000,000.
       This title may be cited as the ``Executive Office 
     Appropriations Act, 2002''.

  Mr. ISTOOK (during reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill through page 40, line 2, be considered as read, printed 
in the Record, and open to amendment at any time point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment on behalf of myself 
and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
       On page 27, strike line 21 through page 28, line 22;
       On page 28, strike line 24 through page 29, line 4;
       On page 31, strike line 10 through page 32, line 17;
       On page 33, strike line 1 through page 34, line 11; and
       On page 39, strike lines 20 through 25.
       On page 27, line 21, insert the following:

                   Executive Office of the President

       For necessary expenses of the Executive Office of the 
     President, including compensation of the President, 
     $139,255,000; of which $450,000 shall be available for 
     compensation of the President, including an expense allowance 
     at the rate of $50,000 per year, as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 
     102; of which $54,651,000 shall be available for necessary 
     expenses of the White House Office as authorized by law, 
     including not to exceed $100,000 for travel expenses, to be 
     expended and accounted for as provided by 3 U.S.C. 103.

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not add any dollars of 
spending to the bill, nor does it reduce any dollars of spending to the 
bill. The effect of the amendment, however, is just to consolidate 
several accounts dealing with the Executive Office of the President, 
the White House office.
  By way of explanation, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered on 
behalf of myself and the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer). We have had some continuing discussions throughout the 
process of considering this legislation trying to accommodate the 
legitimate needs both of the executive branch and the legitimate needs 
of the legislative branch.
  The executive branch sees that in having the White House accounts 
split up into some 18 different accounts, a needless complexity that 
adds expense, that adds burdens, that adds administrative hurdles that 
they must go through to accomplish anything.
  For example, when we have funding that is appropriated separately to 
the executive residents, to White House repairs, to special assistants 
to the President, to the Office of Policy Development, to the White 
House office and so forth, any time they may have something as simple 
as say a service contract for copier services, or equipment repairs, 
they have to enter into multiple contracts, do multiple sets of 
bookkeeping.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a burden that they see that they want to have 
removed to make it easier for the White House to do business.
  On the other hand, we in the Congress have legitimate needs and 
desires to have oversight over spending of public funds. The gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I have been working diligently to try to 
strike the right balance.
  We did want to offer an amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I think the 
point of order was raised against what the gentleman from California 
thought was going to be the amendment which had some substantive 
language to try to put in some safeguards for the benefit of the 
Congress to make sure that consolidating these accounts would not 
remove our oversight ability, and would make sure that the persons 
involved in the White House and expending public funds are still 
accessible and available to the Congress when we might need testimony 
and information and to perform our constitutional duties.
  Because the gentleman from California intended to offer an objection 
to the unanimous consent that was necessary to do that, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I offer the second amendment which does 
consolidate accounts. It does not have the additional language that we 
would like to have; but I would represent to the body that the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I and everybody else involved 
with this intend to make sure that the final product of this committee, 
whatever it might or might not do with consolidated different accounts, 
does so with all of the necessary safeguards to protect the proper 
constitutional prerogatives of the Congress.
  So this amendment, Mr. Chairman, I believe will clearly be in order. 
It does not consolidate all 18 of the accounts that are generally under 
the Executive Office of the President. It does a consolidation of the 
funding of some 10 of those, but it is done with the express intent and 
purpose of being the placeholder that we need as we continue to work 
with the Senate and in conference, and of course with the White House 
in fashioning the final bill that ultimately will come before this 
body.
  Mr. Chairman, I repeat that this amendment does not increase nor 
decrease the funding for the White House and the Executive Office of 
the President. It merely takes 10 separate line items in the bill, 
consolidates them into one so we might indeed make sure that we can 
bring up this issue when we get into a conference with the Senate. It 
is our placeholder for that purpose.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his point of order.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the 
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform, 
leaves, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) correctly points out 
that this is a placeholder. As I told the gentleman from California, I 
opposed the original amendment that was offered. It was defeated in 
committee. But I believe this is a subject worthy of discussion between 
now and conference, and I want to assure the gentleman that I will be 
talking with him as well to get his thoughts on this proposal that OMB 
has made.
  Clearly they believe it is a proposal which will encourage greater 
efficiencies and effectiveness of management. Whether that is the case 
or not, we will see. I assure the gentleman that I will discuss it 
further with him.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman very much for those assurances. I 
understand the chairman of the subcommittee also expressing the view 
that this is a placeholder.
  The original proposal I found very troublesome. It would do things 
like allow all the money from the National Security Council to be used 
for the residence of the Vice President. I do not think that much power 
ought to be delegated away from the Congress to the executive branch. 
There are many accounts over which we ought to have a much closer 
opportunity to review.
  I thank the gentleman for his assurances and will look forward to 
discussing the issue with him further.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Reclaiming my time, let me say to the gentleman that the gentleman is 
correct that money could be shifted from the NSC account to other 
accounts, the Vice President's account or

[[Page H4571]]

any other account. Obviously, that would have to be done, however, with 
the approval of the committee, because they would need a request to 
shift from one program to the other. However, I raised similar concern 
that this would facilitate that happening. Because at times we do not 
give as careful attention to the shifting of funds from one account to 
another as we do to the initial appropriations to that account, I think 
the gentleman's concern is well placed. I expressed it as well in 
committee. We will see how comfortable we can become with the ultimate 
agreement that we might reach.
  I thank the gentleman for his input.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

 Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Committee for Purchase From 
     People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled established by 
     Public Law 92-28, $4,629,000.

                      Federal Election Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, 
     $43,689,000, of which no less than $5,128,000 shall be 
     available for internal automated data processing systems, and 
     of which not to exceed $5,000 shall be available for 
     reception and representation expenses.

                   Federal Labor Relations Authority


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the 
     Federal Labor Relations Authority, pursuant to Reorganization 
     Plan Numbered 2 of 1978, and the Civil Service Reform Act of 
     1978, including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     including hire of experts and consultants, hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles, and rental of conference rooms in the 
     District of Columbia and elsewhere, $26,524,000: Provided, 
     That public members of the Federal Service Impasses Panel may 
     be paid travel expenses and per diem in lieu of subsistence 
     as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5703) for persons employed 
     intermittently in the Government service, and compensation as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received from fees 
     charged to non-Federal participants at labor-management 
     relations conferences shall be credited to and merged with 
     this account, to be available without further appropriation 
     for the costs of carrying out these conferences.

                    General Services Administration

                        Real Property Activities

                         Federal Buildings Fund


                 limitations on availability of revenue

                     (including transfer of funds)

       To carry out the purpose of the Fund established pursuant 
     to section 210(f) of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 490(f)), the 
     revenues and collections deposited into the Fund shall be 
     available for necessary expenses of real property management 
     and related activities not otherwise provided for, including 
     operation, maintenance, and protection of federally owned and 
     leased buildings; rental of buildings in the District of 
     Columbia; restoration of leased premises; moving governmental 
     agencies (including space adjustments and telecommunications 
     relocation expenses) in connection with the assignment, 
     allocation and transfer of space; contractual services 
     incident to cleaning or servicing buildings, and moving; 
     repair and alteration of federally owned buildings including 
     grounds, approaches and appurtenances; care and safeguarding 
     of sites; maintenance, preservation, demolition, and 
     equipment; acquisition of buildings and sites by purchase, 
     condemnation, or as otherwise authorized by law; acquisition 
     of options to purchase buildings and sites; conversion and 
     extension of federally owned buildings; preliminary planning 
     and design of projects by contract or otherwise; construction 
     of new buildings (including equipment for such buildings); 
     and payment of principal, interest, and any other obligations 
     for public buildings acquired by installment purchase and 
     purchase contract; in the aggregate amount of $6,086,138,000 
     of which (1) $348,816,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for construction (including funds for sites and 
     expenses and associated design and construction services) of 
     additional projects at the following locations:
       New Construction:
       Alabama:
       Mobile, U.S. Courthouse, $11,290,000
       Arkansas:
       Little Rock, U.S. Courthouse Annex, $5,022,000
       California:
       Fresno, U.S. Courthouse, $121,225,000
       District of Columbia:
       Washington, U.S. Courthouse Annex, $6,595,000
       Washington, Southeast Federal Center Site Remediation, 
     $5,000,000
       Florida:
       Miami, U.S. Courthouse, $15,000,000
       Orlando, U.S. Courthouse, $4,000,000
       Illinois:
       Rockford, U.S. Courthouse, $4,933,000
       Maine:
       Jackman, Border Station, $868,000
       Maryland:
       Montgomery County, FDA Consolidation, $19,060,000
       Prince Georges County, National Center for Environmental 
     Prediction, $3,000,000
       Suitland, U.S. Census Bureau, $2,813,000
       Suitland, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
     II, $34,083,000
       Massachusetts:
       Springfield, U.S. Courthouse, $6,473,000
       Michigan:
       Detroit, Ambassador Bridge Border Station, $9,470,000
       Montana:
       Raymond, Border Station, $693,000
       New Mexico:
       Las Cruces, U.S. Courthouse, $4,110,000
       New York:
       Brooklyn, U.S. Courthouse Annex--GPO, $3,361,000
       Buffalo, U.S. Courthouse Annex, $716,000
       Champlain, Border Station, $500,000
       New York, U.S. Mission to the United Nations, $4,617,000
       Oklahoma:
       Norman, NOAA Norman Consolidation Project, $10,000,000
       Oregon:
       Eugene, U.S. Courthouse, $4,470,000
       Pennsylvania:
       Erie, U.S. Courthouse Annex, $30,739,000
       Texas:
       Del Rio III, Border Station, $1,869,000
       Eagle Pass, Border Station, $2,256,000
       El Paso, U.S. Courthouse, $11,193,000
       Fort Hancock, Border Station, $2,183,000
       Houston, Federal Bureau of Investigation, $6,268,000
       Virginia:
       Norfolk, U.S. Courthouse Annex, $11,609,000
       Nationwide:
       Non-prospectus Construction: $5,400,000:
     Provided, That funding for any project identified above may 
     be exceeded to the extent that savings are effected in other 
     such projects, but not to exceed 10 percent of the amounts 
     included in an approved prospectus, if required, unless 
     advance approval is obtained from the Committees on 
     Appropriations of a greater amount: Provided further, That 
     all funds for direct construction projects shall expire on 
     September 30, 2003, and remain in the Federal Buildings Fund 
     except for funds for projects as to which funds for design or 
     other funds have been obligated in whole or in part prior to 
     such date; (2) $826,676,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for repairs and alterations which includes 
     associated design and construction services: Provided 
     further, That funds in the Federal Buildings Fund for Repairs 
     and Alterations shall, for prospectus projects, be limited to 
     the amount by project, as follows, except each project may be 
     increased by an amount not to exceed 10 percent unless 
     advance approval is obtained from the Committees on 
     Appropriations of a greater amount:
       Repairs and Alterations:
       California:
       Laguna Niguel, Chet Holifield Federal Building, $11,711,000
       San Diego, Edward J. Schwartz Federal Building, U.S. 
     Courthouse, $13,070,000
       Colorado:
       Lakewood, Denver Federal Center, Building 67, $8,484,000
       District of Columbia:
       Washington, 320 First Street Federal Building, $8,260,000
       Washington, Internal Revenue Service Main Building, Phase 
     2, $20,391,000
       Washington, Main Interior Building, $22,739,000
       Washington, Main Justice Building, Phase 3, $45,974,000
       Florida:
       Jacksonville, Charles E. Bennett Federal Building, 
     $23,552,000
       Tallahassee, U.S. Courthouse, $4,894,000
       Illinois:
       Chicago, Federal Building, 536 South Clark Street, 
     $60,073,000
       Chicago, Harold Washington Social Security Center, 
     $13,692,000
       Chicago, John C. Kluczynski Federal Building, $12,725,000
       Iowa:
       Des Moines, 210 Walnut Street Federal Building, $11,992,000
       Missouri:
       St. Louis, Federal Building 104/105 Goodfellow, $20,212,000
       New Jersey:
       Newark, Peter W. Rodino Federal Building, $5,295,000
       Nevada:
       Las Vegas, Foley Federal Building--U.S. Courthouse, 
     $26,978,000
       Ohio:
       Cleveland, Anthony J. Celebrezze Federal Building, 
     $22,986,000
       Cleveland, Howard M. Metzenbaum U.S. Courthouse, 
     $27,856,000
       Oklahoma:
       Muskogee, Federal Building--U.S. Courthouse, $8,214,000
       Oregon:
       Portland, Pioneer Courthouse, $16,629,000
       Rhode Island:
       Providence, U.S. Federal Building and Courthouse, 
     $5,039,000
       Wisconsin:
       Milwaukee, Federal Building--U.S. Courthouse, $10,015,000
       Nationwide:
       Design Program, $33,657,000

[[Page H4572]]

       Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Modernization--
     Various Buildings, $6,650,000
       Transformers--Various Buildings, $15,588,000
       Basic Repairs and Alterations, $370,000,000:
     Provided further, That additional projects for which 
     prospectuses have been fully approved may be funded under 
     this category only if advance notice is transmitted to the 
     Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That the 
     amounts provided in this or any prior Act for ``Repairs and 
     Alterations'' may be used to fund costs associated with 
     implementing security improvements to buildings necessary to 
     meet the minimum standards for security in accordance with 
     current law and in compliance with the reprogramming 
     guidelines of the appropriate Committees of the House and 
     Senate: Provided further, That the difference between the 
     funds appropriated and expended on any projects in this or 
     any prior Act, under the heading ``Repairs and Alterations'', 
     may be transferred to Basic Repairs and Alterations or used 
     to fund authorized increases in prospectus projects: Provided 
     further, That all funds for repairs and alterations 
     prospectus projects shall expire on September 30, 2003, and 
     remain in the Federal Buildings Fund except funds for 
     projects as to which funds for design or other funds have 
     been obligated in whole or in part prior to such date: 
     Provided further, That the amount provided in this or any 
     prior Act for Basic Repairs and Alterations may be used to 
     pay claims against the Government arising from any projects 
     under the heading ``Repairs and Alterations'' or used to fund 
     authorized increases in prospectus projects; (3) $186,427,000 
     for installment acquisition payments including payments on 
     purchase contracts which shall remain available until 
     expended; (4) $2,959,550,000 for rental of space which shall 
     remain available until expended; and (5) $1,764,669,000 for 
     building operations which shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided further, That funds available to the 
     General Services Administration shall not be available for 
     expenses of any construction, repair, alteration and 
     acquisition project for which a prospectus, if required by 
     the Public Buildings Act of 1959, as amended, has not been 
     approved, except that necessary funds may be expended for 
     each project for required expenses for the development of a 
     proposed prospectus: Provided further, That funds available 
     in the Federal Buildings Fund may be expended for emergency 
     repairs when advance approval is obtained from the Committees 
     on Appropriations: Provided further, That amounts necessary 
     to provide reimbursable special services to other agencies 
     under section 210(f)(6) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 
     490(f)(6)) and amounts to provide such reimbursable fencing, 
     lighting, guard booths, and other facilities on private or 
     other property not in Government ownership or control as may 
     be appropriate to enable the United States Secret Service to 
     perform its protective functions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3056, 
     shall be available from such revenues and collections: 
     Provided further, That revenues and collections and any other 
     sums accruing to this Fund during fiscal year 2002, excluding 
     reimbursements under section 210(f)(6) of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 
     490(f)(6)) in excess of $6,086,138,000 shall remain in the 
     Fund and shall not be available for expenditure except as 
     authorized in appropriations Acts.

                           General Activities


                         policy and operations

       For expenses authorized by law, not otherwise provided for, 
     for Government-wide policy and oversight activities 
     associated with asset management activities; utilization and 
     donation of surplus personal property; transportation; 
     procurement and supply; Government-wide responsibilities 
     relating to automated data management, telecommunications, 
     information resources management, and related technology 
     activities; utilization survey, deed compliance inspection, 
     appraisal, environmental and cultural analysis, and land use 
     planning functions pertaining to excess and surplus real 
     property; agency-wide policy direction; Board of Contract 
     Appeals; accounting, records management, and other support 
     services incident to adjudication of Indian Tribal Claims by 
     the United States Court of Federal Claims; services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and not to exceed $7,500 for 
     official reception and representation expenses, $137,947,000, 
     of which $25,887,000 shall remain available until expended.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     and services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $36,478,000: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $15,000 shall be available for 
     payment for information and detection of fraud against the 
     Government, including payment for recovery of stolen 
     Government property: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $2,500 shall be available for awards to employees of other 
     Federal agencies and private citizens in recognition of 
     efforts and initiatives resulting in enhanced Office of 
     Inspector General effectiveness.


                       electronic government fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses in support of interagency projects 
     that enable the Federal Government to expand its ability to 
     conduct activities electronically, through the development 
     and implementation of innovative uses of the Internet and 
     other electronic methods, $5,000,000 to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That these funds may be transferred 
     to Federal agencies to carry out the purposes of the Fund: 
     Provided further, That this transfer authority shall be in 
     addition to any other transfer authority provided in this 
     Act: Provided further, That such transfers may not be made 
     until 10 days after a proposed spending plan and 
     justification for each project to be undertaken has been 
     submitted to the House Committee on Appropriations.

           allowances and office staff for former presidents


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out the provisions of the Act of August 25, 
     1958, as amended (3 U.S.C. 102 note), and Public Law 95-138, 
     $3,196,000: Provided, That the Administrator of General 
     Services shall transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of such 
     Acts.

          General Services Administration--General Provisions

       Sec. 401. The appropriate appropriation or fund available 
     to the General Services Administration shall be credited with 
     the cost of operation, protection, maintenance, upkeep, 
     repair, and improvement, included as part of rentals received 
     from Government corporations pursuant to law (40 U.S.C. 129).
       Sec. 402. Funds available to the General Services 
     Administration shall be available for the hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles.
       Sec. 403. Funds in the Federal Buildings Fund made 
     available for fiscal year 2002 for Federal Buildings Fund 
     activities may be transferred between such activities only to 
     the extent necessary to meet program requirements: Provided, 
     That any proposed transfers shall be approved in advance by 
     the Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 404. No funds made available by this Act shall be used 
     to transmit a fiscal year 2003 request for United States 
     Courthouse construction that: (1) does not meet the design 
     guide standards for construction as established and approved 
     by the General Services Administration, the Judicial 
     Conference of the United States, and the Office of Management 
     and Budget; and (2) does not reflect the priorities of the 
     Judicial Conference of the United States as set out in its 
     approved 5-year construction plan: Provided, That the fiscal 
     year 2003 request shall be accompanied by a standardized 
     courtroom utilization study of each facility to be 
     constructed, replaced, or expanded.
       Sec. 405. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to increase the amount of occupiable square feet, 
     provide cleaning services, security enhancements, or any 
     other service usually provided through the Federal Buildings 
     Fund, to any agency that does not pay the rate per square 
     foot assessment for space and services as determined by the 
     General Services Administration in compliance with the Public 
     Buildings Amendments Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-313).
       Sec. 406. Funds provided to other Government agencies by 
     the Information Technology Fund, General Services 
     Administration, under section 110 of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 757) and 
     sections 5124(b) and 5128 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 
     (40 U.S.C. 1424(b) and 1428), for performance of pilot 
     information technology projects which have potential for 
     Government-wide benefits and savings, may be repaid to this 
     Fund from any savings actually incurred by these projects or 
     other funding, to the extent feasible.
       Sec. 407. From funds made available under the heading 
     ``Federal Buildings Fund, Limitations on Availability of 
     Revenue'', claims against the Government of less than 
     $250,000 arising from direct construction projects and 
     acquisition of buildings may be liquidated from savings 
     effected in other construction projects with prior 
     notification to the Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 408. The amount expended by the General Services 
     Administration during fiscal year 2002 for the purchase of 
     alternative fuel vehicles shall be at least $5,000,000 more 
     than the amount expended during fiscal year 2001 for such 
     purpose.

                     Merit Systems Protection Board


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Merit 
     Systems Protection Board pursuant to Reorganization Plan 
     Numbered 2 of 1978 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, rental of 
     conference rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles, and direct procurement of 
     survey printing, $30,555,000 together with not to exceed 
     $2,520,000 for administrative expenses to adjudicate 
     retirement appeals to be transferred from the Civil Service 
     Retirement and Disability Fund in amounts determined by the 
     Merit Systems Protection Board.

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


 morris k. udall scholarship and excellence in national environmental 
                           policy trust fund

       For payment to the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and 
     Excellence in National Environmental Policy Trust Fund, 
     pursuant to the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in 
     National Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act 
     of 1992 (20 U.S.C.

[[Page H4573]]

     5601 et. seq.), $2,500,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That up to 60 percent of such funds may 
     be transferred by the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and 
     Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation for 
     the necessary expenses of the Native Nations Institute: 
     Provided further, That not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Morris K. Udall Scholarship 
     and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation 
     shall submit to the House Committee on Appropriations a 
     report describing the distribution of such funds.


                 environmental dispute resolution fund

       For payment to the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund to 
     carry out activities authorized in the Environmental Policy 
     and Conflict Resolution Act of 1998, $1,309,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

              National Archives and Records Administration


                           operating expenses

       For necessary expenses in connection with the 
     administration of the National Archives (including the 
     Information Security Oversight Office) and archived Federal 
     records and related activities, as provided by law, and for 
     expenses necessary for the review and declassification of 
     documents, and for the hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     $244,247,000: Provided, That the Archivist of the United 
     States is authorized to use any excess funds available from 
     the amount borrowed for construction of the National Archives 
     facility, for expenses necessary to provide adequate storage 
     for holdings: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available, $22,302,000 is for the electronic records archive, 
     $16,337,000 of which shall be available until September 30, 
     2004.


                        repairs and restoration

       For the repair, alteration, and improvement of archives 
     facilities, and to provide adequate storage for holdings, 
     $10,643,000, to remain available until expended.

        National Historical Publications and Records Commission


                             grants program

       For necessary expenses for allocations and grants for 
     historical publications and records as authorized by 44 
     U.S.C. 2504, as amended, $10,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                      Office of Government Ethics


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office 
     of Government Ethics pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act 
     of 1978, as amended and the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, rental of 
     conference rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles, and not to exceed $1,500 
     for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $10,117,000.

                     Office of Personnel Management


                         salaries and expenses

                  (including transfer of trust funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office 
     of Personnel Management pursuant to Reorganization Plan 
     Numbered 2 of 1978 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; medical 
     examinations performed for veterans by private physicians on 
     a fee basis; rental of conference rooms in the District of 
     Columbia and elsewhere; hire of passenger motor vehicles; not 
     to exceed $2,500 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; advances for reimbursements to applicable funds of 
     the Office of Personnel Management and the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation for expenses incurred under Executive Order No. 
     10422 of January 9, 1953, as amended; and payment of per diem 
     and/or subsistence allowances to employees where Voting 
     Rights Act activities require an employee to remain overnight 
     at his or her post of duty, $99,636,000, of which $3,200,000 
     shall remain available until expended for the cost of the 
     governmentwide human resources data network project; and in 
     addition $115,928,000 for administrative expenses, to be 
     transferred from the appropriate trust funds of the Office of 
     Personnel Management without regard to other statutes, 
     including direct procurement of printed materials, for the 
     retirement and insurance programs, of which $21,777,000 shall 
     remain available until expended for the cost of automating 
     the retirement recordkeeping systems: Provided, That the 
     provisions of this appropriation shall not affect the 
     authority to use applicable trust funds as provided by 
     sections 8348(a)(1)(B), 8909(g), and 9004(f)(1)(A) and (2)(A) 
     of title 5, United States Code: Provided further, That no 
     part of this appropriation shall be available for salaries 
     and expenses of the Legal Examining Unit of the Office of 
     Personnel Management established pursuant to Executive Order 
     No. 9358 of July 1, 1943, or any successor unit of like 
     purpose: Provided further, That the President's Commission on 
     White House Fellows, established by Executive Order No. 11183 
     of October 3, 1964, may, during fiscal year 2002, accept 
     donations of money, property, and personal services in 
     connection with the development of a publicity brochure to 
     provide information about the White House Fellows, except 
     that no such donations shall be accepted for travel or 
     reimbursement of travel expenses, or for the salaries of 
     employees of such Commission.


                      office of inspector general

                         salaries and expenses

                  (including transfer of trust funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act, 
     as amended, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, hire of passenger motor vehicles, $1,498,000; and in 
     addition, not to exceed $10,016,000 for administrative 
     expenses to audit, investigate, and provide other oversight 
     of the Office of Personnel Management's retirement and 
     insurance programs, to be transferred from the appropriate 
     trust funds of the Office of Personnel Management, as 
     determined by the Inspector General: Provided, That the 
     Inspector General is authorized to rent conference rooms in 
     the District of Columbia and elsewhere.


      government payment for annuitants, employees health benefits

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


       government payment for annuitants, employee life insurance

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


        payment to civil service retirement and disability fund

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

                       Office of Special Counsel


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office 
     of Special Counsel pursuant to Reorganization Plan Numbered 2 
     of 1978, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-
     454), the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (Public Law 
     101-12), Public Law 103-424, and the Uniformed Services 
     Employment and Reemployment Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-353), 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, payment of 
     fees and expenses for witnesses, rental of conference rooms 
     in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; $11,891,000.

                        United States Tax Court


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, including contract reporting and 
     other services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $37,809,000: 
     Provided, That travel expenses of the judges shall be paid 
     upon the written certificate of the judge.
       This title may be cited as the ``Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2002''.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                                This Act

       Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 502. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be available for any activity or for paying the salary 
     of any Government employee where funding an activity or 
     paying a salary to a Government employee would result in a 
     decision, determination, rule, regulation, or policy that 
     would prohibit the enforcement of section 307 of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930.
       Sec. 504. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be available in fiscal year 2002 for the purpose of 
     transferring control over the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center located at Glynco, Georgia, and Artesia, New 
     Mexico, out of the Department of the Treasury.
       Sec. 505. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available to pay the salary for any person 
     filling a position, other than a temporary position, formerly 
     held by an employee who has left to enter the Armed Forces of 
     the United States and has satisfactorily completed his period 
     of active military or naval service, and has within 90 days 
     after his release from such service or from hospitalization 
     continuing after discharge for a period of not more than 1 
     year, made application for restoration to his former position 
     and has been certified by the Office of Personnel Management 
     as still qualified to perform the duties of his former 
     position and has not been restored thereto.
       Sec. 506. No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may be 
     expended by an entity unless the entity agrees that in 
     expending the assistance the entity will comply with sections 
     2 through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, 
     popularly known as the ``Buy American Act'').

[[Page H4574]]

       Sec. 507. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--In the case of any equipment or products that may 
     be authorized to be purchased with financial assistance 
     provided under this Act, it is the sense of the Congress that 
     entities receiving such assistance should, in expending the 
     assistance, purchase only American-made equipment and 
     products.
       (b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a 
     notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       Sec. 508. If it has been finally determined by a court or 
     Federal agency that any person intentionally affixed a label 
     bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription 
     with the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to 
     the United States that is not made in the United States, such 
     person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or 
     subcontract made with funds provided pursuant to this Act, 
     pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility 
     procedures described in sections 9.400 through 9.409 of title 
     48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 509. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
     available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative 
     expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal 
     employees health benefit program which provides any benefits 
     or coverage for abortions.
       Sec. 510. The provision of section 509 shall not apply 
     where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus 
     were carried to term, or the pregnancy is the result of an 
     act of rape or incest.
       Sec. 511. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, 
     not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining 
     available at the end of fiscal year 2002 from appropriations 
     made available for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2002 
     in this Act, shall remain available through September 30, 
     2003, for each such account for the purposes authorized: 
     Provided, That a request shall be submitted to the Committees 
     on Appropriations for approval prior to the expenditure of 
     such funds: Provided further, That these requests shall be 
     made in compliance with reprogramming guidelines.
       Sec. 512. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Executive Office of the President to request 
     from the Federal Bureau of Investigation any official 
     background investigation report on any individual, except 
     when--
       (1) such individual has given his or her express written 
     consent for such request not more than 6 months prior to the 
     date of such request and during the same presidential 
     administration; or
       (2) such request is required due to extraordinary 
     circumstances involving national security.
       Sec. 513. The cost accounting standards promulgated under 
     section 26 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 
     (Public Law 93-400; 41 U.S.C. 422) shall not apply with 
     respect to a contract under the Federal Employees Health 
     Benefits Program established under chapter 89 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       Sec. 514. For the purpose of resolving litigation and 
     implementing any settlement agreements regarding the 
     nonforeign area cost-of-living allowance program, the Office 
     of Personnel Management may accept and utilize (without 
     regard to any restriction on unanticipated travel expenses 
     imposed in an Appropriations Act) funds made available to the 
     Office pursuant to court approval.
       Sec. 515. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay the salary of any officer or employee of the 
     Office of Management and Budget who makes apportionments 
     under subchapter II of chapter 15 of title 31, United States 
     code, that prevent the expenditure or obligation by December 
     31, 2001, of at least 75 percent of the appropriations made 
     for fiscal year 2002 to carry out the Agricultural Trade 
     Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1691 et 
     seq.), the Food for Progress Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1736o), 
     and section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 
     1431(b)).

  Mr. ISTOOK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the bill through page 68, line 2, 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 
Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to note for anyone that may be confused 
because we had a pause, we were anticipating there would be another 
amendment that was to have been presented a moment ago. Obviously, it 
has not. So the effect of what we have asked unanimous consent to do is 
to open up the bill to amendments and move on to title VI, which is the 
general provisions where we know there are several Members that have 
amendments to offer in that section.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. So am I correct that through title VI now is closed?
  Mr. ISTOOK. We are opening up the bill up to title VI. The entire 
bill is open for amendment to title VI. Then Members who have 
amendments on title VI may offer those. We are about to close off the 
bill prior to title VI.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, we are now closed 
through title VI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  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 2002 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

[[Page H4575]]

     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:
       (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 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. 610. Funds made available by this or any other Act to 
     the Postal Service Fund (39 U.S.C. 2003) shall be available 
     for employment of guards for all buildings and areas owned or 
     occupied by the Postal Service and under the charge and 
     control of the Postal Service, and such guards shall have, 
     with respect to such property, the powers of special 
     policemen provided by the first section of the Act of June 1, 
     1948, as amended (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318), and, as to 
     property owned or occupied by the Postal Service, the 
     Postmaster General may take the same actions as the 
     Administrator of General Services may take under the 
     provisions of sections 2 and 3 of the Act of June 1, 1948, as 
     amended (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318a and 318b), attaching 
     thereto penal consequences under the authority and within the 
     limits provided in section 4 of the Act of June 1, 1948, as 
     amended (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318c).
       Sec. 611. 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. 612. (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 2002, 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, 2001, until the normal 
     effective date of the applicable wage survey adjustment that 
     is to take effect in fiscal year 2002, 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 2002, 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 
     2002 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 2002 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 2001 
     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, 2001, 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, 2001, 
     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, 2001.
       (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. 613. 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. 614. 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. 615. Notwithstanding section 1346 of title 31, United 
     States Code, or section 609 of this Act, funds made available 
     for fiscal year 2002 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. 616. (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. 617. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any 
     other Act for fiscal year 2002 shall obligate or expend any 
     such funds, unless such department, agency, or 
     instrumentality has in place, and will continue to administer 
     in good faith, a written policy designed to ensure that all 
     of its workplaces are free from discrimination and sexual 
     harassment and that all of its workplaces are not in 
     violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 
     amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 
     and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
       Sec. 618. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the United States Customs

[[Page H4576]]

     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. 619. No part of any appropriation contained in this or 
     any other Act shall be available for the payment of the 
     salary of any officer or employee of the Federal Government, 
     who--
       (1) prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to 
     prohibit or prevent, any other officer or employee of the 
     Federal Government from having any direct oral or written 
     communication or contact with any Member, committee, or 
     subcommittee of the Congress in connection with any matter 
     pertaining to the employment of such other officer or 
     employee or pertaining to the department or agency of such 
     other officer or employee in any way, irrespective of whether 
     such communication or contact is at the initiative of such 
     other officer or employee or in response to the request or 
     inquiry of such Member, committee, or subcommittee; or
       (2) removes, suspends from duty without pay, demotes, 
     reduces in rank, seniority, status, pay, or performance or 
     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. 620. (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. 621. No funds appropriated in this or any other Act 
     may be used to implement or enforce the agreements in 
     Standard Forms 312 and 4414 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, U.S.C. (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. 622. 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. 623. 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. 624. 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. 625. 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. 626. (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. 627. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1346 and section 609 of 
     this Act, funds made available for fiscal year 2002 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. 628. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1346 and section 609 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 of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, funds made available for fiscal year 2002 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. 629. (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 appropriated 
     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.C. 3324, amounts paid 
     to licensed or regulated child care providers may be 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. 630. 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. 631. Nothwithstanding section 1346 of title 31, United 
     States Code, or section 609 of this Act, funds made available 
     for fiscal year 2002 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

[[Page H4577]]

     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. 632. Any request for proposals, solicitation, grant 
     application, form, notification, press release, or other 
     publications involving the distribution of Federal funds 
     shall indicate the agency providing the funds and the amount 
     provided. This provision shall apply to direct payments, 
     formula funds, and grants received by a State receiving 
     Federal funds.
       Sec. 633. Subsection (f) of section 403 of Public Law 103-
     356 (31 U.S.C. 501 note) is amended by striking ``October 1, 
     2001'' and inserting ``October 1, 2002''.
       Sec. 634. Section 3 of Public Law 93-346 as amended (3 
     U.S.C. 111 note) is amended by inserting ``, utilities 
     (including electrical) for,'' after ``military staffing''.
       Sec. 635. Section 6 of Public Law 93-346 as amended (3 
     U.S.C. 111 note) is amended by inserting ``, or for use at 
     official functions in or about,'' after ``about''.
       Sec. 636. During fiscal year 2002 and thereafter, the head 
     of an entity named in 3 U.S.C. 112 may, with respect to 
     civilian personnel of any branch of the Federal government 
     performing duties in such entity, exercise authority 
     comparable to the authority that may by law (including 
     chapter 57 and sections 8344 and 8468 of title 5, United 
     States Code) be exercised with respect to the employees of an 
     Executive agency (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105) by the head of 
     such Executive agency, and the authority granted by this 
     section shall be in addition to any other authority available 
     by law.
       Sec. 637. Each Executive agency covered by section 630 of 
     the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 
     (as contained in section 101(h) of division A of Public Law 
     105-277) shall submit a report 60 days after the close of 
     fiscal year 2001 to the Office of Personnel Management 
     regarding its efforts to implement the intent of such section 
     630. The Office of Personnel Management shall prepare a 
     summary of the information received and shall submit the 
     summary report to the House Committee on Appropriations 90 
     days after the close of fiscal year 2001.
       Sec. 638. (a) Prohibition of Federal Agency Monitoring of 
     Personal Information on Use of Internet.--None of the funds 
     made available in this or any other Act may be used by any 
     Federal agency--
       (1) to collect, review, or create any aggregate list, 
     derived from any means, that includes the collection of any 
     personally identifiable information relating to an 
     individual's access to or use of any Federal government 
     Internet site of the agency; or
       (2) to enter into any agreement with a third party 
     (including another government agency) to collect, review, or 
     obtain any aggregate list, derived from any means, that 
     includes the collection of any personally identifiable 
     information relating to an individual's access to or use of 
     any nongovernmental Internet site.
       (b) Exceptions.--The limitations established in subsection 
     (a) shall not apply to--
       (1) any record of aggregate data that does not identify 
     particular persons;
       (2) any voluntary submission of personally identifiable 
     information;
       (3) any action taken for law enforcement, regulatory, or 
     supervisory purposes, in accordance with applicable law; or
       (4) any action described in subsection (a)(1) that is a 
     system security action taken by the operator of an Internet 
     site and is necessarily incident to the rendition of the 
     Internet site services or to the protection of the rights or 
     property of the provider of the Internet site.
       (c) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``regulatory'' means agency actions to 
     implement, interpret or enforce authorities provided in law.
       (2) The term ``supervisory'' means examinations of the 
     agency's supervised institutions, including assessing safety 
     and soundness, overall financial condition, management 
     practices and policies and compliance with applicable 
     standards as provided in law.
       Sec. 639. (a) Section 8335(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking the period at the end of the 
     first sentence and inserting: ``or completes the age and 
     service requirements for an annuity under section 8336, 
     whichever occurs later.''.
       (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) takes effect on 
     the date of enactment with regard to any individual subject 
     to chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, who is employed 
     as an air traffic controller on that date.
       Sec. 640. (a) In General.--Title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after section 4507 the following:

     ``Sec. 4507a. Awarding of ranks to other senior career 
       employees

       ``(a) For the purpose of this section, the term `senior 
     career employee' means an individual appointed to a position 
     classified above GS-15 and paid under section 5376 who is not 
     serving--
       ``(1) under a time-limited appointment; or
       ``(2) in a position that is excepted from the competitive 
     service because of its confidential or policy-making 
     character.
       ``(b) Each agency employing senior career employees shall 
     submit annually to the Office of Personnel Management 
     recommendations of senior career employees in the agency to 
     be awarded the rank of Meritorious Senior Professional or 
     Distinguished Senior Professional, which may be awarded by 
     the President for sustained accomplishment or sustained 
     extraordinary accomplishment, respectively.
       ``(c) The recommendations shall be made, reviewed, and 
     awarded under the same terms and conditions (to the extent 
     determined by the Office of Personnel Management) that apply 
     to rank awards for members of the Senior Executive Service 
     under section 4507.''.
       (b) Regulations.--Section 4506 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``the agency awards program'' 
     and inserting ``the awards programs''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     45 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 4507 the following:

``4507a. Awarding of ranks to other senior career employees.''.
       Sec. 641. Section 640(c) of the Treasury and General 
     Government Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-58; 2 
     U.S.C. 437g note) is amended by striking ``violations 
     occurring between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2001'' and 
     inserting ``violations that relate to reporting periods that 
     begin on or after January 1, 2000, and that end on or before 
     December 31, 2003''.
       Sec. 642. (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) 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. 643. (a) The adjustment in rates of basic pay for the 
     statutory pay systems that takes effect in fiscal year 2002 
     under sections 5303 and 5304 of title 5, United States Code, 
     shall be an increase of 4.6 percent.
       (b) Funds used to carry out this section shall be paid from 
     appropriations which are made to each applicable department 
     or agency for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2002.

  Mr. ISTOOK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the bill through page 95, line 16, 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 
Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.


                 amendment no. 9 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 No. 9 offered by Mr. Inslee:
       Page 89, strike lines 18 through 20.

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will assure that the Vice 
President's budget retains responsibility for the electrical costs 
associated with the Vice President's personal residence.
  As Members know in quite a bit of controversy recently, the proposed 
bill in fact would remove responsibility for those personal bills, 
those electrical bills at the Vice President's residence and shift them 
away from the Vice President's budget and over to the financial 
shoulders of the United States Navy. We think that is a big mistake. We 
think it is a big mistake to remove accountability while many Americans 
are having great problems with their own electrical bills, for the Vice 
President to remove responsibility financially from his budget and 
shift it somewhere else in the Federal Government.
  We would suggest that our amendment will benefit three groups of 
people by assuring accountability in the midst of this energy crisis 
remains with the Vice President's budget:
  First, it will help our constituents, our citizens. The reason is, is 
that our citizens now are experiencing, many of them, skyrocketing 
energy costs. In my district people are paying 30, 40, 50, 60 percent 
more for their electrical

[[Page H4578]]

bills. My constituents cannot send their bills for these skyrocketing 
electrical rates to the U.S. Navy. We do not think it is the right 
message to our constituents for the Vice President to say, but I'm 
going to send my skyrocketing electrical bill, and that bill is 
skyrocketing, to the U.S. Navy. We think it is the wrong message for 
our constituents. So it is good for our constituents who expect 
personal accountability in these expenditures.
  Second, it is good for the U.S. Navy. We have got a lot of service 
personnel out there who justifiably are not happy about their housing, 
their pay, sometimes their health care. It is the wrong message to the 
sailors to be saying that that budget has got to take on the personal 
electrical expenses of the Vice President's residence.
  Third, this amendment is good for the Vice President. The Vice 
President said he has not asked for this change to be made. This idea 
was not his, apparently. But the fact of the matter is, and perhaps it 
is sad to report, but it is true, there are Americans who are concerned 
about the Vice President's apparent lack of concern for the crisis in 
energy and some people who have suggested that he might be perhaps too 
close to the oil and gas industry.
  Now, I think it would be beneficial if we can squelch those rumors, 
those rumors that have come up due to these secret meetings that the 
Vice President has had with the oil and gas industry he now refuses to 
divulge information about. Let us help him squelch the rumors about 
that by showing he will be personally accountable in this electrical 
rate crisis.
  Some people have suggested that his comments about conservation, 
saying that conservation is just a personal virtue but not an economic 
policy, some people have concern that that shows too much closeness to 
the energy industry. Let us help him squelch those rumors to show he 
wants to be personally accountable and understands the problems of real 
Americans in this regard.
  Some people have suggested that when the Vice President sat for 8 
months and did nothing about the electrical crisis in California, 
Oregon and Washington, some people are concerned that that has 
demonstrated a lack of compassion and understanding for the plight of 
people on the West Coast whose energy prices have gone through the 
roof. Let us help him squelch those rumors to show personal 
accountability for these.
  And some people have suggested that the Vice President's willingness 
to drill in our most pristine wilderness areas demonstrates not being 
in touch with the will of the American people but a little too close to 
the oil and gas industry. Let us help him squelch those rumors by 
showing personal accountability in fact for these obligations of the 
Vice President's office.
  Mr. Chairman, perhaps this seems like a small budget item, and it is 
certainly a small dollar amount, about $180,000, in the context of the 
Federal budget. But leadership involves understanding the plight of 
those who are led. We have had a lot of people who are in tough times 
right now because of the downturn in the economy and the huge 
escalation in their energy prices. Let us help the Vice President 
demonstrate that he is in touch with the needs of ordinary Americans 
and assure that the Vice President's budget will in fact remain 
responsible for his electrical prices.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I was hopeful that we could get through this debate 
without having an amendment such as this offered because I think it is 
based upon very misleading arguments and claims. I would certainly hope 
that nobody in this body would want to take a cheap shot at the Vice 
President of the United States. The Vice President by law resides at 
the Naval Observatory here in Washington, D.C. The grounds are under 
the jurisdiction of the United States Navy.
  Two years ago, they installed a separate meter for the residence. 
Now, it is not just the residence that comes through it because there 
is all the security lighting and there is the Secret Service needs. 
There is a lot more than would normally come under any residence. 
Besides that, it is a 33-room building that has the official functions 
as well as the residential functions as part of it.

                              {time}  1300

  After they installed the meter, Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago, they found 
out that the former Vice President, Mr. Gore, overspent on utilities 
220 percent of his office budget. What they did then was have the Navy 
make up the difference for former Vice President Gore's utility bill, 
which I believe the difference was somewhere in the neighborhood of 
$125,000.
  In December of 1999, under the former administration, the former 
administration proposed consolidating the utility bills of the Vice 
President's residence with the Navy's overall utility bills at the 
Naval Observatory to be under the jurisdiction of the Navy. That 
proposal was carried forward and carried out in the current budget, and 
the budget for the Vice President was reduced by the same amount as we 
had allocated for former Vice President Gore's utility bills.
  Former Vice President Gore went into the Navy to pay the utility bill 
once they had a separate meter and found out how much it was. Now we 
are told that Mr. Cheney is being irresponsible because the Navy is 
going to pay the bill, which means the taxpayers pay the bill, which 
was the same people that pay it anyway.
  But, yet, Mr. Chairman, what they are not mentioning is that Mr. 
Cheney is using about one-fourth less energy than Mr. Gore did at the 
residence. Now, there is your story. The current Vice President is only 
using 75 percent as much energy as the last Vice President. Yet they 
try to twist and manipulate things to make it appear that somehow Mr. 
Cheney is being irresponsible and trying to evade his electric bill.
  There is no truth to such an assertion. This is merely carrying out 
the plan that was put in place by the former administration, the 
Clinton administration, to have the Navy pick up the difference between 
what Mr. Gore had in his budget to pay his utility bill and what the 
actual bill was, because it was far beyond what Mr. Gore had in his 
budget. But, instead, they try to twist it where somehow Mr. Cheney, 
who has reduced the bill, supposedly Mr. Cheney is the one being 
irresponsible? No matter how it is manipulated, Mr. Chairman, that does 
not wash.
  I would hope that any person who tries to use this to embarrass the 
Vice President of the United States would rethink it and perhaps get a 
little bit embarrassed, if not ashamed, at what they are trying to do.
  This is an outrageous argument that we have been hearing on this. It 
is not based upon accountability of who pays the bills, because we have 
the meter, we know regardless. We know that the bill is something that 
is going to be at the taxpayers' expense, whether it is routed through 
the Naval Observatory account or whether it is routed through the 
Office of the Vice President; but the funding was not put in Mr. Gore's 
budget, and the funding was not put in Mr. Cheney's budget to pay the 
entirety of the expense. Either way, the Navy was picking up the 
difference.
  Mr. Cheney is the one who is being responsible, who is getting by 
with 75 percent as much energy as Mr. Gore was using. That is the 
bottom line, and that is what we ought to be focusing on.
  I do not yield on something as outrageous as this. I yield back the 
balance of any time.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Inslee-Filner 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington for raising this 
issue. We are not trying to embarrass the Vice President of the United 
States; we are trying to embarrass the administration for not having an 
energy policy for this country.
  We are not arguing whether the taxpayer is going to have this bill 
one way or the other; we are arguing that the people in the West Coast 
are paying double and triple the prices they paid last year, and they 
have no help. The administration will not step in and do anything about 
their prices, will not do anything about the energy cartel that is 
doing this.
  The Vice President does not have to worry about that. He just asks 
for a shift of the accounts. We are not accusing the Vice President of 
being irresponsible; we are accusing the Vice

[[Page H4579]]

President of being clueless. We have suffered for a year in San Diego, 
California, and the West Coast, with manipulated prices that have 
doubled and tripled what we were paying a year ago. Think of the small 
business person who is paying $700 or $800 a month, and, 60 days after 
deregulation, is paying $2,500 a month.
  I want the Vice President to think about the small business person 
who had to close his doors because he did not have anybody to take his 
bill up. And he conserves. I will accept your premise that the Vice 
President conserves. Our people conserved, and what happened? Their 
price went up, and they did not have anybody to bail them out.
  Sixty-five percent of small businesses in San Diego County face 
bankruptcy today. We have asked the administration for help. What about 
the person on fixed income who was paying $40 or $50 a month and is 
facing a bill of $150 to $200 a month, and he or she conserved? They 
are using 30, 40, 50 percent less electricity and their price doubled 
or tripled anyway. Do they have the Navy to bail them out? No.
  We asked the administration, we have asked the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission for a year now, bring us cost-based rates to the 
West Coast. That is what went on in this country for almost a century, 
the cost of production plus a reasonable profit. It costs 2 or 3 cents 
a kilowatt to produce, the energy companies charge 3 or 4 cents, and 
they were making a real hell of a profit there. We were told to buy 
utility stocks when we grew up, that is the safest. That same 2 cents 
or 3 cents per kilowatt of electricity was selling for $3 or $4 
recently.
  We do not have a free market in electricity on the West Coast; we 
have a manipulated market that is throwing people out of business, 
throwing people out of their homes, and the electricity crisis, Mr. 
Chairman, still exists. Prices have gone down recently, but I will tell 
you the retail prices were not affected by that change, and my small 
businesses in San Diego and the rest of California and the West Coast 
are facing bankruptcy.
  Now, Mr. Cheney, who met with the Congress, people did not want to 
hear that. Now, I know why they did not want to hear it. He did not 
care whether the prices went up. He did not care if you conserved and 
your prices went up. It is not coming out of his budget. Just shift the 
budget over, coming out of the Navy budget.
  I would say to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), we are not 
arguing whether the taxpayer is going to pay one way or another. We are 
not arguing that Mr. Cheney is irresponsible. We are saying the 
administration is clueless about the suffering of the people who live 
on the West Coast and who have been paying these outrageous prices for 
a year. And we cannot transfer them to the Navy, although I am asking 
my constituents, since this seems to be the administration policy, 
shift your bills over to the Navy, I am asking all my constituents and 
all the people across the country, send your bills to the Navy care of 
the Vice President. Here is the address. Send your bills, which have 
doubled or tripled over the last year, to the U.S. Navy, care of Vice 
President Cheney, who lives at what was called the U.S. Naval 
Observatory. If that is the administration policy, let us take 
advantage of it.
  But I will tell you, if the Vice President thinks that they can 
escape a responsible energy policy, I challenge him to come to the West 
Coast and show how he has paid for his electricity bills.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make the point, the 
gentleman from Oklahoma was suggesting that somehow we are personally 
critical of the Vice President's attempt to move this accountability 
over to the Navy, and that is not our criticism. In fact, what we have 
been told is that the Vice President said this was not his idea; and if 
it is not his idea, I agree with him, it is a bad idea. He is not 
personally responsible for this.
  Neither are we criticizing him for use of electricity in his 
residence. We are told he actually has taken some steps to reduce his 
electrical usage, and I think that is great. He should be lauded for 
his personal virtue in that regard.
  What we are critical, however, of, and the point we are trying to 
make here, is that this administration, while shifting accountability 
to the Navy, is not lifting a finger to help get refunds of the 
billions of dollars that are owed to our constituents on the West 
Coast.
  The economic analysis of some folks indicates we have been 
overcharged $8 billion by electrical gougers on the West Coast, 
although today the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, finally, 
because we have been pushing them, not the administration, they have 
finally said we are going to do something marginal for California; but 
we are not going to lift a finger for Washington and Oregon.
  Washington and Oregon need refunds. The point we are trying to make 
is this administration, while it is shifting responsibility for 
electrical rates to the Navy, will not lift a finger to help us get 
refunds in the States of Washington or Oregon, because of this 
worshipping at the alter of the free market.
  That is the criticism we have of the Vice President. We laud him for 
his conservation. We now want him to get busy and help us get refunds 
in the Pacific Northwest.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to clarify some of the remarks 
that were made by the chairman. We believe that the difference is 
approximately 15 percent in the last 4 months. If you compare the first 
6 months, it is an interesting comparison, because the Vice President, 
of course, was not in residence at the Vice President's residence. They 
were refurbishing the residence for the Vice President.
  If you are just comparing the last 4 months, including a hot day 
yesterday and a cool month of June, there was a 15 percent difference 
over those 4 months between the two energy costs, which is clearly 
explained by the difference in weather.
  But that attempts to respond to an alleged attack on the Vice 
President by attacking his predecessor. Now, I know consistency is the 
hobgoblin of small minds, but it would seem to be fair to the former 
Vice President not to go after these energy costs, as the majority 
wants the present Vice President to be free of these attacks.
  The gentleman from Washington State pointed out, absolutely 
correctly, this is not about the Vice President. This is about the cost 
of energy. This is about a sensitivity that the administration ought to 
have, that the Congress ought to have, to the cost of heating one's 
home, of air conditioning one's home.
  Now, let me correct, if I might, the chairman. The Secret Service is 
separately metered. The Secret Service has its own meter. Why? Because 
they use a lot of electric utilities. They use a lot of security 
lights, and they are metered themselves. So this is not an opportunity 
nor an effort to embarrass the Vice President.
  But I will tell my friend, the chairman of this committee, with whom 
I have been working positively, who did not serve on all the years from 
1995 to 2001 when there were repeated attempts to embarrass the 
President and the Vice President on the expenditures in the White House 
account, repeated attempts, unlike, I will tell the chairman, as he 
knows I feel strongly about, unlike 1981 through 1989, when Ronald 
Reagan was President of the United States, and unlike 1989 to 1993, 
when George Bush the First was President of the United States. It did 
not start to occur, for Members of Congress to go after individually 
either the Vice President or the President on administration of the 
House in which they live, until 1995, and it became very popular in 
1996, 1997 and 1998 to rag on the President and the Vice President.
  That is not what this is about. We have a crisis in America, and that 
crisis is energy costs. Some people in California and other areas of 
this country are put to the test of whether they are going to pay for 
an electrical bill or pay for their prescription drugs or pay for food.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I am glad to yield to my friend from the Northwest, from 
Washington State, who has offered this

[[Page H4580]]

 amendment, to cogently raise this issue for all of America, not for 
the Vice President.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to read to the gentleman an e-
mail I got from a guy named Cliff Sinden a few months ago. He said, ``I 
saw the press conference with you and the Senator. The message was the 
U.S. Government won't do a darn thing for you, just conserve. I have 
cut my electric consumption by 50 percent from last year, and the next 
2 months should be even more, with the full effect of my conservation 
efforts.

                              {time}  1315

  What reward do I get? A $45 increase in my monthly charges.''
  I guess it is true that no good deed goes unpunished.
  What we are saying by this amendment is that it is important for the 
administration to have an appreciation of what individual Americans are 
going through. Sending this signal to them is consistent with the rest 
of the administration's policies that they do not understand the depth 
of this crisis, and that is why we think this amendment is important.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and I thank the 
gentleman for the addition to the remarks that I made and that he is 
making.
  I would reiterate what the gentleman just said. This is an issue 
about us focusing on what it costs from an emergency standpoint to run 
the residency of the Vice President and the residency of the White 
House, the President; it is not to embarrass either one of them. I do 
not think Vice President Cheney is frankly using more or less energy 
than Vice President Gore.
  What I think we ought to have is a focus of this Congress on those 
costs so that it shows us very clearly what it costs to heat, to air 
condition homes. I think in that respect, it is a good educational 
amendment and gives us a better budget focus, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this issue is in the larger scheme of things, 
as we talk about our national budget, certainly not a huge sum of 
resources or money, but the most important thing we do in this Chamber 
is to decide how to use the resources available to us.
  I am struck by the fact that last weekend when I was in my district, 
I met with a veteran who shared with me his concern that currently, 
when he went to the VA to get his prescriptions filled, he pays a $2 
co-pay for his prescription, and that is likely to be increased to $7 
per prescription. He shared with me that he takes 12 prescriptions a 
month. Going from a $2 copay to a $7 copay is a 250 percent increase 
for veterans in order for them to be able to get the medicines they 
need.
  Mr. Chairman, we make choices around here all the time about how we 
are going to use our resources.
  I have another constituent in my district who wrote me, saying that 
they had a child who was very ill and on oxygen, and they are 
struggling to keep their electricity from being cut off because they 
have been unable to pay their electricity bills.
  Again, we make choices up here about how we are going to use our 
resources.
  Now we want to use military funds to pay for the electricity bill at 
the Vice President's home. Well, in southern Ohio, we have a saying: 
``What is good for the goose is good for the gander,'' and I would like 
to share with my colleagues some quotes from the Vice President that 
appeared recently in the July 17 issue of The New York Times. I read: 
``Several weeks ago, Mr. Cheney said consumers should decide for 
themselves whether or not they wanted to conserve electricity based on 
their ability to pay utility bills.'' I quote: ``If you want to leave 
all the lights on in your house, you can, Mr. Cheney said. There is no 
law against it. But you will pay for it.''
  What is good for the goose is good for the gander. It is unwise and I 
think unconscionable at a time when we are requiring veterans to pay 
more for their prescription drugs, when we are having constituents 
communicate with us about their ability to keep the electricity on in 
their homes, even when they have a sick child in that home, it is wrong 
to use military resources for this purpose.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply would urge us to do the right thing. I do not 
think this is an attack on the Vice President, I really do not. It has 
been said here today that there is evidence that the Vice President has 
made efforts to conserve, and we applaud him for that. But there are 
Americans who are suffering deeply and greatly over this energy 
problem, and this administration has not responded appropriately, and 
we are just simply saying to the Vice President and to this 
administration, what you expect out of the American people in terms of 
responsibility and of paying their own bills, we should expect out of 
the Vice President.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his 
eloquent statement. I would point out to our friends across the aisle, 
we are bringing up this issue on account of the Vice President, and our 
motives have been attacked for this.
  I will tell my colleagues, we are a year into an incredible crisis on 
the West Coast; and yet, the majority party of this House has not 
allowed a debate on this issue. We have not been granted any 
amendments; we have not been granted any bills. I wrote to the Speaker 
weeks ago saying, let us have an up or down vote on these issues, of 
whether we should have cost-based rates on the West Coast, on whether 
be should have refunds of criminal overcharges. All we are asking is 
for a debate on this issue and a discussion and a vote. We cannot get 
it from this party. So we have had to use issues that come up in other 
bills to make our point.
  Our point has been made and we are going to keep making it until we 
get it addressed. We are paying double and triple charges on the West 
Coast for our electricity, not because that is what the market, the 
free market gave us, that is because that is what a manipulated market 
gave us. We have been paying those bills for a year; we have been 
overcharged between $10 billion and $20 billion, and we want a refund 
on those overcharges.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, just want to really try to put this in some perspective 
with what my colleagues have been saying. And what the Inslee amendment 
is about is that we are looking at hardworking Americans, and they are 
facing sky-high energy bills.
  We look at the White House wanting the Congress to relieve the Vice 
President of his high electricity bill. People have spoken about the 
Western region of our country and the rolling blackouts, the record-
setting gasoline prices in the Northeast and the Midwest, families 
struggling to pay off their energy heating bills, bills skyrocketing 
over the last several months. We are now looking at scorching summer 
temperatures, the high air-conditioning bills. The prices have 
constrained the budgets of our families, everyone. I guess here, even 
including the Vice President. But we have been calling, my colleagues 
and I, for urgent and long-term solutions to get some help and get 
price relief for consumers, additional funding for LIHEAP, energy 
efficiency and research.
  It has been stated here that the Vice President belittles 
conservation, little more than a personal virtue. ``If you want to 
leave all the lights on in your house, the Vice President said, there 
is no law against it, but you will have to pay for it.''
  The fact is that what he is doing is asking the Navy to assume the 
burden that he has with the high cost of electricity. Unfortunately, 
millions and millions of Americans do not have that opportunity. They 
have to pick up the cost of their electricity bills.
  It is about relieving the people of this country of the high cost 
that they are facing and being willing to help them, and this 
administration has turned a blind eye to the harsh realities that our 
families face.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, just as a closing comment, I just want to 
make one thing clear. This amendment is not about Dick Cheney. We have 
no interest in embarrassing him. Again, we

[[Page H4581]]

just want to make clear, this is not about the Vice President 
personally. We simply are saying that we want our Vice President, whose 
idea of this was not his, this was not his idea to put this over on the 
Navy; that is that is why he is not personally responsible for it. If 
we do it, it is our responsibility.
  Here is what we suggest. We just think we want our Vice President, 
when a constituent comes up to him at one of their town meetings that 
they hold and says, Mr. Vice President, I have to wear a parka; I have 
cut my energy 50 percent, but my bills keep going up, we just want our 
Vice President to be able to say, I know what you mean, mine are too. 
If we pass this amendment, he will be able to say that. I hope we can 
have bipartisan support of this idea and realize this is not the Vice 
President's fault.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as has been said numerous times, the issue here is not 
how much energy the Vice President is using. No serious-minded person 
is going to run around the Capitol as a light switch cop or an energy 
policeman. Mr. Cheney happens to be the person who occupies the Vice 
President's residence, but this is not about him, this is about the way 
the office itself should be dealt with. What the issue really is here 
is whether or not that office is going to be treated the same as other 
Americans and whether the existing occupant of the office will be 
treated the same as previous occupants of the office.
  Many Members of this House know that I often quote my favorite 
philosopher, Archie the Cockroach, and one of the things Archie said 
once was, ``The cost of living ain't so bad if you don't have to pay 
for it.'' That is the issue that is at stake today, because if the 
provision in this bill passes, then whoever occupies that residency in 
present or future years will not have to pay for increases in the cost 
of living, as do other Americans.
  Now, my understanding is that since 1999, the energy usage at the 
Vice President's residence has risen from $83,000 to $135,000, and my 
understanding is that it is expected to be $186,000 this year. So what 
is at stake is a simple question here: will whoever occupies that 
residence be insulated from those future increases in costs, increases 
which the average American will not be insulated from? That is the sole 
question at issue here, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with 
whether one likes the Vice President or not. I happen to like him. I 
have known him since 1965. I consider him to be a good friend and a 
fine public servant.
  But I do note that like all of us, the present occupant of that 
office has made statements that he probably wishes he had back, and one 
has been previously cited, when he indicated, quote, ``If you want to 
leave the lights on in your house, you can, but you have to pay for 
it.'' The problem is that under the provisions in this bill, he will 
not, while everyone else does.
  I would point out also that if we take a look at the administration's 
justifications for this provision, we find the following sentence: 
``The rationale for this requested transfer of responsibility is based 
on the fluctuating and unpredictable nature of utility costs.'' Well, 
as I have tried to make the point, it seems to me that we should not be 
singling out specific occupants of specific offices in this country for 
exemption from the volatility of those prices.
  I also note that in an article in The New York Times, they indicated 
that the White House said that by transferring all the President's 
costs to the Navy, there would be ``no need for the administration to 
return to Congress to ask for emergency appropriations, in the event of 
an exceptionally cold winter or hot summer.''
  I would point out that it is interesting that they are interested in 
avoiding the need to ask for a supplemental by burying the cost 
somewhere else, but unfortunately, low-income families in this country 
who need programs such as the Low Income Heating Assistance Program are 
not subject to such delicate considerations.
  The budget that the White House has presented for the Low Income 
Heating Assistance Programs this year effectively delivers about $1 
billion less than was delivered last year. So all I am suggesting is 
that I think offices and persons who occupy them ought to be treated 
the same as previous and future occupants.

                              {time}  1330

  I also suggest that, as the gentleman said earlier, what is sauce for 
the goose is sauce for the gander. I do not think we ought to be seen 
as taking actions which exempt persons in government from some of the 
burdens which are so excruciatingly evident as they are applied to 
average citizens with respect to energy prices.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I love this institution, and I love this 
body, and I respect this institution. I respect this body. These halls 
of the Capitol are lined with famous people, famous art, as in past 
years, talking about issues of the day.
  But with the advent of C-SPAN, we no longer talk to each other here. 
We no longer try to convince each other of the merits of our argument. 
We talk to the television. We are hoping that someone back in Alabama 
or back in California or back in Wisconsin is watching this, and we can 
make these political points and embarrass one side or the other.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate today is almost ridiculous. We are not 
disputing the fact that the Vice President and his family have reduced 
the cost to the Federal taxpayers with respect to the uses of 
electricity at the official Vice President's residence. How ridiculous 
can we get when we stand up and argue, trying to embarrass one party or 
the other party over the uses of electricity?
  There is no debate on the merits of this. If the Vice President's 
bill had shot up twice, then maybe we should talk to him about that. 
Maybe we should send him a message through C-SPAN or whatever 
methodology we have.
  But the very facts, the undisputed facts, are that that is not the 
case. The power bills are being reduced since Vice President Cheney has 
moved into this Naval facility. The question here is whether it is 
going to be paid for out of one account or the other account.
  If we are trying to impress someone, we ought to impress upon the 
American people what the Vice President and his family are doing. That 
is, they are conserving electricity, which is very, very important. We 
ought to be telling the American people about the history of who used 
power, who left the lights on, who left the computers on.
  But that is not what we are trying to do. We are not concerned about 
the cost of this. We are concerned about who is going to pay for it.
  Let me tell the Members, a lot of people in Alabama watch this 
program, Mr. Chairman. My mother watches it. I will bet she is watching 
it right now, although I did not call her and tell her I was coming 
down here, or I know she would be watching it.
  But if the American people we think are so dumb as they cannot see 
through this charade of an argument, then we do not have enough respect 
for the American people. If Members respect this institution, if they 
respect the government, as we have established in this country, if 
Members respect their own constituents, they would not waste the 
taxpayers' dollars debating this issue for 2 or 3 hours, trying to 
embarrass one party and trying to say that this party in power now is 
doing something wrong, because they are not.
  This is a government facility. It is a Naval facility. The government 
has always paid these bills. The bills are less today than they were 
this time last year. We ought to get on with the business of the state 
and look at the rest of the important issues of this particular bill 
and stop trying to convince people watching this on C-SPAN that someone 
at the White House or someone at the Vice President's residence is 
doing something wrong. He is not.
  I compliment the Vice President and I compliment Lynn Cheney and I 
compliment his staff for making the effort to prove to the American 
people that we can conserve by being the example of reducing his power 
needs at this official residence of the Vice President of the United 
States.

[[Page H4582]]

                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to congratulate the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for addressing his remarks to the Chair while he 
talked about C-SPAN. He was not addressing the audience. He did a great 
job on that.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I was in my office working, and I happened to have my 
TV on to keep an eye on the floor debate. All of a sudden when this 
amendment was brought up, I felt like I was getting a wake-up call, or 
maybe a wake-back call to a bad memory.
  Mr. Chairman, 2 or 3 years ago we had a great debate on this floor. 
We had a great debate in committee. We had a great debate in 
conference. In this case, it was the tax bill.
  A Member of our institution called Congress from the other side of 
the building and had a very important piece of legislation he was 
pushing, an amendment to the tax bill on chicken manure. We debated 
chicken manure for a long time. That member has since retired, and I 
had thought I would not be debating chicken manure again. I have to 
tell the Members, Mr. Chairman, this smells like chicken manure to me.
  A few years ago, we had a debate about ammunition, the cost of 
ammunition to the military. The cost was too high, some people said. 
What we needed was some cheap shots. Mr. Chairman, I think we have some 
cheap shots today.
  The Vice President of the United States for the last 8 years was a 
Democrat. To my party's credit, and I want to thank my colleagues, none 
of us were small enough to bring an amendment like this to the floor to 
try to embarrass the Vice President of the United States, as he 
inhabits the official residence of the United States, the expenses for 
which are primarily incurred on behalf of the official duties of the 
Vice President of the United States; a high honor, indeed, and an 
enormous responsibility to be the Vice President of the United States.
  To have that great office ridiculed on the floor of this House in a 
debate that is reminiscent of the great chicken manure debate of years 
past, or the great cheap shot debate of years past, both of which were 
debates that had some legitimacy in public policy, to have those 
debates mocked here today in an effort to embarrass the Vice President 
is disappointing; disappointing I think for me, because I so love this 
body and so hope for the best to shine in this body; disappointing for 
America, who might ask their children to tune in for a civics lesson.
  Let me just say this. Irrespective of what has been the record of 
electrical utility usage in the White House for the past 8 years, our 
current Vice President has already demonstrated a 28 percent reduction 
in the use of electricity. He is doing his very best as he carries out 
his official duties to use the resources made available to him for 
those purposes in order to achieve the results the Nation would hope 
from his office in the most efficient way possible.
  Let me submit, Mr. Chairman, that this body pause for a moment to 
appreciate and respect the Vice President of the United States. Let me 
suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we reserve our chicken manure and our cheap 
shot debates for a more appropriate time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I came in as the majority leader was praising the Vice 
President and the hard job that he does. All of us on this side of the 
aisle agree with that. It is an august office, and he is working hard 
at his job.
  But I will tell the Members, I would say to the majority leader, the 
small business people in my community are worthy of equal respect for 
working hard every day, for going to their jobs, for supporting their 
families, for working 16 and 18 hours a day. They conserve their 
electricity. They are trying to make their ends meet. They are facing 
an electricity market which puts them out of business.
  Scores of business people in my district are out of business, I would 
say to the leader. That is the tragedy of this crisis, and 65 percent 
of all small business in my county face bankruptcy this year. We need 
to support them. We need to talk about the glory of their jobs.
  How about the tough life that people on fixed incomes have, trying to 
make decisions between cooling their home and having a somewhat 
comfortable evening, even if their thermostats are set at 78 or 80 or 
higher; trying to buy their prescriptions; trying to buy their food? 
Their bill goes up from $40 or $50 to $150 or $200.
  They do not have the option, I would say to the majority leader, of 
asking the Navy to pay their bill. These are people who have worked 
their whole lives for America. They have been veterans. They have 
supported and raised children and grandchildren. They are doing their 
jobs, just like the Vice President is doing his job. They are as worthy 
of our support and our eloquence as is the Vice President.
  We have asked the leader and the Speaker, we have asked and begged 
them, put on the floor of the House a bill that allows us in our view 
to help these people. If they do not agree with it, vote it down, but 
give us a chance to debate these issues in a realistic fashion, so we 
do not have to use such appropriation bills that they find so difficult 
for us to speak on.
  Give us an up-or-down vote on cost-based rates for the West coast. 
Give us an up-or-down vote on the refund of $10 billion to $20 billion 
of overcharges. They cannot shift their bills to the Navy. They cannot 
get a supplemental appropriation that we just passed last week that 
paid $750 million because the military had increased electricity bills 
on the West Coast. They got their bills paid for. How come my 
constituents, the constituents of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee), the constituents of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank), cannot have their overcharges paid?
  I will tell the Members, they are criminal overcharges. The Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission has found the prices that we pay in 
California and the West Coast to be illegal. They are illegal. Yet, we 
have paid them for 1 year.
  I would ask the leader, yes, let us praise the Vice President, but 
let us praise the average people in our districts who are being brought 
to their knees by these prices.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman 
from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, the majority leader has questioned my right 
or anyone's right to bring an amendment of this nature. I will not 
yield to him one inch.
  I am not President, Vice President, majority leader, minority leader, 
committee chair, or ranking member. I am only one Member who 
understands one basic thing about my constituents: They question 
whether this administration understands the depth of the problems that 
they are experiencing.
  I am only here not to do anything about Mr. Cheney, I am just here 
asking my colleagues to make it so that the Vice President of the 
United States, who works for all of us, Democrat and Republican alike, 
can look Americans in the eye and say, my electrical bills are going 
up, too.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just say in 
closing, without coming fully on the merits here I had not intended to 
speak, but I was struck by the objection to the notion that this might 
be embarrassing.
  As one who has been both embarrassed himself and has sought to 
embarrass others, I regard the right to embarrass each other as one of 
the most cherished parts of American democracy. I am sorry to see that 
right denigrated, particularly by people who have freely engaged in it 
in the past.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  This amendment should be better known as the ``cheap shot'' 
amendment. This amendment demeans the House. If you want to talk about 
energy policy, and I am so surprised that Members with as much 
seniority on the Committee on Appropriations would have the courage to 
stand up and speak in favor of this amendment. This

[[Page H4583]]

 amendment demeans the House. It really does, and you know it.
  If you want to talk about energy policy, there is going to be an 
energy bill on the floor next week. If you want to talk about the lousy 
policy that California has had, because you know they did not have a 
policy, talk about it next week. But it does not have anything to do 
with paying the utilities by the Naval Conservancy of the official 
Office of the Vice President. That has nothing to do with this.
  If you think we need an energy policy, take a look at the Bush-Cheney 
energy policy. They have one. And I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) and his subcommittee are going to trot it out here next week. 
If you do not like it, bring out an amendment. If you want more LIHEAP 
money, bring out an amendment. If you want to talk about who should pay 
the utility bills, bring out an amendment. Not on this bill. This 
demeans the House. Do not try to discredit the Vice President.
  This is a shell amendment to try and demean the Vice President of the 
United States. I wonder if you would be doing this if your friend 
Senator Lieberman had been elected Vice President. I doubt if this 
amendment would be on the floor today if Senator Lieberman were Vice 
President Lieberman. It would not be, and you know that.
  We need an energy policy. We need to pay attention to energy. Nobody 
would dispute that. But you do not do it by trotting out an amendment 
trying to embarrass the Vice President of the United States
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding, and he is my friend, and I 
respect him because he cares about this institution.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Absolutely.
  Mr. HOYER. I do not know if he was speaking about me, I did not offer 
this amendment; but I will tell my friend, A, this is an amendment that 
was offered by the administration in its budget to shift the objective 
of spending from one account to the other.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the 
gentleman that this amendment says the Secretary of the Navy cannot pay 
the bill. That is not the amendment that was offered by the 
administration. You know that.
  This amendment is being offered to try and embarrass the Vice 
President because some people around here think the administration does 
not have an energy policy. Well, we do have an energy policy, and we 
are going to debate it next week.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
  Mr. LaHOOD. Of course.
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman did not allow me to finish.
  The fact of the matter is, though, that it is a proposal in the 
budget to switch presently identified spending in one account to 
another account.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Would you be doing this, would you be supporting this if 
it was Vice President Lieberman? Of course, you would not. You know 
that. Nobody on your side would be doing this. We would not be having 
this debate.
  This is a way to embarrass this administration. That is what it is. 
You do not have any other way to embarrass him, so you trot out this 
stupid amendment.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to inform Members that they should 
avoid references to Members of the other body.
  Mr. LaHOOD. How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LaHood. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the House, and I am not going 
to yield to anybody else, you have had plenty of time to demean the 
House. This amendment demeans the House. It demeans this bill, and it 
demeans all the Members of the House who vote for it.
  So I would suggest that the Members of this House vote against this 
amendment and send a message you cannot trot out amendments just to 
embarrass a constitutional officer in the country, the second highest 
ranking constitutional officer. And, really, what it does, it demeans 
all of us. We have got better things to do around here than to take a 
cheap shot at the Vice President.
  This is the ``cheap shot'' amendment. Vote it down.


                Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Obey moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
     the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
     enacting clause be stricken out.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The distinguished majority leader suggested that this amendment is, 
in his inimitable styling, chicken manure. I would say that the issue 
of equity in a democracy is not ``chicken manure,'' it is fundamental 
to our ability to govern in a democracy with a very large mistrust of 
government and public officials.
  I can understand why someone who thinks that a tax bill that gives 
$53,000 in tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this 
society while it denies any tax cut whatsoever to 25 percent of the 
people who make less than $26,000 a year thinks that kind of a tax bill 
is equitable would think that an amendment such as this, which tries to 
address the issue of equal treatment, is somehow ``chicken manure.''
  I think it is simply revealing of the mindset which allows people to 
call a tax bill like that equitable, and I am not at all surprised by 
it. I think the gentleman misses the larger point, and I am not 
surprised by that either. But I would simply say that what is at issue 
here is not as we have said on countless occasions, it is not what we 
think of the existing occupant of the Vice Presidential office. The 
issue is whether the second most powerful person in the land should be 
exempted from the same inflationary costs which are applied to every 
other citizen in this country. That is the issue.
  The issue is not whether we are trying to embarrass the Vice 
President or not. We did not propose the change contained in this 
legislation. The White House did. The only way you can object to a 
change proposed by the White House, if it is carried in a bill like 
this, is to offer an amendment to delete it. That is exactly what we 
are doing. And for us not to offer this amendment would be to acquiesce 
in the pervasive acceptance of inequality and inequity which has 
become, unfortunately, all too routine under the leadership of this 
House.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  The gentleman from Illinois earlier had said that this amendment 
demeans the House. I take what the gentleman says very seriously, 
because he has worked for this House, this institution, and loves this 
institution; and I know that. But I would say to the gentleman, we 
would be bringing up these amendments on energy bills if we were 
allowed to by the majority.
  I would like you, Mr. LaHood, to go with me to the Committee on Rules 
when this energy bill you spoke of does come up, and ask them to give 
us the amendments that we have asked for. Ask them to give us the 
amendments for cost-base rates in the West; ask them to give us the 
amendments for overcharges; ask them to give us the amendments that we 
have sought.
  I have written to the Speaker weeks ago to say schedule a bill that 
treats this crisis. We have been here for a year with this crisis, and 
have you responded? No. That is what demeans the House, our inability 
to talk about a crisis affecting America except in this context.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the ranking member for yielding.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. How much 
more time remains on the 5 minutes?

[[Page H4584]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin, who has the floor on 
a preferential motion, yield for that purpose?
  Mr. OBEY. No, I do not. I would prefer to stick to the rules of the 
House.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has yielded to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. As I started to say, I have a great affection and respect 
for my friend from Illinois, and we are friends; but I have served a 
long time in this body. He has been here a long time as well. I do not 
believe I have ever tried to demean this House, and I hope he thinks I 
never would.
  Now, this is not my amendment; but as I started to say to him, this 
is an amount which speaks to a legitimate legislative perspective, that 
is to say whether or not an expenditure should be in one section of the 
bill or another. This is a substantive issue. This is whether or not we 
should pay the utility bills of the Vice President's residence out of 
the Vice President's office account or we ought to pay it out of the 
Navy's account.
  Nobody on this floor, nobody, has demeaned the Vice President. I have 
not heard one adverse word about the Vice President on this floor. This 
is a legitimate objective of legislators. You may disagree with the 
amendment, but it is not a demeaning amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired. Does a Member seek recognition in opposition to the motion of 
the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is recognized 
for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Chairman, it would make no sense for this committee to rise at this 
time to let people try to distract us from the important work of this 
House. I realize that there is no rule that says you cannot offer a 
mean-spirited amendment.
  Now, there is no rule that says you cannot take a cheap shot. There 
is no rule, as the gentleman from Massachusetts suggested, that says 
you cannot try to embarrass somebody, whether it is justified or not. 
No, there is no rule that requires us to use common sense in this body. 
There is no rule that requires Members of this House to have an 
electricity meter outside the door of their office so that their 
constituents can see how much energy are they consuming. There is no 
rule that says they cannot ask all their constituents to mail to them 
the people who either did the wrong things or did nothing to let 
utility rates and fuel prices go up. There is no rule that says you 
cannot send them your utility bill or your electric bill.
  It saddens me, Mr. Chairman, it saddens me to hear people being 
caught with such an obvious ploy trying to take a cheap shot at the 
Vice President and then stand up in front of the Nation, in front of 
this body, Mr. Chairman, stand up and try to say, oh, we are not trying 
to embarrass the Vice President. Malarkey. Do not insult people's 
intelligence that way.
  If you were sincere, and you said, well, we just want to make sure 
that the Vice President is accountable for the utility bills, then you 
would have said he will pay the bills instead of having the Navy pay 
them, as Mr. Gore did; he will pay the bills and we are putting money 
back in the budget to enable him to do so. Because the money that was 
allocated to Mr. Gore to pay his utility bills, which was $43,000 a 
year, has been backed out of the Vice President's budget.
  In addition to that, over the last couple of years, the Navy paid 
over $200,000 to pay the utility bills of Mr. Gore's residence. Did 
they offer an amendment that says the Vice President is going to be 
accountable for his own bills and we will have the money in his budget 
so that he can do so? No.
  The effect of this is they want to strip money out of the Vice 
President's budget so he has to choose between paying the electric 
bills or doing the job that he was elected to do, because they will 
take away facilities, they will take away staff, they will take away 
whatever it is. The money is not in the Vice President's budget to pay 
his utility bills. That was what was proposed by the Clinton 
administration, to say have the Navy do it. That is what is in this.
  And what they are really trying to do is say we want to prevent the 
Vice President from doing his job. Oh, but we are nice and clean and 
pure. We are not mean-spirited people at all. They are caught. They are 
caught embarrassed in front of the country trying to take a cheap shot 
and come back and try to justify it.
  You can dress up a pig in as many dresses and designer costumes as 
you want, Mr. Chairman, but it is still a pig.

                              {time}  1400

  I am not about to kiss this pig. Vote no on any motion to rise and 
vote no on the amendment itself.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, it strikes me as odd that here we are in 
the legislative branch. As I recall, in this building, which is our 
office, we have a protection service, an excellent protection service, 
the Capitol Hill Police. Is that billed, so to speak?
  That is billed in a separate account. Maybe we should look at that.
  Who provides the medical services, the doctor for the Congress? Is 
that not the Navy?
  Mr. ISTOOK. In short, as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) 
knows, there are a great number of services that are provided to each 
Member of this body in a collective manner without being allocated or 
billed to the individual Members.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Who runs the Capitol Hill Historical Society or the 
Architect? Is that billed to the Congress?
  Mr. ISTOOK. The Architect of the Capitol is part of the Legislative 
Branch budget.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I think one thing we have to accept as Members of 
government is that there is a lot of cross billing and overlap.
  Here we are in the Legislative Branch and we get the medical services 
from the Navy. We have the Historical Society services that provide 
part of the touring of the United States Capitol, our own office, and 
it is protected by the Capitol Hill Police.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is correct about cross 
billing. We can look at the White House. There is a memorandum of 
understanding at the White House between literally dozens of different 
Federal agencies because they all become interrelated trying to provide 
the necessary services to the person that is the Chief Executive and 
the Commander in Chief of the United States of America. So too with the 
Vice President. There is a whole collection of entities that become 
involved in allowing him to do his duty.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the motion to rise.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). All time has expired.
  The question on the preferential motion offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas rise?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I had the recognition. I asked to 
strike the requisite number of words before the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. LaHood) was recognized.
  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been requested.
  A recorded vote was refused.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to direct the Members' 
attention to the word that is carved in the cabinet that is right here 
before us. It cannot be read too well, but it is tolerance. I want to 
speak a little bit about tolerance, and I want to speak a little bit 
about facts.
  Facts are troublesome things but they are facts. The fact is that we 
use about 100 quads of energy in this country every year. A quad is a 
quadrillion

[[Page H4585]]

BTUs. That is a fact. The fact is we produce only about 70 quads. 
Subtract 70 from 100 and we have a deficit of about 30. Thirty 
quadrillion BTUs of energy that this Nation is importing. That is a lot 
of energy.
  Most of that is in the form of oil, but not all of it. We import 
electricity. We import natural gas. We import uranium to be refined 
into enrichment rods for our nuclear power plants. The only thing we do 
not import in terms of energy is coal. We are a net exporter of coal.
  Some of the gentlemen that are supporting this particular amendment 
by the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee) have been talking 
about the lack of an energy policy. We are going to have that bill on 
the floor next week. The major committees in the House reported it out 
last week. The Committee on Science reported it out by voice vote. That 
shows a little bit of tolerance there and a little bit of 
bipartisanship.
  The Committee on Energy and Commerce where I am a subcommittee 
chairman, we reported it on a 50 to 5 vote. The gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Boucher) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and others 
voted for the bill. That shows a little bipartisanship there.
  The Committee on Ways and Means was a little bit tougher. It was a 
party line vote. The Committee on Resources was a bipartisan vote.
  Those bills are being packaged together and it will be on the floor 
next week, we think, on Wednesday. There will be a lot of amendments 
made in order, some by Democrats and some by Republicans. We will have 
that debate on energy policy beginning next week.
  My subcommittee this fall will put together an electricity 
restructuring bill, a pipeline safety bill, a nuclear waste bill, a 
hydroelectric reform bill. Hopefully, we will get bipartisanship, a 
little tolerance, and we will put those bills on the floor sometime 
this fall or next spring.
  So we will have our energy debate. We will have our energy policy. I 
think the House will do what it is supposed to do and pass much of that 
and send it to the other body and hope that they work their will.
  The particular pending amendment is kind of cute. Nobody can deny 
that. It gives people a forum to vent their frustration. Nothing wrong 
with that. Nothing illegal. But is it really worthwhile? I think not.
  If we want to do some cute things look at the lights right up here. 
Some of the most energy inefficient lights in the country are lighting 
this debate so to speak.
  The powerplant that provides the electricity is an old coal and oil-
fired powerplant two blocks from the Capitol that many in the 
neighborhood think is an environmental hazard. If we want to engage in 
the kind of debate where we begin to point fingers, let us point at 
ourselves first. I am willing to be a part of that. But I am not 
willing to be a part of this particular amendment being considered as a 
serious amendment. It is really an amendment made in order to try to 
highlight an issue that we are going to have a lot of opportunity in 
the next week and in the next months to highlight. I hope we vote 
against this.
  I am working with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). He is a 
champion of something called real-time metering and net metering. That 
will be in a bill that will come out of my subcommittee hopefully in 
the next 6 weeks. He will be a part of that process.
  My friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) has very 
eloquently depicted the plight of some of his constituents in southern 
California. We tried to put together a package for that earlier in the 
year. It floundered primarily on the fact that we could not get a 
consensus on price caps and we tried. We tried to get a consensus on 
price caps and we could not get it.
  We may have that debate again next week on the floor, and, if so, we 
will have a spirited debate and let the votes fall where they may.
  But on this amendment we should vote it on down and move on to the 
more substantive parts of the bill.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think like many Americans, when I first saw the 
articles in the paper about problems that the Vice President was having 
at his residence and his attempt to have the cost shifted to the Navy, 
what struck me more than anything was, wow, that is an expensive place 
to live. I was just amazed at how expensive it was. I started thinking 
about the time of year when we are talking about his bills and the 
major component, of course, is going to be air conditioning. It is 
summertime. We are here in Washington, D.C.
  As I listened to this debate in my office, I was struck by the fact 
that I had an amendment to this bill that the Committee on Rules would 
not consider in order which would require the Federal Government when 
it purchases air conditioners to purchase energy-efficient air 
conditioners.
  Now, the gentleman from Illinois said this was a cheap-shot 
amendment, and would not be considered if Mr. Lieberman were Vice 
President. Well, it would just come from the other side of the aisle. 
This amendment was going to be debated regardless of who was Vice 
President, it was just who was going to have this amendment.
  The point, this Navy Observatory residence is a Federal facility, and 
it should be using energy-efficient air conditioners. I tried to put in 
a public policy amendment to this bill to require the GAO to purchase 
energy-efficient air conditioners. It was denied access. So when I hear 
people say we are going to have this debate, we wanted to have this 
debate. We want to have this debate over energy conservation and energy 
efficiency, and we have been denied it.
  That same amendment was part of the staff consensus bill in the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce that would have required the Federal Government to purchase 
energy-efficient air conditioners. It was taken out at the subcommittee 
basically on a party-line vote; a party-line vote saying we do not 
require the Federal Government to purchase energy-efficient air 
conditioners.
  It is my hope the amendment will be permitted on the floor next week 
when we discuss the energy bill. But make no mistake about it, many of 
us on this side of the aisle believe there is a problem and that we, as 
the Federal Government have to purchase, energy-efficient air 
conditioners.
  Mr. Chairman, in this Chamber we can talk the talk all we want; but 
until the Federal Government walks the walk, the American people are 
not going to believe us. Many Americans believe that elected officials 
say that is a problem for Middle America, but we are politicians, we 
are going to take care of ourselves. That is what it looks like to the 
American people. Until we as a Congress say we will lead this fight and 
try to do more to conserve energy, the American people are not going to 
buy it. I support the gentleman's amendment. I think it is a good 
amendment because I think it strikes at the heart of the matter.
  To say that somehow it is not offered in good faith is wrong. 
Remember this change was requested by the administration. The only way 
to get this language out of the bill is to offer an amendment on the 
floor. That is exactly what my friend from Washington did. I hope most 
Members, a majority of Members in this Chamber vote ``yes.'' It is good 
public policy.
  Mr. Chairman, next week we can move on to the real debate which is 
how do we as the Federal Government make sure that we purchase energy-
efficient appliances.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would admonish Members to refrain 
from mentioning Members of the other body by name.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to recognize how we got here. 
We got here because we changed the way we measured the use of 
electricity and the use of power at the Vice President's residence. It 
turns out that the Navy has been subsidizing the Vice President's use 
of electricity for years, for years, all of the time with the previous 
administration.
  Mr. Chairman, we are trying to make sure that we address this fairly. 
I have to say that I believe that it would have

[[Page H4586]]

been nice if the previous administration had had a strategy to address 
energy for everybody. We all wanted a strategy. They had no strategy, 
and now we do have a crisis. Many of our constituents are paying for 
it.
  I appreciate the gentleman that talked about our senior citizens on a 
fixed income and people of moderate income, and small businesses that 
are closing down. They all could have used a long-range energy 
strategy, and it failed to materialize with the last administration. 
That is why our constituents are suffering. I appreciate that the 
current Vice President has a strategy, that he is working hard to make 
sure that every American's bills come down.
  I appreciate that he is conserving energy and using less than the 
previous Vice President so that what he advocates in conservation he is 
also demonstrating by his own actions. But the fact is that we did not 
have an administration that addressed these causes. In fact, last year 
the Vice President moved out of his residence and reminded us every day 
that he had moved to Tennessee, while the American people continued to 
pay high energy costs on his residence at the Naval Observatory.
  So they got hit two ways. They had nobody that was addressing energy 
policy, and they were paying these energy costs.
  The fact is that we are trying to address this now. We have an energy 
policy. We know the Vice President needs the staff, he needs to be able 
to do his job. That is why the American people support the Vice 
President and the Office of the Vice President.
  We are glad that he has decided to stay in Washington and do his work 
instead of moving home like last year's Vice President did. As far as 
his own personal bills, he does have a residence in Wyoming where he 
came from, and he is paying the higher bills just like every other 
American is all over this country. He is paying the higher bills that 
he is incurring in the residence that he owns.
  But just like every other American that goes to work someplace else 
than the home they own, the business, and in this case the government, 
is covering those expenses. That is the way every other American is 
treated. We certainly never send a bill to our Armed Forces when they 
live in our barracks and our inadequate housing on our bases and tell 
them to pony up for more of the energy costs, and we should not do that 
for anybody else that has to be away from the home they own to go to 
work.
  He is here. He is using less energy. He is addressing himself to an 
energy policy for the first time that will bring all American's prices 
down.
  Thank you, Mr. Vice President, for the restraint you have shown, for 
the hard work in leadership to stop talking about a problem and put an 
action plan together, and to have the courage for doing that. And thank 
you for staying in Washington, D.C. despite energy bills and acrimony 
and what is in your best political future, and for staying here and 
doing the job.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it has been well documented the problems we are 
having in California with energy. My colleague from San Diego talks 
about his constituents. I think he works very hard for his 
constituents. But I would ask the gentleman from California, when Bill 
Clinton had this problem, for a year and a half, a year and a half, 
there were no calls for price caps. But now that we have a new 
President, the political expediency is to say, ``Well, let's have 
caps,'' to shift the blame.
  I would say that, under President Clinton's rule, for 8 years there 
was no energy policy and now we are developing a policy that looks long 
term, that is a balance between exploration, technology and, yes, 
conservation and energy effiency. Bill Clinton's FERC was nonexistent. 
Where were my colleagues on the other side calling for caps when FERC, 
in my opinion, did not do their job and let the horse out of the barn 
that caused many of the problems we are in right now?
  George Bush appointed a FERC, and already they have started to act to 
control prices, and I think FERC has saved a lot of the ratepayers 
money in the State of California. We have already seen some of the 
prices come down. Some of that is because of the conservation of 
California residents who have seen that it is a way to bring their 
prices down.
  Pete Wilson first came up with the idea, Governor Wilson, a 
Republican, for deregulation. But then we went to Gray Davis, the 
Governor, and said, if you allow this deregulation, but you do not 
allow for long-term purchasing contracts, it is going to kill San 
Diego. In where my friend from San Diego lives, as I do, San Diego Gas 
and Electric is a private company. They cannot buy public power unless 
there is an excess. Of course, there is no excess. And when we put 
ourselves at the mercy of outside resources, which has happened, then 
we end up in the situation we are in right now.
  We warned Governor Davis. Governor Davis came in with a $4 billion 
surplus and increased that after we balanced the budget because we sent 
more money to the States. Now the State is bankrupt. There is no money 
for education. There is no money for health care for the people of 
California. There is no money for transportation, because he has 
bankrupted the State. We want our State back.
  I would say, where were my colleagues pointing the fingers when all 
of this was going on and happening under Bill Clinton with no action by 
FERC? But now we have another President, the finger points, ``Well, how 
about caps?'' Caps do not produce one ounce of energy.
  We have a President now that has an energy plan. We ought to get 
behind it and pass it. We have gone to a very positive plan. But I want 
to tell my colleagues, we doubled our population in the last 12 years 
in California. Most States cannot claim that. We have. But at the same 
time we have been forced to shut down existing oil and gas refineries. 
We have been prevented and even shut down many of the electricity 
generators by the same type of radical environmentalists that shut off 
all the water in Klamath that put 40 percent of the farmers out of 
business up there. They do not care.
  Where were my friends then when we said, hey, we need more power for 
long-term planning? They were silent, the same people that are still 
trying to shut down hydroelectric in northern California, in Washington 
and in Oregon for fish.
  We say, ``Let's build spillways around so we can still have it.'' 
But, no, to the extremists, to the radical environmentalists, energy 
and water means growth, and they want to stop all growth.
  Where were my friends from California then pointing the finger for 
their constituents for a long-term plan? We warned that this was going 
to happen. We are going to double our population in California over the 
coming decides. If we do not have this long-term plan for 
infrastructure, for conservation, for technology, for exploration, then 
we are going to really be in a problem.
  But, no, they just want to say caps, let us bring a caps bill to the 
floor so they can point at the White House, who was in business one day 
and they started pointing the fingers at the White House.
  The White House has helped.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote; and, pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Inslee) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       Page 89, strike lines 21 through 23 (section 635).


[[Page H4587]]


  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes section 635 from 
the bill here before us. In that section, the administration has 
proposed a new provision that allows the Secretary of the Navy to 
accept gifts of food, beverages, table centerpieces, flowers or 
temporary outdoor shelters for official functions at the residence of 
the Vice President.
  What exactly does the term ``official function'' mean as it relates 
to this provision? What it means is among these:
  Dinners hosting foreign dignitaries; receptions for visiting 
officials of States, territories or political subdivisions thereof; 
picnics hosted for residents of the U.S. Naval Observatory or the U.S. 
Secret Service protective detail; and meetings on policy matters or 
official social events with Federal agency heads, Members of Congress 
or with private persons.
  This language in the bill before us raises some very serious 
questions. We know that executive branch employees cannot accept such 
gifts. We know that Navy personnel cannot accept gifts particularly 
from people who are seeking to influence them. Frankly, as an ex-
serviceman, particularly as a former enlisted Navy veteran, I am deeply 
troubled by the idea that the Navy is going to be funneling special 
gifts from private persons and private entities to the Vice President 
of the United States. It also means that the White House can only 
accept food and drink in very limited circumstances, such as the annual 
Christmas party.
  Yet this provision, the provision that I am seeking to strike from 
the bill, gives the green light to the Vice President to accept food 
and drink from private persons who come to meet with him on policy 
matters. It is hard to fathom why the administration feels the need for 
this provision. I hope that the President's tax cut has not left us in 
such condition that we need to be seeking these kinds of gifts from 
outside persons, particularly from corporations seeking favors from the 
administration.
  Currently, the entertainment and reception costs incurred in the Vice 
President's residence for official functions are funded with 
appropriated dollars, and that is as it should be. Food and beverage at 
the Vice President's residence cost less than $50,000 a year. Surely we 
can afford to appropriate these funds so that the Vice President does 
not need to take handouts from corporations trying to curry favor with 
the administration.
  Unfortunately, instead of trying to avoid the appearance that it is 
not beholden to special interests, this administration goes out of its 
way to be extra accommodating. From its decision on arsenic and mining 
wastes that have benefited big polluters to the Vice President's energy 
task force that met in secrecy and came up with a plan to benefit big 
oil and coal, this administration, even in its infancy, has been 
particularly adept at serving special interests.
  Now we have meetings at the Vice President's residence sponsored by 
we do not know who, sponsored by perhaps Enron and Exxon meeting on 
energy issues, we can see the banners hanging over the room now; 
sponsored by Archer-Daniels-Midland on issues relating to agriculture; 
on meetings of social policy sponsored by the Cato Institute.
  This is wrong. We ought not to have this crass kind of 
commercialization polluting the Vice President's residence. Meetings 
that occur there ought to be free and clear of inappropriate outside 
influence. Meetings that occur there and decisions that are made there 
ought to be based on the merits exclusively, entirely; and they ought 
not to be subject to the kind of outside influence that these meetings 
will inevitably be if we allow this provision to prevail.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I will 
not take 5 minutes.
  We are all concerned about electricity costs, but let me tell Members 
some of the things that the Vice President and the President are not 
doing. They are not holding 400 Lincoln Bedroom lavish dinners for 
campaign contributors every single day for millions of dollars for the 
DNC. They do not have John Huang, Trie and Riady that are agents for 
the Chinese government and then sign an executive order giving missile 
secrets away to the Chinese. They are not holding these lavish parties.
  There is a controlling authority, a legal controlling authority in 
the Vice President's office now, unlike the Vice President that made 
fund-raising calls out of there and then charged it to the taxpayers. 
So when you want to point fingers, where were you pointing fingers with 
the Clinton-Gore administration? Oh, no, they were silent.
  But when you talk about costs, let us be realistic. The Vice 
President is trying to do everything he can to diminish the cost. The 
President has assigned the military a 40 percent goal of energy 
reduction. In California, they are already doing that. We were at Camp 
Pendleton. We were at other military bases. They have shut the things 
down. That is the same thing the Navy is doing, by reducing 
consumption. The President is doing that. So is the Vice President. But 
my colleagues want to talk about increased costs and shifting the 
blame.
  The whole Clinton-Gore administration last year, over the last eight 
years, you know how corrupt they were. You know the millions and 
billions of dollars they spent. Look at Africa, $12 million for a trip 
to Africa. Where were the gentlemen when the President spent $12 
million for press and aides going to Africa?
  Yes, we are concerned about costs. But when you have got somebody 
that is focusing on that and then you blast them, we think it is a 
little ridiculous.
  We have a good bill. We have a good balance from the President. We 
have bipartisan support. What we need to do is focus the energy of my 
colleagues on the other side. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren) and I are supporting a bill on fusion. We have got 11 nations 
involved in that. With the help of the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey), we actually got some things into the bill of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) to give tax relief to people 
that conserve energy. Yet my colleagues want to talk about stuff like 
this. I think it is ridiculous.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me respond to what I perceive to be 
the unfortunate assertion of the gentleman from California with 
reference to corruption. He uses that word awfully lightly. No such 
things were ever frankly as I recall asserted even. They may have 
asserted that there was an overuse, but the word corruption I cannot 
recall being used. I think it was unfortunate that the gentleman from 
California used it. There is no such proof of any of that allegation.
  The gentleman from Illinois talked about demeaning the House. I did 
not really get into it, but let me tell you, for the last 6 years we 
have heard rhetoric like that. The chances of this provision being 
included in this bill if it were Vice President Gore, the Vice 
President of the United States, are zero.
  I do not say that because I speculate or that is my opinion. It is 
because I served on this committee for the last 6 years.

                              {time}  1430

  I saw the attention to detail and the objections that were raised 
repeatedly by this committee's majority on expenditures and fine-tooth-
comb analysis of those expenditures. This is not about corruption. This 
is about policy.
  Now, I am not going to get deeply into this debate, but I do want to 
respond as forcefully as I know how to the assertion that somehow these 
amendments are different than amendments that have been offered in the 
past by the majority when the other party, my party, was in control of 
the White House and the Vice Presidency. Very frankly, we can debate 
these on policy grounds; I think that is appropriate.
  There is no assertion here that the Vice President has done something 
wrong because they suggest that consumables be donated to the Navy for 
use at the Vice President's residency. What is asserted by the 
gentleman from New York is that this, again, takes out of our purview, 
first of all, the oversight on the expenditures, and, secondly, opens 
up the Vice President's residency to substantial private sector 
donations. Not to the Vice President's residency, but to the Navy, and 
puts the Secretary of the Navy in

[[Page H4588]]

the position of accepting these donations. That is the issue before us, 
as to whether or not that is appropriate.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not use 5 minutes. We do not need to bog down in 
more partisan debate on this. But I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that 
we apply the same standard to the Vice President that is currently in 
the office as was applied to the White House with the current and 
former occupant. For all I know, Mr. Chairman, it may have been the 
practice, whether it was expressly authorized or not, by a former Vice 
President.
  But I do know it is the practice every day, every night, involving 
the Congress of the United States. We have a multitude of meeting rooms 
here in this United States Capitol building. We have groups that 
commonly come in here, have breakfasts, lunches, dinners, receptions, 
in which the food and the beverage is provided by these groups. That is 
common practice.
  Now, to say that somehow the Vice President, by having a far, far 
smaller number of events where somebody else might provide food or 
drink, is going to be irresponsible or corrupted, if that is the issue, 
then I would expect the proponents of this amendment to be on this 
floor saying kick all these receptions out of the U.S. Capitol, kick 
them all out of the House and Senate office buildings, if you believe 
that they have a corrupting influence.
  Now, I know it is common, Mr. Chairman, for people to try to arrange 
meetings at times they can get people together, and you can get people 
together when you know they are going to have breakfast anyway, or 
lunch or dinner. That is common practice.
  But to say that does not apply to the Vice President, who lives in 
the Naval Observatory and is away from facilities that otherwise could 
host things, if you want him bouncing back and forth every time he is 
going to do the same thing that most Members of Congress do on a 
regular basis, to be able to meet with people who have come from all 
across the country because they think they have important things that 
need to be shared with government officials in Washington, let us apply 
a uniform standard here.
  If one honestly believes that somebody is going to be corrupted by 
having a hamburger or a steak or chicken or something to drink, or 
whatever it is, then, by all means, make sure you have a uniform 
standard, and go for what they call in some States ``the cup of coffee 
rule,'' that you cannot have a cup of coffee paid for by somebody else 
because it might corrupt you.
  But let us not say that we are going to be putting things on a level 
playing field or being evenhanded by voting to put that restriction 
only on the Vice President. I do not think that washes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Hinchey) will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Collins

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Collins:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ____. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for ``Federal 
     Buildings Fund'' (and the amount specified in clause (5) 
     under such heading for building operations), and increasing 
     the amount made available for ``National Archives and Records 
     Administration--Repairs and Restoration'', by $14,000,000.

  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on behalf of a project to 
construct a new Southeastern Regional Archives in Atlanta, Georgia, for 
its National Archives and Records Administration. The regional archives 
provides a necessary service of acquiring, preserving and making 
available for research the permanent records of the Federal Government. 
Currently, all of the records in the Southeast are stored in a World 
War II-era warehouse that does not meet building codes and is scheduled 
to be condemned and torn down. My amendment would transfer $14 million 
of GSA's buildings operations account into the National Archives Repair 
and Registration Account.
  The Southeast Regional Archives serves Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 
Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. 
Its holdings include the records of the Civil War, World War I, the 
Tennessee Valley Authority, the Marshall Space Flight Center, the 
Kennedy Space Center, the Manhattan Project, the Centers for Disease 
Control, and the Federal courts of the Southeast region.
  It is simply unacceptable to continue to store these documents, these 
important documents, I may say, that detail our Nation's history, in a 
facility that is due for the wrecking ball. National Archives 
acknowledges that these historic Federal records are currently at risk, 
housed in a warehouse wholly inadequate as an archival depository.
  With the knowledge that this facility is inadequate for current and 
future requirements, National Archives began a serious search for a 
site for a new facility several years ago. Primary among the selection 
criteria was a site that would provide partnership opportunities with 
academic and cultural institutions. At its proposed location in Morrow, 
Georgia, National Archives will be sited immediately adjacent to 
Clayton College and State University. Sharing the site with National 
Archives will be the new Georgia Department of Archives and History 
building.
  This effort is the culmination of years of negotiation between 
officials at National Archives, Clayton college, the Board of Regents 
of the University System of Georgia, the State of Georgia and the local 
business community. In recognition of the importance of this project, 
Congress has previously appropriated funds in FY 2000 for an 
environmental assessment and in FY 2001 for design of this facility.
  The commitment of the Georgia Department of Archives and History, 
Clayton College and State University, and the National Archives to this 
project creates a historic partnership for services to the citizens of 
Georgia, the Southeastern United States, and the United States as a 
whole. All parties are now fully engaged in the project, and it is 
critical that we provide the necessary Federal contribution to keep 
this project on track.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important 
amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I state that we certainly have no objection to the 
gentleman's amendment. It is an important need that he has mentioned. 
We are unsure as we work with him regarding potential sources 
ultimately for funding, but we realize we need a placeholder in the 
bill for an account from which to fund it. So I look forward to working 
with the gentleman from Georgia to fill this important need.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill includes $146 million for the Internal 
Revenue Service to continue the Earned Income Tax Credit Compliance 
Initiative. I share the concern of the committee that the IRS have 
adequate resources for expanded customer service and public outreach 
programs, and strengthened enforcement programs to ensure the highest 
possible level of taxpayer compliance.
  The EITC, which was created in 1970s and was significantly expanded 
by President Reagan and then again by President Clinton, serves to 
reward low-income Americans for the work they do. Millions of American 
families receive much-needed assistance in the form of tax credits that 
are based on the amount of income they earn.
  There is a reason why President Reagan once referred to the EITC as 
the best anti-poverty and the best pro-family, the best pro-job 
creation measure, to come out of Congress. Recent studies have found 
that more than 60 percent of the increase in employment of single 
mothers has been due to the expansion of the EITC. The EITC has 
complemented and supported Congress' efforts to end welfare dependency 
by helping millions of poor women make the transition from welfare to 
work and remain self-sufficient.
  As a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I have taken a strong

[[Page H4589]]

interest in the implementation of the effectiveness of the EITC. For 
all its success, the EITC has come under strong criticism for its 
complexity. Groups such as the American Institute of CPAs and the Tax 
Section of the ABA have commented on the extraordinary complexity of 
the EITC and have recommended simplification of the credit to assist 
taxpayers complying with the credit requirements.
  The tax bill signed into law earlier this year by President Bush 
contained among its lesser known provisions important simplification of 
the EITC. Those changes were made on a bipartisan basis to eliminate 
disparities between regular income and the EITC and make it easier for 
low-income working Americans to understand the law and enjoy the 
benefits of the EITC.
  The EITC taxpayer will now be able to base their credit on adjusted 
gross income, rather than having to do it on additional calculation of 
modified adjusted gross income. They will also be able to use the same 
definition of earned income that is used elsewhere in the Tax Code.
  Under the new law, the IRS is directed to study and eventually 
implement use of ``math error authority'' to deny EITC taxpayers who do 
not reside with the children they claim. Perhaps the most important 
change is the bill simplifies the AGI tie breaker by giving the parent 
of a qualifying child clear primacy in claiming the credit.
  These changes, which will begin to take effect next year, will have a 
significant impact on removing complexity from the Tax Code and making 
it easier for taxpayers to comply with the law in claiming the EITC. 
They will spare taxpayers from filling out pages of complicated work 
sheets and hunting down information not required on any other tax form.
  EITC compliance has received a great deal of attention and study. Of 
course, we must work to ensure the integrity of this program, just as 
we must ensure the integrity of our income tax system. Efforts to 
further examine and improve the EITC compliance should accurately 
reflect the recent changes in the credit and IRS's growing list of 
tools to promote compliance.
  Finally, such efforts must focus on IRS management of the program, 
its outreach and education strategy for taxpayers and tax preparers, 
and whether it is efficiently allocating its resources to achieve 
maximum reduction of EITC overpayments.
  I am committed to working to streamline and improve the EITC, so that 
millions of low-income working families receive the assistance that 
this Congress has intended. I look forward to working with the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), in their continuing efforts to 
improve the effectiveness of the IRS management of this very important 
and worthwhile provision of our tax system.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Maryland wish to 
address the matter pending before the House, the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins)?
  Mr. HOYER. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia talked to me 
about this amendment just a little while ago, I do not know exactly how 
long ago it was; and very frankly, I have not had the opportunity to 
review it, I have not really discussed it with the chairman, and am not 
going to ask for a vote on this.
  But it is my understanding, I want to tell the gentleman from 
Georgia, first of all, there is a question about whether or not this 
money can be obligated this year. I do not know the answer to that 
question, but I will tell the gentleman I want to find that out from 
the National Archives, whether or not it is able to be obligated this 
year.
  If it is not able to be obligated this year, obviously it will push 
out an expenditure that could be obligated this year. There is a 
tremendous backlog, as the gentleman knows, for capital improvements in 
every area of this country.
  Secondly, we have not considered this in the subcommittee or full 
committee, so I do not know the full merits of this project. The 
gentleman tells me, and I understand what he is saying, first of all, 
it is not going to be in his district, so this is not a district 
concern.

                              {time}  1445

  I am a big supporter of the National Archives and its work, and they 
need facilities that are adequate and protective of the materials that 
they store. But I am in the unfortunate position of not knowing enough 
about the amendment, frankly, to support it.
  I would tell the gentleman I will not oppose it at this point in time 
because the chairman wants to accept it, but I will be looking at this 
and I will discuss it with the gentleman and the conference committee 
to determine what we are going to do.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman's opinion and 
position on this, and I appreciate that, and we will be glad to work 
with the gentleman and with the Chairman in any way possible that we 
can to make sure that everyone understands that this project, where the 
current location is, where the future location will be, and in 2 weeks 
we will know whose district it possibly will be in, if it is in an open 
district in Georgia.
  But it is a very vital need. It is one that has been worked on for 
quite some time. Also, in reference to GSA, there is a GSA facility 
that is across the county line from my particular district that is 
being closed as an effort to save money in the long run, and we concur 
with that effort. And we certainly appreciate and respect the 
gentleman's position.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments.
  In closing, I also want to make the comment that although he takes 
this money out of an account that is a large account, it is a large 
account that has huge obligations in terms of the objects to which it 
is dedicated: that is, the maintenance and repair of Federal buildings 
all over this country. So although it seems to be a big pot out of 
which he is taking this money, it is, nevertheless, a pot which does 
not have enough money in it at this point in time to accomplish what 
GSA says is necessary in terms of repairs and alterations.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of the bill (preceding the short title) insert 
     the following new section:
       Sec. ____. No funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under this Act shall be made available to any 
     person or entity that has been convicted of violating the Buy 
     American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, actually, I have a total of four 
amendments to this bill. This is the Buy American amendment that has 
been added to all appropriations bills.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order, because I am 
not sure which of the Traficant amendments is being offered.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, it is the Buy American amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would have to rule that the 
debate had already begun and the time had passed to reserve a point of 
order.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we have not seen a copy of the amendment. 
We understood that the only reference was to an amendment at the desk 
and did not identify which amendment was at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is amendment No. 6 printed in the 
Record.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, before I go to the elements of this 
amendment that has been added to all appropriations bills, I have the 
intention to offer three other amendments, but I may offer only one of 
them.
  Let me explain what the other three are, briefly. One would stop the 
penny

[[Page H4590]]

increase in postage stamps. The other would stop bonuses to postal 
brass who want to kill Saturday service and raise rates. I am not going 
to bother with those, but I will later tonight offer an amendment that 
will kill bonuses to IRS brass.
  Now, the amendment, in order to be germane, had to be printed that it 
would kill all bonus incentives for the entire service. Let legislative 
history show that that is not my intention and, in conference, if it 
should pass, the Traficant amendment deals with the brass. Eighty 
percent of information given to taxpayers was wrong this last year by 
the Internal Revenue Service. Most of the audits they perform are on 
lower- and middle-income Americans.
  So when I offer that, the argument is going to be that Traficant 
wants to hurt everybody from getting bonuses. I do not, but to make it 
eligible, that is the way it reads now, and I would ask that if it 
passes, that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished 
leader here, to make those changes.
  The Buy American amendment is straightforward. Anybody who has, in 
fact, violated the Buy American Act is not entitled to any money under 
the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished ranking member, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want 
to say that the gentleman has offered this to previous bills, and we 
have accepted this on previous bills, and I would presume, although I 
have not talked to the chairman about it, that he will accept it on 
this bill.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of H.R. 2590 providing appropriations 
for the Department of Treasury, Postal Service and various general 
government operations. I compliment the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Istook), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member, for their work on this bill, 
as well as for their cooperation in making sure that this bill complies 
with the Budget Act and the budget resolution of 2002.
  H.R. 2590 provides $17 billion in budget authority and $16.3 billion 
in general outlays for fiscal year 2002. This amount is within the 
subcommittee on Treasury and postal services and general operations 
302(b) allocation, and the bill, therefore, complies with section 302 
after the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The bill also provides $48 million in advance appropriations for 
fiscal year 2003, which will account against the allocation established 
pursuant to next year's budget resolution. This is an advance 
appropriation which is included in the list of permissible advance 
appropriations pursuant to section 201 of H. Con. Res. 83, which is the 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2590 does not designate any emergencies, an act 
that would increase the appropriation committee's 302(b) allocation. 
The bill provides $146 million in budget authority for compliance 
activities related to the earned income tax credit, as the gentleman 
from Maryland previously stated. Under section 314 of the Budget Act, I 
am required to increase the appropriate totals in the budget resolution 
and appropriation committee's 302 allocation by the amount that is 
appropriated for this activity, up to a maximum of $146 million. So 
accordingly, I have increased that appropriation committee's 
allocation. But this will not become permanent until the appropriation 
bill itself becomes law.
  I would note with some amusement that this bill also includes a 
limitation that prohibits appropriations from being used to pay the 
salaries of OMB staff who prepare a table that shows the President's 
discretionary priorities across the 13 appropriation subcommittees. It 
seems rather curious that while the individual appropriation bills 
themselves are, of course, submitted to the President of the United 
States for his approval, he should not be allowed or his staff should 
not be allowed to even suggest how the overall level of discretionary 
spending should be allocated among the subcommittees. I would support 
an amendment to strike this provision. If such an amendment is not 
offered, I would strongly suggest to the chairman and the ranking 
member that this provision be dropped in conference. This is irrelevant 
to this appropriation bill. I would suggest to the committee leadership 
who have put together a very professional work product that this is a 
small-minded provision and has no business within this very serious 
bipartisan work product.
  In summary, H.R. 2590 is fully consistent with the budget resolution 
and on this basis, I urge my colleagues to support this very important 
bill.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Frank:
       Page 95, after line 16, insert the following new section:
       Sec. ____. No part of any appropriation for the current 
     fiscal year contained in this 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.

  Mr. FRANK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, the bill that comes before us makes a change 
in existing law that I think is a mistake. Under existing law, and I am 
told that it has been this way since 1950, if the United States Senate 
votes down a nomination, that individual whose nomination was voted 
down cannot be the subject of a recess appointment. On the other hand, 
it has always been the case that if the Senate does not act on a 
nominee, that nominee can be the subject of a recess appointment.
  Previous administrations, and I know we had some talk back and forth 
about whether the amendment involving the Vice President's house and 
his electric bill would have been offered if we had the former Vice 
Presidential candidate as the Vice President; I am not sure, as a 
fellow religionist of the former candidate, maybe the lights would have 
been out from Friday night to Saturday night, so maybe the electric 
bill would have been cheaper, but we do not have to face that here. 
Because this provision, the provision that says that you could appoint 
someone to a recess appointment, even if that person had been rejected 
by the Senate, that was requested by the Clinton administration of the 
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Appropriations 
correctly said no to it. So there is no argument here that there is any 
differential treatment.
  Since President Truman, this has been the rule. The President has a 
right to make a nomination. The Senate has a right to vote on it. If 
the Senate fails to vote, then that individual could be given a recess 
appointment, as was, for instance, Bill Lann Lee, the Assistant 
Attorney General for Civil Rights. His nomination has not been voted on 
and, therefore, he could be given a recess appointment. But if the 
Senate votes someone down, takes up a nomination and votes it down, the 
law has been that that individual could not be paid and, therefore, 
could not get a recess appointment.
  Now, people will say, and I know we are dealing here with inter-
branch situations, and I know one of the taboos is that we here in this 
Chamber of the people are not supposed to take in vain the name of the 
lofty institution on the other end of the building, but it is relevant 
here for legislative purposes, so I assume I will have the indulgence 
of the Chair in pointing this out.
  Here is the problem: right now, there is a difference in impact if 
the Senate votes someone down or fails to vote. If they fail to vote, 
that person is eligible for a recess appointment. If they vote the 
person down, he or she is not eligible. If we adopt the language that 
this administration and the Clinton administration and previous 
administrations have asked for, that difference will disappear, whether 
the Senate votes down a nomination or refuses to vote on it at

[[Page H4591]]

all will make no difference in the President's ability to appoint that 
individual.
  I think it is a mistake to do that. Many of us think it is wrong for 
action to be inaction. If there is opposition to a nominee, that 
opposition ought to come forward, there ought to be a debate and there 
ought to be a vote. Nominees ought to get votes. It ought not to be the 
case that nominations are killed simply by inaction.
  Under the current system, as I said, the Senate has to make this 
decision. If they let a nomination die by inaction, that nominee is 
eligible for a recess appointment. If they do what the Constitution 
calls for and vote the nomination down, the nominee is not eligible for 
a recess appointment. Let us not collapse that difference. Let us not 
remove one incentive which now exists for the Senate to take action. 
Let us not create a situation legislatively where, if a nominee is 
voted down in an open vote with debate and a chance for people to speak 
on it, it has the same effect as if that nominee is held up by some 
inaction.

                              {time}  1500

  I do not think we ought to contribute to this situation. As Members 
know, that directly affects us. Sometimes disagreements occur. They 
have happened in the Senate. Bills have been held up. Appropriations 
bills were recently held up because of a dispute over whether or not 
nominations would be voted on.
  There is a bicameral interest in there being action as opposed to 
inaction in the other body, because inaction in one body can lead to 
the kind of disputes that prevent both bodies from acting.
  So this is not partisan, this is executive versus legislative. This 
was a request that was made by previous administrations who wanted to 
be unfettered. What this says is in this administration, as in any 
other, let the Senate vote. If they vote and vote someone down, he or 
she should not subsequently be given a recess appointment, which is 
constitutionally permitted but, in effect, a defiance of the vote.
  If, on the other hand, they fail to vote at all, then it ought to be 
the case that that person is subject to a recess appointment, because 
they should be able to benefit from their own inaction.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  I understand the policy issues that he talks about regarding funding 
of persons who have been appointed but have not been confirmed by the 
U.S. Senate. However, the reason for not including language in this 
bill to try to protect the prerogatives of the Senate is because I 
believe, and many of us believe, that any language to protect the 
prerogatives of the Senate ought to be composed and sought by the 
Senate. Any language to protect the prerogatives of the House should be 
composed and offered by the House.
  For this reason, I believe that we should leave this matter alone and 
not adopt the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. I 
expect that the Senate in their version of this bill will want to 
include some language that they craft which may be the same or not the 
same as the gentleman prefers, but I would rather address that in 
conference with the Senate, knowing what they want.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I would say this. If we were talking solely 
about something that affected only the Senate, that I suppose would be 
reasonable.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yielded for a factual 
questioning, not for a running argument. I realize we may have 
different interpretations of what is important here, but I do believe 
that this ought to be the prerogative of the Senate. The Senate can 
pursue it. They have the opportunity to do so.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had some discussion about demeaning the House. 
The lack of intellectual integrity demeans the House. The bipartisan 
treatment of what the gentleman from Massachusetts refers to very 
clearly as institutional matters in a partisan way demeans the House.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a constitutional issue not just for the United 
States Senate but for the Congress of the United States and for the 
House of Representatives, which, under the Constitution of the United 
States, has primary responsibility for appropriating dollars. It is not 
the Senate. The Senate cannot initiate appropriation bills or tax 
bills, as the chairman-to-be of the Committee on Ways and Means knows.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is, and I would hope that all of 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would take note of this 
debate, this provision has been in this bill for half a century. When I 
was chairman of the Committee, the Clinton administration sought to 
delete this language in 1993 and 1994.
  I rejected that request and carried it in this bill. Why? Because 
what this amendment says is that an administration cannot appoint 
somebody who has already been rejected under the Constitution of the 
United States, which, yes, gives to the Senate the power to advise and 
consent, and if they have failed to consent to an appointment, the 
Congress of the United States has consistently held that we can then, 
whatever administration we are, Democrat or Republican, turn around and 
in effect thumb our nose at not just the Senate but at the Congress, 
and spend money that we have appropriated on an appointment that has 
been rejected by one arm of the Congress. For 50 years the Congress, 
both sides of the aisle, both houses, have stood for that.
  Now, I said intellectual integrity, which I think also implies 
consistency. We demean the House when we, from an institutional 
standpoint, treat an administration differently because they are of the 
other party. I told the Members how I treated the Clinton 
administration on this very issue, which I thought was not a partisan 
issue between the Clinton administration and the Republicans in this 
House that we Democrats had to protect, but was an institutional issue, 
where we had to protect the jurisdiction and integrity and equal 
stature of the Congress of the United States.
  I would hope my Republican colleagues would sustain this amendment 
and would continue in place language which says that money that we have 
appropriated cannot be spent on an appointee that has been rejected by 
the Senate. That is of interest to us both.
  Why? Because it is of interest that a co-equal branch of government 
remains co-equal, and that no administration, once the process has been 
pursued of presenting a nominee, having hearings on that nominee, 
having votes in committee and on the floor, and it is the judgment 
under the Constitution that that nominee should not take office, that 
any administration could not then turn around in an interim, after the 
Congress has gone home, and say, ``I do not care what you said. I am 
putting this person in this position and we are going to pay him.''
  If there were not a 50-year practice, one could possibly say, oh, 
well, they are just going after the Bush administration.
  Lastly, let me say this. Is there any doubt by anybody on the 
Republican side of the aisle, any doubt, that they would have rejected 
this proposal out of hand if it had been made by the Clinton 
administration? They would not have given it 5 seconds worth of 
thought, and they would have stood on this floor and railed against the 
arrogance of the administration to think that they could place in 
office somebody rejected under the Constitution pursuant to law for the 
position that they sought and were then placed in, notwithstanding the 
actions of the United States Senate.
  I would hope on this issue that we would come together from an 
institutional equal-branch perspective and accept this amendment, and 
reinstate this language that we have carried for 50 years.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I tend to agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts 
and the gentleman from Maryland. I get upset when I think that someone 
is taking potshots, I am the first one to stand up and defend. I think 
the other two issues were, in my own opinion.
  But I asked myself why, and I would yield time, why would President 
Clinton want to remove this in his tenure

[[Page H4592]]

 and why would it appear now. Would it be that if someone is not acted 
on, there is not a vote, that it would be a way to force the Senate to 
bring that to a vote and to discuss it? I think that part would be 
good.
  But if the person has already been voted on under the Constitution, 
then I can understand why the gentleman would object to it.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
his courtesy in yielding.
  That is exactly what motivated me to offer this, in part. Right now 
under existing law there is a difference in outcome. If the Senate 
refuses to vote at all, then the President can make the recess 
appointment. But if the Senate does its constitutional duty, votes, and 
votes someone down, that person cannot be appointed. I think that is 
very good, because that means a nominee and a President have that right 
to a vote. It is more likely to require a vote.
  If we were not to adopt this amendment, then the consequence of not 
voting and of voting someone down would be the same, and there would I 
think be fewer votes, more nominees killed silently, and I do not think 
that is appropriate.
  I have to say, when we talk about prerogatives, if we talk about 
something that entirely affects the internal operations of one body or 
the other, I think we should defer. But when we are talking about 
public officers of the United States, then I think it is reasonable for 
us to do it.
  I appreciate the gentleman allowing me to speak further.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. My real concern is, and in the other body we have 
many confirmations in defense, NTSB, those sorts of things, that have 
been held up. I think there ought to be a way to force those to be 
seen, because the administration is operating at a disadvantage. If 
they are not voted on, then I think they ought to be able to to be 
appointed.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
that is one of the effects of putting back the amendment.
  In other words, today, and with the amendment as adopted, if the 
Senate refuses to vote, then the administration can appoint that 
individual. But if the Senate does what the gentleman and I agree it 
should do, it takes it and votes it up or down in the public way and 
the nominee fails, then the nominee cannot get a recess appointment.
  In other words, we should be constructing the situation so there is 
an incentive to vote on the nomination and not kill it silently. Under 
this amendment, there would be that situation. A nominee voted down 
could not get a recess appointment. A nominee killed silently could get 
a recess appointment. I think we should preserve that status quo.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The gentleman thinks that both President Clinton and 
President Bush would have wanted to put people in office that they 
wanted, even though they were not voted upon?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will continue to yield, 
yes, I think Presidents want to operate with as little constraint as 
possible. It is not a personal matter, it is institutional.
  I do think that, although, frankly, I think the administration is 
making a mistake in asking this, because I think it is in their 
interest to get a vote, and this is the one mechanism we have for 
encouraging nominees to get a vote, rather than to be killed silently.
  In other words, there should be a difference in consequence whether a 
nominee is silently killed by a refusal to vote or actually voted down. 
The amendment would say to the Senate: ``Look, you have an incentive, 
if you do not like someone, to take up that nomination and vote the 
person down because that will keep the person from a recess 
appointment, rather than killing it silently.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. 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. Weldon of Florida:
       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 implement, administer, or enforce any of the 
     proposed amendments to part 1 or 31 of title 26 of the Code 
     of Federal Regulations, as published in the Federal Register 
     on January 17, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 3925, relating to Guidance 
     on Reporting of Deposit Interest Paid to Nonresident Aliens).

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is my intent to withdraw this 
amendment, but I rise on the floor to speak on this issue and engage 
the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means on a colloquy on this 
extremely important issue.
  On January 17, 2001, the Department of Treasury proposed a regulation 
requiring all banks located in the United States to report to the 
Internal Revenue Service the amount of interest paid to nonresident 
aliens who are individual depositors in these banks.
  I have a very, very deep concern about this proposed initiative. The 
interest payments in question are not subject to U.S. tax. This 
additional reporting requirement for banks will not further any U.S. 
financial interests in collecting revenues from foreign depositors, 
nor, in my view, is this requirement an appropriate means to accomplish 
any other public policy purpose intended to be served by the proposal.
  This regulation will impose significant costs on the Nation as a 
whole. The proposal is in conflict with a longstanding objective of the 
Department and the Congress to encourage nonresident aliens to deposit 
their money in U.S. banks so that those funds can in turn be used to 
foster growth and development in this country and in the communities 
served by these banks.
  For 80 years we have been encouraging foreign deposits in U.S. banks. 
I am concerned that adoption of this IRS proposal would place U.S. 
banks at a competitive disadvantage relative to banks of our trading 
partners, and will result in the significant withdrawal of foreign 
deposits in U.S. banks.
  Indeed, as we are reducing taxes in an effort to put more money into 
our economy and stave off a recession, the IRS is proposing a 
regulation that could cause a much larger amount of capital to flee our 
economy.
  Furthermore, I would like to point out to my colleagues that I am in 
possession of a letter from Americans for Tax Reform supporting this 
amendment.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I understand his concern about this proposed regulation.
  However, I do want to underscore that all of the gentleman's comments 
are in anticipation of this regulation being approved. It is in fact in 
the process of being reviewed. It was presented in the last few hours 
of the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration is examining 
it.
  I do believe it may have the unfortunate consequence that the 
gentleman from Florida has indicated, and that is that a wholly 
unnecessary flight of capital, not just out of Florida but out of the 
United States, at a time when obviously people are looking to this 
country; notwithstanding our current economic concerns, they are still 
placing enormous amounts of capital in this country because of a 
reasonable return and primarily because of the security or low risk.

                              {time}  1515

  We ought not to rock that boat unnecessarily.
  I rise in concern on this amendment to the Postal Treasury bill 
because it is an amendment prohibiting monies being spent on a proposed 
regulation; and I do believe that is fraught, if in fact this practice 
were to become popular, with really completely disrupting the 
rulemaking process in the administrative branch. Because the language 
says no money can be used, how do we then collect the data to make an 
informed decision on whether the rule

[[Page H4593]]

should go forward or not. The gentleman from Florida does not want the 
rule to go forward, but that is in this particular instance.
  Therefore, I rise, one, to respond to his concerns about the 
potential problematic aspect of this proposed regulation, but, more 
importantly, to offer, because the Ways and Means has jurisdiction over 
this material, my office and potential hearing, but especially to get 
Treasury together with those particular interests and make sure that 
there is a complete understanding of the consequences of this 
regulation, if it goes forward.
  Notwithstanding that effort, if it goes forward, I can assure the 
gentleman that there will be hearings on what would then be the 
completed regulation; and if in fact we did not get significant 
changes, we would then very well be moving legislation. That I believe 
would be the appropriate way to deal with this potentially vexing rule 
that is in the examination process in Treasury.
  This amendment, although I know well-intentioned, really has, in the 
chairman's opinion, ramifications far beyond this one particular issue.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman for his insights. It is my intent now to withdraw the 
amendment, and I am certainly looking forward to working with the 
gentleman in the months ahead on this very, very important issue.
  I know for Florida bankers this is an area of major concern. If the 
rule, as intended, were fully implemented, it could really hurt in 
particular minority communities that rely on these community banks for 
loans.
  Mr. THOMAS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I want to thank 
the gentleman very much for his interest in this issue, but most 
importantly his courtesy in not moving forward.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
       Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
       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 for 
     the United States Customs Service may be used to allow the 
     release into the United States of any good, ware, article, or 
     merchandise on which the United States Customs Service has in 
     effect a detention order, pursuant to section 307 of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930, on the basis that the good, ware, 
     article, or merchandise may have been mined, produced, or 
     manufactured by forced or indentured child labor.

  Mr. SANDERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Vermont?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial amendment that 
I believe is going to be accepted by the majority and the minority.
  Because, Mr. Chairman, we live in a world in which hundreds of 
millions of children work at child labor, in some cases in horrendous 
conditions and in some cases as indentured servants, without any 
freedom at all, several years ago we passed legislation here that 
prohibits the importation of products into this country made by 
children who are indentured servants.
  This amendment strengthens that legislation by saying that if the 
Customs Service detains that product because they believe it is made by 
children who are indentured servants, it should not be released into 
the general public. Occasionally that happens now, and this amendment 
would put an end to that.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with one of the most disgraceful 
and embarrassing aspects of our global economy: child labor.
  Mr. Chairman, it is an outrage that American workers must compete for 
jobs with as many as 250 million defenseless children working around 
the world today without any hope of ever seeing the inside of a 
classroom. Children's rights groups estimate that the United States 
imports more than $100 million in goods each year which are produced by 
bonded and indentured children.
  Especially outrageous is the plight of millions of child laborers, 
some as young as 4 years old, who are sold into virtual slavery and 
chained to looms for 14 hour days knotting the oriental rugs that grace 
the foyers and living rooms of countless homes and offices all across 
the country.
  Exploited children toil in factories, mines, fields, at looms, and 
even brothels, sacrificing their youth, health, and innocence for 
little or no wages.
  They are hand stitching the soccer balls that our kids play with 
every day. They are stitching blouses and slacks made in China and sold 
in Wal-Mart. They are even sharpening the surgical instruments used in 
our hospital operating rooms.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will help end this disgrace. 
Specifically, it would prohibit the importation of goods on which the 
U.S. Customs Service has issued a detention order because of the use of 
forced or indentured child labor. I believe that this amendment would 
provide real teeth to the Indentured Child Labor Import Ban that was 
first signed into law as part of the Fiscal Year 1998 Treasury-Postal 
Appropriations bill.
  Currently, if the Customs Service finds information that reasonably 
indicates that imported merchandise has been produced with forced or 
indentured child labor, Customs may issue a detention order on these 
goods. However, these goods may still be exported into the United 
States unless the Customs Service issues a finding banning the 
importation of these goods into the United States.

  Mr. Chairman, according to the Customs' website, the U.S. Customs 
Service has 24 outstanding detention orders on forced and indentured 
child labor dated as far back as October 3, 1991, but has only issued 6 
findings banning the importation of these goods into the United States. 
At the very least, Congress should ban the importation of goods on 
which Customs has reasonable evidence that were made by forced or child 
labor.
  According to 60 Minutes II, the U.S. Customs Service used the present 
law to curb the flow of hand-rolled, unfiltered cigarettes (known as 
``bidis'') produced by indentured child labor in India. In India alone, 
there are approximately 50 million children working in factories or 
fields for little or no pay. Bidis are an especially insidious product. 
They are made by children in India, and are purchased by children in 
the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 40 
percent of American adolescents between seventh and 12th grade have 
tried them. These cigarettes are popular among American youth because 
they are sweetened with flavors such as chocolate, strawberry, 
licorice, mango, and even bubble gum, giving the impression that bidis 
are less dangerous than other cigarettes. To the contrary, bidis 
contain five times more tar and contain higher levels of nicotine than 
regular cigarettes. Unfortunately, even though Customs issued a 
detention order on one bidi manufacturer in India, bidis are still 
getting into the U.S., and the bidi industry is now a $1.5 billion 
industry. This amendment would help get rid of bidis in the United 
States.
  The issue of the exploitation of child labor is not only a moral 
issue but it is an economic issue that is having profound impact on 
American workers. As consumers, we should not be purchasing products 
made by children who are held in virtual slavery--children who can not 
go to school, children who work horrendous hours each week, children 
who are beaten when they perform poorly on the job and children who are 
often permanently maimed when they attempt to escape from their 
slavery. But, equally important, we should not continue a trade policy 
which forces American workers to compete against desperate and 
impoverished people in countries such as China and Mexico who earn as 
little as fifteen or twenty cents an hour--whether those workers are 
children or adults.
  We know how bonded child workers are bought and sold like cattle. We 
know about the horrendous working conditions they are forced to endure. 
We know about the violence that meets them when they cannot work hard 
enough to satisfy their masters or when they try to escape their 
slavery. As we begin the 21st century, we must make a firm commitment 
to eradicate child labor throughout the world. Please vote ``yes'' on 
this amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to advise the gentleman from 
Vermont that I appreciate his amendment, and I advise the Chair that we 
have no objection to the amendment and certainly are willing to accept 
it.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

[[Page H4594]]

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I, too, thank the gentleman for this 
amendment. As the gentleman may know, there have been similar 
amendments that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I offered to 
this bill all throughout the 1980s.
  This is a good amendment. Clearly, the United States needs to be on 
the side of ensuring that this kind of abuse does not occur to 
children, women, and workers generally. This is a very good amendment, 
and I thank the gentleman for offering it.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentleman for his support as well.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for offering 
this Amendment--it is very much in line with one that I offered to the 
FY02 Agriculture bill concerning cocoa products. My amendment passed 
this House with 291 votes--a strong statement by this body against the 
repugnant practice of child slavery.
  We are constantly hearing about how we are at the dawn of a new 
millennium--we are in the 21st Century--and that things are just great 
and getting better.
  But, Mr. Chairman, we still have labor practices that date back 
centuries. Labor practices so abhorrent that we thought that they were 
long gone--but they still remain. Child slavery continues to plague our 
world--and as the world's greatest economy we are in position to use 
our purchasing power to end this terrible practice.
  My amendment focused on child slavery in cocoa fields in the Ivory 
Coast. The U.S. imports 3 billion tons of cocoa each year spending $13 
billion on the chocolate industry. That means Americans do have a great 
deal of influence with their dollars.
  Every year at Halloween our kids wander our neighborhoods in costumes 
to Trick or Treat. They collect dozens of chocolate treats. But, now I 
must wonder--will they be as sweet knowing that somewhere in the world 
a child is forced to work 12-14 hours in a cocoa field, is locked up 
for the night without adequate bathroom facilities, and is never paid. 
If he tries to escape he is severely beaten.
  Let me quote one of the farmers about this: ``If I let them go, I am 
losing money, because I spent money for them.'' He told one child ``You 
know I spent money on you. If you try to escape, I'll catch you and 
beat you.'' This is an absolute horror.
  Now the chocolate industry has responded--they are moving forward to 
determine the extent of the problem and to develop programs for 
monitoring labor practices. But I believe the federal government must 
act as well. The American people do not want to buy products made with 
child slave labor. It is wrong and we must act swiftly.
  My colleague from Vermont's amendment wouldn't affect the coca 
industry, because cocoa products don't have a detention order on them. 
Yet. However, during this fiscal year, FY2001, the U.S. Customs Service 
has undertaken an investigation into these reports about the Ivory 
Coast.
  Title 19 United States Code, Sec. 1307, prohibits importation of 
products made, in whole or in part, with the use of convict, forced, or 
indentured labor under penal sanctions. A general provision in the 
FY1998 Treasury Appropriations Act specified that merchandise 
manufactured with ``forced or indentured child labor'' falls within 
this statute.
  What does this mean for American growers of these products? Let me be 
clear--by not enforcing existing law, it means that the federal 
government is putting our farmers automatically at a competitive and 
economic advantage.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment for two reasons--
first and foremost because there is just no reason for child slavery in 
our world. Second, because American farmers shouldn't be put out of 
business because of other country's non-existent labor standards.
  I have said it before, but it bears repeating, we must be ever 
vigilant in our fight against child slave labor. Support the Sanders 
Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gutknecht, Chairman pro tempore 
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. 
2590) 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, 
2002, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________