[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 31, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H7536-H7545]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2590, TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, 
I call up the conference report on 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Tuesday, October 30, 2001, the conference report is considered as 
having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 26, 2001, at page H7337.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the Fiscal Year 2002 conference 
agreement for the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General 
Government. This conference agreement provides $17.1 billion in funding 
for programs under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  That represents, Mr. Speaker, an increase of 6 percent above the 
fiscal year 2001 enacted levels and 2 percent above the President's 
request. It is especially important to have this funding in place 
because of the increased demands of national security and homeland 
security from the events of September 11.
  One of the little known facts about this particular bill is that it 
supports over 40 percent of all Federal law enforcement through the 
Customs Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the 
Secret Service, the Criminal Investigations Division of the Internal 
Revenue Service, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
  I want to highlight that, Mr. Speaker, because of the current role 
these agencies are playing in ensuring homeland security, and also 
because, whether we are at war or peace, it is important to understand 
the tools that our Nation possesses to defeat our enemies, to ensure an 
environment that encourages trade and commercial growth, and the 
normal, everyday activity in conducting the business of America, and to 
provide for the safety and stability in the daily routines of all 
Americans.
  I am also pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the new Office of Homeland 
Security, headed by former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, is within 
the Executive Office of the President, another portion under the 
jurisdiction of this subcommittee and its funding.
  Historically, law enforcement officials in the U.S. Department of 
Treasury have fulfilled their role quietly, without fanfare, without 
drawing the attention of the American people. Yet, the oldest law 
enforcement agency in the United States Government is the Customs 
Service of Treasury. It was established in 1789, one of the very first 
acts enacted by the First Congress of the United States after adoption 
of the Constitution.
  The evolving threats to our country are making special demands upon 
this, America's first law enforcement agency, the one that defends our 
borders, as well as the other law enforcement functions that come under 
the Treasury Department and within this bill.
  We need to focus the support and attention of Congress and the 
Administration and of the American people to determine appropriate, 
coordinated strategies and provide the funding levels for Treasury law 
enforcement bureaus to enable them to fully carry out their missions.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement before us recognizes that there 
are additional resources that are going to be necessary because of the 
September 11 terrorist attacks. This bill begins to address those 
requirements. We will have within a few day's time a supplemental 
appropriations that will deal with further law enforcement needs and 
other Federal law enforcement agencies, as well as other aspects of our 
military and the national government.
  There is within this bill some $5.7 billion for law enforcement 
efforts under our jurisdiction. It is an increase of almost 12 percent, 
$593 million above the current year. That is even before we factor in 
the necessary increases that will be part of the upcoming supplemental.
  Specifically, in terms of supporting Federal law enforcement, this 
conference report provides an increase of $402 million for the Customs 
Service, of which some $33 million is devoted to border inspection 
technology; $28 million for additional inspectors and agents along the 
northern border, which has not received the increase in recent years 
that the southern border has; and $170 million is added for customs 
automation modernization, which includes an amount not less than $300 
million, for the automated commercial environment. This system will tie 
together some 50-odd Federal agencies that have jurisdiction over 
products that are coming into the United States, part of the cargo 
which must be inspected by the Customs Service. Because of the manpower 
shortages, Mr. Speaker, customs is able to inspect only 1 or 2 percent 
of the entering cargo, a ratio which we intend to increase.

                              {time}  1045

  We also expand the funding for Customs for its efforts to halt trade 
and goods that are produced by forced child labor; also providing 
funding for the protection of intellectual property. Some of the 
smuggling that happens across our borders is not just illegal drugs. It 
is not just contraband shipments of alcohol or tobacco. It is not only 
knock-offs of American products which people are trying to pass off 
cheaply-produced goods overseas that have the appearance but not the 
quality and certainly not the original manufacture of American goods. 
We are also protecting intellectual property because smuggling, whether 
it be DVD software, compact disk recordings, whatever it may be, there 
is a severe organized criminal assault against the intellectual 
property that is produced by American artists, scientists, engineers, 
computer programmers and others, which is part of the great commerce 
and the great advantage that this Nation enjoys technologically. That 
intellectual property is protected by Customs just as it protects us 
from other illicit cargo.
  We also have an increase of $45 million for Secret Service 
recruitment and retention. These are men and women who protect not only 
the President but protect our currency against counterfeiting who are 
in charge of the special security arrangements at the upcoming

[[Page H7537]]

Winter Olympics to be held in Salt Lake City, Utah. These men and women 
have been working drastic amounts of overtime, and we want to make sure 
that we do not work into the ground the people that are in charge of 
protecting our country and key parts of America.
  We also have increases for the Federal law Enforcement Training 
facilities that support the basic training of border inspection agents 
and a great multitude of the people that are involved in Federal law 
enforcement, working through the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
Center in Glynco, Georgia.
  We also provide $1 million for a canine detection program sponsored 
by Customs to use dogs to detect chemical and biological agents.
  We have some $20 million to increase the efforts of the High 
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, bringing that account up to a 
total of $226 million to coordinate between the State and local 
government entities and the Federal Government in efforts to combat 
illegal drugs and the immense problems that they bring upon our 
society.
  I should mention that we also have within this budget the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy. Key portions of the drug enforcement 
efforts are handled through the funding of this bill, not just through 
Customs but also through ONDCP, the so-called drug czar, and these 
high-intensity drug trafficking efforts and the promotional efforts 
such as the Drug Free Communities Act.
  I am pleased to note that the conference report includes some $18 
million for constructing seven border stations, including four along 
the northern border, again part of beefing up the borders for our 
border security and our homeland security.
  It also includes a number of courthouse constructions to make sure 
the criminal justice system continues to be able to handle the load 
that is being placed upon it.
  We also have an increase for the Internal Revenue Service, including 
$320 million for critical information technology investments so that 
when my colleagues or I or anybody else, Mr. Speaker, calls the IRS 
having a problem with how our taxes are being handled, that they have 
the information readily accessible, that they can be responsive to the 
public, and we are continuing the efforts through funding and 
mechanisms in this bill to make the IRS more responsive, more user-
friendly, more customer and taxpayer oriented in what it does.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill also includes several legislative provisions. 
It provides parity for Federal employee health benefits. It retains the 
current law prohibiting the use of Federal funds to pay for an 
abortion, and it also has the requirement that prescription 
contraceptives would be covered under certain circumstances and 
exceptions as conscience clause protections for those that have an 
objection of conscience, Mr. Speaker.
  This bill includes a pay increase for Federal civil employees of 4.6 
percent, as authorized by the Congress. It extends the authorization of 
the breast cancer semi-postal stamp until December 31, 2003, which 
provides additional funding for efforts to research and combat breast 
cancer. It authorizes the September 11 hero stamp to continue until 
December 31, 2004, honoring the men and women who were the responders 
or the victims of the tragic events of the World Trade Center and the 
Pentagon on September 11, people who we wish to honor. It also 
authorizes the semi-postal stamp on stamping out domestic violence, 
which would be a program that would continue until December 31, 2006.
  Mr. Speaker, I would finally note that this conference report takes 
out language that had been in the House version of the bill regarding 
travel to Cuba. We feel that this is not the time to be addressing that 
particular sensitive issue in this environment, including the war on 
terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished ranking member of the 
subcommittee. We have had an excellent bipartisan spirit and 
cooperation as this bill worked through the legislative process. His 
personal staff member, Scott Nance, and the full committee's minority 
member, Rob Nabors, toiled long and hard in working things through, and 
without their assistance we would not be able to bring this bill up in 
the collegial fashion that I believe it is being brought up today.
  I especially want to thank the chief clerk of our subcommittee, 
Michelle Mrdeza, for her persistent and tireless efforts on this, as 
well as the great expertise, insight and counsel of the other staff 
members of our subcommittee, Jeff Ashford, Kurt Dodd and Tammy Hughes 
plus Chris Stanley, who is a detailee on a fellowship from the Secret 
Service, which is his normal workplace. I would also thank a member of 
our committee staff that worked through my office, John Albaugh, who 
functions also as my Chief of Staff, and frankly, Mr. Speaker, keeps 
things going in a very important way, for which I am grateful.
  I do want to single out our congressional fellow Chris Stanley, an 
agent of the United States Secret Service, who will be heading to his 
next assignment as special agent. He has served not only on the 
subcommittee staff but also worked a year in my personal office, and 
his experience, working last year on the Subcommittee on the District 
of Columbia, this year on the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service 
and General Government, has brought tremendous insight regarding law 
enforcement, has added a lot of benefit, a lot of professionalism, with 
a very strong background in the technical issues which we sometimes 
must address.
  Combining his professionalism with his law enforcement skills, his 
paramedic skills and frankly his cool head and enjoyable good nature 
have been a great asset to us. We are going to be sorry to see Chris 
leave to go back to his regular assignments, but we know that the 
Secret Service has a great need for his direct expertise, and we hope 
that what he has learned here in Congress will be of benefit to the 
Secret Service and the jobs that they perform.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention as part of noting the key 
involvement of the Customs Service and law enforcement that we were 
notified that yesterday a U.S. customs inspector died in the line of 
duty at the port of Gramercy in Louisiana. Customs Inspector Thomas 
Murray lost his life during an examination of the hold of a vessel in 
which evidently there were toxic fumes present. That is an illustration 
of the dangers that many Customs agents accept as part of their job.
  I have personally visited some of the vessels that they have to 
inspect and have seen what they have to do to find the hidden 
compartments that are used to smuggle drugs or other contraband, all in 
the name of protecting our Nation. So I want to commend Customs 
Inspector Thomas Murray and express our gratitude for the efforts that 
he put in for some 31 years with the Customs Service.
  We want to express our sympathy to his family, to his co-workers in 
the Customs Service, and thank the late Thomas Murray for his efforts 
in being part of the front line of defense for the United States of 
America and our homeland security.

[[Page H7538]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31OC01.001



[[Page H7539]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31OC01.002



[[Page H7540]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31OC01.003



[[Page H7541]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I first want to rise and join the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the chairman of this subcommittee, in expressing 
our deep sorrow at the death of Thomas Murray, a long-time employee of 
the Customs Service, killed in the line of duty, killed while trying to 
defend this country from the importation and introduction into our 
borders of materials which are either illegal or dangerous.
  Every day Customs agents, INS agents, DEA agents, FBI, Secret 
Service, ATF, IRS and Federal employees who are not perceived to be in 
law enforcement or tax enforcement are themselves, because of the very 
fact that they work for the Federal Government, at risk, and it is 
important that we remember them and that we appreciate them. We thank 
them for the contribution they make to making America free and great.
  This bill does that in part by assuring that they will receive a 
comparability adjustment, which does not get them to comparability but 
an adjustment which will move them further towards their private sector 
counterparts. I thank the chairman for his support of that effort.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report provides a total discretionary 
funding level of nearly $17.1 billion in discretionary dollars; that 
is, dollars over which we make a decision. That includes 969 million 
above last year's level and 388 million above the President's 
suggestion.
  I want to mention a few important items. To some degree this will be 
repetitive, but I think it is important for both sides to mention these 
issues.
  For Treasury law enforcement, which as the chairman pointed out makes 
up nearly 40 percent of all Federal law enforcement, we have provided 
4.8 billion, 400 million above the President's request. Very frankly, 
that number will go up in supplementals to provide for better security 
and a better ability to meet the threat that now confronts this great 
Nation.
  Important additions in this bill to the President's law enforcement 
request include the following: 170 million to modernize the Customs 
Service import processing system, for a total of 300 million in fiscal 
year 2002; 33 million for the Customs Service to purchase nonintrusive 
inspection technology.
  We had the opportunity of talking to Secretary O'Neill last night 
about that issue, critically important to our Nation and to our 
commerce. Safety and commerce come together on that particular issue.
  Twenty-five million for additional Customs inspectors on the northern 
border. Forty-five million above the President's request for the Secret 
Service to complete its work for its balancing initiative. Critically 
important if we are going to have Secret Service agents work for hours 
that do not tax their effectiveness and efficiency.
  We include 10.6 million for new facilities at the Federal Law 
Enforcement Training Center in Glencoe, Georgia, and Artesia, New 
Mexico, critically important as we confront the beefing up of our law 
enforcement capability in this country and on our borders.
  The funding level also includes 226.4 million for the HIDTAs, the 
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Program. 20.3 million above last year's 
level. Mr. Speaker, I have been a long time enthusiastic and strong 
supporter of the HIDTA program. The HIDTA program has significant 
dollars in it, now almost a quarter of a billion dollars, but it is a 
most important contribution, and a contribution which will become even 
more important in these days and the days ahead is the coordination it 
provides between Federal, State and local law enforcement and public 
safety agencies.

                              {time}  1100

  Tom Ridge, the new director of our homeland security effort, spoke to 
the Democratic Caucus this morning and talked about the necessity for 
coordination. HIDTA is a perfect example of that kind of coordination.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to be concerned with the level of support the 
Treasury law enforcement agencies receive from this administration, and 
I might say, from previous administrations. The emergency supplemental 
request sent to Congress underfunds the Customs Service. The Customs 
Service is on the front line protecting our borders. As we have just 
seen, Mr. Murray was on the front lines. He lost his life. If we are to 
enhance homeland defense capabilities, the Customs Service will require 
more support from the administration and from Congress.
  This funding agreement includes $2 million in addition to our law 
enforcement accounts for a program called First Accounts. This is on 
top of the $10 million enacted last year and will give to Treasury $12 
million to provide a very important service for Americans who are 
unbanked: They have no checking account, they have no credit cards, 
they have no ATM card obviously, because they have no checking account.
  The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) has championed this program, 
which is intended to establish affordable, electronic banking accounts 
for low-income families, and increase the availability of ATM machines 
in low-income neighborhoods as well. It will also serve to educate low-
income Americans about the benefits of having a bank account and 
managing their finances. It will protect them hopefully against being 
ripped off every payday by those who want to charge them exorbitant 
rates for cashing checks or making short-term carry-over loans.
  For the IRS, Mr. Speaker, $9.4 billion is provided. $548.2 million 
above fiscal 2001. This includes an additional $320 million to continue 
modernizing its business systems. It is appropriate that we mention the 
work of Charles Rossotti, the Commissioner of the IRS, who has done an 
extraordinary job as a manager, bringing the IRS into a position of 
carrying out the Internal Revenue Service Reform Act and making sure 
that we get the most efficient operation of our tax collection 
enterprise as is possible.
  The conference agreement, Mr. Speaker, also provides $280.6 million 
for court house construction. That is essential in my opinion and, in 
fact, could be more. We are obviously still within fiscal constraints, 
but it does move further than was originally proposed. The amount 
provided surpasses the amount requested by the President by almost $64 
million.
  Also included in the budget of the General Services Administration is 
$19 million for the Food and Drug Administration consolidation. This 
will save large sums of money and provide for much more efficient 
administration of the Food and Drug Administration. That could not be 
more timely in light of the threat that we have to our food supply in 
the context of terrorism.
  This is an ongoing, multiyear project that will replace abysmal 
facilities that are scattered across the metropolitan area, and provide 
FDA employees with state-of-the-art technology to do their jobs even 
better; and they do an excellent job now of protecting Americans and 
protecting our food supply and our drug integrity.
  For Federal employees, the bill, as I said, includes several 
important provisions. I want to highlight just a few. First, as the 
chairman has pointed out, it includes the 4.6 percent pay raise, which 
will not get them to where they need to be, but will move them further 
along the road of becoming comparable with their private-sector 
counterparts. In addition, it makes permanent a provision that allows 
Federal agencies to improve the affordability of child care for lower-
income Federal workers, which is a critical need. And it continues a 
provision that allows Federal employees to receive contraceptive 
coverage, as the chairman has pointed out.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the issue of election 
reform. I believe most Members of Congress are committed to addressing 
the issues facing our election system. Although dramatic examples of 
those shortcomings in our election system were found in Florida, we 
soon found that the same problems which existed in Florida existed in 
many other States throughout this Nation, very frankly including my own 
in Maryland.
  As the ranking member on the Committee on House Administration, I am 
continuing to work with the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ney), on broad-based legislation to address these issues. That 
legislation, which hopefully we will pass out of the Committee on House 
Administration in the

[[Page H7542]]

next few weeks, will require significant resources; and I plan to 
address this need with the committee at the appropriate time. The 
reforms that will be effected ultimately will be under the jurisdiction 
of this committee, and I have discussed this with the chairman. He and 
I have both discussed it with Chairman Young; and this matter, although 
not addressed in this bill, will have to be addressed in the near 
future.
  Mr. Speaker, as I wrap up my remarks, I want to join the chairman in 
congratulating the staff of this committee. First of all, I want to 
mention an extraordinary staffer, Michelle Mrdeza. Miss Mrdeza is the 
Chief Clerk of our committee. ``Clerk'' is a word that implies to some 
a job of ministerial importance as opposed to policy importance. Now, 
Miss Mrdeza would be the first to say that she does not enter into 
policy, it is we Members who do so, but frankly, the advice and council 
she gives to both sides of the aisle is invaluable as we consider this 
bill. She has institutional knowledge that is helpful to each and every 
member of the committee, and we thank her for her leadership of the 
staff and for her critical assistance as we mark up this bill.
  I also want to mention Jeff Ashford, who does an outstanding job; 
Kurt Dodd, Tammy Hughes, both of whom are of great assistance to 
Members on both sides of the aisle. I also want to mention John 
Albaugh, who works for the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), as 
does Scott Nance, who works for us personally, but who is very much 
involved in the committee's consideration of this legislation.
  Also, of course, I want to mention Rob Nabors. Rob Nabors is our 
committee staffer on the minority side and he does an extraordinary 
job. He is new, but not new to the budget process. He comes from OMB 
and is extraordinarily knowledgeable and has been a valuable asset to 
not only our side of the aisle but, I think, to the committee as a 
whole.
  Lastly, I want to join the chairman in thanking Chris Stanley for his 
contributions to the committee.
  We get some outstanding talent from the various Federal agencies. We 
get the talent and their personnel get the experience of how this 
process works. We think both sides are advantaged by that exchange 
program. So I want to thank all the members of the staff.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. We ought to pass it and we ought to 
pass it overwhelmingly.
  I thank the chairman for working with us in a bipartisan fashion. We 
have not always agreed, but we have worked in a bipartisan, open 
fashion, so that all sides knew what the issues were and they could be 
addressed in an open, democratic way, and I thank him for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a fellow member of our committee.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I 
will be somewhat brief, but I do want to rise, Mr. Speaker, in strong 
support of the Treasury, Postal Appropriations conference report.
  I want to commend Chairman Istook for his work, and also the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for their teamwork on 
this whole issue and on this whole bill.
  In particular, let me salute the chairman for his work in securing 
some $28 million-plus for a northern border hiring initiative for 
Customs officers. This is a significant increase over what the House or 
the Senate passed in their versions of the bill. The new Customs 
officers will help alleviate the long delays that have occurred at the 
U.S.-Canada border in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
  This is no small matter for my congressional district, nor for the 
State of Michigan, or for that matter, for the Middle West. More than 
$1 billion worth of goods and services cross the northern border every 
day. This constitutes the largest bilateral flow of goods, services and 
capital between any two countries anywhere in the world, and four of 
the seven busiest ports of entry between the U.S. and Canada are 
between the Michigan-Canada border.
  Immediately after the attacks, the wait time for cars and trucks to 
cross the border reached a staggering 14 hours. The ripple effects of 
this were severe. Manufacturers in Michigan, for example, and across 
the country, cut costs ``with just-in-time deliveries,'' but when those 
deliveries cannot be made ``just in time,'' it causes economic hardship 
for manufacturers throughout my home State and the Midwest. We actually 
saw plants close down temporarily in September because of supply 
disruptions. And if the wait time continues to be longer than usual, we 
risk extended economic difficulty. Funding this northern border hiring 
initiative is a step in the right direction towards preventing further 
disruptions.
  There is more to do, particularly with technology and infrastructure 
needs, and I look forward to working with Chairman Istook to ensure 
that the country is secure and that our economy remains strong.
  Once again I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I 
thank him for his help and urge all my colleagues to support this 
conference report.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston), another member of our committee.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I thank him and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for 
all the good work they have done on this bill. I know it is very 
difficult to balance all the requests of Members.
  I have a particular interest in this bill, in that it provides the 
funding for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, which is 
partially head-
quartered in the District that I represent. As my colleagues know, 
FLETC, as we call it, has grown under the gentleman's leadership; and I 
wanted to ask a question about the issue of Federal sky marshals. We 
are interested in getting them involved in some of the training down in 
Brunswick, Georgia.
  As the gentleman knows, right now there are 250 different classes for 
law enforcement training, and some 71 different law enforcement groups 
or agencies are training there right now. We believe the facilities are 
up and running that would help tremendously in this need to get some 
trained air marshals.
  I was wondering if the chairman could comment on that.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. The gentleman is correct that we are trying to make sure 
the resources are there at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 
(FLETC) in Georgia.
  As much as possible, we try to consolidate Federal law enforcement 
training that is generalized through this facility. Then, when they 
have specific needs, for example the Secret Service has protective 
detail needs, the air marshals have some specific needs for specialized 
training that is done in New Jersey and at Fort Dix and so forth, but 
for the generalized law enforcement training needs, especially for 
example someone coming into the air marshal program that does not have 
a law enforcement training, they might be coming out of the military 
and such, their initial weeks of training are to be at FLETC.
  The number of people in that program is being kept classified, so I 
am not going to detail the numbers, but we are certainly making sure 
that, as part of the expansion of homeland security, we are utilizing 
the facility that we have at the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
Center. And I want to make sure that we continue to use that as the 
best way to apply the taxpayers' dollars towards how we handle these 
national homeland security issues.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman, because as he knows, there is a 
complete law enforcement facility there.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his 
support and his visits down there, and extend to the chairman that the 
door is open. When his very busy schedule allows him the chance to come 
to Georgia, we would love to host him.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. 
Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and I salute him and I salute

[[Page H7543]]

 the ranking member for bringing together this conference report of 
Treasury, Postal, which I hope every Member of this body will strongly 
support.
  This bill came about through true bipartisanship, and the makeup of 
the bill demonstrates that. I also want to pick up on thanking the 
staff that helped to craft the legislation that came up before us 
today. It is consistent with the bipartisan budget agreement reached 
with the President, and it recognizes that there may be additional 
resource requirements associated with the September 11 terrorist 
attacks.

                              {time}  1115

  One of the provisions of the bill that I am especially pleased to 
acknowledge is the requirement that the FEHBP providers include 
coverage for prescription contraceptive services. This provision has 
widespread support, adds no significant cost to the FEHBP, and deserves 
to be a permanent part of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program.
  I am also delighted to see that pay parity between military personnel 
and Federal civilian employees has once again been achieved. H.R. 2590 
establishes a pay increase for Federal civilian employees at 4.6 
percent, which is the least we can do for our civil servants.
  The events of September 11 have demonstrated what many of us who have 
a predominant number of Federal employees already knew, our Civil 
Service is absolutely essential to the well-being of this country. 
Increasing their salaries shows that we in Congress recognize the 
sacrifices that they make by choosing to be public servants.
  Finally, I am most proud we have chosen to make permanent the 
existing authority to provide day-care in Federal facilities. For the 
last several years, we had authorized agencies, only on a yearly basis, 
to use funds from their salary and expense accounts to help lower 
income employees pay for child care. But because we had never made that 
authority permanent, many agencies were reluctant to spend money to set 
up child care centers if their authority might be taken away the 
following year.
  I am the sponsor of the bill that made the authority permanent, and I 
am delighted to see that we have now recognized the need for quality 
child care to be available for our low income Federal employees. In 
some Federal child care facilities, families are charged up to $10,000 
or more per child per year. Many Federal employees simply cannot afford 
quality child care; so by allowing agencies that flexibility to help 
their workers meet their child care needs, we encourage family friendly 
workplaces and higher productivity.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has many other excellent provisions. I urge 
all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, especially to someone who rises in opposition to the conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, in July by a vote of 240 to 186, the House approved the 
Flake amendment to lift the travel ban on Americans traveling to Cuba. 
This marked the second consecutive year this travel ban was lifted by 
the House. Regardless of that fact, it is the second consecutive year 
that it has been stripped from the bill. It is time that we change our 
approach.
  Mr. Speaker, the travel restrictions to Cuba have outlived their 
usefulness. For 40 years we have tried to isolate Cuba and to change 
that Communist country by not allowing Americans to travel there. It 
has not worked. Fidel Castro is still entrenched in power.
  I was able to travel to Cuba just a month or so ago and was able to 
see firsthand the mess that Fidel Castro has made of that country. Why 
we would deny Americans who cannot get a travel waiver to go there, why 
we should deny them the ability to go and see for themselves is beyond 
me.
  We want to change China. We want to change North Korea. But in doing 
so, we do not deny Americans the ability to travel there. That is 
simply un-American. I hope that we will move beyond this policy. We 
have better things to do with our time and our money and our resources 
at the Department of Treasury than to deny the travel ability or to 
enforce restrictions and impose fines on school teachers, for example, 
who want to take a trip to Cuba and do a bike tour there with their 
Canadian friends. We should not be doing this any more. We had a chance 
in this bill to lift that restriction, and we failed to do so.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement. The 
chairman of the conference committee from the Senate was very strongly 
in favor of the gentleman's provision. Very frankly, I was in favor of 
the gentleman's provision. I agree with the premise the gentleman has 
stated, but the President indicated he would veto the bill if the 
gentleman's provision was kept in. It proved to be an insurmountable 
obstacle to us in doing that, but I think the gentleman's comments are 
well taken.
  I will tell the gentleman that I believe next year, assuming that 
provision is in this bill, I do not know whether the Senate can get the 
same provision in, it is a little difficult for the Senate to accede to 
the House's provision, but they want to do that if the House does not 
hold to its position. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. We 
will be back next year, and I believe we will have the same margin, or 
even greater margins next year.
  There are other reasons to oppose the bill as well. The bill is 
$1.129 billion over last year. That is a 7.1 percent increase. It is 
$388 million above the President's request. It is $48 million above the 
House passed bill. I think that we need to spend our time and resources 
differently. For that reason, I oppose the bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my friend from Arizona, I agree with 
his first proposition and strongly disagree with his second 
proposition. The gentleman points out that this bill is almost exactly 
at the dollar level, $48 million is a lot of money, but we are talking 
about a bill that is close to $30 billion for both mandatory and 
discretionary spending. Essentially they are very close, the Senate and 
the House bills.
  I think this is a bill worthy of support as it passed the House. It 
continues to be worthy as a conference report from the conference 
committee. I hope that Members would support the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned, this bill tries to meet the needs 
of Federal law enforcement and border security, although not totally so 
because there are greater needs that we hope to meet in further 
legislation coming forward. I think it is important to mention that of 
the numbers mentioned by my colleague from Arizona, there has been 
coupled in that mandatory spending from previous Congresses for things 
such as the insurance and retirement benefits for Federal employees 
that are not under the control of this subcommittee.
  We have control over certain accounts and we have sought to be very 
responsible making sure that it is the Federal law enforcement, such as 
through Customs, that has the 12 percent increase that makes some other 
numbers look higher in this bill than they actually are.
  We know that, at our borders, only 1 to 2 percent of the cargo that 
comes through is currently inspected. Why? Because we have neither 
enough manpower nor technology to examine these things for the safety 
of the American people, to be looking for things that may be chemical, 
they could be biological, they could be nuclear. We know the threats 
are out there. We are trying to improve the security of our homeland. 
We cannot do it without providing the resources.
  We are trying to prosecute the war on terrorism with the troops that 
we see on land, at sea and in the air in the Middle East, in 
Afghanistan right now. We have to pay for those things.
  We have an economy that is suffering from the impact of the attacks 
that were made. Part of the response to

[[Page H7544]]

 that, for example, dealing with the airlines, comes under the U.S. 
Department of Treasury, which is the chief agency that we address in 
this bill.
  The Office of Homeland Security, an extension of the White House and 
the Executive Office of the President, comes under our jurisdiction 
through this bill.
  We have sought to put the focus on homeland security. Yes, I know 
some people say that does not count, ``I want people to travel to 
Cuba.'' We have seen some significant changes between who were allies 
and who were antagonistic and enemies in past years. It is well beyond 
the lessons from World War II in the differences in our relationships 
with Japan and Germany today.
  We find that with Pakistan, sanctions are being lifted and a new 
spirit of cooperation has come in. We find that of all nations, Iran 
holds promise of cooperating with the United States. Afghanistan, which 
was an afterthought in so many people's consideration of foreign policy 
before, assumes extra importance. There are critical and fragile 
negotiations going on around the globe on what do we do to link 
together changes in our policy toward a nation with their cooperation 
in the fight against global terror.
  Cuba has a history as a bad actor when it comes to sponsoring 
terrorism. If we are going to have a change in our policy towards Cuba, 
it should be part of what is coordinated with the administration, with 
the Secretary of State, with bringing them on board into compliance 
with many things that meet the security needs of the United States of 
America and the global security in our war against terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, it should not be just because some people say it is time 
to end it. It ought to be done as part of a coordinated change that 
involves other significant changes with Cuba if we are going to change 
that travel policy. It is for reasons such as this that the 
Administration said they would veto this bill if it contained the 
language that was sponsored by Members of this House and put in this 
bill on the House floor.
  Let us not bury our heads in the sand. Let us recognize that paying 
for security does cost. We acknowledge that cost, and are trying to do 
it in the most responsible manner possible. I urge every Member to 
support this bill.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Conference Report for the FY 2002 Treasury Postal Appropriations Bill. 
This is a good bill, one that is a tremendous improvement over the 
President's original request. It uses the available resources wisely.
  I want to commend Chairman Istook and our outstanding Ranking Member 
Steny Hoyer, and all of the majority and minority staff, especially 
Michelle Mrdeza, Rob Nabors and Scott Nance, for the hard work, care 
and attention that went into this bill and report. It certainly shows. 
I also want to thank Chairman Bill Young and Ranking Member David Obey 
for providing the Subcommittee with a realistic and responsible 302(b) 
allocation that recognized the importance of the functions addressed 
through this bill and made it possible to meet many of the agencies' 
needs.
  At the same time, I think it is essential for all of us to heed 
Chairman Young's reminder that he gave us at the meeting of the 
Conference Committee and recognize that this bill is a pre-September 
11th bill. There are huge unmet needs with respect to seaport security 
and border security not addressed in this bill that we must address as 
part of the Homeland Security effort to win the war against terrorism.
  This bill does not address the needs for additional seaport security. 
While the bill provides some funding for additional Customs inspectors 
on the Northern border with Canada, the Customs Service will need 
significantly more resources to meet its mission on all of our borders. 
I urge the Administration to move immediately to address these 
omissions and give Customs the resources it needs.
  Now let me mention a few of the items in the Bill and Report that I 
particularly like.
  I am very pleased that the bill provides $15 million for the Miami 
Federal Courthouse, the remaining funds required to build the new 
Federal Courthouse in Miami, a project that is desperately needed by 
our Federal courts, the busiest in the country.
  I am pleased with the 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.
  The $300 million investment that the bill funds for ACE, the customs 
modernization project, $170 million more than the Administration 
proposed, is urgently needed. This money will help the trade community 
and law enforcement tremendously. It certainly will be enormously 
helpful in Miami. If we continue to fund this program appropriately, we 
will make the transition to ACE on a realistic timetable that will 
enable us to meet the expanding needs of the trade community and law 
enforcement, not have a 13 or 14 year project.
  At the same time, however, we need to be doing more for Customs. As I 
have repeatedly discussed before the Appropriations Committee, South 
Florida urgently needs more Customs employees at Miami International 
Airport (MIA) and the Miami Seaport. The House bill provided $15 
million expressly to hire additional Customs inspectors where the need 
was greatest. Unfortunately, this provision did not survive the 
Conference. I urge the Administration to revisit this issue as when it 
considers what additional resources Customs may need to fight the war 
against terrorism and provide for Homeland Security.
  I am very pleased that the bill funds pay parity between civilian and 
military personnel by providing a 4.6 percent pay increase to civilian 
employees; and that it continues contraceptive coverage for Federal 
employees in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program (FEHBP).
  The bill provides $2 million in FY 2002 funding for the First 
Accounts initiative, a program that I have championed to increase the 
access of low and moderate income persons to financial services, such 
funds to become available upon authorization of the First Accounts 
program. The First Accounts Initiative is a demonstration program. It 
is designed to help end check cashing ripoffs by improving the access 
of low and moderate income Americans to basic financial services that 
most of us take for granted--such as bank accounts and ATMs. It is one 
of the few programs in the Treasury Postal bill that is specifically 
geared to helping low-income Americans.

  Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that 8.4 million low income American 
families--22 percent of all such families--do not have bank accounts. 
Families without bank accounts frequently resort to check-cashing 
services to pay bills and cash checks. Some estimate that low-income 
families could pay over $15,000 in fees over a lifetime to pay bills 
and cash checks in this way. Many such families also resort to payday 
lenders and are subject to the enormous, often predatory fees that such 
services charge.
  We know that providing ``unbanked'' families with low-cost access to 
financial services will increase the likelihood that they will began a 
savings program and accumulate some assets. It also will significantly 
decrease their reliance upon high-cost check cashing services and 
payday lenders. Such a program has tremendous potential to improve the 
net worth of low-income Americans.
  All of us should want to provide the ``unbanked'' with an alternative 
to the check-cashing services and payday lenders. By continuing to fund 
First Accounts, we can have a fair test of whether the program is able 
to achieve its intended objective of increasing the access of low and 
moderate income persons to basic financial services.
  I urge the authorizing committees to authorize the ``First Accounts'' 
program at the earliest opportunity. I will be working with the 
Administration and the Treasury Department to ensure that they promptly 
develop and implement a plan to optimize the use of available ``First 
Accounts'' funding.
  It is also very satisfying to note that this bill funds the workforce 
initiative at the Secret Service to reduce agent overtime to more 
manageable proportions. The $45 million that we give the Secret Service 
for recruitment and retention is very important. Secret Service 
Director Stafford told us that an average of 55 Secret Service agents 
were now leaving the force each year, 6 times the rate only 7 years 
ago. He indicated that the amount of overtime required of agents 
contributed significantly to the exodus.
  Director Stafford also noted the irreplaceable loss to the Secret 
Service skills base when experienced agents leave and are replaced by 
newcomers. We spend about $240,000 to train each Secret Service agent. 
Keeping them longer through more humane personnel policies is fiscally 
prudent. More importantly, giving these agents a manageable life is the 
right thing to do.
  While I wish that we could have preserved the increase provided in 
the House bill, I am pleased that we have maintained funding at the FY 
2001 level for the National Historical Preservation Records Commission 
at the National Archives. The $2 million cut that the Administration 
proposed for FY 2002, a 31 percent reduction in grant funding from the 
FY 2001 level of $6.436 million was extremely ill-considered.
  The NHPRC grant programs provide outstanding support to state and 
local archivists, and other organizations and institutions that deal 
with the identification, preservation and use of historically 
significant records and documents. Many of these grants support 
projects

[[Page H7545]]

relating to historically underdocumented groups, such as African 
Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans and American Women.
  Finally, while this bill does not fund election reform initiatives, 
the conference report confirms the intention of the Committee to 
address and appropriately fund election reform as soon as the 
authorizing committees have acted. Mr. Speaker, election reform is an 
issue that affects all America, not just Florida, and a problem that we 
must address as soon as possible.
  Now is not the time or place to discuss the particulars of all that 
we need to achieve election reform, and no doubt there will be 
differences among Members as to whether we should have uniform federal 
standards for election reform, but one thing is clear: All of our 
efforts to pursue election reform must be guided by the simple 
principle that all legally qualified voters have the same opportunity 
to vote and to have their vote counted. That didn't happen in the 
election last November and we must ensure that it never happens again.
  I know that my good friend, Mr. Hoyer, and Chairman Ney of the House 
Administration Committee are working diligently on legislation to 
authorize substantial funding on an ongoing basis to assist state and 
local election officials in making changes to their technology and 
their voting processes. I urge the Appropriations Committee to fund 
election reform as soon as authorizing legislation is passed.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I thank Mr. Istook and Mr. Hoyer for all of their 
efforts. I urge all of my Colleagues to support this Conference Report.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cooksey). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________