[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.
____________________